Martino: Flagrant Disregard for the Rights to Open Government
On February 12th the Palm Beach Post published a letter from a former Palm Beach Gardens resident, Mr. Gary Alexander, who now lives in Ibis Golf & Country Club in West Palm Beach. From my perspective his letter struck at the heart of what is wrong with the government that the City Council of Palm Beach Gardens is perpetrating on the Gardens residents. That wrong is a flagrant disregard for the rights of the public to open government.
Mr. Alexander desired information on the Avenir project that he was, and is, rightfully entitled to. He did the right thing. He requested to review the pertaining documentation at the City Hall. According to the article, apparently, there was no City employee available to watch over Mr. Alexander as he reviewed the documents. If there had been an employee available to babysit him “the hourly fee could be $43 on up, depending on who was free. No one was free, so no review was possible”. This is an all too familiar, but feckless attempt, at open government.
This arrogance toward the public’s right to information is a continuing saga of betrayal of the trust bestowed to Gardens City Council members upon their election. It is my opinion, that this City Council continuously deprives the public of the thought processes, discussions, and policy directions that they employ in their decision-making process as required by the Sunshine Law. Whatever the issue, how the City Council members determine their vote seems to be a mystery.
I ask the City Council to solve the following mystery votes at a regular City Council meeting…
* As the “baseball stadium fiasco” became a deepening mystery that the City Council claimed to know nothing about, the City Manager was flitting around the USA and Canada from Houston, to Arizona, and to Toronto, coercing baseball teams to come to a spring training baseball stadium in Palm Beach Gardens. Money was spent to hire a Public Relations firm, with close ties to one of the baseball teams promoting the Gardens site, to sell the baseball stadium to the residents. Money and time was spent for presentation materials at various public and private meetings. Where did these monies come from and who authorized these monies to be spent? Who selected the site? There are so many unanswered questions about the secretive process this “baseball stadium fiasco” tracked. City Council members claim to know nothing about anything. Why? Who does? And on and on the mystery goes…
* Mystery! The Palm Beach Gardens Municipal Golf Course is mysteriously renamed to Sandhill Crane Golf Course and the City Council knew nothing. If they don’t, who does?
* The City Council voted to move the Avenir project on the road to approval at a Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing after the Mayor announced a mysterious 485 reduction in housing units which was never discussed in the public hearing or any other public forum. At the hearing the City Council did not acknowledge the density reduction or question the process or ask how or when did this happen. Thus, I am asking the City Council when and where the mysterious density reduction discussions were held, what was the content of the discussions, and who where the mysterious participants.
* A City Park is named after a sitting City Council member but no vote by the City Council at an advertised City meeting was held. How, when and where was this mysterious decision made, and by who, and why?
It’s time for the City Council to answer these lingering questions and solve these mysteries, publicly.
Martino: Lack of Transparency Thwarts the Intent of the Sunshine Law
It’s a new year, 2016, but it’s the same old business as usual concerning the City Council of Palm Beach Gardens. The Palm Beach Post delivered new, and heretofore, unknown information concerning the “baseball stadium fiasco” of 2013 and 2014 further delineating unknown facts about the City’s deep rooted secretive involvement, such as, the City Manager gallivanting around the USA and Canada promoting a Gardens site for a $100,000,000 baseball stadium while the City Council claims it knows nothing. The Avenir project was given initial approvals to join the City after 485 housing units were mysteriously deleted from its application without any acknowledgement of same at the scheduled Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing. The City residents of Shady Lakes brought their concerns to the City Council regarding the extension of Shady Lakes Drive and were berated by the Mayor before being dismissed without answers. A City facility was dedicated to a City Council member for the first time in the City’s 57-year history yet, shamefully, it was not an advertised agenda item for Public consumption and comment. There is a common thread that binds all of these “accomplishments” together.
That thread is transparency or in these particular issues the lack of it. Florida has an exacting Sunshine Law that applies to all levels of government. It demands that the thought processes, actions, conversations, and subsequent votes that governing bodies take be subject to the Public’s scrutiny at all intervals of the process. Concerning the above issues, it is my opinion, that this current City Council has violated, or at the very least ignored, the intent of Florida’s Sunshine Law.
One might ask how that can be. The answer is a simple one. From my perspective, transparency, in an acceptable form was absent in the decision-making process concerning the above. The City Council did not advertise, publish a notice, discuss, disclose in Ex Parte, vote, and or meet in the Council chambers, to inform the Public of their conversations or policy intentions, as and where appropriate, concerning these issues.
