Saturday, October 30, 2010
Cardinal Hill Plant Causing Too Much Noise for Nearby Residents
Here is a recent letter to the City from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection:
DEP Letter Dated October 25, 2010
DEP Letter Dated October 25, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
City of Lakeland Expresses Serious Concerns
Judging from the lack of people in the audience, many residents expected the City Council Special Meeting on October 28, 2010 to be boring. As in the past, the second reading of an ordinance is pretty uneventful and predictable, with no objections voiced and the adoption of the ordinance is approved by council. This was certainly not the case this time.
On the agenda as part of the Public Hearings was:
Ordinance 1268 describes the development of +/- 133 acre property located on the West Side of SR 33, south of Country Trails Drive. This area will be divided as follows: 98.81 acre Business Park, 8.13 acre Conservation area, and a 26.17 acre Convenience Center for Retail Businesses.
Ordinance 1269 - Seeking approval of Phase I of the Polk City Business Park to build a 554,000 sq.ft warehouse/distribution building.
The City of Lakeland also has serious concerns as to the sewer and wastewater disposal of this planned development. Currently the Cardinal Hill WWTF is a temporary facility which is not in close proximity and is only approved for approximately 80,000 Gallons Per Day. This capacity would have to be more than doubled to accommodate these new land development changes.
The City of Lakeland was asking the Polk City Council to postpone their vote on these ordinances until these issues, and the impact burden this development will create on Lakeland could be studied further by the City of Lakeland. Councilor Adorno posed the question if there were rules in place for adjacent municipalities to discuss proposed land use changes in properties that are in close poximity to each other. Attorney Cloud replied that it is a very common and growing practice to extend this courtesy between municipalities for quite a number of years.
Mayor LaCascia stated that so much work had gone into this project since 2007, that he was concerned any postponement in approval of this development could put it in jeopardy. Postponement may also create added expense for the city if Amendment #4 would be approved in next week's November 2 election. While these discussions were ongoing, Attorney Tom Cloud authored an agreement that would notify the City of Lakeland of any future development plans in addition to Phase I, and presented it to the City of Lakeland representative and all parties involved. This seemed to pacify her a little, but she still expressed the original concerns that Lakeland had with the large acreage designated for retail and the high impact costs this development will create. When Mayor LaCascia asked her if Lakeland would be considering future legal action, she said that would be a decision that only the Lakeland City Attorney could answer.
Let us remind the public that the previous Polk City administration made an agreement with these developers to waive all impact fees for this development. This means that the total cost of the impact on our community will fall on the shoulders of Polk City property owners. Their reason for doing this is stated in a Memo from City of Polk City, City Managers Office to the Planning Board, dated May 20, 2008, regarding the Coleson Properties and Browning Investments development. "The Coleson site is one of two properties that Browning has been looking at developing. The secondary site is in Hillsborough County. In all of our discussions with them, a major stumbling block to this development coming to Polk City has been the impact fees and the site plan modification. It is simply not financially viable, in these economic times to add approximately $8.50 per sq. ft. in cost to the cost of construction for impact fees."
"Because there is competition for this development, staff has researched the other site and what is being offered by the community. With the exception of impact fees, the Coleson site is far superior. The other site has offered to waive all impact fees there in order to bring jobs to that community also." At the May 13th, 2008, City Council Meeting Staff recommend to council that the City waive all City impact fees, Council voted unanimously to waive all impact fees."
"Because there is competition for this development, staff has researched the other site and what is being offered by the community. With the exception of impact fees, the Coleson site is far superior. The other site has offered to waive all impact fees there in order to bring jobs to that community also." At the May 13th, 2008, City Council Meeting Staff recommend to council that the City waive all City impact fees, Council voted unanimously to waive all impact fees."
After a lengthy 3 hour meeting addressing ordinance 1268 & 1269 on Oct. 28, 2010, Mayor LaCascia brought the ordinances to a vote respectively, and both were approved.
Problems with Blogger
There seems to be issues with Blogger, the host of our blog, since late afternoon on 10/28. No comments seem to be getting through and our stats reports are getting error messages. If you have attempted to post a comment, but have been unable to since this time, please email us at HelpPolkCityResidents@earthlink.net. We have contacted Blogger administration to make sure they are aware of the problems and to see how soon this will be resolved.
Thank you for your patience. Please continue to attempt to post, so we can see when the problem is corrected. We will update you when we receive any additional information.
Blog Administrators
Thank you for your patience. Please continue to attempt to post, so we can see when the problem is corrected. We will update you when we receive any additional information.
Blog Administrators
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Additional City Debt Camouflaged as Housekeeping?
The second agenda item on Resolution No:2010-07 for the City Council Special Meeting held on October 25th, 2010, at 6:00 PM was very vague. Some of the wording goes like this, "reimbursement of certain costs related to a spray field." Was this intentional to keep the public guessing allowing minimal time ahead of the meeting for the public to get their questions prepared to be asked during the meeting? It sure looks suspicious.
This Resolution was not provided in writing to the public during the meeting. After the meeting I was able to pull up the Resolution No: 2010-07 on Polk City's web site. Section 1. of this resolution states, "The portion of the Debt Obligations to be utilized for such reimbursement is not expected to exceed $275,000 aggregate principal amount." This statement in itself is ambiguous and does not clearly define any limit to the General Fund reimbursement. In addition, one would think that the definition of REIMBURSEMENT only qualifies unless the city transfers money from the Sewer Fund to repay the General Fund, for this Sewer Fund expenditure. Why is it necessary to re-borrow the $348,000 already paid to the county at ANY interest rate? Unless, the city is so financially unstable to even have made this payment in the first place.
By the wording in this Resolution it creates somewhat of a "line of credit" situation to transfer any amount, at any time, to the General Fund as the money is needed from the total amount borrowed. A true line of credit does not charge interest until the money is actually taken out and used. In this situation, the total amount of the loan is being charged interest from day one, unlike a true "line of credit." By this YES vote on Monday night, the council granted permission to the City Manager to seek financing for a loan of an undetermined amount, possibly millions of dollars, and only attempts to indicate the purpose for a small portion of the total amount of the loan. By mentioning the $275,000, this creates somewhat of a distraction to what the actual total amount of the loan will truly be. This sounds like a misleading creative spin of deception contributed by Mr. Tom Cloud at a rate of $200 per hour. The ONLY thing that is CRYSTAL CLEAR is that the city is in deep financial distress and is looking to add to the existing $10.4 Million debt.
During discussions even the hint of the use of the word, "LOAN," was treated as if it was a dirty word. The preferred word was, "HOUSEKEEPING." The theory behind this logic was that if the $1 Million debt to the county on the Mt. Olive Utility system, which currently has terms of 10 years at 11%, was able to be refinanced through another lender for a longer 20 year term at a lower rate, possibly 4%, then the city could pay off the loan to the county and save some money on interest, as well as lower the payments to make the debt easier to swallow. At face value, this statement is correct. But what is ACTUALLY being requested is not as simple as comparing apples to apples like in this scenerio Ms. Block is trying to lead the public and council to believe. If they are attempting to borrow more money than is needed for this loan on the Mt. Olive Spray Field just because, "it is such a great deal," this would off-set any possible savings to the city on the loan. Is this a way to put a positive spin on increasing the city debt? This greed and borrowing more than what is needed, and what can be backed up with collateral, is what caused the downfall of the housing market and the current foreclosure crisis. The city is heading in the same direction by considering this loan.
