Will Sarasota Taxpayers give Benderson another Bail-Out?

Sarasota citizens Pat Rounds and Bill Zoller have been tracking the development and funding of the Benderson Rowing Park since 2013. Below is an email circulated by Rounds regarding the County's reported intention to consider giving Benderson another $20 million in tax dollars:

=====

May 8, 2022

Why is the County Commission considering a $20 million “bail-out” for SANCA and Benderson Park Foundation? 

Years ago, both organizations pledged to raise private millions to build a permanent boat house, grandstands and restrooms at Benderson Rowing Park.They never delivered on their promises.  

 

If you think this bail-out proposal is totally irresponsible, please share your views with the County Commission:

mmoran@scgov.net

cziegler@scgov.net

ncdetert@scgov.net

amaio@scgov.net

rcutsinger@scgov.net

commissioners@scgov.net

 

Please forward this message to others who value fiscal responsibility. See details below:

 

On Tuesday, May 10, 2022, the Sarasota County Commission will consider allocating another $20 million to complete the “World Class” Benderson Rowing Park promised in 2013 to be funded through a “public/private” partnership. 

While Sarasota County approved $19.5 public million in 2013 for park infrastructure in plans to host the 2017 World Rowing Championships, the private millions pledged for a permanent boat house, grandstands and restrooms have never materialized. This failure to deliver has sparked public concern for years.

 

More from the Sarasota News Leader

 

Now some officials are returning to the public trough to fill the massive funding chasm created when the County Commission apparently failed to demand a binding commitment from private partners at the time this huge venture was initiated. Sarasota County should not approve any more public funding—regardless of the source.  Nine years ago, the County approved $19.5 million through a bonding provision in the County Charter, using Tourist Development Tax (TDT). It’s past time for SANCA and Benderson Park Foundation to deliver on the private millions promised years ago, but not delivered.  Hollow private funding pledges should be denounced, not minimized and rewarded with more public millions.  

 

Corroborating documentation: 

• Attached is a copy of the 2013 County Press Release announcing the 2017 World Rowing Championships at Benderson Rowing Park. SANCA would raise private funds for Phase III permanent structures (boat house, grandstands and restrooms) in time for the 2017 World Rowing Championships (WRC). The boathouse and grandstands were not built, so to avoid an international embarrassment---the State Legislature approved an extra $5 million to rent temporary facilities (bleachers, tents/showers for rowers, portable toilets, etc.) for the WRC.  

 

From the 2013 County Press Release:

“...More than $40 million in public and private-sector funds have been committed to help transform a former borrow pit into Nathan Benderson Park, the premier rowing venue in North America, capable of hosting an Olympic-caliber event. Sarasota County's investment, $19.5 million, comes from a Tourist Development Tax (TDT), which is paid by visitors to the area. Those funds have paid for Phase I (dredge and fill) and Phase II (installation of park amenities, hardscaping and landscaping). Phase III of the project, construction of a state-of-the-art boathouse, timing towers, grandstands and other amenities, will be funded by SANCA and corporate support...”

 

• See 2017 ABC/Tampa investigation on the rowing park. 

• Note the grandiose aerial vision of the rowing complex and how a SANCA board member appeals for more public funds to match an uncorroborated claim of private millions raised to finish the park.  Nothing has changed---Hollow promises of private funding followed by requests for more public funding. 
• 
  

           Rowing Park Controversy (ABC/Tampa investigation on Youtube)

 

     Is there a conflict with the Sarasota County Charter?

• Note portion of County Charter, Section 5.2D (Bonding Limitation)

...Any issuance of such notes, bonds, certificates of participation or other instrument of indebtedness in a principal amount exceeding that fiscal year's bonding limitation must have prior approval by majority vote at a referendum specifically authorizing the issuance of such an instrument of indebtedness in excess of that year's bonding limitation...The County may not avoid the requirements hereof by issuing or causing to be issued notes, bonds, certificates of participation or other instruments of indebtedness which reflect a single, simultaneous or concurrent undertaking but which have been divided in such fashion so as to avoid the limitations as herein set forth. (Section 5.2 Amended 11/6/1984, 11/8/1994, 3/14/2000, and 9/10/2002, and Renumbered 8/31/2004.)”

           In 2013, the County Commission approved the maximum bonding allowed to pay for rowing park infrastructure without triggering a county-wide referendum. 

         Doesn't the County Charter prohibit issuing multiple bonds for the same project without holding a public referendum?    

Pat Rounds

 

Additional background articles:

2013—Herald Tribune:  $20 million in private donations needed to complete rowing park.

