Reliable Unreliability: AECOM, ARGUS, and the parody of Civic Responsibility in Sarasota County, FL

The AECOM report on Fiscal Neutrality Methodology offers this interesting disclaimer:

This document was prepared solely for the use by the Client. No party may rely on this report except the Client or a party so authorized by AECOM in writing (including, without limitation, in the form of a reliance letter). Any party who is entitled to rely on this document may do so only on the document in its entirety and not on any excerpt or summary. Entitlement to rely upon this document is conditioned upon the entitled party accepting full responsibility and not holding AECOM liable in any way for any impacts on the forecasts or the earnings from (project name) resulting from changes in "external" factors such as changes in government policy, in the pricing of commodities and materials, price levels generally, competitive alternatives to the project, the behaviour of consumers or competitors and changes in the owners’ policies affecting the operation of their projects. 

This hilarious spectacle of a consultant backing away from its own product comes after a series of hedges and admonitions early in the paper that repeatedly express skepticism about the very possibility of coming up with a reliable methodology. What comes across most emphatically in the AECOM report is that Fiscal Neutrality Methodology -- and in particular, the AECOM presentation to the Sarasota County Commission about it -- are what the term "unreliable" was invented to mean.

Sarasota Taxpayers paid how much for this?

Last year, when the County was choosing AECOM and planning a series of meetings with the new consultant, a group of residents asked to be included in the meetings. The idea was to avoid what has happened so often in the past: The County meets with representatives of only one side of a countywide civic issue that has at least two sides, and they hash out a "plan," which is then presented as if it were somehow the distilled brainstorm of all of the people (see, for example, what happened with the revisions to the 2050 plan.)

Citizens for Sarasota County asked that one or two residents be included so that actual people would have a voice in the process. It would have brought an added perspective, they argued. Instead, we the people have the opportunity on July 8, 2015, to kill a few minutes speaking in a hearing after all was "worked out" to the satisfaction of County staff, its "Unreliable 'R' Us" consultants, and the developers to whom their bosses owe their loyalty.

Of course the citizens' request to participate was denied -- for reasons yet to be distinctly made clear.

What is clear, on the other hand, is that the developer + finance + construction sector of the Sarasota economy has a strong and intimate relationship to the outcome of the AECOM decision: One Commissioner, Christine Robinson, is also the salaried executive director of the Developer-Driven Argus Foundation. The other four Commissioners have only offered silence when the community sought to challenge the legitimacy of a public official simultaneously required to execute the business of a private lobbying group.

Perhaps the most reliable thing to come out of any hearing about AECOM's Fiscal Neutrality Guidance document is that the Community had no say in the development of its proposals, and will have no influence over their adoption. This in fact is how things work when what you have is the very definition of an oligarchy.

Other citizens' comments on the Fiscal Neutrality Report are here.

AECOM's Mythology of Fiscal Neutrality: Dan Lobeck

The Arduin scam:

See Cathy Antunes

See the Herald Tribune

From attorney Dan Lobeck:

Note: The Sarasota County Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Fiscal Neutrality, the subject discussed below, Thursday, May 21, 2015, inconveniently placed near the end of its agenda at a meeting that begins at 6:30 at the Anderson Administration Building in Venice. Although concerned citizens are urged to appear and speak out, unfortunately another commitment prevents my participation at this meeting. Nevertheless, I have provided these comments for the record and urge others to do so, at the meeting or by email to Sarasota County Officials. The County Commission will have a public hearing on the Fiscal Neutrality changes which is tentatively scheduled for July 8.

Please note also that the County Commission has scheduled meetings on its Mobility Plan, a scheme to further slash road impact fees, relieve developers of traffic studies and their proportionate share of road improvements by repealing concurrency, and embrace traffic congestion by those actions as well as by abandoning most road improvements, on the premise that we should be forced to walk and bike wherever we go as well as take buses that get caught in gridlock too.

This outrageous proposal, which Commissioners Maio and Hines say “excites” them, is scheduled for a “workshop” (probably a walkaround to talk with staff) at 2 pm Thursday May 28 at the County Operations Center at 1001 Center Boulevard. A draft of the proposal will then be presented to the County Commission at its June 2 meeting. A public hearing for formal consideration will be scheduled at a future date.

I will seek to keep you posted.

