Monday, November 24, 2014

Further dialogue with the county regarding Fiscal Neutrality

Public interest in the transparency of Fiscal Neutrality is high - and that is true for the process of forming the model that will eventually become a component of Sarasota County's 2050 Comprehensive Plan.

In the interests of full transparency the current dialogue is published here.

Happy Thanksgiving!


==========

11.24. 14: Letter from Cathy Antunes to Sarasota County Planner Allen Parsons:

Dear Allen,

Thank you for the clarification you have provided regarding the status of 2050 fiscal neutrality policy creation and how the County is ensuring transparency and public participation.  As I shared in my first e-mail, the members of our network see taxpayers are key stakeholders in fiscal neutrality policy creation, who deserve a prime seat at the policy creation table.

We are interested in ensuring the following for citizens/taxpayers:
  • Opportunity for input during the draft policy creation stage -  public input solicited and incorporated from inception & forward 
  • Access to fiscal neutrality meetings
  • Timely (real time/swift) access to policy creation information, including:
          - terminology, definitions being employed in policy creation
          - all methodology under consideration

When the County brought in NIGP to review procurement policy, NIGP gathered feedback from the public and incorporated the information into its policy review and recommendations.  The public had a high degree of trust in their process and findings.  The same approach would be welcome here.

During a recent review of County records, I saw a report from AECOM reviewing the fiscal neutrality findings of Fishkind with regard to the Blackburn Creek development.  Would it make sense to sit down as a group and review  the Fishkind methodology along with AECOM’s review of the Fischkind/Blackburn Creek analysis?  As there is already some precedent here with fiscal neutrality as well as the work product of AECOM, it seems like a good idea to take a look at the findings and methodology of those reports.

You stated below "The county will have involvement in who may be selected for background/research interviews”. Members of our groups would like to know who the County taps to advise on this process and what criteria is being used to select them.  We’d like to have the County consider experts we recommend - professionals who we understand command a high level of public trust.

As we have noted, It is the citizens of Sarasota County who will, after all, be responsible for resulting infrastructure costs if the fiscal neutrality methodology is lacking.  Inequity in information or access undermines public confidence.  Our goal is an open, transparent fiscal neutrality policy process which taps the best information available and is inclusive from the beginning.  



Cathy Antunes
Member, 2050 Action Network


2050 Action Network includes:

Sierra Club
Council of Neighborhood Associations
Audobon Society
City Coalition of Neighborhood Associations
Venice Area Citizens for Responsible Development
Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida
Control Growth Now
Suncoast Waterkeepers
Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government
Progressive Women of Southwest Florida


================================================

Dan Lobeck - Allen Parsons 

 An exchange on questions regarding AECOM, the consultant hired by the County to develop a fiscal neutrality model, and matter of public participation:

On Nov 19, 2014, at 10:03 AM, Dan Lobeck <dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com> wrote:

Allen:
Thank you.  I appreciate your clarity and considerations.
So you state that there have not been any communications to date between AECOM and any development interests with regard to AECOM’s preparation of the fiscal neutrality methodology, including any fiscal neutrality consultant hired by a development interest.  
Do you know this for a fact, such as by recent communications with AECOM, or by a direction from the County to AECOM to refrain from such communications other than any that are formally scheduled?  
Once reason I am pressing on this is that at the adoption hearing on the Sarasota 2050 amendments I recall that the fiscal neutrality consultant hired by Pat Neal stated that she had conferred with AECOM about the preparation of the methodology and had been assured that what is adopted will include a right for a developer to use an alternative methodology of the developer’s choosing so long as it is vetted and approved by the County.
You also state that interviews between AECOM and development interests, including, I anticipate, at least Pat Neal’s consultant, will be scheduled to occur before AECOM completes and presents its draft methodology.  This is important.  Can you please explain if any interviews have already been scheduled and if so, with whom, when and where?  In the interest of transparency, will any such interviews be open for observation by concerned members of the public, or at least audio or video recorded and made immediately accessible for review?
The County’s contract with AECOM calls for input to AECOM with “stakeholders”, who you have identified to date as only being expert fiscal neutrality consultants in the private and public sector, presumably including the one hired by Pat Neal.  I appreciate your statement that the County will consider taxpayer advocates as stakeholders as well.  It certainly would not reflect well on the County if we were to be excluded, sending a message that the County considers developers to have a stake in the fiscal neutrality methodology but not the taxpayers and general public.
Again, thank you, and I look forward to your further response.
  -- Dan Lobeck

