Next City Council Meeting on May 7 at 7pm
The next City Council Meeting will be this Thursday, May 7 at 7pm at City Hall. It is a very full agenda with many topics of interest.
Announcements/Presentations includes a Legislative Update by Representative Pat Rooney, the 2014 Annual Audit Report and a topic regarding All Aboard Florida and residents of Frenchman’s Creek and Frenchman’s Reserve.
Public Hearings and Resolutions include amending Chapter 62 (Streets, Sidewalks and Certain Public Places) making property owners share in responsibility of swales/right of way maintenance , amending Chapter 70 (Traffic and Vehicles) The proposed new ordinance would provide the City with a new set of parking regulations and the repeal of Article VI. Dangerous Intersection Safety regarding the use of unmanned image capture technologies. , Revising Schedule of Fees and Charges, amending Donald Ross Village PUD, Condemnation and Eminent Domain Proceedings on 2 parcels (Sunset Drive and 40th Terrace) as well as 2nd reading on several items.
Council Action/Discussion will also include discussion of the Citizen Survey Results and a discussion on North County District Park.
The agenda (with links to full detail) can be found here. Check the agenda to see if any additional items have been added before the meeting.
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.
Let’s Be Honest about the “Biotech Cluster”
Yesterday, the Board of County Commissioners voted unanimously to void their interest in the deed restriction that would have prevented “Project Diamond”, the UTC techonology showcase proposed within the “biotech campus” on the Briger tract. The other government players – Palm Beach Gardens and the state (represented strangely enough by FDEP), concur. Scripps, while disagreeing that this is an appropriate use, is not strongly objecting. Kolter (of course), the NPBC Chamber and the Economic Council are all strong supporters.
As part of the complex and expensive (to the taxpayer) deal that brought Scripps to Jupiter, 100 acres adjacent to I-95 was set aside for use only by biotech related enterprises, all part of the vision for a “biotech cluster” in Northern Palm Beach County.
It would seem the deed restriction standing in the way of the UTC project has been cleverly sidestepped by the BCC and the other government players. They are not “ending the Biotech era” and blowing up the restriction you see, just making a one-time exception in a way in which Scripps cannot object. In Commissioner Hal Valeche’s words: “You get a bird in the hand like this, it doesn’t come along that often.”
UTC, being an excessively green “smart building”, that “fits the vision of high tech enterprise” may end up being similar to a biotech campus in meeting the 2003 goals, but avoiding the restriction is tacit agreement that the whole vision of the Scripps Project was flawed. “We’re not giving up on bioscience or biotechnology,” said Commissioner Melissa McKinlay. Surely not.
The Scripps Project, by most measures, has been a failure. Although Scripps itself has met their committment in terms of jobs created, the 40,000 related jobs promised when the deal was done have not materialized. The amount of public money that was spent to bring Scripps to Jupiter exceeded $1M for each job actually created.
The UTC HQ project will be a fine addition to the county and the city, although the amount of cash and tax avoidance they are being given is distasteful to one who believes in free markets and fiscal responsibility. Clearing the way for them with a deed “exception” though is not being honest. Let’s just acknowledge that the Biotech vision was a failure and move on.
Maybe when Kolter brings their next non-biotech project forward they will finally admit it.
See: County OKs UTC HQ near Scripps
Good Old Boys’ Actions Show Why Term Limits Passed
Term Limits pervaded the April City Council Meeting from start to finish, with some City business thrown in for good measure.
Up first on the agenda was the annual reorganization vote – selecting Mayor and Vice Mayor. Palm Beach Gardens has a Council-Manager form of government so the position of Mayor is largely ceremonial, not elected by the residents. The Mayor does serve as chair of the monthly City Council meetings though, and influences how business is conducted.
The Mayor and Vice Mayor positions have been held by all on the council except for newest member (elected in 2010) Marcie Tinsley. So one could reasonably assume that Mrs. Tinsley, who has not held either office, should get her turn as Mayor or Vice-Mayor, since like Mr. Jablin (who has held both positions many times) and Mr. Premuroso (the incumbent mayor) – they all have 2 years left on their final term-limited term. She is certainly qualified, but this Council being essentially a “boy’s club”, she was not even discussed for Mayor, and her nomination for vice-Mayor by Bert Premuroso was cast aside with patronizing ease.
David Levy nominated Eric Jablin for Mayor. The ensuing convoluted discussion rationalized his election as if it had always been a done deal, and he became Mayor on a 5:0 vote.
A prevailing assumption by the Council, for several months now, since term limits were first placed on the ballot, is that Levy is eligible for another term (because he resigned for a few months to run as County Commissioner) and that he obviously will be re-elected without any opposition. He could then have another opportunity to be Vice-Mayor or Mayor. But somehow, in even more tortured debate, the men on the Council decided that Levy needed to be the Vice-Mayor to afford continuity on the Council and ensure the city didn’t collapse as the board turned over. While nominated by Premuroso, Tinsley received no support, even from him, as she argued gamely on why she should be Vice-Mayor; Levy was elected 4:1. The arrogance of the discussion was overwhelming; we highly encourage the Council to watch the entire meeting themselves and understand why people voted for Term Limits.
Term Limits arose again during Items of Resident Interest. The North Palm Beach Blog of the PB Post had an article earlier in the day suggesting rumors that the Council would take action to over-ride the Term Limits charter change voters supported with 79% of the vote. 68% voted for it to be retroactively applied to the current Council. While Council member Russo suggested that such an action, taken by the Council, would be a slap in the face of the voters – it was clear that there were others on the Council who did not agree. Later in the evening, the ‘new’ Mayor suggested that the folks who are against term-limits come in force to Council meetings, thus giving the Council a rationale to take some action to reverse the ballot amendment.