Taking into consideration just these three issues, it is my opinion and conclusion, that the City Council has a problem or two or more:
- One scheduled regularly meeting a month with the Public is totally insufficient to properly keep the Public informed, therefore, a problem.
- Not holding regular workshop meetings is a problem.
- Not recognizing that the City Manager meanders into the policy realm is a problem.
- Presenting a hostile attitude toward residents, who address the City Council with their perceived problems, like them or not, is a problem.
- Not making concise and clear motions for policy directions is a problem.
- Decision-making without regard for Ex Parte, transparency, and the Sunshine Law is a major problem.
Martino: Avenir, a Project Whose Premise is Promise
Having reviewed all publicly available documentation proposals and more recently attending the Palm Beach Gardens Planning and Zoning meetings I find the Avenir development would and should be a welcome addition to the City of Palm Beach Gardens. As a member of the City Council of Palm Beach Gardens and Mayor at the time that these 4700 acres were annexed I am satisfied that Avenir, as presently proposed, more than ratifies my vote and expectations for their development.
Avenir is a French word that means “future” and that’s what this project’s proposals speak to, the future. It’s a proposed project that has matured and improved by listening to the public’s concerns and the City planning staff’s suggestions. It’s a proposed project that attempts to, and often does, offer solutions. In my mind, it’s a proposed project whose Premise is Promise.
Avenir’s premises to relieve and divert traffic on Northlake Boulevard by offering a new collector Road from Northlake Boulevard east to the Beeline Expressway; by becoming a destination hub for the western communities through the development of commercial, office, and corporate space that will enhance opportunities for jobs, for shopping, for professional and medical life necessities fostering the curtailment of some traffic trips east and west on Northlake Boulevard; by capturing within Avenir confines a portion of its own traffic are new and welcome promises that should be enthusiastically embraced.
Avenir’s premise to preserve the environment by permanently deeding over to the properly designated governmental entity nearly half of Avenir’s 4700 acres for environmental preservation creating an opportunity to connect approximately 100,000 acres of conservation lands from the east coast of Florida to Lake Okeechobee is, to my knowledge, without precedent. Its premise to set aside 100 acres for economic development; deeding 50 of those acres directly to the City; to enter into a public-private partnership to entice a suitable corporate tenant; to reduce residential densities to under 1 unit per acre; to donate 130 acres for public use are all significant and remarkable developer promises.
In my opinion, Avenir’s Premise for Promise will allow it to take its place among the elite communities of Palm Beach Gardens and Palm Beach County. The Gardens has been fortunate to have attracted developers who not only offered great product but where committed to make the City a better place for our existing, as well as, new residents. It is my intuition that Avenir Holdings’ owners and developers offer that same promise.
I admire Avenir Holdings courage to listen and its willingness to make changes based on what it hears. I respect its tenacity to succeed. The only hurdle left is for the City of Palm Beach Gardens and Avenir Holdings to take today’s Premise of Promise project proposals and make them tomorrow’s future realities.
Martino: Shady Lakes Dr Extension Short-Sighted and Punitive
Shady Lakes Drive, to extend or not to extend, that is the question. It was respectfully addressed by the residents of the Shady Lakes development at the December Palm Beach Gardens City Council meeting. The residents came with a reasonable portfolio of suggestions which were presented under the gun of the 3-minute public comment rule imposed by the City Council. Upon conclusion of the Shady Lakes residents’ comments, the Mayor proceeded to chastise the concerned residents. After the Shady Lakes residents had gone home, the City Manager presented a report which reasoned in favor of the Shady Lakes Drive extension.
Hopefully, I am wrong, but as of now it is my opinion, the Mayor and City Council, hiding behind the facade of,” it’s a safety issue”, have concluded that the extension of Shady Lakes Drive from PGA Boulevard to 117th Street North is a done deal. The City Council has allocated the money in the City’s budget and, apparently has instructed the administration to make it happen. But why?