No specifics were ever really nailed down of how this money was to be spent, nor was there a set amount that was being requested as the discussions went round and round among the Council members. Councilman Kimsey looked to the Interim City Attorney, Mr. Tom Cloud, for clarification on the issue. Mr. Cloud's reply was basicialy that this is typical procedure and it has been done in other cities he has represented. Just because Mr. Cloud stated this was done in other cities, doesn't make it ethically correct or financially sound. Additional funds for day-to-day operations and future unapproved projects should not be included in this new loan. Because "it is such a great deal' Ms. Block was implying the city should borrow additional money for other expenses that might come up in the near future, such as additional land and work needed to expand the TEMPORARY Cardinal Hill WWT Plant. Could it be possible they were also considering covering the $531,000 due to the county for the back impact fees while they were at it, although this figure conveniently did not come up in the discussion between council members.
Looking at this possible new loan amount, the figure they are looking at is closer to $1.5 or $2 Million dollars!! HOW IS THIS SAVING THE CITY MONEY?? How can this possibly help the city except by masking the true financial state of affairs if the state eventually does step in and force the city to open up its books. It will appear that there is more operating capital in the accounts than what should truly be there, giving the false impression that everything with the city's finances are hunky dory!! In actuality, the money there is all borrowed money!! Before the public was allowed to ask any questions on the issue, it went to a vote and was approved. Surprise, surprise!
Why was there no mention of this VERY IMPORTANT MEETING by the biased reporting done by the Ledger Reporter, Mr. Kevin Bouffard? Could it be that City Officials did not want this to be disclosed to the public who did not attend the meeting, or County Officials? Or, was this issue too confusing to Mr. Bouffard where he did not even feel comfortable writing an article on it?
This Resolution was not provided in writing to the public during the meeting. After the meeting I was able to pull up the Resolution No: 2010-07 on Polk City's web site. Section 1. of this resolution states, "The portion of the Debt Obligations to be utilized for such reimbursement is not expected to exceed $275,000 aggregate principal amount." This statement in itself is ambiguous and does not clearly define any limit to the General Fund reimbursement. In addition, one would think that the definition of REIMBURSEMENT only qualifies unless the city transfers money from the Sewer Fund to repay the General Fund, for this Sewer Fund expenditure. Why is it necessary to re-borrow the $348,000 already paid to the county at ANY interest rate? Unless, the city is so financially unstable to even have made this payment in the first place.
By the wording in this Resolution it creates somewhat of a "line of credit" situation to transfer any amount, at any time, to the General Fund as the money is needed from the total amount borrowed. A true line of credit does not charge interest until the money is actually taken out and used. In this situation, the total amount of the loan is being charged interest from day one, unlike a true "line of credit." By this YES vote on Monday night, the council granted permission to the City Manager to seek financing for a loan of an undetermined amount, possibly millions of dollars, and only attempts to indicate the purpose for a small portion of the total amount of the loan. By mentioning the $275,000, this creates somewhat of a distraction to what the actual total amount of the loan will truly be. This sounds like a misleading creative spin of deception contributed by Mr. Tom Cloud at a rate of $200 per hour. The ONLY thing that is CRYSTAL CLEAR is that the city is in deep financial distress and is looking to add to the existing $10.4 Million debt.
During discussions even the hint of the use of the word, "LOAN," was treated as if it was a dirty word. The preferred word was, "HOUSEKEEPING." The theory behind this logic was that if the $1 Million debt to the county on the Mt. Olive Utility system, which currently has terms of 10 years at 11%, was able to be refinanced through another lender for a longer 20 year term at a lower rate, possibly 4%, then the city could pay off the loan to the county and save some money on interest, as well as lower the payments to make the debt easier to swallow. At face value, this statement is correct. But what is ACTUALLY being requested is not as simple as comparing apples to apples like in this scenerio Ms. Block is trying to lead the public and council to believe. If they are attempting to borrow more money than is needed for this loan on the Mt. Olive Spray Field just because, "it is such a great deal," this would off-set any possible savings to the city on the loan. Is this a way to put a positive spin on increasing the city debt? This greed and borrowing more than what is needed, and what can be backed up with collateral, is what caused the downfall of the housing market and the current foreclosure crisis. The city is heading in the same direction by considering this loan.
No specifics were ever really nailed down of how this money was to be spent, nor was there a set amount that was being requested as the discussions went round and round among the Council members. Councilman Kimsey looked to the Interim City Attorney, Mr. Tom Cloud, for clarification on the issue. Mr. Cloud's reply was basicialy that this is typical procedure and it has been done in other cities he has represented. Just because Mr. Cloud stated this was done in other cities, doesn't make it ethically correct or financially sound. Additional funds for day-to-day operations and future unapproved projects should not be included in this new loan. Because "it is such a great deal' Ms. Block was implying the city should borrow additional money for other expenses that might come up in the near future, such as additional land and work needed to expand the TEMPORARY Cardinal Hill WWT Plant. Could it be possible they were also considering covering the $531,000 due to the county for the back impact fees while they were at it, although this figure conveniently did not come up in the discussion between council members.
Looking at this possible new loan amount, the figure they are looking at is closer to $1.5 or $2 Million dollars!! HOW IS THIS SAVING THE CITY MONEY?? How can this possibly help the city except by masking the true financial state of affairs if the state eventually does step in and force the city to open up its books. It will appear that there is more operating capital in the accounts than what should truly be there, giving the false impression that everything with the city's finances are hunky dory!! In actuality, the money there is all borrowed money!! Before the public was allowed to ask any questions on the issue, it went to a vote and was approved. Surprise, surprise!
Why was there no mention of this VERY IMPORTANT MEETING by the biased reporting done by the Ledger Reporter, Mr. Kevin Bouffard? Could it be that City Officials did not want this to be disclosed to the public who did not attend the meeting, or County Officials? Or, was this issue too confusing to Mr. Bouffard where he did not even feel comfortable writing an article on it?
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Crime Spree in Sandy Pointe Early Wednesday Morning 10/27
Approximately between 2 AM and 3 AM, Wednesday morning October 27th, at least one individual entered several unlocked vehicles in the neighborhood looking for valuables. One victim had a $300 camera and a knife set stolen out of his truck, another victim had items out of place in their vehicle, but apparently did not have anything taken. The 3rd victim is where all the major excitement started.
Mrs. Cory Carrier, the former City Manager also lives in the neighborhood and had left her car unlocked last night in her driveway. The burglar accidentally tapped the horn while inside her vehicle, which woke up Mr. Don Penton, the former City Mayor and Cory Carrier's husband. Peeking out the bedroom window, Mr. Penton saw the interior car light on and a profile in the vehicle. He grabbed his 357 Magnum and headed out the side exit to confront the suspect. In hindsight he regretted yelling to him before approaching the suspect, giving him a heads up. The startled suspect began running. Mr. Penton shot twice at the suspect trying to stop him by hitting him in the legs. The 2nd bullet was recovered after it hit a neighbor's garage, the first bullet has not been recovered. The suspect continued running down the street between houses farther into the neighborhood toward the lake.
