Further dialogue with the county regarding Fiscal Neutrality

Public interest in the transparency of Fiscal Neutrality is high - and that is true for the process of forming the model that will eventually become a component of Sarasota County's 2050 Comprehensive Plan.

In the interests of full transparency the current dialogue is published here.

Happy Thanksgiving!

==========

11.24. 14: Letter from Cathy Antunes to Sarasota County Planner Allen Parsons:

Dear Allen,

Thank you for the clarification you have provided regarding the status of 2050 fiscal neutrality policy creation and how the County is ensuring transparency and public participation.  As I shared in my first e-mail, the members of our network see taxpayers are key stakeholders in fiscal neutrality policy creation, who deserve a prime seat at the policy creation table.

We are interested in ensuring the following for citizens/taxpayers:

• Opportunity for input during the draft policy creation stage -  public input solicited and incorporated from inception & forward 
• Access to fiscal neutrality meetings
• Timely (real time/swift) access to policy creation information, including:

          - terminology, definitions being employed in policy creation

          - all methodology under consideration

When the County brought in NIGP to review procurement policy, NIGP gathered feedback from the public and incorporated the information into its policy review and recommendations.  The public had a high degree of trust in their process and findings.  The same approach would be welcome here.

During a recent review of County records, I saw a report from AECOM reviewing the fiscal neutrality findings of Fishkind with regard to the Blackburn Creek development.  Would it make sense to sit down as a group and review  the Fishkind methodology along with AECOM’s review of the Fischkind/Blackburn Creek analysis?  As there is already some precedent here with fiscal neutrality as well as the work product of AECOM, it seems like a good idea to take a look at the findings and methodology of those reports.

You stated below "The county will have involvement in who may be selected for background/research interviews”. Members of our groups would like to know who the County taps to advise on this process and what criteria is being used to select them.  We’d like to have the County consider experts we recommend - professionals who we understand command a high level of public trust.

As we have noted, It is the citizens of Sarasota County who will, after all, be responsible for resulting infrastructure costs if the fiscal neutrality methodology is lacking.  Inequity in information or access undermines public confidence.  Our goal is an open, transparent fiscal neutrality policy process which taps the best information available and is inclusive from the beginning.  

Cathy Antunes

Member, 2050 Action Network

2050 Action Network includes:

Sierra Club

Council of Neighborhood Associations

Audobon Society

City Coalition of Neighborhood Associations

Venice Area Citizens for Responsible Development

Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida

Control Growth Now

Suncoast Waterkeepers

Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government

Progressive Women of Southwest Florida

================================================

Dan Lobeck - Allen Parsons 

An exchange on questions regarding AECOM, the consultant hired by the County to develop a fiscal neutrality model, and matter of public participation:

On Nov 19, 2014, at 10:03 AM, Dan Lobeck <dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com> wrote:

Allen:

Thank you.  I appreciate your clarity and considerations.

So you state that there have not been any communications to date between AECOM and any development interests with regard to AECOM’s preparation of the fiscal neutrality methodology, including any fiscal neutrality consultant hired by a development interest.  

Do you know this for a fact, such as by recent communications with AECOM, or by a direction from the County to AECOM to refrain from such communications other than any that are formally scheduled?  

Once reason I am pressing on this is that at the adoption hearing on the Sarasota 2050 amendments I recall that the fiscal neutrality consultant hired by Pat Neal stated that she had conferred with AECOM about the preparation of the methodology and had been assured that what is adopted will include a right for a developer to use an alternative methodology of the developer’s choosing so long as it is vetted and approved by the County.

You also state that interviews between AECOM and development interests, including, I anticipate, at least Pat Neal’s consultant, will be scheduled to occur before AECOM completes and presents its draft methodology.  This is important.  Can you please explain if any interviews have already been scheduled and if so, with whom, when and where?  In the interest of transparency, will any such interviews be open for observation by concerned members of the public, or at least audio or video recorded and made immediately accessible for review?