“...They need $20 million from private donors to finish the complex and deliver on the promise of a truly exceptional sports venue, a huge task to complete before 2017, when backers of the project hope to host rowing's greatest competition outside the Olympics, the world championships.

All of the key structures needed to define the rowing venue as a world-class attraction — from the finish line tower to timing huts, grandstands and a boathouse — must be financed through private donations.

Some of those structures are essential to hosting the rowing championships. Ideally, the entire project would be built out in time for the event.

Yet no money has been raised and the two-year-old nonprofit handling fundraising already has reshuffled board members.

2015—Herald Tribune: Foundation raises funds for Nathan Benderson Park

“....A new foundation headed by community and political leaders has raised $3.5 million for Nathan Benderson Park and hopes to raise at least $11 million in private donations for the emerging international rowing venue over the next 12 months.

The Nathan Benderson Park Foundation, headed by Randy Benderson of the Manatee County-based real estate firm, aims to be the fundraising arm that will draw the private financial support needed to complete the rowing facility's major structures. The nonprofit organization, which is separate from the Suncoast Aquatic Nature Center Associates — another nonprofit that is responsible for the park operations — will continue to raise donations to help build towers at the start and finish lines, a boathouse and several other buildings at the park..”

Living history from past through present to future

Commissioners:

I write to request that you adopt proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2019-C.  This unique amendment arose from concerns by a community of citizens of the Old Miakka area about the Hamlet designation of properties whose development could have a major detrimental impact on the Old Miakka Community.  

The “unique” aspect of this proposed amendment is that it came from the unity in the community about protecting the special rural quality of the area.  This is the quality that drew these long-time residents to Old Miakka, and as we all know, the eastward march of development is a threat to not only the Old Miakka Community, but to the agriculture, wildlife, and environmental resources of this area.

It is important to understand as well that the Old Miakka Community is descended from the pioneers who settled Sarasota back in the 1800’s, and thus is an important link to the cultural and historical development of Sarasota.  

While we may not be too numerous, there are those of us here who are descendants of those pioneers, and we care deeply about maintaining the rural quality of East County.  My great-grandfather, Garrett Murphy, an early cattleman settler, sold a part of his ranch to Mrs. Palmer, which became her Sweet Meadows Ranch.  His ranch, along with Mrs. Palmer’s ranch, is now the heart of Myakka River State Park.  

At the moment, Sarasota is fortunate to have this “living history” available to everyone in the County.  The important word here, is, “living”.  Old Miakka is a thriving, stable community, and it is to the benefit of all of our citizens to offer maximum protection to keep and to preserve it far into the future.  

Old Miakka United Methodist Church

Today, I can visit the little church in the heart of Old Miakka, and there I can see the Murphy Window, given by my ancestors long ago, as well as the Rawls window on the other side of the altar, knowing that I and descendants of the Rawls family are still here, and, in fact, live a few doors down from each other on McKown Road.   

If we succumb to development pressure, and lose this living history, along with the protection of all of those rural resources, we will never, ever get them back.

The Old Miakka Community based this proposal on the Community Plan that was developed with and by the County a few years ago, and that is, in itself, an inspirational story that can encourage other areas of the community to revisit the community plans that were developed for them (Bee Ridge Community Plan, etc.).  

It is time to give meaning to those efforts of developing the community plans, by showing how they can be implemented, instead of just existing on a dusty shelf, never to be seen again.  This amendment deserves and needs to be adopted.

William C. Zoller

6375 McKown Road
Sarasota

Citizen Power at Fogartyville

This past Tuesday evening, Cathy Antunes spoke with Pat Rounds and Bill Zoller, both longtime advocates for sensible planning and for the public good. The topic was Single Member Voting Districts: how the new electoral structure put in place by a citizens' amendment will actually work in the 2020 election. 

Alice White District 5

Fredd Atkins

They also talked of pushback: The County immediately redistricted in order to remove potential opponents to sitting Commissioners Mike Moran and Nancy Detert, using a map fashioned by the invisible hand of Bob "Adam Smith" Waechter. 

And they noted that the County has also amended the Charter to make citizen amendments so difficult as to be essentially obsolete.

The video is here, with links to the entire evening's discussion. including a lively Q & A with those in the audience. 

Two candidates for the Board were also present: Alice White (People for Trees) is running in district 5, and Fredd Atkins, currently in district Limbo until a a federal lawsuit against the Board is resolved. This year's election holds the opportunity to change the course of Sarasota's public sector. Citizens for District Power is a new group working on getting out the vote. Have a look:

Rounds, Zoller, Antunes: Single Member Districts and Citizen Power

Single Member Voting and Citizen Power

Community activist, blogger and WSLR radio host Cathy Antunes talks with Pat Rounds and Bill Zoller about the big changes to how we vote in Sarasota County, and the reaction from the developer-controlled political operators. Rounds and Zoller describe the new non-partisan group, Citizens for District Power. (If you wish to find out more about this new group, just drop an email to Citizens4DistrictPower@gmail.com.) They spoke at Fogartyville on Feb. 25, 2020.  

