Next City Council Meeting on April 5th at 7PM

• State Representative Rick Roth – Legislative Update
• Mat Forrest, Ballard Partners – Legislative Session Summary
• Recognition of Kamilla Soares and Renee Gold for Emergency Response

• Resolution 15, 2018: Lease of Two 2018 Braun Super Chief Type 1 Medium Duty Ambulances from Ten-8 Equipment, Inc. and financed through Leasing 2, Inc. in the amount not to exceed $680K
• Resolution 17, 2018:  Approving the Alton Planned Community Development (PCD) Neighborhood 3 (Parcel E) Plat. 
• Resolution 18, 2018:  Approving the Alton Planned Community Development (PCD) Neighborhood 4 (Parcel F) Plat. 
• Purchase Award:  Prefabricated Metal Building Shell for Golf Maintenance Facility, openly competed, in the amount of $316K
• Purchase Award:  Landscaping Services – Alternate AlA Beautification Project– Piggyback/Access Contract – $320K (The City applied for and was awarded a grant in the amount of $100,000.00 from the Florida Department of Transportation through the Florida Highway Beautification Council to install landscaping along Alternate AlA from Burns Road to the City’s southern limit. The project includes installing plantings along the western road shoulder and center medians, as well as upgrading the existing irrigation pump station north of Burns Road.)
• Purchase Award: Contract Labor Services for Golf Course – exercising option to renew for two years – $240K
• Purchase Award: Special Magistrate Agreement – Independent Contractor Agreement – re-appointing Kevin M. Wagner as Code Enforcement Special Magistrate (served as such since Dec. 7, 2000), 3-year contract estimated at $17K/year.

City Manager Report  – no details listed

• Ordinance 2, 2018 – 2nd Reading and Adoption:  Amending Chapter 18. Businesses. at Article II. Peddlers and Solicitors. in order to adopt the regulations pertaining to Home Solicitation Sales
• Resolution 16, 2018 – A request from Nuvo Riverside, LLC to approve proposed on-site artwork to meet the AIPP requirement for the Nuvo Business Center at the Gardens, located on the northeast corner of Riverside Drive and Buckeye Street, south of Burns Road, in the Business Center at the Gardens PUD
• Resolution 21, 2018 –  Resolution seeking direction to draft Charter Ballot Language, call for a Special Referendum Election, and enter into an Agreement with the Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections to conduct the Special Election. 
  • Timeline for the August 28, 2018 Primary Election:  
    • April 5, 2018 – direct the City Attorney to develop ballot question(s)
    • May 3, 2018 – first reading of Ordinance(s) with question(s) for the ballot
    • May 17, 2018- Proposed date for a Special City Council meeting for second reading and adoption of Ordinance(s) with question(s) for the ballot
    • May 30, 2018- deadline to receive approval from the SOE to enter into a separate Agreement to conduct a Special Election. 

Items for Council Action/Discussion:   Appointments to External Board and Committees

Check the agenda to see if any additional items have been added before the meeting here.

Martino: Ironwood Park Kudos

In case you have not heard the City of Palm Beach Gardens has a new neighborhood park. The location is the City-owned vacant lot on the corner of Holly Drive and Ironwood Road in Plat 1. It is fittingly named Ironwood Park. The City budgeted $150,000 as a commitment to the park’s success and has recently added updated safety features, irrigation, and enhanced landscaping. It has become an instant neighborhood sensation, as well as, a property value asset and enhancer.

Ironwood Park is well designed and tastefully landscaped. The park has a plethora of activity centers geared for toddlers and youngsters up to 12 years of age with plenty of parent park benches. Included, is a Zip Line apparatus with “special needs” provisions for the physically challenged and is a first for the City’s park facilities inventory. Parking has been provided with a pathway leading to the park entry keeping the little ones safely away from the road.

The City has made a concerted effort to improve the maintenance and appearance of properties in the corridor of Holly Drive between Ironwood Road and Lighthouse Drive on the east side. Much has been done and is appreciated but much more is expected and necessary.

The impetus for the new park and the neighborhood improvements can be attributed in a large measure, in my opinion, to two individuals, Steven Martino and Carl Woods. Steven is my son and Carl is a City Councilman. Also, the City Administration particularly, the Public Works and Recreation Departments, deserve high praise for a job well done.