-- Dan Lobeck
Control Growth Now Website

Gutting Fiscal Neutrality

After gutting the rest of the Sarasota 2050 Plan and some parts of fiscal neutrality, the County Commission hired political consultant Donna Arduin to review fiscal neutrality, the requirement that Sarasota 2050 developments (urban growth allowed in rural lands) pay their own way. She recommended that it be repealed, as well as virtually all other controls on development in the County. (The County Administrator Randy Reid had recommended that a neutral expert academic be hired for that review, but he was fired for that and for other postures that did not please the big developers). Next, the Commission hired AECOM, which has a history of giving a pass to developers in its “independent” reviews of their fiscal neutrality reports, despite demonstrated flaws.

Now as the County’s fiscal neutrality consultant, AECOM has produced a revised “methodology” for developers to prove their Sarasota 2050 developments are not a burden on the taxpayers. It is more a mythology than a methodology, a fiction designed to insure that developers pay no more than other developers in the County, which is far too low to make growth pay its own way, as evidenced by ever-growing shortfalls today in meeting the demands of new development.

Consider for example that the County Commission recently concluded that it is $350 million dollars short in funds for needed expansion of administrative and justice facilities, evidence that County impact fees for those purposes are inadequate. And the lack of sufficient impact fee revenue for a new fire station near the University Town Center Mall. And on and on. Impact fees are demonstrably insufficient for fiscal neutrality. That is why fiscal neutrality was created in the Sarasota 2050 Plan, to add revenue to that produced by impact fees in order to achieve true fiscal neutrality. Now AECOM, and the County Commission if it adopts its report, would throw fiscal neutrality in the trash.

For operating expenses in a fiscal neutrality report, AECOM requires merely a simple “per-capita” analysis. That simply divides the total County budget for each category of expense (law enforcement, fire and rescue, general government, etc.) by the total County population and then multiplies that by the number of residents in the new development, or the proportionate property value of nonresidential development.

AECOM rejects the “case study” approach which it says is used in some fiscal neutrality analyses, saying that is “difficult” for a developer because it “requires an ample amount of time and budget to conduct.” However, that ignores the fact that urban development in rural lands will be more expensive for the County to service in many regards, such as longer trips for law enforcement, fire and rescue, code enforcement and other purposes.

For capital expenses, AECOM says that impact fees will be deemed sufficient, except where County staff somehow identifies an “extraordinary expense” which it requires the developer to pay. Again, no specific study is required to determine each capital facility impact of the development.

This directly and indisputably violates Section 11.2.14.b.3 of the Sarasota County Zoning Code, which provides, “Fiscal Neutrality shall be determined for each development project on a case-by-case basis, considering the location, phasing, and development program of the project.” So AECOM rejects the “case study” approach to fiscal neutrality because it is difficult and expensive for the developer, even though the County Code requires it!

AECOM’s rejection of the “case study” approach also violates Policy VOS 2.9 of the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan, which requires a detailed report of anticipated facility needs and expenses for each proposed Sarasota 2050 development “on a case-by case basis” for its impact on a list of public facilities depending on the location, phasing and program of the development, according to procedures adopted by the County. Very significantly, that legally binding and mandatory Comprehensive Plan policy then states: “For off-site impacts, the procedures will require that the total proportionate share cost of infrastructure be included and not simply the existing impact fee rates” (emphasis added). Not just “extraordinary expenses”, as AECOM would require, but all expenses for the expansion of public facilities.

For example, if impact fees for courts, jails and administrative facilities are too low, as is evident by the current large shortfall for those needs, a Sarasota 2050 developer would be required to pay nothing for those facilities beyond the lowballed impact fees, unless an “extraordinary expense” for those purposes was identified by County staff to be specifically triggered by that particular development. And the same for roads throughout the County and for all other facilities.

AECOM states in its initial draft that a detailed study should not be required because that would be costly to the developer and as such might “have the effect of deterring development.” Can the bias for the developer and against the taxpayer be any more evident?

Section 11.2.14 of the Sarasota County Zoning Code also provides at substantial length the requirements for a detailed analysis of the facility and service impacts of each Sarasota 2050 development, including a specific assessment of each facility impacted by the development according to the County’s adopted levels of service. It further provides, “The [Fiscal Neutrality] Plan shall include reasonable estimates of the cost of such facilities, prepared by a civil engineer, registered in the state of Florida.”

Indeed, AECOM itself, in providing a required independent review of one fiscal neutrality report, faulted it for failing to include those cost estimates by a civil engineer. (The County Commission ended up approving that report despite that legal violation, against the recommendation of its Planning Commission, which sought denial because of that violation and others).

