Increasing the requirements to amend the charter from a simple majority to 60% voter approval. 

Also on the agenda, single member districts: 

Charter Review Board Agenda Packet May 15, 2012 mtg.

The CRB meeting is tonight at 1660 Ringling Blvd and begins at 6pm
Please attend and let the CRB know your thoughts.

For your consideration, we are posting an email sent to the Charter Review Board from Dan Lobeck:

Dear Charter Review Board Members:

I would hope that you view your role as protecting the interests of the citizens, not as protecting the political establishment from the will of the citizens.

The two items on your Tuesday agenda will put those priorities to the test.

Raising the Bar on Amendments

The first item is a proposed Charter amendment to increase the voter approval required for a Charter amendment to 60%, up from the present requirement of a simple majority.

This is a very bad proposal which would make it much more difficult for citizens to pass good amendments to the Charter by citizen initiative or through their elected Charter Review Board.

This is being proposed by the same people who have (unsuccessfully, so far) sought other measures to thwart Charter amendments by citizen petitions, such as limiting the time within which petitions may be gathered, and even sought to eliminate our right to elect the Charter Review Board.

It is the same measure put on the ballot by the Florida Legislature for amendments to the Florida Constitution (that passed, by the way, with less than 60%), specifically targeted at the time to thwart a citizen initiative, that is what became Amendment 4, which was opposed by the political establishment.

The change would probably make it impossible to amend the Charter by citizen petition, or by the Charter Review Board, any time powerful forces decide to raise the funds to fight it strongly.

The amendment requires the support of two-thirds of the Charter Review Board to be placed on the ballot.  You may hear arguments that this is “just to let the voters decide” but it is up to you as elected representatives not place on the ballot a bad change to our charter.

Thank you very much for your service and for your considerations in these two important matters.

– Dan Lobeck

Please vote “NO” on the proposed Charter amendment to raise the bar on the adoption of Charter amendments from a majority to 60%.

Single Member Districts

The other measure, which I hope we will support, is for single member districts for election to the County Commission. It is only a presentation by former Charter Review Board candidate Kathy Bolam, after which the CRB may vote on whether to send the proposal to committee for a recommendation. To do so requires a simple majority vote, that is more for than against.

Single member districts – in which each County Commissioner is elected by the voters in their district – reduces the power of big money in the elections, and thereby enables grass-roots citizen power, by making it less expensive to campaign. For instance, a direct mail campaign only costs one-fifth as much as in an election County-wide, and door-to-door campaigning is much more effective. It can also increase the influence of neighborhoods in elections.

Sarasota County had single member districts for two years as a result of a successful citizens’ petition drive. It resulted in the election of Jack O’Neil as a fairly independent County Commissioner on the strength of support on Siesta Key and the adjoining mainland, without big developer support. Feeling their power threatened, the development community acted through the Chamber of Commerce to put repeal of single member districts on the ballot, which the Commission did. The measure passed, with a one-sided ballot wording and campaign and with no campaign against the change.

Please support this proposal to at least study and consider whether to give the voters a chance again to vote for single member Districts, thereby improving grass-roots citizen control in our republic.

Again, this is just a vote (which requires more for than against) to study this proposal, such as by weighing the pros and cons and seeing what other communities are doing on this subject.

Thank you very much for your service and for your considerations in these two important matters.

– Dan Lobeck

Voters in Sarasota County (and other charter counties) have the right to impose term limits on County Commissioners via their county charters.

The Supreme Court found that invalidating voter imposed term limits is “unsound” and “unworkable”.  It also receded from the Cook decision and said that if a county charter imposes term limits on other constitutional officers (e.g., Property Appraiser, Clerk of Court, Supervisor of Elections, Sheriff, Tax Collector), those term limits would also be valid.   