The County’s contract with AECOM calls for input to AECOM with “stakeholders”, who you have identified to date as only being expert fiscal neutrality consultants in the private and public sector, presumably including the one hired by Pat Neal.  I appreciate your statement that the County will consider taxpayer advocates as stakeholders as well.  It certainly would not reflect well on the County if we were to be excluded, sending a message that the County considers developers to have a stake in the fiscal neutrality methodology but not the taxpayers and general public.

Again, thank you, and I look forward to your further response.

  -- Dan Lobeck

Begin forwarded message:

From: Allen Parsons <aparsons@scgov.net>

To: 'Dan Lobeck' <dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com>

Cc: 'Catherine Antunes' <cathy.antunes@comcast.net>, 'Vicki Nighswander' <nighswan1@gmail.com>, Thomas Polk <tpolk@scgov.net>, William Spaeth <wspaeth@scgov.net>, BCC <BCC@scgov.net>, 'Paul Caragiulo' <Paul.Caragiulo@sarasotagov.com>, Alan Maio <amaio@scgov.net>, "josh.salman@heraldtribune.com" <josh.salman@heraldtribune.com>, "zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com" <zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com>, "'Van Berkel, Jessie'" <jessie.vanberkel@heraldtribune.com>, "'Tryon, Tom'" <tom.tryon@heraldtribune.com>, "tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com" <tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com>, 'William Zoller' <zozz1@mac.com>

Date: November 18, 2014 at 5:50:54 PM EST

Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Dan- Looks like we’re closing in on the final questions.  And the answers are straightforward: Yes, yes & yes (responses inserted into your email directly below).  I look forward to discussing any further questions and input with you & others more directly.  Please feel free to call or email myself directly.  Thanks. -- Allen

From: Dan Lobeck [mailto:dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 5:21 PM
To: Allen Parsons
Cc: 'Catherine Antunes'; 'Vicki Nighswander'; Thomas Polk; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio; josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie'; 'Tryon, Tom'; tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com; 'William Zoller'
Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Allen:

Thank you.  Once again, does your use of the term “development interests” in your email below include fiscal neutrality consultants hired by development interests to influence the preparation of the fiscal neutrality methodology?- Response: Yes.

As to the interviews you mention, will any occur prior to AECOM’s draft of the new methodology?- Response: Yes.

Also, will the County consider including representatives of the Sarasota 2050 Task Force, including myself, in interviews with AECOM? Response: Yes, this will be considered.  I will get back with you after it has been considered.  As to my credentials, I authored much of the fiscal neutrality policy, have reviewed and commented on several fiscal neutrality reports and have been very involved in the County’s impact fee policy continuously since 1987.

  -- Dan Lobeck

Cathy Antunes: Argused

Via SRQ Daily:

Argused

The Detail

BY CATHY ANTUNES   |   SRQ DAILY SATURDAY PERSPECTIVES EDITION   |   SATURDAY NOV 22, 2014

         

When it comes to flouting standards, one consultant auditing Sarasota County procurement in 2012 opined “these people take the cake.”  The audacity level in local government has been kicked up a notch.  Commissioner Christine Robinson’s new gig as Argus Foundation executive director has Sarasota outpacing Washington, D.C. when it comes to catering to special interests.

Last week, Commissioner Robinson announced she will begin work as executive director of the Argus Foundation in January 2015.  The Argus Foundation represents the interests of over 170 members from development, legal, financial and other business sectors.  Many consider Robinson’s hire unacceptable, citing Argus’ (and its executive director’s) active lobbying of County government.  Coming under community criticism, Argus Board President Bill Merrill defended the decision, calling Argus “no different from the YMCA or the United Way.”  Really?

