Clerk Declares Library Petition Insufficient
Clerk Declares Library Petition Insufficient
Petitioners’ Appeal Fails to Sway Commission
In a Certificate of Insufficiency dated July 28, 2016, City Clerk Cynthia Bonham denied the validity of the citizens petition that seeks to prevent a new library from being built in Martin Luther King, Jr. (MLK) Park. On August 8, the committee appealed that decision to the Commission, which upheld the finding of the City Clerk.
Petition ‘Insufficient’ for Three Reasons
Each of the three reasons for insufficiency contains the following language.
“Despite being labeled a citizen initiative, the Petition requires the reconsideration of City Ordinance No. 3020-15 enacted on November 23, 2015, and the City Commission’s affirmative votes to locate the library and events center in Martin Luther King, Jr. Park occurring at the City Commission meeting occurring on or about October 26, 2015.” [Emphasis Added]
For the full text, go to pages 69-70 of the August 8, 2016, Commission Agenda Packet. agdpkt-2016-08-08.pdf
Law + Motion = Confusion
Speaking on behalf of the petitioners, Attorney Virginia Cassady of the firm Shepard, Smith & Cassady P.A., described what she saw as the fallacy in the reasoning contained in the Certificate of Insufficiency. An ordinance carries the weight of law, while a vote by the Commission does not. “Essentially,” said Cassady, “it’s bootstrapping a vote by you [the Commission] to the ordinance that was adopted and passed in November, when in the ordinance itself there is absolutely no mention of MLK Park.”
Does Library Have to be in MLK Park?
Both the City Attorney and the City Manager have said on several occasions that the library/events center could be built somewhere other than MLK Park. Rather than trying to overturn the bond referendum, the petitioners seek an alternate location for the library.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF WINTER PARK, FLORIDA, PROHIBITING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WINTER PARK LIBRARY AT MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR. PARK . . . .
For the full text, go to page123 of the Agenda Packet at the above link.
‘Initiative’ or ‘Referendum’?
The conflict between the petitioners’ committee and the City arises from the City’s position that the petition constitutes a Referendum, referred to in Section 5.02 of the City Charter, rather than an Initiative, as described in Section 5.01.
(See link above, page 129 of the Agenda Packet, for the Charter text.)
Basically, a Referendum requires the Commission to reconsider (i.e., overturn) an ordinance that has already been adopted.
An Initiative gives voters the right to submit their own proposed ordinance to the Commission. If the Commission fails to adopt the proposed ordinance, the ordinance must be taken to a full city election to be adopted or rejected.
City Attorney Offers No Written Guidance
Interestingly, the question of whether the petition is an initiative or a referendum is a legal determination. Yet, only the City Clerk has spoken. No legal opinion from Attorney Ardaman appears in the August 8 Agenda Packet.
City Attorney Has Some Advice for the City Clerk
In a memo dated May 8, 2016, the City Attorney writes to the City Clerk, “. . .if you conclude that the Petitioners Committee Affidavit and proposed ordinance constitute a Referendum as described under Section 5.02 of the Charter rather than an Initiative under Section 5.01 of the Charter, rather than waiting until after Mr. Poole and the Petitioner’s Committee expend substantial effort to obtain the signed petitions, the following response to Mr. Poole would be appropriate.”
While Attorney Ardaman encouraged the City Clerk to draw her own conclusions, he was kind enough to word the memo for her.
“Mr. Poole,” reads the memo. “The request for petition forms that you submitted to me as the Winter Park City Clerk on Friday, April 29, 2016, is not timely as the petition forms you have requested are based on a Petitioner’s Committee Affidavit and ordinance which appear to constitute a reconsideration or referendum to repeal Ordinance No. ____ and the City Commission’s decision to locate the library and events center in Martin Luther King Park, where the Ordinance was adopted November 23, 2015. Referendum petitions must be filed within 30 days after adoption of the ordinance to be reconsidered.”
Ardaman’s Charge to the Commission
Ardaman’s explanation of the task before the Commission was clear and simple – either uphold or overturn the City Clerk’s Certificate of Insufficiency.
As the Commissioners deliberated, there ensued considerable discussion, concluding with each Commissioner stating his or her position and the reasoning behind it.
Seidel: “This Vote Doesn’t Change the Process”
“I am assuming you are here with your attorney because you intend to take the next step,” said Commissioner Greg Seidel. “So, to me, what happens with this vote doesn’t really change what’s going to happen with the process.” Seidel voted to uphold the petitioners’ appeal.
