2007 POP Editorials:

10/13:

I want to thank all of those voters who came out to support me on 10/9. With teaching and attending school as a student I have little time to soak it up, but believe me when I tell you, it is an incredibly humbling feeling to experience what happened that night.

January can't come fast enough to get started with a new conversation about the process of government in DeBary. Your comments will be represented on the Council...and this time I'll have more than three minutes to talk about it.

There is still an election November 6th. It is my fervent hope that the wave of change will continue on that night as well.

Norm Erickson

10/7:

I received a campaign postcard from Patrick Fulton. Why, I don't know. But it read: Voted AGAINST raising your taxes. Below is an editorial I wrote on 9/28/06 that was preceded with the following headline:

Fulton only concerned with his future not DeBary or its citizens. Preparing next year's political flyers: "I did not vote for tax increase!"

NEW: 9/28:

OUR VICE MAYOR'S NON-STANCE (NONSENSE) ON THE MIL RATE AND BUDGET

Norm Erickson

The following is an email Patrick Fulton sent out in response to perhaps my rather loud comment after the meeting on how he could have voted against the mil rate and yet FOR the budget proposals of the mil rate. My reactions are in red. Norm Erickson

Last night was the final Budget Meeting for the City of DeBary and the
budget passed unanimously after a lot of concessions were made by all.

I don't know what concessions Patrick made which isn't to say he didn't make any...I just don't know what they were/are. I do for the other councilmen which will be discussed below.

I have heard this morning that one member of the public questioned how I could vote for
the budget and yet vote against the millage rate increase.

"One member of the public"? This email was sent to an unknown amount of people based on "one member of the public"? Wow...this seque of justification is so clumsy it makes Gerald Ford seem smooth. Rather, I think this is the first in many "revisonist history lessons" we are to receive from our Vice Mayor.

Since I have a clear conscience on this situation - that?s an easy question to answer.

So on issues where he does not have a clear conscience it is more difficult to answer but not impossible? I don't understand this sentence.

I felt the millage rate itself was excessive and was being justified by a laundry
list of pet projects (even though the projects are all great assets for our
community). I was against the millage rate increase and all the miscellaneous projects being proposed - I felt we needed to reduce the projects to what we absolutely needed and not approve a wish list. We were also proposing that all projects be paid for within this budget cycle. It was too much in a
short period of time.

Why didn't he ask Maryann to come up wth a budget proposal for the mil rate and/or projects he felt WERE justified. Why didn't he and/or the council talk about the necessity of these "pet projects"? Why didn't he do what John Likakis did and come up with his own proposal to share with the council? They had a lot of meetings and workshops to do this. Why didn't he propose the projects that should be cut and reduce the mil rate accordingly?

He could have done any number of things.

They all could have but they didn't. I now quote from this website under the Meetings to Attend link:

It is not only for what we do that we are held responsible, but also for what we do not do.
Moliere

Patrick actually talked very little at these meetings and just stayed under the radar. He did nothing except vote "no". Lenzen actually challenged him on this point and the vice mayor had nothing to come back with because it is the truth. Vice Mayor Fulton was playing political games with the mil rate that directly impacts our citizens so he can say he didn't vote for a tax increase a year from now. At the meeting where 3.5 was voted in he was mumbling 2.5 as a potential mil rate. We now know that that mil rate would not cover the costs of running the city. With staff costs, police, fire, etc,. Lenzen said at the meeting on 9/27 the current rate would not suffice; so the Vice Mayor was wrong in even considering that mil rate. Go to the webcast for the 9/20 meeting and zip forward to the 1 hour and 44th minute or so and listen for ten minutes...it's all there...don't believe me...go listen to it...the Fulton/Lenzen exchange happens at the 1 hour and 52 minute mark...go listen to it...because if you were at the meeting you sure as heck didn't hear it.

After a lot of discussions the wish list was reduced
down to 3 core projects 1) rebuilding the reserves 2) Emergency Storm System and
3) a new City Hall. All other projects have been placed on hiatus for the
time being. This does not mean that the other projects aren?t worthy of being
completed it simply means ? not right now.

Lenzen decided to move from 3.5 to 3.0 and Tillis, to his great credit, decided to move the Skateboard Park off a year and cut it out. Carson also decided to go to 3.0 knowing that his park projects would not get the funding he wanted them to get. Coleman voted for a tax increase which went against his campaign promise, but he knew the city needed the money. All four did something and moved from a position and sacrificed. Fulton did nothing, motioned nothing, offered nothing; he simply voted "no" and is now already starting his revisionist history lesson.

I know a small minority of people can?t appreciate a ?compromise? but this
is a great thing for our city. It?s all about mature people putting their
own personal interests aside and compromising.

What personal interests did the Vice Mayor put to the side? What compromise did he make? Tell me...maybe I missed them...I am deaf in one ear...although sometimes at these meetings, I feel one good ear is one too many.

I know of one small minority who can't run a meeting, who can't speak into microphones clearly so the public can hear them, who can't put a budget together after having gone through the experience twice or more times, who can't say "NO" to growth, and who can't direct staff to come up with budget proposals for something other than what Maryann brings to them.

I know of an even smaller minority who will be campaigning next year on how he didn't vote to raise taxes yet will sing the praises of the three core projects listed above. If we didn't have that mil rate for that budget, you wouldn't have those three "core projects" being funded; you guys didn't come up with projects and then figure out relevance and how to fund them; you guys picked a number and let staff answer the question: "what can we do with this?"

Only a politician could vote against the mil rate, yet argue in defense of his vote on the budget based on the mil rate that he opposed. How can he say it is a good budget when it only exists because of the mil rate that was voted in? A mil rate he voted against. If, say, a 2.5 mil rate had been voted in, those "core projects" would be cut severely or out all together.

Having it both ways is a concept I gave up on when I was five...but then again when I was five, I didn't know any Vice-Mayors.

I am proud of my fellow council
members I think we all did the right thing last night.

What else could you have done? The budget is due in two days, so you had little choice. In addition, the council had given staff no direction in what to cut from the budget;so what did the council actually do? You passed a 35% increase in our taxes; when the county raised your rates 66% percent you were all pissing and moaning about it, yet turned around and tried to do the same thing to your citizens with a 58% increase. And you guys knew about the county increase for 2 months. You wasted all of those summer meetings and workshops on the budget by changing your mind on the SECOND vote; that is to say, you didn't know what you wanted after all of those meetings.

Patrick Fulton

Perhaps, or perhaps not, you will see another side to the argument that our Vice Mayor is offering. For all of his posturing there are facts that remain: he offered no other mil rate; he offered no other proposal nor did he direct staff to come up with proposals for a different mil rate. While Mayor Coleman offered 3.0 at an earlier meeting/workshop, no direction was taken on this. It's not just Fulton who is at fault here, but the council not able to work together or really understand the process that some of them have been through so many times before. Why that is, is a mystery to me.

It's always easier to come out afterwards and do some revising but the facts remain and they remain on this website as a check against willy nilly arguments that just don't stand up to even a mediocre review which I have done here. Maybe the Vice Mayor will write in and tell me how I am wrong...which I am quite often...

In closing I quote again from this very website under the link of History: Key to the Future:

Practical politics consists in ignoring facts.

Henry Adams

We'll see what happens to this issue of our Vice Mayor's non-stance (nonsense) over the mil rate and budget. History truly is the key to the future because the Vice Mayor is concerned about the future: His.

Norm Erickson

***********************************************************************************

9/29: Truth doesn't lie

Now is the time to talk about facts. Council Member Tillis talks about all his accomplishments for the people of Debary. Here is a list of what he forgot to mention to the taxpayers.

He motioned for a 3.50 millage rate, a 57% tax increase, settled for a 3.00 millage rate, a 37% tax increase.

He voted for a 6% franchise fee settled for a 4% increase. A franchise fee is a tax added on to all Florida Power and Light, Progress Energy and Florida Public Utilities bills. You will eventually pay this fee in your utility bill.

He voted for the Partnership Center in spite of public opposition without reading the fine print that eventually killed the project and cost the city $114,000 plus dollars.

He insisted on a $2 million dollar SKATEBOARD PARK . He insisted for a year and a half, to place it in Memorial Park and spend $2 million for it. It took concerted opposition by Veteran’s and Civic groups to agree to lower the cost, size and location. Only after that considerable effort did Councilman Tillis relent and agree to move the Skateboard Park to Rob Sullivan and reduce the cost to 1.2 million to the taxpayers.

He is in favor of Commuter Rail that will cost the Taxpayers a whopping $138 million over the next 30 years. The taxpayer is not even afforded the right to vote if they want Commuter Rail or not. He wants it and that’s all that matters to him.

He voted yes for the Marina on the pristine St. Johns River. The Marina legal battle has given DeBary another black eye. This project is overwhelmingly opposed by the people of DeBary.

He says he works and listens to the people. His track record says different. It seems he does just the opposite. When it comes to taxing the people and spending tax payer’s money he is leading the way. Can we afford another three years of “Taxin’ Tillis?”

Three years ago Councilman Tillis promised on his political flyer to “conserve our land while responding to the concerns of the DeBary citizens…” The facts above show his actions to be different than his words. His actions on the marina and the skateboard park show that the environment and the people’s money and wishes are not the first thing on his mind. Disagreeing with the facts does not change them.

Lenny Marks

9/22:

Am I against relieving traffic? No. But the argument for the Commuter Rail was so that we WOULDN'T have to expand I-4; indeed, expanding I-4 was out of the question and would be inconsequential to reducing our traffic problems - that was the argument at the time. But that was a month ago. Now additonal lanes, and toll lanes no less, will be a reality. That the toll money will go to all of the things the Sentinel aruges for is a Rube Goldbergian contraption of the highest order. Perhaps a better handle on growth could have avoided all of these problems. But while directing the money from the tolls to bolster supporting transportation choices can be explained in the editorial below, saying "No" to growth is just too complicated.

The first of two articles both in the Orlando Sentinel with more to follow, I'm sure, in the News Journal. Note that the Sentinel's Editorial came out only 2 days after the editorial from the regional transporation planner. Hmmmm......what is called "just an option" is now something that should be seriously pursued...all with just 2 days to think about it. SHAZAM!

OrlandoSentinel.com

EDITORIAL

Relieve gridlock

Our position: Toll lanes on I-4 could speed traffic and raise money for mass transit.

September 22, 2007

The idea of toll lanes on Interstate 4 running from Seminole County to Osceola County might not grab you, but wait.

What if the tolls were paid only by motorists choosing to use what would be four newly constructed express-toll lanes, which would run down the middle of I-4?

And what if the bulk of the toll revenues didn't go back into maintaining and administering the lanes but rather funded mass transit in the region?

That's the concept floated last week by MetroPlan Orlando, the three-county, transportation-planning agency. With bottlenecks growing ever worse on I-4 and mass transit chronically needing a boost, it's a concept that deserves every consideration. If planners and policymakers can get the details right -- guaranteeing that it won't amount to a gift for moneyed commuters who can afford the drive; ensuring that the revenue-generating toll system won't work to keep federal transportation dollars from the region -- commuters may want to rush to embrace the concept.

Some relief to the gridlock clogging I-4 is coming. Large trucks will be banned later this month from using the left lane along a 60-mile stretch. More significantly, beginning in 2010, commuter rail during peak hours should carry as many passengers as one lane of I-4 traffic.

But with the region's population projected to more than double by 2050, the stress on I-4 is sure to increase. Worse, if more funding sources for the region's struggling mass transit systems like Lynx aren't found and tapped, opportunities for commuters to bypass the area's already clogged thoroughfares will be lost. They're already the most crowded in Florida, and eighth most crowded in the nation.

Enter the toll lanes. Each vehicle traveling them would mean one less vehicle squeezing its way down I-4's standard lanes; buses could use them, making that form of mass transit a more attractive option to some who now prefer driving solo; and motorists riding them who carpool might get to do so at discounts.

For Lynx, toll revenues could bankroll more buses, which would allow it to offer commuters more routes and better on-time service. The revenues also could increase rail service, potentially helping fund more stops along commuter rail lines and supporting light rail or other mobility options linking rail stations to other destinations.

The key is dedicating the lion's share of the toll revenues to mass transit. Failing that, the system would be a gross, bloated venture, building highway lanes just so wealthy riders can speed their way past their poorer, bottlenecked neighbors.

But properly done, it could generate multiple options for residents of the region to get from one place to another and another.

Who among Florida's policymakers and stakeholders wouldn't want to see that outcome?

AND HERE IS ANOTHER OPINION: NOTE THE AUTHOR.

OrlandoSentinel.com

OTHER VIEWS My WORD

I-4 toll lanes just an option

Harold W. Barley

Special to the Sentinel

September 20, 2007

'Toll Lanes on I-4 Appear Likely."

I am sure this headline about Interstate 4 toll lanes on the front page of the Orlando Sentinel's Sept. 13 edition caught the attention of many people. Interstate 4 is the spine of Central Florida's transportation system and is critical for moving both people and freight. As a result, anything having to do with I-4 is important to everyone.

A workshop was held recently for the MetroPlan Orlando board to begin work on updating Central Florida's long-range transportation plan. Traffic congestion is already a major problem and, if current trends continue, traffic is expected to get worse. If this is allowed to happen, it will impact the quality of our lives, our environment and our economic competitiveness.

Yesterday's solutions will not solve tomorrow's problems, so this is a time for bold, new thinking. This was reaffirmed through the region's growth visioning process ("How Shall We Grow?"), in which people were very clear about wanting to see changes in our region's transportation system.

The recent board workshop was an excellent forum for exchanging information and getting preliminary feedback on a wide range of prospective solutions. We found there was a strong consensus on some options. For some other options, such as the concept of creating new toll lanes down the middle of I-4, results were mixed.

No final decisions were made at that workshop. Rather, this was an early step in a planning process that will involve the entire community over the next two years. Following that, the board will adopt a new Long Range Transportation Plan.

Metropolitan areas across the country and around the world are struggling to combat traffic congestion. While there are no easy answers, there are plenty of options -- and many can work here in Central Florida.

New toll lanes down the middle of I-4, while providing the same number of non-tolled lanes as there are today, may be one of them. It is important that all options be considered -- and for people to know the information behind the headlines.

Harold W. Barley is executive director of MetroPlan Orlando, the regional transportation planning agency.

********************************************************

9/20: A great Editorial on Growth:

September 20, 2007

If state won't control growth, voters should get chance

By HENRY LEE MORGENSTERN
FLORIDA VOICES

It was heartening to see Tom Pelham, secretary of the Florida Department of Community Affairs, admit that the comprehensive planning system, which his department is supposed to regulate, has become a worthless sham. (Op-ed Sept. 13) Pelham describes very well the explosion of comprehensive plan amendments that have allowed developers to build at will with almost complete disregard for the state's Growth Management Act.

The secretary admits that something must be done, but suggests that the Florida Hometown Democracy initiative, which would put all comprehensive plan amendments to a local referendum, is too extreme. Instead, he calls on the Legislature to make other changes that might limit the number or nature of comprehensive plan amendments which can be passed.

Pelham's ideas are good and might work, but his article misses two points.

First, it is the Legislature's refusal to make changes like the ones he suggests that made the Hometown Democracy initiative necessary in the first place. When elected officials will not act responsibly, it is reasonable to pass the decision to the local voters.

Second, most of the bad plan amendments that have driven urban sprawl and decimated our landscape violate the Growth Management Act and could easily have been stopped but for one thing: they were approved by the Department of Community Affairs.

The Growth Management Act makes it very hard to challenge amendments when they are approved by the DCA. Pelham could stop the run of bad plan amendments tomorrow with no legislative action, simply by not approving them. This will not happen either, however, because even a well-meaning DCA is limited by political and bureaucratic realities.

A better solution, therefore, is for the Legislature to change the burden of proof so that, when a plan amendment is challenged, the advocates of the amendment must show that it is consistent with the GMA, whether it is approved by the DCA or not.

Finally, Pelham asks, Do we want a referendum on every gas station? One answer is that a comprehensive plan that took 10 years of public input to develop should not be changed in a quick vote to accommodate a gas station. Another answer is, when that gas station is going to change the entire fabric of the comprehensive plan, maybe we do want a vote.

Pelham claims that Hometown Democracy will create "chaos" -- but it is the present system which has created the chaos, and until the process is fixed, Hometown Democracy is a reasonable and necessary response.

Morgenstern, an environmental attorney, lives in Seville.

9/18:

Dear Fellow Candidates:

Apparently it is allowed to have signs placed illegally for up to one week in the City of DeBary. But let us not take the negative and usual route of a reference to once again our Vice Mayor disregarding what is right or implying special privileges for those closest to the City Manager.

Instead, let us also place our signs where we want without regard to the rules. We should be given a week as Patrick Fulton will be given to take them away. He placed his signs on Friday, Sept. 14th at night so they could be displayed all weekend given the City staff is away. Let's make it fair for all, yes?

Norm Erickson

P.S. Mark Meister take note: I've made a complaint AND a solution.

9/16:

Setting the Record Straight September 13, 2007

by John Likakis

“They only complain. They never offer solutions.”

That’s the campaign cry of the incumbents - and some others- as they try to further their goals at the expense of the taxpayers of DeBary. It is a weak attempt to try and minimize the impact of the citizens’ website - www.debarypop.com - that has logged over 100,000 hits since its inception and is growing. And an attempt by them to keep doing “business as usual” that almost bankrupted the City a few years ago.

