Following the popular article, “Billion Dollar Theft Planned by City,” the role of Assistant City Attorney Linda Hudson became a focus for further inquiry.  Toward that end, I requested copies of her city emails from the time frame of that article through the present, per Florida’s Public Records Act.

Emails were the only documents requested, as they are purely digital and require minimum computer resources to locate, search, sort, review, copy or send.  Past requests of a similar nature came with a reasonable city technology fee of $25, usually overnight.

This request became an entirely different story.  Following a commitment from “records@talgov.com” to begin the request and identify costs, the City Attorney’s influence took over.  In the meantime, I paid the quoted $69.24 “technology charge” for sorting out the emails from the city’s computer.

With no advance notification as to additional costs, I received a $500 charge along with information that an army of law clerks was spending $100/hour manually reviewing and searching emails for my request.  The total expected charge to me for this search and review was quoted at $11,600.  The lack of notice and the manual method of searching were both surprising.  Something was up.

This was, of course, a scheme to evade the requirements of Florida Public Records Law and to refuse to provide the records as requested.  Until payment is made on the first un-warranted $500 charge, no further record requests will be performed for me, and no records released. They had effectively erected a cost barrier, however false the premise for the charges.  To put it bluntly, they refused to provide the records.

THE SEARCH FOR LINDA HUDSON’S COURT NOTES

Per claims by Lewis Shelley in the City Attorney’s Office, and Matt Lutz in the Treasurer-Clerk’s Office, each of more than 125,000 emails from my request have to be manually pulled up, read, reviewed for content, and evaluated by law clerks under their direction.  They have suggested it could be completed in 20 weeks, as long as I keep paying.

These clerks are ostensibly looking for copies of very specialized documents allowed as exemptions to the Public Records Act known as Attorney Work Product.  In  previous, similar searches, the assistant city attorney withheld 140 separate “attorney work product” emails, only to have every one later released as unqualified.  The courts have expressly ruled that “embarrassment” of the author is not a legislatively-defined exemption.

In order to be temporarily exempt under Florida Law, attorney work product documents have to be written exclusively to reflect a legal strategy or theory for immediately- pending litigation.  The parties to the matter must be named, and the document may not have “gone public”.  Emails, with their ease of forwarding, are unlikely to be private, and no control exists to be sure they haven’t “gone public.”  Genuine litigation strategy is not generally  shared by email.

In reality, Ms. Hudson has all her emails sorted into folders and would have immediate knowledge of current litigation (She authors a monthly update on pending litigation topics for city managers.)  Any truly-qualifying  “attorney work product” emails that might exist would be readily identifiable for removal from the search results I’ve requested.  However, such an obvious, simple solution would not further their elaborate charade to refuse delivery of public records.

A humorous, remote possibility that the City Attorney and his staff really do have to look through millions of emails every time they want to review a pending case may perhaps explain why they so frequently agree to out-of-court settlements.

WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

This convoluted, wasteful exercise to avoid releasing public records from an assistant city attorney is one more example of the questionable government practiced downtown these days.  It is no less than a violation of the Florida Public Records Act.  But, it could be far more serious than that.

This incident puts a spotlight on the City Attorney and his staff:  We have a private domain operating within City Hall, actively working to evade scrutiny as well as responsibility to the public.  How many laws are being circumvented?  What rights are being trampled?  What shady deals are going on?  Without access to our public records, we can’t know.

Further, our new Interim Treasurer-Clerk may have bought into their deception.  He has failed to respond to multiple inquiries on this request.  Public records distribution is a function of his office.

Another concern arises:  If the City’s Information Systems Services (computer services) is duped into cooperating with this secrecy, there does exist the possibility that crucial public records could be disappearing, with no trace.  We need immediate backups for long-term storage outside the city system with no possibility of erasure.

The public needs a good, hard look into our City Attorney’s Office. This kind of evasive action doesn’t occur without reason.

