Martino: Term Limits will make competition for votes fairer
In a recent Palm Beach Post “Letter to the Editor” from a Palm Beach Gardens resident who wrote he was “disturbed” about the results of the November 2014 election concerning term limits. I fail to understand his lamentations. He admits that of 20,000 votes cast, 16,000 were favorable. That’s an impressive 80%!
The resident also says with misplaced enthusiasm, “While it’s true that our City Council has been elected to office over a 25-year period, its members have been steadfast in accomplishing the tremendous controlled growth in Palm Beach Gardens.” The City of Palm Beach Gardens was incorporated in 1959. The roots, foundations, and principles of “controlled growth” in the Gardens were planted, built, and institutionalized in the 1970’s and 1980’s, long before the current members of the City Council were elected.
The resident further opines, “And voters have had numerous times to vote out people they were uncomfortable with.” While this is a truism, it also begs debate and clarification. Open for debate is the supposition that current incumbents have been re-elected because they have done a good job. Part of the clarification is the very real possibility that the current incumbents have been re-elected not solely based on the good job hypothesis but due to block voting in certain sections of the City which is also a truism.
Will the current term limited incumbents be missed? Maybe by some, but probably not, by others! The history of the City Council in Palm Beach Gardens did not begin with the current members and will not end with their exit. Before the current elected five, many qualified and interested men and one woman have served as Council members accomplishing and contributing to the quality of life that Gardens residents enjoy today. It is my opinion that future elected City Councils will continue to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of Gardens’ residents with equal intellect and vigor, as all of their predecessors, have exhibited.
In conclusion, I say, no one has said, and term limits certainly will not, eliminate the competition for votes. Term limits will simply make the competition for votes somewhat fairer for all contestants, and not just incumbents.
Perhaps, in the interest of still further fairness, an initiative to elect Council members by districts should be contemplated.
Martino: City Manager Contract Extension Premature at Best
On Thursday April 2, 2015 the City Council of Palm Beach Gardens has an agenda item to discuss an extension of the current City Manager’s employment contract with the City for two additional years from 2016 to 2018. I have a few questions for the City Council to answer. The current contract expires in 2016, so why now? Why the rush? Are there specific and compelling reasons for this extension?
This call for an extension to this City Manager’s contract has been promulgated before, in July 2014 at two Council meetings, and at a September 2014 meeting. There was Public comment, press coverage, and a news article in the Palm Beach Post featuring City Manager, Ron Ferris, and his commentary specifically dealing with this extension. I will return to his comments in a bit.
As the Public Record reflects, in no particular order, without identifying the Councilperson, and as I understand them to be, below are the City Council’s reasons for extending the City Manager’s contract to 2018. My comment to each is below.
- …our leader, the City Manager should be able to stay here as long as he wants…
Really, I thought our leader was the City Council and the City Manager’s length of service to the City is determined by the City Council.
- …we control the City now…term limits will change that…
How arrogant! How insulting to the residents! Term limits are now a reality, and yes, Councilperson, they will change that, thankfully.
- …we owe it to the City Manager because of his future plans…
The personal future plans of the City Manager are his to deal with and not the City’s.
To my knowledge there have been no Public comments from the City Manager on the contract extension. Therefore, I must return to the Palm Beach Post article to find quotes from City Manager as to why his contract should be extended. What the City Manager says and my commentary on them is below…
- …he wants to stay four more years…with several major developments to steer…I don’t feel like my job is done yet…
The steering of any major or minor developments is accomplished by and the responsibility of the elected City Council members’ policies and not the City Manager. The City Manager’s tenure with the City is depended primarily on the quality of the daily administration of City Council policies.