The first video of the set is below. You'll find the full discussion and Q & A with the very engaged audience at Fogartyville here.

Further dimensions of the single member voting issue:

When an amendment to switch Sarasota County elections to Single Member District Voting was presented on the ballot (thanks to citizens like Kindra Muntz, Pat Rounds and many more who dedicated hundreds of hours obtaining 15,000 verified signatures on a petition that changed the structure of County elections), the pushback from developers was immediate and intense. Read about that in

The Syndicate Strikes Back.

For more on the intricate way that developer money has infected and infested Sarasota's local elections for years, here's Antunes on Dark Money.

“Transparent” redistricting of Sarasota County in 2019?

The Sarasota County Commission is currently assessing the need to redistrict our county in 2019---which could change the boundaries of our five voting districts BEFORE the scheduled 2020 US Census.  If you think that citizens should play an active role in this process, contact our County Commissioners now!

Source: Sarasota County

Last November, voters in Sarasota County sent our County Commission a clear message. In all five Districts, voters overwhelmingly approved more direct and accountable representation from our County Commission. Starting in 2020, each Commissioner will be elected solely by the voters in his/her Voting District -- a major change from the past countywide voting system.

But in the meantime, our current County Commission is considering making changes to our Voting District boundaries this year--starting in early May. Commissioners (including two up for re-election--Mike Moran/Dist. 1, Nancy Detert/Dist. 3, and one departing due to term limits--Charles Hines/Dist. 5)  would orchestrate this process themselves rather than taking the course recommended by the League of Women Voters/Sarasota County: Empanel an independent, expert committee of citizens who are not seeking public office.  

The LWV also stated that when "diverse stakeholders are left out of the redistricting process, it’s more likely that elected officials will choose their voters than voters will be empowered to choose their elected officials."  Link

At minimum, any County-level redistricting process must be fully transparent and should include input and feedback from county residents from start to finish.  In advance of Commission discussions or decisions, residents should know key background information--including: 

·  What universal criteria determine the need to redistrict---FL Statutes, etc? 

·  Which standardized data sources will be used to determine current population (US Census, other?) 

·  What methods and software will be used to "balance" each district?  

Such questions have been posed to Sarasota County, but not answered. Waiting until County staff delivers a report to the Commission in early May is not adequate or appropriate. Residents and voters should not be passive bystanders in this process. We need answers to key questions before the May meeting, preferably at a public, interactive workshop. 

A news report on the County Commission meeting on April 9th indicated that Commissioner Detert proposes that Commissioners "make this the most open, transparent and, frankly, televised exercise that the county's ever been through." "...Additionally, Detert said, “I think we all need to work on restoring the average person’s faith in their own government."

Please act now. Words and promises alone mean little. Send a message to our five Commissioners at https://www.scgov.net/government/county-commission-bcc. We the People must play a key and active role in the County redistricting process. Your vote is your voice.  

Kindra Muntz, President, Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections

Bill Zoller, Past President, Sarasota County Council of Neighborhood Assoc. (CONA/Sarasota)

Pat Rounds, Past Sec'y, Sarasota Alliance for Fair Elections

Related links:

BCC Rules of Procedure - Exhibit A to R2019-024 

BCC District 1

BCC District 2

BCC District 3

BCC District 4

BCC District 5

BCC Voting Precincts 

The Board of Sarasota County Commissioners may be reached at commissioners@scgov.net.

Michael A. Moran District 1 (Vice Chair)	Christian Ziegler District 2	Nancy C. Detert District 3	Alan Maio District 4	Charles D. Hines District 5 (Chair)

Tampa Media covers Benderson Park Funding Controversy

Sarasota media have avoided grappling with this story. Pat Rounds has been working on it for years.

 

Letters opposing dump keep coming

Commissioners:

I am a long-time resident of Sarasota County, and I am writing today to request that you deny the above-referenced petitions.  Living not far from the Celery Fields since 1972, I have observed the transition from active celery production to a valuable stormwater, recreation, and wildlife facility. This property, and the open space around it, has become a very special place…to residents and to visitors and tourists alike.  When the County purchased these lands from primarily the Ferlisi and Walker families for the intended purpose of preventing future flooding, it was not generally realized that this intended purpose would turn out to be just one of many important benefits to the community.