Begin forwarded message:

From: Allen Parsons <aparsons@scgov.net>
To: 'Dan Lobeck' <dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com>
Date: November 18, 2014 at 5:50:54 PM EST

Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Dan- Looks like we’re closing in on the final questions.  And the answers are straightforward: Yes, yes & yes (responses inserted into your email directly below).  I look forward to discussing any further questions and input with you & others more directly.  Please feel free to call or email myself directly.  Thanks. -- Allen
From: Dan Lobeck [mailto:dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 5:21 PM
To: Allen Parsons
Cc: 'Catherine Antunes'; 'Vicki Nighswander'; Thomas Polk; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio; josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie'; 'Tryon, Tom'; tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com; 'William Zoller'
Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology
Allen:
Thank you.  Once again, does your use of the term “development interests” in your email below include fiscal neutrality consultants hired by development interests to influence the preparation of the fiscal neutrality methodology?- Response: Yes.
As to the interviews you mention, will any occur prior to AECOM’s draft of the new methodology?- Response: Yes.
Also, will the County consider including representatives of the Sarasota 2050 Task Force, including myself, in interviews with AECOM? Response: Yes, this will be considered.  I will get back with you after it has been considered.  As to my credentials, I authored much of the fiscal neutrality policy, have reviewed and commented on several fiscal neutrality reports and have been very involved in the County’s impact fee policy continuously since 1987.
  -- Dan Lobeck

 
From: Allen Parsons [mailto:aparsons@scgov.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:24 PM
To: 'Dan Lobeck'
Cc: 'Catherine Antunes'; 'Vicki Nighswander'; Thomas Polk; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio; josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie'; 'Tryon, Tom'; tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com; 'William Zoller'
Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology
Thanks Dan.  No problem.  Summarizing the responses:
·         There have not been communications by development interests with AECOM on the preparation of the fiscal neutrality methodology.  Any such communication would be shared with the County upon receipt.  AECOM will likely be preparing a list of potential interviewees, which will be shared with the county.
·         County staff has not facilitated any communications between AECOM and development interests regarding the development of the fiscal neutrality methodology.  The county will have involvement in who may be selected for background/research interviews.
·         The public will be provided opportunities for input into the process of developing the methodology, as noted in Mr. Cunningham’s emails below.
·         AECOM will be turning over all communications and/or notes of communications to the County and they will be part of the public record.

Please do feel free (and encourage others) to share any methodology related input for consideration, at any point in this upcoming process, with staff (myself is fine) as it will benefit the methodology development.  Given the importance and interest in this effort, and the limitations of email communications, please let me know if a meeting with yourself and others in the Sarasota 2050 Action Network would be preferable to address any follow-up questions or missed subtleties of written communications.

