Skip to content

Recommendations Regarding P&Z, Comprehensive Plan, and Land Development Code

October 26, 2009

TO: Mayor and City Commissioners – City of Winter Park

RE: Recommendations Regarding P&Z, Comprehensive Plan, and Land Development Code

The Planning and Zoning Commission has continued to impose significant increased restrictions for commercial and multi-unit residential properties within Winter Park in both the current approved Comprehensive Plan and proposed land development codes. Important elements of both the Comprehensive Plan and proposed land development codes are effectively designed to preclude, not incent redevelopment in our commercial and multi-unit residential zoned areas. As a result of many shortcomings, I have recommended that the City Commission constitute a new group of citizens to serve on the Planning and Zoning Commission.

While many property owners are harmed by both the Comprehensive Plan and proposed land development code, my concern is not to secure rights for these owners. My concern is that both the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed land development code are so restrictive as to deny the City of Winter Park opportunities for redevelopment that can improve our quality of life, add to the diversity of our character and community, and control the financial burden on residential property owners. It should be clear to all observers that the Comprehensive Plan and proposed land development code make Winter Park non-competitive and sends a clear signal to those who would consider investing to look elsewhere. This current strategy is dangerously short sighted. [UPDATE February 15, 2010: Some of these dangers were realized when the Winter Park City Attorney on February 8, 2010 confirmed that the Comprehensive Plan has down zoned a substantial number of properties and that at least one property owner has a valid and substantial claim against the city for a regulatory taking under Florida law. In short, the City will get sued for big bucks if it doesn’t find a way to change the Comprehensive Plan very soon. (See: Cooper’s Comprehensive Incompetence.)]

It is not sufficient to simply create rules for what some people don’t want. We need a complete sense of Winter Park’s role as a unique and special residential community at the literal center of the 30th largest Metropolitan Area in the country. The current Comprehensive Plan and proposed land development code include some poignant language to this effect but the substance ignores the implications of this essential context. The only future to be inferred from the substantive rules in the Comprehensive Plan and proposed land development code is one of declining property values, a lesser regional competitive position for Winter Park residential and commercial property uses, higher relative taxes and fees to be borne by our residential community, and increasing challenges to our ability to finance the quality of life that marks Winter Park’s attractiveness and value.

With this said, I provide some examples of specific concerns below. Following these examples, I offer recommendations that a new Planning and Zoning Commission may consider.

I provided specific concerns regarding the Comprehensive Plan and related issues in November 2008 that is available here: http://www.winterparkperspective.org/2008/11/11/we-get-what-we-deserve/.

After reviewing the proposed land development code I have many questions I believe need to be addressed, a few of which are detailed below.

Reference – Virtually all sections: What is the justification for and expected consequences of proposed changes in restrictions on: minimum lot sizes and dimensions, floor area ratios, setbacks, impervious coverage, minimum ground area per dwelling unit, maximum dwelling units per acres, heights, and parking requirements as applied in each land use Section and Planning Area of the Comprehensive Plan and proposed land development code?

Reference – Development Standards – Virtually all sections: What is the justification for and expected consequences of granting the City Commission arbitrary and unilateral authority to limit achievable floor area in virtually all cases?

Reference – http://www.cityofwinterpark.org/Docs/Departments/Planning/Sec58-64Nonconforminglots&structures.pdf

What is the justification for each nonconforming use as defined? What is the justification for and expected consequences of forcing nonconforming uses out of business?

(6) When a nonconforming use of land or structure or land and structure or structure and premises in combination is discontinued or abandoned for two (2) six consecutive months or for 18 months during any three year period (except when governmental action impedes access to the premises), the land or structure or land and structure or structure and premises in combination shall not thereafter be used except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located. If a nonconforming use is discontinued or abandoned on a portion of the land or structure for two (2) consecutive months, that portion of the land or structure shall not thereafter be used except in conformity with the regulations of the district in which it is located. Land or structures shall not be deemed to be active and in continued nonconforming usage solely from the existence of a city or state license or business certificate permitting such a use or business, but such use or business must be actively undertaken, staffed and in operation for such use or business to be deemed in active continued nonconforming usage.

Reference – http://www.cityofwinterpark.org/Docs/Departments/Planning/Sec58-86%20Off-street%20Parking.pdf.

What is the justification for and expected consequences of the following proposed changes in parking requirements and has input been sought or received from any such existing institutions?

(b) 7. Convalescent, nursing, assisted living and other institutions: One parking space for each five three patient beds, plus one parking space for each staff or visiting doctor (average) on the day shift.

Hospitals: One parking space for each three patient beds (excluding bassinets), plus one parking space for each two employees, contract personnel, volunteers, etc. including part-time employees, expected on the most active work shift.

Library: One parking space for each 375 square feet of gross floor space in the building.

Restaurants, nightclubs, taverns or lounges: One parking space for each 50 square feet of floor space for patron use on the premises or one space for every four three seats, whichever is greater.

Schools (senior high, colleges, universities): One parking space for each teacher, administrator, and employee, plus one parking space for every four (two) students, plus sufficient off-street space for safe and convenient loading and unloading of students, plus one parking space for each ten seats in the school or college auditorium, provided, however, if the school or college has a gymnasium and has provided off-street parking for that gymnasium, such spaces may be credited toward meeting the requirements for off-street parking for the auditorium located on the same campus.

Theaters, auditoriums, funeral homes, and places of assembly with fixed seats: One parking space for each six four seats, plus additional parking spaces equal in number to the number of employees.

Recommendations for a newly constituted Planning and Zoning Commission.