Let’s put this fantasy to rest once and for all. Not by hollow pronouncements but by facts documented since 1999, three City Managers ago, showing the time it took to act on or ignore various problems. Incidentally, they prove the citizens’ point of never listening to anyone so they never heard anything that didn’t pertain to their agenda. That’s why the citizens’ website was created…People Over Politics. 1999 thru 2003 were mostly my attempts to get things discussed, changed, fixed or just listened to for the good of the City.

1999: Springview development started. Clear cutting the entire area.

Suggestion to City Manager (passed on to Council):

Stop clear cutting. Preserve some trees to stabilize soil, filter air, protect against flooding and give birds a place to roost.

At the time, DeBary had signs around the City that proclaimed “DeBary is a bird sanctuary”. Other signs warned “Caution. Road floods after heavy rain.”

Action: Remove Bird Sanctuary signs.

--Increased truck traffic on Shell Road. Damage to the road, children’s safety, noise and diesel fumes all day.

Suggestion: put up signs “No truck through traffic” They can access the development from 17/92. Notify builders. (worked for awhile)

2000: Repeated my concerns about clear cutting, flooding, quality of life and school capacity. Suggested they look for areas to build a school in DeBary.

Let me skip ahead and list on the next page various subjects that were brought up to the Council, by year, and when action was taken or ignored. These include presentations at Council meetings or letters requesting a response.

In the second column, the series of years shown indicates “No Response” from the Council each year that it was brought up. The problem and suggestions fell on deaf ears.

In the middle of all this in the Spring of 2004, the City was going to implement a CRA and before people knew what was coming 21% of the City was declared Slum and Blight. The citizens awoke and helped defeat it.

There are more individual items -City Hall costs and locations, tax rates and fiscal responsibility, etc. One outstanding item was the “Partnership Center and Skateboard Park”. That’s how it appeared on the Agenda -one line- and voted in at 2:55 AM. Pork barrel at it’s best. The Partnership Center would have put DeBary into debt for 40 years. It’s gone; it died for lack of vote by the Council who did not say “Yes” or “No” to the operations agreement. They did nothing. The Skateboard Park, most of you are aware of what’s been happening.

SUBJECT/SUGGESTIONS

YEARS ADDRESSED

ACTED ON

* Tree Preservation-all aspects;

City wide.

'03, '04, '05, '06

2007

* Fix Town Hall audio system

'04, '05, '06

2007

* Reduce cost of Newsletter, b/w, 2 color, make more informative,

"04, '05,'06

2007

increase frequency.

* Bring Planning code enforcement/Zoning in-house. County costs too high.

'04, '05, '06

2007

* Improve permitting procedure-save $.

'05, '06

2007

* Improve /enforce building inspections. Not right? No C.O. No paym't

'04, '05, '06

2007

* Revise Land Use maps. Update. We're still using versions of the 1999 map.

'05, '06

2007-Partial

* Revise Comp Plan. Update

Confusing.

'05, '06, '07

2007-Partial

* Institute Impact Fees. Losing $

'05, '06, '07

2007

* Create new business/City brochure.

'06, '07

------

* Establish Business Assoc. without City interference.

'06, '07

----

* Made Streetscape committee (pots, lights) a regular committee, more public.

'05

2006

* Moratorium on buidling to allow time to assess where we are.

'06, '07

----

* School Capacity farce. "Mitigating" in developers' favor. City gets zip.

'05, '06, '07

----

* Move Skateboard Park out of Memorial Park, cut costs, put in Rob Sullivan.

'05, '06, '07

----

* Robert's Rules of Order to fomalize procedures as do 98% of all org.

'05, '06, '07

----

* Change overhead meeting sign on behavior. New audience-friendly words.

'07

2007

* Roll Call Vote so everyone can hear.

'05, '06,'07

----

* Stop Council switching hats to be Land

and Zoning planners during meetings.

'05, '06,'07

----

* Add Addendum for late Agenda items to be available at back of Town Hall on

'06, '07

----

meeting nights.

* Create "4 Districts" assigning a Council member to each for direct citizen contact

'05, '06, '07

_____

questions/problems.

* Hydrants for "Old DeBary"; (3 ok'd in August, 2007)

'06, '07

2007

* Weather radio/sirens, etc. for storm/tornado warning

'06, '07

2007

* Annually at January mtgs. Made suggestions for subjects to be considered during

the year. Both old and new. Ex: Sweet Sixteen in '07;

Had enough? You can change these attitudes by voting for the candidates who can and will return the City to its Citizens:

Norm Erickson, Seat 2, Oct. 9 th Primary

Lenny Marks, Seat 1, Nov. 6 th General Election

9/8:

Developers could sink marina to save project

Christine Show | Sentinel Staff Writer

September 6, 2007

The developers of a disputed project proposed on the St. Johns River may eliminate the most controversial part: a marina.

That's what a majority of DeBary City Council members said after having private, one-on-one meetings with developers Tuesday night.

Officials from the southwest Volusia city said they met that way to intentionally avoid violating the state's open-meeting laws, which prevent elected officials from meeting privately as a group. A project foe welcomed the possibility of the marina's demise, but wondered why the discussion wasn't public.

"It leaves parties in the public, like me, to only speculate as to what they were up to," said Charles Lee, Audubon of Florida's director of advocacy.
The possibility of axing the marina from the 330-acre proposed development, which includes a yacht club and 250 pricey homes, comes just weeks before the city is set to face off against the Department of Community Affairs, the state's top planning agency.

DCA and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection oppose the marina because it would be in the Wekiva River Aquatic Preserve -- a special protection zone in the river for manatees and other endangered wildlife.

"There's deathly opposition from DEP and DCA. It's looking like they [the developers] might back off that proposal and provide something different," said City Manager Maryann Courson.

City Council members recall different versions of the possible changes.

Council member Patrick Fulton said the marina is gone. Another council member, Danny Tillis, said a boat ramp will replace the marina. Council member Jack Lenzen said developers discussed three scenarios, including axing the marina.

Mayor George Coleman said he wasn't paying attention. Council member Chris Carson could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

The developers, St. Johns Partners, are trying to avoid a lengthy legal fight, Courson said. The project stirred up opposition from environmentalists across the region because of the marina's proposed location within the Wekiva preserve.

Courson said the developers came to DeBary for ideas after they realized state officials would not back down. They checked with the city attorney to see if it was acceptable to have individual conversations about the project with the council members, she said.

Developers Joseph Krzys and Lyn Bedell could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Council members defended the private chats. Lenzen said he treated the developers as he would city residents who may come to him for advice.

"They're probably trying to get a sense of opinion," he said. " It's not open for public discussion."

Tillis said the talks could have been open to residents, but scheduling a public forum would have delayed the council's opinions.

"Could we address it in a council meeting? The answer is yes," Tillis said. "But I don't have his schedule."

Christine Show can be reached at cshow@orlandosentinel.com or 386-851-7915.

9/1:

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. The bamboozle has captured us. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

Carl Sagan

What was the purpose of the Commuter Rail? Do we still remember back that many weeks? Wasn’t it to relieve traffic on I-4? Wasn’t it to take cars OFF of the roads and interstate? Yes, I think I remember reading that somewhere in the editorials of both the Sentinel and the News Journal. I think I remember hearing Mica say that in mailings and in the newspaper. Pesky little Al Everson from the Deland Beacon was calling from the woods (obviously I mean this figuratively as the woods have been replaced with condos), “It’s about growth. It’s about growth.” But only a few heard him…probably the people who read this website regularly.

The Volusia County Council voted unanimously for the Commuter Rail; unfortunately their sentiments weren’t. No longer can government officials vote their sentiments or conscience, they have to present a united, “group think” front. It couldn't be a united "No", it had to be "Yes" for some reason. What’s happened since that vote?

Read the following from an Orlando Sentinel article from August 30, 2007:

Headline: Vision for commuter rail includes more than tracks

Excerpts from the article by Jay Hamburg:

The Central Florida Commuter Rail Commission, meeting for the first time Wednesday, took its thinking way beyond the recently approved rail route from DeLand to Poincianana.

Orange County Mayor Rich Crotty, who was elected vice chairman, said the rail vote was unprecedented in that it got unanimous support from all five local governments.

But he added that commuter rail by itself would not solve all transportation problems.

Not solve all the problems?! Talk about giving yourself the ultimate "out". I don't remember hearing this before this was voted through. Norm.

It also may be able to spur development around stations, rather than the region's many clogged roadways.

"It's not about a train from a station in Volusia County to a station in Osceola County," Crotty said.

It's not about a train that runs from Volusia to Osceola, Mr. Crotty? Well, what the hell is it about then? Because all we heard BEFORE the vote was that it was about a train that ran from Volusia to Osceola. See the theme: Before the vote it's about the train station and alleviating traffic, AFTER the vote the train won't solve transportation problems and it's not even about a train that runs from Volusia to Osceola. It's as if all that happened before the vote was written on an Etch-A-Sketch that has now been shaken. Norm

The other two members are Seminole County Chairman Carlton Henley and Volusia County Chairman Frank Bruno.

Henley said his county already is looking at ways to develop retail and residential units around the four stations in Seminole County so that they become much more than "parking lots."

END OF ARTICLE EXCERPTS

Already looking at ways to develop? They JUST started looking? I was born at night, but I wasn't born LAST night. And I wouldn't knock parking lots too much...it's all this state is going to be in a few years.

Wow, how things do change. Commuter rail, which never pays for itself nor does it attract riders, is a vehicle for growth and more vehicles on the road…not less.

Mica duped us all and pushed this through by getting the local politicians in FIVE counties to all vote yes for it. How did he manage that, I wonder. If Frank Capra took a look at our local government, Mr. Smith would have stayed home.

But not too worry, the taxpayer can just pay more. Within 24 hours of the vote of the Volusia County on the commuter rail, Deland was planning 200 homes around their yet to be determined rail station. No longer are we even enduring the double-speak or attempt at duplicity. Bait and switch has nothing on our local governments. In addition, how is it that the commuter rail was sold to us with a station at Saxon Blvd and then moved somehow to Ft. Florida Rd? I’m not arguing that it is a good or bad move, I’m just wondering about the process that allowed it, discussed it, voted on it, etc. Who changed the location? When? At what meeting? Please tell me as I do not know.

In closing, the Ft. Florida Rd. station is three miles from the station in Sanford where riders will pay an extra buck to cross the river. So just driving three more miles will save them 10 dollars a week. Just a thought...

In seven years we might think more about this issue as each city will have to pick up the tab on this galactic blunder that will ultimately cause more cash to be pissed away than at the next Vitamin Expo.

Until the next time...

Norm Erickson

7/6:

The Will to control growth:

OrlandoSentinel.com

State likes Mascotte growth plan

The blueprint will give the city tougher controls on 4,000 proposed homes, which could triple the population.

Robert Sargent

Sentinel Staff Writer

July 4, 2007

MASCOTTE

The state has approved new development plans that will control how this small city in south Lake County could triple in size with up to 4,000 proposed homes.

Mascotte officials and the state Department of Community Affairs had spent months wrangling over a proposal to overhaul the city's comprehensive-development plan, which will act like a blueprint for growth. The plan will accommodate a tremendous amount of new development -- about 4,000 new homes proposed among 15 residential projects -- but it also will give the city tougher controls on how it all will be built.

State planners balked at much of the city's proposed plan in August. They argued that Mascotte wasn't doing enough to prepare for new development.

The city hired a Tallahassee law firm to fight for its cause. In April, the city and state reached an agreement, and now the state has given final approval.

City Manager Marge Strausbaugh said the comprehensive plan provides the city with tools that will be tougher on development. New rules will require more open space and conservation around wetlands in some areas, she said.

Other rules provide for a mixture of residential, office, commercial and other land uses -- types of developments kept separate under the old plan.

"It now includes mixed uses to allow for better neighborhood development," Strausbaugh said.

Proposed projects could triple Mascotte's current population of about 5,000 residents to about 15,000.

The planned growth includes Sunrise, a large community proposed on Mascotte's north side with 1,400 homes, a town center, commercial outlets, schools and public buildings. Also, nearby Heron's Glen is planned for about 999 homes, and Tuscanooga proposes 400.

To accommodate the growth, Mascotte is working on plans for its first wastewater-treatment plant. The facility could be built in two years.

New developments are required to install sewer pipelines and reuse irrigation to hook up to the new plant once it is completed.

Mascotte also is planning to expand water utilities. Last week, the city made one of two water towers taller to improve water pressure to new neighborhoods uphill from there. A new water plant also is planned near Tuscanooga Road.

Robert Sargent can be reached at rsargent@orlandosentinel.com or 352-742-5909.

6/30:

From the Daytona Beach News Journal's Editorial:

June 24, 2007

A Creative Economy: Prospering From the Arts

An investment that pays

Because of funding cuts (including from this newspaper; see note at right), the Florida International Festival could have a diminished impact in future years.

But the festival board, led by J. Hyatt Brown, has devised a plan, very worthy of support, to shore up the festival for the next 10 years.

First the board ordered a local economic impact statement. Then, it secured annual contributions from local corporations, based on the premise that the festival not only contributes to the quality of life in the Daytona Beach area but also significantly influences economic revitalization.

And now it is seeking the city's financial support through the Downtown-Ballough Redevelopment Area and the Main Street Redevelopment Area.

On Wednesday, Brown and others will ask city commissioners to agree to supply $750,000 a year (plus 3.5 percent annual cost-of-living increases) for 10 years from special funds that can be used only in the redevelopment districts. The plan is realistic because many of the performance venues -- the News-Journal Center, Peabody Auditorium, the Bandshell and more -- are within the redevelopment areas. Further redevelopment funds may be exempt from state-required tax cuts. While that's a lot of money, the move would give Daytona Beach name recognition with the London Symphony Orchestra.

So much for CRA money going to redevelopment. They want this money going to the LSO because more people will come see the concert and bring money into the area. This is the city where 60 million dollars have been LOST in CRA money over the last twenty years. Here is an editorial that sums it up better than I could:

No to CRA funds for LSO

Re "An investment that pays," editorial, June 24:

I am opposed to using taxpayers' dollars from two community redevelopment area funds to support the Florida International Festival. I am opposed to this Hyatt Brown plan for eight reasons:

· Taxpayers should never have to pay for any private business' needs.

· CRA funds are intended to be used to improve infrastructures and blighted areas in Daytona Beach.

· The London Symphony Orchestra brings only 15,000 visitors for two weeks, every two years. The visitors do spend at least $150 per day for an average 3 1/2 day stay. They spent $1,297,000 in 2005 for Florida International Festival activities.

· In contrast, Bike Week brings up to 500,000 visitors into the area, and they freely spend multimillions of dollars.

· The festival claims that earned revenues pay for only 30-35 percent of its budget. Ticket sales account for at least 30 percent of these revenues. Maybe the festival should double its ticket prices so the concert goers pay for their own concerts. Fair is fair.

· It should be the responsibility of good corporate citizens in this county to support the arts if they choose.

· It is wrong for a small percentage of concertgoers to expect hard-pressed local taxpayers within the CRA districts to pay for their enjoyment at LSO concerts.

cp4.5;en;na;cf7,8.8,9.7,8.6;ka-10;cn175;cx375;ah;al;aaIf this request of about $10 million is granted, I'm sure many other business ventures will also request CRA tax funding.

This is totally unacceptable.

DON KANE, Daytona Beach

6/28:

TO FRAME OR BE FRAMED

At the 6/20/07 Special City Council meeting Mayor Coleman presented Norm Erickson with a certificate of recognition for finding an error in the official City minutes. I applaud Mayor Coleman for doing this and it appears he did this on his own. The City Manager and the rest of the Council seemed to have been taken by surprise when this was done.

The giving of an award is all well and good but you can’t cover up what happened and make it go away. When someone becomes misleading and fudges on the truth an award can not change what happened. And for the Council to do or say nothing about what happened is inexcusable. I don’t know who is worse, a person who misleads and lies or someone who condones such an act by accepting it.

Here are just a few of the questionable acts our City Manager has tried to push past the Council and public with no correction from the Council. All references are for 2006 – 2007.

The City Manager convinced the Council that they agreed upon something that they didn’t discuss which she said was based upon her “understanding and recall”. Changing of the City Council minutes to reflect what the City Manager wanted. No action from Council.

The City Manager has on a few occasions brought items to the Council that were voted on but not advertised on the Agenda. No Action from the Council.

Not giving the whole story on Mr. Jay Erndl, causing embarrassment to Council and the City. Her recommendation was based on an email which was based on a conversation which could not be verified. That is from the Vice Mayor himself. No action from Council.

For the 2006-2007 Budget the City Manger only brought the mil rate of 3.5 to the Council to discuss. No action from the Council to request other mil rate proposals.

The City Manager sent a letter to other Cities in Volusia County, to fight the VGMC, but did not send a letter to the chairman of the VGMC. The VGMC is the same commission that the City took our tax dollars to fight to keep the commission, while the County took our tax dollars to dissolve the commission. The Cities won but the first time, the very first time, the City had any doings with the VGMC they sued them because they didn’t approve of how they were handling the Country Estates at River Bend project.. No action from Council.

The City manager placed on the City’s web page a notice encouraging the people to vote YES for the storm water bond referendum. Instructing the public on how to vote is not allowed. It is illegal; moreover, it is wrong. No action from Council.

The City Manager tried to slip in an additional 10 million dollars for the storm water bond referendum. No action from Council.

The City Manager asked for a 6% franchise fee (tax) to be added on to everyone’s utility bills those being Progress Energy, Florida Power and Light and Florida Public Utilities. Our (taxing) Council settled for a 4% increase. Why did the City Manager ask for the higher 6% when the Council felt 4% was enough?