Sprinkel Defers to City Attorney
“I’m going to support our City,” said Commissioner Sarah Sprinkel, “because I’m following the advice of our attorney.” Sprinkel voted to deny the petitioners’ appeal.
Cooper: “It is a Citizens Petition”
“I also do not believe it reverses the vote on the library,” said Commissioner Carolyn Cooper. “I believe the citizens of Winter Park voted to approve a referendum of up to $30 million to build a new library.” Cooper voted to uphold the petitioners’ appeal.
Weldon: “There Will Be No End to the Lawsuits”
“I have tried to put myself in a position of perspective as to what is the best long-term decision for the City of Winter Park,” said Commissioner Peter Weldon, who voted to deny the petitioners’ appeal.
Leary: “The Petitioners Were Informed Early On . . .”
Mayor Steve Leary stated, “The petitioners were informed early on that this petition was invalid.” Leary cast the deciding vote to deny the petitioners’ appeal.
Cooper Appeals to Commissioners to Let Citizens Choose
In her concluding remarks during the Commissioner’s Report, Commissioner Carolyn Cooper asked the others seated on the dais if it might be possible to allow the residents to vote on the location of the library – to put the issue to rest. “I honestly don’t think it would hurt anything,” said Cooper, “and I believe the people of this city honestly want a new library.”
How Shall We Grow?
How Shall We Grow?
Comp Plan Review Begins — Should You Care?
The Comprehensive Plan review has begun in earnest.
The Comprehensive Plan – a.k.a the Comp Plan – is described by the City Communications Department as “the document that governs the City’s plans for growth through policies that guide development.”
Comp Plan = City Blueprint
The policies set forth in the Comp Plan protect and improve our city assets and provide for city infrastructure. In terms of importance to the city, the Comp Plan is second only to the City Charter. The Comp Plan is required by Florida Statute, Chapter 163.3161, and is given legal status mandating that public and private development must comply with the Comp Plan.
Deadline for Completion – 2/1/2017
The Comp Plan is updated every seven years to ensure it is in compliance with Florida statutes. Last reviewed in 2009, an update it is now due. The Commission has until February 1, 2017, to approve the Comp Plan and send a final version to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity in Tallahassee.
The City Planning Department will spearhead the review, with the assistance of the Comprehensive Plan Task Force — Nancy Miles, Laura Turner and Marc Reicher — and the City advisory boards that oversee the various elements of the Plan.
Don’t Give Up – Keep Reading (or skip this section and come back to it)
The Comp Plan consists of two major documents. The one entitled “Goals, Objectives and Policies” (GOP) is adopted by the Commission and carries the weight of law. The information from which the GOP derives is in a support document entitled “Data, Information and Analysis” (DIA). In our current Comp Plan, the GOPs and DIAs are organized into nine chapters, or ‘elements.’
• Future Land Use – Includes map of land use allowed on every property in Winter Park.
• Transportation – Addresses roadways, sidewalks, buses, rail and biking and walking trails.
• Housing – Includes projection of future population.
• Public Facilities – Infrastructure services such as sanitary sewer, solid waste disposal, potable (drinkable) water and storm water drainage.
• Conservation – Defines conservation lands, air and water quality and water conservation.
• Recreation and Open Space – Plans and policies to meet projects need for parkland and open space. Current level of service requires 10 acres of publicly owned park and conservation land per 1,000 residents.
• Capital Improvements – This element is updated annually as part of the City budget process and includes all infrastructure required to support the population.
• Intergovernmental Coordination – Outlines the City’s agreement with other government entities such as the FL Department of Transportation, Orange County School Board, St. John’s Water Management District and surrounding municipalities and counties.
• Public Schools – Reflects agreement with Orange County Public Schools to provide facilities to serve resident school-aged children.
You Still Awake?
As always, the devil is in the details. Here is one example. If you go to the City website and click the “Comprehensive Plan” icon on the main page, it will take you to the Comp Plan. Under “Data, Analysis and Inventories” is a chart listing all parks and the precise acreage of each. The total acreage listed there is 296.45 acres.
dia-ch6-recreation-open-space.pdf
A document distributed by City Planning Director Dori Stone at the August 1, 2016 meeting of the Comp Plan Task Force, entitled “Park Level of Service Standards,” states Winter Park’s park and conservation land at a total of 346.16 acres.
Where Did That 50 Acres Come From?
