Citizen's concerns for Port Orange and the Nation
You are in the web site of Port Orange Area News
Most items will remain on this web page for one month before deletion.
--------------------------------------
City governmental agencies face financial crises.
Port Orange reconsiders waste disposal services.
Cartoon found in the complete New Yorker cartoons, pg. 587
see more cartoons at www.cartoonbank.com
(editor - start deleting this web page on 2 13 12)
-------------------
Let there be no mistake, in large measure the reason we still have ever-increasing unfunded liabilities in each of the City’s pension plans is because of a long series of similar ill conceived actions on the part of Mayor Green, Vice Mayor Pohlmann and former Vice Mayor Dennis Kennedy.from Ted Noftall, Port Orange, 2 9 12'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Figuratively speaking the City Attorney in Port Orange has very wide skirts. So wide in fact that Mayor Green, Vice Mayor Pohlmann and former Vice Mayor Kennedy hid behind then at the Council Meeting on Tuesday evening past.
The issue was of course their 3-2 decision to cede control of the Fire Pension Board to the Fire Union by appointing a retired fireman to the tie breaking and desperately needed neutral 5th position on that board. Their stated reason for doing so was that the City attorney had told them if they didn’t the Fire Union would likely initiate a court action against the City to have the courts force Council to ratify the moronic action of Bob Pohlmann and Jim Reardon ( the other City appointee ) who approved the retired fireman in the first place.
That reason is of course without merit, as guess what the Council itself did several items later in the same evenings agenda …..they initiated a court action against the Fire Union.
Let there be no mistake, in large measure the reason we still have ever-increasing unfunded liabilities in each of the City’s pension plans is because of a long series of similar ill conceived actions on the part of Mayor Green, Vice Mayor Pohlmann and former Vice Mayor Dennis Kennedy.
If the Mayor was not truly in favor of this appointment as he said was the case right before he voted for it ……..he could have simply instructed the Manager to leave this item off the agenda until after the next meeting of the Fire Pension Board at which time Pohlmann and Reardon could have withdrawn their earlier ill conceived support for the retired fireman.
As for the Vice Mayor’s whining about the lack of applicants……… the answer is for the Fire Pension Board to get of their big fat collective asses and actually make an effort to seek out a mutually acceptable neutral person willing to serve in such a capacity for a term or two.
Thankfully Port Orange has the opportunity to reconsider another 4 years of such actions on the part of the Mayor and Vice Mayor in the election this August.
Ted Noftall poanposted 2 10 12 |
|---|
City of Port Orange -- dishonest to levy fees and taxes on citizens under fraudulent pretenses.From Ted Noftall, Port Orange, Fl. to Mayor and Council, Port Orange, Fl. 2 7 12
With tonight’s special Council meeting on Finance and with all the talk of ..........,,,,,,,,,,,( deleted, pending phone conversation with Ted. -- by email, I learned that Ted was thinking of something about which we do not yet have all the information, so I think it best to not publish his reference at this time. -- hank) I believe it important that each of you go on record and state unequivocally whether you consider it dishonest to levy fees and taxes on citizens under fraudulent pretenses.
Ours is a simple system based on both trust and transparency. Citizens implicitly trust our elected representatives when you say you need to raise x amount of dollars to cover the budgeted expenses to run the City. We also trust that an accounting will be given of sufficient transparency to verify that our initial trust was not misplaced. So the question becomes are you raising only the money required AND are you giving a transparent accounting. The answer to both is a resounding NO
The stated policy of the City is to cover all budgeted expenses and further maintain a contingency reserve equal to 15% of operating expenses. That contingency reserve currently slightly higher and in the 17% range at $5 million dollars is acceptable as the reserve itself is a % of a moving target. The recently disclosed additional $5.8 million of free and clear cash in the General fund alone is another matter all together as it was dishonestly raised under false pretenses. This amount is huge and represents over half the property taxes collected in Port Orange last year. In retrospect I am most distressed with the Mayors comments to the effect that last year’s millage rate should have been higher than what was set, when in effect it could have been cut in half. How much of the taxpayer’s money is enough for the Mayor ??
This dishonestly raised surplus of taxpayer cash was accomplished in two ways (1) The Manager’s annual budget is a sham………… in that projected revenues are understated and budgeted expenses are overstated as can easily be seen in the case with payroll alone where over $1 million is budgeted each year for vacant positions that are never filled. (2) The Manager’s limited financial disclosure obfuscates ….. more than it illuminates. Budgets should never be considered and approved by Council on a fund accounting basis where revenues and expenditures are wildly exaggerated , AND financial presentation should be considered incomplete and unacceptable when it fails to disclose a Balance Sheet complete with a comprehensive cash analysis.
The Manager has been steadfast in his opposition to providing accurate budgets and comprehensive cash analysis’s AND the question is WHY ??? I have only ever came across 3 possibilities. (1) The requisite ability to prepare comprehensive financials is lacking. (2) Fear of loss of control if secrecy is lifted and other palace secrets are disclosed. (3) It is easier to disguise cash mismanagement including off budget expenditures and theft.
Council has been remiss in its fiduciary responsibilities regarding budget preparation and financial reporting to Port Orange citizens. Not one of them, based on the limited disclosure, can even say if that free cash hoard is increasing or is declining and certainly not with any accuracy. The big question is whether they will insist on changes from the status-quo. It would appear not, as the agenda handout material for this evenings special meeting on City finances contains millions in off budget expenditures AND makes zero reference to the first quarter FY 2012 operating results and the resulting cash balance as at 12/31/11 I have not seen one Councilman protest the hand out material. Have you ??
The second question is what is Council going to do with this newly found cash hoard, easily upwards of $10 million dollars.
Considering that every expense in the City is fully funded and every liability is being repaid on an approved amortization schedule, AND believing as I do that government has an affirmative duty to leave people alone and secure in their possessions to the maximum extent possible, I would suggest returning that dishonestly raised cash to the tax payers from whence it was taken, and allow individual citizens to better fund their own dreams rather than the financial nightmares the Mayor and an complacent Council believe are in the peoples best interest.