I am very interested with the City Manager’s upcoming evaluation report. I can’t wait to see the scores the Mayor and Council give her in the Ethics, Communication with the Public, and Honest-Fair Categories. I will also be interested if Councilmember Tillis will turn in his report or will he do like last year: just give the final number evaluation with no report. Again, it was Citizen Erickson who pointed out that Tillis had failed to turn in his evaluation report which is used to determine the City Manger’s salary which is around 93,000 dollars plus benefits. It is kind of an important report. He is now a few reports behind Mr. Jay Erndl and yet Tillis voted him off the VCMC for, guess what, for not turning in a report and on the City Manager’s inkling he was not working in the best interest of the City. What a guy!! (Correction: Mr. Erndl was NOT voted off the VGMC by Councilman Tillis as he was absent. Our apologies.)

Lenny Marks

Norman Erickson

DeBary, FL

*********************************************************

6/3:

From the Orlando Sentinel: 5/12/07

Headline: More than ever, State is asked to save land.

Lead Paragraph: A record number of cities and counties-including about two dozen in Central Florida-want money this year from the State for land preservation. End Quotation.

Nestled among the various city requests for land preservation to expand parks and buy land to keep open spaces is a DeBary request for $100,000 with a matching $100,000 for a 1.6 acre Skateboard Park (next to Memorial Park!).

Since when is an acre of concrete “land preservation”? Since when should a project with an overwhelmingly negative public response be submitted for grant money? A project that will cost over $2million before all the dust settles. Here is another example of DeBary Government displaying their arrogant indifference to the will-and needs-of the people who elected them. Another example of trying to slip something past the people. If they can do it before we are wise to them, then they can say “it’s too late. We already did (that)_______. You should attend Council meetings.” Not that these little goodies are ever an Agenda item. At best, they are discussed after the last agenda item when most of the audience is gone. Provided you could hear anything because the audio system barely works and the Councilmen have an aversion to speaking into their microphones. Heaven knows I’ve been trying to get their project’s location and cost stopped for over six months. Deaf ears and blind eyes.

What is it going to take to stop this behavior? What is it going to take to stop this fiscal irresponsibility? What is it going to take to remind them they are elected representatives of the people of DeBary? What is it going to take to keep the City out of Court; we are getting the name of “Sue City”-not Sioux City. What is it going to take to get some respect, honesty and fiscal sanity? What’s it going to take to get them to preserve what brought so many people to DeBary? You know what it’s going to take?

YOU.

Get involved. Ask questions. It’s your tax dollars they’re spending. It’s your quality of life they are messing with. Attend Council meetings. Even if you can’t, have someone form your area attend and if there is a Homeowner’s Association, ask that a representative attend every meeting. Maybe rotate attendees if necessary. Don’t wait until you see your taxes go up or watch one of the few remaining natural areas get clear-cut for 100 homes without concern for traffic, environmental impact and school overcrowding.

YES—IT’S YOU.

IT’S YOUR CITY.

You can help make DeBary a place to live and be proud of. Get out of your enclaves. Everyone is affected by Council decisions.

AND TIME IS RUNNING OUT.

DON’T WAIT FOR THE “Next Guy” TO DO IT

THIS IS NOT A CALL TO ARMS…BUT A CALL

TO PARTICIPATE.

John Likakis

*******************************************************************

4/28:

ART FOR SOME

PROTECTION FOR ALL?

What time is it?

It's How-do-we Budget Time, Kids!!

100,000 dollars. Should it go to the DeBary Art League or for another deputy to provide safety for all? To provide a new deputy will cost 100,000 dollars. What about sirens for tornadoes? Hurricane season is coming up and with property taxes resulting in less revenue for the city, the Council will have some decisions to make. I wonder where they will come down on this one. Money for everything? It’s the difference between a “want” and a “need”. If you want growth, then you have to pay for the by-products: increased population that brings increased crime. I would rather see the money go for police and fire than the art league. That’s where I stand on the issue.

While some will want to paint this as an “either/or fallacy”, I think that given the climate of tough budgets and a real priority list, we can’t have it all. $kateboard parks, city hall, storm water issues, these are all being debated. Will the Council be good stewards of our money now that the mil rate went up 37%, the power bill is up 6%, and they took a loan out for 10 million dollars. Never before have they had access to so much. Where will it go and how much of a say do we have about where our money goes?

The budget process starts in May, so look for the Art League to show up with hands out and then promptly leave regardless of the outcome. Oh, remember, we all have given to the Art League through the grant programs. That is my money the county gave them and that is my money the state has given them. So let us not think for a moment that we are being or have been uncharitable.

Norm Erickson

**********************************************

4/21:

April 20, 2007

DeBary's crime rises with population

By BOB KOSLOW
Staff Writer

DEBARY -- More deputies are needed here to combat rising crime numbers, the city's top law enforcement officer said.

"It's just normal with growth," Volusia County Sheriff's Capt. Alan Osowski said this week. "The population is increasing and the traffic into the city is rising like crazy. We had a spike in car break-ins in November, December and January, just like in the rest of Central Florida. DeBary's not isolated anymore."

DeBary contracts with the Sheriff's Office for law enforcement services and has traditionally tried to stay ahead of increasing crime statistics.

Two deputies patrolled the area of less than 7,000 residents when the city incorporated in 1993. With a current population passing 19,500, the city pays $2.4 million for 20 deputies to include a K-9 officer, two traffic deputies, an investigator and a narcotics officer. It also rents a substation building that is outdated and too small, city officials say.

DeBary and Volusia share the cost for a lieutenant and captain. The officers oversee District 6, which includes DeBary, with seven other deputies covering the unincorporated areas around Orange City, west of I-4 and south of S.R. 472.

Osowski is asking the county for two more deputies to increase patrols in the growing West Highlands and Highland Park Estate subdivisions.

He also has asked the city to pay for two more deputies to handle a 5.6 percent increase in calls for service in the city in 2006 than 2005 and to reduce deputies' increasing time off the road to investigate more incidents and write reports.

Felony arrests in DeBary increased, according to Volusia County Sheriff's Office crime statistics. Home and business burglaries dipped, but vehicle burglaries increased along with calls for assault and battery and disturbances.

DeBary has been noted in the past on some Web sites as a speed trap. A 33.6 percent increase in traffic citations for 2006 could account for that designation. But the citations are credited with reducing the number of vehicle crashes by 6 percent.

"I do not want to scare the city," Osowski said. "I just to warn them of what's happening and get their attention so they can make good decisions to protect the citizens."

Tight city finances and an uncertain outcome on state property tax reforms may kill Osowski's requests. It costs about $100,000 to train and equip a new deputy. But, he said, he would be happy with one new deputy this year and one next year.

In an interview Thursday, City Manager Maryann Courson said "Obviously public safety is uppermost on everyone's mind. Depending on the (property tax reform) hit we might take from Tallahassee, if it's not too bad we'll do everything in our power to fund the request."

Courson said she expects a budget workshop in May will help determine the city's priorities.

"Crime rates, especially violent crime, are rising in Central Florida and also in surrounding areas like Deltona, Orange City and DeLand. DeBary has one of the lowest crime rates in Volusia County. It is my intention to do everything possible to maintain that reputation," Osowski wrote in his request to the city.

bob.koslow@news-jrnl.com

******************************************************************************************************

4/17:

From an email Patrick Fulton sent out:

“ I would like to give the real story about the River Bend project and the controversy that has been created by special interest groups and non residents.”

“Overwhelmingly, the residents of DeBary that spoke on this issue supported the project. There was only 1 man who spoke out against it. The other folks that spoke against this issue were people from outside the City of DeBary, such as Winter Park, Ormond, Jacksonville and Miami (representatives of various groups).”

There seems to be a drum beat in the press and from our Vice Mayor about non-residents speaking out against the River Bend project. Well, lets see. The environment impacts everyone; it is the circle of life, Simba. What we do here impacts others elsewhere and down the river. Furthermore, there is a thing called freedom of speech. I’ve gone to Deltona to argue against the Partnership Center. Were my arguments less sound and/or valid because I do not live in Deltona? Indeed, what does it matter where an argument comes from? It doesn’t. The origin of a thesis is irrelevant to that thesis and this is Critical Thinking 101. In the Vice Mayor’s second paragraph he intimates that people’s arguments outside of DeBary need not be considered. I personally think the “liar, liar pants on fire” argument would be stronger. All of this pales compared to the final thought: most of our city staff are non-residents. I can only think of Alan Williamson as being a resident off the top of my head. Will the Vice Mayor no longer take into consideration the views of staff as they are non-residents? The validity of arguments are contingent on a zip code?

The Growth Commission has cited failures on all fronts: environmentally, wildlife protections, bald eagles, as well as school capacity and wastewater. The homes on the river will no doubt use pesticides and such on the lawns that will wash into the river. The Vice Mayor is an environmentalist; I’m not. But reason tells me that putting poisons in river water is not good. He argues that the River Bend project will help the environment? That can be done, I’m sure, without development. Government wants this so they don’t have to bring water, sewage, and paved roads to the people on Fort Florida Road. That’s why they want it. They can’t even provide the most basic of services so they do business with developers who will while turning a great profit.

Jay Erndl was dismissed and we now find out that Maryann had only an “inkling” of what Mr. Erndl was about to do. Patrick Fulton says now he feels “uneasy” about his vote to cast Erndl off the commission. Patrick admits in “hindsight there was nothing to support Courson’s claim.” Wow. Patrick sounds surprised to learn that there is another side to the story OTHER than what Maryann had to say. But as Patrick has made clear: Maryann need not worry about losing her job. He said this during the evaluation meeting not long ago. He made it quite clear that her job was secure. Incredible. Erndl’s removal is yet another example of what happens when issues that are not on the agenda are voted on. This is what happens when at 11:30pm, Maryann says, “Oh, one other thing” like a bad Colombo episode. Why didn’t she bring this up when Danny Allen was at the podium just hours earlier? She really just thought about this last minute at the end of the meeting? This is why the last few minutes of council meetings are the best part because it is where this kind of stuff, or the Partnership Center and Skateboard Park, are voted in. We all know this. Now that Maryann’s credibility has been called into question, perhaps we were given only an “inkling” of Anita Gonzalez’s work record.

The truth is, something is wrong. The city and its staff are working too fast and making too many quick decisions and this is all blowing up in their faces. They are suing a commission NOT to have a meeting? How does that make any sense? They are removing people they “think” will not represent them? Paranoia?

There is an election coming up. It is time to start thinking about new councilmen and a new city manager.

Norm Erickson

***********************************************************

4/3:

As the article below shows, the city staff aren't so different than the people they are to serve:

1. We want government to work fasters at times also;

2. When Government doesn't seem to be working, we want action;

I guess the differences occur when we question to whom do the chages benefit. This marina is wanted because then the city and county won't have to do their job and bring water and sewer to the people on the river. Also, what about the pollution? Would Al Gore be in favor of this? Again, the article talks about the quality of life for manatees, I wish to Zeus and Odin that the same protections would be in place for the quality of life for mere humans.

Norm Erickson

DeBary plans to move on marina

County could seek legal action to counter city action

By BOB KOSLOW
Staff Writer

DEBARY -- Land-use changes to allow a large marina and subdivision on the St. Johns River have been under review for too long by a county board, city officials say.

So the city plans to move ahead with a vote on the project Wednesday. To stop or overrule the vote, the Volusia Growth Management Commission would have to take the city to court.

"Their time expired and we're moving on. We're sending them a letter today (Monday) telling them that," City Manager Maryann Courson said.

Naples-based developer Joseph Krzys has a contract to buy 330 acres along 2.5 miles of the St. Johns River and Fort Florida Road. He proposes to change the agricultural/rural residential and environmentally sensitive land-use designations on 127 acres at the north end.

If approved, up to 250 homes could be built on 117 acres. Another 10 acres would be used for a 500-slip marina, private yacht club, restaurant, fueling and wet/dry boat storage.

While some nearby residents back the project because it would bring water and sewer lines to the surrounding area served by wells and septic systems, others are opposed.

"I like the peace and quiet of a canoe ride on the St. Johns River near my home," resident Larry Bates said. "To allow the destruction of the scenery along the river in this or any area on the river is criminal."

In its first step toward approving the project, the City Council voted in December to seek review and comment from the Growth Management Commission and the state.

The state objected to the marina and commercial elements because it would be too close to a manatee sanctuary and aquatic preserve.

Also, a county manatee protection plan that covers the proposed site restricts the number of new and expanded marinas.

But Krzys argues that his plan would address a shortage of boat slips. He also contends that his land is not subject to restrictions on marinas.

Under Volusia County's charter, the Growth Management Commission reviews proposed land-use changes to determine whether they are legal under comprehensive land-use plans all cities must maintain.

Growth Management Commission attorney Paul Chipok said the city cannot vote on the proposed land-use changes until his agency has ruled that they're legal.

But City Attorney Kurt Ardaman said the amendments have been approved by default because the commission missed a 90-day deadline to review the proposal, request additional information, hold a hearing if necessary and issue a ruling.

The commission countered that the clock has not started yet because the application is not complete. Information it has requested was not provided from the city and developer, Chipok said.

The Growth Management Commission has received more then 30 requests for a hearing from as far away as St. Augustine and include Volusia County, Save the Manatee Club and Seminole Audubon Society.

One of the people requesting a hearing, Colleen Chamberlain, on Monday said, "I don't know all the legalese. I am emotional and I just know in my heart that this is wrong. Putting 500 boats on the river, the pollution and natural destruction is unbelievable."

bob.koslow@news-jrnl.com

************************************************

3/13:

Hmmmm...

It's usually what isn't said that is the most interesting.

I don't remember people requesting the city council for the new street lights. I don't remember citizens clamoring for a fountain on 17/92 by the bank. I don't remember citizens initiating the desire for the pots on the side of the road. Yet all of these things have been done and paid for or are being paid for. I also don't remember the people supplicating the council for a skateboard park; yet, 1.6 million will be spent on one.

Mabybe I have a poor memory.

But this is what I do remember: I do remember citizens asking for a roll call vote so we know how our elected officals voted on something, like, say, our budget items or mil rate. I do remember citizens asking for the comp plan to be changed for years so that growth could be truly negotiated. And I do remember reading in the minutes of meetings going back to the incorporation of this city to fix the flooding problems this city has ALWAYS experienced. I do remember citizens demanding that a small town atmosphere be maintained in DeBary. We'll see what happens with that. None of these items were heard by the council. So the question is: to whom is the counicl listening? Because it isn't the people.

Norm Erickson

**********************************************************

1/13:

How to deal with Costa and Watts

If Norm Erickson knows how...that's scary...

This is what I read the council on 1/10/07; we'll see what happens when Costa comes back like a bad sequel...

City Council 1/10

For too long there has been perhaps deliberate indifference toward changing the comp plan to facilitate the negotiation of growth. Look, regarding growth, you can say yes, no, or lets negotiate.

The first question Costa and Watts should ask - before submitting plans-- is "is this negotiable ?" I don’t know why you would say “yes” after paying good money to win a lawsuit giving you the right to say “no”. Furthermore, I would argue that Vice Mayor Fulton spent too much time negotiating a deal with Watts only to find out his fellow councilmen didn’t want it. Result: the Vice Mayor proclaiming lawsuits that we would lose. You repeatedly said this in the executive meeting on April 19 th. Vice Mayor, work with your councilmen not Watts on what is to be negotiated. The four of you, if you don’t want the Vice Mayor to negotiate with Watts ask him politely not to do so. No one should negotiate anything without first being selected - at an open meeting - to be the preliminary contact/negotiator/information gatherer - who returns to the Council at an open meeting to present all the points discussed. Then the Council can discuss the next steps. The five of you need to work together and you’re not. On April 19 th in the executive session of last year you ended the meeting in agreement of negotiating with Watts; but you never threw around a number or process of how to negotiate. You then voted the project down. I’m glad you voted it down but what it highlighted is that you’re not working together or something else is happening not in the public eye. Present a united front; don’t squabble amongst yourselves in front of Watts.

To negotiate growth we need to know what we don’t know about the Costa land which is how many developable acres are there? Until you have that number, talking about 200 units, 600 units or 800 units is misleading and irrelevant. 400 units on 100 acres? On 200 acres? It makes a difference and it defines density. 2.1 units per acre could be anywhere from 200 to 800 units depending on how many developable acres we are talking about. This is the information we need from Costa and if we don’t get it, then we can’t negotiate because we won’t know what type of density we are negotiating. If I hear you guys bandying about unit numbers like 300 or 450 without knowing the number of developable acreage, then I’ll know you’re not doing the job right. If Costa and Watts comes in here with “X” number of units to build and they can’t tell you how many developable acres there are, turn him away. He’s not answering the most important question

In closing: Vice Mayor Fulton was afraid that we would waste a lot of money on a lawsuit that we would lose; if you don’t truly negotiate what is to be built on the developable acreage, then I’m afraid that we’ve lost a lot of money on a lawsuit that we won.

Norm Erickson

************************************************************

2006 POP Editorials:

12/20:

CITY AND COUNTY IMPOTENT

IN BRINGING WATER, SEWER, AND GOOD

ROADS TO RESIDENTS

Gentle Reader,

It happened again this morining as I was enjoying my eggs, grits and bacon from 4B's: it takes a developer to bring basic services to the good people down on Fort Florida Road. The article stimulated many questions in this reader's noggin'. To begin, Country Estates at River Bend will be a yacht club down by the river. In order to get a re-zoning they will be required to do things that the city and/or county haven't done or won't do.