Referencing the Cook case (used to justify banning term limits for County Commissioners), the Court wrote:

‘In this case, the prior opinion in Cook undermines the ability of counties to govern themselves as that broad authority has been granted to them by home rule power through the Florida Constitution. Interpreting Florida‘s Constitution to find implied restrictions on powers otherwise authorized is unsound in principle. We agree with the First District in Cook that express restrictions must be found, not implied.
It is unworkable to negotiate the type of distinctions that the Fourth District made in determining whether the county commissioners are constitutional officers subject to the Court‘s Cook opinion. It would undermine the ability to predict what offices may be included within the scope of Cook‘s prohibition on term limits and would result in apparent inconsistencies between county officials. Receding from the Cook decision will promote stability in the law by allowing the counties to govern themselves, including term limits of their officials, in accordance with their home rule authority. Because the qualifying deadlines have not occurred, there are no reliance issues implicated by this ruling.
CONCLUSION Receding from the Cook decision (which found term limits unconstitutional italics ours) will promote stability in the law by allowing the counties to govern themselves, including term limits of their officials, in accordance with their home rule authority.

Members of SCRG are among the plaintiffs in the Term Limits case just decided by the Florida Supreme Court.  “We applaud the Supreme Court for validating the rights of voters in home rule counties to govern themselves and decide whether or not they want term limits for County Commissioners. A sound government finds ways to uphold the will of voters and seek the consent of the governed.  We are grateful that the Florida Supreme Court ruled in favor of home rule”.
Cathy Antunes, Pat Rounds

Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government

Background:   In 1998, Sarasota County voters approved a charter amendment limiting Sarasota County Commissioners to two terms, or eight years in office.  As the 1998 charter amendment was about to be enforced, preventing sitting Commissioners from running for a third term, the charter amendment was challenged in a Sarasota court.  In early 2005, a Sarasota County judge ruled that term limits for County Commissioners were unconstitutional, and ordered an injunction against enforcement of the County Charter term limit provision.  In August 2011, the 4th District Court of Appeals overturned a similar term limits ruling in Broward County.  The 4th DCA judges unanimously concluded that term limits imposed on County Commissioners via a County Charter amendment are constitutional.  In November the Sarasota citizen plaintiffs asked the local court to recognize that the 4th DCA decision is binding in Sarasota, and remove the current Sarasota injunction against term limits.
In November 2011 the citizen plaintiffs also asked the Sarasota Court to block a term limits ballot amendment proposed by the Board of County Commissioners for the January 31st,  2012 primary election, due to its confusing nature.  That ballot amendment sought to extend County Commissioner term limits from the 1998 voter approved two terms to three terms, and existing time in office would not count.  The proposed ballot amendment failed to make it clear to voters that the Charter already had term limits, and that the new amendment would allow some Commissioners to serve four to seven terms.
Judge Schoonover tossed the new ballot amendment proposed by the Board of County Commissioners due to its confusing nature.  Thankfully that problematic amendment will not appear on next week’s primary ballot.  But Judge Schoonover declined to rule on enforcing the 1998 term limits provision in the Charter.  He appeared to prefer to wait for the Florida Supreme Court ruling in the appeal of the 4th DCA decision (the Snipes case).  The sixteen plaintiffs appealed his ruling to the 2nd DCA(2ndDCAJan232012) , and asked that the case be sent to the Florida Supreme Court due to its great public importance.  The 2nd DCA agreed, so the Sarasota term limits case is being referred to the Supreme Court for consolidation with the Snipes case.

“Court upholds term limits”  The state Supreme Court’s ruling comes after a district court on the east coast of Florida ruled that term limits for Broward County commissioners were constitutional in August. It called the 2005 lower court decision that Sarasota County’s term limits were unconstitutional into question. 

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Filed_09-20-2011_Jurisdictional_Initial_Brief

Telli vs. Broward County 5-10-2012

Antunes vs. Sarasota County 5-10-2012

]]> http://www.sarasotacitizens.com/2012/05/10/florida-supreme-court-upholds-term-limits/feed/ 0 http://www.sarasotacitizens.com/2012/05/07/greater-acess-to-commissioner-emails/ http://www.sarasotacitizens.com/2012/05/07/greater-acess-to-commissioner-emails/#comments Mon, 07 May 2012 23:30:20 +0000 Carolann http://www.sarasotacitizens.com/?p=2516 Continue reading →]]> “We seek a free flow of information…we are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values.”

