Hillsborough County budget decisions: Public parks or pet pork?
July 10, 2009 at 7:17 pm by Kelly Cornelius
By Kelly Cornelius
PoHo contributor & R-LAND activist
If you think County Administrator Pat Bean’s recent double digit raises to a few of her favorite minions amid epic budget cuts were unbelievable you might want to take some Beano before catching a glimpse at her proposed budget itself. The millions thrown at special interest is enough to make anyone’s stomach turn. County Commissioners have the final say on her budget. Many of these same Commissioners renamed their Moral Courage award after a pardoned ex-felon last year, and they also think it might be OK to sell off sensitive publicly owned land to investors in order to “preserve” it, so I suggest you offer to help them in this budget decision making process.
Parks are what got me looking into this budget in the first place. When I heard my beloved Flatwoods Park was on the chopping block to be closed two days a week, (and knowing how much this Commission gives away each meeting on the consent agenda alone) I was furious. They pass out hundreds of thousands of dollars if not millions regularly under the Consent Agenda without even discussion yet they now claim they have to cut public parks.
So, upon hearing about the proposed closing I contacted our Board of County Commissioners voicing my concerns. At the time this post was submitted I had only heard back from one Commissioner’s office and that was Commissioner Rose Ferlita’s office who is often the first to respond to my concerns. Strange though because Commissioner Ken “Half Truth” Hagan’s office is now claiming to be the first stop for any citizens in any district. So far, Hagan’s office isn’t living up to its claims. Isn’t the Flatwoods in Hagan’s district? Maybe he was just too busy campaigning handing out constituent service fliers in Ferlita’s district.
In my e-mail plea to Commissioners, I described the Flatwoods in detail since many times I’ve heard several of them say how much they support sports. I told them that many athletes such as runners and cyclists train for their individual sports out at the Flatwoods. Course I couldn’t help adding that there was no taxpayer funded suite for them to dine like Kings in as they watch me pedal by but it was about sports just the same…and kids, too. Maybe I should have mentioned the several covered water stops equipped with benches should they decide to become spectators.
Ferlita’s office referred me to Mark Thornton of the Parks Department. I had several questions for Thornton including exactly how much savings were attributed to the Flatwoods closing two days a week and his answer was $483,390. My other question had to do with accessibility of the Parks for disabled residents. While biking out there I have often seen motorized vehicles taking laps around the paved trail out at the Flatwoods and wondered how many other parks could offer this and if there was any special consideration given regarding accessible vs. non accessible parks. He indicated that of the 206 sites that 193 of them were generally ADA accessible and he also relayed that he is working on a volunteer program in order to keep the Flatwoods open. If our Commission didn’t heave such a fortune to special interests then I would think using volunteers to keep it open was just great but to continue to fund the pork but ask residents to run their parks didn’t seem all that honorable especially when some rangers face losing their jobs.
I don’t like to publicly bitch about something without offering a solution so knowing that several members of our County Commission have a history of supporting some hefty pork in past budgets I decided to take a look at their proposed budget in an attempt to find other ways to fund the Flatwoods. You might be amazed at what I found. These little piggies didn’t go to market they went to the bank…of Hillsborough County! (This is just one NIMBY’s view of how I interpreted Bean’s budget which you can look through yourself here)
The first glaring red flag I spotted was that $500,000 is attributed to No Impact Fee Zones (page 341) that is developer welfare on the backs of taxpayers! Not to say that is the final number either because I stumbled across this little doozie of an amendment to the 2005 No Fee Zones where Bean asked Commissioners to increase it from $1.9 million to $2,349,000 in a budget amendment. So, they are proposing to close our public parks but still giving their developer friends (who are often campaign donors) a free ride with these waivers to slap up more rooftops. I will give you the county’s own definition of impact fees as found on page 81of their budget document: (note the relationship to parks that impact fees have):
Impact Fees – Impact fees on new construction were implemented
in June 1985 to finance capital facilities needed to maintain service
levels in areas of growth. The first of these fees was for roads and
parks, while the right-of-way portion of the roads impact fees was
implemented in February 1986.
You should know that this and past boards have been widely criticized for not charging developers enough in impact fees in the first place. According to this document from the Planning Commission every new rooftop built puts the county in the hole $13,133 more (some of which would have gone to parks) so to add a half of million dollar give-away on top of that is really throwing salt in the road rash. I hope you are still stinging if you go to the next meeting and speak to the Commission. This commission only charges developers 37 percent of the legal maximum allowed of the Parks portion of impact fees.
Next time you hear politicians tell you they don’t have money for roads or parks or you have to come down to speak in front of the Board of County Corruptioners Commissioners to save your favorite park remember their massive impact fee give-aways that help developers and short-change the rest of us. That report also shows us the staggering billions we are behind in providing roads to existing developments (thanks to their generous developer welfare practices) because they only charge 12 percent of the legal max for roads. So that means if they close your favorite park down you will most likely be pedaling on over-crowded roads! They also give away the fire portion of the impact fee by only charging a meager 27 percent of the legal maximum to developers for Fire and Rescue.