First of all, where is all of our tax money going if not for basic roads, water, and sewer for these people? It's not like they want something out of the ordinary or special like a city hall or their own train set that actually moves people; we're talking about roads, water, and sewer. Secondly, when Rosamonda was sitting in the big chair and people complained about flooding in the "older areas of DeBary", he was the first to say, "Well, they knew that when they moved there." No such words are heard about the residents who bought homes at the end of a washboard road; however, something tells me that they were probably promised amenities in the "near future". I'm not for growth, but I agree with the people who want this: the city and county haven't done doo-do for them. Is it any wonder that they want the developers to come in?

Once again, individuals do it better than government. These developers will get done in two years what the city and county haven't in 10+ years. Just like residents trying to salage the massive pots on 17/92. They screw it up, then we have to fix it.

Something else caused me to choke on a piece of bacon: why the hell does a developer pay 500,000 to protect the manatees when our residents can't get clean water for "years and years and years"?!

Moreover, and you gotta love this one, the School District (Red Light District) says that the re-zoning changes ARE premature until a "mitagation plan" is approved. Orwell is smiling from above. Let me see if I can work my way around the Doublespeak here: the School District's "mitagation plan" is a number...with a lot of zeroes. I would compare them to prostitutes but that's not fair to prostitutes because they only sell their own backside not everyone else's. We'll put up with overcrowded schools and learning that is negligible due to overcrowded classrooms if we can add even more money to our 1.3 billion dollar budget. If it walks like one, turns tricks like one, and takes money like one...then it probably is one. This might seem like rough commentary, but if you act like an ass, don't be surprised if people ride you.

After the election this city has more access to money than ever before:

1. Taxes went up 35%;

2. Power Franchise Fee went up 6%;

3. They can borrow money for up to 7 years;

4. They are borrowing 10 million just for stormwater;

5. They are securing grants(taxpayers' money) to pay for projects;

No water, roads, or sewer for years and years and years but we'll be getting our city hall, train station, and skateboard park. What will they do with all of this money?

What we focus on becomes our reality; I wish local government would focus not on their extravagant needs but on residents' basic needs.

Norm Erickson

**********************************************************

12/16:

WHEN YOU SPEAK ABOUT THE PARTNERSHIP CENTER ; BRING THE POOPER SCOOPER

There was a time when I believed the Government truly looked out for all its citizens. I believed that everyone was thought of fairly and decisions were made according to what the PEOPLE’S needs and desires were. I’ve come to the realization over the last few years that what the PEOPLE think or want means nothing, the only thing that matters is their money and their vote. Our middle class has been decimated by most of our elected officials. The middle class has become almost extinct. In just a few more years, the middle class will have gone the way of AM radio. It’s only the Power Player’s visions that amount to anything no matter what the PEOPLE’S visions are. The Public Be Damned!

Let’s look at what occurred in Deltona as the folly of the Partnership Center enfolded; it died, only to be resuscitated again and again. It must hold the record for after death-experiences. It failed twice to get the required votes to pass at two Deltona Council public meetings. By the vote failing, Deltona, stopped the funding of one million dollars to be allocated to the DBCC and the Partnership Center. You would have thought it would have ended there. No, not on your life, the “cry-me-a-river-trio” of the DBCC, West Volusia Chamber of Commerce and political pressure once again brought this zombie back from the state of the living dead. They cried so much DeBary may be in a flood situation without a hurricane blowing. Then, when the pressure was put on Deltona Mayor Mulder, he called their City Manager, Steve Thompson, and said that now he would like the money released to the DBCC. The Mayor and City Manager felt that the two council meetings, with all the public input, meant nothing because the City Manager, all along had the right to make the deal by himself. Surprise, Surprise, Surprise! That, in itself tells you what they think of John Q. Taxpayer-another scar left on the body of Trust. What nerve, what a slap in the taxpayer face. This reeks of being un-American. People of Deltona, stand up, and if you don’t, you deserve what you get. If they change the rules once, they certainly will do it again, when the situations meets their needs.

Only in politics does NO mean YES!

This is now not about the waste of hard-earned taxpayer’s money, but about respect for the little guy, the everyday Joe, the common slob, who work so they may have a little at the end of the day. Sorry, but the visionaries don’t think you should have all that money. After all, who will pay for their vision? At the rate they’re going, you may as well send your paycheck, social security, pension check or whatever other means you have as an income to your friendly, I’m doing-it-for-you-politician. Let them decide what’s good for you, there’s no way that you could possibly know what you want, or that you are even capable of having a vision, even though it’s your money they will be spending.

Please read Mike Lafferty’s column in Saturday, December 9, 2006 in the Orlando Sentinel for an in-depth account of the unbelievable happening surrounding the Partnership Center and what went on in Deltona. Good job Mike.

This scenario will keep coming back as long as we have leadership of this kind. What ever they want, they will get, by any means, whether the PEOPLE agree or not. It will happen soon in DeBary, where there is a push for the skateboard park. It’s not wanted by the vast majority because of its high cost to build and maintain, but Councilman Tillis will push for it because he wants it. Next will be the commuter rail and DeBary train station. Once again the majority does not want it, but most elected officials and Councilman Tillis will push for it. It has been a proven money loser time and time again. Who will subsidize this when the State and Federal Governments obligation is over? I wonder if Councilman Tillis will back his constituents and fight for what they want or will the newly appointed Vice Chair of the MPO stick with his buddies and fight for this potential boondoggle called “commuter rail”. There will be more on this issue in the not too distant future. Councilman Tillis, this is not a Done Deal as much as you say it is and even think it is.

If you, the taxpayer, insist on staying home instead of attending your Council Meetings (about three hours a month) and getting involved with other City activities, this is what you will continue to get. Apathy is at an all time high and they, the politicians, know that. They seem only to hear you at election time and they know only a small percentage of people will vote. They will exploit this weakness to its fullest.

You cannot ask a few to fight the battles while you do little and hope for the best. You must get involved and show who the bosses are. We vote them in to serve us and when they stray we must put them back on the right path.

Big problems are happening at Terra Alta, Highland Park, Kings Lake and Quail Lake over the Saxon Blvd Extension and commuter rail. Some of the good people of Debary are going to lose their homes; the ones that are not losing their homes will have to put up with traffic and noise. What quality of life for something that is not needed as badly as some are trying to promote. The point I’m trying to make is; where were all the people that live in the other “enclaves” (see the enclave editorial of 7/10/06) in DeBary. Where were you the other night when these people were fighting for their homes and their quality of life? If you think this will never happen to you, you are wrong. You are only deceiving yourself if you think it can’t happen to your neighborhood. Let’s pull together and stop the abuses when they occur. Remember, strength in numbers will give you a chance.

If a Councilman works against his constituents; change them at the next election. Vote someone in that will heed what your vision is for DeBary-not what they think you want. You don’t need a college degree to know what the PEOPLE want, just listen.

Lenny Marks

DeBary, FL

Who started that fire? The truth will set you free.

We thought that John's article on enclaves would complement Lenny's article. So here it is again in all its glory:

GLOSSARY

Enclave - to enclose. to lock up. a territorial or culturally distinct unit enclosed within foreign territory.

Where do you live? Do you consider yourself a member of an enclave?
Do you want to be? Do you want to be part of this City in all respects?

A recent potential builder characterized what he was going to deliver to DeBary with his development as " consistent with DeBary's existing housing stock and will provide new homes with price ranges between $300,000.
and $600,000."

He also said: "DeBary is becoming an affluent residential enclave". And almost in the same breath - "Keep DeBary's small town feel." Enclave....Small town ?

What would it take to make us all think City-wide? Another CRA? That's the last time hundreds and hundreds of people turned out to defeat something because they were afraid it might endanger their property or raise taxes or change the whole City.

Should we be living cloistered lives - unaware and uncaring of what goes on around us until your Ox is gored?

"I didn't get flooded . What's the big deal?" The guy in the $400,000. house can replace carpeting and furniture without going broke. The folks in the $100,000. - $200,000. houses can't do the same. Does that mean when it comes time to see how much money is needed the flooding problems, no need for you to show up at Council meetings since you weren't flooded?

Does it mean that since you are settled-in nicely in your "Preserve", "Reserve"' "Club" or individual home outside of these "enclaves" you need not worry about proposed developments that will wipe out trees that provide oxygen and stabilize soil, wetlands paved in concrete - the reason flood waters have no place to go except into someone's home - and it might be yours if your in the path of the flow.

If you came here because of the quiet, small town feel, the trees (those that are left) the parks, a non-hectic way of life, then you need to be a part of DeBary in all respects. If you don't think it's important to be aware of what's being proposed for the little remaining land we have, you may wake up some morning to watch bulldozers start the next development near enough to you kiss the "small town feel" goodbye. Increased traffic, more crowded schools, more flooding tom mention a few of the problems you will have to deal with if you think a development a mile away isn't going to affect you.

DeBary can be the oasis in a sea of condos, town houses an sprawl all around us. We have a multitude of parks and trails; visit them. We have a "small town" business district with shops that are convenient with many having unique merchandise; slow down and visit them.

Show the City Council how you feel. Show them you care about the City and how they are running it. It takes just a few hours a month. Join your neighbors - come as a group - see and hear folks from other parts of DeBary. You may be able to nip some bad ideas by presenting a point of view they hadn't thought of or help implement some good ideas. Find out about things that are going on or being planned for the near future. You may be surprised to see where your tax dollars are going.

Just by more of us showing up it will indicate to the City Council that people care about what goes on.

It's been said...

Together we are many, you can have the City and life you want.

Be involved. Involve your neighbors.

Do nothing and you may get something that is worth nothing.

It's up to all of us. Show we are not just a series of "enclaves" but a vibrant, caring bunch of people. Don't wait for someone else to protect your interests and quality of life.

John Likakis

*****************************************************

New: 11/29:

THE PARTNERSHIP CENTER IS NO PARTNER TO THE TAXPAYER

Did you hear that sucking sound coming out of Deltona the other day? That was the Partnership Center looking to receive their promised funding a little sooner from Deltona, Orange City and the County. Orange City had to withdraw a $25,000 donation from another money sucking operation The DeBary Art League because they lack the funds to support both. Debary has already funded them with $100,000 plus through the years and land to build their Art Center building at Gateway Park. What a shame how and to whom they spend our money on. There have been too many bad decisions being made, with the public paying the freight. Who are these people that have the power to spend your money without having to be accountable for it? They don’t even care if the majority is in favor, or not in favor of their idea.

This vacuum has already cost DeBary 1 million dollars because the decision makers would not listen to reason from reasonable people. With the exception of Councilmember Gunter (who knew a bad deal from the beginning) the rest fell into the propaganda machine. If certain power merchants say it’s a good deal, then by golly, it must be a good deal.

I want to know when we get our million back. Oh, you say that’s not possible, it’s gone forever? What a sound judgment our council made: pledge a million, then decide to change their minds because they didn’t like the agreement, and lose the million. Wait a minute, that was our money. To make up for their bad decisions they raised our taxes. The same two Council Members, one making the motion the other seconding the motion for the lost millions are the same two who, once again, one making the motion the other seconding it for the highest millage rate of 3.5. Later it was discussed and passed at 3.0. Also the same two wanted the debt repayment time frame increased from five years to ten and one even wanted twenty years. The voters voted for seven years which gives the City two more years to pay off the debt. This is one reason why the City has lost their reserve fund. Too much spending, Council Members that have the philosophy that money is the answer to all problems. Lose money on bad deals, more time to payback the debt, raise taxes. That’s their philosophy. It’s not hard to figure out. I’m sure they have a few reasons why they had to raise our taxes beside the pledge to the Partnership Center, but when that amount of money is just given away with no return to the taxpayer or City there is something drastically wrong. Can’t lose can they? Please, don’t worry about bad deals, not to worry; the answer is to raise the taxes. I still have not heard from the three members who voted for pledging the DeBary taxpayer’s great million-dollar-give-away to support the idea of the Partnership Center disaster say anything about it. Not one has stepped up to the plate and said they were wrong. It’s never that a mistake was made by them, not them, they are almost always right and if they are wrong it’s just a little, or “but this” or “but that”. Hey fellow’s that was not your money, that was ours. I wonder how much of your capital you would give away without listening to stronger advice. You would be a delight in a poker game.

The Council just approved a $5000 donation to ACT INC., an organization that serves the mentally ill, drug users and HIV and AIDS patients. A spokeswoman gave her presentation stating they were running out of funds and there were only three people left on the payroll to do the work. They were asking for donations from all the Cities in Volusia County to help keep them afloat. Well, guess what, not more than a few weeks after our generous Council pledged $5000, they received a $6 million contract from the Department of Children and Families if they would provide mental health services to indigent patients. I would like to know if we get our $5000 back, or will that come out of our recent tax increase, or perhaps we will have to use their services as indigent people.

It looks like the other parties involved are seeing things a bit different. Perhaps, if you would listen to John Q. Public you would not get into such conundrums. The rule that you seem to always forget is IT”S NOT YOUR MONEY-you are entrusted with it, you are the stewards of it, so take care of it. You have a big responsibility but you do not take that responsibility seriously if you let yourselves be talked into every idea that comes along. Stay away from the Florida League of Cities, MPO, VCOG seminars and a host of other propaganda one side discussions. Does the queen of diamonds mean anything to you?

Get back to serving your people fair and making sound decisions. Listen to the folks. Get back our million, please. Are you even going to try?

Here are a few solutions: stop funding organizations that come before you asking for donations, there was a time when the answer was always NO. Listen to the people-after all it’s their money. Don’t fall for the propaganda some are trying to sell, it will certainly make the train fall off the rails. If nothing changes and the status quo remains, then a difference will have to be made come election time.

Which do think will happen first: Will DeBary ever get their “gone with the wind” million dollars back or will any Council Member step to the plate and say the made a mistake.

Finally, who set that fire? The truth will set you free.

Lenny Marks

DeBary, FL

FLASHBACK: Lenny wrote the following back in October of 2005. You gotta love his "Kreskin-like" abilities. I'll have to get with him before the SuperBowl...

From History: Key to the Future:

At the October Council Meeting , I suggested we cut our losses and get out of the West Volusia Cultural and Conference Training Center - or is it "The Partnership Center” or “The West Volusia Training Center? I would like to bring to your attention that I come in front of this Council not as someone who has been against this from the beginning, but as someone who VOTED FOR IT!

All this began in May 2003 , with a discussion for a Tri-City Center . To
save time, I am just going to present a highlighted chronology of dates and
meetings, that have significant information about this Center.

EDAC MEETING 10/16/03: The Chamber of Commerce described with
some detail, the West Volusia Business Conference Center -where it would be located, which cities would be involved, and information about possible grants and ECHO funding.

City Council Meeting 11/05/03: Council approved a service agreement with the Chamber for 2 years at a cost of $5,000.00 per year. At this meeting, the Chamber made another pitch for the Center.

City Council Meeting 2/11/04: Approval of the Interlocal Agreement and funding commitment was requested, with Deltona putting in $2 million, Orange City $1 million (which later became $1.5 million) and a proposed contribution from DeBary of $1 million, to be paid over a 3 year period. The Chamber said that they and Daytona Beach Community College were actively involved in the project, and that once the intent of the cities was clear, the project would become a partnership between Daytona Beach Community College , Volusia County , and the 3 cities. The property would be owned by Daytona Beach Community College , the Center itself would be self-supporting, a marketing strategy would be developed and there would be room for hotels. The primary use was stated to be for educational and training purposes. Deborah Bacom, chair of the Chamber and Executive Director of the West Volusia Association of Realtors, offered needing the facility as an example, because their Association membership exceeded 700, and that they needed more space for their functions, and needed somewhere close by to meet. She stated that the Center would have a capacity for 5,000 seats, which would also support graduations and that Stetson’s facility was no longer adequate. It was discussed that the investment would be approximately $22 million, and that $4 million would be provided by the 3 cities, and the balance to come from the private sector, Daytona Beach Community College funds, and potential investments from the County. That $30,000.00 had already been allocated for a feasibility study, and that $9,000.00 was left over from those allocated funds, and that the remainder should be reimbursed to Daytona Beach Community College . (City Council defeated this by a motion of 3-2) The commitment of DeBary’s $1 million would involve a separate Interlocal Agreement, and that commitments from a hotel or other private sector should be obtained prior to commitment. A concern was stated that DAYTONA BEACH COMMUNITY COLLEGE was not a disinterested partner, and that research by an independent firm might have been more appropriate. A motion was made for DeBary to allocate $1 million over a 3 year period of time with, a 10% advance to fund preliminary engineering and architectural design. It was discussed that since the original study was made, there were other projects under consideration in the City, that might better benefit from these funds and that a clear benefit for the City had not been conveyed. Also stated, was there might, or might not, be long term returns on investment, that Council members might change in the interim and have different views than the sitting Council, and that Council had to consider the highest and best use of City‘s funds. In spite of all the facts and concerns, including those deficits that might occur, a roll call vote was held and the motion carried unanimously.

Orlando Sentinel Article 12/6/04: DAYTONA BEACH COMMUNITY COLLEGE will ask County Council for $1.6 million for new center in Orange City . Total cost expected to be about $23.7 million. Supporters expect to apply for $2.4 million in a "super grant" from Volusia ECHO grant. The County donated 37.5 acres along Veteran’s Parkway for a proposed 50,000 square foot facility.

Orlando Sentinel Article 12/17/04: County Council agrees to shell out $1.6 million to help fund a multi-purpose meeting center (In Orange City.)