~John F. Kennedy~

The residents of Sarasota County should have access to both incoming and outgoing County Commission e-Mail messages.  If JFK wasn’t afraid to entrust us… what are our commissioners afraid of?   

View the video below and hear each commissioners response to allowing public access to all emails.  As it stands the only emails on the public access site are from commissioner to commissioner and commissioner to county administrator.  Except for Joe Barbetta, who realizes that public information is meant to be public, this Commission prefers to call the shots.

The County Director of Information Technology even suggests that on-site viewing of incoming and outgoing e-mail poses no technical problems, and could save county staff time in handling public records requests. 

Action Requested:  Please send a message to our County Commission urging them to open the window to public information access.  It’s the healthy thing to do in a county that advocates open government and transparancy.

“Commissioner emails debated”    Proponents of posting all of the emails say if anything it will boost public trust in the local government. “There is no question in this day and age the trust in public officials is at an all time low.” Commissioner Joe Barbetta says all the emails should be easily available. “I have no problem with them looking at all our emails. Sometimes it makes it easier if they really see what is going on and have the facts straight.”

At the March 12th CONA meeting, Sarasota County ethics and compliance  officer downplayed the seriousness of last years purchasing scandal. 

Scandal:  1. An action or circumstance that causes disgrace or offends public morality.  2. Malicious talk damaging to the character.   3. Damage to reputation or character caused by offensive or improper behavior.  4. One whose conduct caused disgrace or shame.

Mr Uebelacker stated that “it”should not have been called a scandal, and that problems were overblown and the press reporting was inaccurate.   Uebelackers statements were not received well by the citizens of Sarasota.   

The scandal began as Sarasota County employee Rodney Jones was arrested and charged by the Palm Beach County State Attorney’s Office with accepting more than $15,000 in cruises, hotel stays, gift cards and other kickbacks from a company whose contract he helped supervise.  The National Institute of Government Purchasing was brought in to conduct an audit. When complete, the audit recommended 151 reforms to Sarasota County’s purchasing operations.  Bill Brady of NIGP chided  “Sarasota takes the cake” describing it as one of the worst situations  ever seen.  The audit also resulted in the firing, reassignment or resignation of numerous County employees, including former County Administrator Jim Ley and Chief Financial Officer Jeff Seward.

Mr Uebelacker proposes to ease the restrictions placed on p-card use, saying they are unnecessary and time-consuming.  This alone is alarming as Uebelacker described the purchasing problems as simple laziness on the part of employees.  A staff who wanted to cut through red tape to get work done quickly?  

At the height of the controversy, many in the community realized  that there were honest county staff just trying to perform their duties and were afraid to come forward with concerns.  They were witness to those that had tried and were “marked for death” .  The request was made for added whistle-blower protection for county employees.  Back in June of 2011, Commissioner Jon Thaxton said even before the scandal broke, he conducted exit interviews with employees leaving the county, and some of those employees told him about wrongdoing in the procurement department.  It has taken almost a year but a hot-line will be live… soon.  In an interview with the Sarasota Herald Tribune, Uebelacker said he was merely trying to make the point that the vast majority of county employees are decent, hard workers and that press coverage and community response has hurt their morale.

Joe Barbetta was at the meeting and says while Ubelacker was professional and cordial many in attendance were uncivil and rude. 

Nora Patterson also takes issue with calling the purchasing problems a scandal because she would use that word to describe and incident in which a large number of employees were stealing to enrich themselves.

What does all this say about government accountability?  The truth of the matter is that what happened last year does qualify as a scandal.  Citizens are looking for change.  It will take some time for the community to trust this government and the attitude displayed by some of our officials is cause for concern.  There has been progress but I don’t think the citizens of Sarasota are willing to brush off the past and don those rose-colored glasses as easily.