One of the best examples of Developer Welfare is found on page 371of the budget document where Bean flat out admits development does not even attempt to pay for itself with this statement: payment to the Fishhawk developer for improvements to roads previously constructed for which they are
being reimbursed from transportation impact fees.
So they are giving developers impact fee credits for roads that I bet the county told you and me were paid for by developers (yet they slyly give them back that money via the back door in the form of impact fee credits (meaning taxpayers are footing the bill). You can also see more forms of developer welfare in this recent post.
What else looks to be a waste of the public’s money in this budget? Well, I see the Sports Commission, no stranger to the public trough, even though they are a private group is not taking much of a cut at all as they are scheduled to haul in $700,000 from the County Budget (that’s only $200,000 less than last year) page 349. To put that in perspective for you Bean has proposed to cut one single public park more than double what she cut a private group. The Sports Commission’s big claim to fame seems to be getting us major sporting spectacles brought to the area. If ever there was a spot for some good volunteers it would he here. I suggest asking current officials to volunteer to work together to show off Tampa as a potential host city. What else are politicians good for if they can’t glad-hand a few sporting officials while promoting their own cities? Using existing government officials and their staff shouldn’t cost us a thing. This fortune usually reserved for the Sports Commission can then be used where more of the public will see the benefit from it….like Parks!
Then we have the biggie, the Sports Authority. Chaired by one of our most common opponents when fighting sprawl in front of the County Commission, land use attorney Vincent Marchetti, whose fellow board members include one County Commissioner Jim Norman. It looks like the Sports Authority is scheduled to bank millions from taxpayers. Just how many I can’t be sure because the Sports Authority is talked about throughout the budget document and it is quite confusing to this NIMBY (was that by design so we wouldn’t really know exactly how much the Sports Authority costs taxpayers each year?) Best I can tell page 336 has 1,751,254 listed (property taxes and oper deficit) also on page 336 under Debt Service they have 2,042,476 for sales bonds and under that CIT distributions of 8,937,000. Just under that there is another $750,000 listed for stadium renovations. Wayne gives us a great breakdown of just what a rotten deal taxpayers are getting regarding the Sports Authority. FYI – They are currently looking for an executive director of the Sports Authority which according to this article pays between $140,000 -$190,000. Is that bacon I smell? This should be the first thing to be eliminated or streamlined as far as I am concerned.
More pork sidling up to the public trough this year is The Chamber of Commerce (a whole herd of them) are collecting a fortune from the county budget. The breakdown looks like this: (Pages 346/347)
1. Brandon Chamber $30,000 (no decrease from last year)
2. The Tampa Chamber of Commerce $361,000 (no decrease from last year)
3. Apollo Beach Chamber of Commerce $10,000 ($10,000) less than last year)
4. Plant City Chamber of Commerce $65,000 ($35,000 less than last year)
5. Ruskin Chamber of Commerce $5,000 ($15,000 less than last year)
6. Ybor City Chamber of Commerce $75,000 ($25,000 less than last year)
That adds up to $546,000 Why are they getting their Commerce from the taxpayers? Some of these groups actively push controversial political issues yet politicians are funding them (with your money!)
Other question marks include the Outback ProAM at $75,000 and the Tampa Bay Partnership $40,000 (same as last year)
Lets look at some other recipients of Bean’s budget. While it might not be pet pork it does raise some questions regarding priorities in lean times. Public Art looks to be slashed significantly in this budget but even in years where we can afford it I don’t think money can buy taste as evidenced by that giant slinky on Bayshore. The Performing Arts are getting a whopping $450,000 in this budget proposal (page 347) and the Arts Council is raking in $809,227 (down from over a million bucks this year) page 348.
Even though I occasionally like to attend a show it isn’t something that I think our tax dollars should subsidize (same with sports). A public park on the other hand has minimal entrance fees if any and is open to the masses. In my mind this should be a much higher priority for funding than the arts. If you can’t pay the light bill you certainly can’t afford to invest in art.
How about that $75,000 to a lobbying firm that let lawmakers saddle Hillsborough with even more debt?
Need more Beano? Me too! What we don’t need is more Bean. Will Commissioners finally come to their senses regarding Bean or will they continue to take the heat from the public over her bean-headed moves? Commissioners Ferlita and Higginbotham are outspoken in this article about her recent raises and Commissioners Kevin Beckner and Mark Sharpe voice their disapproval in this article (that’s 4 votes kids….if they are really serious) My suggestion to Commissioners is cut out the pork and the Beans!
Photo Credit: pheezy at Flickr.com
What can you do? You can contact your Commissioners here. You can show up and speak to the Commission at the budget public hearing Thursday, July 16 at 6 pm because nothing makes politicians do the right thing more than the angry masses showing up in force. You can Contact Parks Director Mark Thornton here.
Photo Credit: Eric Fink at Flickr.com