- …he has a 2-year and a 4-year plan for his succession but won’t discuss them because they involve personnel matters…
First and foremost, the City of Palm Beach Gardens is not some sort of monarchy that requires a succession plan with an anointed successor. In my opinion, the selection of a successor to any City Manager is the business and policies of the elected members of the sitting City Council and not subject to or part of any succession plan or plans by the outgoing City Manager. Secondly, if a City Manager has a plan or plans for City business, he or she, is compelled by the Sunshine Law to reveal them to the Public. As my past experience recalls, an exception for personnel matters is only relevant when negotiations are being held on Municipal Labor Union matters.
Therefore, based on the above public commentary the reasons given, thus far, for extending the current City Manager’s contract lack sound policy conviction and principle. From the above, I can only conclude that the contract extension basis is personal rather than professional both from the City Council and the City Manager’s perspectives. Until, and if, the City Council can respond for the public record with better reasons and the City Manager can enlighten the public with his plans for the City a contract extension is premature at best. From my point of view, to date full transparency for this proposed contract extension is lacking and, therefore, compromised.
Martino: Forget About a New Logo and Solve Issues
From a Community Feature article in the Palm Beach Post on March 17th I learned that the City of Palm Beach Gardens “is out to freshen up its image” with a new website and a new logo. Does the City really need “a citywide rebranding” as the article suggests? I visited the City’s website as the article references to find out.
Lo and behold there they were two new logos “A” or “B”, both instigated by the PGA flyover bridge with its “iconic artwork Astralis”, affectionately referred to as the “Rusty Balls”. The website asks, “Which logo option do you prefer?” The City’s website information also suggests that the PGA Boulevard fly-over is “a major gateway into the City… connecting the people that live and work here… and “has become a symbol of our community.” Residents might take issue with those pronouncements.
As a 50 year resident of Palm Beach Gardens my choice for a new City logo is not displayed. If anyone cares, it is none of the above. Not many years ago the City Council, with some of the same present day members, voted for a logo change to the Banyan Tree logo of today. Does the City Council really want to uproot the Banyan Tree?
My questions for the City Council are…
* When did the City Council publicly discuss rebranding, a new website, and a new logo?
* What is the cost and where in the budget is the money allocated?
* Who designed the logos and who decided on the bridge?
My choice for the City Council is a simple one, forget about a new logo. Before “crossing the bridge to the future” as the City website suggests, how about solving some of the issues of today, such as, traffic congestion, new parks and recreational playing fields, waivers for developers, and transparency, to name a few of many.
Martino: Council Surrendered to the Developer on Res. 13
On March 5th, the one and only one monthly meeting of the City Council of Palm Beach Gardens was gaveled to order at 7:00 PM and adjourned at about 11:00 PM. For that one and only one monthly meeting of approximately four hours Gardens’ taxpayers paid the five part-time City Council members approximately $5000.00 each in salary and benefits.
The agenda was typical and far from strenuous. Of significance to me and the reason for my attendance were Resolution 13, 2015 and its associated Public Hearing. Resolution 13, 2015 concerned a development in my neighborhood.
In the way of background, Resolution 13, 2015 is/was a petition by a developer to change Phase 2 of an existing and presently approved 3-phase Planned Unit Development (PUD). Phase’s 1 and 3 have been built to completion. Phase 2 is currently approved for a mixed use professional office development of approximately 50,000 square feet on 3.87 acres which is consistent and compatible in uses to Phases 1 and 3. However, Phase 2 is not yet built. Resolution 13, 2015, as petitioned, is completely inconsistent and incompatible with Phases 1 and 3 of this already approved PUD. It proposed to change the currently approved professional office development to a 3-building extremely intense commercial development consisting of 29,216 square feet of which 19,016 square feet are devoted to high intensity restaurant uses and the balance to retail uses. In addition, the developer through Resolution 13, 2015 is/was petitioning for a Major Conditional Use change to allow a 1,000 square foot drive-through restaurant of unknown origin. The 3.87 acre parcel is bounded on the south by Northlake Boulevard, on the north by the Lake Catherine residential development, on the east by MacArthur Boulevard and Phase I of the originally approved PUD consisting of professional offices and a 5,000 square foot restaurant, and on the west by the Blood Bank professional office use complex which is Phase III of the approved PUD.