Celery Fields North Cell and "Mt. Celery"

As the Celery Fields stormwater facility came to fruition, the area to the east was largely undeveloped, and there were some small light industrial uses to the west.  As the ponds began to fill, and plants grew, the birds and other wildlife began to flock to this “refuge”.  Sarasota Audubon was quick to understand what a unique opportunity this presented, and through their efforts, the County came on board to assist in making the Celery Fields a birding destination.  Not only did the birds flock to the Celery Fields, but so did the eco-tourists…from all over the world.  Over the past few years, Audubon and the County made an arrangement that permitted Audubon to build a first-class resource facility right at the center of the Celery Fields.  I’m sure a look at the Audubon guestbook would reveal a startling number of visitors from far and wide.

When Palmer Boulevard was repaired and improved (while still remaining a two-lane road), the County erected tall, large lights along the road.  It became immediately apparent to citizens and to Audubon, that these lights could be a serious threat to the nesting and breeding of the birds and other creatures that made the Celery Fields their home.  When this was brought to the County’s attention, the County recognized the vulnerability and sensitivity of the wildlife, and realized that the lights were, indeed a threat.  In fact, while the County did not remove the lights (in case they might be needed in a storm/flood emergency, other than for testing, they have never been turned on…they remain dark to this day.  They remain dark because it is the right thing to do…and because a threat to the success of the Celery Fields as a nature/wildlife preserve is a threat to eco-tourism, which is a threat to our tourist economy.

This preamble brings us to the subject at hand: an industrial construction debris processing plant proposed for the edge of the Celery Fields.  While many of the assertions made by the applicant in his submittal lack documentation (as required), and can be examined in detail, the crux of the matter comes down to the compatibility of this sort of noisy, dusty, plant with the valuable recreational/nature/wildlife preserve that is the Celery Fields.  The County itself has, as outlined above, recognized the vulnerability of the wildlife in the Celery Fields; the County has recognized that turning on the lights would be a big risk…a risk they were unwilling to take.  Is not a construction debris processing plant a risk to the welfare of the wildlife?  The proposed facility will grind, crush, and haul away concrete, wood, metal, plastics, and all manner of material, some of which may well contain toxic materials. With the eastern areas out along Palmer Blvd. having been developed over the past few years, residential traffic has increased many-fold on the road.  The trucks that would haul these materials in and out would also create heavy traffic on an already inadequate road, in addition to more noise and pollution.   Is this a risk worth taking?

During his presentation to the Planning Commission, Mr. Gabbert gave a detailed discussion of the monitoring and inspection routines required by various agencies in order to minimize the dangers inherent in this sort of facility.  That is exactly the point here. How many events have proved that there is no fail-safe facility with inherent risks; think of the BP disaster in the Gulf; the failure of the Piney Point slime ponds; the sinkhole at Mosaic; dam failures; and on and on.  Mr. Gabbert’s testimony simply made very clear that his proposed facility is risky; in case of a failure, with environmental damage to the Celery Fields, Phillipi Creek, and on to the Bay, are you willing to vote to take that risk?

While the application asserts that no endangered wildlife has been seen on the site, where is a report by a qualified expert documenting this statement?  There are statements about noise levels of similar facilities in the area, but where is a report laying out these levels, including the noise levels of the surrounding areas of those facilities (keeping in mind that the Celery Fields area is a very quiet area)?  The vagueness of these sorts of statements calls into question where staff’s reassurances come from.  Is staff qualified in each of these technical areas to render judgment on the validity of the applicant’s assertions, given a lack of qualified documentation?

Commissioners, you are familiar with the Celery Fields.  You understand the vulnerabilities of the plants and creatures to noise and to pollution of air or water.  Sarasota has a world-class triple-duty facility that is enjoyed by residents and visitors, and that brings substantial economic benefits to the County.  We always come back to the issues of the health, safety, and welfare of the entire community. The benefit to one must be weighed against the risk to all; is it worth risking?

Again, Commissioners, please deny these petitions for a construction waste processing plant  To answer my own question, No, it is not worth the risk.

Sincerely yours,

William C. Zoller

+=======+

Commissioners  

I am a year round resident of Sarasota, a home owner, registered voter and hold a county business license. I am a believer in Verace, an Italian word for truth and authenticity.  

Tomorrow, on August 23rd, you will be making quite possibly the biggest decision of not only your tenure as elected officials, but also one that will be affecting hundreds of thousands of local residents and visitors alike. By now you are inundated with e-mails covering virtual every aspect of this proposed open air “Dump” facility. The sensitivity of this issue goes way beyond Sarasota County. It is essentially at the heart and soul of the fight to keep our planet from becoming a place of urban sprawl and desolation. We can all agree a healthy planet makes for a happy people.