If you’re wondering where the City Commissioners and the Mayor are in this, they’re on vacation.  And when have they ever looked into the City Attorney’s office?  They know what’s going on.

With the flow of money so tight, an extra expense to conform with regulations or the variation in costs between governmental jurisdictions can doom an investment in our community and kill the creation of local jobs.

For years, the difference in electric rates between the city of Tallahassee and Talquin provided a substantive difference in operation costs and one could argue, resulted in the development of the Midway industrial complex.

Another issue that is impacting local development in Leon County is sewer and water charges. Sewer and water service is delivered in three different jurisdictions within Leon County with three different costs structures. As the chart below indicates, the difference in costs between the city of Tallahassee service within the city limits, the city of Tallahassee service outside the city limits, and for service from Talquin is significant

The chart below shows the difference in sanitary sewer and potable water system charges and connection fees for a 300 unit apartment complex.

Based on current charges, a 300 unit apartment complex could cost an additional $600,000 in fees to build in Leon County with Talquin water and sewer service than within the city limits. This cost structure results in an additional $2000 per unit.

Who sets the rates for Talquin? Tallahassee Reports has learned that while the Florida Public Service Commission reviews “rate structure”, as a co-op, Talquin is allowed by law to set their own rates.

Several developers have told Tallahassee Reports that these charges can be a real impediment to moving forward with a project and therefore creating local jobs. Tallahassee Reports is following up on a number of questions: Why are these costs so much different than in the city? Are rates for new construction subsidizing residential service? And, how can it be that local government does not have some jurisdiction over the rates Talquin is charging?

With this in mind, Tallahassee Reports has been researching how government delivers services and if this process results in the lowest costs for the citizens of Florida.

As we have written in the past, government procurement policies determine the winner and losers in the world of government contracts. However, often times, decisions are made for reasons other than costs. When this happens, the door to subjectivity is open and questions about final decisions become more relevant.

Tallahassee Reports reviewed 22 design/build selection results by the Florida Department of Transportation and found that three contracts were not awarded to the lowest bidder. A closer look reveals that the three winning awards in the these cases were 21% ($500,000), 9.0% ($12,000,000) and .6% ($500,000) higher than the second place bidders, respectively. This means more costs for the citizens of Florida, but why?

Tallahassee Reports was told by a DOT employee that the lowest bid is not always the best bid because of factors like quality and project timing. But who determines the impact and relevance of these factors? It appears that a rating system implemented by DOT employees integrates project criteria with costs to determine an “adjusted score”. The proposal with the best “adjusted score” wins the job regardless of price. In three instances, the citizens of Tallahassee paid approximately $13 million more than if the second place bidder had been selected because of an “adjusted score.”

With respect to a project titled “DMS Replacement and ITS Install”, the “adjusted score” process caused the state of Florida to pay $12 million more than if the low bidder would have been selected. Also, the project titled “Hayden Burns Building Basement” cost $500,000 or 20% more than the second place bidder because of an “adjusted score”.

Sources have told Tallahassee Reports that the “adjusted score” methodology introduces subjectivity to the bid process and is not needed because sufficient incentives are already in place to ensure quality work. For example, government contractors are motivated to deliver results so they can continue to bid on FDOT work and, in most cases, contractors are required to have a performance bonds which protects the state of Florida. With these incentives in place, why use an “adjusted score”?

The challenge for policy makers is to decide if they want a system in place that adds subjectivity to the procurement process and results in higher costs without much additional benefit. During these economic times, is it acceptable for FDOT employees to evaluate and rate qualified, professional contractors that have won the right to bid, have a track record of success, and have performance bonds in place?

In addition, the fact that the “adjusted score” selected the lower bidder 19 out of 22 times seems to indicate that the time spent “adjusting the score” might be time better spent elsewhere.

In fact, only one County Commissioner, District Five’s Kristin Dozier, even broached the subject during the discussion. And even then she did so by saying that opening the process up to other applicants “would only help cement Vince’s profile as the best”.