911 was called at roughly 3:04 AM. Patrols showed up approximately 7 minutes later and were followed up by 2 helicopters and dogs about 10 minutes after the call was placed. A hat was lost by the suspect during his retreat which was given to the dogs to track him. The dogs followed the scent through the back half of the neighborhood between houses and up through the undeveloped lots on the Southwest side of the neighborhood, where the dogs lost the scent. The suspect is still on the loose as of this morning at 10:30 AM.
Neighbors were interviewed to see if there was any additional information that might help to catch the suspect.
I must admit that a 7 minute response time is pretty good considering the ONE Polk City Police Officer was not on duty last night when it happened. It was the Polk County Sheriff's Department who responded to the call. I'm sure the shots fired, and the fact that it was at the former City Mayor's house, didn't hurt matters either. Did the absence of city patrols last night, due to the drastic cuts in the Polk City Police force, have any direct connection to the occurrence of the crimes? Maybe or Maybe not, but it sure makes it a lot easier to be nosing around our neighborhoods at night without worrying too much about a police patrol driving up to interrupt all the fun. I know many neighbors in Sandy Pointe will be looking into taking extra measures to protect their property and insure their safety in the future. Other Polk City residents would be wise to do the same, since the City can't afford adequate police protection to have regular patrols to deter this type of activity. The city residents are forced to take their protection into their own hands, since the city is financially not able to. Polk City residents pay some of the highest tax rates in the state and the city still does not have enough money to provide adequate police protection for its residents. Maybe the budget cuts should be made somewhere else? Hopefully, the 357 Magnum scared this individual enough, and others who may be considering doing the same, not to mess with Sandy Pointe again!
Mrs. Cory Carrier, the former City Manager also lives in the neighborhood and had left her car unlocked last night in her driveway. The burglar accidentally tapped the horn while inside her vehicle, which woke up Mr. Don Penton, the former City Mayor and Cory Carrier's husband. Peeking out the bedroom window, Mr. Penton saw the interior car light on and a profile in the vehicle. He grabbed his 357 Magnum and headed out the side exit to confront the suspect. In hindsight he regretted yelling to him before approaching the suspect, giving him a heads up. The startled suspect began running. Mr. Penton shot twice at the suspect trying to stop him by hitting him in the legs. The 2nd bullet was recovered after it hit a neighbor's garage, the first bullet has not been recovered. The suspect continued running down the street between houses farther into the neighborhood toward the lake.
 |
| Bullet hole in Sandy Pointe residence |
911 was called at roughly 3:04 AM. Patrols showed up approximately 7 minutes later and were followed up by 2 helicopters and dogs about 10 minutes after the call was placed. A hat was lost by the suspect during his retreat which was given to the dogs to track him. The dogs followed the scent through the back half of the neighborhood between houses and up through the undeveloped lots on the Southwest side of the neighborhood, where the dogs lost the scent. The suspect is still on the loose as of this morning at 10:30 AM.
Neighbors were interviewed to see if there was any additional information that might help to catch the suspect.
I must admit that a 7 minute response time is pretty good considering the ONE Polk City Police Officer was not on duty last night when it happened. It was the Polk County Sheriff's Department who responded to the call. I'm sure the shots fired, and the fact that it was at the former City Mayor's house, didn't hurt matters either. Did the absence of city patrols last night, due to the drastic cuts in the Polk City Police force, have any direct connection to the occurrence of the crimes? Maybe or Maybe not, but it sure makes it a lot easier to be nosing around our neighborhoods at night without worrying too much about a police patrol driving up to interrupt all the fun. I know many neighbors in Sandy Pointe will be looking into taking extra measures to protect their property and insure their safety in the future. Other Polk City residents would be wise to do the same, since the City can't afford adequate police protection to have regular patrols to deter this type of activity. The city residents are forced to take their protection into their own hands, since the city is financially not able to. Polk City residents pay some of the highest tax rates in the state and the city still does not have enough money to provide adequate police protection for its residents. Maybe the budget cuts should be made somewhere else? Hopefully, the 357 Magnum scared this individual enough, and others who may be considering doing the same, not to mess with Sandy Pointe again!
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
New Ledger Article about October 25th Workshop on Petition
The Ledger reporter Keven Bouffard clearly shows his bias in the recent article about the dissolution petition discussed during the October 25th Workshop last night. Mr. Bouffard reiterates every point the city had to make, whether true or not, including the weak attempt to discredit the the voice of the people by City Attorney Tom Cloud making claims of duplicate signatures included in the petition. There were a couple of individuals who reside OUTSIDE city limits who own multiple parcels within city limits who did sign for each parcel. These signatures were included in the Non-Registered Voters and Water & Sewer Customers of Polk City Utilities Who Reside Outside City Limits, which were clearly not to be verified. These signatures were also not counted more than once when the signatures were tallied and have NO BEARING on the REGISTERED VOTER signatures. KEVIN, PLEASE VERIFY YOUR FACTS!!
By Mr. Bouffard focusing on the statement of the duplicate signatures earlier in the article, even thought they were not counted more than once in the tallies, he is implying that the remainder of the numerous signatures have no significance. The city made it clear that the signatures were not verified, but will be dismissed, even though they claim to want to know what the public wishes are. By disregarding these valid signatures representing a significant number of the registered voters of the city, the Mayor's proposal to work with the public on clarifying the financial impact of dissolution, IF this is what the majority of the people want, seems contradictory. Is this an empty promise in attempt to pacify the public? This looks like another delay tactic to allow the city to continue down the same path and create more debt. Many of the questions posed to Michael Herr at the County, before his term was up, are questions that Michael Herr himself stated could not be answered without further research and working together with the city. This needs to be a combined effort of the city and county to determine a plan, not a collaboration of only the public and city officials. This is a complicated issue that will not be addressed unless the issue of dissolution is a credible probability, due to expenses and time requirements to accomplish this plan. The title of this article, "Polk City Council Doesn't Back Polk City Dissolution" is misleading in that regard. The City chose to void the petition, but evidenced by lengthy conversation during the meeting which is not mentioned at all in this article, the issue of dissolution of the City by Council vote and a vote of the people is still on the table to be researched further.
Are Mr. Bouffard's personal feelings weighing too heavily in his objectivity? Is he trying to make a statement by only writing about one side of the story, since we will no longer return his phone calls due to the high rate of misquoting us in his articles? Regardless of his motives, this type of highly biased reporting only amplifies the small town injustices and politics going on here. What a shame! Maybe the public should scream louder to pull in a wider audience so this story of injustice and strong arming the city citizens will be more fairly reported by members of the media on a statewide and national level who have less personal ties to the subject at hand.