Orlando Sentinel Article12/31/04: Volusia ECHO advisors to meet soon to determine who is eligible for grants. DAYTONA BEACH COMMUNITY COLLEGE is seeking the largest amount for an "exceptional" grant of $2.4 million, to be received in 4 installments of $600,000.00 each. ECHO advisory committee will discuss how grants will be scored for the 14 applicants.

EDAC Meeting 2/17/05: The Chamber says all partners will have "discounted use" of the facility (whatever that means). A question is raised about the location which will be opposite the Landfill. Mr. Bridgeman (from the Chamber of Commerce) stated that there were plans to shut the Landfill down. (This has been unsuccessfully attempted for many years) The Chamber is planning to relocate to the "new" facility according to Bridgeman. Resolution drafted for support of the project and passes unanimously.

2/22/05 Orlando Sentinel Article: The 9 member ECHO Advisory Committee unanimously agreed that the "Project" was worthy of the Exceptional Grant status, but did not meet the test of having to rank among the top 2 of the 14 grant applications. It came in 7th which automatically downgraded the amount of the grant to $500,000.00 (the maximum for a non-exceptional project.) There were questions about a perceived duplication of services, uncertainty of funds and college’s role in the project. They felt the college would benefit more than the community.

4/13/05 City Council Meeting: Mr. Bridgeman (Chamber of Commerce) explained again that the partners involved in the agreement would have a "discounted" usage fee and that Orange City and Deltona had already approved the Interlocal Agreement. Mr. Gunter voiced his concern regarding future operating costs the City might face. Council member Fulton suggested that quarterly reports be provided to the city by DAYTONA BEACH COMMUNITY COLLEGE , so that the city is not surprised in case of a deficiency in revenues. Mayor Rosamonda entertained a motion to approve the Interlocal Agreement. Mr. Fulton made the motion, which was seconded by Mr. Tillis. Mr. Carson then asked if this would include the property adjacent to Memorial Park. Mayor Rosamonda stated he would like to deal with the property issue separately. Mr. Tillis stated that "the property purchase was included with this Agenda item, so that the property could be secured for an upcoming grant application to be made in the near future." This property that was part of the single-line agenda item was a Skateboard Park . Was the skateboard park part of the Training Center ? Yes, it would be good to have a skateboard park in DeBary but it should not be slipped in as a "rider" like Congress does for their "pork barrel" stuff. It should have been sold on its own merits.

3/11/05 County Council Meeting: The County Council overrides the ECHO Advisory Board and grants $2.4 million as a super grant from Volusia ECHO. Some officials and parents stated they were tired of driving to Daytona Beach for graduations as their reason for commitment. Just how many graduations are there in someone’s life time, and is a 30-40 minute drive all that taxing as to add up to an expenditure of $2.4 million dollars?

9/9/05 : The Operational Agreement is approved and now we learn that the 3 Cities will have to pay any additional operational costs beyond user fees and State money provided to DAYTONA BEACH COMMUNITY COLLEGE . There has also been a cost increase of $6 million dollars before even breaking ground, which comes to a 25% increase (so far). Additionally, the capacity of the auditorium has been reduced from 5000 seats to 3500. So what do we have? Continuous cost increases; but size of facility decreases. A name change to the project, that does not sound like a Corporate Training and Conference Center . Where are the promised hotels?

And what about the new $22 million Civic Center that is being built in Daytona and already has hotel and private sector backing? It was said that DAYTONA BEACH COMMUNITY COLLEGE’s "noted photography programs will be part of this new Civic Center "- a program that was also supposed to be part of the Partnership Center - which is it going to be?

Where does it all end? With flooding problems, inadequate zoning and code enforcement problems, I think our City should look within rather than outside the City to the needs of our City and its residents.

Here are examples that should send red flags flying on why this is a bad idea.

1. ECHO advisory committee scores Cultural Center a low number 7 out of 14 grant applicants. Supporters ran to County Council to have the project qualify for a super grant.

2. County Council overturned their advisory committee and awarded the project $2.4 million super grant from Volusia ECHO. Supporters gave each other high-fives.

3. Peter Matulis, advisory member, who gave the project the worst score, said the center is a “great project” but he thought it would benefit the college more that the community.

4. Council member Gunter has expressed his doubts about this project from the start. He expressed concern that DeBary would have little to gain for the expense that will be incurred.

5. Council member Carson expressed his reservations at the last Council meeting and his reluctance to continue with the project as it has changed from its original proposal.

6. David Bridgeman, Vice Chairman Chamber of Commerce stated that the additional costs created another hurdle to overcome to build the facility.

7. City Attorney Ardaman pointed out that an operations agreement was not included with the inter local agreement; and that there was exposure and risk to the cities involved with this agreement.

8. County Council members agreed to forgo potential revenue in a 4 -3 vote. There were 3 nay votes, with County Council members Art Giles, Jack Hayman and Carl Persis casting dissenting votes. A vote of 4-3 is not what I would call a vote of confidence for the project, especially when it’s been changed so drastically.

9. Art Giles, Council County member, stated “it seems to me that we’re premature in wanting to remove one of the important items in there” (Forgoing revenues from a hotel or other profit making ventures) “Here we want to delete something, even before we have a building on the ground”.

What was initially proposed has been changed, I did not vote on this new deal and neither did you. I would like to know where Councilmen Tillis, Councilmen Fulton and City Manager Coursan stand on the current status of this project, knowing it has been altered after the original vote was taken. It’s a very high price for the taxpayers of DeBary to pay for a facility, let alone a change to a smaller facility with an increase in cost. Simply put: pay more get less. I think many people (you and I included) would feel that there is something wrong with having voted yes to a proposal: only to have large changes made after the vote. The amount of use DeBary taxpayers will receive compared to what the cost will be, does not warrant a yes vote on the changed proposal.

I ask that this bottomless money pit be canceled for the good of the City and its citizens. Time is of the essence. Let’s get out before it’s too late. Let’s cut our losses before they continue to mount and not let our ego of wanting to "play with the big boys" get in the way.

Let’s do it before the "spin doctors" with deep pockets mount their campaigns telling us how foolish they think we are - maybe they don’t have the fortitude to say "NO" to what has become a bad idea - but I hope YOU, our City Council members, will have the wisdom to reconsider this and say "NO."

In closing, we know where Mr. Gunter stands on this venture and last month Mr. Carson said he was dismayed at the changes reducing seating for graduations. Mr. Mayor, we know where you also stand on this issue. So any course of action rests at the feet of Mr. Fulton and Mr. Tillis. It is up to one or both of you to re-consider or not, any disillusionment I've brought before you tonight. Facts do not change if we ignore them or do nothing about them; if we can change something, we should. Of course it is my hope that you will agree with me that this is not the vision I or anyone else voted for; that expenditures are soaring before shovels are pressed into the earth, and that we need to get out of this rut which only differs from a grave by its dimensions

Lenny Marks

Co-Founder of POP

************************************

NEW: 10/21

My Hometown

It’s been over ten years ago since my wife and I moved to sunny and warm Florida to enjoy our retirement. We were looking for a small town with friendly people and an easy, down to earth pace. We wanted to get out of the everyday rat race we lived in for most of our lives; traffic, over crowding, noise: where there was never enough time to cherish the little things in one’s life. We searched other areas of Florida before we settled on Debary. This, we hoped, would be our last great move and we could spend our remaining days enjoying what DeBary had to offer us.

Our dream was to find a place where a small town atmosphere existed, where the houses were neatly kept and the lawns and gardens so easy on the eyes; where tree lined streets would share their shade on a hot summer day; where streets were empty of traffic and that dreadful drone of passing cars was non-existent; where traffic was something that happened somewhere else, and local highways were two lanes; where rushing to get to some destination was not an option; where you could take a walk in the evening and feel safe and have a friendly chat with a neighbor, or just a hello or a wave to someone you didn’t even know; where people are upbeat and happy or even a little laid back; where a smile made a perfect ending to the day; where shopping was nearby, with small quaint shops and friendly shopkeepers, with larger stores and the hustle and bustle a few miles away, but not in our backyard; where the new and old sections of the city could live in harmony, live as one; where when a problem occurred in any part of the City it would become everyone’s problem. A City united. And of course the warm sunny Florida weather, where snow shovels sell poorly.

With acres of woods, wetlands and green spaces surround the tranquil neighborhoods for ones eyes to enjoy; with wildlife and bird sanctuaries being an added treat to enjoy. I wonder how many different kinds of birds and wildlife live in these acres of pure joy. Let’s not forget the world famous St. Johns River, with Debary being respectfully called the “ River City”, with all of its beauty and enjoyment that it shares for everyone’s pleasure. For the countless wildlife that use it’s territory for their homes.

It didn’t take long for us to fall in love with DeBary, all the qualities we were looking for came together. DeBary met all the standards we were looking for and we felt fortunate to find this Mayberry-like city. A lot of people are still looking for their Mayberry, but we found ours right here in Central Florida. DeBary was certainly a great place where people came home from a hard day at work, to relax and enjoy the peace and quiet that is often taken for granted.

We thought we found our “utopia”, but it’s rapidly disappearing. We thought we found our little heaven on earth. We thought we found a place which was all you could ask for. What happened? What happened was poor leadership. With the exception of a few, the rest saw a different vision. A vision of keeping up appearances without any thought or care of what its citizens wanted. What happened was an erosion of trust in our leaders in their vision, having a City Hall or a Park or a Road named after them was more important. We see the future of DeBary as a choice between staying a little like Mayberry or expanding to big city sprawl.

Don’t cry for us DeBary, it wasn’t you who left us, it was greedy City Governments who only heard “cha-ching cha-ching” (the sound of our money) being wastefully spent. And also the people of DeBary, who are not free from blame, because they would not get involved in issues unless it personally affected them directly. We must get away from this “enclave” mentally or we will certainly lose the little town atmosphere that’s left

We hope this trend toward sprawl, school overcrowding, traffic, etc., will slow, and DeBary stay the small town it was promised to it citizens when it became a city years ago. There have been too many promises, and too much heartbreak.

Now with the city winning the lawsuit ( the 600 unit development at Meadowlea) we know that we do have a say in our destiny; unfortunately, we also know that the council members saying that we could not say “no” were unsuccessful in gaining back any trust from the people.

By winning the lawsuit perhaps the scales have tipped in favor of DeBary being once again my hometown.

Lenny Marks

DeBary, FL

**************************************************

As published in Liberty and Law, October 2006 edition with permission from the Institute for Justice, Arlington , VA

Blight?

Same Story Different City

By Jeff Rowes

In a state already notorious for eminent domain abuse, Long Branch, N.J., is distinguishing itself as the worst of the worst. The City is trying to seize beautiful beachfront homes in a middle-class neighborhood called MTOTSA (an acronym for the streets Marine Terrace, Ocean Terrace and Seaview Avenue), so it can hand them over to private developers who plan to make tens of millions of dollars building fancy condos for the wealthy. Just as it has done in so many other cases, the Institute for Justice has joined the homeowners in their fight to save their cherished homes.

The City of Long Branch tries to justify this land-grab by claiming that it is curing urban “blight.” The only problem, however, is that MTOTSA is not, nor has it ever been, “blighted.” Instead, it is a charming collection of architecturally unique cottages and bungalows, some dating to the World War II era. Many of the homes have been in the same families for generations. Today, as throughout its colorful history, MTOTSA is a melting pot, home to everyone from children to retirees in their nineties.

As in any thriving neighborhood, these residents are the heart of MTOTSA. Everyone who visits Long Branch sooner or later bumps into Al Viviano, a 93-year-old retired blacksmith and 60-year Long Branch resident who cheerfully runs errands on his scooter. Or you might see 12-year-old Daisy Hoagland, who won a school essay contest writing about eminent domain abuse, playing with her two little sisters in their yard. Perhaps the most poignant story belongs to 80-year-old Rose LaRosa, who still lives in the home her father bought in 1944 as a tribute to her brother who urged his father to buy the home shortly before he perished in fierce combat in the skies of Europe.

Unfortunately, in Long Branch, as in so many other cities across the country, the rights of people like Al, Daisy and Rose do not count because the City cannot tax them very heavily and developers cannot make big profits off them. Once these facts are understood, it becomes obvious that condemning MTOTSA has nothing to do with eliminating so-called blight and everything to do with the political and financial ambitions of those who stand to gain from destroying this beautiful neighborhood. Long Branch is using government force to replace modest homes with expensive ones and working-class families and retirees with richer people from big cities like Newark and New York.

The MTOTSA homeowners recently suffered a setback when the Monmouth County Court approved the condemnations without even affording the homeowners an opportunity to present evidence in defense of their homes. IJ has now joined them and their local attorney in the appeal and we will stand by them until we have vindicated their fundamental right to be secure in the homes they love. As we successfully did in Norwood, Ohio, we plan to argue that the state constitution provides greater property rights protection than does its federal counterpart under the dreadful Kelo decision. By advancing property rights in Long Branch—which has attracted nationwide attention, most recently on the cover of Parade magazine—we will not only save our clients’ homes, but set yet another important precedent for others in New Jersey and beyond who are fighting their own battles against eminent domain abuse.

Jeff Rowes is an IJ staff attorney.

It wasn’t long ago that “blight and slum” were being bandied about in an attempt to put a CRA in DeBary. As documented on this website, cities taking homes is an epidemic. A rare opportunity arises to protect us from this in the future when you vote on November 7 th. Lenny and I would and will never tell anyone how to vote; but we will be voting “YES” on Question One to ensure present and future city councils won’t take property from one private individual and hand it over to another private individual.

Lenny Marks

Norm Erickson

****************************************************

NEW: 8/13:

TRUTHFUL PROMISES?

At the Council meeting of (8/2/06) it was stated two different times that Debary has had the lowest tax rate in the County since becoming a City.

I felt it was said in a condescending tone and expressed an overall outlook that taxpayers should be ashamed of that fact they were paying the lowest assessment in the County.

Well, I certainly don’t feel ashamed nor should any other taxpayer in Debary. This should be worn as a Medal of Honor by all; City and taxpayer. This low tax rate was accomplished through hard work and financial responsibility by past Councils and City Managers.

If anyone should feel ashamed, it should be the developer; David Rassmussen who was in front of the council trying to get his project approved before the school continuance rule goes into effect. It would be a nice savings for him, and another tax for the taxpayer to pony up. If he and/or others think we should pay our fair share as taxpayers, why shouldn’t he do the same in regards to developing and its impact on schools? We are also one of few, if perhaps the only city, that does not charge impact fees except for a paltry 350.00 dollars for the paperwork fees. Mr. Rassmussen made it a point to say that he wouldn’t get under that line and to take his line of argument he SHOULD pay impact fees if he and others feel we also should being paying our fair share of taxes. He also stated that Debary has had the lowest tax rate in the county from day one of Debary becoming a City. The best thing Winter Park has done for their City is to place a moratorium on building. Once again, growth is the common thread of causing most of the problems that hamper the area.

Yes, we have gone through a period of spending because of the flooding but on the other hand we have not curbed our spending on capitol projects. We can only blame the Hurricanes for some of our problems. It has become the scapegoat for way too many easy answers. It’s time to move on even if it means to bite the spending bullet for a few years.

Now the City Manager is recommending to the Council to approve a 1 mill increase in City taxes.

What for? There is enough money to take care of the infrastructure with what is at hand in the budget, but it appears that there are more capitol projects that some feel must be done right now.

What is a need and what is a want?

Who will decide what a need is and what a want is? Will it be to have more money to spend for capitol projects that are needed or for projects that are wanted by a few?

Just the week before at a Council Workshop the Council agreed to cut as much as it could from the budget so the City can get back to more stable ground.

What happened in the nine days between the Workshop and the Council meeting?

What could make the conclusion and agreement change so drastically from cutting the budget to asking for a tax increase?

Could it be money is needed to fund capitol projects that are not needed at this time?

I looked over the Council members’ political fliers that were circulated before the last two elections and everyone stated somewhere on the flier that they would “maintain the low tax rate” for Debary. Were these promises truthful?

TRUST?

This is why people do not trust government at any level: candidates say one thing and do the opposite. The increase is for capitol improvement, not stormwater, flooding, or, God forbid, to save money into the reserve.

Mayor Coleman fought hard to keep his promise and even suggested a compromise to raise the millage rate to 3.00. Attorney Ardaman made it clear that if that scenario was voted in that the next discussion in September on this matter the Council could go no higher than the 3.00. The motion passed 2 to 1 with Councilman Carson and Lenzen being absent. Fulton, Coleman, and Lenzen could split the baby in half and truly compromise at 3.0 mill.

Councilman Fulton voted “no” right from the beginning and I applaud him for his stance and keeping his promise.

Let’s see how this unfolds at next month’s meeting. Will Councilman Carson and Lenzen keep their word on keeping Debary’s tax rate the lowest or will they start the ball rolling to the never ending solution to all government answers: raise the taxes.

Councilman Tillis, you were on board for the raise before the meeting, according to the newspaper. The argument that we need the money is weak at best. We had the money but spent it unwisely. Now the good folks should dig in deeper so we can do some more of this ridiculous spending. I know because of the City’s appetite for spending it will cost me more to live in Debary. It’s odd that when the City is not cautious how it spends and goes into debt, it’s the taxpayer who must bail them out, yet if I’m not cautious, and go into debt, too bad, pay the piper or live with less. Maybe businesses and politics should not mix because their philosophy is almost the same if you need more money raise the prices or raise the taxes. A big THANKS to you for your vote to raise taxes.