It should also be noted that County financial staff, in reviewing a fiscal neutrality report by Henry Fishkind for Village of Lakewood Ranch South, faulted his conclusion that impact fees are adequate for fiscal neutrality, observing that in fact they are not because impact fees have been proven over time to produce inadequate revenues to pay for all required new public facilities.

Further, the Sarasota County Commission has never implemented full impact fees, most recently slashing already reduced road impact fees by 50% and now proposing to cut them even further, including for “mixed use” developments which may include Sarasota 2050 Villages.

AECOM even states that if impact fees are “temporarily” suspended or reduced even below the artificially reduced rate at which they are adopted, revenues from full impact fees shall be assumed. Although AECOM now states in its revised report that the developer in that instance shall provide a plan to “mitigate” that circumstance, it gives the developer an out. It provides that the developer, as an option to paying higher impact fees, may propose that the County reduce capital facility expenditures – even though that may inadequately handle the development’s impacts -- or “identify other revenue sources.”

Further, by accepting impact fees as adequate to pay for roads, other than “extraordinary expenses” of the County which immediately serve that development, AECOM ignores the requirement of the Comprehensive Plan that fiscal neutrality pay for “Countywide impacts on County, City, State and Federal transportation facilities.” Impact fees are levied only for County-funded roads, excluding for example I-75, on which Sarasota 2050 developments will have a huge impact. The Comprehensive Plan requires that Sarasota 2050 developers pay the County for those impacts, which the County then would contribute towards needed improvements of those state and federal roads.

Although AECOM states that if a developer is required to pay a proportionate share of the cost of any specific road improvement, that will be added to its fiscal neutrality payment. However, in its pending “Mobility Plan”, the Sarasota County Commission has proposed to repeal the current requirement for a developer to identify and pay for such costs, known as concurrency. Also, although that requirement was also contained in the state law for a Development of Regional Impact (which Sarasota 2050 Villages are generally big enough to fall under), that law was repealed by the 2015 Florida Legislature. So that proportionate share requirement will soon be meaningless.

Although the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan explicitly requires that each fiscal neutrality analysis conduct an inventory of the facility improvements required for each Sarasota 2050 development, AECOM in its initial report dismissed that legally binding requirement as not “feasible” due to the time and cost of that study by the developer.

AECOM also violates the Comprehensive Plan by excluding public hospitals and transit as expenses for which the developer must pay its share, in AECOM’s latest draft of its Fiscal Neutrality Guide. Although AECOM begrudingly revised its Analysis to acknowledge that hospital and transit impacts are required (after its omission of those expenses in its initial draft was criticized) it continues to omit them in the AECOM Fiscal Neutrality Guide itself. Even in the revised analysis, AECOM states that only a “marginal” consideration of hospitals and transit should be provided, after interviews with hospital and transit staff, not based on a professional study of the development’s impacts on hospital and transit needs, as required by the Comprehensive Plan and County Code.

AECOM also violates the Comprehensive Plan by omitting water supply and delivery, sewage transmission and treatment, solid waste and storm and surface water management from fiscal neutrality analysis, again on the basis that there are impact fees for such facilities and that they are funded by utility rates. What this disregards is that taxes and utility rates are also used for those purposes. Fiscal neutrality requires that the applicant demonstrate that taxpayers and ratepayers will not have to pay for facility improvements required to serve the Sarasota 2050 development.

AECOM allows a developer to overestimate income by assuming tax revenues in the year occupied, even though AECOM acknowledges that “there is typically a ‘lag’ of one year” after occupancy for taxes to begin to be assessed. This is typical of AECOM overstating revenues and understating expenses, to the benefit of the developer and the detriment of the taxpayers. Because of the one year lag, tax revenues should be counted beginning in the year following occupancy. AECOM offers as its only explanation for its recommendation that it is a matter of “simplicity”. Starting tax revenues in the year after occupancy is not only also simple, it is by contrast accurate.

AECOM allows a developer to assume revenue from commercial development based on the gas tax and telecommunications tax paid by the employees. While there is some basis to allow a count of some portion of an employee’ gas tax, it overstates revenue to allow all of that gas tax because only part of the employee’s driving is to and from work. And there is no basis whatsoever for counting the telecommunication (phone and Internet bill) tax paid by the employees.

This gutting of fiscal neutrality, if approved by the County Commission, is a betrayal to the taxpayers as and a threat to the adequacy of public facilities. It well serves the big developers who are so influential in recruiting and bankrolling County Commission candidates but it ill serves those who our public servants are supposed to be elected to serve.

-- Dan Lobeck

More Public Comments on the AECOM Fiscal Neutrality Methodology 

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.

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