According to [the Argus (its own site is currently non-functional)] website :

“The Argus Foundation was established in 1985 as a liaison between city, county, state and federal governments to involve itself with the vital matters that have an impact on the quality of life in Southwest Florida... The Argus Foundation actively monitors the activities of the various governmental bodies and comments on relevant government proposals... The Argus Foundation is in a position to advise and assist public officials in those decisions that affect the life style, environment, and economic well-being of our area and to hold public officials accountable for performing their duties in an efficient and cost-effective manner. It does not, however, endorse political candidates. As a member of The Argus Foundation you will be associating with the president's and CEO's of some of Sarasota's largest and most well-established corporations. Representing more than 50 different industries, Argus has a base of professional knowledge in financial, legal, and technical backgrounds from which to draw expertise and advice on a wide variety of issues. Argus has actively helped shape Sarasota's past and is poised to exert that same leadership well into the 21st century.”

Argus lobbies and takes positions on County issues, including impact fees, land use decisions and SRQ Airport governance, as well as City issues like an elected mayor, strong City manager, Newton redevelopment, and Downtown development.  The executive director of Argus frequently weighs in with City and County Commissioners on these and other issues. When was the last time you saw the directors of the United Way or the YMCA lobbying the County Commission in this manner?

A January 2003 Argus newsletter states “We face a real challenge to embrace the need to move the urban service boundary east of I-75” and “we need to recognize that the counterpart to ‘growth’ is ‘death.’” The March 2008 newsletter calls for the Van Wezel “to be operated by either a non-profit or the private sector.”  The July 2012 Argus newsletter outlines why the City of Sarasota’s charter should restructure auditing and IT functions, creating a strong City Manager with an independent auditor. The same newsletter indicates prior Argus support for an elected mayor. Oh yes, the Argus newsletter is just like the YMCA’s. Maybe they can hook you up with a personal trainer.

According to an Argus IRS 990 filing, the executive director was paid $134,550 in consultant fees in 2012.  As a Commissioner, Christine Robinson is paid $81,521 a year.  Sarasota County can rest easy knowing Executive Director of Argus Christine Robinson will be advising and holding accountable County Commissioner Christine Robinson, and she’ll be paid handsomely to do so. How cost effective!

Robinson justifies her new employment with a memo from the County Attorney, who says because Argus doesn’t engage in business contracts with the County, Robinson’s new employment is okay. Sarasota’s ethically-challenged status remains intact.

At least in Washington, elected officials leave office before becoming paid lobbyists.

SRQ Daily columnist Cathy Antunes serves on the boards of the Sarasota County Council of Neighborhood Associations and Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government. She blogs on local politics at www.thedetail.net

County email describes Fiscal Neutrality Methodology Project and "Public Involvement"

This email from Sarasota County Planning & Development arrived late this afternoon:

Fiscal Neutrality Methodology Development Project & Public Involvement Description

Based on your interest in the Sarasota 2050 Evaluation, Sarasota County would like to let you know about its pending process for development of a transparent methodology on Fiscal Neutrality analyses associated with Sarasota 2050 developments (please see the Project Overview description below).  The development of a Fiscal Neutrality Methodology will be coordinated through Sarasota County staff and a technical consultant, AECOM, which has been the County’s primary, independent reviewer of Fiscal Neutrality analyses.  AECOM has a national practice in conducting Fiscal Impact Analyses. 

Please be advised that there will be ongoing opportunities for public review and input throughout the process (see the Public Involvement description below).  This project is just now beginning and we estimate that the project will be approximately 7 months long.  

PROJECT OVERVIEW

OBJECTIVE

Develop a clearly understandable technical manual that establishes a methodology for determining Fiscal Neutrality on 2050 developments that can be used on a consistent basis and is transparent in its calculations.

County policy and regulations specify that the following elements of public cost for new or expanded facilities and services required due to new 2050 development be accounted for:

1.      Transportation facilities;

2.      Public transit;

3.      Schools;

4.      Water supply and delivery;

5.      Sewage transmission and treatment;

6.      Solid waste;

7.      Storm and surface water management;

8.      Law enforcement;

9.      Fire and emergency management;

10.   Justice;

11.   General government;

12.   Libraries;

13.   Parks and recreation; and

14.   Public hospitals.

County policy and regulations also specify that the Capital Costs and Operational Costs associated with each element listed above be accounted for:

·        Capital Costs – Initial cost of providing new or expanded facilities (infrastructure) for new development.

