Cornelius: Consent agenda spending — Politicans quietly consent to spending but for whose agenda?
February 10, 2009 at 1:21 pm by Kelly CorneliusBy Kelly Cornelius
PoHo contributor
Budget Crisis? What Budget Crisis?
Remember Chapter One of the Lithia Pinecrest Chronicles – A Road Widening, Some More Lying and We Just Ain’t Buying? Turns out we might not buy it but it looks like we sure as hell are paying for it! The reason this whole controversy regarding this road PD and E study started is that the consultants doing the study to possibly widen Lithia Pinecrest told citizens (screaming about the rural section of the study) that they had to study 6 lanes to be eligible for Federal Dollars (that argument didn’t really hold up) so then they used the logical termini defense for federal dollars and that one is at best arguable. There is one thing they all seem to agree on and that is the fact that the study can’t be predetermined according to Federal guidelines.
Enter a 10+ acre parcel of land off Lithia Pinecrest and Valrico in 2006 for sale for possible right of way (ROW). Wouldn’t buying land for ROW even before the study was finished indicate predetermination? I think so. Not to worry according to Scott Passmore of Public Works in an email to Steve Gordillo, Project Manager of HDR dated August 16th, 2006. “The predetermination issue will need to be handled carefully and I will make that a part of any response.” Not only is that statement disturbing the fact that it was written in August of 2006 to Steve Gordillo, consultant from HDR is also disturbing because according to the time line of events HDR did not receive the contract until October of 2006! Seems like maybe the outcome of the study wasn’t the only thing predetermined! I also found this email from Scott Cottrell of Public Works dated August 17th, 2006 regarding this same parcel “buy the land now while it is relatively cheap, instead of paying the premium after the design is at 60% and the eminent domain lawyers are all over it.” (How you feeling now section B?) Like your fate may have sealed even before you heard about this study?
Many emails went back and forth on this particular piece of land Folio # 087283.000 trying to find or should I quote “redeploy” funds even from other projects to purchase it but to no avail they couldn’t find the money. According to their emails, back in 2006, they couldn’t buy the land but hey, I didn’t get through all 2000 emails yet. To my surprise when I linked to that folio # for this post I found the county actually DID buy that parcel on 9/19/08 WTF? This prompted some more digging and according to the county documents this item was approved A-55 on Sept 17th, 2008 where? You guessed it the Consent Agenda! Same place Buddy Johnson’s $2.3 million was buried (as a last minute addition) until newly elected Commissioner Kevin Beckner flagged the item for discussion and look how that turned out! The consent agenda is voted on by Commissioners without discussion unless a Commissioner flags the item. County Administrator Pat Bean is responsible for putting items on the Consent agenda.
According to the agenda, the price of this land was $950,000 but it stated it would cost $975,000! Seriously, WTF? Seems to directly contradict Chairman Ken Hagan’s words in an email he sent out on December 8th of 2008 stating “The county has not committed any funding beyond the PD and E study to the widening of Lithia Pinecrest South of Adelaide Ave, which is approximately 1 1/2 miles north of Fishhawk Blvd. The Board of County Commissioners has only authorized and funded the design segment from State Road 60 to Bloomingdale Ave.” The parcel in question is between SR 60 and Bloomingdale and it seems like a ROW purchase is well beyond the design phase to me! Oh an about those Federal Guidelines – according to officials we met with at the county (after this discovery was made) they confirmed that they will not be eligible for federal reimbursement on that purchase. You heard me NOT ELIGIBLE.
They didn’t seem too worried about because they didn’t expect the whole project to be paid for with federal dollars and they assured me that they are following federal guidelines. I even came home with 2 huge binders of federal guidelines (that should be fun reading). What kind of message is this purchase sending to those people opposed in Segment B who still think they have time to weigh in? What kind of message is the BOCC sending by blowing almost a million dollars without discussion and in such economic tough times too. Recall the study itself was approved on the consent agenda without discussion back in 2005 for 2.5 million and now this purchase for $950,000. That is almost 3.5 million dollars without giving the public the opportunity to weigh in. These numbers are rivaling Buddy Johnson’s and I am starting to wonder……was he secretly keeping the books for this study?
Ironically Sept 17th, 2008 (the day they approved the purchase on the consent agenda) was the same day that many of us showed up and pleaded with the board not to name the Moral Courage Award after concrete mogul and sugar daddy to the majority of the board, Ralph Hughes. So it looks like they not only screwed us once but they pummeled us twice on the morning of Sept. 17, 2008.
Check out the concerns of budget guy Eric Johnson regarding this parcel in an email to Bob Gordon, Director of Public Works back on August 17th of 2006 “the 2.5 million was something of a teaser to attract external funding — developer contributions and grant dollars. We are risking our PD and E funding given that the land and construction funding may not materialize before the investment in the PD and E is wasted.” and later in that same email “I would question whether we should begin acquiring parcels on Lithia Pinecrest in the absence of any real funding.” Hellooooo anybody else disturbed by this but me? Anybody?
I wondered where they found the money since it said on the consent agenda it was within the project’s budget. Turns out they used the Critical Accident Mitigation fund. Funny there was no mention of that fund in the back up material for the consent item although they are now coupling it with an intersection improvement (that has a budget of only $100,000 for ROW) What’s another $850,000? It’s only YOUR money!
This thing has moved well beyond just our battle for the rural area. It now encompasses irresponsible spending of taxpayer’s dollars, an agenda of at least one board member, and my concerns for those citizens currently sentenced with an R over their home for relocation that do not want to give up their homes. The people living in section B who are opposed should still have an objective board and an objective process to voice their concerns but knowing the county already plunked down a million bucks without so much as a discussion for the “future widening of Lithia Pinecrest” seems more than discouraging.
Up until we brought this issue up last week there was a huge Brian Blair campaign sign on the property in question. Is it OK to for politicians to campaign on what turns out to be county property? Hmmm.