The proposed Shady Lakes Drive extension does not comport with the history of the Shady Lakes Planned Unit Development (PUD) ordinance. Shady Lakes is a secluded neighborhood development of single family homes. The development is north of PGA Boulevard, neatly tucked behind the Gardens of Woodberry development, quietly and purposefully “hiding” the homes from the noise and clamor of PGA Boulevard. To gain access to Shady Lakes a short entranceway drive, now called Shady Lakes Drive, was established by the PUD ordinance. This entranceway extends from PGA Boulevard, just to the west of the FPL substation, north to the Shady Lakes development entrance. Due to insufficient right-of-way, particularly at the substation, and for safety and a variety of other substantive reasons the entranceway drive was never contemplated to extend further then to the entrance of Shady Lakes.
It is difficult to ponder that “safety” will be enhanced by changing an entrance driveway into a cut-through collector road with insufficient right-a-way. Forcing an entranceway into a cut-through collector road does not solve the “safety” issues of failed planning promulgated by the City and School Board concerning the vehicular traffic, school buses, and child pick-up concerns of Timber Trace Elementary and Duncan Middle Schools. Remaking an entrance driveway into a road will not provide significant benefit to the Tennis Center or the City Park multi-use fields. Providing for an evacuation alternative in the rare instance of when one is needed can be accomplished without turning an entrance driveway into a cut-through collector road creating safety issues in other areas of the City where none now exist.
The proposed Shady Lakes Drive extension will cause significant problems for other established neighborhoods. As an example, PGA Plat #2, or Garden Isles as it is known as today, is south of the Shady Lakes development. Its collector roads are Larch Avenue and Hickory Drive. Hickory Drive, on the south side of PGA Boulevard, lines up with Shady Lakes Drive on the north side. By extending Shady Lakes Drive the City may be enticing traffic to leave Military Trail, turn west onto Larch Avenue, turn north onto Hickory Drive, cross PGA Boulevard at the traffic light, and head north to 117th Street North. With the extension of Shady lakes Drive this route is further encouraged because of traffic difficulties at the PGA Boulevard intersections of Military Trail and Central Boulevard.
From my prospective, the extension of Shady Lakes Drive is short-sighted and particularly punitive to the Shady Lakes neighborhood. It is not the solution to the set of “safety” problems that the City is attempting to fix. The proposed extension compounds the problems and exports them to other areas of the City.
The answer to the “safety issue” problems of 117th Street North, the Tennis courts, the City Park, the schools, and the County owned property recently considered for the “baseball fiasco”, is a comprehensive plan for this entire section of the City. It should and must encompass interlocal cooperation and planning between the City, the County, and the School Board covering all issues of concern.
The City Council should be a consensus-builder, a facilitator, but not an antagonist.
Martino: Feather Your Nest
Did you know that in September 2004 the then part-time Palm Beach Gardens City Council which included some of today’s part-time City Council members (Russo, Jablin, and Levy) conveniently approved an ordinance that doubled their existing salaries to $24,000? They also provided themselves with profitable benefits, such as, self-serving automatic annual cost-of-living raises, and health benefits for themselves and their dependents. In recent years lucrative retirement benefits were added to the package. All of this compensation for a part-time job is paid for by the taxpayers. Yet the public is not afforded any input!
Per the newly proposed 2016 City budget the part-time Palm Beach Gardens Mayor and City Council will be compensated annually as follows…
| Councilperson | Mayor | |
| Salary | $28,564.00 | $31,109.00 |
| Pension | $12,219.40 | $12,219.40 |
| Health-care | $19,397.40 | $19,397.40 |
| Total Compensation | $60,180.80 | $62,725.80 |
By virtue of a City Charter change instigated by these same Council members, the part-time Palm Beach Gardens City Council is required to meet only once per month. There may be more time spent but is it enough to justify the above?
In addition to the salary and benefits, the 2016 budget for the City Council pays for seminars and conferences, memberships and dues, professional services, contingencies, materials and supplies, business cards, and so on. The total of all annual 2016 budget costs for the five part-time Palm Beach Gardens Council members to the taxpayers is…
$462,372.00
or
$92,474.40 each
The recent September 10th City Council of Palm Beach Gardens was gaveled to order promptly at 7:00 PM. The meeting was adjoined approximately two hours later. Using the above budget figures each City Council member collects in base salary $28,564 while the ceremonial part-time Mayor collects $31,109. To illustrate, perhaps, to the extreme, based on the City Council’s schedule of one regular meeting per month, for those two hours the taxpayers paid the City Council members in salary only approximately $2,380.34 each, or $1,190.17 each per hour, and the Mayor approximately $2,592.42, or $1,296.21 per hour.