  • For each land use type we need a tabular comparison of density and intensity regulations comparing prior regulations with those included in the current approved Comprehensive Plan and current proposed land development code. Such comparison should at a minimum include; minimum lot sizes and dimensions, floor area ratios, setbacks, impervious coverage, minimum ground area per dwelling unit, maximum dwelling units per acres, heights, and parking requirements. Where the current approved Comprehensive Plan and current proposed land development code vary from prior regulations a narrative justifying each change should be included. (While most pre-existing codes have been effectively tested and modified accordingly over years of experience, mitigating the need for a “zero based” approach, it may be appropriate to provide a zero based rational for pre-existing code in some cases.)
  • Prepare a detailed list of each proposed nonconforming use by specific property by land use Section.
  • Mail the tabular comparison of proposed changes with narrative, and detailed list of nonconforming uses, to each affected property owner with an invitation to participate in public meetings. The meetings would be established for the purpose of communicating the implications of proposed changes and to seek and document input from property owners on steps the city can take to enhance the value of their property.
  • Hire a professional planner and a land use attorney to consult on all Comprehensive Plan and land development code considerations.
  • Remove all specific intensity and density criteria included in the Land Use Element of the current Comprehensive Plan not specifically required by DCA. Such criteria to be removed are to include but not be limited to: minimum lot sizes and dimensions, floor area ratios, setbacks, impervious coverage, minimum ground area per dwelling unit, maximum dwelling units per acres, heights, and parking requirements. Where DCA requires such intensity and density criteria use those limits in place prior to the approval of the current Comprehensive Plan.
  • Remove all super majority voting requirements from the Comprehensive Plan and submit the duly revised Land Use Element to the City Commission for approval at the earliest possible date.
  • Lead the completion of the form based code project for non-residential properties with the objective of defining model uses and forms for each non-single family zoning Section and Planning Area based on input from all constituencies; to be guided by a professional planner and a land use attorney.
  • Lead a public process to define specific objectives for each zoning Section within each Planning Area that justifies each of the following: desired uses, intensity and density, intended impact on character, diversity, and community, infrastructure, and financial costs and benefits; to be guided by a professional planner and a land use attorney.
  • Lead a public process that puts the current reality in each zoning Section and Planning Area in context with the objectives defined above for the purpose of documenting the process that gets us from point A to point B.
  • Based on the above work, modify the Comprehensive Plan accordingly, and recommend land development code specifically designed to achieve the defined objectives.

Posted in Development, Policy.

rev="post-907" No comments

By Peter Weldon – October 26, 2009

Time for change at P&Z

TO: Mayor, Commissioners, and Fellow Citizens

FROM: Pete Weldon, 700 Via Lombardy

  • I support neither unfettered private property rights nor unfettered government rights.
  • The only property in Winter Park in which I have any interest is our family home.
  • I continue to believe that the best city in Florida needs rational, experienced, and professional leadership.

Our City Commission will be having a “listening session” during their regular 3:30 PM meeting this coming Monday, October 26, 2009 on the subject of building codes unanimously approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) on August 18, 2009. Four members of P&Z voted to recommend these codes to the City Commission: Drew Krecicki, Rick Swisher, Michael Dick, and Carolyn Cooper. The fifth P&Z member, Sara Whiting, did not attend the August 18, 2009 meeting.

Our City Commission should “listen” to this:

It is time to appoint a new slate of citizens to P&Z.

I, more than most people (I think), appreciate the time our current P&Z members have put in authoring the Comprehensive Plan and related Zoning Codes. However, given the results, it is clear that this work does not serve or represent the interests of the City of Winter Park, our 28,000 residents, 11,500 property owners, 14,000 households, or 17,000 voters; but rather, serves only the personal preferences and political dogma of the people making up the rules.

Current members of P&Z are responsible for a Comprehensive Plan that effectively lowers the value of hundreds of million dollars of downtown Winter Park real estate and also limits opportunities for all commercial and multi-unit residential property throughout the city without any justification (except that they have the power to do so). The Comprehensive Plan and these proposed zoning code changes further restrict floor area, building heights, setbacks, and impervious coverage. Many pre-existing limits have been in place since 1971, some the 1990’s, and some from the early 2000s; a long period of time during which our city and commercial core have largely prospered and our quality of life has improved. What is the justification for the increased limitations? There is none.

P&Z members now recommend commercial and multi-unit residential building codes throughout Winter Park that further erode property values and redevelopment opportunities by increasing setbacks and reducing heights, among other new restrictions. These newly proposed restrictions have no basis in experience or reality. No member of the current P&Z Commission has offered any rational social or economic justification, nor considered the consequences of these changes.

Under the general category of “Development Standards” proposed code changes from P&Z members grant the City Commission what can only be interpreted as arbitrary unilateral authority to “limit and restrict the achievable floor area.” This applies to all commercial and multi-unit residential building codes, not to single family codes. Think about this a minute. What if you wanted to build a new single family home and the City Commission could step in at any time and deny you the floor area otherwise written into the code after you have invested considerable energy and dollars planning your new home? In such circumstances common sense (remember that?) would tell you to build your home someplace other than Winter Park. That is exactly what has happened to our commercial and multi-unit residential opportunities under the current Comprehensive Plan, and these proposed building codes will only further erode these opportunities. People will invest elsewhere and the value of Winter Park property will decline. Perhaps this is the unspoken objective of the current P&Z members? The wise observer might ask, “To what do we owe this blatant discrimination to the detriment of legitimate interests of commercial property owners?”