A guest column in SRQ magazine by Cathy Antunes begins… At the March 12 meeting of the Council of Neighborhood Associations, Sarasota County Ethics and Compliance Officer Steve Uebelacker was the guest speaker. Many in the audience advocated for the creation of the county whistleblower position and were shocked to hear our new Ethics Officer downplay the seriousness of the circumstances that led his new position. Et tu, Steve? 

Sarasota Citizens offers a tip line for employees or vendors with concerns about county policy:

asafeplace@sarasotacitizens.com    

 “Sarasota County hires FDLE agent to look for fraud”   Steve Uebelacker, an agent with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, will be paid $96,000 a year in the new position and will become one of only a couple dozen other local government ethics and compliance officers in the country.

His job also includes conducting investigations based on a soon-to-be implemented complaint hot line and ensuring compliance to ethics policies.

Email exchange that occured after the meeting taken from the public access site. 

From Joe Barbetta:  This is not at all accurate.  Just check with Dick Sheldon who was in attendance.  It was clearly a rude, disrespectful display by many people and was allowed to continue by the CONA leadership.  Mr. Uebelacker was extremely professional, cordial and did his best to respond to questions, but the attacks kept coming.  Let’s not forget, he was an invited guest,  attempting to make his Presentation.  Of course he couldn’t fully finish it because of the continued heckling and outbursts from various members of the group.  Yet he continued to be respectful and utilized his best efforts to respond to “questioning”!! It was a most unfortunate display of incivility and rudeness by many in attendance.

From: Lourdes Ramirez To: Randall Reid  Subject: RE: Steve Uebelacker
Dear Randy,
Citizens must be able to provide feedback about the content and tone of Mr. Uebelacker’s presentation without their feedback being characterized as “allegations”.   It has been pointed out to Mr. Uebelacker that citizens have never accused the entire County workforce of being corrupt, and no one accused Mr. Uebelacker of criminal impropriety.  It must be understood that if I heard any of that type of allegation, I would have intervened.  I also imagine that Commissioner Patterson, who was present at the meeting, would not have allowed any criminal “allegations” be made against Mr. Uebelacker without an immediate response.  Sheriff Knight’s inclusion in this discussion is not necessary.
Mr. Uebelacker was addressing an audience filled with citizens who took an active role in County oversight and supported the creation of the position he now holds.  Among those in attendance were citizens that gathered information and acted as conduits for current and past employees to share information regarding misconduct in Sarasota County government.
The entire scandal could have been averted if Sarasota County had not dismissed reports of problems over the years.  Former employees, citizens and vendors had complained of ethical and possible criminal misconduct.  They were labeled as disgruntled, sore losers and trouble makers.  The Palm Beach State Attorney’s investigation led to the arrest of Rodney Jones and the ensuing coverage by the Sarasota Herald Tribune of the ethical problems in Sarasota County procurement.  Finally the County had to respond to what we knew all along – the serious ethical issues within Sarasota County government.
At our CONA meeting last Monday, we expected to hear about how the County is fixing the problem; what steps were taken so far and what still needs to be done.   What we did hear was troubling and shocking.
Mr. Uebelacker stated that County procurement problems were “not a scandal”.  He stated that there was an “overreaction” and that news coverage was “overblown” and “inaccurate”.  When he was asked to clarify what was overblown and inaccurate about news coverage, he declined to answer.
Reminiscent of the County’s former approach,  Mr. Uebelacker dismissed audience members – shushing them, pointing at them, accusing them of attacking him when he objected to tough questions or strong criticism of his characterization of events.  These responses escalated rather than alleviated concern.
Also, Mr. Uebelacker stated that only one person did anything wrong (Rodney Jones) and that any other infractions were just due to laziness or wanting to get the job done.  His commentary communicated to the audience that the County’s definition of wrongdoing is consistent with a criminal standard (getting arrested) not an ethical standard.  Very troubling commentary, especially from an ethics officer.  Contrary to his claims, there were numerous ethical lapses (for example, steering hundreds of thousands of dollars to former County employees for work already handled by other County departments or jobs given to unqualified friends); issues that may not meet the definition of criminal activity but are still unethical.  If the County does not take the misconduct revealed in the recent past very seriously, could the misconduct be repeated?
It was Mr. Uebelacker’s choice to stop his presentation after the first section to take questions and comments.  It was obvious the audience was stunned and shocked by Mr. Uebelacker’s presentation.  My attempt to ease tension with a joke – by saying how the meeting had gotten interesting, and asking that we hold questions and have Mr. Uebelacker continue his presentation, he angrily refused advising all of us that ‘He’s done’.  Our discussion outside, after the meeting, has made me reluctant to believe that Mr. Uebelacker would ever be reasonable enough to discuss any future concerns.
One of the most troubling aspects of his presentation was his refusal to acknowledge the views of others – citizens who are among the most informed about the County procurement problems.  His refusal to consider other viewpoints does not inspire confidence in his ability to serve effectively as a liaison, much less a liaison between citizens and the County regarding ethical concerns.  Citizens with the courage to approach the Ethics and Compliance Officer must be confident that the County is inclined to take their concerns seriously, not dismiss them.
Best Regards,
Lourdes