·        Operational Costs – On going cost of maintaining new or expanded facilities (infrastructure), and for providing services for new development.

Achieving the above stated objective requires not only the identification of the public costs listed above, but also:

A.     How those public costs are to be calculated;

B.     What public revenues are to be accounted for as a result of development; and

C.     How those public revenues are to be calculated.

TASK 1: Review documents and data.

1.      Review the County Fiscal Neutrality policies and regulations and provide an evaluation as to their ability to achieve the above stated objective.

2.      Identify other governmental units nationally that utilize fiscal impact analysis similar to the County, and provide an evaluation on their effectiveness.

3.      Review and evaluate common practices utilized in determining the full Capital Cost and Operational Cost for each of the listed elements above.

4.      Review the Fiscal Neutrality Plans prepared for each of the approved 2050 developments to date, and evaluate whether they have accounted for the full public costs and revenues.

5.      Review the report prepared for the County on Fiscal Neutrality dated January 31, 2014, and address issues identified.

6.      Review the methodology utilized in determining County Impact Fees for each element listed above, and evaluate whether said methodology results in a full fiscal impact accounting of the public cost associated with new development.

7.      Determine whether the methodology for each Impact Fee represents an effective way to calculate full fiscal impact.

8.      Identify a generally accepted methodology that has been utilized successfully in determining full fiscal impact for each element listed above that has potential applicability here.

TASK 2: Development of assumptions, metrics, analytical approaches.

Public Costs -

1.      Identify and quantify all public costs that are attributable to new development (review elements listed above).

2.      Identify each public cost as Capital or Operational.

3.      Relate public cost to a unit of measure derivable from a new development’s program.

Public Revenues -

1.      Identify and quantify all public revenues that are attributable to new development.

2.      Identify each public revenue source as being eligible for Capital or Operational.

3.      Relate public revenue to a unit of measure derivable from a new development’s program.

TASK 3: Prepare Technical Report. (Work Product)

1.      An analytical report providing all background/supportive documentation and references for recommended methodology.

2.      A technical manual that provides clear directions to be utilized by applicants in preparing Fiscal Neutrality Plans for 2050 developments that includes:

·        A formulated methodology capable of quantifying full public cost anticipated to be generated from 2050 developments for each element listed.

·        A formulated methodology capable of quantifying full public revenue anticipated to be generated from 2050 developments for each element listed.

·        A standardized system of comparing full public costs to full public revenues for each element listed.

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Information Collection

1.      Consultant will conduct interviews during the Task 1 phase of the project with fiscal impact practitioners and governmental practitioners of fiscal impact analysis.

2.      The consultant shall prepare a summary of each interview documenting the time and place along with the names (and who they represent) of all those present to be included within the analytical report.

3.      A questionnaire will be developed seeking input from the general public which may include various representative groups within the community during the Task 1 phase of the project.  This questionnaire will be provided at the County’s web page at www.scgov.net under ‘Sarasota 2050 Evaluation’ **.

4.      Consultant will review responses to the questionnaire and address identifiable issues within the analytical report as appropriate.

Informal Public Input

1.      All draft documents will be made available for public inspection and review on an ongoing basis at the County’s web page at www.scgov.net under ‘Sarasota 2050 Evaluation’.

a.      This web page will announce newly posted draft documents.

b.      Comments on draft documents will be gathered by county staff.

2.      County will send out notices to all contacts on Planning Services’ distribution list announcing all newly posted draft documents on the web page.

3.      All draft documents will be available during normal business hours in the Planning and Development Services Department at 1660 Ringling Blvd., 1st Floor, and written comments may be submitted to the above address, or by email to:  planner@scgov.net

Formal Public Input

1.      A draft of the Analytical Report and Technical Manual on Fiscal Neutrality will be made available for approximately one month (tentatively scheduled to occur during March). These draft documents will be available online at the County’s web page www.scgov.net (Sarasota 2050 Evaluation) and a hard-copy will be available during normal business hours in the Planning and Development Services Department at 1660 Ringling Blvd., 1st Floor. Written comments may be submitted to the above address, or by email to:  planner@scgov.net .

