You Choose the Subject - I often wish this format allowed the readers of the blog a change to post a new topic and get comment from me and others. So here's your chance; tell me what you want to read about, and I'll post new topics to cover them - within reason of course! What's on your mind, either that's new or that you haven't seen the answers to yet?
posted by Michael McNees at 5:03 PM
20 Comments:
Is there any process in our government or courts that would allow the citizens to reject or dispute the deal the city commissioners are doing with the developers of the Pineapple Square project?
There are just such blantant disregards for our tax money and our city owned land by the commission entering into these contracts.
Many business owners and citizens in our downtown feel the "trade" of the State Street land that is city owned for the air rights in the Pineapple Square developemnt with only an 80 years lease plus 1 million dollars is a very bad long term deal for our city. You cannot wiggle your way into convincing the general public that giving away "owned city land" for "air rights with an 80 year lease" is a good trade. It is not as if this Pineapple Square developer is lacking in funds, just look at all the donations they have made to the DTP, Sarasota Film Fesitival, ect....easy to see who the supporters are just by the list.
It is also undisputed that the givaway of the public parking lots on State Street and 1st Street are a slap in the face to those that have been conducting their businesses through our cities growth. How can you give exclusive rights to one developer when you have businesses that rely on those spaces? It was heartwrenching to watch the new business The Taste of Asia speak at the commission table without any consideration. Why does a new restraunt get better treatment than those serving us the past several years?
And as we speak, our commissioner Ms. Servian is off with Mr. Simon at a convention helping him get his tenants for his building. How disprespectful can our system get?
I agree with many that want to find alternatives to stop this deal and would like to know if there are governments policies we can follow without having to take the city to court?
Lets talk about something important. How about how the TIF monies for downtown Sarasota should be spent over the next 10 years.
Once the State Street lot is closed for construction of Pineapple Square, (assuming it goes through), downtown merchants will no longer enjoy my patronage. I and a group of friends meet at least weekly downtown and we all park in that lot. Take those hundred or so cars in the State St. lot and the Church lot and put them in the other very limited available parking on a Friday evening and good luck. And no, I don't want to have to deal with some centralized valet parking system being discussed. I pass many other fine bars and restaurants on my way to downtown.
And what's the deal I read about in the Pelican Press that the developer was offering no money down and 10% off to downtown merchants in order to build contract numbers?
srqcomment:
Are you saying the developer of Pineapple Square is trying to sway established businesses to move from their current location to their development?
srqblogger - My job is to take the policy direction of the City Commission and make it work. In this case, that means to be sure that the parking needs of the Taste of Asia and other existing restaurants are addressed as we go forward. I've said more than once here that it is not my place to second-guess the Commission after the fact, rather to see that staff provides adequate information and makes appropriate recommendations during he decision-making process.
I'll also say that our Commissioners are highly accessible should you wish to share your thoughts with them, and I'm certain each would be more than happy to defend his or her own decision making process on any issue.
mercator - good question, watch this space for a new question to be posted.
Maybe some of these questions are basic but here goes.
Is it true that the developed projects, within the last year or so, and the proposed projects, other than the Pineapple Square project, have not had any requirements to provide additional public parking?
If so, couldn't the City have enacted an ordinance that would require developers to provide certain elements within their projects that would aid or add value to infrastructure, transportation, parking, etc?
Have the developers proposing residences provided parking for the estimated new owners/tenants within their developments? If so, do we know how many additional vehicles they have estimated and what effefct does that have on a "walking" City?
Is there a requirement that developers have to allow greenspaces or at least some type of "pocket park?" If developers are not or cannot provide parking or parks could there be some sort of "impact fee" assessment then required of them so that the City could utilize these fees in another area?
Based on the proposed development has there been an analysis of the demographics of the City now and within five or ten years? What services, based on these developments will be impacted the most?
It appears that the public access to the City on the Bay is going to be through privately owned or leased facilities. What is the future desire for Sarasota. It appears that developers see it as a high end Shopping Mecca. For travel related purposes is that the future draw for tourists? For the present citizens of the City is that what they want?
What role does the proposed Cultural District play as far as coordination with the proposed development?
Are developers charged fees based on the future infrastructure impact and law enforcement needs?
Have the St. Armand's businesses been considered in future plans?
Has there been any additional discussion concerning transportation or sustainability goals for the City that developers could assist in attaining?
Based on some answers to the above has an estimate been done as to the positive or negative impact on taxes for the next five to ten years.
From Today's SDRQ Page 1 -- County Takes Step Toward Fertilizer Regulations
Noting the decline of water quality and the irresponsible use of fertilizers, Sarasota County commissioners passed a resolution yesterday allowing staff to study and establish policies to improve the county’s waterways.
The City must follow this excellent example.
beamer - thanks for the easy questions! but seriously...most of what you've asked requires fairly long answers, but I'll start with the first one for now. No development is required to build parking for more than what our codes require for their project. In the case of the Second Street/100 Central garage, the city paid to construct 300 additional spaces. That is what's proposed for Pineapple Square, that the city would pay to build 350 more than required by our code.
activist, we're already well down that road - our Parks and Envirinmental Advisory Board has looked at the issue already, and the City Comission made the whole thing one of this year's legislative priorities for the city.