Polk City Council Doesn't Back Polk City Dissolution
Ledger Photo Gallery from the Meeting
By Mr. Bouffard focusing on the statement of the duplicate signatures earlier in the article, even thought they were not counted more than once in the tallies, he is implying that the remainder of the numerous signatures have no significance. The city made it clear that the signatures were not verified, but will be dismissed, even though they claim to want to know what the public wishes are. By disregarding these valid signatures representing a significant number of the registered voters of the city, the Mayor's proposal to work with the public on clarifying the financial impact of dissolution, IF this is what the majority of the people want, seems contradictory. Is this an empty promise in attempt to pacify the public? This looks like another delay tactic to allow the city to continue down the same path and create more debt. Many of the questions posed to Michael Herr at the County, before his term was up, are questions that Michael Herr himself stated could not be answered without further research and working together with the city. This needs to be a combined effort of the city and county to determine a plan, not a collaboration of only the public and city officials. This is a complicated issue that will not be addressed unless the issue of dissolution is a credible probability, due to expenses and time requirements to accomplish this plan. The title of this article, "Polk City Council Doesn't Back Polk City Dissolution" is misleading in that regard. The City chose to void the petition, but evidenced by lengthy conversation during the meeting which is not mentioned at all in this article, the issue of dissolution of the City by Council vote and a vote of the people is still on the table to be researched further.
Are Mr. Bouffard's personal feelings weighing too heavily in his objectivity? Is he trying to make a statement by only writing about one side of the story, since we will no longer return his phone calls due to the high rate of misquoting us in his articles? Regardless of his motives, this type of highly biased reporting only amplifies the small town injustices and politics going on here. What a shame! Maybe the public should scream louder to pull in a wider audience so this story of injustice and strong arming the city citizens will be more fairly reported by members of the media on a statewide and national level who have less personal ties to the subject at hand.
Polk City Council Doesn't Back Polk City Dissolution
Ledger Photo Gallery from the Meeting
City Meeting Dates Changed
At the City Council Special Meeting held on Monday, October 25th, at 6:00 PM there were two agenda items.
The first issue was to change the City Council Meetings to fit Mr. Tom Cloud's, the new Interim City Attorney, schedule. Mr. Cloud has a scheduling conflict on Tuesday evenings which was apparently not considered when the new Interim City Attorney was chosen. Councilman Kimsey brought up the fact that the city should have considered other attorneys that could be available when the city needs them, not that the city should conform to meet the attorney's needs. He recommended that additional resumes of other attorney's should be reviewed to see if other attorney's would be available to fill this position on a permanent basis who would be more flexible.
The meeting time was also moved up to 7:00 PM instead of 7:30 PM. Per Acting City Manager/Vice Mayor Block, on days that city meetings are held, the day is very long for the employees who end up working all day, then attend the meetings into the evenings. The city employees' inconvenience appeared to be more of a consideration when making this change than the ability of the public to attend these meetings. The public also has a long day at work and rushing home to make the now earlier meeting times, is going to be more challenging. The issue of the public's inconvenience was not discussed in consideration of the meeting time change at all. The city employees do not have traffic issues to consider when leaving work to attend the monthly meetings, unlike the public.
The probability of many holidays falling on a Monday came up and a plan B was put in place to go to when that situation occurs.
The final approved new meeting times will be on the 2nd Monday of each month at 7:00 PM. In cases that a holiday falls on that day, the meeting date will move to the 3rd Monday of each month at 7:00 PM. This change will be in effect until a new city attorney is chosen, at which time the date and time MAY be changed again. Moving the city meetings to the 3rd Monday, in the case of a holiday, may cause issues with getting timely information to the Planning Board, which meets on the 3rd Tuesday of each month. This possible conflict was not considered in the discussion. No public comment was taken on this issue until after the vote of the council.
The first issue was to change the City Council Meetings to fit Mr. Tom Cloud's, the new Interim City Attorney, schedule. Mr. Cloud has a scheduling conflict on Tuesday evenings which was apparently not considered when the new Interim City Attorney was chosen. Councilman Kimsey brought up the fact that the city should have considered other attorneys that could be available when the city needs them, not that the city should conform to meet the attorney's needs. He recommended that additional resumes of other attorney's should be reviewed to see if other attorney's would be available to fill this position on a permanent basis who would be more flexible.
The meeting time was also moved up to 7:00 PM instead of 7:30 PM. Per Acting City Manager/Vice Mayor Block, on days that city meetings are held, the day is very long for the employees who end up working all day, then attend the meetings into the evenings. The city employees' inconvenience appeared to be more of a consideration when making this change than the ability of the public to attend these meetings. The public also has a long day at work and rushing home to make the now earlier meeting times, is going to be more challenging. The issue of the public's inconvenience was not discussed in consideration of the meeting time change at all. The city employees do not have traffic issues to consider when leaving work to attend the monthly meetings, unlike the public.
The probability of many holidays falling on a Monday came up and a plan B was put in place to go to when that situation occurs.
The final approved new meeting times will be on the 2nd Monday of each month at 7:00 PM. In cases that a holiday falls on that day, the meeting date will move to the 3rd Monday of each month at 7:00 PM. This change will be in effect until a new city attorney is chosen, at which time the date and time MAY be changed again. Moving the city meetings to the 3rd Monday, in the case of a holiday, may cause issues with getting timely information to the Planning Board, which meets on the 3rd Tuesday of each month. This possible conflict was not considered in the discussion. No public comment was taken on this issue until after the vote of the council.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Cedar Grove, Florida - Case Study
Attorney Tom Cloud and his staff did a good job of citing examples of municipalities in Florida who were unsuccessful in dissolving by a vote of the people when the city responded to our Petition. What is not mentioned is the former city of Cedar Grove, Florida. Eerily similar stories of corruption, out of control debt, lack of city services, and City Officials not listening to the will of the people were exactly what was going on in Cedar Grove. A former Mayor of the City even did jail time for his crimes there. A group of concerned city residents attempted twice to dissolve the city by petition under the same state statutes 165.051, as we did here. Both attempts were shot down for various reasons, but similar to ours, the petitions accomplished a lot in giving the people a voice to let the City Officials know where the people stood on the issue of dissolving the city and the public's approval rating of how the city was being run into the ground. Essentially, the city choose to ignore the public's wishes and continued down the same path of corruption.
A few years later when 3 of the city council seats were up for election, three individuals, unknown to each other at the time, agreed to run for the open seats with the intention to shut down the city. They ran on the issue that they would listen to the will of the people and were successfully elected. The 3 individuals, Janet Beier, Tony Brannen, and Mary Ann Gardner, were dubbed as the "Gang of Three" by the public. Here is a link to Janet A. Beier's campaign site from when she ran for office: Janet A. Beier I personally spoke with Ms. Beier regarding what happened in Cedar Grove and how they were successful. She was very helpful and informative. She said they were just average people trying to stop the corruption in their small town, but the only way they could put a stop to it there was by getting elected into the Council seats and proposing an ordinance to dissolve the city, themselves. After assuming their positions, the "Gang of Three" did not waste any time proposing and approving this ordinance, with a vote of 3 to 2, to dissolve the city. It went to a vote of the people at the general election later that year. The people voted to approve the ordinance and 30 days later, the city was dissolved. This was the first time in Florida history that a city was dissolved by a vote of the people. "The dissolution ordinance took effect at 8:00 AM on 22 October 2008, at which time the police department was disbanded and all assets became the property of the Bay County Commission." (quoted from the Wikipedia article cited below) I wonder if Polk County realized the significance of the October 22nd date when they set the recent deadline for the City on the past due Impact Fees. Maybe this is some sort of foreshadowing and possible poetic justice! Ms. Beier said it was not an easy process and she received a lot of heat for what she did, but she did not regret any part of their actions. She still lives in the same area she did at the time of all this and is very happy to be living in unincorporated Bay County.