2.     Planning Commission Public Hearing (tentatively scheduled to occur in May).

3.      Board Public Hearing (tentatively scheduled to occur in July).

**Please note that the website content, including a questionnaire seeking input into the development a Fiscal Neutrality Methodology, is currently being developed and is scheduled to be available beginning the week of December 1^, 2014. 

For further information or questions, please contact Sarasota County Planning Development Services at (941) 861-5140 or email:planner@scgov.net .

Allen Parsons, AICP

Planning Division Manager

Sarasota County Planning & Development Services Department

1660 Ringling Blvd., 1st Floor, Sarasota , FL 34236
Mobile 941-254-1716 |  Fax  941-861-5593  

All mail sent to and from Sarasota County Government is subject to the public records law of Florida.

Planning and Development Services is committed to maintaining the highest levels of service and values your feedback. Please take a few moments to complete our Customer Service Survey here- http://bit.ly/1cPOFLC.  Thank you in advance for letting us know what you think.

Bicycle Super Highways in Denmark

via Billy Wetherington:

Regional Cooperation creates a network of bicycle super-highways around Copenhagen:

It won’t surprise anyone to hear that Copenhagen, world famous for its bicycling culture, is up to something big with bikes. What’s less well known is how Copenhagen’s latest innovation happened. It’s a remarkable story of regional cooperation, forged by one big city and 21 of its smaller suburban neighbors, who came together around a common vision for moving commuters from using their cars to riding their bicycles.

A total of 28 routes with 467 km (290 miles) of cycle paths are planned. Eleven of these will be ready by the end of 2018.

Read More 

Lobeck and Cunningham: An email exchange on transparency in Sarasota County

Email exchange of November 13-17 between attorney Dan Lobeck and Assistant County Administrator Mark Cunningham regarding the methodology for Fiscal Neutrality:

From: Mark Cunningham <mcunning@scgov.net>

Subject: Re: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Date: November 17, 2014 at 8:03:40 PM EST

To: Dan Lobeck <dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com>

Cc: Catherine Antunes <cathy.antunes@comcast.net>, Vicki Nighswander <nighswan1@gmail.com>, Thomas Polk <tpolk@scgov.net>, Allen Parsons <aparsons@scgov.net>, William Spaeth <wspaeth@scgov.net>, BCC <BCC@scgov.net>, Paul Caragiulo <Paul.Caragiulo@sarasotagov.com>, Alan Maio <amaio@scgov.net>, "josh.salman@heraldtribune.com" <josh.salman@heraldtribune.com>, "zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com" <zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com>, "Van Berkel, Jessie" <jessie.vanberkel@heraldtribune.com>, "Tryon, Tom" <tom.tryon@heraldtribune.com>, "tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com" <tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com>, William Zoller <zozz1@mac.com>

Good Afternoon Mr. Lobeck:

I have already outlined the process to you and everyone-else on this email chain.  

If you have information you want to provide germane to the subject methodology, you may do so at anytime and they will be considered and made available in an appropriate and public manner.  

As you are well aware, unless otherwise protected by law, all information submitted to the County becomes public information, are subject to public inspection, and are also subject to a public records request.  The County has always accepted input from anyone, including "stakeholders" during public proceedings, and this will also apply to this methodology process.  

If you have in your possession any "private pre-draft communication between AECOM and various development interest," please send them to me or any County employee and they will become public.  I am not aware of, nor do I have any such communications in my possession.  

If you have information of County staff facilitating such communication, please submit them to me or any County employee and they too will become public. I am not aware of any such facilitations.

Unless otherwise protected by law, all communications (including this chain of emails) with County employees are open, transparent and available to the public.  If you have information you want to submit regarding this or any other matter, please submit it and it will be considered as deem appropriate.  As you are also aware, we are governed by the "sunshine" law and we will govern ourselves accordingly.