From: Rreid@scgov.netmailto:Rreid@scgov.net

I was not present to hear the questioning of Mr. Uebelacker at the CONA meeting but it is his position that there were allegations that disparaged  his reputation as well. Should you or anyone you know have information of Mr. Uebelacker  doing anything improper or covering up for county employees or feel there is some impropriety on the conduct of Mr. Uebelacker please provide me with any specifics, or do so to Sheriff Knight.
Interim Administrator Lewis who hired him was very familiar with his background and expertise in law enforcement and stated to me he is a highly ethical person. I have no reason not to believe he is doing his job well and the FDLE officials I have dealt with on issues here have spoken highly of him as well. It is unfortunate he was unable to complete his presentation prior to questions.
Randall Reid County Administrator

From: Lourdes Ramirez Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 1:43 PM

To: Stephen Uebelacker Cc: Randall Reid; Lourdes Ramirez Subject: Last night’s CONA meeting & public records request
Dear Steve,
Thank you for coming to the CONA meeting last night. It is unfortunate that you chose not to complete your presentation and that you took offense to questions and complaints from very involved, knowledgeable community stakeholders.  It was our understanding that your job is to provide a neutral, safe haven for citizens, as well as employees, to report actions and concerns within the County government administration where the job is not being done effectively.  So it was very confusing to us when you became so upset upon hearing some of the civic-minded public’s questions, comments and concerns about your presentation.  I know the tone of one citizen was harsh but it seemed that you became defensive no matter who spoke up about their concerns.
Last night’s audience was populated with citizens who took a leadership role in protesting corruption at the County. There is an obvious real understanding by these citizens of the true issue of problems within Sarasota County.  And the Ethics and Compliance Officer job exists due to their efforts and the work of the press about the procurement and other County poor management issues. Your characterization of press coverage as “overblown” and “inaccurate”, and the efforts of citizens as an “overreaction” was concerning, and appears to be inconsistent with your responsibilities of the County’s go-to person for whistleblowing.
It is very important to point out that CONA and its membership have never taken the position that the County is full of corrupt workers. We are not aware of any citizen group that has taken such a position. Yet your presentation makes that assumption, and argues for the honor of the County workforce. The citizens who have taken an active role in oversight of County government have been motivated by the mistreatment of County employees who were treated unfairly because they were honest.  You may not be aware that many of the corruption issues that came to light was information given to citizen’s groups by various County employees.
There has to be acknowledgement that there has been a problem with the culture of our County government. Changing County culture from one that punishes honest, open communication to one that rewards honesty is not accomplished in a few months. It takes years. Your presentation appears to be focused on minimizing concerns rather than the uncovering and correcting of problems. In your new role, you serve County employees, but you also serve as the contact person for citizens. Your presentation’s tone and content did not serve to create a foundation of trust for citizens who might approach you with a problem. As a public records request, we would appreciate a copy of your powerpoint presentation that you began presenting last night so we can review it in its entirety.
We look forward to working with you to address these concerns.
Sincerely,
Lourdes Ramirez President, Sarasota County Council of Neighborhood Associations