This consistent, grotesque over reaching and unsupportable dogma has reached the point of no return, the point where polite discussion does not elicit rational response.

These policies and priorities are wrong for Winter Park and dangerously undermine our ability to finance our quality of life.

My objection to this unrepresentative imposition of personal preference and political dogma on all Winter Park property owners and citizens (directly and indirectly) is not an endorsement of big ugly buildings with parking garages. My objection is founded in a clear need to populate our city boards with rational, experienced, and professional citizens. Citizens with the foresight and judgment to promote land use and related codes that balance interests so as to attract quality reinvestment in our city; reinvestment that will complement the character and quality of Winter Park while contributing new revenue to sustain our roads, our parks, our trees, our lakes, our public safety; our quality of life.

Read the code changes, attend the meeting on Monday, and tell the City Commission they need to thank our current P&Z members for their service and replace them.

TO: Mayor, Commissioners, and Fellow Citizens

FROM: Pete Weldon, 700 Via Lombardy

· I support neither unfettered private property rights nor unfettered government rights.

· The only property in Winter Park in which I have any interest is our family home.

· I continue to believe that the best city in Florida needs rational, experienced, and professional leadership.

Our City Commission will be having a “listening session” during their regular 3:30 PM meeting this coming Monday, October 26, 2009 on the subject of building codes unanimously approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) on August 18, 2009. Four members of P&Z voted to recommend these codes to the City Commission: Drew Krecicki, Rick Swisher, Michael Dick, and Carolyn Cooper. The fifth P&Z member, Sara Whiting, did not attend the August 18, 2009 meeting.

Please tell our City Commission to “listen” to this:

It is time to appoint a new slate of citizens to P&Z.

I, more than most people (I think), appreciate the time our current P&Z members have put in authoring the Comprehensive Plan and related Zoning Codes. However, given the results, it is clear that this work does not serve or represent the interests of the City of Winter Park, our 28,000 residents, 11,500 property owners, 14,000 households, or 17,000 voters; but rather, serves only the personal preferences and political dogma of the people making up the rules.

Current members of P&Z are responsible for a Comprehensive Plan that effectively lowers the value of hundreds of million dollars of downtown Winter Park real estate and also limits opportunities for all commercial and multi-unit residential property throughout the city without any justification (except that they have the power to do so). The Comprehensive Plan and these proposed zoning code changes further restrict floor area, building heights, setbacks, and impervious coverage. Many pre-existing limits have been in place since 1971, some the 1990’s, and some from the early 2000s; a long period of time during which our city and commercial core have largely prospered and our quality of life has improved. What is the justification for the increased limitations? There is none.

P&Z members now recommend commercial and multi-unit residential building codes throughout Winter Park that further erode property values and redevelopment opportunities by increasing setbacks and reducing heights, among other new restrictions. These newly proposed restrictions have no basis in experience or reality. No member of the current P&Z Commission has offered any rational social or economic justification, nor considered the consequences of these changes.

Under the general category of “Development Standards” proposed code changes from P&Z members grant the City Commission what can only be interpreted as arbitrary unilateral authority to “limit and restrict the achievable floor area.” This applies to all commercial and multi-unit residential building codes, not to single family codes. Think about this a minute. What if you wanted to build a new single family home and the City Commission could step in at any time and deny you the floor area otherwise written into the code after you have invested considerable energy and dollars planning your new home? In such circumstances common sense (remember that?) would tell you to build your home someplace other than Winter Park. That is exactly what has happened to our commercial and multi-unit residential opportunities under the current Comprehensive Plan, and these proposed building codes will only further erode these opportunities. People will invest elsewhere and the value of Winter Park property will decline. Perhaps this is the unspoken objective of the members of the current P&Z members? The wise observer might ask, “To what do we owe this blatant discrimination to the detriment of legitimate interests of commercial property owners?”

This consistent, grotesque over reaching and unsupportable dogma has reached the point of no return, the point where polite discussion does not elicit rational give and take.

These policies and priorities are wrong for Winter Park and dangerously undermine our ability to finance our quality of life.

My objection to this unrepresentative imposition of personal preference and political dogma on all Winter Park property owners and citizens (directly and indirectly) is not an endorsement of big ugly buildings with parking garages. My objection is founded in a clear need to populate our city boards with rational, experienced, and professional citizens. Citizens with the foresight and judgment to promote land use and related codes that balance interests so as to attract quality reinvestment in our city; reinvestment that will complement the character and quality of Winter Park while contributing new revenue to sustain our roads, our parks, our trees, our lakes, our public safety; our quality of life.

Let’s see if there are any leaders among the members of our City Commission. Read the code changes, attend the meeting on Monday, and tell the City Commission they need to thank our current P&Z members for their service and replace them.

Posted in Development, Policy.

rev="post-895" No comments

By Peter Weldon – October 23, 2009

Park these thoughts.