Here are several links about Cedar Grove, Florida.
Cedar Grove, Florida on Wikipedia
Details of Cedar Grove dissolution emerge (see VIDEOS)
Town of Cedar Grove is No More
Bay County takes control of Cedar Grove streets
www.city-data.com - Cedar Grove, Florida
Cedar Grove Dissolution Dilemma
Cedar Grove Election Results
A few years later when 3 of the city council seats were up for election, three individuals, unknown to each other at the time, agreed to run for the open seats with the intention to shut down the city. They ran on the issue that they would listen to the will of the people and were successfully elected. The 3 individuals, Janet Beier, Tony Brannen, and Mary Ann Gardner, were dubbed as the "Gang of Three" by the public. Here is a link to Janet A. Beier's campaign site from when she ran for office: Janet A. Beier I personally spoke with Ms. Beier regarding what happened in Cedar Grove and how they were successful. She was very helpful and informative. She said they were just average people trying to stop the corruption in their small town, but the only way they could put a stop to it there was by getting elected into the Council seats and proposing an ordinance to dissolve the city, themselves. After assuming their positions, the "Gang of Three" did not waste any time proposing and approving this ordinance, with a vote of 3 to 2, to dissolve the city. It went to a vote of the people at the general election later that year. The people voted to approve the ordinance and 30 days later, the city was dissolved. This was the first time in Florida history that a city was dissolved by a vote of the people. "The dissolution ordinance took effect at 8:00 AM on 22 October 2008, at which time the police department was disbanded and all assets became the property of the Bay County Commission." (quoted from the Wikipedia article cited below) I wonder if Polk County realized the significance of the October 22nd date when they set the recent deadline for the City on the past due Impact Fees. Maybe this is some sort of foreshadowing and possible poetic justice! Ms. Beier said it was not an easy process and she received a lot of heat for what she did, but she did not regret any part of their actions. She still lives in the same area she did at the time of all this and is very happy to be living in unincorporated Bay County.
Here are several links about Cedar Grove, Florida.
Cedar Grove, Florida on Wikipedia
Details of Cedar Grove dissolution emerge (see VIDEOS)
Town of Cedar Grove is No More
Bay County takes control of Cedar Grove streets
www.city-data.com - Cedar Grove, Florida
Cedar Grove Dissolution Dilemma
Cedar Grove Election Results
Conflicting Information regarding Check to County
Further information has been brought to our attention from another city resident who spoke with Interim County Manager Jim Freeman. Per this city resident, the check Acting City Manager/Vice Mayor Trudy Block attempted to present to the county on Thursday, October 21st, was not for $28,000, but rather $2,800. Since the check was never accepted by the county, there is a good chance there was some miscommunication regarding the actual amount, especially if no County Official ever saw the check in person. It sounds like the only source that would know for sure the exact amount of the check would be a representative from the City, and they have been pretty tight lipped on this issue. If the check was for $2,800, then Ms. Block would not have needed the approval of the entire City Council to initiate the check, since it would be under her $10,000 limit. The check would have only required her signature, as Vice Mayor, as well as Mayor Joe LaCascia's signature.
How the amount of the check presented to the county was determined has yet to be revealed, as well. If the check was truly for only $2,800, is this all that the City could afford to pay on a debt totaling over a half a million dollars? That in itself is a pretty sad state of affairs. We initially thought the $28,000 amount was low and would have been an insult. The amount under $3,000 is that much worse. If the main objective was to try to trick the County into accepting ANY kind of partial payment to void the terms of their demands, then the check could have been written for 1 cent and accomplish the same thing. Since the City Officials are not being very open and transparent about their dealings with the County lately, even with other Council Members at the City meetings, it leaves this question left unanswered.
We were also informed that the County Officials had an idea that the City would attempt to present the check a second time via overnight mail to be delivered to the County on the deadline of Friday, October 22nd, 2010. To make sure that there were no misunderstandings about the acceptance of this partial payment check, the County instructed all of it's over 2,000 employees NOT to sign for ANY deliveries on Friday. The County was very clever to make sure that there will be no signatures of any kind before the deadline expired that might indicate any acceptance of that partial payment. If there was, there may have been a chance that the attorneys could twist things around and void the previous ultimatum presented to the City for ONLY payment IN FULL. We applaud the County on their strategy. How the County proceeds from here we will have to wait and see.
How the amount of the check presented to the county was determined has yet to be revealed, as well. If the check was truly for only $2,800, is this all that the City could afford to pay on a debt totaling over a half a million dollars? That in itself is a pretty sad state of affairs. We initially thought the $28,000 amount was low and would have been an insult. The amount under $3,000 is that much worse. If the main objective was to try to trick the County into accepting ANY kind of partial payment to void the terms of their demands, then the check could have been written for 1 cent and accomplish the same thing. Since the City Officials are not being very open and transparent about their dealings with the County lately, even with other Council Members at the City meetings, it leaves this question left unanswered.
We were also informed that the County Officials had an idea that the City would attempt to present the check a second time via overnight mail to be delivered to the County on the deadline of Friday, October 22nd, 2010. To make sure that there were no misunderstandings about the acceptance of this partial payment check, the County instructed all of it's over 2,000 employees NOT to sign for ANY deliveries on Friday. The County was very clever to make sure that there will be no signatures of any kind before the deadline expired that might indicate any acceptance of that partial payment. If there was, there may have been a chance that the attorneys could twist things around and void the previous ultimatum presented to the City for ONLY payment IN FULL. We applaud the County on their strategy. How the County proceeds from here we will have to wait and see.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Personal Letter: Dear Fellow Citizens of Polk City
Dear Fellow Citizens of Polk City
It is now nearing "Tax Time in the City", the date when most of us would normally pay our property taxes. But these are not normal times!!! When you receive your property tax statement I beg you to look and check what you would pay if you deferred your taxes a few months before paying. You would not be penalized except for a few dollars.
And, as a good citizen pointed out, you can contact your mortgage company and ask them to defer payment per your request. I believe it is worth a small penalty. From this point on, Polk City citizens should have some consideration concerning the expenditures of our city.
What a disappointment!! I truly believed that now we had a council that would listen to the people.
What happens when you assume some kind of a position of power? Do you all of a sudden forget all the people whom you are to represent? Do you suddenly forget the meetings you attended, sitting next to your neighbors? Meeting in a church even, surrounded by people whom you knew dreaded the thought of forced annexation.
-And now because of a previous government that cared nothing for the people of Polk City, we, again are being victimized by non-representation & a tiny populace is faced with the prospect of paying thousands & thousands of dollars for expensive lawyer representation brought on because of the previous inept government.