24 hours. Seven votes. No bids. And a roughly $40,000 raise, complete with addition car allowances and $12,000 in “deferred compensation” Mr. Long freely admits “is undoubtedly an additional benefit”.

Oh, and the whole deal was sold as a fiscally conservative maneuver, as Long’s old position was eliminated, and between his old salary and the difference between his new one and Alam’s old salary, the County expects to save $250,000 a year.

Like we said, Vince Long is slick. Of course, he’s also generally considered to be among the top professionals in his position (past and present) in the state, touts a faculty position at FSU’s Askew School of Public Administration and Policy (as well as a Master’s degree from said school) and has graduated from the Executive program at Harvard’s JFK school of Government. His resume is literally over four pages long, and it seems like it takes longer to read it than it took the County to name him as Alam’s successor.

In a different time, maybe the discussion would have lasted a little longer. But with the local economy staring the legislative led layoffs and pension pinching in the face and pocketbook, and the County trying to close a 13 million  dollar deficit, the prevailing wisdom was that Vince Long was the right man, at the right time, for the job.

And for the record, Vince Long really likes the business he is in. He is always ready to trot out a stat about the leanness of the County workforce as compared to other counties around the state, even though he will also concede no other county has as strong and singular a governing entity as the City of Tallahassee to work alongside.

But Long takes genuine pride in the staff he has helped put in place, and is the first to admit his heavy reliance upon them, especially now that the staff is down one administrative position.

“Vince is a one-percenter” says Alan Rosensweig, Deputy County Administrator. “Some people need 90 percent of the information about an issue to make a decision. Some people need 50. I’m probably a five or 10 percent person. But Vince only needs one. And at his level, that’s how it should be. He trusts his staff. Around here, you have to sort of just figure it out. We’re so lean, we just give people issues and say ‘it’s yours’. And we’ve got the horsepower to pull it off.”

Time will tell. Certainly more challenges await. The County chose not to raise the millage rate this year, but swears it will have to happen next year as property values continue to decline and some additional expenses add up.

“If you can’t get excited about the challenges facing local governments today, you’re in the wrong business,” Long says.

Right or wrong, Vince Long is exactly where he wants to be.

“No increase proposed for millage rate – City Manager Anita Favors Thompson today released the recommended $724.9 million fiscal year 2012 budget for review and action by the Tallahassee City Commission. The proposed amount is $2 million less than the current year budget and reflects feedback received from the community during budget public meetings earlier this year.”

The above statement, while absolutely true, fails to mention a few details.

Notice the city manager compares one budget to a previous budget. This approach allows the City of Tallahassee to never address actual spending. Why not compare the 2012 budget to a full year of actual expenditures for 2010?

If you make this comparison, the result is much different than the information in the city’s press release. In fact, the 2012 budget proposes $40 million in new spending over 2010 actual expenditures.

What the City manager forgets to tell the community is that while the 2012 budget is $2 million less than last years budget, last years budget projected $179 million in fuel costs and this years budget projects $155 million in fuel costs! Doesn’t this mean that citizens of Tallahassee should experience a windfall of $24 million this year due to the crash of the natural gas market?

A more accurate statement would have been “the 2012 budget does not increase property taxes, but increases non-fuel spending by $40 million over actual expenditures for 2010.”  In other words, non-fuel spending increased from $499 million in 2010 to $537 million in 2012, a 7.4% increase

Where is all the additional spending?

Tallahassee Reports compared the 2012 proposed budget with the actual non-fuel expenditures in 2010 in major fund categories and found the Electric fund increased by $19 million, the General Fund increased $6 million, the Sewer Fund increased $5 million, the Gas Fund increased $4 million, the Solid Waste Fund increased by $2 million, and the Fire Services increased by $2 million.

Tallahassee Reports also compared the Personnel Services category from 2010 with the 2012 proposed budget. This category includes all salaries and benefits for all city employees. For the major fund categories, Personnel services increased approximately 8.5% over 2010 levels. This translates into approximately $13 million in additional expenditures.