Our City Commission voted tonight (Anderson, Dillaha, and Bridges voted YES, Bradley and Diebel voted NO) to proceed with a “conceptual plan” for the post office property with these characteristics:

  1. Build a new 6,500 square foot retail post office to USPS specifications on the northern section of the current post office property (approximately 0.85 acres), converting the balance of the current post office property and City right of way to park space (approximately 1.4 acres).
  2. Build a new 6,500 square foot distribution center (“carrier annex”) to USPS specifications on City owned land on Denning Drive (approximately 1.5 acres).
  3. The City’s consultant currently estimates the cost to construct these two buildings at $3,500,000.
  4. Noting that no one really wants to break up the 5 acre City owned Denning Drive property but to commit 1.5 acres of that land anyway (?). (Yes, they voted on that.)
  5. Appoint and authorize a fund raising group to raise $4,000,000 toward the cost to implementing the conceptual plan.
  6. Noting that the City’s consultant currently values land to be used by the USPS for these new building at $1,500,000.
  7. Noting that the City has a contract with the USPS for a single 23,000 square foot building. (The City’s agent has already notified the USPS that the City values the 10,000 square foot differential between the contract and the current conceptual plan at $2,000,000.)
  8. Suggesting that the USPS may accept a condominium interest in the land used for the new buildings rather than taking title to that land.
  9. Suggesting that the City may build a larger facility on the northern section of the current post office property to accommodate more than a retail post office. (Who is going to pay for that?)
  10. Noting that the current contract with the USPS requires the City to deliver turnkey facility/facilities before receiving title to the current post office land.
  11. Noting that the USPS may not agree to extend the current contract with the City, which expires in February 2010.

Huh?

Who on our City Commission is seeking answers to the following questions?

  1. What happens if the fund raising falls short of $4,000,000?
  2. Who is paying for the 1.5 acres to be given to the USPS under uncertain terms? (Estimated value of $1,500,000.)
  3. Who is paying for a settlement with the USPS on the 10,000 square foot contract differential that the City has already acknowledged through its agent is worth $2,000,000?
  4. If all these costs are realized as currently documented the total cost of acquiring up to 1.4 acres of new park on the South portion of the current post office property will approximate $7,000,000 (Buildings at $3,500,000 – land at $1,500,000 – contract differential at $2,000,000). (This excludes the $4,000,000 in taxpayer money already spent to pay off the previous post office developers.) So, what happened to the representations of our City Commissioners that this project would be undertaken without using taxpayer funds?
  5. Why is the City Commission spending all this time and effort on a “conceptual plan” with so many holes in it before it knows whether or not the USPS will even bother to extend to the current contract?
  6. Why would the USPS agree to extend the current contract unless they were certain they would be getting more than they would be giving up?
  7. If the USPS is to be certain of getting more than it is giving up doesn’t that mean costs are certain to be greater than the suggested $4,000,000 fund raising effort, which assures that the “real plan” is for Winter Park taxpayers to be on the hook for ANY differential between ANY donations and actual costs?

Let your Mayor and City Commissioners know how much you are prepared to contribute to this “plan” as a charitable contribution.

Let your Mayor and City Commissioners know how much you are prepared to contribute to the “plan” as a taxpayer.

Posted in Parks, Policy.

rev="post-867" 1 comment

By Peter Weldon – August 24, 2009

In the “zone”….

It is my hope that the most wise and thoughtful Winter Park citizens will review these circumstances and get involved with this issue.

My last writing on the continuing saga of the post office property ended as follows:

“Please contact MayorandCommissioners@cityofwinterpark.org and tell them to stop the misrepresentations and obfuscation. Tell them if they want to buy the post office they should support a referendum seeking the approval of the voters and stop playing games.”

Well, today’s meeting offered some hope (see below) but confirmed that the current process is replete with misrepresentations and obfuscation, and that games are being played.

Phil Anderson represented that the motion he was putting forth with Beth Dillaha was based on the premise that “no taxpayer funds will be used” and he specifically noted that the value of any land given to the USPS as part of the project would need to be paid for with donations and not with taxpayer funds. However, co-author Beth Dillaha made it clear that she supported donating our land on Denning Drive to the USPS, thereby expending taxpayer funds for the project. Margie Bridges indicated her agreement with Beth Dillaha.

The expected group of park supporters pleaded anew to buy the post office property (without offering any additional monetary support) noting how our descendants will thank us for being so farsighted. These were the exact same people who told us they would raise private donations to pay the costs of terminating the post office redevelopment, which exposed our city to a $25,000,000 liability and was eventually settled for over $4,000,000 in taxpayer funds.

Anderson, Dillaha, and Bridges voted for the motion modified so as to require City Commission approval of a more detailed plan at the next meeting and approval of a fund raising committee at the subsequent meeting. (Bradley and Diebel voted, no.) So, the saga continues, totally disorganized with no clear path.

The most hopeful aspect of the meeting was an initiative by Ken Bradley to change the zoning of the existing post office property back to “Public Use” from “Commercial Use.” The zoning was changed to “Commercial Use” (C2) from “Public Use” (PQP) as part of the original Carlisle development approvals. City Counsel offered a convincing argument that the USPS is unlikely to have a cause for action as a result of down zoning from C2 to PQP given the original PQP zoning and subsequent circumstances.

I wish I had thought this through as Ken Bradley has. Those willing to think will note that changing the post office zoning to PQP lowers the market value of the property and leads eventually to a public use for the property when the USPS disposes of it (“park” anyone?). Further, effective February 2010 without a zoning change the USPS is free to sell their land as C2 zoning to the highest bidder (unless they renew the agreement with the city for another year, but why would they?). The USPS is now in the business of closing 1,000 post offices because technological change is rapidly eroding their revenue. If we change the zoning to PQP and let the current acquisition alternative lapse we will eventually have all the property for public use at public use prices without spending a dime today (our descendants will thank us).

Hmmmmm…

Please contact MayorandCommissioners@cityofwinterpark.org and tell them to think through the rezoning option. Maybe we will find out that we have at least three wise and thoughtful leaders on our City Commission.

Posted in Parks, Policy.

rev="post-850" 15 comments

By Peter Weldon – August 10, 2009

“We won’t spend your money for our pet project!” Sure.

