Former Mayor Martino on Term Limits: Registered Voters are the Real Winners!

Finally! This November 4th registered voters of Palm Beach Gardens will get to cast their ballot for or against term limits for their City Council. This ballot initiative has been on the horizon for a number of years with a number of fits and starts.

However, once Mr. James D’Loughy pledged his leadership to the Palm Beach Gardens Needs Term Limits political committee things began to move in earnest. Recently, Mr. Michael Peragine took command of the committee’s effort to gather the necessary certified registered voter signatures and the finish line was crossed.

But the committee, Messrs. D’Loughy and Peragine, had hurdles to overcome. They needed to convince a reluctant City Council to request the Supervisor of Elections to place the initiative on the ballot. Then they had to convince that same Supervisor of Elections to put the language on the November ballot. In both cases their tenacity for their cause was rewarded with success.

So, a hearty congratulation is in order for Messrs. D’Loughy and Peragine, and their committee for pursuing the democratic opportunities that our government presents. But perhaps, also, a big THANK YOU should be offered by the registered voters of Palm beach Gardens who are the real winners because they get to decide.

Sincerely,
Michael Martino

Former Mayor Martino’s perspectives on the July 10th City Council Mtg

I attended the July 10th Palm Beach Gardens Council meeting and I was glad that I did. I was pleasantly surprised as I witnessed my nephew’s son, Joshua Wilkes, receive acclaim in conjunction with his other PBG Police Explorers mates. I proudly watched as my son, Steven, reminded the Mayor and City Council that we do have some problems in the older sections of our fair City that require their attention.

I listened to a Council member opine about the Scripps Research Institute and its recent newsworthy problems. It was difficult to follow this conversation and what the member’s conclusions were. Let me offer my conclusion, Scripps has problems. How severe or deep they are we do not know at the moment but we better find out. The North County and our City have a lot riding on Scripps. As I articulated in a recent letter I wrote even though Scripps has met internal hiring expectations the promise of 50,000 local jobs from spin-off companies has been minimal, at best. Local governments have planned development around these spin-off promises, the Briger acreage in Palm Beach Gardens is an example. With all of this in play, plus $579,000,000 in incentives from state and local governments on the line, this “drama” could transition to crisis.

Then there was the normal agenda routine of proclamations, resolutions, public hearings, ordinances for approval, etc. To my surprise there was very little, if any, serious conversation by the City Council as they voted unanimously for all of these items. However, an ordinance banning the sale of dog and cats in the City did generate a lot of comment and conversation by the Public. There were emotional expressions in favor of the ordinance and against its passage. This forced the City Council to express their thoughts which they did and then voted 5 to 0 in favor of the ban.

But the meeting wasn’t over yet. There were still term limits to deal with. When it was term limits turn we again heard the voices of our Council members. It was obvious that the Council members were not happy about this resolution but to their credit all said they did not want to thwart the democratic process and voted to place the term limit proposition on the November ballot if the Citizen Petition drive met all legal hurdles.

The next to last item on the back end of the agenda was the City Manager evaluation. That’s all the agenda identified, evaluation. The City Council did not appear to have any reference materials or forms to fill out; apparently it’s to be a verbal evaluation only. Generally, all of the council members’ comments were effusive in their verbal evaluation and praise for the City Manager. However, the more the members evaluated the more interesting the evaluation became…

1. One council member was more restrained and questioned the City Manager’s communication skills and tied them to the transparency issue that the City is somewhat mired in.

2. Another council member lobbed some softballs at the manager’s performance. Then this member tried to hit a home run by raising the baseball stadium fiasco, defending the City Manager’s role in not being more forthcoming with the public on the issue, and suggesting us residents should believe that due diligence was done. Based on these comments this member would have us believe that the City Manager is the superhero that saved us residents from the disaster that the baseball stadium would have been.

I thought the verbal evaluation discussion was over. All of a sudden a council member sounding like an agent for the City Manager moved to extend the City Manager’s current contract for 2 more years, apparently, until 2018. A second to the motion was made and then discussion ensued. So without regard for the agenda listing only an evaluation, a 2-year extension to the City Manager’s contract had been moved, seconded, and discussion began…

1. The agent for the City Manager, excuse me I meant council person, who motioned the contract extension, commented that our leader, the City Manager (I thought the City Council were our leaders), should be able to stay here as long as he wants. Rambling, this member said, we control the City now but alluded to term limits changing that, we owe it to the City Manager because of his future plans, no one has heard from this man…

2. Discussion from other council members revealed that at least two of them had never seen or read the contract; therefore, they did not know its content or conditions, and a third member said he had not seen or read the contract in a long time.