Carl Woods was seated as a new Palm Beach Gardens Council member in 2016. Having been apprised of the problems of the older neighborhoods while campaigning door to door, Carl promised he would work to improve what he could. He has kept to his word and has made a difference. He pushed and prodded the City Council and Administration with persistence and patience to begin the alleviation of the problem areas along Holly Drive and to make Ironwood Park a reality. Carl should be applauded for the improvement in the appearance of the Holly Drive east corridor and for making Ironwood Park a reality.

An Analysis of the Charter Vote

The March 13 municipal election asked 2 questions of the voters regarding the charter. The ballot actually had 4 questions, but the first two were thrown out by a judge for being misleading, and were not counted.

Question 3 asked if term limited council members should be allowed to run again after sitting out 3 years, and question 4 would replace our “majority wins” system with a plurality – “highest vote total wins” system.

The results by precinct are shown on the maps below – click on the precinct for the individual results.

For a March election without candidates, the turnout was substantial, with about 4700 casting their votes. There were a couple of interesing anomolies about this election though – absentee ballot totals were much higher than normal, and at the polls, the number of “Under-Votes” was an excessive 3.4%.

We have a theory about the undervotes. (It is somewhat technical, so bear with me.)

An “under-vote” is when someone votes a ballot with nothing filled in. At the precinct, the optical scanners are supposed to only flag this as an error if NOTHING on the ballot is filled in – skipping a single question will be reported as an under-vote by the SOE in the results, but the scanner doesn’t flag it and the poll workers wouldn’t know about it.

In this case though, both questions had the same number of under-votes, implying that the ballots were blank and should have been flagged. When the scanner detects this condition, it beeps and prints on the tape “UNDER-VOTE” and spits the ballot back out. The inspector working the scanner is then expected to ask the voter if they intended to submit a blank ballot. If it was a mistake, the voter takes their ballot back and marks it. If the voter intended to submit it blank, then the inspector pokes a key in a hole on the back of the scanner to “OVERRIDE” the error and accept the ballot. We asked an inspector at one of the precincts with a number of under-votes if there were any overrides – and they couldn’t recall any.

Our theory is this:

Because of the short time to react after the lawsuit, the Supervisor of Elections did not have time to program the scanners to ignore the front page of the ballot (questions 1 and 2). Therefore, since 1&2 were on page 1 and 3&4 were on page 2, it is likely many people, knowing there were only 2 questions to answer, filled in the front page (1&2) and did not notice there was a back page. The scanners should have caught this but apparently accepted 1&2 as constituting a “non-blank” ballot, and did not flag it. As a result, about 160 people (enough to change the results on question 4), were possibly disenfranchised and not afforded the option to fix the error.

This is a “hanging chad” situation regarding the “intention of the voter”, particularly since it may have affected the outcome. There is a paper trail if this is the case – the tapes for each of the optical scanners are supposed to be saved (although I don’t know for how long). The tapes would show whether any “undervotes” were flagged and if that count equaled the 161 reported under-votes in Palm Beach Gardens.

The absentee ballots numbers were also interesting as 46% of the voters cast their ballots that way. This is significant because the absentee “YES” margin was 9 points higher on question 3 and 7 points higher on question 4. Without the absentee votes, question 4 would have lost handily.

Why do I mention this? Because all the questions were misleading and until the lawsuit and the little bit of campaigning that was done, most people were naturally drawn to the the “YES” answer. The absentee ballots of course went out before either of those things occurred.

The following table shows how the absentee ballot counts and under-votes fell during the last few elections.  Note that the high under-vote count in 2016 was because the municipal candidates appeared on the same ballot as the presidential primary candidates and many people only vote for President, ignoring the rest.

 

Year	Votes Cast	At polls	Absentee	% absentee	Undervotes	%Undervotes
2018	4731	2569	2164	45.7%	167	3.5%
2017	5240	3486	1754	33.5%	0	0.0%
2016	15257	12465	2802	18.4%	1958	12.8%
2014	7167	5556	1611	22.5%	79	1.1%
2013	4217	3390	827	19.6%	1	0.0%

Question 3 – Run Again?