The five part-time Palm Beach Gardens Council members are among the highest compensated of all local governments in Palm Beach County. As far as I can determine, it is the only City that holds regular meetings with the public just once per month.
Owing to the unquestionable fact that City Council members are considered part-time city employees, I query the legality of most of the salary, retirement, health and life insurance appropriations on their behalf. Are other part-time City employees compensated with the same extravagance? Since when does an organization, or government, or business, or otherwise, annually pay salary of $ 145,541 as proposed, retirement benefits of $ 61,097 as proposed, and health benefits $ 96,987 as proposed, for five part-time employees that are obliged by charter to work only one day a month for possibly 1 to 4 hours.
Are the five part-time Palm Beach Gardens Council members serving their neighbors or feathering their own nests?
Martino: Return to the Sunshine of Council Chambers
In an August 5th Palm Beach Post article discussing the City of Palm Beach Gardens budget process several statements attributed to Council members Eric Jablin and David Levy attempting to defend a flawed course of action are very troubling. They excoriate any semblance of openness, transparency, and accountability in the process of governance that the current City Council is following and in particular with the creation of the City’s 2015-16 budget. Their comments did little to assuage the obvious process grievances. Further, their quoted remarks revealed more questionable practices and problematic rationalizations for a touted process that fails to satisfy the entitled needs of the public to information.
The Public’s governmental process preference is simple and required by law. All governmental policy process, direction, thought process, and discussion must be conducted with the public in attendance. Exceptions to this should be close to never and allowed only when a demonstrably higher law exists.
The article states that current Council members say the current budget process is already as open as it gets. Jablin says the draft budget is “online” so anyone can read it. Jablin says he spends a lot of time vetting the budget with the City Manager and the staff. Jablin is quoted, “This is the process…I’m proud of the process…it’s a good process.”
Okay, let’s analyze this good as it gets process! If the draft budget is “online” then where did the draft come from, who created it, at what public or private meeting was it discussed, and so forth. If one does not have access to “online” or is technically challenged like so many of us, how does this “good process” satisfy the need for public information in an open government forum? Admitting, as Jablin says, that he spends a lot of time vetting with the City Manager and staff, stabs at the heart and soul of open government. If the other Council members follow this same path then we have a very suspicious “good process” that at best pulls the shades down on the Sunshine law and at the worst blinds the Sunshine law in the darkness of backroom shadows.
Levy sites an award that the City receives from the Government Finance Officers Association for Distinguished Budget Presentation, as testimony, that “peers and experts have said that this is an open and accessible budget process.” He also says, “…it is a very good budget, and a very good budget process.” Levy’s attempt to rationalize an award given for Presentation and not for process, or creation, or content, into factual substantiation for “an open and accessible budget process” has no creditably.
Jablin and Levy are currently serving in the ceremonial City Council positions of Mayor and Vice-Mayor. In the Post article, for Jablin and Levy to posit the proposition that the City Council is practicing open government, stretches believability, and is less than probable. Their own words and admissions demonstrate a lack of understanding and respect for openness, transparency, and accountability. When Jablin says and Levy reiterates, “I’m proud of the process we established, and I think it’s a good process” even though it excludes the information that the public is entitled to have demonstrates little respect for the electoral trust they were given.
In my opinion, the City Council needs to come out of the backroom shadows and return to the sunshine of the Council chambers. More publicly scheduled meetings to discuss any and all City business is warranted and expected. Those would be steps toward a “good process” and a process to be proud of.
Martino: Consent Agenda Demonstrates Why Council Needs a Monthly Workshop
I just reviewed the City of Palm Beach Gardens August 6th agenda. Under the Consent Agenda item the City Council is spending nearly 9.4 million dollars of taxpayer money without any discussion among themselves or presentation to the residents. How disappointing. But that’s par for the course in Palm Beach Gardens. It’s business as usual the less the public knows the better.
In any event, my criticism is with the City Council’s process. My concern is with the City Council’s lack of scheduled public meetings. It is not with the expenditure or the result the expenditure might yield. There are six different expenditures listed for consent only consideration. Apparently of the six disbursements, four have been competitively bid, one is under an existing contract, and one is a piggyback/access contract.
Should the Administration been given instructions concerning these expenditures by the City Council in a public forum? Should the City Council review these disbursements with each other while the public is in attendance? The answer to both questions is a loud YES. Was that done? Not with the specificity that each deserved and with the openness, transparency, and accountability that the public expects. In my opinion, all six of these subject expenditures should have had a detailed work-shop-type scheduled public meeting at the very least.