3. We finally hear from the City Manager and he was not a happy camper. Perhaps, not appreciating the discussion, the City Manager, uttered some incoherent comments ending with a suggestion he did not want to be part of this ”turmoil”, which quieted the City Council briefly.

4. Here comes the agent, I did it again, I mean council person, to the rescue. The agent or council person, take your pick, defends the Manager’s comments by suggesting that they were released “out of emotion”.

5. Finally, the council member who seconded the motion to extend the contract withdrew his second, so the motion dies.

6. Subsequently, the City Council decided to review the manager’s contract for consideration of a 2-year extension at the September City Council meeting.

In conclusion, the City Manager evaluation was by far the most interesting part of the meeting and worth the wait. Hopefully, the City Council will be transparent enough to put the original City Manager contract with all its extensions and additions since its inception, along with the new proposed contract on its web site for the public’s consumption.

Sincerely,

Michael Martino

 

 

A Perspective on North County Development by former Mayor Martino

Of late there has been a substantial amount of North County news much of which affects Palm Beach Gardens. On July 4th the Palm Beach Post featured a front page article concerning “drama” surrounding The Scripps Research Institute in Jupiter, a lead editorial about the proposed Panama Hattie’s development, and a story about a World Wide Sportsman store in the local section. But have no fear the articles suggest, the Scripps “drama” will pass, the proposed “Hattie” development is “good new days for Gardens”, and the World Wide Sportsman store owned by Bass Pro is a “winner”. As an attentive resident of Palm Beach Gardens for 49 years I offer a different perspective.

Scripps problems, as related by recent Palm Beach Post articles, suggest more than just “drama”. A CEO under fire, leading scientists questioning administrative decisions, shrinking grants, a $21,000,000 budget deficit with suggestions it might grow, and apparently little or no communications with state or local officials about any of this, should be considered as more than just “angst”. Even though Scripps has met internal hiring expectations the promise of 50,000 local jobs from spin-off companies has been minimal, at best. Local governments have planned development around these spin-off promises, the Brigger acreage in Palm Beach Gardens is an example. With all of this in play, plus $579,000,000 in incentives from state and local governments on the line, this “drama” could transition to crisis.

The serious side to the “Hattie” situation is more than cocktails, seafood, urban-style development, and “Eastwood Ho!” as the editorial banters about. It’s about the quality of life of the residents that are living in the community today, as opposed to the residents of tomorrow. It’s about common sense when considering the density and intensity of a project on an 8 acre site, proposed to house condo units, commercial office space, a boutique hotel, restaurant space, dock space for 16 boats, and a public promenade. It’s about how this project affects the PGA Bridge, under it and over it. It’s about traffic this project will add to the immediate roadways already approaching capacity, and possibly over it. It’s about the inconvenience this project will cause surrounding neighborhoods as alternate traffic routes are sought to avoid the congestion around this project. It’s about emergency vehicle response times. It is my opinion this project, as proposed, is not “growth…in the right places” as the editorial opines, but growth in the wrong place for all the wrong reasons.

The World Wide Sportsman store could be a “winner”. It is filling vacant space which should enhance the neighborhood. The World Wide Sportsman store is to be located on a 6-acre site on the east side of U. S.1 north of the Palm Beach Gardens Oakbrook shopping center at the troubled intersection of U.S. 1 and PGA Boulevard. The old Carl’s Furniture store was a tenant there. According to the Post article the renovation is to consist of 58,000 square feet of retail space, 5,000 square feet of warehouse and 5,000 square feet of boat sales. It’s a County pocket area, thus, the planning falls into County jurisdiction. If it does not generate more traffic than its predecessors, it could be an asset. Perhaps, a restriction preventing an expansion into a much larger Bass Pro Shop box store should be considered.

If North County is booming, that’s good. But if the intensity of the booming is not controlled, that’s bad.

Editor’s note:  The owner of a local flooring business, Michael Martino was a member of the City Council from 1974-1993 and served several terms as Mayor. He also was President of the Palm Beach County League of Cities from 1991 to 1993.

 

 

Michael Martino – More Questions on the Stadium Proposal

Editor’s note:A full week ago, a letter with detailed questions from Mr. Martino was delivered to the City Manager and other staff and all members of the City Council. As of this date, he has received no answer.

---

Palm Beach Gardens, Florida 33410
November 12, 2013

PBGWATCH:

It appears as though the Palm Beach Gardens $100,000,000 stadium complex issue is not going to disappear any time soon. The November 7th City Council meeting did little to mitigate the lingering shadows that have been cast across the process that is being promulgated by the City to promote this stadium complex.