I live 2000 feet SSE of the southernmost tip of the Celery Fields. I live in a dense Oak filled enclave. Both the Tree Ordinance and the Canopy Road Ordinance are well into play here. I want to call attention to the intent of both of those ordinances. Without picking them apart with a fine tooth comb, their original intent was simple, to enhance the quality of life for the citizens of Sarasota County and to protect the trees and the area from gentrification. We need say nothing more about them, that was their intent. You now have a chance to stay in the spirit of not only these two laws, but also another intent, that being the Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan.

Direct from the plan itself it states: “A healthy natural environment also contributes to the economic health of an area. It is a key factor in attracting and retaining businesses and people within the county and the region. One of the emerging economic drivers for Sarasota is eco-tourism, which is directly tied to the quality of life and quantity of natural habitats and resources that the county maintains and protects.” 

So there you have it, these words again…. intent, protect, quality and healthy. Keep these words in mind when rendering your decision, because looking back and knowing what you could have done is nothing like looking at it right now and knowing what you did, not only for you, your families and ours, but for the greater good of mankind and that is to simply SAVE THE CELERY FIELDS.

Louis Costello

Letter to the Sarasota Planning Commission: Bill Zoller

Letter from architect and longtime resident Bill Zoller:

Commissioners:

I am a long-time resident of Sarasota County, and I am writing today to request that you recommend denial of the above-referenced petitions.  Living not far from the Celery Fields since 1972, and having observed the transition from active celery-production to a valuable stormwater, recreation, and wildlife facility, this property, and the open space around it, it is apparent to all that this area has become a very special place…to residents and to visitors and tourists alike.  When the County purchased these lands from primarily the Ferlisi and Walker families for the intended purpose of preventing future flooding, it was not generally realized that this intended purpose would turn out to be just one of the many benefits to the community.

As the Celery Fields stormwater facility came to fruition, the area to the east was largely undeveloped, and there were some small light industrial uses to the west.  As the ponds began to fill, and plants grew, the birds and other wildlife began to flock to this “refuge”.  Sarasota Audubon was quick to understand what a unique opportunity this presented, and through their efforts, the County came on board to assist in making the Celery Fields a birding destination.  Not only did the birds flock to the Celery Fields, but so did the eco-tourists…from all over the world.  Over the past few years, Audubon and the County made an arrangement that permitted Audubon to build a first-class resource facility right at the center of the Celery Fields.  I’m sure a look at the Audubon guestbook would reveal a startling number of visitors from far and wide.

When Palmer Boulevard was repaired and improved (while still remaining a two-lane road), the County erected tall, large lights along the road.  It became immediately apparent to citizens and to Audubon, that these lights could be a serious threat to the nesting and breeding of the birds and other creatures that made the Celery Fields their home.  When this was brought to the County’s attention, the County recognized the vulnerability and sensitivity of the wildlife, and realized that the lights were, indeed a threat.  In fact, while the County did not remove the lights (in case they might be needed in a storm/flood emergency, they have never been turned on…they remain dark to this day.  They remain dark because it is the right thing to do…and because a threat to the success of the Celery Fields as a nature/wildlife preserve is a threat to eco-tourism, which is a threat to our tourist economy.

This preamble brings us to the subject at hand: an industrial construction debris processing plant proposed for the edge of the Celery Fields.  While many of the assertions made by the applicant in his submittal lack documentation (as required), and can be examined in detail, the crux of the matter comes down to the compatibility of this sort of noisy, dusty, plant with the valuable recreational/nature/wildlife preserve that is the Celery Fields.  The County itself has, as outlined above, recognized the vulnerability of the wildlife in the Celery Fields; the County has recognized that turning on the lights would be a big risk…a risk they were unwilling to take.  Is not a construction debris processing plant a risk to the welfare of the wildlife?  The proposed facility will grind, crush, and haul away concrete, wood, metal, plastics, and all manner of material, some of which may well contain toxic materials. With the eastern areas out along Palmer Blvd. having been developed over the past few years, residential traffic has increased many-fold on the road.  The trucks that would haul these materials in and out would also create heavy traffic on an already inadequate road, in addition to more noise and pollution.   Is this a risk worth taking?

While the application asserts that no endangered wildlife has been seen on the site, where is a report by a qualified expert documenting this statement?  There are statements about noise levels of similar facilities in the area, but where is a report laying out these levels, including the noise levels of the surrounding areas of those facilities (keeping in mind that the Celery Fields area is a very quiet area)?  The vagueness of these sorts of statements calls into question where staff’s reassurances come from.  Is staff qualified in each of these technical areas to render judgment on the validity of the applicant’s assertions, given a lack of qualified documentation?