The City Council had two basic decisions to make; 1) approve or disapprove of the developer’s petition to change from the currently approved mixed use professional office development to a high intensity commercial mixed use development of restaurant and retail uses; 2) approve or disapprove a Major Conditional Use to allow a 1,000 square foot drive-through restaurant. Recognizing the fact that the Developer currently has approvals for Phase 2 of the approved PUD consisting of a mixed use professional office complex, in my opinion, the Developer had little to no legal standing to compel the City to approve his petition for the requested substantial use changes to the already approved Phase 2 office complex of the original PUD. Resolution 13, 2015 presented a challenge to the City Council. In voting to approve Resolution 13, 2015, I am sorry to say that in my opinion, the City Council failed to meet this test. The City Council surrendered the Public’s issues and concerns to the Developer’s interests and profit.
During the Resolution 13, 2015 Public Hearing, 15 to 20 people, of which I was one, spoke for the allotted three minutes. We stated for the record our very real concerns about this proposed petition by the Developer to change the uses of the approved Phase 2 PUD development and the effects these proposed changes would have on one of the older, more established neighborhoods of the City. In my opinion, the majority of the Public’s comments were rational, reasonable, and realistic, highlighting legitimate issues and causes of concern, many of which posed legal probabilities for denial of Resolution 13, 2015 and its associated petitions. The issues and questions raised by the Public concerned traffic, ingress and egress, access and circulation, a restaurant with drive-through, approved professional office uses versus proposed commercial restaurant and retail uses, orienting buildings closer to Northlake Boulevard, hours of operation from 6:00 AM to 11:00 PM, and waivers granted to the developer to allow the petition to succeed.
Upon closing the Public Hearing on Resolution 13, 2015, the Mayor and City Council began to deliberate among themselves, with the Developer and his representatives, and with the City Staff. Further participation by the Public was not allowed even though the Developer and his representatives were granted additional time and opportunity to market against the Public’s issues and concerns that were raised at the Public Hearing. From my perspective, the City Council’s questions and discussions missed the mark regarding the Public’s issues. Little, if any questions were raised by the City Council members’ concerning the high intensity of the commercial restaurant and retail uses that the developer was petitioning for. Traffic, internal and external circulation, building locations, ingress and egress, hours of operation from 6:00 AM to 11:00 PM, and waivers, received only cursory discussion by the City Council. The City Council voted 5 to 0 to approve Resolution 13, 2015 but removed the Major Conditional Use for a drive-through restaurant. However, in conjunction with the denial for the drive-through the City Council encouraged the Developer to return for approval of the drive-through once the Developer had an identifiable tenant. Why?
Resolution 13, 2015 was not merely a petition to amend an already approved and existing Planned Unit Development. This Resolution with its associated petitions was and is a wholesale change in uses completely inconsistent with the original approvals and incompatible with the other built-out Phases of the existing PUD. In my opinion, on this basis alone denial was the prudent and correct vote. However, denial was not to be the vote of this City Council.
I have no doubts that passage of this Resolution by this City Council has changed the character and integrity of this neighborhood in a negative way. Passage of this Resolution by this City Council has once again demonstrated its lack of depth for the true understanding of the health, safety, and welfare of the residents they were elected to represent. Passage of this Resolution by this City Council has and will have a chilling effect on the quality of life for this neighborhood and the entire City. But the Developer has been satisfied.
Martino: Term limits are now a part of political life in PBG
The November 4th election has come and gone. In Palm Beach Gardens the two Term Limits ballot initiatives were both big winners. As the City of Palm Beach Gardens has matured so has the mindset of its registered voters and they have embraced term limits as an asset that will improve the governing of the City.