A recent presentation to the group by the COT utility rate consultant, who calculated the need for millions of dollars in rate increases, resulted in members proposing new approaches to evaluating the actual need for a rate increase. Member Dominic Calabaro recommended that the city hire a consumer advocate to review the specifics of the proposed rate increase – something that has never been done. City Manager Anita Favors said it was good idea, but it was never publicly recommended to the city commission.

Other members were successful in securing an additional meeting to further quiz the COT consultant on the specifics of the rate increase. Committee member Jim Croteau pushed for the additional meeting by saying “obviously, we’re of no use if we don’t have time to discuss the underlying assumptions.” The meeting was cancelled and rescheduled for July 12^th . However, Tallahassee Reports was told that the COT consultant would not be attending the rescheduled meeting.

But now, none of this really matters.

On June 30^th, at the budget workshop the city commission voted (Mustian voted against) to accept a proposal made by COT electric staff to spend $19 million from the operating reserves to cover increased electric rates. The electric staff offered two proposals, neither were vetted through the citizens advisory committee and neither of the proposals gave the city commission the option of hiring a consumer advocate to review the rate study and recommend cost cutting measures.

“With this action we will close the rate study and reopen it next year” said assistant City Manger for utilities Rick Fernandez. When quizzed by a couple of commissioners about the lack of input from the Citizen Advisory Committee, Mr. Fernandez stated that members “have asked a number of questions and I think a lot of them were sort of elementary questions.”

There was no mention to the commissioners by Fernandez or City Manager Favors about the desire by members to spend two hours questioning the city’s paid consultant about the rate increase or the recommendation of a couple of members to hire a consumer advocate to review rates.

The final straw for the COT electric utility staff must have come just days before at the financial viability meeting where Commissioner Mustian and Commissioner Gillum quizzed the staff about the proposed rate increase. Commissioner Mustian repeatedly requested information about the drivers of the rate increase and was clear in wanting to spend some time flushing out the issue.

So much for “flushing out” the specifics of the rate increase!

With almost three months before a final vote on the budget and a citizens advisory committee ready to ask some substantive questions, the city commission voted to spend $19 million without any input from the committee and without answering any questions about the specifics of the rate increase.

None of this should be surprising. The reactivation of the committee was due to pressure from the Leon County Board of Commissioners, not because of any sincere concern from the city. The fact that the city manager appointed the members and the committee reported to her, really limited their ability to make a difference. As a member of the advisory board told Tallahassee Reports months ago, “the city manager does not want a real debate on any of these issues.”

But as adults you would think we would have outgrown such behavior. Maybe we have, but somebody at the City of Tallahassee has not!

Tallahassean Todd Twilley recently challenged his red light camera ticket in the local court based on a Florida Department of Transportation rule that stated the timing of the yellow light he was charged with running should have been longer. The City of Tallahassee has been issuing red light camera tickets using shorter yellow lights for turn lanes than thru lanes.

A review of the FDOT traffic manual indicated that Twilley’s argument may have merit. This view was confirmed when a city representative, at the initial hearing in traffic court, asked the judge for more time to prepare.

And now this!

It appears that after the hearing in traffic court, the city of Tallahassee indeed recognized the merit in Twilley’s argument, but instead of admitting an error and correcting their procedures to be consistent with rules currently in place, the city has literally tried to rewrite history.

Tallahassee Reports has obtained emails that indicate the City Tallahassee appealed to the Florida Department of Transportation to change the rule that supports Twilley’s argument.

On July 6, 2011, days before the second hearing in Twilley’s case, Mark Wilson, State Traffic Operations Engineer for FDOT, writes in an email:

Our office was recently notified that there may be some confusion or misinterpretation of the requirements in Traffic Engineering Manual (TEM) Section 3.6 that has the formula calculations used to develop the Yellow Change and All-Red Clearance Intervals for Left Turns. Attached is a clarification memo and the revised Section 3.6 that will be adopted.