I consider myself, and a lot of other citizens of Polk City to be well educated; we citizens "might" possibly have some input worthy of consideration also. The people of Polk City have been speaking.
Thank God for Don Kimsey, he seems to be the only Council Member who is in touch with the people. He continually keeps the people in mind.
Garnet Given
New Ledger Article about Previous City Attorney
Most of the information in the article is old news, but thought you may want to read it anyway.
City Attorney Calls it Quits in Polk City
City Attorney Calls it Quits in Polk City
Friday, October 22, 2010
Update on Payment Due to County for Back Impact Fees
It was brought to our attention by a city resident who spoke with County Attorney, Michael Craig, on Friday, October 22, that Acting City Manager/Vice Mayor Trudy Block attempted to present a check in person to the County on Thursday, October 21st. The County presented the City with a 30 day deadline to pay IN FULL the $531,000 delinquent impact fees due to the County since 2006 and 2007, with the due date being Friday, October 22, 2010. Attorney Craig indicated that the check Ms. Block attempted to present to the County was in the amount of $28,000. This is not even close to the amount that Ms. Block had previously tried to negotiate a deal for with former County Manager, Michael Herr, which was closer to a payment in excess of just over $100,000 per year over 5 years.
A second attempt to deliver this check was done via overnight mail for arrival on Friday morning, October 22nd. This package was defused by the County, per Attorney Michael Craig.
If the City had knowledge of this new deadline for the last 30 days, why was it not discussed in a public setting during the October 12th meeting with the rest of the Council Members? The item was on the agenda, but the only information provided to the public or the other Council Members by Ms. Block was that payment negotiations with the County were ongoing. Then she quickly followed this up by stating that, "That was all we will discuss on this issue." When Council Member Kimsey tried to get clarification on "We" she quickly changed the subject and moved on to the next topic disregarding his comment.
Members of Concerned Citizens had heard rumors about this new 30 day deadline 3 weeks prior, but had not been able to confirm anything officially. We felt it was not up to us to provide the public with this rumor, but rather an obligation for the City to inform the public and other Council Members. We assumed that the city would discuss this matter in more detail when we saw it on the agenda for the October 12th meeting. Since this check was more than $10,000, how can the decision be made without Council approval? Are there meetings or communications going on between a few Council Members in violation of Sunshine Law? Who was involved in the decision making on this check? Where was this money allocated in the City budget? So much for transparent government! Did the City officials think that people would not hear about this in such a small town where people know people?
A second attempt to deliver this check was done via overnight mail for arrival on Friday morning, October 22nd. This package was defused by the County, per Attorney Michael Craig.
If the City had knowledge of this new deadline for the last 30 days, why was it not discussed in a public setting during the October 12th meeting with the rest of the Council Members? The item was on the agenda, but the only information provided to the public or the other Council Members by Ms. Block was that payment negotiations with the County were ongoing. Then she quickly followed this up by stating that, "That was all we will discuss on this issue." When Council Member Kimsey tried to get clarification on "We" she quickly changed the subject and moved on to the next topic disregarding his comment.
Members of Concerned Citizens had heard rumors about this new 30 day deadline 3 weeks prior, but had not been able to confirm anything officially. We felt it was not up to us to provide the public with this rumor, but rather an obligation for the City to inform the public and other Council Members. We assumed that the city would discuss this matter in more detail when we saw it on the agenda for the October 12th meeting. Since this check was more than $10,000, how can the decision be made without Council approval? Are there meetings or communications going on between a few Council Members in violation of Sunshine Law? Who was involved in the decision making on this check? Where was this money allocated in the City budget? So much for transparent government! Did the City officials think that people would not hear about this in such a small town where people know people?
Important Meeting on Monday, October 25th at 6:00 PM - Please Attend
Below please read a letter sent from a fellow Polk City resident regarding the first agenda item at Monday's meeting:
10/21/2010 10:54 PM
Dear Fellow Polk City Citizens and County Residents,
I would like to ask you to attend the special called council meeting on October 25, 2010 at 6:00pm. It is my belief the current Acting City Manager, Mayor and City council have decided to change the date and time of the council meetings to a date and time that would not be convenient for the citizens to attend. The time and date I believe they would like is during the daytime hours Monday thru Friday.
Those who work during the daytime would be unable to attend. I see no reason to change the date of the council meeting. However, as it pertains to the time council starts their meeting. This could be changed to a later start time.
It is my belief the reason they want to change the date and time is because (We the people of Polk City) have packed council chambers at all the meetings. We have put the council under pressure because we have disagreed with their decisions and have let them know how we feel. We have been able to effect a change in regards to some decisions made by city council. They are forced to face the people they so inadequately represent.
They do not like what we have been able to accomplish. And therefore are trying to change the date and time as to place an undue hardship on the citizens by changing the date and time to an inconvenient time. Therefore, the council chambers would be empty. They would be sitting behind the council bench looking out at empty seats, not having to face the citizens they so inadequately represent. Therefore, this is a very important meeting and should be attended by all Polk City Citizens and County Residents.
Sincerely,
Mr. Robert W. Bersey
Polk City Resident --
In addition to the reasons Mr. Bersey sites in his letter, we also heard from Councilman Kimsey that the new City Attorney, Tom Cloud, has conflicts in his schedule with the present Tuesday night meeting time. This should have been considered before he was hired, since the previous City Attorney also had a scheduling conflict with the Tuesday night meeting time and he did not get the option of rescheduling the meeting date and time.
Will the public be allowed input in the new meeting times? Is the new meeting time going to be convenient for the new City Attorney with no consideration for when the public can attend? Will it be too early for those individuals who have regular day jobs to get there in time to attend after work? Will it be on Wednesday nights when many church goers have regular gatherings? The difference in attendance on the special meeting nights when the start time is at 6:00 PM is significantly reduced than on those meeting nights when the start time is at 7:30 PM for the regular meeting. Is this a new city strategy so the Council can make it appear that the city residents no longer have an opinion about what is going on? Previously, the Council complained that the public was not getting involved. Now that the public has, maybe they can't take the heat. Council Blevin will be out of town for this meeting, so the vote at best will be among 4 Council Members. Likely the vote will be 3 to 1.
Please email our Council Members and show up to Monday night's meeting to make sure that the public does not get shut out. The email addresses of the Council Members can be found in this previous post: Meeting Request
10/21/2010 10:54 PM
Dear Fellow Polk City Citizens and County Residents,
I would like to ask you to attend the special called council meeting on October 25, 2010 at 6:00pm. It is my belief the current Acting City Manager, Mayor and City council have decided to change the date and time of the council meetings to a date and time that would not be convenient for the citizens to attend. The time and date I believe they would like is during the daytime hours Monday thru Friday.
Those who work during the daytime would be unable to attend. I see no reason to change the date of the council meeting. However, as it pertains to the time council starts their meeting. This could be changed to a later start time.
It is my belief the reason they want to change the date and time is because (We the people of Polk City) have packed council chambers at all the meetings. We have put the council under pressure because we have disagreed with their decisions and have let them know how we feel. We have been able to effect a change in regards to some decisions made by city council. They are forced to face the people they so inadequately represent.