SARASOTA COUNTY — Cal Ripken Jr. is a Hall of Famer who played in 2,632 consecutive Major League Baseball games, setting a record for endurance that likely never will be broken.

Pat Rounds is a retired pharmaceutical sales manager who plans to outlast Ripken in the debate over whether his company, Ripken Baseball, should follow through on its July 2009 pledge to build a youth baseball academy in Sarasota County.

Rounds is a member of Sarasota Citizens for Responsible Government, which battled the county in court over whether commissioners violated Florida’s Government-inthe-Sunshine Law during the county’s negotiations over a $31.2 million plan to bring the Orioles here for spring training.

The youth academy issue came up again this week when a spokesperson for Ripken blamed the lawsuit for the delay of the academy project. Added Commissioner Joe Barbetta, the “litigation was not only costly and expensive to the taxpayers of Sarasota County, but it delayed the construction of the new clubhouse by over a year, which had a ripple effect on the entire process.”

The only document of record is the signed memorandum of understanding between the county and the Orioles. However Rounds has a draft MOU dated June 11, 2009, that shows text stating, “The Orioles and Ripken Baseball commit to use their best efforts to raise the necessary funds and to construct the youth baseball academy facilities within two years from the effective date of this Agreement.”

That language was not in the MOU signed by the county and Orioles officials — but not Ripken — on July 22, 2009.  According to Barbetta, “It would be ludicrous to think that (the academy) was included in that $31.2 million figure without substantial additional funds forthcoming from the community, in conjunction with the Orioles, through fundraising efforts.”

In late 2010, after Rounds suggested publicly that the commitment to build a Ripken youth academy “vanished” with the signing of the MOU, “the county orchestrated an effort to discredit my statement,” she said. “The deputy county administrator (Dave Bullock) sent an email to the County Commission taking my comments to task.”

Now, about 14 months later, Rounds said, “Several commissioners have admitted they were aware that the Ripken Academy wasn’t a sure thing,” prompting her to ask: “How were my observations in 2010 inconsistent with what these commissioners are saying now?”

The final MOU language does not match the public rhetoric. Rounds said that during the July 22, 2009, meeting, “Alan Rifkin, the Orioles attorney, affirmed under oath … that the Cal Ripken Youth Baseball Academy was a ‘solid’ commitment. He read a testimonial from Mr. Ripken expressing enthusiasm about a Cal Ripken academy for Sarasota County. Upon questioning, Rifkin stated that (the) Ripken folks would begin fundraising ‘immediately.’

“Words matter, and so do actions,” she said. “The Orioles and Cal Ripken should deliver on their promises.”

The Orioles’ Feb. 13 guest column in the Herald-Tribune offered examples of the Orioles community support.  Yet the words “Cal Ripken Youth Academy” were notably absent. The Orioles’ commitment to bring a Cal Ripken Youth Academy to Sarasota is proving to be as elusive for the team as a winning season.

Did they commit? Was it in writing? In the end , whatever goes wrong… blame the lawsuit! 

Was it the plan all along?  Sarasota was easy pickins after all.  Itching to find a team (any team) to fill the void when the Reds left.  Enter Baltimore.  What this team lacks on the playing field, the management makes up for in their ability to manuever a community to roll over and give them whatever they want.

News is that Ripken might bring his youth academy to Charlotte County.  But… that’s what they promised Sarasota!  Commissioner Barbetta isn’t worried because he says Cal was never committed.  I didn’t really get that idea as I watched Alan Rifkin read a statement authorized by Cal himself.  It sounded like a commitment to me.  Then Barbetta actually gives credit for their foresight down there and is holding out hope that the facility might be built in an area where both would benefit.  Would that include INDIANA too???