---

Question 3
Strong Yes	Weak Yes	Very Close	Weak No	Strong No
Click the precinct on the map for vote totals.

Precinct	Registered	Cast	Turnout	YES	NO	YES %
1186	1457	163	11	78	79	50
1188	897	63	7	34	25	58
1189	96	11	11	9	2	82
1190	3391	245	7	159	83	66
1192	1454	124	9	78	40	66
1194	2029	401	20	315	74	81
1228	446	65	15	38	26	59
1238	1680	301	18	148	146	50
1240	2506	301	12	197	97	67
1242	2559	400	16	266	113	70
1244	1567	206	13	125	76	62
1246	2397	275	11	115	153	43
1247	228	32	14	27	5	84
1248	1495	204	14	103	95	52
1250	62	7	11	1	5	17
1252	2320	500	22	272	197	58
1254	455	32	7	15	17	47
1260	1293	172	13	70	98	42
1266	463	3	1	1	2	33
1268	295	8	3	6	2	75
1272	1911	189	10	88	94	48
1274	1585	145	9	49	88	36
1280	399	30	8	19	10	66
1284	2219	153	7	117	30	80
1288	40	5	13	3	1	75
1290	2130	224	11	127	88	59
1292	71	17	24	13	4	76
1296	713	34	5	24	9	73
1324	1282	73	6	42	29	59
1326	553	68	12	32	31	51
1340	12	3	25	3	0	100
1352	2210	161	7	91	68	57
1360	891	114	13	71	40	64
1372	153	2	1	1	0	100
TOTAL	41280	4731	11	2737	1827	60

Question 4 – Plurality or Majority?

---

Question 4
Strong Yes	Weak Yes	Very Close	Weak No	Strong No
Click the precinct on the map for vote totals.

Precinct	Registered	Cast	Turnout	YES	NO	Yes %
1186	1457	163	11	75	82	48
1188	897	63	7	25	34	42
1189	96	11	11	9	2	82
1190	3391	245	7	134	107	56
1192	1454	124	9	71	45	61
1194	2029	401	20	260	128	67
1228	446	65	15	33	31	52
1238	1680	301	18	115	178	39
1240	2506	301	12	163	131	55
1242	2559	400	16	215	161	57
1244	1567	206	13	111	89	56
1246	2397	275	11	87	179	33
1247	228	32	14	18	14	56
1248	1495	204	14	75	122	38
1250	62	7	11	2	4	33
1252	2320	500	22	234	230	50
1254	455	32	7	16	16	50
1260	1293	172	13	58	110	35
1266	463	3	1	0	3	0
1268	295	8	3	5	3	63
1272	1911	189	10	79	104	43
1274	1585	145	9	51	86	37
1280	399	30	8	18	11	62
1284	2219	153	7	106	42	72
1288	40	5	13	0	4	0
1290	2130	224	11	109	106	51
1292	71	17	24	11	5	69
1296	713	34	5	23	10	70
1324	1282	73	6	41	30	58
1326	553	68	12	23	40	37
1340	12	3	25	3	0	100
1352	2210	161	7	71	87	45
1360	891	114	13	55	56	50
1372	153	2	1	1	0	100
TOTAL	41280	4731	11	2297	2250	51

Please Vote NO on 3/13 – Palm Beach Gardens Election

• A Yes vote on Question 3 means that term-limited Council members can serve again with a 3 year sit-out between each 6 years in office.  There is no limit to the number of cycles that can be repeated.
• A Yes vote on Question 4, switches from Majority Wins (50%+1) to Plurality wins.  In a 2-candidate race there is no difference.  However in a multi candidate race, an incumbent can encourage other candidates to enter the race, thus diluting the votes and allowing the candidate with the most name recognition to win with a small percentage of the vote.

 

Contentious Emergency City Council Mtg Decision No Appeal

An emergency  City Council meeting was called sometime on March 5th for the following morning, March 6 at 8am to decide whether or not to appeal the decision on the ruling by Judge J. Joseph Curley, Jr. finding ballot Questions 1 and 2 invalid, last Friday March 3rd.

