A citizen asks about site selection for the new county administration center

1301 Cattlemen Road, the red dot, is one site now being considered
for the new County Administration Center

1301 Cattlemen Road seems to be the frontrunning site for a new County Administration center. The Board of Sarasota County Commissioners had a lengthy discussion last week about this location, introduced by Commissioner Mike Moran.

A resident of the area is conducting some early inquiries and raising questions about traffic based on her years of experience of the area's roads. Cattlemen Rd. at Bee Ridge is a notoriously poorly designed intersection, and 1301 Cattlemen is north of that, and just south of Bahia Vista and Cattlemen.

The emails below need to be read from the bottom up.

------ Forwarded Message --------

From: Glenna Blomquist <glennablom@hotmail.com>

Date: 4/2/2021 1:45:38 PM

Subject: RE: New Administration Center consideration

To: bgaubatz@scgov.net ]

Dear Mr. Gaubatz,

I understand you have been assigned to work on the new administration center.

My concern is that the board is jumping on the 1301 Cattlemen location because the county owns the property.  This location is a poor choice because of transportation limitations.  Arteries of travel, both roads and transit, are insufficient for the numbers of employees and visitors that would attend this center.

Before any planning moves forward, consideration of road use needs to be brought into the picture.  Surely, it is obvious that this location is a bad choice.

I live in this neighborhood and I'm attuned with existing traffic problems, recent traffic studies, and also the limits of augmentation of travel avenues. 

Please let me know if you have been brought in the site selection conversation with our commissioners, particularly Commissioner Mike Moran for District 1.

Sincerely,

Glenna Blomquist

=======

From: Glenna Blomquist <glennablom@hotmail.com>

Sent: Friday, March 26, 2021 1:16 PM

To: Paula Wiggins <pwiggins@scgov.net>; Kwamena Sankah <Ksankah@scgov.net>

Cc: Jane Grogg <jgrogg@scgov.net>; Michele Norton <mnorton@scgov.net>; Michael Moran <mmoran@scgov.net>

Subject: New Administration Center considerationCaution: This email originated from an external source. Be Suspicious of Attachments, Links and Requests for Login Information

Dear Paula and Kwamena,

As I read today in the Englewood Sun Newspaper, one site under consideration for the new Administration Center is 1301 Cattlemen Road. Did the consultant(s) do a traffic study for Fruitville Road and Palmer Boulevard relative to the discussion of possible Administrative Center sites, including 1301 Cattlemen Road proposed site? Are there impact studies for the area?  Have you been asked for input? Will traffic studies be required?  If traffic studies have been done, would you please forward them to me?

Assuming that many employees, and visitors, will arrive to this destination daily, how are they going to travel from the east?  What impacts will this have on Fruitville Road, Lorraine (formerly Iona) Road, Packinghouse Road, Porter Road, Cattlemen Road, Palmer Boulevard, Debrecen Road, East Road, and Apex/Coburn Road, and Bee Ridge Road?  

Please note that although there is a SCAT transit station at 5951 Porter Way, bus routes are not established for east county, and any bus traffic would also add to the burden on local roads.  Certainly, an administration center should be readily accessible by public transit.

As I listen to the budget meeting discussion, what occurs to me is that land planning might be important prior to and outside of a budget meeting.  Perhaps this would start with long range planning staff creating relevant requirements within the consultant's request for professional services, considering all necessary components.  Budget costs are paramount, however transportation impacts are equally important and should not be late in the review.

Thank you,

Glenna Blomquist

========

Considerations of the ways and means of siting and building and paying for a new Adminstration Center are still in the formative stage. A discussion of some length about all this was held at the Board's latest budget meeting on March 24, 2021 accessible at this link. Begin around 1 hr and 42 minutes.

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