Good luck with that one catching on.
Ted Noftall poanposted 2 7 12 ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' A poan reader who did not care to have his thoughts published asked me if some kind of "powerful" investigation should be conducted about the city's finances. Here are my comments: You may be correct. I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that formulating your own categories of finances , is not criminal. Even interpretations of your budget finances may be in error, but not necessarily criminal. The bottom line is that the figures are there, but you need someone like a Ted Noftall to discover them. If Ted is correct, the problem seems to be not showing the whole picture to the public. It is up to the public to search, like a game, and see where the money is hidden. I wonder if past city council people were ever concerned in learning about the real finances of the city. I think Burnette and Ford are interested in finding out how much money is really hidden in the finance maze. I don't think we can say there is any criminal misuse of money in Port Orange city government, just possibly an intentional manipulation of categories to hide the real amount available. I could be wrong. -- hank
poanposted 1229 pm 2 7 12 |
|---|
"So there is Boggsford Road! So , how do we get to it?"
cartoon caption contest at www.newyorker.com ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
the Yorktown extension>>>> AKA The Green Way.from Ted NoftallI believe politicians should have to spend a great deal of their political capital each and every time they spend a dime of taxpayer funds. Well the Port Orange Council spent approximately $ 3 million the night before last and have started a process whereby taxpayers will be nicked in the range of an additional $ 5 million over the next several years to pay for the costly events Council just set in motion at the Altamira /I-95 intersection. Accordingly
Have you ever heard of anyone paying $3 million for a half mile 4 lane divided highway with an 18ft median separating oncoming traffic that can only carry a 35mph design speed and a 30mph posted speed limit? You haven’t but don’t feel bad no one has at least not before the Yorktown extension>>>> AKA The Green Way. The Green Way contains a curve so severe that the loons over at the County couldn’t be persuaded to even touch this road with a 10ft pole for fear of the safety issues on such a tight curve. BUT WAIT IT GETS even better -- the Mayor just removed the safety median to fund construction of a colossus 10ft high living wall >>>> AKA The Green Wall.
If anyone ever had any doubt, the Mayor made clear Wednesday evening past that he is the maestro of Port Orange politics. He was untouchable at he mesmerized his audience on the dais and in the cheap seats as he alternated from dazzling them with his brilliance to baffling them with his bull$hit. One poor engineer struggled in vain to understand how the massive cantilevered footer required support The Green Wall could possibility be constructed in the limited space available given the sharp angle of repose. He had failed to realize that the Mayor had re done the plans on the fly and had transferred The Green Wall clear across to the other side of the soon to be relocated Sweetwater Creek >>>> AKA The Green Ditch. That engineer might not have understood any of this but he sure understood enough to not question the diminished safety factor of removing the median.
As for the supporting cast ……….The Vice Mayor keen of inching closer to collecting the often promised Mayor’s spot was coached by the Manager to do a little coat tail riding and treated his future subjects to a thoroughly condescending fairy tale about rooftops, fine dining and rabbits that was disgustingly exceeded by his disingenuous argument that the City would face a lawsuit for disparaging the Developers property rights if The Green Way was not approved –then and there. Councilman Burnett having grabbed on to the eye candy of some low paying big box store clerk jobs was unable to let go, as all old monkey hunters familiar with glass jars and big old round jaw breakers know to be the case. Poor Councilman Kennedy admitted he was having difficulty understanding any of this and was promptly reminded by the City Attorney that he was not being paid to think but to vote as he was told and never one to disappoint did just that. The Mayor promptly scored it as a 4-0 vote likely having moved Ford in his own mind at least twice as far as he had moved The Green Wall, if not even farther and perhaps clear back to New York from whence he recruited him in the first place.
None but a government of fools would proceed as if the peoples treasure is limitless. Our treasure is not limitless and to the extent it is spent at all it needs to be spent wisely. With this development the traffic congestion at the Altamira/I-95 intersection is about to get a lot worse and The Green Way is not the answer. Had Port Orange not contributed to the developers coffers by not participating in this project several things would have happened. (1) Without taxpayer funds fueling this development its scope would have been greatly curtailed at both ends, but particularly at the East end where the canal relocation is as egregious a give away to a developer as could ever be imagined. A scaled back development in and of itself would attract fewer vehicles to this locale thus lessening future congestion. (2) Instead of being out money the City would have been the net beneficiary of several million dollars in developer fees that it could then have used to make meaningful improvements at this intersection such as extending Yorktown Blvd at Lowes north to Williamson Blvd which would eliminate upwards of 30% of traffic at the I-95 intersection that is going north anyway.
NONE THE LESS, despite area residents who are about to get screwed royally, and city wide taxpayers who are about to get hosed royally on the complete waste of some $3 million of their hard earned money for a poorly conceived and now extra dangerous road that is nothing more than a thinly disguised developer subsidy………. THERE WAS ONE enlightening development
Mayor Green and Vice Mayor Pohlmann all but announced Wednesday evening that they will be running jointly in this summer’s election on a platform of MORE OF THE SAME poanposted 2 4 12 |
|---|
The appointment of Mr Sheridan was approved by a majority of the pension board and all the council is supposed to do is make it official.From Rod G Hey Hank, I thought only the Mayor beleived he was running monarchy but it appears that Burnett is following suit. The appointment of Mr Sheridan was approved by a majority of the pension board and all the council is supposed to do is make it official. The attorney stated that the council "has no authority" to do anything other than make the appointment an offical matter of record, thats it!! But just like in many other issuesthe council thinks it can intervene on any matter it sees fit. These clowns need to focus on the items they actually have jurisdiction over and stop acting as if they have the final say on everything. Do your ministerial duty and complete the appointment process. It is no wonder the contract fights continue for years in this city, the leaders have no ability to lead!