To reiterate, please bear in mind it is process, procedure, and the lack of public meetings that I am critical of. For clarification of my thought process I will discuss the Police Training Facility which is an expense exceeding $3,000,000 on completion. $2,582,000 of that cost is on the Consent Agenda for August 6th with no discussion on the vote. For the record there has been some minor discussion on two prior occasions that I can recall concerning only the cost of building the Facility of around $1,500,000. There have been no public presentations scheduled or otherwise, showing the location of the Facility, drawings or sketches, training equipments or apparatus that will be inside the Facility, who will be doing the training and teaching with associated costs, continuing costs, insurance exposures, and so forth. Lastly, why was the Request for Proposals a Design/Build contract and not separate issues?
From my perspective, the public has a lawful right to and the City Council has a duty and responsibility to, provide any and all pertinent information concerning City business, and in particular, expenditures. To be both transparent and accountable the City Council must process in open public forums relevant facts concerning City business, prior to any Consent Agenda vote or any other regular meeting vote.
My suggestion to the City Council to alleviate any lingering misperceptions about the lack of transparency in the governance of the City of Palm Beach Gardens is a simple one, more scheduled meetings with the public. I have said it before and I will say it again, there are four Thursdays in a month, not just one.
In the short term, perhaps I could suggest that a Council member consider pulling one or more of these important expenditures from the Consent Agenda for discussion. Any takers?
Martino: Council Should Add a Budget Workshop in August
In my last “Martino Minute” presentation I began a discussion on opinions that I have concerning the City of Palm Beach Gardens budget process. I would like to continue with some further observations critiquing the City Council’s involvement, or lack thereof, in the budget process.
The most obvious premise about any budget is that it needs to be funded with money. The City of Palm Beach Gardens budget monies are partially raised from various fees, non-City taxes, assessments, and so forth. However, the major budget funding source is from property taxes imposed on residents and business property owners, or the people.
If the people constitute the government it stands to reason that the people are entitled to know how the thought processes of their elected representatives lead to actions on the people’s behalf, particularly when it comes to creating a budget. This is inherent and basic to open government. From my observations while attending various City Council meetings, this City Council is simply is not measuring up to the people’s needs and expectations, particularly when it comes to communication, openness, and accountability.
The City Council of Palm Beach Gardens meets for general business meetings only once per month. Workshop meetings are a rarity. Being kind that is woefully inadequate. It degrades the opportunity for communication, openness, and accountability. Last year there were only two publicly scheduled budget meetings held both of which are required by law. These meetings were perfunctory and sterile with little input by the City Council as to the rationalization of the budget content. No publicly scheduled workshop meetings were held that I was aware of for the City Council to give policy direction or ask any pertinent questions concerning the budget. It should be acknowledged that there is an unelected, volunteer Citizens Budget Committee that holds a series of open meetings to make budget recommendations to the City Council, whose work I appreciate and applaud. The public hearings did little to recognize this committee’s efforts.
The City Council needs to and should hold more publicly scheduled workshop type meetings in general and more particularly concerning the City’s budget. Is this micro-managing? No, not in the least! The people need to know how their government is spending their money. It’s important to know personnel costs are approaching 50% of the general fund budget. It’s important for the people to hear the policy directions given and the questions asked by the elected officials of the administrators and what the answers are or aren’t. It’s simply elected officials doing the “people’s business” in the light of day and not the dark of the back room.
If they are listening, I would encourage the City Council to publicly schedule at least one public workshop meeting on the budget in August other than the regular August 6th meeting. Further, I would recommend the establishment of a tax millage rate for the 2015-16 fiscal year at the rollback rate of approximately 5.4729 inclusive of debt service or, perhaps, something even less.
One can always wish and hope.
Martino: Time for Significant Tax Relief
It’s that time of year again when the Palm Beach Gardens City Council begins determining how to budget for the City’s needs, wants, and desires. In my opinion, this is the most important and compelling component of the voter’s trust bestowed upon the elected Council members.
From my prospective, the City Council’s participation in preparing the 2015-16 budget for the City should be open, transparent, and communicable with the public. The Council should be the influencing, instructing, and guiding instrument in the budget’s preparation and not the Administration. In order to facilitate a more open budget process I would advocate for…
- More scheduled budget workshop meetings in the light of the Council chambers with the public in attendance. This should be the norm and not the exception.