Resident Mark Marciano, speaking during Public Comment on several topics, suggested that the Council should tackle Term Limits, and that the 2 3-year terms, as passed, were ‘not only short-sighted, but even dangerous’. He reiterated a drumbeat, heard mostly by electeds, that people didn’t know what they were voting for, and were just expressing frustration that Congress doesn’t have term limits.
Finally – the last item on the agenda was the City Manager Contract Extension. In previous discussions on the topic, the contract, expiring in 2016, was proposed to be extended by 2 years to 2018. But suddenly, Mayor Jablin proposed a 5-year extension to 2020 – once again citing Term Limits as the reason this had to be done. The clueless new Council that will exist from 2017 on, will destroy the city without the continuity provided by the current City Manager. Normally, Russo said, 5 years is too long to extend the contract – but Term Limits overrides such need for caution. Tinsley encouraged that the time be used for a succession plan for City Manager Ferris’ retirement; Russo said the same. The extension passed 5:0.
As to the Business:
- Kudos to Riverside Enrichment Center for receiving Apple Accreditation
- Kudos to Km! Ra, the City’s Purchasing Director for being awarded a 2015 UPPCC Agency Certificate
- City’s Resident Opinion Survey – 400 residents were surveyed in January 2015 and results were compared with the survey conducted in 2006 – with a sampling error of 4.9%. 96% would recommend living in Palm Beach Gardens and cited Family, Weather, and Shopping/Restaurants as why they live here. The results will be posted on the City website on Monday. Here is the PB Post’s article on the survey.
- Mirasol ClubHouse expansion passed 5:0 on First Reading
- Purchasing rather than leasing Golfcourse Maintenance Equipment passed 5:0
- Council appointments to external and internal boards remained unchanged except for one that requires the Mayor’s participation.
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.
Next PB Gardens City Council this Thursday, April 2nd
The next City Council Meeting will be this Thursday, April 2nd at 7pm at City Hall.
Note that at the beginning of the agenda is the annual ‘Reorganization‘ with the Council voting for Mayor and Vice Mayor. At the end of the meeting, during Items for Council Action/Discussion, the Council will discuss and vote on Extension of City Manager Contract – a subject from last July and September meetings.
The Consent Agenda includes:
- Purchase Award for $110K for aquatic vegetation and exotic species management service – openly bid.
- Purchase award for Tires not to exceed $300K – piggyback award to Florida Sheriffs Association contract; has been doing so for many years
The Regular Agenda includes:
- Ordinance 2, 2015 – Second Reading: An amendment to the Fiscal Year 2014/15 budget
- Ordinance 6, 2015 and companion Resolution 16, 2015 relates to expansion of the Mirasol Clubhouse and parking.
- Resolution 15, 2015 is a purchase award to Wesco Turf for $378K for special golf course mowers and specialized turf equipment through an existing State contract.
Items for Council Action/Discussion also includes assigning Council member responsibilities for various internal and external boards.
The agenda (with links to full detail) can be found here. Check the agenda to see if any additional items have been added before the meeting.
See a summary of the March Council Meeting as well as the latest two Martino Minutes (on the new logo and the Banyan Tree PUD vote) on the PBG Watch website.
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.
Palm Beach Post: Scripps opens door on land use
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.
No Drive-through for Banyan Tree PUD… for now
Although last on the agenda, Resolution 13, 2015 garnered the most public comment – with many residents from Lake Catherine in attendance and 11 folks voicing their concerns with the developer’s plans for Banyan Tree PUD Phase II (aka Northlake Gardens) at the northwest corner of MacArthur Boulevard and Northlake. Among the issues were traffic, noise, lighting, and safety for the children going to/fro the nearby schools. Along with the public comment, a petition signed by 182 of the home owners was submitted. Council member Levy spoke first and voiced his concern with the proposed drive-through for a small 1000 square foot business. The rest of the council joined in saying there was much to like about the proposed site plan but they too were uncomfortable with the drive-through. Both the developer and the owner asked that the drive-through be approved in order to enhance the ability to attract businesses for the rear building which would be all but invisible from view. They suggested that the council would have final approval of the lessee at a future date. The council disagreed and voted unanimously to approve the plan without the drive-through. They would be open to future modifications (eg the drive through) after they know what the proposed business would be. Vote 5:0
Despite a request to bring Project Diamond (Resolution 14, 2015) to the Regular Agenda, it remained in Consent and economic incentives were passed without discussion. See Where’ s the Sunshine?
Tom Cairnes, of the PGA Corridor, spoke on Ordinance 1, 2015 – disagreeing with the proposed regulations as not going far enough. The Corridor believes that no human signage should be permitted in Palm Beach Gardens. The council replied by saying that currently there are no regulations in place, so that this is an improvement. Vote 5:0
The other two Ordinances – Ordinance 3, 2015 (gas station signage) and Ordinance 5, 2015 1st reading (10-year water supply facilities work plan) passed 5:0 as well.
Police Chief Stepp made his 2014 Police Department Summary Report – with outstanding statistics. Crime has been down for 3 years in a row and is at the lowest rate since 1987. Since many of the crimes are DUIs and shop-lifting, the likelihood of being a victim of crime in our city is very low. Frog-et Me Not continues to be an award-winning program. Read the excellent report here .
All on the council expressed their regret and condolences on the recent passing of North Palm Beach Gardens City Councilman and veteran, William Manuel. A moment of silence was held.