On August 5, the City Communications Department wrote to the Voice, “Staff will need to research the differential in total acres. GIS is a factor, some new parcels were added, i.e., the West Meadow, and we need to research what others resulted in the difference.”
GIS, by the way, stands for Geographic Information System, which is a more accurate way of measuring land area. Even with GIS, however, as of this writing we are still not sure about those 50 acres. Part of the Comp Plan review process will be to manage discrepancies of this sort.
Why Does 50 Acres Matter?
At a level of service of 10 acres of park and conservation land per 1,000 residents, 346.16 acres would support a population of 34,616. (Winter Park population estimate as of 2015 stands at 28,967.) Since Winter Park is landlocked, how would we fit another 5,000 to 6,000 people? By increasing density. Where would we increase density? In those single-family residential neighborhoods the Comp Plan is meant to protect?
Is the Comp Plan Review Important to You?
If you care how this city will look in two or five or seven years, it is important. The Voice will post updates as the review process moves from Advisory Board to Advisory Board under the guidance of City staff and the Comp Plan Task Force. A “2016 Comprehensive Plan Timeline” is posted on the city website. 2016-comprehensive-plan-timeline.pdf
The City will update the schedule as necessary, and all meetings are open to the public.
As technical and wonky as it may seem, the Comp Plan review affects how we live. It is worthy of our attention. In the words of Commissioner Carolyn Cooper, our Comp Plan is “a contract between the residents of Winter Park and our government that defines how and where we will grow and what level of public services we will enjoy for the taxes we pay.”
City Sues to Validate Library/Event Center Bond Issue
City Sues to Validate Library/Event Center Bond Issue
Library Update: Petition Goes to City Hall
2,000+ Voters Say ‘Don’t Put Library in MLK Park’
Tomorrow, the Save Our Library WP PAC will turn in the signatures of 2,234 registered Winter Park voters who oppose locating the new library in Martin Luther King Jr. Park. This number exceeds by approximately 10 percent the number of signatures required to file a Citizens Petition.
PAC leader Michael Poole said he is not sure what the next steps will be, but expects the issue to end up before Orange County Circuit Judge Margaret Schreiber for a final resolution. He said he expects there may be some discussion of the petition at Monday’s meeting of the City Commission.
“We believe the bond should be validated,” said Poole, “but not with a designated site, because the site was not on the ballot.”
Poole explained the Save Our Library WP PAC will intervene in the bond validation suit using the State’s Attorney. Asked whether he thought the City would continue to deny the PAC has standing to file the petition, Poole said, “I don’t believe any State’s Attorney, when confronted with more than 2,200 valid signatures, would not take in earnest what we are trying to do. This petition says, ‘Judge, these people don’t want the library in this park.’
“It would be incredible for the judge to say that we don’t have standing in this court,” said Poole.
The City Attorney announced at the July 11 commission meeting the City had filed suit in the Orange County Circuit Court to validate the bonds that will finance the construction of the new library – event center.
Case Will Go to Trial
The City is asking the court to confirm that it can legally and safely issue up to $30 Million in municipal bonds. Attorney Richard Geller, sitting in for City Attorney Kurt Ardaman, reported the matter will be litigated, there will be a trial before Judge Margie Schreiber, evidence will be presented and the Judge will determine the bonds can be issued.
Bond Counsel to Argue Before Judge Schreiber
To represent the City, the firm of Bryant, Miller, Olive P.A., with offices in Atlanta, Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, Tallahassee, Tampa and Washington, D.C has been retained. Attorney Ardaman will act as co-counsel with the bond counsel.
6- to 9-Month Process
In answer to the mayor’s question about the anticipated time frame, Geller indicated the entire process could take six to nine months. The time frame depends on the Judge’s schedule according to City Manager Randy Knight. Knight said the first step, which would be for Judge Schreiber to issue an order to show cause, might occur within 60 to 90 days.
Protection for City & Bond Holders
Winter Park Communications Director Clarissa Howard explained in an email, “The city has made the decision to go through the bond validation process to protect the interests of the citizens and taxpayers of Winter Park. This bond validation process is the most expeditious and fiscally-responsible approach that will ensure the bonds can be properly issued and the approved project can be built without any future legal obstructions.”
Bond Rating Upped
According to an attorney speaking off the record to The Voice, while there is no legal requirement that suit be filed, typically a City such as Winter Park files suit seeking validation by a court, as such a ruling has the effect of giving the bonds the highest possible rating and lowering the cost to the City of the debt service, or interest it must pay on the bonds.
Recent Comments