By the way, I do not remember the citizens of Port Orange voting to make Ted Noftall and Craig Young the voice of the city. While we are all entitled to an opinion that does not mean ever opinion you have is correct. These two, for the most part, represent the fringe and NOT the majority.
----Rod ///////// POAN HANK REPLIES//////////// Rod thank you for sharing your comments and opinion with us. 1. The issue of being forced to approve an appointment to the Pension Board after a binding decision by the board does seem to me rather absurd and burlesque. I think the issue should be discussed to get some rationality into what has probably been a long time ritual, founded on no rational basis. To point out how ridiculous this routine requirement of the Port Orange City Council, what happens if a Port Orange City Council does not automatically approve the pension board's proposed candidate? Does the pension board hold the citycouncil in contempt? Actually, the Port Orange City Council is not only being asked to approve of an appointee with no discussion or background check, but is also being put into the position of approving the pension board's decision. A. In these days of politics and governmental agencies and auxiliaries, we sometimes find after the fact that an appointee had a shady background. If I were a city councilman I would not want to be in a position of having some one recall that I had approved of an appointment of a candidate with no background check or bio inspection by me. 2. I don't see it as a council intervening on a pension board's decision, but as the pension board mandating and intervening on how it expects the city council to vote. The whole thing is ridiculous as far as I am concern. I am glad someone has bucked the stupidity and maybe we can get some rationality into this mad hatter scheme. I truly hate irrationality, and this dogmatic ritual is a classic venture into stupidity. We have enough of stupidity around us, and I don't see why we need this one forced upon our City Council. I am distressed that you seem not to be distressed about the absurdity of the sacred ritual. 3. There can be no authority without responsibility. Councilman Burnette is being responsible with his use of an authority which some attorney feels he does not have. If that be the case, why ask the city council to past judgment on pension board appointments? I can't believe what we are arguing or discussing. The whole process is ludicrous, but I do believe that it needs to be perhaps argued and straightened out. Who in God's name started this sacred holy obligation to approve whomever the pension board dictates to the city council? If we are considering some kind of "monarchy" power in play, I suggest we focus on the pension board in this matter. 4. You contradict yourself when you expect the city council not to have the final word on every matter, but are chagrined that one of them refuses to have the final word unless it is after due diligence. 5. You mention Ted and Craig, as being on the fringe. Is that ok with you, or do you as a matter of policy not accept opinions from the fringe? Perhaps, you would feel better, if Ted and Craig after stating their positions would simply add, "But I may be wrong"? Perhaps, it would be acceptable to you if we no longer publish Ted's and Craig's opinions since they do not speak for the majority and are not the "voice of the city"? 6. Rod thank you for offering your opinion and giving me the opportunity to voice mine. -- But I could be wrong! --- hank poanposted 1 26 12 at 554 pm ///////////////////////////////////////// Ted Noftall to Hank,
I would like to thank Rod for his comments also and note it far better to have his comments without knowing Rod’s identity than to not have them at all. Hopefully also his comments will mature as he becomes better acquainted with written argument.
I would take issue with his reasoning that the fire contract has dragged as long as it has is because of Council actions such as this review of the moronic endorsement of Frank Sheridan by Council’s representatives Bob Pohlmann and Jim Reardon.
By his reasoning a dumb decision by City representatives in the union’s favor should not be questioned by Council.
Well that is exactly why the fire contract has not been able to be resolved, it is too one sided and there is no incentive for the fire union to resolve it. ….. AND I do not blame the union. I would do likewise if the other side in a negotiation was so inept so as to deal me all the cards, as is the case here.
AND that is the case here because COUNCIL’s have never insisted their representatives bargain as hard and as smart as has the fire union.
Pohlmann and Reardon need to withdraw their support for Sheridan and force the selection of a neutral, tie breaking 5th member to the fire pension board.
Ted Noftall poanposted 1 26 12 at 818 pm ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Hank gives Rod the final word, but others may not: Hey Hank,
I usually read your comments and at most times find myself in agreement. This time I have to say I respectfully disagree with your take on this situation and here is why;
First let me say that governments perform ministerial duties from the local level right up through the federal level and it usually is an opportunity to put something on the offical record despite the fact that the body performing this duty has no real authority over the decision. Ive personally seen the Mayor read rediculous proclamations that have no bearing on anything other than to create an official record or make whomever or whatever organziation happy. I agree it may be absurd at times but it is a function of government.
That being said, on the issue of the pension board I have to say you are wrong. Here is why. The city council has appointed Bob Pohlman to the fire pension board and that, to me, means that he is the voice of the council when it comes to matters that come before the pension board. When Bob Pohlman voted yes for the apointment of Sheridan he was speaking for the council. Now the city council wants yet another say in this appointment. In other words the city council is
effectively attempting to have what amounts to a 6th vote on a 5 member board. Since Bob Pohlmen represents the city council on that board it is his job to do the vetting of any appointee and decide to vote for or against. This is a case of the council going too far. If the council is telling us that Bob Pohlman does not accurately represent the voice of the city council then it is Pohlman that should be replaced not Sheridan.
And thank you for once again allowing my opinion publication and in the words of a very wise man..... I could also be wrong!
Rod 1 27 12 ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////// From Ted Noftall, Port Orange, Fl.
Rod must not feel his attempted backhand pass suggesting that Council not review the moronic decision of its two appointees to cede control of the Fire Pension Board to the Fire Union was successful. If he did why is he now reverting to the timeless tactic of pounding the table when he should be pounding the law, or at minimum the facts.
Governments reconsider prior decisions all the time, as they should do in this instance unless Rod or someone else can explain why Council would wish to cede control of the public Fire Pension Board to the Fire Union by selecting a retired member of that union as the 5th tie breaking member of the Board ??