The meeting had a lot of fireworks and should be seen to be appreciated – however the outcome was that the City will not appeal, but should the plaintiff, Sid Dinerstein appeal the results on Questions 3 and 4, City Attorney Lohman was given the authorization to cross-appeal (thus re-challeging Questions 1 and 2).  The vote was 3:1 with Council Member Lane voting NO and Council Member Litt not present.

No Mention of an Election or a Lawsuit at March 1 City Council Meeting

The March City Council meeting began on a somber note as all stood for a moment of silence for those lost and affected by the Parkland shooting.  While there were no presentations on the agenda, Mayor Marino read a proclamation to Remember and Honor the Vicitms (Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School – Parkland, FL).

Council  Member Litt, during Items of Resident Interest and Board/Committee Reports discussed how she (and other on the Council echoed her comments) was approached by folks asking what is she going to do about guns.  She decried the City’s inability to act – even on whether or not there could be a gun show at the Amara Shrine Temple, as well as the continued assault on Home Rule.  See the Palm Beach Post article here.

Public Comment was made by Louis Satriano of Lake Catherine.  He was concerned about a meeting that was held with residents by the developers of Northlake Gardens, saying that they were going to change the plans for the center to include more stories and apartments.  Director of Planning and Zoning, Natalie Crowley, assured him that there have not been such plans submitted or approved yet.

The Purchase Award for Banking Services for $675K was pulled by Council Member Lane so that Purchasing Director Km! Ra would do an update.  That item and all on Consent Agenda passed 5:0. All items on the Regular Agenda – Ordinances 2, 4, 5 2018 and Resolution 13, 2018 passed 5:0.

During Items for Council Action/Discussion – Council Member Litt suggested and the others on the Council agreed, for City Manager Ferris to look into what it would take to be certified as  Sun Safe City – which both she and Mayor Marino learned about during a meeting on Melanoma.  Council Member Marciano lamented the anger that is being directed to the Council (presumably about the election/ballot questions) and suggested that while it was good to be involved locally that the anger should be directed elsewhere since Palm Beach Gardens is a wonderful city and because there are so many much bigger issues on the state and national levels.

The City Manager did not mention the emergency hearing about the lawsuit;  even more surprisingly – City Attorney Lohman had no City Attorney report.  While one would not have expected a detailed discussion – the suit was not even acknowledged.  The judge in the case made a ruling on Friday, the next day.  See Judge tosses half gardens ballot questions but election go on .  Nor did anyone on the Council encourage those in attendance to vote on March 13, 2018!

So Gardens’ voters – Please VOTE ON MARCH 13!

 

 

Next City Council Meeting on March 1st at 7pm

 

• Purchase award for Aquatic Vegetation and Exotic Species Management – Openly Competed – 2 yr term with no renewal – $74K
• Purchase award for Employee Benefits Consulting Service – Piggyback/Access contract – 2 yr term with no renewal – $140K
• Purchase award for Modifications to Concession Stands at Gardens Park – Bid waiver – sole bidder was too high, so executed bid waiver to come up with value-engineered solution that met budget – one year, not renewable – $513.5K
• Purchase award for Ballistic Helmets and Vests for Fire Rescue – sole provider, bid not applicable – $87K
• Purchase award for Repairs to Roof at Burns Road Recreation Center – piggyback/access contract – $362K, not renewable.
• Purchase award for Banking Services – Openly Competed – 5 yr term – no option to renew – $675K

City Manager Report  – no details listed

Public Hearings and Resolutions: 

• Ordinance 2, 2018 – First Reading – Adopting Regulations Pertaining to Home Solicitation Sales – adopting County-wide registration process.
• Ordinance 4, 2018 – 2nd Reading and Adoption – An amendment to the City of Palm Beach Gardens Police Officers’ Retirement Trust Fund.
• Ordinance 5, 2018 – 2nd Reading and Adoption – A request from A1A Cabana Partners, LLC., for a Voluntary Annexation of a 0.85-acre parcel located on the southeast corner of the intersection of Alternate A 1A and Florida Boulevard approximately 0.5 miles south of Hood Road.
• Resolution 13, 2018 – Approving a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment to replace the existing fabric awnings with a louvered metal awning system at the Cooper Restaurant at the PGA Commons PUD

Check the agenda to see if any additional items have been added before the meeting here.