They do not like what we have been able to accomplish. And therefore are trying to change the date and time as to place an undue hardship on the citizens by changing the date and time to an inconvenient time. Therefore, the council chambers would be empty. They would be sitting behind the council bench looking out at empty seats, not having to face the citizens they so inadequately represent. Therefore, this is a very important meeting and should be attended by all Polk City Citizens and County Residents.
Sincerely,
Mr. Robert W. Bersey
Polk City Resident --
In addition to the reasons Mr. Bersey sites in his letter, we also heard from Councilman Kimsey that the new City Attorney, Tom Cloud, has conflicts in his schedule with the present Tuesday night meeting time. This should have been considered before he was hired, since the previous City Attorney also had a scheduling conflict with the Tuesday night meeting time and he did not get the option of rescheduling the meeting date and time.
Will the public be allowed input in the new meeting times? Is the new meeting time going to be convenient for the new City Attorney with no consideration for when the public can attend? Will it be too early for those individuals who have regular day jobs to get there in time to attend after work? Will it be on Wednesday nights when many church goers have regular gatherings? The difference in attendance on the special meeting nights when the start time is at 6:00 PM is significantly reduced than on those meeting nights when the start time is at 7:30 PM for the regular meeting. Is this a new city strategy so the Council can make it appear that the city residents no longer have an opinion about what is going on? Previously, the Council complained that the public was not getting involved. Now that the public has, maybe they can't take the heat. Council Blevin will be out of town for this meeting, so the vote at best will be among 4 Council Members. Likely the vote will be 3 to 1.
Please email our Council Members and show up to Monday night's meeting to make sure that the public does not get shut out. The email addresses of the Council Members can be found in this previous post: Meeting Request
Danger of Complacency
According to Webster’s Dictionary, complacency is defined as “mild contentment”. When one is complacent, one becomes tolerant and impassive. Don’t let the present city administration lead you into a false sense of security. After reading some of the comments from the “Sunshine” area of the city, it is very disturbing that some of the residents there are so shortsighted. Anyone can figure out that if all Polk City Utility customers receive monthly bills of only $50.00, this city would have been bankrupt long ago. When you go to the city and request to see someone else’s utility bill, do you also ask to see the bills that are from some of the county residents receiving Polk City water and sewer bills, and are billed at an additional 25% above city utility customers?
The main source of revenue for the city is in the form of utility receipts and ad-valorum property taxes come in second. The primary reason why Polk City purchased the Mt. Olive WWF from the County two years ago was to eventually hook up its customer base to the system, which would give them more control to increase the city’s revenue. Just ask the customers who are now hooked up to the city’s water and sewer system. If the residents in the “Sunshine” area of the city think they will be exempt from being included in future sewer expansion they are living in “Fantasy Land”. The city is a corporation, and exists to make money. They do not fall into the “Non-Profit Organization” category, although their finances have been running in “the red” for several years.
The fact about having a separate irrigation meter installed is that it will only benefit those in areas that are hooked up to the sewer system. The water flowing through the standard water meter and the irrigation meter comes from the same source, since the city does not offer reclaimed water. The water being measured by the irrigation meter is being charged the same water rate as your drinking water. The way the sewer customers will benefit from having an irrigation meter is by not being charged sewer usage on the water that flows through the irrigation meter. The utility bill will reflect an extra monthly charge for the irrigation meter after it is installed, whether it is used or not.
During the Oct. 12, 2010 City Council meeting, one utility customer requested that the city reconsider the total ban on well drilling, and allow wells for irrigation purposes only. The resident stated that he realizes the water used to water lawns is a big money maker for the city. The city’s reason for banning wells is that it places undue burden on the natural water resources in the aquifer. Pun intended, this argument does not hold water, since the water pulled from the aquifer to water lawns and wash cars will drain right back into the ground, returning it to the aquifer. Mayor LaCascia’s response implied that this issue is not a priority with the city at this time. Obviously the city is not willing to give up this additional source of revenue anytime soon.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Response from City on Petition
Here is a link to a scanned copy of the document we received from the City today. City Response to Petition
They have deemed our petition null and void. Despite this fact, we know in our hearts that we have put a finger on the pulse of Polk City and the surrounding area to see how they felt. We provided a means to allow the people to be heard loud and clear. By deeming this petition null and void, the City Council has chosen to ignore the people's wishes based on a technicality. The main reason for this petition was to urge the City Council to propose an ordinance for dissolution of the city which would then need to go to a vote of the people. The City Council can still do this without a petition. If it doesn't happen with this current council, once terms expire for current Councilors Adorno and Bleven in April 2012, individuals who support this view can replace them with the public's support.
We feel that this effort has not been fruitless. We have been successful in putting pressure on the city to approve a lower millage rate than initially proposed. We prevented an automatic increase on the water and sewer rates that would have been in addition to the recent 12%, then 50% increase we have already received. We have created awareness within the County and State levels of government of the dire state of affairs in Polk City. We have been VERY successful in getting the citizens involved, which the city officials complained was not happening. We sincerely thank you for your great response and hope it continues in the future! With our blog we will continue to keep the citizens of Polk City informed of new developments and if needed, urge action in the future. We encourage your input and any additional information you can provide to the rest of the citizens. Please continue to read our blog for updates. This is unfinished business and it is yet to be seen how the County's actions will affect the City's future.
They have deemed our petition null and void. Despite this fact, we know in our hearts that we have put a finger on the pulse of Polk City and the surrounding area to see how they felt. We provided a means to allow the people to be heard loud and clear. By deeming this petition null and void, the City Council has chosen to ignore the people's wishes based on a technicality. The main reason for this petition was to urge the City Council to propose an ordinance for dissolution of the city which would then need to go to a vote of the people. The City Council can still do this without a petition. If it doesn't happen with this current council, once terms expire for current Councilors Adorno and Bleven in April 2012, individuals who support this view can replace them with the public's support.
We feel that this effort has not been fruitless. We have been successful in putting pressure on the city to approve a lower millage rate than initially proposed. We prevented an automatic increase on the water and sewer rates that would have been in addition to the recent 12%, then 50% increase we have already received. We have created awareness within the County and State levels of government of the dire state of affairs in Polk City. We have been VERY successful in getting the citizens involved, which the city officials complained was not happening. We sincerely thank you for your great response and hope it continues in the future! With our blog we will continue to keep the citizens of Polk City informed of new developments and if needed, urge action in the future. We encourage your input and any additional information you can provide to the rest of the citizens. Please continue to read our blog for updates. This is unfinished business and it is yet to be seen how the County's actions will affect the City's future.
Response from Councilman Don Kimsey and Looming County Deadline
In response to our email, only one Councilman has responded to our request so far. Councilman Don Kimsey was very open and answered our questions to the best of his knowledge. He did inform us that he still has yet to receive an acceptance by another Council Person to meet and discuss the petition.