Ditto for the Police Pension Board and the equally moronic decision of Councilman Kennedy where not three, but four of the five Board members are current or retired public safety employees. 1 28 12
|
|---|
automatic approval of Frank Sheridan as the 5th and tie breaking member of the Fire Pension Board.Ted Noftall to Don Burnette, Port Orange, Fl.
Considering that the un-funded pension obligations are a huge financial threat to the City you were more than justified in objecting to council’s automatic approval of Frank Sheridan as the 5th and tie breaking member of the Fire Pension Board. In doing so you also brought out an important flaw in both the structure and operation of each of the City pension boards.
The structural flaw is abundantly obvious in that it can hardly be expected to benefit the City to have 60% and 80% respectively of the Fire and Police Pension Boards comprised of current and former public safety employees.
The operational flaw is directly responsible for the structural flaw and may be summed up by simply noting that Council’s appointees to the Pension Boards have become free agents who receive zero direction from Council on any action their respective Boards are taking. Using the Fire Board as an example what direction did either Bob Pohlmann or Jim Reardon receive from Council as regards their voting for the approval of Frank Sheridian or anyone else ?? The answer is none.
At this point Council needs to direct its Fire pension board appointees ( Pohlmann and Reardon ) to withdraw their support for Sheridan AND to return to Council for subsequent direction regarding any and all 5th or tie breaking prospective members to these pension boards before voting to approve same.
At that point and only at that point is Council’s approval to be automatic or ministerial in nature.
Ted Noftall
-------------------- Port Orange City Councilman asks for bio/qualifications of applicant to the Fire Pension Board.The response from the pension board administrator to City Manager was underwhelming, and not forthcoming.''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' From Port Orange City Councilman Don Burnette to Hank, As you know, the fire pension board is made up of 5 members. Two are appointed by the city council, two by the fire union, and a fifth that those 4 individuals elect amongst themselves. On the agenda last night was the ratification of the 5th member of the fire pension board, which they selected. It is to reappoint the person currently serving. Since I do not know the individual (Frank Sheridan, former firefighter), I asked for a bio/qualifications. The response from the pension board administrator to Ken Parker was underwhelming, and not forthcoming. (See email chain below) We were told that our ratification was required by law, and is ministerial in nature per FL statute 175, and that an application is not required. Council tabled the item last night until late March, after we have the pension board come present to us. There were plenty of character references for Mr. Sheridan by some individuals last night, which is good, but I still have no idea what his qualifications are. I just wanted to share my thoughts, as it seems inconceivable to me that we should be required to ratify their selection without proper scrutiny. I am still of the opinion that this is not an unreasonable request, and that at some point the information will be provided. If anyone wants to discuss with me, they should feel free to do so. Take care, Don ''''''''''''''''////////////////////////////////////'''''''''''''''''''''' From: Parker, Ken
Dear Ms. Hutcheson:
Robin Fenwich does not place items on the Agenda. The city council made it clear that they would consider the appointments at the end of March. Unless directed by the City Council to add this item to the agenda prior to that date, we will not place the item on the agenda until the March meeting date.
In reading the law, the members continue to serve until such time as the Council acts. I will make the City Council aware of your request. If they chose to add the appointment to an agenda prior to the March date, I will notify you.
Thank you.
Kenneth W. Parker City Manager
> wrote: Robin,
Sheila Hutcheson
-----Original Message----- Sheila-- The ordinance does not say that the 5th trustee is appointed by the other four, it says by a majority of the other four, in other words---three: "The board shall consist of five trustees, two of whom, unless otherwise prohibited by law, shall be legal residents of the city, who shall be appointed by the city council, and two of whom shall be members of the system, who shall be elected by a majority of the firefighters who are members of the system. The fifth trustee shall be chosen by a majority of the previous four trustees as provided for in this subsection, and such person's name shall be submitted to the city council. Upon receipt of the fifth person's name, the city council shall, as a ministerial duty, appoint such person to the board of trustees as the fifth trustee." "ministerial duty" is defined in Blacks Law Dictionary as "One regarding which nothing is left to discretion--- a simple and definite duty, imposed by law, and arising under conditions admitted or proved to exist." I have had this happen before. Attached is a copy of a letter I wrote in connection with another client. It is a public record. Scott Christiansen Original message By this delay, can Frank and Jim Reardon attend the Feb. 21 Board meeting as "hold-over" trustees? Sheila Hutcheson Pension Plan Administrator 3860 Grantline Road Mims, FL 32754 shutch9750@aol.com
The Statute as Margaret read it last night, states that the other four members must appoint the fifth member. They wanted verification that ALL four members were present at that meeting and all four members voted to approve Mr. Sheridan’s appointment. Vice Mayor Pohlmann couldn’t remember clearly if all four members were present and how they voted, other than the fact that the motion passed.
No, Mr. Reardon was not reappointed either.
They have moved the whole item to a meeting after the fire pension presentation on March 20th.
I understand your position. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news.
Robin
ROBIN FENWICK DEPUTY CITY CLERK CITY OF PORT ORANGE 1000 City Center Circle Port Orange, FL 32129
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// From: Sheila Hutcheson [mailto:shutch9750@aol.com]
Robin, Consideration of Fifth Member Appointment Member Gherlone made a motion to appoint Frank Sheridan as the fifth member contingent upon the reappointment/re-election of Trustees Pohlmann and Gherlone, respectively; Member Bastian seconded the motion which passed unanimously. The Administrator will notify the City Clerk of this appointment and request that it be submitted to the City Council for their ratification as a ministerial duty prior to the February 21, 2012 Board meeting, assuming Trustees Pohlmann and Gherlone continue in their respective slots.