Please review this and then contact MayorandCommissioners@cityofwinterpark.org to express your opinion.

City Commissioners Phil Anderson and Beth Dillaha have put forth a Motion for discussion at the August 10, 2009 City Commission meeting to proceed with fund raising related to having the City purchase the post office property on New York Avenue. This motion (see pages 54 – 58) is based on the principle that “no taxpayer funds will be used.” However, preliminary financial projections used to justify the Motion omit known critical elements and costs, and significantly underestimate the donations required to complete the proposed project where “no taxpayer funds will be used.”

Based on the contract (see pages 187-230) and written communications with the USPS, the City will have to pay the USPS at least $2,000,000 in addition to paying the cost of building both a new retail post office and a postal service distribution facility to USPS specifications in return for the USPS transferring title to their land on New York Avenue to the City. These monies are absent from the analysis supporting the Motion.

The cost of constructing facilities for the USPS is estimated by consultants hired by the City to be $3,228,000 excluding the value of land to be given to the USPS for a distribution center. This estimate is not shown to include any contingency. It is also not clear whether this estimate has been created based on known specifications provided by the USPS as required by contract.

The City owns a 5 acres site on Denning Drive and has been offered as much as $10,000,000 for this property on an informal basis. In the current soft real estate market the value of 1 to 2 acres of this property given to the USPS could still reasonably be in the range of $1,500,000 to $2,500,000.

The City would receive approximately one acre of the current post office property to convert to park. The fair market value of this land as park is significantly below its value as currently zoned. Any fair comparative appraisal of 1 to 2 acres of the commercial Denning property for one acre of the current post office property to be used as park can be reasonably expected to leave at least a $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 differential in value to be made up by donations. These monies are absent from the analysis supporting the Motion.

Further, any proceeds from the sale of City owned land on Swope constitute taxpayer funds and need to be removed from the analysis accordingly.

A more accurate estimate of the total donations required to avoid using taxpayer funds to complete the project contemplated by the proposed motion exceeds $7,000,000, not $2,646,000 as included in the analysis supporting the motion.

Construction costs =                                                       3,228,000
Construction contingency at 10% =                              322,800
Contract value to the USPS =                                       2,000,000
Land value differential Denning vs New York =   1,500,000

As a matter of full and fair disclosure, as a matter of responsible planning, and to fulfill the commitment not to use taxpayer funds; any City Commission agreement to pursue the proposed motion must represent that at least $7,000,000 in private donations must be deposited under irrevocable agreements before the City will be authorized to make any commitment with the USPS to acquire USPS property on New York Avenue.

Further, as a matter of responsible planning the City Commission should not approve any fund raising plan before the City’s building consultant can certify estimated construction costs for new USPS facilities based on plans submitted by the USPS that fully detail specifications as required by the existing contract with the City. There is no reason to proceed based on rough estimates when construction costs can be known with relative certainty based on detailed plans to known specifications.

Note that the City Commission could ask the voters to determine whether to borrow funds to complete the proposed project by referendum. Those supporting this acquisition will not support a referendum because they know it will never pass. It will never pass because it is a bad deal for the City. Why on earth would we pay $7,000,000 for one acre of new park when we recently purchased most of the Winter Park golf course  (20+ acres) for $8,000,000? Well, of course we would not.

Those supporting the acquisition of the post office property are intentionally low balling the amount of donations required to complete this project, hoping they can make up the difference with “taxpayer funds” without us noticing, while at the same time telling us that “no taxpayer funds will be used.” (Is this really the way we want Winter Park politics to operate? Keep this in mind for the March 2010 election.)

Please contact MayorandCommissioners@cityofwinterpark.org and tell them to stop the misrepresentations and obfuscation. Tell them if they want to buy the post office they should support a referendum seeking the approval of the voters and stop playing games.

Posted in Parks, Policy.

rev="post-828" 9 comments

By Peter Weldon – August 8, 2009

Citizen Letters on Ethics

The City of Winter Park posted all the written correspondence received by the Ethics Board in response to its call for public input.

Read the letters here. (Be patient, it takes some time to show up.)

There are some interesting points made.

The biggest issue with many is what are being generally called “LLC” contributions that are presumed to have a”bad” influence on elections under the presumption that such contributions constitute efforts to purchase influence for financial gain. How do you define “bad” contributions and separate them from “good” contributions? How can you ban “LLC” contributions and still permit contributions from other entities such as homeowners associations, political parties, and political action committees? If you ban contributions from all entities haven’t you restricted free speech in a constitutional sense?

I need some help on these questions. Any takers?

I also need help to understand why an attorney known and fully disclosed as representing commercial property owners is not a valid participant on a Comprehensive Plan Task Force making recommendations to the City Commission. OK, yes, we know they want to make money. But where is the conflict of interest with the City as claimed? Why don’t commercial property owners deserve representation on issues that impact their property? Any takers on this one?

Posted in Elections, Ethics.

rev="post-807" 2 comments

By Peter Weldon – May 14, 2009

Better Ethics, or Unethical Power Play?

There are important State laws in place concerning conflicts of interest, campaign contribution limits, and campaign financial reporting.

The recently established Winter Park Ethics Board was formed at the behest of a small group of citizens more concerned with limiting the voice of interests with whom they disagree than in doing the work required to compete for votes in the marketplace of ideas. The purpose of the Ethics Board in the eyes of those demanding its formation is to rubber stamp campaign finance restrictions more stringent than State requirements under the righteous banner of improving “ethics” in Winter Park.