Neil Young said it best…

Oh to live on,

Sugar Mountain.

With the barkers and the color balloons.

Time to come back to reality Joe.

The Orioles do plan a youth facility at Twin Lakes.  That youth facility might not bear the Ripken name and they will ratchet up that plan after the 2012 training season.  That’s what Mr. Bader said anyway.  Mr Bader is the same man who excused closing Twin Lakes to a youth tournament because of renovations on Ed Smith.  Renovations (of course) delayed by the Sunshine suit.  In response I would call attention to this article in the Baltimore Sun.  Baltimore confident renovations will be completed on time.  The only set-backs mentioned were the weather.  No mention of that pesky Sunshine suit.

For your viewing pleasure: Time spot 2:40.  Alan Rifkin reveals (under oath) Cal Ripkens  intentions.

9/20/2010  “Sanborn Studios setting up shop in Lakewood Ranch” 

Before a room full of reporters, elected officials and film professionals, Ken Sanborn took the podium, dimmed the lights and played a video presentation that said it all: “The anticipation is over … a slice of Hollywood in Sarasota … Sanborn Studios.”

One year later Sanborn Studios is closing its Lakewood Ranch facility to “achieve greater efficiencies in its operations”.  The company is relocating its studio operations to a new facility which will be closer to its facilities at the Sarasota-Bradenton International Airport.  

Does it alarm anyone else that a bunch of money was given to Sanborn Studios and there was no due diligence on the part of the county when Jeff Maultsby pitched the project?  Rather than pause, our commission seemed star-struck at the mention of Hollywood and the magic word… JOBS!  

Sanborn of course has done very little in the way of jobs or major production activity.   

7/13/2011 “Sanborn Studios works on Plan B” 

2/28/2011  “Sarasota County re-evaluates Sanborn” 

“As you know, there is an inherit amount of risk in the provision of monies out of the economic incentive fund, as no grant can guarantee success in any endeavor,” Seward wrote. “In that regard, however, we construct our contracts with incentive grantees based on performance with claw back provisions for the return of the grant funding if the business does not live up to its contractual obligation.

What is your opinion?  Are economic incentives for businesses worth the possible risks? 

9/16/2010 “Incentives aim to draw more film crews to area” 

With a TV production studio slated for Lakewood Ranch, Sarasota County established an incentive program Wednesday specifically geared toward bringing more film and TV-related projects to the area.
Sarasota County commissioners voted to allocate $250,000 from their Economic Development Incentive Program to create a Film Industry Incentive Program. The move comes as county officials prepare to unveil which TV production company has been approved to receive $650,000 in economic development incentive.

 7/13/2010 “500 jobs  are at stake”  More than 500 jobs would be created if county government inks deals with five companies it is negotiating with and forks over more than $600,000 in incentive payments to the firms.

On Feb. 22, without public discussion, the Sarasota County Commission approved via its consent agenda a parking licensing agreement with the Baltimore Orioles. The agreement increases parking fees at the public park to $9 during spring-training games. The additional $4 goes to the Orioles. The 2011 parking revenues, totaling $22,482, were divided as follows:

• $1,471 taxes
• $2,498 non-profit payout
• $4,114 Sarasota youth baseball
• $3,085 SW District Parents Council
• $3,086 Ringling Redskins
• $8,228 Orioles

Because terms in the Orioles contract offer multiple and significant cost advantages and savings to their organization, it is unreasonable for the Orioles to sap any portion of meager profits from youth facility parking.  For example, the contract:

• Removed annual rent for use of Twin Lakes (>$250K/year)
• Required environmental indemnification by the City of Sarasota (under threat of pulling out of the tentative agreement)
• Removed the commitment to build a Cal Ripken Youth Baseball Academy (a two-year due date being mentioned in draft contract language)