I have gone through as many of the City’s Council Minutes as I could to find any discussion on millage rates. I have posted them for your reading pleasure; be aware it is quite lengthy. It seems that some of our past elected officials tried hard not to raise the millage rate, ever. There even was a time when they were considering giving a tax rebate to the taxpayers. What a novel idea. Now it appears a tax increase is in order. Also if you would like to read some other informative Council minutes look up the City’s Annual Independent Audits. I can’t tell you how many times it says “What great financial shape the City is in.” What happened?

Mayor Coleman and Council do not let what has been suggested happen. It is only a suggestion and not one that best serves the City. While past councils caused the problems, you will only be remembered for raising the taxes.

Vote to keep the millage rate the same, keep your promise. Let’s right the ship before we add more debt and will have to raise tax again and again.

Sometimes we must do the right thing; especially when it’s hard to do.

Lenny Marks

DeBary

This begins the City Council Minutes

FEBRUARY 7, 1996: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 1-2

Mr. Dan O’Keefe of Wynn, Dexter & Sampey, P.A. presented the City’s financial Statement for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1995 and explained that the City was in excellent condition with a fund balance of $896,390 in the General Fund, of which $42,464 was reserved for the City’s new Recycling fund. He reported that upon incorporation, the Council had expressed that it had a goal of having one million dollars in reserves within three (3) years and he felt that the City was well on its way to reaching that goal. Mr. O’Keefe reported that the revenues had been received higher than estimated and the expenditures were lower thus creating such a fund balance. He explained that there was a deficit of approximately $1,500 in the Special Revenue Fund for Street Lighting Districts.

Mr. O’Keefe reported that the audit had revealed no areas of non-compliance. He did provide the following management comments and recommendations; 1) that the City adopt a capitalization policy into law with Council approval; 2) That the City staff follow up on deficits within the Street Lighting District Fund to ensure that special assessment levies were adequate to fund the over expenditures; 3) That all current and future employees sign a statement that they have been made aware that the City has adopted a drug-free workplace policy; and 4) That the budget entries recorded by County personnel be monitored by City personnel and compared to the City’s adopted budget or approved amendments.

Mr. O’Keefe responded to questions directed from the City Council reguarding the financial statements. Mayor Smith questioned if the City needed to be concerned about the impact of Deltona’s incorporation on the City’s State shared revenue sources and Mr. O’Keefe responded thatMs. Miller had take into consideration the decreased revenue estimates during preparation of the FY 95/96 budget.

Mayor Smith asked that a press release be prepared that addressed the Financial Statements that were presented earlier in the evening to report that the City was financially sound. pg 12

SEPTEMBER 3, 1997: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 5-6

City Manager Mauney presented and reviewed two pie charts depicting where revenues come from and what services that revenue is spent on. Historically in Debary from 1993-1994 till present, the tax rate has decreased overall, while the county’s taxes have increased during that time. Because of DeBary,s history of financial management and decision making, they were invited to testify in front of the Legislative Committee on Local Government II and to present to them the Debary Story.

Mayor Smith stated a tentative millage must be adopted tonight. There is a real potential for a 2-2 vote tonight, which means the motion would fail. He would rather lower the millage rate, but because the millage rate must be passed he will reluctantly support what the motion is. At the next hearing, he will be bucking again for a lower millage rate.

Council Member France stated he feels strongly there is an opportunity to lower the rate. There are thirty cities in Florida that have a zero millage rate. That is the target the City should be shooting for. Even if it is only half of one percent reduction, it is something the City should shoot for.

Mayor Smith stated the millage should be lowered as a gesture, as a good precedent for good government and it will show this government is not business as usual. It will also establish the percent with this budget, for future Councils to toe the line.

Mayor Rosamonda moved to adopt Resolution No. 97-16. Council Member Rutz seconded the motion. Upon being put to a vote, the motion was approved by Mayor Smith, Vice Mayor Rosamonda and Council Member Rutz. Council Member France opposed the motion, motion carried 3-1.

SEPTEMBER 17, 1997: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 1-2

Mayor Smith stated he is making a plea to lower the tax rate. It is the gesture that counts. It would show responsible government and that the City has the residents’ best interests at heart.

Council Member Rutz stated the feedback he has heard is to leave the tax rate the same.

Vice Mayor Rosamonda stated he has also heard that feedback. There are many infrastructure and economic development issues that still need to be addressed. Keeping the rate the same makes good business sense.

Mayor Smith stated there will always be opportunities for a City Council to spend money, but there will not be many opportunities to lower taxes.

Council Member France stated ad valorem taxes are not going down because the total millage rate and assessments have gone up. He believes a zero ad valorem tax rate should be the City’s target.

Council Member Rutz moved to adopt 2.5876 as the millage rate. Vice Mayorr Rosamonda seconded the motion. Upon being put to a vote, the motion was approved by Vice Mayor Rosamonda and Council Member Rutz. Mayor Smith and Council Member France opposed the motion, motion did not carry due to lack of majority. Council Member France moved to lower the millage rate to 2.5. Mayor Smith seconded the motion. Upon being put to a vote, the motion was approved by Mayor Smith and Council Member France. Vice Mayor Rosamonda and Council Member Rutz opposed the motion, motion did not carry due to lack of a majority. Vice Mayor Rosamonda moved to recess the budgey hearing until 6:00p.m. on September 24, 1997. Council Member Rutz seconded the motion which passed unanimously.

SEPTEMBER 24, 1997: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 1-2

Mayor Smith stated it is the right thing to do to lower the ad valorem taxes. He thinks government should lower taxes if they have the opportunity. Even though it would be just a gesture, it could make a difference to some residents.

Council Member Rutz stated the City has a lot of future infrastructure and economic development needs. The message we want to send is that the City has done a real good job so far and let’s remain the same.

Vice Mayor Rosamonda stated that there is infrastructure the City needs to improve which may include spending money on water and sewer infrastructure as well. He would rather keep the tax rate the same and not put future councils in the position to have to raise taxes to provide for needed infrastructure. He feels its better to be consistent and make a business decision.

Mayor Smith stated a business decision is spending money wisely and not generating revenue.

Vice Mayor Rosamonda stated the City has sacrificed by only having a three person staff and trusting the contracting system. The City’s merit and reputation stands on that.

Council Member Sullivan stated the citizens he has talked to are satisfied with the taxes the way they are. Looking at what the City has accomplished with the lowest tax rate in Volusia County, he is satisfied to leave the taxes the way they are.

Council Member France stated the ad valorem tax is the most inequitable and unfair tax the City has. He will vote for the reduction of taxes whenever he can. By lowering the taxes it forces the City to be more creative, innovative and to look at other revenue sources. City Manager Mauney has already been very successful with that philosophy.

Vice Mayor Rosamonda stated the City is looking at four laning the southern portion of highway 17-92 and someone will have to pay the interest on the financing of that project. The project guarantees a massive return on the City’s investment. He is sure the City is financially sound, but he’s not so sure the City is financially secure.

Mayor Smith stated there are a lot of things the City cannot do and sometimes it is okay to let market forces take over. By talking about spending money and not saving the tax payer any money, that is government as usual.

Vice Mayor Rosamonda stated you cannot call DeBary a tax and spend agency

Vice Mayor Rosamonda moved to pass Resolution No. 97-18. Council Member Rutz seconded the motion. Upon being put to vote, the motion was approved by Vive Mayor Rosamonda, Council Memberrutz and Council Member Sullivan. Mayor Smith and Council Member France opposed the motion, motion carried 3-2.

JULY 1, 1998: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 6

Mayor Smith stated that he attended a conference in Colorado Springs. He learned at the conference that the City is so right in the way that they are doing business. Most of the problems he heard were related to large bureaucracies that have lost sight of their service to the people. All of their problems revolved around personnel problems and the maintenance of the bureaucracy. The City has been very lucky in that it has been able to do business in this manner since the beginning. Even with the City’s small staff, DeBary is providing more service to the people than the cities with the large bureaucracies. The City needs to think about a possible referendum to change the charter to ensure that the manner in which the City is currently doing business is maintained. One of the authors that spoke at the conference found in his research that what makes an entity better than others is those that have maintained a set of core values. If an entity maintains its core values, it is more adaptable to change. He feels that DeBary has adhered well to its core values.

JULY 29, 1998: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 1-2-3

Vice Mayor Rosamonda stated that he has done a straw poll concerning a possible tax rebate and 99% of the people stated that they would rather see a sidewalk or a streetlight. He feels that they should move forward with setting the millage and talk about the rebate when they get the fiscal year audit report. He feels that the rebates should be passed on through the profits of the previous fiscal year and not the reserve balance.

Mayor Smith stated that the City is doing what they need and want to do with the construction of sidewalks, the paving of streets, and the amount of the reserve. Any government would be envious of Debary’s position. The City is in the position to make the ultimate statement of responsible good government. The City has a low tax and no debt. This is an opportunity to set an example for other governments and to show the singular characteristic of good leadership which is taking care of the people. He asked the Council what they would like to spend $250,000 on.

Vice Mayor Rosamonda stated that there has been a discussion about Fort Florida Road, a municipal sport complex, and the beautification of the new four-laned 17-92. These and many other capital projects still exist in the City. The way the City has been running, the City has been providing a tax rebate or the citizens would still be paying the county tax rate.

City Manager Mauney reviewed the history of the county’s increasing tax rate and the history of DeBary’s lowering of and then maintaining the same low tax rate. The City has been able to provide a full array of services with less tax and the citizens have been satisfied with the level of services. The end product of that is the level of savings the City has realized. The City has five-million dollar budget, which includes the two million dollars in reserve. The City also has one of the highest growth rates in Volusia County. The City is issuing less permits, worth more money, and generating just as much income as other cities that are issuing a larger number of permits. The City has done a fantastic job being a steward of public funds and this would be the perfect time to issue a rebate. The City is in excellent financial condition. Other cities cannot operate like Debary because they already have existing staff, which cannot be undone. If the Mayor and Council choose to do the rebate the time is now. City Manager Mauney stated that if the Mayor and Council choose to spend the money, he can come up with a lot of projects.

Mayor Smith stated that he also has done a citizen poll. A citizen from the Debary Golf and Country Club stated that the City should keep the money. A citizen with three kids stated that the Mayor should fight hard for the rebate, it would mean a lot to the citizen. He ask what would the Council spend the money on without using alternative sources of financing. The City has been very successful with using with using alternative sources of financing. He stated that spending the money would be government as usual. That is not the way DeBary does business. The City takes projects incrementally and looks at alternate means of financing. He does not feel that they need to figure out how to spend the money. This is an opportunity to do something good, very innovative, historic, good for the people, and the ultimate mark of outstanding government. The ultimate mark of outstanding government is when you give people back their hard-earned money. The City has this opportunity which may be a once-in-a-lifetime thing.

Council Member Rutz stated that the feedback he has heard reflrcts that the people are not very keen on the rebates. He feels the rebate is not the route to go. The City is still relatively new and there are a lot of undefined things that could happen. He feels that, collectively, the money would be more beneficial to the citizens than a rebate. Mayor Smith is asking a good question to name the projects that the City would like to do. A list of projects that will benefit all of the City should be developed with citizen and organizational input. He feels that the tax rate should be left as it is and to go forward with some projects beneficial to all citizens.

Mayor Smith stated that he is not asking for much; it is a fraction of the reserve and the rebate would make a monumental statement. The City will increase its reserve next year. He asked what does the City want to spend the money on. The City could do some creative financing in the future for any needed projects.

Vice Mayor Rosamonda stated that the opportunity fund is inadequate. DeBary is a small city with big city expenses. If the City gets a sinkhole, they will spend $500,000 to rebuild that street. Financial security is all about being prepared for the worst. He feels that the public wants consistency. He does not want to put the burden of considering a tax rebate on a future council. He feels that the equity issues concerning the rebate are overwhelming. He would rather put the money in sidewalks, streetlights or a capital asset. He feels that the legacy of this Council is that they have lowered the tax rate. This has been a responsible Council. The Council’s responsibilities include that the city be financially secure today and also for many years to come.

Mayor Smith stated that the City could lower the tax rate to 2.154 which would have the same effect as a rebate.

Council Member Rutz moved to adopt Resolution No, 98-26 with the proposed millage rate of 2.5876. Vice Mayor Rosamonda seconded the motion. The motion passed 2 to 1 with Mayor Smith opposing the motion.

September 2, 1998: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 3

City Manager Mauney reviewed the City of DeBary’s history of maintaining a low millage rate compared to Volusia County’s millage, providing full-city services, and the amount that the City has accumulated in its reserve fund in the short time the City has been incorporated. He congratulated the Mayor and Council on the outstanding job they have done.

Mayor Smith stated that he is disappointed that the City is not on the cutting edge by noy offering a rebate to its citizens.

Council Member France stated that he would like to see the millage go down in the future.

City Attorney announced that the tentative millage rate is 2.5876 with a rollback rate of 2.53441 and the rollback rate exceeded by 2.10%.

Council Member Sullivan moved to approve Resolution No. 98-28. Vice Mayor Rosamonda seconded the motion which passed 4 to 1 with Mayor Smith dissenting.

AUGUST 4, 1999: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 2-3

City Manager Mauney reviewed the effects of adopting the rollback rate on a $75,000 home. If the rollback rate were adopted, it would be a savings of $1.16 per year.

Mayor Smith stated that the rollback rate is 2.56428, which is the millage rate that the City would need to adopt to generate the same revenue as last year. Even though the City is generating only $14,189 in additional revenue from adopting the existing millage rate, the City will have to advertise an increase in ad-valorem taxes. He is requesting that 2.5000 mills be adopted as the City’s 1999 ad-valorem tax rate.

Vice Mayor France stated that the revenue generated from non ad-valorem from non ad-valorem taxes is calculated at a 95%. Generally, the City realizes a better collection rate on non ad-valorem taxes. The City receives revenue funds from the State of Florida. The distributions of this revenue are based on population. He feels that Debary’s population count is being underestimated. He supports a tax reduction. He feels that other more equitable revenue sources may be used by the City.

Council Member Rutz stated that he feels the cost of living continues to increase. He supports the ad-valorem millage rate at its current 1998 rate of 2.58760.

Council Member Allen stated that he supports keeping the millage rate at its current level. The City does not want to increase the millage rate next year to provide better service.

Council Member Coleman stated that he supports keeping the current millage rate.

Vice Mayor France moved to adopt Resolution No. 99-17 with a millage rate of 2.5. Mayor Smith seconded the motion which failed with Council Member Allen, Council Member Coleman and Council Member Allen moved to adopt Resolution No. 99-17 with a millage rate of 2.5876. Council Member Rutz seconded the motion which passed 4 to 1 with Mayor Smith dissenting.

SEPTEMBER 23, 1999: SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 1

Adopting Final Millage Rate or Fiscal Year 1999-2000

City Attorney Rubio read resolution No. 99-25 by title.

Council Member Rutz moved to adopt Resolution No. 99-25. Council Member Allen seconded the motion which passed 3 to 2 with Mayor Smit and Vice Mayor France dissenting.

Council Member Coleman voted in favor of Resolution 99-25.

AUGUST 2, 2000: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 4-5

Resolution No. 00-14 Adopting Preliminary Millage Rate for Fiscal Year 2000-01

Mayor Rosamonda recommended that the current millage rate of 2.58760 be maintained; Council Member Allen recommended the same; Council Member Long stated that seniors in the area were requesting assistance with some type of tax braek; that monies to pay for additional police support of three deputies will have to absorbed by the City.

Mayor Rondamonda entertained a motion to adopt resolution No. 00-14 which identifies that the City adopt and impose the preliminary millage rate of 2.58760 for the fiscal year 2000-2001. Council Member Coleman carried the motion, seconded by Council Member Allen, and Resolution No. 00-14 was adopted unanimously.

SEPTEMBER 6, 2000: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 6

Resolution No. 00-16 Adopting Millage Rate for Fiscal Year 2000-01

Acting City manager Yaskanich stated the rollback rate was 2.47995 and that the proposed rate of 2.5876, which is the current rate, is 4.34%increase; that Mayor Rosamonda was in favor of the current rate which meant a $50,000 increase to the City; that the City is picking up additional services which amount to $50,000+ such as Sheriff and Fire Services increases.

Mayor Rosamonda asked if there was any public input on this resolution. There was no public input.

Vice Mayor France requested that the City Council review the difference between the rollback rate and the current rate and find a way to reduce the rate.

Mayor Rosamonda entertained a motion to adopt Resolution No. 00-16. Council Member Allen motioned, seconded by Council Member Coleman, and resolution No. 00-16 was adopted unanimously.

AUGUST 1, 2001: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 11-12

Adopting a Perliminary Millage Rate for the Levy of Ad Valorem Taxes for 2001 and Setting Date, Time and Place of Tentative Budget Hearing.

City Manager Diamond stated that the Resolution was to establish a preliminary millage rate for the next fiscal year, as the Council was required to do; that they were to announce that the rollback rate would be 2.50746verses the current millage rate of 2.5876; that they were required to announce the dates of the public hearing on the budget; that the first hearing was September 5, 2001, the second hearing date was September 19, 2001 both at 7p.m.; that the Council has received the numbers comparing the difference of revenues received for the current rate verses the revenue to be received by adopting the rollback rate; that if the Council wanted to go with the current rate, based upon TRIM requirements, as required staff would advertise a tax increase although the rate would remain the same, and that the City Council could lower tonight’s adopted millage rate but could not increase the millage rate over the preliminary millage rate adopted tonight.