Sheila Hutcheson Pension Plan Administrator 3860 Grantline Road Mims, FL 32754
They did not approve Mr. Sheridan's appointment Robin ________________________________________ From: Sheila Hutcheson Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:08 AM To: Fenwick, Robin Subject: Re: FW: pension board appointments Robin, There is no application as Mr. Sheridan is the "fifth" member of the Board. In accordance with F.S., Chapter 175 and the City's ordinance (based on the statute), the fifth member is appointed by the other Board Members (same as Police) at their discretion, and the appointment is submitted to the legislative body for ratification as a ministerial duty. No application is required. Sheila Hutcheson Pension Plan Administrator 3860 Grantline Road Mims, FL 32754 On 1/17/2012 10:03 AM, Fenwick, Robin wrote: Do you have a volunteer application for Frank Sheridan? Thanks. Robin ROBIN FENWICK DEPUTY CITY CLERK CITY OF PORT ORANGE 1000 City Center Circle Port Orange, FL 32129 TEL: 386-506-5566 FAX: 386-756-5290 -----Original Message----- From: Parker, Ken Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 10:00 AM To: Burnette, Don; City Council Cc: Fenwick, Robin; Parker, Ken Subject: RE: pension board appointments Don: I will see if I can find something. I don't know if he completed an application for the Pension Board Ken Robin: did Frank fill out an Board application? Ken -----Original Message----- From: Burnette, Don Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2012 7:50 AM To: Parker, Ken; City Council Subject: Re: pension board appointments Ken Do we have a bio or list of qualifications for Frank Sherriden Thanks, Don Don Burnette, MBA Councilman, District 2 City of Port Orange POANPOSTED 1 18 12 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''=========================== ========================================================
|
|---|
Councilman Ford has probably saved Port Orange taxpayers millions by exposing the nonsense that is Riverwalkfrom Ted Noftall to Hank,
You are quite right to thank Councilman Ford. He has probably saved Port Orange taxpayers millions by exposing the nonsense that is Riverwalk.
It would appear as if the only way the developer can be made whole in this sorry deal is if taxpayers provide: free parking; the required infrastructure improvement including off site water retention, AND the future tax increment revenue to serve as the required borrowing guarantee …………….……. FOR WHATEVER is delivered be it a drug store, bowling alley or the now promised restaurant boat complete with the sister binge barge and cook shack on shore.
That this whole farce has been allowed to proceed this long, and that Council will agree to spend more taxpayer dollars to prolong it further yet again with their next RFP, makes clear the old adage that a politician’s 3rd term should always be spent in prison.
Now if he could only have an exchange with the Altamira developer.
Ted Noftall
From: Port Orange Images [mailto:poimages@cfl.rr.com]
Riverwalk land swap spurs sharp exchange -- Thank you Councilman Ford for standing up to the Master Developer. -- hank Date: 1 23 12 |
|---|
the Altamira road to nowhere from Ted Noftall to Hank,
Is anyone even bothering to defend the Altamira road to nowhere any longer ? Did anyone refute the criticism that it will serve no legitimate transportation purpose, or that it will diminish area property values and greatly in-convenience everyone ?? I didn’t think so.
Since no one is singing its praises can it be stopped ??? I think it can and here is a solution that should satisfy everyone.. Buy the land AND don’t build the road.
** The developer would still get half his subsidy which was the whole basis for the road in the first place.
*** Residents in the area would not get a road they do not need or want or intend to use.
**** Taxpayers will only get hosed half as much as they would otherwise.
Stay tuned Tuesday evening !!
Ted Noftall
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From: Ted Noftall
Hank When is a road not a road ?? When it is a subsidy !!!
The $ 3 million plus taxpayer road boon-dogle at Altamira does have a purpose, it is just not rooted in transportation.
Not only has it not been requested by area residents, they have concluded that it will not be of benefit but rather will in-convenience them greatly, AND it will certainly limit the profitability of the new and aptly named Journeys End hotel who really will be programmed to receive and while their guests can check out any time they like they will never figure out how to leave.
While it may not be much of a road It does serve as a wonderful subsidy for the developers however, AND here are couple of questions I would sure like those voting in favor of this turkey to answer.
If the attached e-mail is any indication the developer sure doesn’t want any new information coming out before this turkey is a done deal SO it may be a while before your readers receive any answers BUT THEN AGAIN the August elections are just around the corner ????
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From: Robert Collett To: Parker, Ken Subject: RE: Revised Yorktowne Estimates Date: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:56:37 PM Ken This is not good. What am I supposed to tell my Tenant, Lender and vendors?? BJ’s is already “nervous” to say the least, based on the 3/2 vote last week and the apparent “disconnect” between the developer and council (which came as a total surprise to me also). As far as soft cost, I am using vendors that YOUR staff recommended 10 years ago, and yes, they are expensive. I know because I pay the bills. I always strive to be both fair and honest in my dealings with these vendors but I am not a “City” and do not have your standing so I can only do the best I can. The agreement should have been completed with the MDA and any further delay puts the City at risks of losing hundreds of jobs and serious tax base and I urge you to reconsider your decision. Thanks Robert Robert C. Collett Collett & Associates O (828) 430-8676
Ted Noftall 1 22 12 |
|---|
|
NO PAIN MILLS IN PORT ORANGE. -- GO TO HALIFAX HOSPITAL PORT ORANGE FOR PAIN MEDICATION? Ted Noftall replies to Hank's questions: Hank, "Am I too suspicious and skeptical ??"…….. Not unless the Pope is Jewish. Come to think about it Council exempted HH PO from their new ordinance and maybe that’s why the Mayor said if a person needed pain treatment at 11p they belong in the emergency room!!!