Commissioners, you are familiar with the Celery Fields.  You understand the vulnerabilities of the plants and creatures to noise and to pollution of air or water.  Sarasota has a world-class triple-duty facility that is enjoyed by residents and visitors, and that brings substantial economic benefits to the County.  We always come back to the issues of the health, safety, and welfare of the entire community. The benefit to one must be weighed against the risk to all; is it worth risking?

Again, Commissioners, please recommend to the County Commission that these petitions for a construction waste processing plant be denied.  To answer my own question, No, it is not worth the risk.

Sincerely yours,

William C. Zoller
6375 McKown Road
Sarasota 34240

LTE: No more public funds for Benderson Rowing Park

The letter below went to state legislators (links added): nancy.detert@myfloridasenate.gov, darryl.rouson@myfloridahouse.gov,ray.pilon@myfloridahouse.gov, julio.gonzales@myfloridahouse.gov

Legislators: 

I support the email below from Pat Rounds opposing any more public (taxpayer) funds for this project.  While I am not questioning the worth or purpose of the Rowing Park, the facts are clear that SANCA promised to raise the necessary funds for completion of the facilities that SANCA also promised, as outlined in Ms Rounds' email.  The taxpayers have already fulfilled their part of the bargain, and now it is time for SANCA to fulfill its part of the bargain.  A deal is a deal, and it is now SANCA's responsibility to live up to the terms of that deal. 

Best wishes for a successful legislative session, 

William C. Zoller
Sarasota, FL

On Feb 15, 2016, at 1:07 PM, Pat Rounds wrote:

To FL State Legislators representing Sarasota County taxpayers:

Please deny any further State or public funding for Benderson Rowing Park, and encourage your colleagues to do the same.  

Recent articles indicate that between $2-$11 million is being requested to support Phase III construction in preparation for the 2017 World Rowing Championships.  Since it was promised over two years ago, the public pledge of corporate support to fully fund Phase III construction has not materialized. (See County Press release at the end of this message.) Only a small fraction of the funding required has been raised with construction deadlines looming on the near horizon. 

Public/private partnerships require both partners to deliver on pledges.  More than $30 million in public revenue was spent on park infrastructure.  $22 million in private sector funding is needed to construct a state-of-the-art finish tower, boat house, grandstands and other amenities. 

In June, 2013, rowing park officials presented renderings of a $10 million boat house to the FISA Site Selection Committee to be considered for the bid to host the 2017 World Rowing Championships.  Recently park officials have suggested that a boat house is optional and merely a "luxury for the worlds".  Poor private fund-raising outcomes followed by a cynical lowering of construction obligations?    

In early 2015, the Benderson Foundation requested an additional $11 million from the State Legislature contingent on their raising a matching $11 million.  They failed to reach that goal by embarrassing numbers, and their request for funding was denied.  The situation is no different today.   

See link to a recent Herald Tribune article regarding the delayed approval for the permanent finish tower.  

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20160126/ARTICLE/160129695/0/search

Last August, the BoCC and park officials broke ground for the permanent finish tower. It was supposed to be completed in time for 2016 Olympic Rowing Trials in April, 2016.  Backed by $5 million in pledges from Benderson Foundation, the County has only now approved the construction contract----in part because they wanted proof of adequate funding.  So now the Olympic-caliber finish tower will be completed by October, 2016-----six months after the Olympic Trials are over. 

This inexcusable delay makes it necessary to construct a temporary finish tower for the April event.  And who will pay for that structure---SANCA---with County funds or state funds?  And where will the thousands of spectators sit during the Olympic trials---in those rickety bleachers for 100 people currently located at the finish line? 

Over $30 million in public revenue has been invested in park infrastructure (Phases I/II) with a pledge of corporate support for Phase III structures. 

The private sector has not delivered on its promise to make Benderson Park a premiere North American rowing venue.  

The private sector must follow through on their pledge of full support. 

No more public funds for Benderson Rowing Park. 

From a Sarasota County Press Release (Sept. 2, 2103): 

"....More than $40 million in public and private-sector funds have been committed to help transform a former borrow pit into Nathan Benderson Park, the premier rowing venue in North America, capable of hosting an Olympic-caliber event. Sarasota County's investment, $19.5 million, comes from a Tourist Development Tax (TDT), which is paid by visitors to the area. Those funds have paid for Phase I (dredge and fill) and Phase II (installation of park amenities, hardscaping and landscaping). Phase III of the project, construction of a state-of-the-art boathouse, timing towers, grandstands and other amenities, will be funded by SANCA and corporate support..."

Further references provided on request.