March 13 City Election:

By now you’ve heard from the City via calls, emails, flyers and social media.  Please get educated with  more information before you vote and then VOTE.  Here are some of our most recent articles:

• Vote but Vote No on Questions 1 Through 4
• Rebuttal to City’s Misleading FAQs
• Martino:  “Fixes”…no thank you
• Martino: Charter questions…information is missing

Please read our summary of the February 2nd  Council meeting entitled “Tallahassee Impacts on Home Rule a Significant Concern to the City.”

We get the government we deserve – and it’s up to us to watch what they do.  Hope you can make it. If you can’t make the meeting try and watch live-streaming or on-demand.

Martino: Charter questions… information is missing

I have authored several Martino Minute opinion articles concerning the City of Palm Beach Gardens City Charter Amendments referendum scheduled for election on March 13, 2018. The City Council is pitching four Charter amendment questions on which they are asking Gardens registered voters to cast a “Yes” or “No” vote. After listening carefully to the City Council’s reasons for and discussion of these four questions, and after gathering my own information to examine these questions, I am voting “No” on each question.

It is incumbent upon each of us residents that we understand what the City Charter is. It is the City’s constitution. I would confidently say that it belongs to the residents, not an appointed committee, not the City Council, not the City Manager, and not the City Attorney. In my opinion, it’s will and words ensure that the governing of the City will be by and for the residents. It spells out how the City government should function for the good of the residents. The Charter contains a fair amount of specificity, as it should.  The amending process must be specific to subject and residents must be informed in exacting terms and nothing less. That’s the law talking, not me.

Let us exam the PBG Referendum Questions #1 & #2 for specificity and information…

From my perspective this question is as ambiguous and non-specific as a question can be. What are the recommendations of the CRC? Eliminate what internal inconsistencies? Remove what conflicts with State Law and Council Manager form of government? How is the Charter to be reorganized? Where is Ordinance 26 2017 Exhibit “A”? Also, it does not contain information so the voter can cast an educated ballot. For instance, it does not inform the voter that a “Yes” vote removes the requirement for a Charter review, changes how a City Council vacancy is filled, deletes the requirement for the City Manager to live in the City, erases the requirement for the City Manager Annual Performance Review, and crosses out the Employee Merit System, as just a few examples of what the voter is not informed of.

I would offer that Question 2 lacks the information necessary for the voter to make an informed vote. It is deceptive in its wording because it suggests that the voter is casting a ballot to amend the Charter to institute term limits for three full consecutive terms. It fails to inform the voter that term limits already are in place for maximum of two consecutive three year terms.  A “Yes” vote for Question #2 and a “Yes” vote for Question #3 which allows for a 3-year sit-out and return could allow a Council member to conceivably serve indefinitely.

Another issue that has merit without a satisfactory answer from the City Council is, “Why March 13, 2018?” There is no City Council member election, as this is an off year. Turn out will be minimal. It seems less than considerate of the 20,000 voters who participated in the November 2014 election that considered the need for term limits, and more particularly, the 16,000 that voted to approve of them. The August 2018 primary election or the November 2018 general election is a more appropriate choice but the City Council announced publicly that November was not available per the Supervisor of Elections office. On February 13, 2018 in the courtroom of a Circuit Court Judge the Lawyers for the Supervisor of Elections said there is no legal prohibition to those dates as long as the legalities are met. Hmmm.

Referendum elections offer choices for the registered voter. The voter should be adequately provided with accurate, true and specific information in order to make an informed choice.  It is my considered opinion that the Council could have done more to educate themselves and us. Acknowledging the word and space limitations of the ballot, it is still my contention that more exacting ballot questions could have and should have been approved and offered.

The choice of “No” on these four Charter Amendment questions is obvious.

Rebuttal to City’s Misleading FAQs

The City of Palm Beach Gardens spent $60,000 of tax-payer dollars to hire a consultant to produce a campaign for the March 13 Election.  The flyer, robo-call and website have the theme “help fix our charter” and much of what is in this purportedly neutral campaign is misleading at best.  Here is a rebuttal for each of the most egregious statements found on the ‘Fix Our Charter’* website.