Dennis Kennedy’s position with HH PO ??...... I sure don’t know but I do know that one of his new colleagues at HH is the adjoining property owner/ co owner out on Spruce Creek who will un-doubt ably profit the most when the City starts investing in its latest soon to be acquired boondoggle -- the Gamble Money Pit. Ted PS If your Doctor has not kept up his DEA number or can’t stay open past 9pm suggest you check and see if you can become a partner with HH PO AL SO. ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// see Halifax Health hires former Daytona State official....Williams, who also owns Cracker Creek, a business that offers cruises and canoe rentals on Spruce Creek, said he is particularly interested in how technology can expand the hospital's reach -- and revenues. ... read more at dbnj on line Nov 2011
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Hank to Ted: Ted, thank you for your comments about the Port Orange City's rush to regulate pain mills. Being of a skeptical and suspicious nature, there are two things that I cannot get out of my mind when this issue comes up. 1. Some years ago the Port Orange city council issued a statement that it was partners with Halifax Hospital Port Orange. Both and I and councilman Steindoerfer did not think we needed such a (symbolic?) partnership. I never understood the ramifications of such a partnership and I should have asked. 2. Port Orange City Councilman Dennis Kennedy holds some position with Halifax Hospital, Port Orange. Ted, would you know what position and title Mr. Kennedy holds with the Port Orange hospital. As I understand it, after 9 pm my family doctor can not give me or prescribe for me, pain medication. But I guess I could go to Halifax Emergency room, Port Orange, any time after 9 PM where a doctor there could prescribe for me what my family doctor can not, because of an ordinance passed by the city of Port Orange. I do not like it. Didn't the state have enough of laws to regulate pain mills. Why did the city decide to get into the issue? Ted, if you can't answer these questions for me, I will have to ask the City Manager why the council voted as they did. I don't think that Dennis Kennedy or Allen Green would care to answer these questions for me. Am I too suspicious and skeptical? -- hank 1 18 12 posted at 736 pm /////////////////////////////////////////// Ted Noftall, Port Orange, Fl. to Mayor and Council of Port Orange,
Are your Attorney and Manager kidding me or IS THIS IT ??
Are you all so un-mindful of good governance to have limited citizens access to medical services without even so much as consulting with and taking testimony from the medical community or at the very least without having considered their latest research and position papers on pain management abuse ? Did you forget the very premise on which Republic rests is that elected representatives will properly inform themselves on issues to an extent far greater than the general populace ?? Did you do little more in this instance than parrot the adage that pill mills are bad into an ordinance ???
Your deficient consideration of this ordinance’s provisions, was evident in your genuine surprise at hearing a local MD decry your proposed hours of operation. That deficient consideration was only amplified by your amazing flip flop in doubling your after hours limitation from 5pm to 7pm to 5pm to 9pm. Chutzpah aside opting to decree a doubling of those evening hours to be only a minor variation from first reading rather than redoing the flawed ordinance will at a minimum require a defense should anyone charged raise this discrepancy between readings.
Everyone I know, excepting those in government who enjoy gold plated bullet proof health insurance at taxpayer expense recognize that healthcare is becoming increasingly expensive and scarce in this country. The culprit is ill conceived government interference such as this knee jerk Pain Clinic Ordinance. Make no mistake the chilling effects of ordinances such as this one will further restrict access to pain treatment and further drive up medical costs in Port Orange.
My own Doctor informed me last summer that had given up his DEA number because of the stigma, increasing paperwork and scrutiny that is being directed at those MD’s practicing medicine in a manner that un-informed feel good legislation such as this ordinance no longer favors.
Very disappointing performance.
Ted Noftall
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From: Parker, Ken [mailto:kparker@port-orange.org]
Attached is the email from Margaret that I received. I am sorry that I did not forward it to you. That was my mistake.
Ken
From: Roberts, Margaret
Ken, It is my understanding that Ted asked whether the city consulted with any physicians. I on behalf of the city did consult with a local board certified pain management physician last year in order to gain a better understanding of the medical profession in this field. I consulted with Dr. Bhalani who met with me and provided me with information that I later used in preparing the ordinance for council’s consideration. A physician did not otherwise advise the city council directly. Please advise if you have any questions. The physician present last night also asked for this same information, I would appreciate you advising him accordingly.
Margaret T. Roberts Margaret T. Roberts, City Attorney City of Port Orange 1000 City Center Circle Port Orange, FL 32129 Telephone: (386) 506-5525 Facsimile: (386) 506-5530 Email: mroberts@port-orange.org
/////////////////////////////////////////////
From: Ted Noftall
Ken,
I am fascinated with the City Attorney’s assertion last evening that Council consulted with the medical community in conjunction with their passage of the “pain clinic “ ordinance.
I would like to review “ whatever “ it was that Council indeed received from the medical community in this regard.
Is this something you can send over rather easily or will I need to prepare a formal FOIA request to review same.
Ted Noftall poanposted 1 18 12
|
|---|
Port Orange City Council did not fully understand that the City, thru its Annual Budget, was funding the Fire Pension Plan, over-and-above the "required annual contribution"
Ted Noftall to Hank,
I want to provide an e-mail from councilman Pohlmann to Manager Parker refuting the assertion by one of your readers that “ City Council fully understood, that the City, thru its Annual Budget, was funding the Fire Pension Plan, over-and-above the "required annual contribution"........the Idea Being....to try to reduce the "Unfunded Liability".
My intention is not to in any way embarrass councilman Pohlmann, but rather to make the point that the dissemination of financial information through the Manager’s annual budget is about as clear as mud. By design and in practice I fully believe his budget obfuscates every bit as much as it clarifies.
My recollection of this overpayment discussion was that Council authorized that additional monies would be “ put aside ‘ for future unfunded liability reduction once the bleeding had been stopped AND NOT that those monies would be paid into the plan immediately. Others on Council I have spoken with have the same recollection.
As such councilman Pohlmann had every inclination to express the amazement he did that such a payment had been made.