The revised rule supports the city’s action in Twilley’s case.

In reference to the above email, Allen Seacrest, Traffic Mobility Engineer for the city of Tallahassee writes to assistant city attorney, Rick Courtemanche:

Please see email below from FDOT.  This is the clarification from the FDOT that we were looking for regarding the justification for our methods of computing the yellow and all-red change interval signal timing.

What does all of this mean?

We will find out more at the next hearing in traffic court. But Twilley has told Tallahassee Reports that he believes that the city will try to use the rule change to justify his ticket and all the past tickets given to citizens based on a shorter yellow light, despite the rules in place at the time of the ticket.

If the judge rules in Twilley’s favor, does it mean that everyone with a red light ticket based on a shorter yellow light gets a refund? Stay tuned!

In part one of this two-part series, it was shown how our commissioners from both the City of Tallahassee and Leon County have allowed a private contractor, the Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation (TTHP), to take control of a public citizens’ advisory group, the Architectural Review Board (ARB).  Half the membership is positioned to be compromised ethically.  Two genuine citizen members have been replaced by TTHP board officers, making four total on the ARB.  How does this matter?  Neighborhoods.  This is where the effect of voting control has huge impact upon large numbers of people.  This is how other people, who know better than you how to take care of your own property, intend to make you do as they say, whether you like it or not.

Historic Preservation Overlay (HPO) Zoning

Tallahassee’s Land Development Code provides for designating a neighborhood as an Historic Preservation District, which gets automatically rezoned by the city.  It’s called Historic Preservation Overlay zoning (HPO).  With HPO, the entire visible portion of every property (structures and landscape) is controlled by the Architectural Review Board, in perpetuity.

District HPO rezoning can be done to any platted subdivision or any neighborhood, including commercial or industrial districts, over fifty years of age.  It then applies to every building and property within the designated area, old or new.  Future property use is sharply curtailed, regardless of the primary zoning allowances.   New construction is also under ARB control.  Board members can invent confounding building design requirements on the spot.

Guidelines incorporated into Tallahassee’s Land Development Code for determining HPO districts or regulating HPO properties are based on a national standard code which has been found to be “unconstitutionally vague” (Illinois Supreme Court).  This vagueness, based on a “feeling and association” which contributes to a “sense of time and place” allows virtually any properties to be declared historically important, thereby justifying the rezoning process.

For day-to-day management of property issues, the ARB’s directive is to ensure all visible changes are appropriate to this “sense and feeling” of the district’s design and history.  The actual exercise of such a fuzzy standard can be astonishing and frustrating.  Appeals are nearly impossible.  Cost or time are not factors they consider.  It took one owner four months to get a roof shingle approved during Winter 2009.  New paint on another home had to be sandblasted off, as the owner proceeded without the ARB Certificate Of Appropriateness. Driveways, roofing, windows, siding, fences, additions, doors, landscape features, painting, railings, handicap ramps — all require formal review…an endless, meddling intrusion.

Billion-Dollar Land Grab Plan Emerging From City Attorney’s Office:

We are rapidly approaching the magic fifty-year window for perhaps 20,000 homes in Tallahassee in about 150 neighborhoods:  Betton Hills, Los Robles, Old Town, Killearn Estates, Indianhead Acres, Woodland Hills, Lehigh, Apalachee Ridge, Waverly Hills, Huntington Woods, Piedmont Park, plus very many more:  Every subdivision built before or during the 1960s will be front and center soon.  Then will follow the 1970s developments.  Tallahassee will be a living museum akin to Williamsburg, VA.  Tourists might come to visit and marvel….in about a hundred years.

Consider the market value of your home:  20% of that worth represents a reasonable valuation for a typical, voluntarily- deeded building conservation easement, with right of exterior control.  The City of Tallahassee is going to seize that right from every property owner, without paying for it, through HPO rezoning.  A billion dollars of property rights–stolen– from five-billion dollars of privately-owned real estate.