The Gardens voters’ choice to insert Term Limits into the City Charter as another barometer for City elections affects the current long-time City Council members to some degree. It is understandable and perhaps only human nature that these Council members are undergoing a certain amount of disappointment. However, I would presume that these same Council members would understand that elections and ballot initiatives are part of the consequences of the job they accepted as candidates and officeholders.
In my opinion, the Palm Beach Gardens Term Limits initiatives were never intended to be a referendum on the current City Council Members nor a personal vendetta toward them. Unfortunately, some have made it so, including certain members of the present City Council.
For the City Council members not to facilitate the Term Limits initiative process is one thing, and possibly excusable. But haranguing and disparaging the results, as at least one City Council member has, is an insult to the residents of the City. These noisy, nonsensical, castigating remarks besmear, sully, and undermine the creditability of the City Council members individually and collectively.
The election is over and the results are in. Term limits are now a part of political life in Palm Beach Gardens. The City Council members should graciously accept that fact and move on. There are many pressing issues facing Palm Beach Gardens that need their undivided attention. They should move forward and discuss them.
Martino: Special Interest Money against Term Limits in the Gardens
Is the Palm Beach Gardens term limits ballot initiative a referendum on the present City Council members, as some would say? I would answer, no, not really. However, in the final days before the November 4th election, evidence suggests I may be wrong. A slick piece of literature has showed up in my mailbox. It suggests that, maybe, the present City Council members would prefer to have the term limits ballot questions be about them.
On the City Council’s behalf the sham Political Pac, “Citizens to Protect the Gardens”, has reared its ugly head again, as it did in the March City Council election. During the City Council March election this Political Pac was fueled primarily with money from business oriented organizations and corporations, or as some would say, special interest money. So, speculation would suggest special interest monies are again flowing into Palm Beach Gardens to influence the November 4th term limits ballot questions.The special interest money, as it did in the March City Council election, is underwriting the status quo which equates to preserving the present City Council members.
Rationalizing and recognizing the “Citizens to Protect the Gardens” Political Pac special interest money, as well as, the messaging espoused by its literature and signs for what they are, undoubtedly, is the best course for the residents of Palm Beach Gardens. In my opinion, emphasizing the status quo as the primary argument against term limits, as the literature suggests, is a weak debate position to argue from. But usually, when special interests are happy with the status quo that is where their debate points begin and end.
I am not a Political Pac. However, as a 50 year Gardens resident and a former 20 year Mayor and City Council member, I can offer a reasoned voice to the term limit debate. I think it is reasonable to suggest that it is the height of arrogance for anyone to think and state that the members of the present City Council are the only answer to good leadership for our City. I will forgo all of my other discussion points to speak to some of what I will refer to as “actuals”. Some of these are…
* The “Father of our Country” and our first President, George Washington, self imposed term limits on himself after two terms, and went back to his farm.
* Barack Obama, our current President and the leader of the free world, is term limited.
* Governors, state legislators, county commissioners, local City Council representatives, accept term limits.
I have thought long and hard about the term limits ballot questions. I have home worked and analyzed both sides of the term limits debate. As a result, I am comfortable in saying that it is time for term limits for our City Council representatives.
I will be voting, YES, for both term limits ballot questions. That is my choice. Please make your choice. The term limits ballot questions are on the last page.
Please vote on Tuesday, November 4th.
Martino: Vote on the Term Limits Questions
On October 18th the local section of the Palm Beach Post contained a news article, “Council terms may be capped”. It highlighted the November 4th, Palm Beach Gardens ballot initiative for TERM LIMITS. I found the article to be informative, as well as, revealing. The information was appreciated and should help Gardens residents to better understand the Term Limit issue.
I compliment the citizen’s group that finally succeeded in bringing the term limit initiative to the ballot for Gardens residents to cast their vote, “YES” or “NO”. As a long time Gardens resident I am resigned to the fact that it is time for term limits for our City Council representatives. So I will be casting a”YES” vote to both questions.