Mayor Rosamonda stated that he would prefer that the rate stay the same.

Council Member Long stated that he would prefer that the rate stay the same.

Mayor Rosamonda entertained a motion to adopt Resolution No. 01-13 adopting a rollback rate of 2.50746 and setting the date of the first budget hearing for September 5,2001, at 7 p.m. Motion made by Council Member Allen, seconded by Vice Mayor France Motion carried 4-1 with Council Member Long dissenting.

SEPTEMBER 5, 2001: REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 10

Adopting a Tentative Millage Rate for the Levy of Ad Valorem Taxes for 2001 in the City of Debary and Setting Date,Time and Place of Final Budget Hearing.

City Attorney Ardaman read Resolution No. 01-14 by title and announced that the City is proposing to adopt the rollback rate and that the final budget hearing will be held on September 19 th at 7:00 pm at Florence K. Little Town Hall at 12 Colomba Road.

Vice Mayor France moved to adopt Resolution No. 01-14. Council Member Allen seconded the motion which passed 4 to 1 Council Member Long dissenting.

SEPTEMBER 4, 2002 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 7

Adopting Tentative Millage Rate for the Levy of Ad Valorem Taxes for Fiscal Year 2002-2003 and Setting a Final Budget Hearing Date.

City Attorney Ardaman read Resolution No. 02- 20 by title. It was discussed that rollback figures were given by the County; that the adoption of a final millage rate was required by September 18, 2002 and the final budget hearing would be held at approximately 7:00 PM. Mayor Rosamonda announced the rollback rate and the percent difference between the rollback rate and the current. Mayor Rosamonda entertained a motion for to retain the current millage rate. Motion was made by Vice Mayor France. Council Member Long seconded. It was discussed that there would be opportunity for rollback rate in the future. The motion carried unanimously.

SEPTEMBER 18, 2002 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 1

Adopting a Final Millage Rate for the Levy of Ad Valorem Taxes For Fiscal Year 2002-2003.

City Manager Diamond read Resolution No. 02-26 by title. It was noted that the current rate was 2.50746; the roll back rate was 2.4336; and the City would receive the same amount of revenue as the previous year if the roll back rate were adopted. Mayor Rosamonda entertained a motion to approve Resolution No. 02-26 to set the current millage rate as the rate for the next fiscal year. Motion was made by Council Member Long. Council Member Coleman seconded. The motion carried unanimously.

SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 3-4

Adopting Tentative Millage Rate for the Levy of Ad Valorem Taxes for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 and Setting a Final Budget Hearing Date.

City Attorney Ardaman read Resolution No. 03-13 by title. It was discussed that the final budget hearing date would be held on September 17, 2003 at 7:00 PM at Florence K. Little Town Hall; that the tentative budget was based on the current ad valorem tax rate of 2.50746 which is 27.7% greater than the roll-back rate of 1.96281; that the tentative millage rate would generate approximately $2.6 million in revenue the next fiscal year, which was an increase of $675,000 over the current year's budget revenue; that it would generate $568,633 over the amount that would be generated at the roll-back rate; and that the ad-valorem tax rate in the City had never been increased, but had decreased in the past ten years.

William Mantz, 12 DeBary Drive, discussed that he had issues with his property tax bill; that it had tripled since last year; that he was uncertain of the reason for the recent increase on his proposed tax bill. It was suggested that Mr. Mantz bring the bill to City Hall and they would review it for any errors or changes.

Motion was made by Council Member Carson to approve Resolution No. 03-13. Council Member Allen seconded. The motion carried unanimously.

SEPTEMBER 17, 2003 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 2

Adopting a Final Millage Rate for the Levy of Ad Valorem Taxes for Fiscal Year 2003/2004.

City Attorney Ardaman read Resolution No. 03-18 by title. It was discussed that this was the final budget public hearing; that the current millage rate was at 2.50746 and the rollback rate was 1.96281; and that it appeared to be the consensus of the City Council to maintain the current millage rate as there would be substantial capital improvement projects occurring in the near future. It was also discussed that the final annual operating budget could not be approved until a millage rate was adopted.

Raymond Whitaker, 147 Delespine Drive, asked for confirmation that the City was currently debt free and the millage rate was proposed to remain the same; that in effect, taxes were increasing by approximately 3% per year due to the increase in property values; and that City revenue funds increased yearly; that he felt that the City should not raise taxes. It was discussed that DeBary’s millage rate was substantially lower than surrounding communities; that the City was determined to invest in the future; that costs for City services continued to increase due to population growth; that the millage rate had dropped over the last ten years; that major improvements to sidewalks and roads were scheduled this year; that facilities to encourage younger persons and families were being constructed; and that drainage was being improved including the area at Delespine Drive and Highbanks and Highbanks Road.

Mayor Rosamonda entertained a motion to adopt Resolution No. 03-18. Motion was made by Vice Mayor Coleman. Council Member Gunter seconded. The motion carried unanimously.

JULY 21, 2004 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 6-7

Adopting Preliminary Millage Rate for the Levy of Ad Valorem Taxes for FY 2003-2004 and Setting a First Budget Hearing Date.

City Manager Diamond read Resolution No. 04-16 by title. It was discussed that the millage rate for the current year was 2.50746; that the Property Appraiser provided information that the taxable value for the City of DeBary was $1.2 billion; that market values had increased; that the rollback rate was at 2.42979, and if the current year millage was adopted it would be advertised that there was a 2.4% increase over the roll-back rate; that, once set, it was unlikely that the millage rate for the coming fiscal year would be changed; and that previous discussion had directed that the current rate would be retained.

It was noted that Budget discussions would be held at the August 11, 2004 meeting; that there was a time limit to notify the State of the maximum millage rate; and that there would be opportunity during the Budget workshops to reduce the rate if so desired. It was discussed that a brief budget discussion should be held; that there were concerns with funding sources for scheduled capital improvement projects; that it was anticipated to utilize grants and financing over the five-year period; that there would be interest charges if financing was used; that anticipated Parks and Recreation costs might be higher than anticipated; and that waste removal would be included under a new contract which was up for bid.

There was discussion that construction would be started on Community Park in Spring or Summer 2005; that there was a provision in the bid that the funding was dependent on City Council approval; that the overall concern was that the funding would be available for the Capital Improvement projects; that a number of projects were already underway and had reduced the carryover amounts; that to retain reserve levels, it was anticipated that financing would be required; that a down payment would reduce the interest costs; that some projects might have to be put off to future years for additional funding; that there would be additional discussions at Special City Council Meeting July 21, 2004 6

workshops; that projects could be phased in; and that the funds available to future City Councils had to be considered.

Mayor Rosamonda entertained a motion to approve Resolution No. 04-16 setting the preliminary ad-valorem tax rate for 2004-2005 at the current rate of 2.50746. Motion was made by Vice Mayor Coleman. Council Member Allen seconded. The Mayor announced that the first Public Hearing for the 2004-2005 Budget would be held September 1, 2004 and the second Public Hearing would be on or about September 15, 2004. The motion carried unanimously.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING pg 7-8

Resolution No. 04-24 Adopting a final millage rate for the levy of ad valorem taxes for fiscal year 2004/2005

City Attorney Ardaman read Resolution No. 04-24 by title. Mayor Rosamonda entertained a motion to approve Resolution No. 04-24. Motion was made by Council Member Carson. Council Member Gunter seconded. It was discussed that the millage rate would remain the same as the previous year. The motion carried unanimously.

AUGUST 3, 2005 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MINUTES pg 6

Adopting a Preliminary Ad Valorem Tax Rate for FY 2005/2006.

Mr. Ardaman read Resolution #05-18 by title. Mayor Rosamonda entertained a motion to approve Resolution #05-18. Motion was made by Council Member Tillis. Vice Mayor Gunter. seconded. The motion carried unanimously.

Mrs. Courson proposed that the Budget Workshop be held on one Saturday from 8:30 to noon. The Council agreed to August 13 th at 8:30 a.m. Mayor Rosamonda asked the Council if they could reschedule the September meeting to the 6 th. The Council agreed that they would have the first budget hearing and regular meeting on September 6 th and the final budget hearing on September 21 st.

Mr. Ardaman advised Mayor Rosamonda to amend the approved motion to approve Resolution #05-18 to change the date for the first hearing to September 6, 2005. Motion was made by Council Member Tillis. Vice Mayor Gunter seconded. The motion carried unanimously.

SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 Regular City Council Meeting pg 2

Adopting a Tentative Ad Valorem Millage Rate for FY 2005/2006.

Mr. Ardaman read Resolution #05-23 by title. Mayor Rosamonda entertained a motion to approve. Motion made by Council Member Carson and seconded by Vice Mayor Gunter.

Motion carried unanimously.

September 21, 2005, Special City Council Meeting pg 6-7

Adopting a Final Ad Valorem Tax Rate for FY 2005-2006 – Second and Final Public Hearing.

Ms. Tebo read Resolution #05-30 by title. Mayor Rosamonda stated that the City’s current millage rate of 2.50746 would remain the same. Mayor Rosamonda entertained a motion to approve. Motion made by Vice Mayor Gunter and seconded by Council Member Carson. Motion carried unanimously.

***************************************************************************

NEW:

Observations:

We here at DeBary POP have given consideration to a link on this website for the upcoming 2006 county elections which would also include the school board elections. Over the next couple of days I will be sending emails to the candidates running and invite them to write an open letter of 200 words or less explaining their vision and platform.

During the last DeBary election five citizens were responsible for bringing together a forum for 2 debates called "Meet the Candidates". We will not be doing that this year to my knowledge. While it may have served a purpose, the process was exhausting; it is unknown if we will do a debate next year for the two seats up for bid: Vice Mayor Fulton and Councilman Tillis.

For myself, I am waiting for the judgement on the Costa development at Meadowlea. I believe it could come out this week and if it comes out for our side...well...oh my...I thought we couldn't say "NO" to growth? Vice Mayor Fulton has said more than once that "something" will be done with that land down by Meadowlea...yeah...like maybe Costa will have to develop at 1 per 5 acres like how he bought the land. Or the city could offer 2 per 5 acres and DOUBLE what he currently has. We're not telling Costa that he can't develop there...we're just saying he might have to develop there per the zoning that he purchased it at originally..SHAZAM! . And then the buffer at the town center of 50 feet which was a deal Costa made with a prior council only to come back to this council to try and sweeten the deal and have it reduced to 25 feet to save money. NO, Vice Mayor the reason to deny this request is NOT because oaks need 50 feet to grow, it is because this is the deal Costa set up already and he is now trying to re-negotiate. Councilman Lenzen hit this on the head. I'm getting sick and fu**ing tired of these developers buying land and making deals only to return at some point in time to demand or threaten to sue for more. It is happening at Springview where a deal was made for 168 units and then the land was sold. Now a plan is being put forward at the next meeting on 8/2 for 195 units. It's like buying a standard edition car and returning it in a year and demanding an upgrade to a limited edition.

We have no money. We paid 900,000 for a borrow pit that at one time we could have had for free; now we can't even use it to get the water pumped there as the Westside Stormwater plan is on hold. Partnership Center? 1 million that we can't get back and leaves no smiles on our faces. Have they turned shovels yet on that project? As costs go up, that project will shrink like...well...lets keep this website as clean as we can.

That's all for now...but hey...who started that fire?

Norm Erickson

************************************************************************

I offer these two observations:

1. This past week's headlines about County Councilman Bill Long and Vice-Mayor Patrick Fulton;

2. The fact that when this website started Vice-Mayor Fulton called us "frankly obnoxious".

P.S.

Fulton and Long both call themselves victims. The real victims are the
citizens of DeBary and Volusia County who have to read this sad trash
every morning over their Shredded Wheat. And now young people can't
even look up to local officials as role models...I know this because of
my conversations with my high school students and their comments on what
is happening in our county: "Adults biting each other?" "Vice-Mayors in
bars at 11:30 on a Monday night?" "Mr. Erickson what's going on over
there?" Even I am left speechless.

Both should resign, go elsewhere and resolve it;

And I'm only talking about what HAS been reported...God knows what's been broomed to the
side as a courtesy to the politicians.
While rumors should not be taken seriously, any rumor I've heard about
these two end up being reported in the newspaper...Rod Serling where
are you??

Meanwhile, we have real issues not being reported and time taken away
from growth, flooding, and the Costa development...we don't have time
for the drama...and as a finale: Hurricane Season!

Perhaps personal relationships are an integral part of running for
office because when they go sour, the public has to deal with the frustration and shame.

Speaking of which, how many people are complicit in helping to cover up past acts yet unknown and look the other way?

TRUST?

Are they expecting us to believe that this behavior JUST started
happening last June? And what about last June? Long has told Mike Lafferty that it was Fulton who "whooped his ass." Will Long now bring
charges against Fulton? Can he?

While these two go at each other through the press, we have a city to
save from high density growth and flooding. This is an election year
with city charter and bond issues to discuss.

Meanwhile, we'll get some heavy handed sermons from Fulton on issues
such as "right" and "wrong"; "law" and "ethical behavior"; whether we
as citizens are "following the Sunshine Laws" or not. Making sure we
are on the legal path of truth and justice and moral behavior.

Instead of writing a few paragraphs on these less than heroic acts, I
could be taking Mr. Watts to task or commenting on the Silent
Assassin...I almost miss the days of "blight and slum" and "CRA's" because at least then we were talking about issues and not last night's activities.

"An indiscreet man is more hurtful than an ill-natured one; for the latter will only attack his enemies, and those he wishes ill to; the other injures indifferently both friends and foes."

Addison

And that's a postscript

Norm Erickson

***********************************************************************

SHAZAM!

City Council takes a huddle and comes back with no game plan

by Norm Erickson

I was eating my oatmeal in the morning when it hit me like a visit to the proctologist: the city council had a special closed meeting to discuss what to do with Empire Cattle and yet at the Workshop Meeting they had absolutely no clue what they were doing. They didn't negotiate at all. They did not present a united front; what was the executive meeting for?! In fact it was Watts that was spinning things his way. What's going on? Even if they can't say no, at least negotiate like hell...

They took a huddle at the executive meeting yet came back to the scrimage with no plan. What's going on? Because of Sunshine Law the council is not able to talk about what they want to do unless it is in public; but then we had the executive session and it seems like it was a waste. Perhaps because some members want to say no and others dont' think they can...but I don't know.

I can't wait to see the stenographer's notes when they are made public.

********************************************************************

SHAZAM!

The City Realizes that THEY Need US

by Norm Erickson

I was innocently looking at the newspaper this morning and as I turned the page and read the article, it hit me like a thunderbolt in my Cheerios: the city wants to spend 20,000 dollars of my money to find out how to sell me on a project to spend more of my money. The city wants to educate us on the stormwater referendum that will be on the ballot this November. Their first approach to educating us was the following thesis, support, and argument: Vote “YES”. That might work in an Orwellian world or a Brave New World but it doesn’t play in Peoria or DeBary.

The city wants to bring in professionals to do it right. Fine. No problem…as long as they let the professionals do their job without nitpicking them to death.

However, was the city interested in educating us about the streetlights, big pots, or the new location of City Hall which will go for 5-7 million when it is all said and done? Are they interested in US educating THEM on how we feel about high density growth projects like Alexandra Woods down by Meadowlea? And now we have a Walgreens coming to town when one is less than two miles away. The developer has spent over two million dollars on the land and so I can only assume that he doesn’t need any waivers or ordinances or easements. That is to say, I’m sure he wouldn’t buy the land first and then ask for changes and permission from our council. And if he does just that, will the city seek us out to ask us if we want a Walgreens in our town at an already busy intersection?

They sure weren’t interested in educating us about the CRA that they tried a couple of years ago. All over the minutes it says that they should have involved the public and they didn't. And to go off on a tangent here: If the CRA had gone through, it would have given developers the right to take homes because they had been declared blighted; this is happening in Daytona as we speak. Well, if developers came in to do that, would the city have fought them? Or would they do what they are doing with Costa and Watts: “They have the right to do it and we can’t say no.” Hmmmmm….and they didn’t think the CRA was such a bad thing. Alexandra Woods impacts our quality of life in various ways; why are they asking us to borrow 10 million dollars to cure an obvious emergency problem like flooding while still entertaining residential projects of such density that they now know, or perhaps they don’t, cause flooding? If YOU want 10 million, then I want a moratorium on growth until the flooding problem is taken care of. I know government, given three choices, will always say “yes” to all of them: cure flooding, build high density projects that cause flooding, and build a new city hall.

I’m insulted that the city now wants to educate us and talk to us since they need our vote to do something THEY want. But when they DON’T need our vote to spend gobs of our money on whatever items: nada, nothing, zippo. In addition to hiring a public relations firm, why don’t they roll their sleeves up and get creative? Aren’t they learning how to communicate to constituents at these conferences they are going to? Why don’t they get out there and sell it personally as they did themselves when they ran for office? Make signs, knock on doors, make little buttons, and so on. They can’t brainstorm this up on a Saturday morning over coffee and donuts? Why do they have to hire someone to explain THEIR plan to us? Don’t they know the strong points of their plan and an ability to convey it to the citizens of DeBary? They could use this website, the first in DeBary to bring citizens together to discuss and debate issues. Will they? We’ll see.

All of this is peripheral to the issue of the stormwater bond issue itself. My position: if the project costs 20 million, then borrow 20 million and do the project; don’t borrow 10 million and HOPE that you will get the difference in grants. Councilman Lenzen has the guts to say that the project will cost 20-25 million; hell man, then borrow it and get it done ASAP…people are flooding out here. If you do get money from grants, then put it toward the loan. Why only borrow enough to do half the job? What if we don’t get the grants? What if it takes too long? What if we start these projects and don’t get the money? So, as the bond is asking for the 10 million, I am not for it and apparently the city is taking this seriously enough because they are getting a campaign going to sell us on it.