Thank you, 

Pat Rounds

Sarasota, FL 34235 

Visions of Sarasota County - A forum on Saturday, Feb. 21, 2015

FORUM : HOW, WHERE AND TO WHAT END SARASOTA COUNTY DEVELOPS WHILE PRESERVING AND ENHANCING OUR
ENVIRONMENT AND QUALITY OF LIFE

WHEN: Saturday, Feb. 21, 2:00 to 4:00 pm.

WHERE: Auditorium of new Gulf Gate Public Library, Curtis Ave.

Panelists: CHARLES HINES, Sarasota County Commissioner, JON THAXTON, Former Sarasota County Commission, BILL ZOLLER, Past President of CONA.

Moderator: Wade Matthews, Vice Pres, Better Govt. Association.

SUBJECT: ALTERNATIVE VISIONS FOR SARASOTA COUNTY (AND HOW TO GET THERE).

Free and public invited. Presented by the Better Government Association of Sarasota County, a non-partisan, non profit organization. Questions and discussion will follow the presentations.

For more information , please call (941) 923-0671.

Interview with CONA Leaders

Did you know that Sarasota CONA - Council of Neighborhood Associations - was founded in 1961 and connects some 70 Sarasota Associations throughout the County?

Here's a podcast of Susan Nilon's interview with CONA president Kafi Benz and VP Bill Zoller on Sarasota Talk Radio WSRQ.

The Nilon Report

WSRQ

Moving the Urban Service Boundary will cost every taxpayer

Fiscal neutrality at core of yet another 2050-plan dust-up

By Josh Salman
josh.salman@heraldtribune.com

Published: Saturday, January 3, 2015 at 9:07 p.m.

Last Modified: Saturday, January 3, 2015 at 9:07 p.m.

SARASOTA - Skeptics of Sarasota County’s reshaped 2050 plan say the long-term growth blueprint dilutes protection from overdevelopment in the community’s rural east.

Soon, they may have even more reason to worry.

Consultants are finishing up a first draft of proposals that will determine the methods used by developers to demonstrate that their projects won’t burden taxpayers.

That concept was a key requirement of 2050.

But with a Sarasota County Commission that is now more developer-friendly than at any time in at least a decade, some growth activists worry that 2050’s last remaining policy will get the same treatment as other safeguards that have already been watered-down or repealed.

The measure of a private development’s so-called “fiscal neutrality” is aimed at ensuring that the county can handle the potential money strain on roads, utility lines and emergency services, which all tend to cost more in remote areas east of Interstate 75.

Already, developers are fighting to loosen the requirement. They have spent millions of dollars to prove that their communities are a boon to the economy, and they argue that the tougher regulations will only increase the cost of homes, squeezing out the middle class.

One consultant hired by Sarasota County has proposed gutting the fiscal neutrality condition altogether.

At the same time, there have been whispers among developers and community groups that the county will ultimately propose moving its Urban Service Boundary — a line that dictates where development should be concentrated — farther east, paving the way for more potentially controversial growth.

“Fiscal neutrality is the means to ensure development outside the Urban Service Boundary pays for its infrastructure costs,” said Cathy Antunes, president of Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government. “Make fiscal neutrality toothless and the Urban Service Boundary is worthless. This is the back-door way to eliminate the Urban Service Boundary.”

She added, “People are very worried about it.”

After developers argued that they were too restricted, county commissioners approved a third and final round of revisions to the 2050 plan in late October.

That policy governs development on some 60,000, mostly rural acres east of I-75. The concept was first crafted more than a decade ago as an alternative to the guidelines of the Urban Service Boundary, which discourages intense development east of the highway.

But developers and pro-business groups rallied for more flexibility and the commissioners ultimately agreed. The changes came despite concerns from some about the impact on the environment, an already chocked road system and spending budgets still recovering from the Great Recession.

The final step of the plan: Determine how the fiscal neutrality of a particular new development is to be calculated.

Sarasota County hired a consulting firm to research the economic benefits of new development — like higher property taxes and collection fees from building permits — and to weigh those against potentially adverse impacts, including the costs of new roads, increased school capacity and the expense of providing public safety for new residents.

As part of 2050, developers must obtain a third-party review for each new building project in the restricted areas to show that it is financially beneficial to the overall population.

A first draft of that methodology report is expected to be complete by AECOM in February, with revisions and public hearings planned before a final decision is made by county commissioners, likely sometime this summer.

“This is a way to just make it clear and have that same set of inputs for development,” said Allen Parsons, long-range planner for Sarasota County. “It really is a technical exercise, and that’s why we needed an economist.”

The county has created a fiscal neutrality page on its website for public feedback.

But already the process has created a backlash with some residents, who have blitzed county officials with emails questioning the transparency of the process.

“All of the public will have the same opportunity for input,” Parsons said.