I may not have been clear above, when I said "parking beyond what our code requires", I meant what is required for the specific uses within that project, with any thing over that considered "public" in this context."
Development has been the major topic in Sarasota for quite some time.
However, internal operations of the City should be reviewed as well. There may be ways to be more efficent and it does not appear that internal operations have ever been streamlined or reviewed. Perhaps consolidating some departments that don't seem to add value and could either be consolidated or eliminated would allow for authorizing postions where they are truly needed or for bumping up the pay for the people in the "trenches," who very often go unrecognized simply because they are not "Managers". As an example, in looking at the budget and the job descriptions on line why would it take three managers in General Services, two to three managers in Finance and a bunch of Administrative personnel to dispose of assets generating a revenue, according to the budget, of $125,000.00. Granted this is not all that they do but if two manager's in one department all ready have this responsibility why would another be needed? Maybe there is some explanation not readily visible but when many communities are using the internet to dispose of assets this seems like a lot of people handling this function for not very much revenue generation. With the creation of the new position which manager is no longer performing the function? Why would we create a position for this function when Procurement personnel have this knowledge as a part of their coursework, which is required to keep their jobs. We create a position not requiring cetificiation in this or any other function, nor coursework,nor any requirement for future coursework to keep the job and pay it two grades higher than those who have to receive certification, which includes coursework including contract negotiation, management and disposal of assets,in order to keep their jobs. Yet, they weren't eligible to apply. Nor was anyone else in the City. Wouldn't it be in the best interest to allow internal candidates the opportunity to apply, particularly since so many descriptions have similar or greater duties. Besides, you never know what employee talents may be available unless you ask. According to the Manager's budget message it appears that management oversight of the Auditoriums would be with the Municpal Auditorium Manager Makes sense. Yet, this new position now has management oversight of the Payne Park Auditorium. If the intent was consolidation, the manager's message made sense. To have a manager for the Payne Park Auditorium does not. What is the concession value that this position manages and why couldn't the highly competent staff all ready in place for the Municipal Auditorium manage this? To place a maintenance function full time for the Payne Park Auditorium would make sense if the management was with the Municipal Auditorium manager, but to create a full time mainenance position and an additional manager does not seem to be the intent of the manager's budget message. Don't the Procurement personnel, including the Contract Analyst, "manage" contracts worth millions. How dissimilar is that to "managing" leases? According to the budget the Warehouse personnel handle approximately $2,000,000 in inventory. Is this management, as the Supervisors there are only at a Grade 15. This is just one example. Maybe there is an explanation. But, just on the surface it does not appear to be the best use of staff or funds, particularly when the City has lost some good planners.
srqblogger: No, I'm talking about the residential condos, not the commercial space.
To Mr. McNees: What are the requirements for parking under the current code? I'm pretty sure the County code requires 1 parking space for every 50 square feet of dining and waiting space for a restaurant with, (I think), more than 100 seats. Those 350 spaces you're talking about, those are not 350 more spaces than what is currently available is it? As far as I know, in the Main & Lemon area, besides the State St. and church parking lot behind the Gator Club, the only other nearby lots I can think of are across from the bus station on Second and the Whole Foods garage. Even with the former two lots, the latter two are often full or close to full, so the closing of State St. and the church lot will be quite a loss. Add on all the additional square feet of retail, dining, etc. proposed for Pineapple Square and you need a lot more parking. I can imagine the developers coming back to the City down the road crying poverty once plans are finalized for Sarasota Bayside, (Quay), and all the high-end retailers and businesses planned for that project. They will probably have tons of parking and will draw a lot of business from downtown. I can't see people shopping or dining there and then getting in their cars to search for a parking space around Main St. and I don't expect people to walk across 41 to get to downtown from there.
Here's a subject to discuss, and if blogger.com has the ability to have a poll online, maybe you can do that. The State Legislature recently passed a bill that will allow local governments to approve allowing dogs in outdoor dining areas. Currently, except for service animals, animals are not permitted anywhere food is served. That is the US food code and was Florida law. I think allowing different food codes from municipality to municipality is a dangerous precedent. After the Governer signs the bill, local governments can enact laws that allow restaurants to admit pets in outdoor areas -- if they choose to get a permit. This being illegal hasn't stopped the practice at Sarasota restaurants in the past, so I'm not sure if whether the Sarasota passing such an ordinance will make any difference. Personally, I don't want to dine alongside dogs, outdoors or not. Dined at Barnacle Bill's the other night and looked outside to see my server playing with a customer's dog. I don't know whether or not she washed her hands before returning to work, it's not something I really want to have think about when dining, but after seeing her having her hand licked and patting the dog, well, you get the idea. I will not be going back. I've also seen dogs in Mattison's downtown. One woman even had her dog sitting on a chair eating off the table. No thanks. I'm curious to hear what others think of the subject. And before anyone starts gushing over how their dog is a member of their family, sorry, dogs are not people. You can actually go out to dinner and leave Fido at home.