What is the Charter Review Committee?

Martino: “Fixes”…no thank you!

On March 13th the Palm Beach Gardens registered voters are being asked by its City Council to answer yes or no to 4 ballot questions that significantly change the City Charter and dramatically alter the recently passed City Council Term Limit Law. From my perspective, these changes do not upgrade, enhance, or provide forward momentum for the residents and their City Charter or government. In my opinion, the 4 ballot questions deserve a “NO”.  

The City Council and others that support these changes offer nothing of consequence or necessity in the way of rational reasoning. Their basis of reasoning for these substantive Charter changes is…  

• Recommendations of Charter Review Committee 

Rebuttal: This committee was appointed by the City Council. Two of the members were City lobbyists and one of them does not live in the City. The committee was not balanced geographically and no appointment was made from any of the older original Plats of the City. In a hasty fashion, it held only four meetings causing the hired consultant  to remark about the brevity of the process. Finally, recommendations are only that and need not be accepted, adopted, or approved, as has happened in the past.    

• Learning curve for new Council members is steep 

Rebuttal: My answer is simple; the intricacies of the office one seeks should be learned before standing for that office. If you cannot be productive from the first meeting don’t run for the job. In various campaign forums and meetings, these City Council members asserted their experience and fitness for the job. In their campaign literature that is mailed to voters the council members ballyhoo loud and clear about their readiness to perform.  I guess we should not have believed their exclamations.  

• 6 years is not enough time to do the job 

Rebuttal: Above the assertion is the learning curve to do the job is steep. If two terms of three years, or 6 years, is not enough to do the job. Well, are 9 or 12, or 15 or 28 years enough? How much time is enough to be competent in a part-time job that has it work product implemented by a well-paid, well tenured, Administration and Staff.   

• Institutional memory 

Rebuttal: The meshing of the two words, institutional memory, sounds important. Is it politically correct to have it? It’s almost scary to think you may not have it. So I looked it up.  Institutional memory is a collective set of facts, concepts, experiences and knowledge held by a group of people. Institutional memory has been defined as stored knowledge within an organization. There are different ideas about how institutional memory is transferred, whether it is between people or through written sources. It is my opinion, in the case of a Council-Manager form of local government whose elected officials are part-time and elected on a staggered basis, as Palm Beach Gardens does, the main source of memory comes from input by people to be recognized in and through formal hearings, meetings, and then by documentation into public records, and not by any particular individual, elected or otherwise. Institutional memory than, as it applies to a Council-Manager government, is not vested in any one City Council member, but its City Council as a group, augmented by transparent public documented records, and an Administration with Staff that has some degree of tenure and longevity.  

• The City Charter is bush league and broken 

Rebuttal: That’s right; according to our City Attorney’s comment at the October 5, 2017 City Council meeting we have a “Bush League” City Charter. The charter is the constitution for our City. By extrapolation then, is the City Attorney with his “Bush League” utterance inferring that Palm Beach Gardens is a second tier, minor league, City? Probably not is my hope, but his other comments also smacked of insolence for the City Charter. Our City Charter has evolved, been amended, and guided our City over time since 1959, long before our current City Attorney was around to completely understand its history to present day. It has stood the test of time. It has been tested in the Courts and upheld in almost every instance. Our City Charter is not broken. It does not need the 4 “fixes” the City Council is trying to foist on the residents.  

This City Council was elected under the language and laws of the current City Charter which includes the Term Limits, election laws, legal vote counting, and other regulations which they now claim, after the fact, need “fixing”, and  right now. Where was the urgency during their campaigning? Why didn’t they offer these “fixes” as platform issues during their campaigns? The Term Limits that they want to change allowed them to be elected. The above reasoning for the Charter “fixes” they say are necessary are feeble at best and almost approach the absurd. In my opinion, this City Council, that has not yet completed one 3-year term in office, has been a bit self-serving and less than an “honest broker” in this “fixing” process. 

The information I have learned says each of the 4 referendum questions should be answered with a “NO”. 

« Previous Page — Next Page »