For almost one year the City has tried to keep this stadium complex in the shadows and a secret. City officials have withheld information from the public hiding behind a debatable state statute that they claim gives them a right to “confidentiality”. A baseball team owner who is instigating for this stadium complex to be located at a site in a residential neighborhood says that the stadium deal is “95%” complete and “need only a final vote of the Palm Beach Gardens City Council”. Yet the residents of our City know little to nothing about how we got here or why.

It is a fact that the City has held one public presentation on October 16^th to market this stadium complex a full year or so after the City was initially contacted. Also, the City has hired a public relations firm at the cost of $60,000 to be an advocate for the preferred site for this stadium complex which is in the middle of residential neighborhoods. However, what is troubling and not publicly clear is if either of these two instances was authorized by the City Council.

To this date the City Council has not scheduled an advertised meeting at City Hall to discuss their policy intentions with the City’s residents concerning the stadium complex. In fact, highlighted in a recent City brochure sent to the attendees of the October 16^th presentation the City has publicly advised that it has no future public meetings planned. This pronouncement was reinforced by a public statement issued by the City Manager through an assistant. I ask why?

Though not advertised as an agenda item the stadium complex issue enticed a standing room only crowd to the November 7th City Council meeting. The meeting permitted three minute public comments which allowed concerned business representatives and residents to express their pro and con concerns about the stadium complex proposal. The discourse by all was thoughtful, dignified, respectful, and blended with the right tenors of emotion. But when the City Council did not include itself in the commentary the process became merely perfunctory.

After all comments from the public were heard the Mayor and City Council members each offered remarks. The Mayor spoke to the economics and financial aspects of the stadium complex essentially saying they need to be examined and how the process needed two or three more months to unfold. Those observations provoke simple questions. After 18 months why doesn’t the City Council know about the financial and economic aspects of this stadium complex? How was a decision made to present this $100,000,000 stadium complex as a City initiative without necessary financial information being part of the decision process? Why spend $60,000 to hire a public relations firm to market a stadium complex to the residents without knowing how or if the City could afford the stadium complex?

In lieu of the proposed site which is in the middle of residential neighborhoods, a resident offered alternative City site locations for the stadium complex. A council member dismissed the alternatives as out of hand because the suggestions were too far west in the City, they would produce urban sprawl, and present traffic problems. However, that council person did not offer any suggestions to counter the proposed site in the middle of residential neighborhoods. My questions to that council member are… Does not the current site endanger the quality of life of the eastern area of our City and introduce “neighborhood sprawl”? Will not the traffic impacts be just as detrimental to the eastern area of the City and probably more so?

Another council member sermonized to the residents that the only place they were getting their information from is the newspapers. Should not that lecture be given to the City officials who claim “confidentiality”? Why didn’t that council member offer answers to the many questions the residents have presented so we would be better educated?

A council member spoke about transparency concerning the stadium issue. I agree transparency is necessary. Answering the questions raised in my letter of 11/5/13 would be a good start. A City sponsored brochure and an assistant to the City Manager says no more public meetings are planned which does not engender transparency. Again it is my contention that the City Council should hold a long overdue advertised scheduled meeting at City Hall concerning the stadium complex sooner rather than later. In this commentary, perhaps, for more transparency this council member should have answered the following questions. When will the City Council schedule an advertised public meeting at City Hall and answer the residents’ thoughtful and necessary questions concerning the stadium complex? Did the City Council choose the proposed site? If not, why not? Who did the site selection for the city if not the City Council and why?

Still another council member opined concern for the residents having “a lot of angst”. The “angst” that the residents may feel will be remedied only when the Mayor and City Council quickly repudiate an obviously poorly chosen and inappropriate site location for this stadium complex. When and how will the City Council cure the “angst” of the city residents?

In my opinion all of the above dialogue, questions, debate, discussions, attempts at public relations, baseball owners’ preferences, and so forth, are important but subservient to a fundamental question. That question concerns itself with selecting a responsible site location for the proposed stadium complex. The City should not move forward on the stadium complex until the site location question is first answered. All forward momentum can and must wait until after the easiest and simplest $100,000,000 question is…

ASKED and ANSWERED

 

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

Are you For or Against the proposed site for the stadium complex off Central Boulevard?

Mayor Premuruso –       For____Against____

Vice-Mayor Jablin –      For____Against____

Councilperson Levy –     For____Against____

Councilperson Russo –   For____Against____

Councilperson Tinsley – For____Against____

Sincerely,

Michael Martino

« Previous Page