Have a very pleasant evening.

Sincerely,

Mark A. Cunningham, AICP, CPM

Assistant County Administrator

1660 Ringling Blvd.

Sarasota, Florida 34236

Phone: 941-861-5293

Fax: 941-861-5987

Sarasota County, Florida

On Nov 17, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Dan Lobeck <dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com> wrote:

Mark:

You continue, with some exception, to answer questions other than the ones I am asking.

Please see my continuing questions in bold blue below.

I look forward to your responsive response.

Thank you,

  -- Dan Lobeck

From: Mark Cunningham [mailto:mcunning@scgov.net]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 3:34 PM
To: 'Dan Lobeck'
Cc: 'Catherine Antunes'; 'Vicki Nighswander'; Thomas Polk; Allen Parsons; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio;josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie'; 'Tryon, Tom';tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com; 'William Zoller'
Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Mr. Lobeck:

Please see below for my responses to your questions in bold red font.

Sincerely,

From: Dan Lobeck [mailto:dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 3:15 PM
To: Mark Cunningham
Cc: 'Catherine Antunes'; 'Vicki Nighswander'; Thomas Polk; Allen Parsons; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio;josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie'; 'Tryon, Tom';tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com; 'William Zoller'
Subject: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Mark:

This most certainly does not answer any of my questions.

Do you intend to answer them?

I have asked about the pre-draft input process and you keep coming back by saying that there will be an opportunity for public input on the draft.  There is not a public working group associated with this process.  It is a technical effort between County staff and AECOM; as such, there is no planned pre-draft input process.  I have not asked anything about a “public working group”.  I am concerned about private pre-draft communications between AECOM and various development interests, including but not limited to the fiscal neutrality consultant who Pat Neal has hired for that purpose and introduced at the adoption hearing on the Sarasota 2050 amendments.  The County’s contract with AECOM clearly calls for special AECOM communications with “stakeholders”, apart from any general public input on a published draft – that is what I am asking about.

My concern is that the development interests are being given exclusive and secretive input on the creation of that draft.

Again:

(1)   Are you and other County staff aware of communications by development interests with AECOM in the preparation of the draft of the fiscal neutrality methodology, to date or planned, and if so what are they?   I am not aware of any such communication.  Who on staff would know?

(2)    Have you or other County staff done anything to facilitate such communications, and if so how? Not to my knowledge.  Who on staff would know?

(3)    Will I and other taxpayer representatives on the Sarasota 2050 Task Force be given an equal opportunity to communicate with AECOM in the preparation of its draft, and if so how may we do that?  Please see the public input process outlined in my initial email.  That process only addresses public input after the draft is prepared.  The question, once again, is (emphasis added): “Will I and other taxpayer representatives on the Sarasota 2050 Task Force be given an equal opportunity to communicate with AECOM in the preparation of its draft, and if so how may we do that?” 

(4)    How does the County respond to my request that – for the sake of the transparency that the County says it seeks – such communications by development interests and others be in writing, as they are communicated or at least after the fact in notes by AECOM, and shared with other “stakeholders” including taxpayer advocates such as me?  All work products and drafts will be available on the County website as they are developed and throughout the process.  Will those “work products” include all written communications between persons in the private sector and AECOM as well as between AECOM County staff and officials?  That is what I am clearly asking about.

Please do not respond again by stating that after AECOM produces its draft it will be posted online and the public given an opportunity to comment on it.  At that point, it seems likely that the horse will be well out of the barn.

Thank you for your considerations.

  -- Dan Lobeck

From: Mark Cunningham [mailto:mcunning@scgov.net]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 2:47 PM
To: 'Dan Lobeck'
Cc: 'Catherine Antunes'; Vicki Nighswander; Thomas Polk; Allen Parsons; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio;josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie'; 'Tryon, Tom';tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com; 'William Zoller'
Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Good Afternoon Mr. Lobeck:

As I stated in my initial email to you: “all work products and drafts will be available on the County website as they are developed and throughout the process.”  I also stated in my initial email that “we are planning on allowing a one month window for input on the DRAFT technical report/Methodology.  Subsequently, additional public input will be provided for during the public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the Board.”