Councilman Kimsey also wanted to bring up the fact that for approximately 2 weeks he has been aware that the County Officials have requested that the City come up with payment IN FULL of the back impact fees from 2006 & 2007 amounting to $531,000, if no interest is assessed, by Friday, October 22nd, 2010. In the last October 12th City Council Meeting this issue was on the agenda as one of the City Manager items. Unfortunately, the only thing that Vice Mayor/Acting City Manager Trudy Block had to say about this agenda item was that they were still working on negotiating a payment plan with the County. She then quickly stated that there would be no further discussion on the matter. Now we see why. One would think that when the Council members are able to ALL meet together that important issues like this would be discussed with ALL the individuals holding positions with authority to make decisions for the City. Apparently, there are a few Council Members that don't feel like that is the case, unless they are just trying to keep the public in the dark on the issue.
After presenting the last check to the County for the $348,779.34 for the past due payments on the Mt. Olive Utility System, the City's finances were running pretty low at best. A copy of the City's bank account balances several days after cutting this check can be seen here on a previous blog post. Current Financial Situation of Polk City Based on the approximate cash flow the City receives monthly from Utility Fees, the main revenue source for the City, and approximate operating costs of running the City on a daily basis, it does not appear that the City will be able to come up with another check to the County for over a 1/2 Million dollars by this Friday.
Since the last City Council Meeting did not provide the public with any information on this issue, we can only presume how the City will respond to this request. Will the City Officials run down to Bartow with a check in the amount that they would like to pay without a mutually agreed upon payment plan? Will the City Officials scrape the bottom of the barrel again and clean out the accounts to present a check for as much as the city can afford? Will the County ACCEPT a check for PARTIAL Payment when they are requesting payment IN FULL? In a situation where an individual can not come up with their entire mortgage payment, usually the bank refuses partial payment so it will not appear to have accepted lower payment terms. This action many times results in the bank initiating foreclosure proceedings. Will a similar thing happen to the City by the County notifying the Governor's Office of the delinquent payment resulting in the State declaring Polk City in an OFFICIAL state of Financial Emergency as outlined in State Statute 218.503 - Determination of Financial Emergency? This reporting to the Governor's Office was voted on and approved at the County Meeting on September 15th as a next step in the event that the City did not come up with the past due payment on the Mt. Olive Utility System loan by the September 20th deadline, so it may not be out of the question.
Councilman Kimsey also wanted to bring up the fact that for approximately 2 weeks he has been aware that the County Officials have requested that the City come up with payment IN FULL of the back impact fees from 2006 & 2007 amounting to $531,000, if no interest is assessed, by Friday, October 22nd, 2010. In the last October 12th City Council Meeting this issue was on the agenda as one of the City Manager items. Unfortunately, the only thing that Vice Mayor/Acting City Manager Trudy Block had to say about this agenda item was that they were still working on negotiating a payment plan with the County. She then quickly stated that there would be no further discussion on the matter. Now we see why. One would think that when the Council members are able to ALL meet together that important issues like this would be discussed with ALL the individuals holding positions with authority to make decisions for the City. Apparently, there are a few Council Members that don't feel like that is the case, unless they are just trying to keep the public in the dark on the issue.
After presenting the last check to the County for the $348,779.34 for the past due payments on the Mt. Olive Utility System, the City's finances were running pretty low at best. A copy of the City's bank account balances several days after cutting this check can be seen here on a previous blog post. Current Financial Situation of Polk City Based on the approximate cash flow the City receives monthly from Utility Fees, the main revenue source for the City, and approximate operating costs of running the City on a daily basis, it does not appear that the City will be able to come up with another check to the County for over a 1/2 Million dollars by this Friday.
Since the last City Council Meeting did not provide the public with any information on this issue, we can only presume how the City will respond to this request. Will the City Officials run down to Bartow with a check in the amount that they would like to pay without a mutually agreed upon payment plan? Will the City Officials scrape the bottom of the barrel again and clean out the accounts to present a check for as much as the city can afford? Will the County ACCEPT a check for PARTIAL Payment when they are requesting payment IN FULL? In a situation where an individual can not come up with their entire mortgage payment, usually the bank refuses partial payment so it will not appear to have accepted lower payment terms. This action many times results in the bank initiating foreclosure proceedings. Will a similar thing happen to the City by the County notifying the Governor's Office of the delinquent payment resulting in the State declaring Polk City in an OFFICIAL state of Financial Emergency as outlined in State Statute 218.503 - Determination of Financial Emergency? This reporting to the Governor's Office was voted on and approved at the County Meeting on September 15th as a next step in the event that the City did not come up with the past due payment on the Mt. Olive Utility System loan by the September 20th deadline, so it may not be out of the question.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Meeting Request
This morning an email was sent out to all the Polk City Council Members. It has now been a week since the petition for a referendum for a special election to dissolve the City of Polk City was presented to City Council at the October 12th, City Council Meeting. We have not yet received a response from the city. Many city residents are asking what is going on and if we have heard anything. To help answer these questions we sent the following email to each individual Council Person:
"Good morning. A group of city residents would like to meet with you to discuss your individual views on the petition to get a referendum for a special election to dissolve the City of Polk City. With the large amount of supporters that signed the petition, we feel it would be in the best interest of the people to let it go to a vote. As a public servant we feel your support should mirror the majority of the views of the people. Please contact us at your earliest convenience and we will attempt to work around your schedule to set up this meeting. If you feel more comfortable responding to this request in an email, we will also respect that. The public is requesting additional information on your personal views regarding how this petition should be handled. We look forward to your timely response.
Sincerely,
Lisa B. Shifflett "
We understand that on Monday, October 18th, Council Member Don Kinsey requested to have a special meeting with fellow council members some time on Thursday, October 21st, to discuss the petition issue, but needs an additional council member to second this request. He stated that we don't know where we are going with this petition until we know where we are on the issue. As of Tuesday afternoon on October, 19th, he had still not been contacted by any of the other Council Members to agree to a meeting to discuss it. Under Florida State Sunshine Law, no two or more elected or appointed officials are permitted to discuss city business issues without officially announcing a meeting and having their discussion either recorded for public review or open to the public. Councilman Kimsey was attempting to have open discussions on this issue, but is still waiting for a response. Councilman Kimsey also stated that Councilman Mike Blethen had sent out notification to the other council persons that he will be out of town between October 23rd and November 2nd, so he has requested that any issues be brought to his attention before that time so he can participate. That time is quickly approaching.
We understand that several of the council members have other day jobs besides their responsibilities at the city, so it can be difficult to reach them during business hours to allow the public to voice their views on city issues. If you call the main city number (863) 984-1375 and go through the automated menu to reach an individual council person, you are likely to end up in voicemail. Since the official website for the City of Polk City has removed the emails for the Council members, we have provided them below:
Mayor Joe LaCascia: Joe.LaCascia@mypolkcity.org
Vice Mayor/Acting City Manager Trudy Block: Trudy.Block@mypolkcity.org
Council Person Nancy Adorno: Mast-fitter@hotmail.com
Councilman Mike Blethen: Mikeb1001@aol.com
Councilman Don Kimsey: Donkis@aol.com
As we receive information back from the council in response to the email this morning, we will update the blog so the public can be informed of their views.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)