Thanks,
Allen Parsons, AICP
Planning Division Manager
Sarasota County Planning & Development Services Department
1660 Ringling Blvd., 1st Floor, Sarasota , FL 34236
Mobile 941-254-1716 |  Fax  941-861-5593  
All mail sent to and from Sarasota County Government is subject to the public records law of Florida.
Planning and Development Services is committed to maintaining the highest levels of service and values your feedback. Please take a few moments to complete our Customer Service Survey here- http://bit.ly/1cPOFLC.  Thank you in advance for letting us know what you think.
From: Dan Lobeck [mailto:dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 1:25 PM
To: Allen Parsons
Cc: 'Catherine Antunes'; 'Vicki Nighswander'; Thomas Polk; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio; josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie'; 'Tryon, Tom'; tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com; 'William Zoller'
Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology
Thank you, Allen.
Of course I do not anticipate that AECOM will communicate with development interests directly.  I am referring to communications between AECOM and what you call “practitioners of fiscal impact analyses” hired by development interests to seek to influence AECOM on their behalf.
With that understanding, would you please revisit my questions about communications between AECOM and development interests (that is, fiscal impact analysts hired by them for that purpose), and facilitation of those communications by County staff?
  -- Dan Lobeck
From: Allen Parsons [mailto:aparsons@scgov.net]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 1:14 PM
To: 'Dan Lobeck'
Cc: 'Catherine Antunes'; 'Vicki Nighswander'; Thomas Polk; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio; josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie'; 'Tryon, Tom'; tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com; 'William Zoller'
Subject: RE: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology
Dan-Hopefully I can cover your remaining questions with the responses inserted into your email directly below. Please feel to call (941-254-1716) or email me directly with any further questions, in case some copied on this email would prefer to avoid excess copying.
In addition to the remaining questions below, it might be helpful to define the intent of the term stakeholder.  This work assignment is to develop a transparent methodology for conducting Fiscal Neutrality analyses and developing Fiscal Neutrality Plans associated with 2050 development.  The stakeholders that are expected to be of value to AECOM are practitioners of fiscal impact analyses and potentially, peer reviewers, including any other public entities that may have experience with conducting or requiring fiscal impact analyses associated with new development.  Stakeholders, for the potential interviewing/background research portion of this project, do not include development interests.
Allen
From: Dan Lobeck [mailto:dlobeck@lobeckhanson.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 10:47 AM
To: Allen Parsons
Cc: 'Catherine Antunes'; 'Vicki Nighswander'; Thomas Polk; Allen Parsons; William Spaeth; BCC; 'Paul Caragiulo'; Alan Maio; josh.salman@heraldtribune.com; zac.anderson@heraldtribune.com; 'Van Berkel, Jessie'; 'Tryon, Tom'; tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com; 'William Zoller'Subject: Transparency In Formulation of Fiscal Neutrality Methodology

Allen:
Having determined that you are the County staff person with most direct knowledge and involvement in the process of AECOM preparing a fiscal neutrality methodology, this is to direct my inquiries to you, in furtherance of the County’s stated desired to keep that process transparent and inclusive.
Mark Cunningham has informed me about the County’s process for public consideration and comment on a draft methodology, after that draft is prepared.
Please advice as to the process for “stakeholder” involvement with AECOM in AECOM’s preparation of the draft.
 Further, and more specifically:

(1)    Are you and other County staff aware of communications by development interests with AECOM in the preparation of the draft of the fiscal neutrality methodology, to date or planned, and if so what are they? 

 Response:  No.  There have been no communications by development interests with AECOM related to the development a Fiscal Neutrality methodology.  None are planned.
(2)    Have you or other County staff done anything to facilitate such communications, and if so how? Response:  No.  
(3)    Will I and other taxpayer representatives on the Sarasota 2050 Task Force be given an equal opportunity to communicate with AECOM in the preparation of its draft, and if so how may we do that? 

 - Response:  The best, and most equitable, manner of getting any methodology related input for consideration directed to AECOM, would be to submit information through staff (feel free to direct any correspondence to myself). 

(4)    How does the County respond to my request that – for the sake of the transparency that the County says it seeks – such communications by development interests and others be in writing, as they are communicated or at least after the fact in notes by AECOM, and shared with other “stakeholders” including taxpayer advocates such as me?   Does the County consider such communications public records, accessible by the public upon request, even if in the possession of AECOM and not the County? -

Response:  The County will be informed of any interviews with stakeholders and notes will be provided for any.  The County will also receive copies of all associated correspondence that may be directed to AECOM.  All such records will be public records.
Posted by at
Labels: , , , , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)