What I found revealing was the comments and quotes from the three long-time City Council members, 25-year veteran Joe Russo, 22-year member Eric Jablin, and 11-year officeholder David Levy. According to Russo and Levy it takes 5 to 6 years to learn the job. Levy laments, “I had no idea what a City Council member did … didn’t understand budgets, zoning, or impact fees.” Jablin says incumbents have been reelected because they are doing a good job. In more caustic comments Jablin says, “The people who are behind this have run against us and lost … they can’t beat the competition, so they want to eliminate it.”
To Mr. Russo and Mr. Levy I reply, if it takes a person 6 years to understand the basic responsibilities of the City Council that person should not be a candidate to begin with. Having witnessed the current City Council’s confusion during the recent 2015 budget meetings, it is my opinion, that after 25 years of incumbency the City Council still may not understand the processes of creating a City budget.
To Mr. Jablin I say, no one has said, and term limits certainly will not, eliminate the competition for votes. Term limits will simply make the competition for votes somewhat fairer for all contestants, and not just incumbents. Open for debate is the supposition that current incumbents have been re-elected because they have done a good job. Part of that debate is the very real possibility that the current incumbents have been re-elected not solely based on the good job hypothesis but due to block voting in certain sections of the City.
To the registered voters of Palm Beach Gardens I say, please search the ballot for the TERM LIMIT questions and vote, “YES” or “NO”.
Martino: There are at least four Thursdays in every month….
The elected members of the City Council of Palm Beach Gardens seem to be having difficulties with the issue of transparency in its governance. At least that’s my opinion after I have attended the last several Council meetings since the baseball stadium reared its ugly head late last year. The Mayor has mouthed transparency frequently sometimes with an air of frustration and sometimes a little caustically. Other Council members refer to the word as convenience presents itself but only one member with any conviction.
From my perspective, in some instances, transparency is misinterpreted, misunderstood, and simply not practiced as the law requires by the City Council of Palm Beach Gardens and its Administration. In these instances, the rights and interests of the residents of Palm Beach Gardens have been shunted aside but they deserve better. Perhaps, an attempt at understanding transparency would be appropriate and be of some value to anyone that is having difficulty with the word and how to affect its lawful application in government.
What is the definition of transparency? There are literal definitions for transparent, such as, transmitting light; able to be seen through with clarity: easily detected; seen through; obvious; readily understood; characterized by visibility or accessibility of information; and so on.
In my opinion, transparency as it should apply to the City Council of Palm Beach Gardens and all governmental entities, implies communication, openness, and accountability. Transparency in government is undisguised, understandable truth. It can be interpreted as the communication and/or sharing of information among interested parties free of deceit. A fundamental of transparency allows for all interested parties to see what and how actions are acted upon in a frank, straightforward, and open, but not secretive, manner. Openness is the opposite of secrecy. Openness is a philosophy that gives prominence to transparency by the availability of free and liberated access to knowledge, information, and decision making rather than hidden by opacity. Transparency is accountability for the protection of the necessary rights to knowledge, information, and decision making by all interested and affected parties which in the case of government would and should include the public.
If I may, as my opinion, I would like to apply some of what is discussed in the foregoing paragraph, in a political sense, to government…
1. When a government’s meetings are open to the public and its laws and decisions are communicated in open discussion with the public in attendance, then transparency is present and there is less opportunity for public officials, elected or appointed, to abuse the system. When government decisions are made in the light of darkness and communicated in secret behind closed doors without the public in attendance, representative democracy suffers, the will of the people may be abrogated, and transparency is absent.
2. Transparency is open government principled around the dogma that the public has a right to access the records, information, and proceedings of the governing body, thus, allowing for effective public oversight. Openness in government relates the concept that citizens should have the right to information held by government, and should have the right to see the operations and activities of government at work.