The new methodology comes in the wake of an earlier report commissioned by Sarasota County to review the fiscal neutrality concept in its entirety.

That analysis by Laffer Associates suggested that “on average, growth does pay for itself.” The report’s overall recommendation was to eliminate the fiscal neutrality requirement from 2050.

“The question of fiscal neutrality is moot in Sarasota County,” the report states. “All that is truly required is to properly specify the impact fees on new development. This would remove many of the negative effects of the fiscal neutrality provision, while still maintaining fiscal neutrality of new development.”

But impact fees have been slashed on all levels to help spur development through the prolonged housing slump.

Sarasota County cut road impact fees in half in January 2011, a reduction from already reduced rates, and then voted in 2013 to extend those discounts to developers for another two years.

The School Board also voted this year to extend a moratorium on impact fees, which were first set aside two years ago, and the city of Sarasota recently adopted new impact fees that undercut the county with a markdown of 57 percent in most cases.

As a result, the impact fees collected by Sarasota County have shrunk from $19.7 million in 2006 to just $9.1 million in 2013. Despite an ongoing economic recovery, Sarasota County’s impact fees remain lower than the $12.1 million collected even at the nadir of the recession in 2008, records show.

Meanwhile, new large-scale development has spiked, especially in rural eastern areas where improvements to county services have not kept pace.

Some growth control advocates now fear that trend will only proliferate with new fiscal neutrality rules, creating problems with traffic, wildlife preservation efforts and public safety.

Some of those impacts already can been seen. Stretches of 32 Sarasota County roads were graded “D” or worse for their report card level of service in 2013. That is nearly half of the roads where traffic is counted, traffic records show.

At least 21 major roads in Sarasota County have slipped below the government’s minimum level of service, which in many cases was a low standard.

To handle new population upticks in the University Parkway corridor, the county has had to tap into reserves to build a new fire station, and major developers have proposed eliminating certain preserve areas to increase density in their projects. A standard fiscal neutrality policy is designed to ensure those needed improvements are covered by developers.

“This will protect everybody, the county and the developers,” Sarasota County Commissioner Christine Robinson said of the new methodology. “It creates a standard that is easy for everyone, and it should take away some of the controversy.”

Local homebuilders say they believe their developments should be financially beneficial to the county.

They just don’t want to have to pay to prove it.

Neal Communities, which is developing one of the two projects approved under Sarasota 2050 so far, has spent about $1.5 million navigating the new public policy. That includes more than $161,000 on fiscal neutrality for one development alone. That is more than $1,000 per home, company founder and CEO Pat Neal said.

That means higher housing prices, carving away an already thin supply for affordable offerings in Southwest Florida, Neal says. It also means less money Neal has to spend on hiring people, and the developer said he suspects it is the same for other builders throughout the region.

With the new rules, Sarasota County becomes one of just six government jurisdictions in the nation that requires developers to track fiscal neutrality for each individual project — from the first home to the last, Neal said.

“Everybody believes growth should pay for itself — that’s public policy in our state,” he said. “And everybody in our business believes what we do is fiscally neutral. We think we are contributing members of the local economy, and we can demonstrate that, but the only place we’re required to do so is in Sarasota.”

“I would haunt my children if they even applied for a Sarasota County 2050 project because it’s just so expensive.”

The core of the fiscal neutrality argument — and many of those surrounding Sarasota 2050 as a whole — relates to restrictions first created with the Urban Service Boundary.

The concept dates back to the early 1980s, when Sarasota County planners generally intended to keep intense development west of the interstate from where the boundary was drawn. Areas east of I-75 were set aside for agriculture, open spaces and nature preserves.

The idea was to create an urban core, so that demand for basic government services could be delivered to the general population more efficiently. The theory is that the more the population is spread out, the more it costs per capita to provide those necessities.

The boundary also has helped prevent the type of “sprawl” found in many other Florida communities.

“The Urban service Boundary has helped concentrate density, preserve open space and create a unique and special place for Sarasota County,” said former county commissioner Jon Thaxton, a longtime proponent of 2050’s measures. “That’s the reality.”

But as population climbed through the years and demand for new housing swelled, builders have petitioned Sarasota County to move the boundary further east, where vacant land was plentiful.

The 2050 plan was ultimately adopted as an alternative.

With that plan now in place, some fear a lax fiscal neutrality policy will further dilute the protections of the Urban Service Boundary. Any decision to move the boundary would require a unanimous 5-0 vote by commissioners.

“That’s what this commission was elected to do,” said Bill Zoller, a representative of community groups who has protested changes to 2050. “They have five votes, if they choose to move it, at this point. This will certainly come up.

“The pressure from developers will build.”