The funny thing is that few if any of the people expecting the Ethics Board to do their bidding have demonstrated any understanding of ethics and in some cases have behaved in a clearly unethical manner.

There are fundamental issues at stake and I encourage Winter Park citizens to grind through the details and express your thoughts to the Ethics Board and City Commission before important rights are legislated away by the over zealous among us.

Below are my responses (in blue) to the questions posed by the Ethics Board.

May 13, 2009

To: Mayor and City Commissioners, Ethics Board Members

My responses to the questions posed by the Ethics Board for their May 13, 2009 public meeting follow. I welcome all constructive criticism as we all seek to improve the governance of Winter Park.

Regards, Pete Weldon

700 Via Lombardy

Winter Park, FL 32789


Conflicts of interest:

What are your thoughts, experiences and suggestions for city board members when a conflict of interest arises?

Accepted standards of ethical behavior require disclosure of conflicts of interest and compliance with related State laws. Let’s explore the scope of “conflict of interest.” The “interest” here is that of the City of Winter Park, the entity. A potential “conflict” arises when a city employee, city board member, or city commission member acts in a way that serves their personal interest to the detriment of, or without full consideration of the interests of the City.

The law limits consideration of “conflicts” to financial interests as a practical matter because it is virtually impossible to prove a gain or loss associated with another type of “conflict.” (For those interested, look up Florida Statutes Title X 112.3143.) However, the concept of ethics encompasses all interests, including political interests.

The desired standard of behavior is that each person serving the City in a fiduciary capacity fully understand the distinction between their interests and the interests of the City, that they fully disclose their interests, and subjugate these to those of the City. Let’s look at recent documented ethics issues in Winter Park to help clarify the important distinction between personal interests and the interests of the City of Winter Park.

Case #1: Beth Dillaha is now on record as being a strong opponent of the Sun Rail commuter project that has recently been voted down by the State legislature. She has a strong personal interest in this issue. However, when running for election she intentionally mislead the voters about her interest, deflecting direct questions about her position and posturing as if she embraced the project based on the commuter rail vote approved by the citizens of Winter Park. After being elected she expended most of her time and energy working to terminate the commuter rail agreement with Orange County.

In emails to State Senator Paula Dockery shortly after her election, Beth Dillaha acknowledged her fiduciary duty to serve the City’s certain interests (based in this case on a vote of the citizens), while simultaneously offering to help Ms. Dockery kill the commuter rail project.

It is clear Beth Dillaha, as a candidate, had a conflict of interest and deliberately failed to disclose that interest to the voters prior to her election. It is clear that Beth Dillaha, as a City Commissioner, put her personal interest ahead of the known interests of the City.

Case #2: David Strong fully disclosed his personal interest in having the City purchase the existing post office property. However, he did not fully disclose material financial realities he was aware of and understood that impacted the interests of the City. He promoted voluntary contributions to help pay for the purchase without disclosing that existing pledges had conflicting conditions, putting their collection in jeopardy. In at least one instance, he knowingly misstated a material fact about the cost of purchasing the post office property in a public meeting. In doing so (for whatever reasons and however noble in his mind) he placed his personal interest in purchasing the post office property above the interests of the City. David Strong used his office to promote his personal interest in conflict with that of the city.

There has been some confusion about financial conflicts of interest in Winter Park.

Some have suggested newly elected mayor Ken Bradley has a conflict of interest because he is the head administrator of Winter Park Memorial Hospital. In running for office he fully disclosed his personal interest in and support for the Sun Rail project arguing that it was good for the hospital and good for the City. He fully disclosed his personal interest in this issue and acknowledged that he would recuse himself from voting on any matters before the City connected with the hospital, as is his legal obligation.

We need to avoid the conclusion that someone who does not share our particular interest therefore has a conflict of interest. The most important point is that conflicts of interest exist in the normal course of affairs for the City. Conflicts of interest are not “bad,” they are expected and should be disclosed.

My suggestion is to have an education program about conflicts of interest for those with a fiduciary duty to the City of Winter Park so each such person is aware of their duty and can gain perspective to distinguish their interests from those of the City.

Is the city too lenient or too restrictive in regards to conflicts of interest?

All reasonable requirements are already in place in State statutes (Florida Statutes Title X 112.3143). Any person with a fiduciary duty to the City need only read and understand what is already in place at the State level regarding conflicts of interest. There is no need for the City to re-invent the wheel with new laws.

Have you experienced a conflict of interest, and if so, how was it resolved?

Yes. As an investment adviser and Chartered Financial Analyst I have a professional duty to understand ethics issues and to strive to be aware where my interests may be in conflict with my clients’ interest. There came a time when I decided my interests could supersede those of certain of my clients. I managed this conflict by asking certain clients to find someone else to manage their money.

Campaign finance reform:

What are your opinions about the cost involved with running for office?

Having run for office myself I found the cost of competitively communicating with the voters currently runs between $40,000 to $50,000 per campaign. Virtually all the money goes to communication of one form or another, whether it be neighborhood meetings, print, or other media.

This question can only exist for the purpose of exploring some kind of financial cap on election spending in Winter Park. This would be a grave error. Spending caps can only serve to aid re-election of incumbents by limiting communication about alternative policies and priorities offered by a non-incumbent. Caps on campaign spending would make elections less open and fair, and would likely be unconstitutional.

Do you consider the current system of campaign finance open/transparent/fair?

Yes.