Here is the formula:  Historic preservation ordinances manipulated into an illegitimate abomination by our City Attorney’s Office (CAO) + An ethically-compromised, puppet ARB + A sole-source, no-bid, unregulated city contractor (Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation) + An utterly compliant Planning Department + A Planning Commission that always rubber-stamps ARB votes and officially appends the HPO rezoning, and a City Commission that may know what is happening but won’t act in opposition to their City Attorney. The two Planning stages are conveniently contaminated by dual-role members who also serve on the ARB:  This ensures continuity of the compromised ARB decision. There is no part of this process that will withstand scrutiny. Add in the Board of Adjustment and Appeals as enforcement agency.  Yes, they can assess fines or take your house away.  You have to cooperate.  This is full government power and authority in action.

It’s Already Happening:  Lafayette Park

Look at what has already happened in Lafayette Park Neighborhood, an interesting mix of 650 older homes in the triangle bounded by Miccosukee Road, Seventh Avenue and Gadsden Street.  Here, where HPO rezoning is now pending, a small club calling itself a neighborhood association had fewer than 30 active members.

In 2008, an historic preservation application was originated by the TTHP in collusion with part of this Lafayette Park Neighborhood Association.  This group provided faked documentation “proving” enormous community support for historic designation.  This support was a presupposed necessity at that time.

The application, through changes manipulated by the city attorney, now contains a patently counterfeit “owner” certification signed by club members in place of the code-required property owners’ signatures.

The City Attorney’s office stands behind this counterfeit certification as being legitimate, thus opening the door for anyone to begin rezoning another’s property in Tallahassee, without their permission.

No reasonable person can conclude anything from this owner-permission fraud other than the fact that something gravely wrong is going on in the Tallahassee City Attorney’s office.

More Shenanigans on Lafayette Park Application

Included in the Lafayette Park application were over 500 nearly blank pages of forms, supposedly describing the specific history and details of each property.  However, only the addresses were filled-in, plus phony historic descriptions such as “brick”.  Yes, just “brick”, or in many cases, “vernacular,”  an authentic-sounding, pseudo-expert, historic architecture adjective which is not applicable to any home in Tallahassee.  There was not one legitimate State of Florida Historic Property Form as deemed appropriate by the Department of State, which coordinates historic preservation on a state level.

Interestingly, public record emails show the ARB members didn’t bother to pick up their review copies of the 1800-page application before arriving at the first meeting to vote on it. Vehement property-owner protests were ignored.  The board hid behind Assistant City Attorney Linda Hudson:  She engineered or justified every atrocity the ARB committed against the property owners.  They did their deed:  The ARB voted unanimously to approve this defective application.

This is the fruit of those ethical compromises described in the first article.  This is the result when a private contractor is allowed to take over a public citizen advisory board.

Six months after the ARB voted, growing wrath from three hundred Lafayette Park property owners finally jolted the city commissioners from their inertia.  In reaction, they put the neighborhood historic designation process in abeyance, hoping for calmer attitudes.  Now, three long years after it began, this application still remains in limbo as a “pending rezoning.”  Sellers and realtors who fail to disclose it are on the hook for hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages when it moves forward.

City Commission Turns A Blind Eye To  City Attorney’s Behavior

The City Attorney designated the Lafayette Park application process ”quasi-judicial.”  CAO warned the city commissioners of terrible disclosure forms necessary, should they look at a single citizen letter or hear one complaint.  The commissioners dutifully closed their eyes and ears to the people who elected them.  Hundreds of earnest, impassioned emails and letters were filed away, unread.  This is well documented with public record correspondence between commissioners’ staff and Assistant City Attorney Linda Hudson.

That disclosure form is a mere formality for the record.  Our City Commissioners had a perfect legal right (and a moral obligation) to listen to constituents and read their emails and letters.  They willingly chose not to do it. You are not alone if you think “quasi judicial” is code-speak for the City Attorney to tell our elected commissioners to look the other way while a piece of nasty business is going on.