Ted Noftall
/////////////////////////////////////// Ken poanposted 1 17 12 |
|---|
The comment I attributed to Councilman Pohlmann was made at the 11/21/11 meeting of the Port Orange Fire Pension Board-- from Ted Noftall, Port Orange, Fl.'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (commonly shortened to Alice in Wonderland) is an 1865 novel written by English author Charles Lutwidge Dodgson under the pseudonym Lewis Carroll.[1] It tells of a girl named Alice who falls down a rabbit hole into a fantasy world(Wonderland) populated by peculiar, anthropomorphic creatures. The tale plays with logic, giving the story lasting popularity with adults as well as children.[2] It is considered to be one of the best examples of the literary nonsense genre,[2][3] and its narrative course and structure have been enormously influential,[3] especially in the fantasy genre. ======================================= Alice in Wonderland - Caterpillar
================================================== ---------------------------------------- From Ted Noftall, Port Orange, Fl. Hank,
And if you go chasing rabbits…. And you know you're going to fall…. Tell 'em a hookah smoking caterpillar….. Has given you the call
It is good to know that old rabbit hole spotters in our fair City are able understand and remember the Manager’s financial ministrations…….even if all on Council cannot.
In keeping with Looking Glasses and the like perhaps one of these delightful l creatures could go ahead and disclose next year’s over funding amount which should be no problem as it is based on last year’s reporting UNLESS OF COURSE last year’s over funding was based on next year’s reporting ???
Actually thinking back to the difficulty Councilman Burnett and Ford were having getting information on the cash position of the City a couple of weeks ago viewing the dissemination of financial information in Port Orange through a Looking Glass might explain a lot on a variety of topics.
So with shameless apologies to Lewis Carroll let’s eves drop on a recent conversation at City hall on the Altamira road subsidy.
Ken Parker: Would you like a little more appraisal information on the Altamara road purchase ?
The comment I attributed to Councilman Pohlmann was made at the 11/21/11 meeting of Fire Pension Board upon his seeing page 18 of the Annual Valuation Report AND I WOULD BET dollars to donuts he would not have been the only member of Council to have made such an excited utterance had they been there.
Ted Noftall
//////////////////////////////////////// From: Craig E.Young
The fact is, the City Council fully understood, that the City, thru its Annual Budget, was funding the Fire Pension Plan, over-and-above the "required annual contribution"........the Idea Being....to try to reduce the "Unfunded Liability".
Comments to support this can be found in the Minutes of many City Council Meetings and Budget Workshops.
And this was no surprise to me at all......I KNEW the City was doing this, in an attempt to reduce the City's Pension Unfunded Liabilities.
NOTE: Year after year, the "required annual contribution" as defined by the Fire Pension Plan's Actuary, had been found to be insufficient. Therefore, the City Manager, suggested to our City Council, that they effectively...."Over-Fund"......or "Pre-Fund" this Pension Plan on a year-over-year basis. And our City Council, approved this expenditure, along with the City's overall Annual Budget.
Ted, on the other hand, ( SEE HIS COMMENTS BELOW) makes it seem, that our City Manager did all this.....by lonesome.
That's not accurate, to say the least on many points.
Questions:
If everyone else in the room knew about this "Over-Funding".....Why didn't Ted? And this was decided months ago......by our City Council....So, why is Ted bringing it up NOW?
Seems to me, Ted's comments seem rather late.....by SEVERAL MONTHS....!
ps
I wasn't aware of any statement ( or "admission") by Council Pohlman, or anybody else on the City Council, who "wasn't aware" of these expenditures.
Comments like that are just plain nonsense. -- Craig
|
|---|
The problem lies with the horrible labor negotiation advice given by the City Attorney and Manager, Council itself and in this instance Council’s creature the Fire Pension Board.POAN Hank comments:The Port Orange city council now and then seems to ignore the advice to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. --- Allowing an auditor to make his own selection of another auditor to check his work. ---- Allowing a preponderance of city FD orientated people to serve on the Port Orange FD pension board. --- Not advising city council and CRA members until 4 days before a request for funds that the city manager and mayor had already cooperated with its master developer partner to purchase on behalf of the city, the Lohman Funeral Home, at an exorbitant price. -- hank 1 17 12 at 1250 am ================= The problem lies with the horrible labor negotiation advice given by the City Attorney and Manager, Council itself and in this instance Council’s creature the Fire Pension Board.Sent to us by Ted Noftall, Port Orange, Fl. Bob,
Thank you for responding. By your measure all 5 on the Fire Pension Board could be current or former fire dept employees as long as they had Frank’s “ attributes “
I disagree and would remind you of the old adage that if men were angels no government would be necessary ……. But as men are not angels, government must be bind down in the chains of the constitution. Ours is an adversarial system based on the premise that best results will be achieved when adversaries compete on a level playing field.
The premise in this instance being 2 from the union, 2 from the City, and a 5th to be neutral and to be selected by the other 4.
The City has chosen to ignore that premise and the results, not un-expectantly are in your words “ a complete mess. “ The problem here is not with the Fire union. They are performing perfectly rationally -- from their perspective. The problem lies with the horrible labor negotiation advice given by the City Attorney and Manager, Council itself and in this instance Council’s creature the Fire Pension Board.
As you know the Mayor loves to blame everything on the horrible provisions Dorothy approved, and how every living Mayor at that time pleaded with her to not do as she did. Missing from that explanation is why subsequent councils of which Allen has been the Mayor and on which you have served as a councilman chose to reaffirm and further sweeten those “ horrible provisions “ in subsequent contracts prior to 2008.
You have heard me preach before, that if Council does not follow good business practices going in, it should have no expectation of happy results coming out.
You did not answer my question highlighted below …… am I correct in assuming that both you and Jim Reardon voted to re-appoint Frank Sheridan ??
Ted ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
From: Pohlmann, Bob [mailto:BobP@port-orange.org]
Hello Ted. While I agree that the fire pension is a complete mess, Frank is the one ex-firemen that is a voice of reason. If you remember, he is one of three members who voted to pay the additional expense to the city auditor. Frank has been with the plan from the beginning and brings a wealth of knowledge. I believe he is reasonable and will do what is right. That being said, one of the goals that I will bring forward tomorrow night is to get real on what we have to do to get this pension business under control. I agree with you, I am not an expert on financial pension planning. The plan pays the experts to get results and they have not performed. Maybe it's time to re-access the "experts". The Dow Jones grew by 5.5% last year. Did the plan grow by that amount? The city needs expert advice from an outside voice on what long term steps will be needed to make the plan whole. I can assure you that it really burns me that there has been no concessions from the union to ease this burden on our taxpayers of which you and I are included.
poanposted 1 17 12 at 1240 am
|
|---|
| Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. ====================================== why would the City appointees ever agree to allow control of this 5 member Fire Pension Board to lie in the hands of 3 current or former fire department employeesFrom Ted Noftall, Port Orange, Fl. Hank,
Einstein would be pleased to know that his insanity theory has been proven yet again, this time with the Port Orange Fire Pension Board.