The above referenced opportunities and documents will be available to the public at the same time and in the same manner to ensure equity.

Sincerely,

From: Dan Lobeck [mailto:dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 11:28 AM
To: Mark Cunningham
Cc: 'Catherine Antunes'; Vicki Nighswander; Thomas Polk; Allen Parsons; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio;josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie'; 'Tryon, Tom'; tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com; 'William Zoller'
Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Are you telling me that you and other County staff are completely unaware of communications by development interests with AECOM in the preparation of the draft of the fiscal neutrality methodology, to date or planned?   

And are you telling me that you and other County staff have done and will do nothing to facilitate such communications?

What about my request for the taxpayer interests represented by the Sarasota 2050 Task Force to have comparable communications?  What about my request that such communications by development interests and others be in writing, as they are communicated or at least after the fact in notes by AECOM, and shared with other “stakeholders” including taxpayer advocates such as me?

It will be a farce if the developers are given exclusive, secretive access to AECOM in the creation of the draft and then there is the charade of an open process in the vetting of that draft.

Is that what you want? 

There is a limited opportunity to prevent that charade, if you desired to do so.

Again, thank you for your considerations.

  -- Dan Lobeck

From: Mark Cunningham [mailto:mcunning@scgov.net]
Sent: Monday, November 17, 2014 9:38 AM
To: 'Dan Lobeck'
Cc: 'Catherine Antunes'; Vicki Nighswander; Thomas Polk; Allen Parsons; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio;josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie'; 'Tryon, Tom';tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com; 'William Zoller'
Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Good Morning Mr. Lobeck:

As stated in my previous email, the development of the Fiscal Neutrality Methodology will be coordinated through Sarasota County staff and the technical consultant, AECOM.  There is not a public working group associated with this process.  The public input process is outlined below, will be available to all, and allows equal opportunity for all.  I cannot speak to your claim of “development interests are already hard at work influence the draft,”  as County staff has no such meetings planned or scheduled.  Again, there are no public working groups.

Sincerely,

From: Dan Lobeck [mailto:dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 4:11 PM
To: Mark Cunningham
Cc: 'Catherine Antunes'; Vicki Nighswander; Thomas Polk; Allen Parsons; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio;josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie'; 'Tryon, Tom';tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com; 'William Zoller'
Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Mark:

Thank you for your email.

However, you have not responded to any of my specific requests for measures that would provide transparency and inclusiveness in the process.  Am I to take it that those requests are denied?

Significantly, you do not address at all the opportunities for public input and transparency during the three months that lead up to AECOM’s production of a draft Methodology.  That may be the most important time at all, with the post-draft process you describe being an attempt to ride a horse that is already galloping out of the barn.   

I am very sure that the development interests are already hard at work influencing that draft, including through the opportunities given to “stakeholders” for private input in the County’s contract with AECOM.  Are the taxpayers not to be provided access to those communications or to be given comparable opportunities for input to AECOM’s preparation of the draft?

I look forward to your response to this at your earliest opportunity.

Thank you for your considerations,

  -- Dan Lobeck

From: Mark Cunningham [mailto:mcunning@scgov.net]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 3:33 PM
To: Dan Lobeck; 'Catherine Antunes'; Vicki Nighswander
Cc: Thomas Polk; Allen Parsons; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio
Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Good Afternoon Mr. Lobeck, et al:

Over the past few days, several emails were sent to the Sarasota County Board of Commissioners (the Board) under the subject heading regarding public input associate with the development and adoption of the pending Fiscal Neutrality Methodology.  As such, I would like to take this opportunity shine some light on the process going forward.

The development of the Fiscal Neutrality Methodology will be coordinated through Sarasota County staff and a technical consultant, AECOM, which has been the County’s primary, independent reviewer of Fiscal Neutrality analyses.  AECOM has a national practice in conducting Fiscal Impact Analyses. 