3. Reliable information is essential for accountability, thus, freedom of access to information is a paramount public necessitate. In politics, transparency is used as a means of holding public officials accountable, so, information is needed. Political accountability is the answerability of the government, its politicians, and its bureaucrats, to the public. The right and the means to examine the process of political decision making by the public is the essence of transparency.
As an example of my opinion, as to recent instances regarding the failure of the City Council of Palm Beach Gardens to understand and foster transparency, I offer the following…
- A failure of the City Council of Palm Beach Gardens and its Administration is the handling of the recent baseball stadium fiasco. It was certainly an issue that the City Manager was very familiar with as he hired a public relations firm to the tune of $60,000 to sell the idea. After eighteen months of rumors, presentations, and news reports of the baseball stadium proposal floating around the Mayor and City Council surely knew about it. Yet the City Council denied any knowledge of the proposal’s reality, refusing even to acknowledge its location as their choice.
- The recent 2015 September budget meetings exhibited many transparency issues. For example, missing from the meetings were the department heads explanations of their individual budget requests. Apparently, each Councilperson met with the department heads in private. A Council member held up the voluminous budget binder and informed the public of numerous questions the member had for the various City departments all of which were answered in private without benefit of public’s right to hear this discourse.
However, from my perspective, the most egregious transparency neglect of the Palm Beach Gardens City Council is their lack of presence in the Council Chambers for meetings with the public. One scheduled meeting per month on a Thursday evening is tantamount to a failure of responsibility and trust. One scheduled meeting per month simply is not sufficient and …
- It does not foster communication, openness, and accountability
- It is not sufficient for the protection of the rights and interests of the residents of Palm Beach Gardens
- It does not avail the public of its right to see the entirety of operations and activities of government at work
- It debilitates the residents’ right to information held by government
- It prevents the public’s right to observe the political decision making process to its fullest extent in the light of the Council Chambers and not the darkness of the Administration offices
The City Council’s deprivation of the residents from important public information by the lack of interface with the public on a basis of sufficient frequency is a glaring example of the misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and simple non-practice of transparency. My suggested remedy is simple, schedule more meetings with the public in the Council Chambers. Workshop meetings between first and second reading of advertised ordinances and resolutions, is a practice of the past that should be reinstituted. There are at least four Thursdays in every month, not just one.
Martino: Council once again demonstrates dysfunction during District Park discussion
I have attended most of the regularly advertised Palm Beach Gardens City Council meetings since the baseball stadium fiasco surfaced in 2013. The functionality of the City Council as a body at these meetings is often chaotic and dysfunctional. The most recent September 18th City Council meeting was no exception. It had a sparse agenda with the approval of the 2015 budget as its highlight item. Except for the passionate leadership exhibited by the Mayor to lower the tax rate, the budget process and discussion was an episode not to be proud of.
However, the first issue on the agenda for discussion was a District Park Presentation on property owned by Palm Beach County off Central Boulevard. I prefer to focus on it…
- A Councilperson, whose initiative should be applauded and appreciated, gave a professional and informative power point presentation concerning the property owned by Palm Beach County on Central Boulevard as to its possibilities for its use as a district type park. This is the same property that was involved in the baseball stadium fiasco.
- Three options were presented for consideration; a) County to build and maintain a District Park using a County bond referendum; b) lease with County for City to build, operate, and maintain; c) City purchase land from county to build, operate, and maintain.
- As the other Council members’ entered the discussion not much of substance was added to the presentation.
- With little thought or concerns that this property is in the middle of a residential area of some 1900 homes, with no discussion about comprehensive planning, with no recommendation advanced from the City Manager or the Recreation Administrative staff, with no evidence of counsel from the Recreation Advisory Board, with no Public input or discussion, a haphazard decision was quickly reached by the City Council.
- Without a formal motion or vote that I could ascertain, the City Council instructed the presenting Councilperson to advise County officials that the County should retain ownership of the property and assemble a multi-purpose District Park at its expense funded by a future referendum. In addition to Palm Beach Gardens, this District Park which would exist in the middle of Palm Beach Gardens and 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.