Not un-expectedly the Fire Pension Fund experienced an increase its un funded liability again this year as has been the case every year for the past decade. AND what action to ensure it would no longer be business as usual has the City Council taken ????????
WHY THEY re-appointed Councilman Pohlmann to the Fire Pension Board at their last Council meeting and at their next meeting they are programmed to re-appoint Jim Reardon and Frank Sheridan WITH high hopes for a different result next year…….. I am sure.
Two of the three City pension plans that have submitted their annual pension valuation reports have experienced increases in their unfunded liabilities and Council has no solutions beyond more of the same.
Let’s see --- expecting a different result with more of the same. Hmmm ?????
Ted Noftall //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
From: Ted Noftall
Bob,
As you know the Fire Pension Board is comprised of 5 members..…2 appointed by the City, 2 by the Union and the 5th member to be appointed by the other 4 and whose appointment has to be ratified by City Council
I am surprised to see in the Manager’s commentary for the 01/172012 Council meeting that retired fire department employee Frank Sheridan had been re-appointed to the Fire Pension Board by its other 4 members of whom you are one.
Given the heightened concern with the dismal performance of this pension plan and the need for change from business as usual I would have expected a greater desire on the part of the City appointees to this Board in the persons of yourself and Jim Reardon to have recommended the appointment of an independent person to serve as the 5th and tie breaking member of this Board.
Frank Sheridan is a wonderful person and if the Fire union wished to place him on the Board as one of their 2 appointees that would be fine BUT why would the City appointees ever agree to allow control of this 5 member Fire Pension Board to lie in the hands of 3 current or former fire department employees.
Can you tell me when this re-appointment took place and how you and Jim Reardon voted on same ??
Ted Noftall
1 16 12 |
|---|
If everyone else in the room knew about this "Over-Funding".....Why didn't Ted?From Craig E. Young, Port Orange, Fl. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' The fact is, the City Council fully understood, that the City, thru its Annual Budget, was funding the Fire Pension Plan, over-and-above the "required annual contribution"........the Idea Being....to try to reduce the "Unfunded Liability". Comments to support this can be found in the Minutes of many City Council Meetings and Budget Workshops.
And this was no surprise to me at all......I KNEW the City was doing this, in an attempt to reduce the City's Pension Unfunded Liabilities.
NOTE: Year after year, the "required annual contribution" as defined by the Fire Pension Plan's Actuary, had been found to be insufficient. Therefore, the City Manager, suggested to our City Council, that they effectively...."Over-Fund"......or "Pre-Fund" this Pension Plan on a year-over-year basis.
And our City Council, approved this expenditure, along with the City's overall Annual Budget.
Ted, on the other hand, ( SEE HIS COMMENTS BELOW) makes it seem, that our City Manager did all this.....by lonesome.
That's not accurate, to say the least on many points.
Questions:
If everyone else in the room knew about this "Over-Funding".....Why didn't Ted?
And this was decided months ago......by our City Council....So, why is Ted bringing it up NOW?
Seems to me, Ted's comments seem rather late.....by SEVERAL MONTHS....!
ps
I wasn't aware of any statement ( or "admission") by Council Pohlman, or anybody else on the City Council, who "wasn't aware" of these expenditures.
Comments like that are just plain nonsense.
--Craig E. Young, Port Orange, Fl. ////////////// PREVIOUSLY /////////////////
|
|---|
BJ's is already“nervous” to say the least, based on the 3/2 vote last week and the apparent “disconnect” between the developer and Port Orange City council which came as a total surprise. From Ted Noftall, -------------------------------------
When is a road not a road ?? When it is a subsidy !!!
The $ 3 million plus taxpayer road boon-dogle at Altamira does have a purpose, it is just not rooted in transportation.
Not only has it not been requested by area residents, they have concluded that it will not be of benefit but rather will in-convenience them greatly, AND it will certainly limit the profitability of the new and aptly named Journeys End hotel who really will be programmed to receive and while their guests can check out any time they like they will never figure out how to leave.
While it may not be much of a road It does serve as a wonderful subsidy for the developers however, AND here are couple of questions I would sure like those voting in favor of this turkey to answer.
If the attached e-mail is any indication the developer sure doesn’t want any new information coming out before this turkey is a done deal SO it may be a while before your readers receive any answers BUT THEN AGAIN the August elections are just around the corner ????
//////////////////////////////////
From: Robert Collett To: Parker, Ken Subject: RE: Revised Yorktowne Estimates Date: Monday, January 09, 2012 2:56:37 PM Ken This is not good. What am I supposed to tell my Tenant, Lender and vendors?? BJ’s is already “nervous” to say the least, based on the 3/2 vote last week and the apparent “disconnect” between the developer and council (which came as a total surprise to me also). As far as soft cost, I am using vendors that YOUR staff recommended 10 years ago, and yes, they are expensive. I know because I pay the bills. I always strive to be both fair and honest in my dealings with these vendors but I am not a “City” and do not have your standing so I can only do the best I can. The agreement should have been completed with the MDA and any further delay puts the City at risks of losing hundreds of jobs and serious tax base and I urge you to reconsider your decision. Thanks Robert Robert C. Collett Collett & Associates ''''''''''''''''' poanposted 1 13 12 |
|---|
==========
RETURN TO THE HOME PAGE OF PORT ORANGE AREA NEWS