Please be advised that there is not a public working group associated with the development of this Methodology.  Notwithstanding, there will be several opportunities for public review & input, the first of which will occur at a milestone that will result in a DRAFT technical report/Methodology.  We anticipate this will occur approximately 3 months into the process.  We estimate that the project will be approximately 7 months long.  We are planning on allowing one month window for input on the DRAFT technical report/Methodology.  Subsequently, additional public input will be provided for during the public hearings before both the Planning Commission and the Board. 

Below are the project steps that include public input: 

1.      A draft document will be made available for public review (scheduled to occur through the month of March).

·        Drafts sent to the Planning contact lists requesting feedback.

·        Drafts posted on County web page for 2050 Evaluation with request for feedback.

·        Advertisements for comment period are posted in paper and on County web sites.

2.      Public comments are compiled and digested by staff and consultant in drafting revisions to the draft analytical report and technical manual.

3.      Public hearing advertised for and scheduled in front of the Planning Commission.

4.      Public comments are compiled and digested by staff and consultant in drafting revisions to the draft analytical report and technical manual.

5.      Public hearing advertised for and scheduled in front of the Board.

6.      Public comments are compiled and digested by staff and consultant in drafting revisions to the draft analytical report and technical manual.

7.      Board approves a Resolution adopting a set methodology for determining Fiscal Neutrality on 2050 developments.

In addition to the above, all work products and drafts will be available on the County website as they are developed and throughout the process.

If you have any additional questions, please let me, and I will ensure that staff provide a timely response.  Please feel free to forward this email to all interested parties.

Sincerely,

Mark A. Cunningham, AICP, CPM

Assistant County Administrator

1660 Ringling Blvd.

Sarasota, FL 34236

Phone: 941-861-5293

Fax: 941-861-5987

Email: mcunning@scgov.net

From: Dan Lobeck [mailto:dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2014 5:03 PM
To: Joseph Barbetta; Carolyn Mason; Nora Patterson; Christine Robinson; Charles D. Hines; Alan Maio;Paul.Caragiulo@sarasotagov.com
Cc: Allen Parsons; 'Vicki Nighswander'; 'Catherine Antunes'; 'Larry Grossman'; 'William Zoller';zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie';tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com
Subject: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Commissioners:

This is to follow up requests by the Sarasota 2050 Action Network for transparency and public participation in the formulation of a new fiscal neutrality methodology by the County’s consultant for that purpose, AECOM.

I have reviewed your contract with AECOM.  There are numerous provisions for consultations between the consultant and “stakeholders”, presumably representatives of development interests.

Two points:

(1)    Certainly, taxpayers are stakeholders in this too.  As such, this is to request an opportunity for participation by me and other representatives of the Sarasota 2050 Action Network in the formulation of the fiscal neutrality methodology, equal to that given to the development interests.

(2)    All steps needed to make this a transparent process should be undertaken, as transparency is the stated goal of the new methodology and it will have no chance at credibility if the process is not transparent.  There should be no secret, behind-the-scenes machinations by development interests to influence AECOM to formulate a methodology that favors developers’ interests over the taxpayers’ interests.  As such, this is to request that the County require that all communications with AECOM about the methodology be in writing and that all such communications (including all to date) be promptly provided to other stakeholders requesting a copy, including by this request Cathy Antunes as chair of the Sarasota 2050 Action Network and myself.  Also, if there are to be communications to AECOM verbally rather than in writing, this is to request that AECOM be required to make an accurate and complete written report of all such communications, and again that such reports be provided to all stakeholders who request them, such as is hereby provided.  Further, this is to request that all stakeholders, including the Sarasota 2050 Action Network and myself, be given notice of any conferences by stakeholders, staff or Commissioners with AECOM, upon such meetings being scheduled and be provided an opportunity to sit in on such conferences to unobtrusively observe and record.

I look forward to a substantive response for the County at the earliest opportunity.

Thank you for your considerations of this request. 

Dan Lobeck

President, Control Growth Now