New Code, New Loopholes…

Now, City Attorney staff are fine-tuning their scheme:  Seizing upon a requested code revision from the Long Range Target Issue Commission, with an advisory “Citizens Workgroup”, they are re-writing land development code language for neighborhood historic designations.  Expect new loopholes big enough to shove neighborhoods through. We’ve seen the current code’s boilerplate property-owner protection evaporate at the first touch of the city attorney staff. Already, one workgroup member has informed the City Manager the results will not protect private property rights.

Grandma’s Porch….?

“Historic Preservation” is a very positive, heart-warming phrase, conjuring up an image of Grandma’s house, porch rockers, a shady yard and happy times.  Shame on anyone who would venture to speak against such a wonderful thing.  Beware!

In Tallahassee, “Historic Preservation”  is a sugar-coated, misleading label designed to conceal a cold legal procedure whereby your right to control your own home is taken away through this thing called “overlay zoning.”  True zoning is a passive categorization of land use to segregate incompatible uses. HPO zoning is an aggressive, continuous manipulation of every property and property owner. Afternoon ice cream with Grandma on the porch has nothing to do with this. It’s a method of control where property owners are forced to become tenants, while city government and the TTHP become their landlord through the ARB.  It’s about Grandpa rolling over in his grave at what’s going on.

A Solution is Possible

This catastrophe to our personal lives and homes can be prevented through two simple code changes:

1.  Specify in the land development code that HPO zoning cannot apply to Neighborhood district designations.

HPO rezoning should only be done on a property-by-property basis, when individual property owners (who will learn all too well the burden such zoning imposes) specifically apply for it.  It will have trifling value once the City grant fund is depleted.

2.  Make all HPO rezoning owner-revocable at any time through a simple, signed form, filed through the Tax Appraiser’s office.

Eventually, every owner of an historic re-zoned property will discover what the Tallahassee Architectural Review Board is like in actual practice.  The only way to keep such a board in line is to have them face the consequences of having an owner opt out and walk away, rather than put up with their cooked votes.  No governing board, given infinite authority, and freedom to act without written rules, will operate honorably.

The Not-So-Simple Part….

Another part of the solution is not so simple:  The Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation, while contracting with both the City of Tallahassee and Leon County, is apparently striving to subvert our honest governing processes for their own benefit.  This contractor’s unscrupulous efforts are openly supported and aided by the City Attorney’s Office, which is even more suspect.  This contract needs to end.

And, finally, the City Attorney’s office needs immediate, major changes.  If this much harm is happening through their efforts on an issue so small as historic preservation, we probably have a major earthquake about to occur in the other city departments.

——————————

The Architectural Review Board, The Planning Department, the Planning Commission and the contract with Tallahassee Trust for Historic Preservation are all jointly operated by both Tallahassee and Leon County.

Email every City Commissioner:  http://www.talgov.com/email.cfm?id=commissioners

Email every Leon County Commissioner:  http://www.leoncountyfl.gov/BCC/email/

A copy of this story, with extensive supplemental information and source data, will be posted at HistoricLafayettePark.com. This website newsletter was founded specifically to expose these abuses.

Mark S. Daniel
Editor & Publisher, HistoricLafayettePark.com
TallyMark@Rocketmail.com
July 4, 2011

A few months ago, on March 9, the City Commission passed a local business certification program that gave businesses in Leon County a pricing advantage over businesses bidding on projects that were located outside of Leon County. For example, a business in Leon County could bid 10% higher than a company located in Gadsden county and still win the job. The idea was to reward local businesses and help stimulate the local economy.

However, on June 22 Commissioner Gillum sponsored an agenda item that expanded the local business preference to all commercial natural gas customers of the city of Tallahassee that are located outside of Leon County. City attorney Jim English stated there were 5 such customers. Commissioner Gillum said the “case has been made” that the commercial natural gas customers should have a local preference.