When I ran for City Commission I decided to accept contributions only from individuals. I did this to assure the voters of my independence. I have no problem with candidates accepting contributions from all “persons” as defined in the law (see below). Each candidate should be free to make their own decision on this aspect of campaign contributions and the voters are free to judge each candidate’s actions accordingly through review of required campaign financial reports.

While any citizen can easily look up information about an entity contributing to a candidate I think it is a good idea to make this even easier. We could have a direct Internet link to State information about each contributing entity available on financial reports (as I believe has been suggested). I would note, however, that the public versions of these reports can be in “image” format which would require a citizen to transcribe a complicated Internet address (in which case a simple lookup by name here would be easier: http://www.sunbiz.org/corinam.html). Perhaps just including this search link on financial reports would help.

I conclude that campaign finance in Winter Park is sufficiently open, transparent, and fair.

Is it good policy to allow businesses to legally contribute to candidates?

Yes.

Quotations from Florida Election Law: http://election.dos.state.fl.us/publications/pdf/2008-2009/08-09ElectionLaw-highlighted.pdf

“Except for political parties, no person, political committee, or committee of continuous existence may, in any election, make contributions in excess of $500 to any candidate for election to or retention in office or to any political committee supporting or opposing one or more candidates.”

“‘Person’ means an individual or a corporation, association, firm, partnership, joint venture, joint stock company, club, organization, estate, trust, business trust, syndicate, or other combination of individuals having collective capacity. The term includes a political party, political committee, or committee of continuous existence.”

Any “person” as defined above can by law make up to a $500 contribution to any candidate per election. Such “person” could be a homeowners association, a 501(c)(3)  non-profit, even a club. For example, a group existing to promote an off-leash dog park can give money to support a candidate who they believe will protect and promote their interest. The Winter Park Historical Association can contribute to candidates they believe will support their interests. The Winter Park Library can do the same as can any group of citizens who act in a collective capacity.

So, why does the Ethics Board suggest through this question that contributions by business interests are any different than contributions by entities that have non-business interests?

There is a false perspective in this question. The interest of a business owner is of no lesser or greater value than the interest of a group supporting off-leash dog parks. If the Winter Park Historical Association gives $500 to candidate “A” and candidate “A” votes to increase City support for the Winter Park Historical Association after being elected, has candidate “A” been bribed by the Winter Park Historical Association? That is exactly what this question presumes results from contributions by business interests.

Here are some numbers related to the recent Mayoral election that offer perspective:

Estimated number of Winter Park residents: 28,000

Estimated number of Winter Park registered voters: 17,000

Estimated number of Winter Park single family residential properties: 8,500

Estimated number of Winter Park commercial properties: 3,000

Actual number of votes cast in the recent Mayoral election: 6,416

Approximate number of campaign donors to David Strong: 178 (18 entities)

Approximate number of campaign donors to ken Bradley: 256 (34 entities)

Less than 6% of those actually voting contributed to a campaign.

37% of registered voters cast a vote.

Conclusions:

  • The political contribution system in Winter Park is both fair and transparent.
  • Significant opportunity exists for many more individuals, business interests, and other interest groups to contribute to Winter Park political campaigns. If you want your voice heard through dollars contributed to a political campaign there is ample opportunity to do so and to organize others.
  • Citizens of Winter Park should be more concerned with letting their voice be heard and less concerned with stifling the voice of those with whom they may disagree.
  • Setting policies and priorities should be an open debate, not a debate made one sided by laws restricting the voice of any particular interest or interest group.

Should board members/elected officials disclose contributions when their contributor appears before their board?

No. What good would it do? The campaign finance reports are available for all to see. Further, there are ample numbers who make a hobby of analyzing campaign financial reports and telling everyone they know about their conclusions. So, disclosure is not an issue.

Further, as an example, does anyone think the members of the City Commission who received campaign contributions from Charlie Rosenfelt would change their vote to support his request to annex his property in the Stonehurst enclave into the City of Winter Park if they had to make a statement that they accepted contributions from Charlie? Of course not. So what’s the point?

What can be done to promote transparency, goodwill and open government in Winter Park?

The best and only effective means of encouraging ethical behavior is through building a culture of full disclosure. No procedure or law can force anyone to be forthcoming and candid. This cannot be accomplished by having an “Ethics Board” or by passing laws beyond those already in State Statute. It can only be accomplished by setting standards of behavior and allowing the citizens to draw their own conclusions each year at the ballot box

I suggest the Ethics Board take the following actions:

1. Recommend to the City Commission that the Ethics Board be dissolved in favor of supporting the ethical standards and conflict of interest laws already included in State Statute.

2. Recommend to the City Commission that an ethics education program be instituted for new employees, new board members, and new City Commission members, with an annual refresher course. The greatest “ethical” issue in our current environment is that those speaking most loudly about the need for ethics have not demonstrated an understanding of the subject, and in some cases are the only people with documented ethics violations.

3. Recommend to the City Commission that the City of Winter Park discuss ethics in communications with the citizens on a routine basis, letting them know that the best way to protect and preserve the character and quality of our city is to encourage people of character and quality to participate in their local government.

Posted in Election 2009, Ethics.

rev="post-795" 3 comments

By Peter Weldon – May 13, 2009

Conflicts of Interest and Hypocrisy

Winter Park City Commissioners and acknowledged best friends Beth Dillaha and Margie Bridges have been consistently and totally opposed to including people on City Boards who make a living through any connections to real estate. For example, they fought the appointment of real estate executive Pitt Warner to the Ethics Board and then tried to get him removed. Beth Dillaha and Margie Bridges share a conviction that anyone with a possible financial interest in an issue, however remote, must have a conflict of interest and, therefore, it is unethical in their view for such people to serve on City Boards.