- Department heads make their budget presentations at these scheduled workshop meetings so the public can hear the concerns of the Council members and the answers to those concerns.
- All, full and part-time, positions of City employment and their concurrent salaries be presented and discussed in public including the City Council’s salaries and benefits.
The contemplated and reported operating property-tax rate (millage rate) of 5.8075 presently proposed for the 2015-16 fiscal year is far from tax relief of any significance. That is a mere, measly, and miserly reduction of only .024 from the current 5.8315 millage rate. I would strongly encourage the City Council to consider satisfying the need, want, and desire of Gardens taxpayers for significant tax relief.
In conclusion, there is still opportunity to substantially and significantly reduce the 2015-16 millage rate as the budget process unfolds to finality. Council members have expressed a desire to do just that. Will they “walk the talk” as the saying goes? Only time will tell.
Martino: Tinsley – Thrown Under the Bus
Have you been thrown under the bus lately? No, that’s good! Neither have I. But in my humble opinion, Palm Beach Gardens City Councilwoman, Marcie Tinsley, has seen the tire tracks of the City Council bus run over her dedication and hard work, not once but twice. In a sometimes not so subtle way, her cohorts on the City Council, Messrs. Eric Jablin, Joe Russo, David Levy, and Bert Premuroso, at recent Council meetings have thrown Tinsley under the bus.
As the City Council bus made its only scheduled April 2015 Council chamber stop, City Council members, Eric Jablin, Joe Russo, David Levy, and Bert Premuroso threw the lone female member Marcie Tinsley’s attempt at elevating herself to the ceremonial positions of Mayor or Vice-Mayor under the bus. In a unanimous vote the Council voted to appoint Eric Jablin as the new Mayor. In a 4 to 1 vote with Tinsley voting for herself, her fellow Council members elected Levy as the new Vice-Mayor for the coming year. I must note here that Premuroso, who nominated Tinsley, did not vote for Tinsley, his nominee. Why? In defense of herself, Tinsley expressed her desire to be elevated and honored as Vice-Mayor and/or Mayor, as all of her cohorts had been, citing her dedication and arguing her hard work in office as being equal to her counterparts. Her points were valid. But regardless of her rationales the bus kept rolling. Her fellow Council members stepped on the accelerator while patronizing her with political double-speak telling her she was qualified but that Jablin and Levy’s experience was more valuable and necessary for continuity. The tires of the bus left their tracks.
On its route for June 2015, the City Council bus made its single stop for the month. Again, instead of allowing Councilwoman Tinsley a seat on the bus, her fellow Council members closed the doors, as they coaxed her under the bus once more. Messrs. Jablin, Russo, Levy, and Premuroso would not validate her ticket, a District Park Report, which the Council seemingly authorized in September of 2014. Their recollection of the authorization was fuzzy and left Councilwoman Tinsley perplexed. No matter, the bus kept rolling. Without a formal policy resolution to consider, without a motion or vote of concise policy intention that I could ascertain, the City Council simply verbally instructed Council member Tinsley to advise County officials that the County should retain ownership of the property and assemble a multi-purpose District Park at its expense. It is important to note that this District Park which will exist in the middle of Palm Beach Gardens would be open to use by all residents of other municipalities, such as, Riviera Beach, Lake Park, North Palm Beach, Juno Beach, and Jupiter, as well as, all County residents. More tire tracks in the wake of a City Council, which as a body is often dysfunctional and communicably challenged.
From my perspective, by their actions and comments, Councilwoman Tinsley’s fellow Council members have disrespected her efforts on behalf of the residents of the City. She deserves better. She is right in saying she merits an opportunity to be Mayor or Vice-Mayor. Not that it’s of any consequence but for the record I would have voted for her for either position. As far as the District Park issue is concerned it is my considered opinion that City Council has erred again. Palm Beach Gardens does not need a County District Park on this particular piece of property in the middle of prime residential neighborhoods, just as we did not need a baseball stadium on this same Central Boulevard property. In my opinion, the City should negotiate for the outright purchase of the property and comprehensively plan its use to suit Palm Beach Gardens residents.
Finally, by virtue of her being elected on two occasions to the City Council by substantial margins, Councilwoman Tinsley not only deserves a seat on the City Council bus, but because of the voters’ trust she owns one.