The City Commission passed the item 5-0, but after the vote Commissioner Gillum informed the Commissioners that one of the customers that would get the benefit of this new preference was a party to a procurement item currently under consideration.

“Commissioners, I failed to mention that this was added to the agenda today because one of the businesses affected by this is currently bidding on a project before the city,” said Commissioner Gillum. The business customer Gillum was referring to was Peavey and Sons.

Peavey and Sons is one of three contractors locked in a “procurement battle” for the city’s asphalt and milling contract. Two of the companies are local and one – the previous winner of the three year contract, Peavey and Sons – is located in Gadsden County and did not qualify for the local business preference before the inclusion of large natural gas customers.

During the discussion among the commissioners, Marc Mitchell, owner of one of the local companies bidding against Peavey and Sons was in the audience waving his hands trying to speak on the item, but was informed he would have to wait for unagendaed speakers.

Mr. Mitchell waited patiently and then forcefully, but respectfully, simply asked why was the “commission so eager to help out a company that is not paying Leon county taxes or city of Tallahassee taxes.”

Those who believe that you cannot have an impact with three minutes before the city commission should watch the video of Mr. Mitchell’s presentation and the conversation among the commissioners that followed.

First, Mayor Marks said that the handling of this agenda item “violated one of my cardinal rules by not giving this a 24 hour look” and then added “I wonder if this move encourages commercial gas customers to move to Gadsden County?”

Commissioner Gillum then apologized for bringing the item straight from the financial viability committee on the same day it was to be voted on and admitted, upon reflection, the issue was making him “uncomfortable.”

The discussion ended with Mayor Marks saying “we are going to take a closer look at this.”

The handling of this issue brings up a number of questions about transparency. First, Commissioner Gillum stated that the “case has been made” with regards to extending the preference to commercial gas customers outside Leon county. Who made this case on behalf of Peavey and Sons? Was that person a registered lobbyist? Tallahassee Reports requested a list of registered lobbyists and found there was no one registered on behalf of Peavey and Sons.

Also, was the “case made” in a public meeting or in writing?  The city of Tallahassee just passed a cone of silence provision with regards to procurement activities that states “any form of communication, except for written correspondence, shall be prohibited regarding a particular request for proposal, request for qualification, bid, or any other competitive solicitation between any person or person’s representative seeking an award from such competitive solicitation; and any city commissioner or commissioner’s staff, or any city employee authorized to act on behalf of the commission to award a particular contract.”

And finally, this incident provides powerful evidence for those who want the city commission to get input from citizens before they vote on an issue, instead of being relegated to unagendaed speakers. Just imagine if Mr. Mitchell would have been able to address Commissioner Gillum’s proposal before the commission voted. It is not a stretch to assume the outcome would have been different, and if not, at least the commissioners would have made a more informed decision.

Tallahassee Reports is seeking more information with regards to this issue.

Describing himself as one of the largest “business owners” in Leon County, he sympathized with businesses during these tough economic times. He talked about how over the last six years education revenue had been cut by $65 million and explained how Leon County was able to maintain an A rating during this period. He gave credit to the ”best teachers in the state” and to a school board that “stayed focused on priorities and did not complain about the cuts.” He was also thankful to the business partners that donate time and services to public schools.

Superintendent Pons was clearly excited about the CNG program that will not only  help the Leon County School Board save money, but also help the citizens of Leon County. The project will provide CNG for school buses, but there will also be two locations where citizens that own CNG vehicles will be able to refuel their cars. ”We have had people calling us from all over the county about the project. The project will save money and help with the environment” said Superintendent Pons.

Responding to a question from the audience about the proposed $30 million increase in City of Tallahassee electric base rates, Pons said “this not the time to raise electric rates.” He talked about the impact of increased rates on the school budget and the effect on local businesses. He also discussed a school board analysis that concluded that high electric rates can put Leon County Schools at a competitive disadvantage with other school districts.