Hmmmm.

Beth Dillaha and Margie Bridges supported having local landscape architects Stephen Pategas and Thomas McMacken write new landscape and irrigation rules that will impact every Winter Park property owner. These rules are currently being considered by the City Commission. Drafts of these new rules can be viewed here beginning on page 185.

Perhaps Beth Dillaha and Margie Bridges should look more closely at the incentives and interests of these landscape architects.

Before the reactionaries start getting their blood pressure up let me note that I have had substantive conversations with both Stephen Pategas and Thomas McMacken in the past and have no doubt that both men are professionals in their field who sincerely believe they are doing a service to our community in proposing these new regulations.

However, is it not true that authoring landscape and irrigation regulations gives these men a competitive advantage in getting new business from Winter Park residents and businesses? Is it not true that these landscape and irrigation regulations are sufficiently detailed so as to require a property owner to hire a landscape architect to assist in planning required to be in compliance with the new regulations? Is it therefore not true that the financial interests of these two men are directly served by their involvement in and authorship of these proposed landscape and irrigation rules?

Perhaps Beth Dillaha and Margie Bridges, given their strident views on all this, would have considered asking Stephen Pategas and Thomas McMacken to serve the city in another capacity so as to remove suspicion of any conflict of interest. But, they did not do this and in fact wanted these two men write the new rules.

Perhaps each of us should look up the definition of the word: hypocrisy and learn how to apply it correctly.

Posted in Ethics, Policy.

rev="post-787" 2 comments

By Peter Weldon – March 28, 2009

And the winner is…. Ken Bradley.

Ken Bradley won the Winter Park Mayor’s seat today with a vote count of 3400 Bradley to 3016 Strong.

I do not offer condolences to the loser. I believe David Strong was wrong for Winter Park and am pleased we will now have the chance to face the our city’s many challenges with a more rational, positive, and professional focus.

As much as I disagreed with David Strong’s priorities and policies I came to respect the man for his willingness to serve. I only learned this by running for office myself and coming to understand the vagaries and challenges involved. It is not easy to run for office nor is it easy to govern.

So, it is time to move forward. (Boy that sounds refreshing!)

The City of Winter Park faces some serious financial challenges that must be dealt with promptly, positively, and perhaps with some pain.

We also need to assess the negative aspects of the isolationist and control oriented regulations imposed under the Strong regime and make appropriate changes.

Finally, we need to refresh our city boards with the brightest and best Winter Park has to offer. If you wish to serve just fill out the form.

Posted in Election 2009.

rev="post-783" 3 comments

By Peter Weldon – March 10, 2009

Strong or Bradley?

Ken Bradley’s campaign has put forth a specific plan to provide our city with positive, rational, and professional leadship.

David Strong’s campaign, in contrast, has been based on misinforming the voters. Every mail piece, every email contains the same incomplete, misleading information. (Sound like another mistake we made? Consistent, isn’t it?)

“Our reserves have increased almost $1 million dollars since David became Mayor.” Misleading. The general fund reserves have only increased because David Strong voted to sell off $1,000,000 of city land and cancel $500,000 in city projects in 2008. He also voted to increase the millage rate and to increase transfers from our water company to increase the budgeted 2009 reserves by $800,000. In other words, reserves were created only by diminishing other city assets and by raising taxes, not by generating an operating surplus.

“Winter Park has over $15 million in cash on hand to face unforeseen emergencies.” Misleading. Click here to review the schedule of city reserves as of September 30, 2008 which total $12,000,000. The “cash on hand” varies over time. These reserve balances represent the “cash on hand” available to various city funds. Note that all fund balances except the general fund reserve are set aside for specific purposes. Further, the vast majority of our reserves are in the water utility and the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA).  The city cannot spend utility reserves for general purposes without jeopardizing our credit rating. One rating agency has already downgraded our debt. While the water utility has a $10,000,000 reserve the electric utility has a $10,000,000 deficit as of September 30, 2008. The CRA money must be spent within the boundaries of the CRA (basically Fairbanks to 17/92 to Webster to Interlachen). In other words the city DOES NOT have sufficient cash on hand to face unforeseen emergencies.

“In 2008, we eliminated $2 million from our city expenditures without reducing any services.” Misleading. Get the impression we have not reduced any services? An additional $2,000,000 was removed from the 2009 budget including the elimination of 30 employees. The 2009 Budget (see pages 8 and 11 of the budget document) clearly states that services have been reduced. Further, David Strong voted to reduce the 2009 budget an additional $800,000 on January 26, 2009 which further reduces service levels. (I have no argument with reducing service level in bad times. I do have a problem telling voters you aren’t doing this when you are.) Get more information.

“…property taxes paid by the majority of our residents have been reduced.” Technically correct and misleading. David Strong voted to increase the millage rate, increasing taxes on every Winter Park property owner. Understand why he did this.

“David guided our city through the formation of a 10-year financial plan.” FALSE. David Strong had nothing to do with the preparation of a 10 year financial projection that was initiated by Commissioner Anderson and completed by Commissioner Anderson with the aid of city staff. This “plan” is not a plan but a financial spreadsheet with no connection to any plan. Get more information.

Nothing, absolutely nothing David Strong has campaigned on offers us any rational, positive, or professional leadership.

Contrast this with Ken Bradley’s constructive plan of action for Winter Park.

Let’s make a wise choice for Winter Park on Tuesday.

Posted in Election 2009.

rev="post-775" No comments

By Peter Weldon – March 7, 2009