How and when the presenting Councilperson is to advise County officials of the City Council’s option preference was not discussed. I would have presumed that a formal Resolution of City Council policy would have been discussed as it is a professional, correct, and recognized communication method to convey business decisions between various levels of government, but regrettably that methodology was not considered.
About the above issue, one thing I am certain of, clearly this City Council has erred again. In my opinion, the wrong option was chosen. The City of Palm Beach Gardens did not need a major league spring training facility and major league baseball stadium on the Central Boulevard property and it certainly does not need a County District Park in this particular residential location, either. From my perspective, the best of the three options is the City should negotiate for the outright purchase of the property and then comprehensively plan its use to suit the residents of Palm Beach Gardens.
Still further, a comprehensive recreational sports field study should be immediately undertaken and shared with the public. It should identify today’s participation rates and short term field needs and provide a path to correct deficiencies. The study should recognize, categorize, and quantify, tomorrow’s participation and sports field anticipations, as well. If a study exists, where is it, what is in it, and how does it cure the sports field deficiencies?
My advice, if you are listening City Council, is stop making deleterious decisions on the spur of the moment and by the-seat-of-the-pants.
Former Mayor Martino on the Budget: Tell the Council to move to Rollback!
In my opinion, the most important responsibility of an elected City Councilperson is the preparation and presentation of a City’s annual budget. A City budget should be fiscally responsible while providing for the health, safety, welfare, and recreation of its residents. It should provide for livable wages and benefits for the employees who provide and maintain the City’s necessary municipal services. In essence, a City’s budget provides for the quality of life that residents expect to enjoy as a result of their tax contributions. From my perspective, a City’s budget is more than just an Administrative to do list; it is an annual “living promise” that the City will protect, improve, and enhance, the lives of all of the City’s residents with fiscal integrity.
The taxpayers of Palm Beach Gardens have incurred the same economic hardships in the last several years as referenced in the Finance Department’s budget comments to the City Council. The beleaguered taxpayers are constantly hit with the drip, drip, drip of small but steady tax increases every fiscal year, by all and various taxing bodies. Residents are facing rising costs, such as, health care, food, utilities, and so forth. Many of our City’s residents are on fixed incomes and some have faced the ugliness of unemployment.
In recognition of these realities, it is my recommendation that the Palm Beach Gardens City Council set operating millage policy at the rollback level of 5.4082 mills, instead of the proposed 5.7404 millage, and instruct the Administration accordingly. This would be a minimal amount of appreciated relief for the taxpayers. I would strongly urge and encourage the City Council to move in this direction.
The 2015 budget proposes to spend $ 135,329,444. To reach the rollback millage rate of 5.4082 would require an estimated $ 3,000,000 decrease in spending which is approximately 2.2%. As a former Mayor and City Councilman I feel comfortable in stating that by combining some spending reductions with a small revenue supplement from the burgeoning reserve accounts and, perhaps, finding a few more dollars on the revenue side would accomplish rollback millage without causing any financial problems to City’s fiscal health. According to the information in the budget, various reserve funds total $ 39,720,548. That’s a lot of reserve. Just in the Unspecified Balance Reserve Fund, alone, there is $ 23,470,597 which is 32% of operating expenses. This is nearly double the required minimum reserve balance of 17% established by policy.
Mayor Premuroso exhibited his concern for the residents and his leadership by offering to move toward the rollback millage rate at the September 3rd meeting. But with possible exception of Councilwoman Tinsley, Vice-Mayor Jablin and Council members Levy and Russo were less than enthusiastic to take up the taxpayers cause and embrace the Mayor’s suggestion. I would encourage anyone reading this memorandum to email and/or contact the City Council members (info here) and persuade them to, at the minimum, support Mayor Premuroso’s position to move the millage rate closer to rollback rate of 5.4082 mills.