I was hopeful that perhaps I could have received a response but if not I do hope that perhaps some of the questions may be considered during the budget process. In addition, I know the budget message also had stated that the Central Stores operation would begin charging the departments 18% on October 1. When did this actually occur? I believe the well intentioned reason would be to save the general fund money during the year rather than having it go into the fund balance of Central Stores. Makes sense, then return calculations would not be necessary and the departmental funds would be spared the additional charge. I believe Commissioners Palmer and Servian questioned why the replacement of windows at City Hall were not included in the renovation. The response seems to be that the renovation was for the interior. Perhaps additional questions might have been in order. For instance, if all necessary repairs had been anticipated and information provided to the Commission for the overall renovation could not they have then had the opportunity to determine if it all could have been done at once. If it is done now doesn't that increase costs such as mobilization, the cost of bidding and also, if the CM had taken bids over a year and a half ago wouldn't the material and labor costs be less?
gulfer - You covered a lot of ground with the first post, and it's pretty hard for me to address all of those issues in this format. You obviously have a copy of the city budget, you are welcome to make an appointment and come in to my office to have your questions answered. I can say that we are constantly looking at internal functions, particularly during the budgeting process.
You're correct about my efforts not to accumulate reserves in the Central Stores fund, we're better off lowering those interfund charges. Finally the discussion of City Hall window replacements has to do with improving the building's hurricane resistance. When we proposed the interior renovations nearly three years ago, we pretty much exhausted the available funds doing what we're now nearly finished with. The obvious answer to your question is yes, upgrading the windows would be cheaper had we bid it a couple of years ago, but we can say that about everything we do this year, or about any year for that matter. We kept the scope of the project down as much as possible to stay within the money available.
Thank you for the invitation to have my questions answered by visiting you at City Hall but I will decline. I also understand and respect that not all questions can be addressed appropriately in this format. I looked at the budget online and in light of all that is going on in the city looked at some of the administrative costs. This lead me to looking at what was proposed in the document to be addressed during the year and so on... It just occurred to me in reviewing some items that perhaps a review of some operations is necessary in terms of efficiency, achievement of goals and costs which might lead to a restructuring and consolidation of operations or reassignment. Example: Create a Facilities/Maintenance division under public works for all construction and include Construction contracting and Professional services. This would align well with the Capital Project coordination and insure that future maintenance costs are included. Then you have the functions placed in an area not only where the most usage occurs but also where the expertise in those functions lies. It just appeared that there are an inordinate amount of managers performing limited or duplicatve functions. Although not ever popular it just seemed that perhaps some areas were becoming a little too "top heavy" and by realining perhaps it would be determined that these functions could be aligned elsewhere and managed effectively.
Since you are entering your budget phase I was just curious if there is some reason that you haven't taken advantage of Florida's deregulation of Natural Gas. The State forged an agreement with Infinite Energy in 2004 which would allow them to supply the "excess" gas at a mark up over the FERC NYMEX rate which has been found to save many governments and businesses money. If you have taken advantage of this program what have been your savings. If not, is there a problem with the program. Thank you.
Beamer, you've got me on this one, I don't know anything about it. Unless there's some use in our composting operation I'm unaware of, I don't know of anywhere we use a significant amount of natural gas, if any, so don't know where we might find savings. Am I missing something?
I am sorry, my fault. The State let a Capacity Management contract in 2004 for Capacity Management and Acquisition of Natural Gas as a result of the deregulation, sort of like phone service. Basically you are buying the "excess" gas, not already committed to consumers,or,unused quantities previously committed, running it through a TECO line but buying it from Infinite Energy at a reduced rate. The key is to know your quantities. You don't have to use gas in inordinate amounts to achieve a savings. TECO and two to three other firms provide this option, but you have to be in a deregulated area. You pay a markup but it is usually lower than what you are paying for your gas now and rates are based on the indexes I mentioned earlier. So, if you are heating your buildings through TECO you could get a quote from Infinite Energy through the State agreement to determine if you would achieve savings. There are other companies out there. I just mentioned this since it has all ready been awarded a contract with the State. I am not promoting the company just the process. It is an interesting option that is catching on, particularly with prices rising. You can also lock in your pricing for a year which could produce significant savings and achieve better budget estimates for energy costs. With energy costs what they are it might be worthwhile if you are heating any of your facilities with gas. That was just an overview but the contract is on the State website and you or your staff may find it interesting if you are using any natural gas for your facilities.
Do you know the status of negotiations for Verizon Fios TV in Sarasota?
Gary - Verizon has been in conversation with Sarasota County for some time, and only recently let us know they would be looking for a franchise in the city (I didn't the term "Fios TV" and had to look it up to answer your question.) We will most likely engage a franchise expert to work with the staff and City Attorney's representative in negotiating a franchise agreement, likely to be consistent with what the county does.
Post a Comment
<< Home