Secondly, before this is presented to the public, I want to see a Plan B. What if it doesn’t go through? What if voters say “no” to this bond issue? Councilman Lenzen has asked the same question and I agree with him. In real life we always have to have a Plan B in case the first fails. We have our Vice Mayor on record twice saying that if the citizens say “no” then sometimes government has to do it anyway even if the public doesn’t want it.

Shazam!

Lastly, I don’t know if the council can pull off handling the money, keeping it separate, and getting the job done. I guess it comes down to TRUST. And as this website has documented…TRUST has not been the trump card of this or past Councils ( aside: actually, I think the real trump card has been the Queen of Diamonds from developers, attorneys, and these much attended conferences to a couple of our councilmen ala The Manchurian Candidate). Witness the change in the Comp Plans, Future Land Use Map, and that we’re being told you can’t say no to the Alexandra Woods project when we know they did three years ago because of density. We’re going to spend millions on a city hall location that was never voted on. This is the city council and staff that are just now realizing that impact fees can help pay for all the stuff THEY want (city hall, parks) but don’t need OUR vote. Just learning about impact fees? What are they talking about at all these great conferences? We have our Vice Mayor talking to Watts not in full view of the public and telling his own council that they can expect a lawsuit since they didn’t support what he and Watts brought to the council.

I’m not going to unduly use the power and influence of this website to overturn the wishes of the city. But I will write in and deliver my opinion. I encourage others to do the same: to agree…to disagree…and/or to tell me to take a long walk off a short pier.

*************************************************************************

I sent this to the News-Journal but I haven't seen it yet.

I usually enjoy Ms. Hasterok's articles, but on this issue I had to write in and take exception to a few items. First, "legislators are not flanning the flames of citizen anger" they are listening to us and our anger over cities taking advantage of Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRA) to take homes not "land" as Ms. Hasterok says. Secondly, cities are not "being portrayed as house-hungry deomons" they ARE house hunting demons. All over this country cities and counties are taking perfectly good homes for public purposes or public good but not for public use as the Constitution defines. Lastly, "governments don't like to use eminent domain." I agree, they like to use CRA's to take homes at the tax assessed value rather than the market value. People in Florida aren't reacting to eminent domain they are reacting to the abuse of CRA's. If we could trust our elected officials, we wouldn't be going through this. People do not want growth, their quality of life diminished or their homes threatened with being taken. Why these sentiments of citizens is lost on Ms. Hasterok and this paper's editorial staff is a mystery to me.

Patrick,

Below I've quoted your weekly update which I appreciate; however, your updates have become a forum for your personal views. They are no longer just a review of general happenings in the City. And I don't think it is very nice to paint the entire City Council - except you - as being incompetent. Moreover, I don't know how you can lament wasting money on lawsuits against developments that will increase traffic and school population, decrease environmental habitats, and possibly promote flooding in Meadowlea while at the same time say the Partnership is great and you support it while it is a money pit waiting to be filled which it never will be.

We had to pay TWICE for the failed retention pond that was constructed improperly; we had to pay TWICE for that 700 feet of piping that was never put in; we've payed tens of thousands of dollars for the pots that no one really ever wanted; If we're going to spend boo-koo bucks on something, it should be to fight FOR the quality of life that our comp plan calls for which is the small town atmosphere. Bringing up lawsuits on the record and possibly inferring that we'll lose is not good...next Costa will want you to be their witness.

People do not want growth. There are many arguments to be made to keep growth at a minimum like the 1 per 5 acre if the council has the fortitude to do so; as Mr. Langely said, citizen input IS evidence if this goes to court and who knows how it might turn out. There seems to be an incredible amount of deference paid to Costa for some reason.

Lonnie Groot, City Lawyer for Palm Coast was quoted in the paper as saying that ownership of property is not a RIGHT to rezoning and if it is, then why has Costa been paying agricultural tax on his property rather than the rezoned tax rate he wants or as some might say he already has?

The people do not want growth. The council did a great job at the last meeting in saying no to it as much as possible. But it seems that you are trying to broker a deal that no one wants except Watts, Costa, and, perhaps for some reason, you. Why? Why?

Lastly, it was reported in the paper that Bill Long does not receive your weekly updates. Why is that? He represents our city and I would think that he would want to know what is going on at the meetings and in our city.

A copy of this letter will be posted on the website. If you want to respond at the website or to me personally, I will be happy to post it. Of course, you need not respond at all.

13.Last nights City Council Meeting
Wednesday nights city council meeting was shall we say amazing and historic. With all the city council meetings I have attended since our city's incorporation (nearly 13 years worth) I have never seen a council set up the city and tax payers for so many lawsuits in one night. I've already been told by two attorneys that this is their next move and we have one resident who will no doubt sue us as well. The resident will lose his case (butÂ WE the tax payers will pay through the nose to defend the city), but the city will lose big over the other two cases. I was informed today that we will refrain from funding some previously budgeted items due to the anticipated costs of the suits.

14. Partnership Center
The City Council elected not to vote on the partnership center Operations Agreement (OA) - so essentially it didn't pass. I totally support the Partnership Center and we desperately need facilities in our region for various programs such as graduations, various shows, conferences, etc. etc. However, there were too many problems with the OA. One of the biggest is we would be stuck with an unknown debt for the next 40 years. If we had the ability to cap that debt so we could at least know what to budget for. We also would have no say on spending and we would be financially responsible for everything from marketing to capital improvements. I just can't, in good faith, justify the city and the tax payers writing a blank check for the next 40 years. I must say this is an awesome project and it will benefit everyone in west Volusia - I honestly wish things were different.

1. The four pots at 17/92 and Highbanks look good. They are balanced and pleasing to the eye. Where they are elsewhere in the city they are not balanced nor are they spaced evenly, thus creating a "crooked" picture sensation upon viewing them. Lets keep the ones that work and move the ones that don't.

2. I'm still waiting for the signs to our city to be discussed at a city council meeting. This will come from Streetscape and the decision to keep "River City" may or may not be discussed. Will five people make this decision? Will they invite the public to comment? Does the public even care? I would like to keep it the River City. We have several businesses that use River City in their signage; even the embroidery business owned by Mrs. Gunter has a steamship on the sign thus denoting our historical ties to the river. It will be interesting to see how this is handled...because when it is on the agenda, it will be so convoluted in its description I doubt that even I will know when it is being voted on. If I hear something, I will let you know.

3. I would like to know who put Vice-Mayor Fulton in charge of lead negotiations with the Alexander Woods project. If anyone can explain this to me, please write in and use simple words so I can understand. I don't like how much time he is spending with the developers and trying to make deals and then prophesize about doom and gloom lawsuits if we don't follow his lead. In addition, it is total Barbara Streisand that developers get hours upon hours of face time with councilmembers both at the city and county level yet the common citizen gets three minutes. No one put more time, effort, and energy into his duties than Patrick, but I think Carson is so busy working and comfortable enough with his decision about the issue that it works to his advantage by not having the time nor the inclination to meet with developers.

4. This website will NEVER tell anyone how to vote. We can.....but just because we can doesn't mean we should. With great power comes great responsibility. We truly are here to educate and promote discussion; if you disagree with what is written here or hate the site, write in and we'll print it. Kudos to Maryann for admitting that perhaps she made a mistake; too few people do that anymore and I find it refreshing when I see it.

5. The Stormwater Referendum: Why not borrow 20-25 million instead of the ten million and hope we get grants and subsidies? If we get extra money, use it to pay off the debt of the full amount to do the whole job. I don't know where I stand on this issue and what I really wonder and fear is what if the people vote it down? What then? Well, Vice-Mayor Fulton is on record twice as saying that they just might have to go ahead and do it anyway even if the people don't want it. Shazam! Jack Lenzen wants to come up with Plan B if it doesn't go through and I would like to know the same just in case the people do not trust the city with this kind of money and responsibility.

6. If we've gone to court over things like State Farm and the Stewart Marchmen debacle, then we damn better go to court to protect our quality of life in terms of traffic, overcrowding schools, enviromental concerns, and quality of life...oh, did I say that twice...yeah...I thought I did.

Have you ever made a purchase only to find out the product you purchased was defective? To solve the problem, you returned the item and received another, or your money was returned. This does not ring true when it comes to government screw ups. It doesn’t matter if it’s local or national government.

Let’s look at the drainage system on Saxon Boulevard, where someone drilled holes into the piping. The problem was discovered by the Volusia County construction engineering department who stated, “It could have been one of several different utilities, we contacted them all, but none claimed credit for it.” The estimated coast $187,000 for the taxpayers to pony up again. Why isn’t the county going after the one’s who are responsible? Why are the one’s who are responsible not going to pay the bill? I guess it’s easier to let the taxpayers pay again than to let the responsible party own up to their mistake. How about dividing the cost between the utilities who were working in the area when the problem came to light.. Let them fight it out and see who comes up the winner or loser.

Let’s look at the large retention pond at the corner of Highbanks Road and Enterprise Road. After months of citizen’s complaints about the retention pond leaking and flooding their property, and weeks of nerve racking aggravation attempting to get whoever was responsible for the problem to finally admit and eventually have the leaking pond repaired. I’ve made inquires about how much the repair work cost the taxpayers. No one had an answer to that question. So the taxpayers paid for the job not once, but paid a second time in which no one knows or wants to say what the final cost will be. I’ll take a wild guess let’s say over a million dollars. Maybe that will bring an answer from someone in the know. If not, maybe over a million dollars is close to being right. What gives, no one held responsible. No matter what, the taxpayer will dig in and pay again.

Let’s look at the pipe missing in a retention pond at the Reserve in DeBary. If it wasn’t for the hurricanes and the flooding we still would not know the pipe was not installed. Who was the construction company who contracted the job and more important who was the inspector who signed off on the job? This costly venture is now in litigation but I believe that the taxpayer will end up paying for some part of this debacle.

These are just three incidences where the taxpayer ( the best friend of the politicians) has to reach deep into their pockets to pull out their hard earned money to pay for something twice. If anyone knows of any other cases of taxpayers paying twice for a project that went awry, let us at DEBARYPOP know so it can be documented.

It’s strange you rarely hear of anyone being held responsible. Just think what that money could have done to fund other important projects for us. Not only are governments a “not for Profit” organizations they are adept at taking us to the brink of bankruptcy. Hell, it’s not their money. What a waste, what a waste.

At the risk of being accused of beating a dead horse, I think it's worth repeating some of the things that our representatives on the County Council are doing - at our expense. We don't read all the newspapers

But some of this appeared in the Sentinel, Beacon and News Journal.

YOU WOULD THINK....

that someone who's been garnering negative publicity these past few months would do his best to avoid activities that would add even more negative publicity to his tenure as County Councilman. And since Mr. Long represents DeBary at the County level it reflects back to this City.

YOU WOULD THINK.....

that Mr. Long would know better than to go off on business/convention junkets with a "bunch" of other County Councilmen at taxpayer expense.

YOU WOULD THINK.....

someone as astute as he is would shy away from corporate freebies (Progress Energy luncheon in Tampa with the Usual travel, etc., expenses tacked on) when Congress is trying to put a stop to lobbying and its inherent problems.

YOU WOULD THINK.....

Mr. Long would think twice about taxpayer dollars spent at Daytona Racetrack - ticket, entertainment, etc.

YOU WOULD THINK.....

he would think twice...even three times after all of the above happenings - about going on the Washington, DC junket with the same cast of characters. All 5 Councilmen, the largest group of any County in Florida, and the interim City Manager made reservations to attend. While Mr. Long had made reservations he did not go due to the fire investigation. Maybe the rest of Volusia County taxpayers should be looking at what their representatives are doing.

YOU WOULD THINK....

someone among the 5 Council members would have enough skill in listening to speakers, picking up brochures/documents and disseminating this information to his fellow Council members on his return.

YOU WOULD THINK....

there would be a twinge of conscience among them - particularly after the Hawaii trip they all went on - again at taxpayer expense.
And I am not picking on one person, Mr. Long.....because.....

YOU WOULD THINK.....

THE CHAIRMAN OF THE VOLUSIA COUNTY COUNCIL would have the courage and the conscience to say "enough already, boys.." and select ONE member to go to these affairs and report back. Rotate them - draw straws - low card out of the deck. Anyway you want. At least show the constituents you care about how the Council spends their money and that they aren't in office just to see how many places they can visit during their term in office. We do it with the Debary City Council. One Councilman will go to Washington. You can always "pull rank" and pick the best trip for yourself. But please, no more mass exodus' hither and yon at taxpayer expense.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know if you all are having the same experiences that I'm having, but it seems like I can't open the paper and see some type of article on growth, managing growth, and growth getting out of control. I'm here to say that unless people get up off their asses and go to meetings to voice their opinion and write into papers, growth will bury this city and state. We're at the tipping point, like when you've had one too many at the table, you're on the back legs of the chair and it is ready to tip backwards.

I am happy to say that lately at the city meetings I've seen more citizens turning out and speaking out about various problems. They are bringing their concerns about flooding, growth, water use, enviromental concerns, etc,. This is encouraging.

Has the Daytona Beach News-Journal editorial staff been bought off by developers? I ask this because once again they are arguing for the taking of private property to be given to another private entity. On 3/7/06 they have an editorial on Ormond Crossing wherein they explain that this is a case where eminent domain is useful and people reacting against it do not understand how it can be used for economic development, which brings manna from heaven to those of us below and saves the world.

Faulty premise: The News-Journal argues that eminent domain is important when used as a last resort. Well, I know this will be a bolt of lightening in the News-Journal's Cheerios, but eminent domain is not being used as a last resort. It is being used to take homes away from people in the most irresponsible manner. If governments and developers all over the country had been using it responsibly, we wouldn't have the national outcry against it like we do. We wouldn't have cities, counties, and states changing their charters to protect themselves before developers and elected officials take their homes away.

False Comparison: The News-Journal talks about eminent domain as if it were the same thing as a Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA); it is not. Eminent domain pays fair market value and CRA's do not. If the people are not for the eminent domain, the government must fight them in court and pay the costs; they do not have to do this with CRA's. A CRA was created in Ormond Crossing. Eminent domain was not used. Eminent domain is for public use, which means peole use the road, hospital, etc,. CRA is for public purpose, which is to increase the tax base, bring in businesses, build condos, etc,.

But the paper's headline reads: Clear public purpose in eminent domain. They are not the same thing. Now either the News-Journal doesn't know that, they know it and are blurring the lines to set up their argument, or both; I would go with both.

I will say that it takes some real testicular/ovarian fortitude for an editorial board to consistently and conspicuously take a stand against private property protection with arguments based either on ignorance, intellectual dishonesty or both.

Why they do this I do not know. Maybe they can write in to our website and explain it to me like I'm seven.

We haven't talked about the city hall since Rumors was knocked off the agenda and the city started wondering if they could get the land from the county on which to build the new city hall. This was back in October 5th, 2005. No talk at a city meeting since then has concerned city hall. Now all of a sudden we have architects, drawings, and agreement from the council, though I don't remember a vote, on where city hall will be. They didn't decide on the site for the city hall; they left it up to the county council on whether or not we could use the land; it was approved, so the city went with it without a formal vote. At best, they made it contingent on the county's decision, which is another way of abdicating their power to decide to another entity. Afterall, you can only table something so many times. Did they clear it with the citizens? Are they going to ask THEM where it should go? The DeBary Motel site was the best location with beatiful renderings presented by Tom Smith who made it a point to SAVE the large oak trees and incorporate them into the vision. If I didn't think it was the best idea, being the gadfly that I am, I would certainly say so. It could have started the revitalization of downtown--and this is coming from me--the guy against development of almost any kind. Now we're going to have a car wash across the street from city hall and you know what I say? GREAT! I'll be taking my cars there. I still have a fear that future city councils will want to access the new city hall from 17/92; we'll just have to stay awake at the meetings to see if this is tried in the future. My prediction is that at some point they will want to try and buy up those businesses to have city hall encompass that entire corner of the firehouse; I hope I'm wrong.

Lastly, it seems a tad askew to ask the people if the city council can borrow 10 million to fix such an obvious problem as stormwater but they won't ask them if they want the city council to spend 4-5 million in 2006 dollars on a city hall, which will probably rise with inflation to 6-8 million before we get shovels in the ground.

So we ask when it is 10 million for pumps and underwater pipes, but not 5-8 million for our city hall? Is it me or does that seem bass-ackwards? And if stormwater costs will go to 20-25 million, why borrow 10? I dont' know if I trust the city with this kind of responsibility and it will be interesting to see how the people vote on it. But a couple of quotes from Vice-Mayor Fulton concern me. The first comes from an email he sent out on 1/13/06 discussing this website and it reads thusly:

" They (debarypop.com) make "trust" an issue with our Council - I think we have done an excellent job listening to the people - However, sometimes government has to do what's best for the people even if they don't agree. Ultimately, It's what is best for the citizens and the community as a whole.. not the loud minority. "

I'm still not sure if by "loud minority" he meant us or the council. Also, given the fact that in only two months we're fast approaching 15,000 visitors to this website I'm not so sure we're in the minority. What a voice the citizens will have when elections roll around...but I digress.

Only a politician can say we'll listen to the people but overturn their vote if they make the wrong choice. That would be like saying we are against eminent domain for economic enrichment only to fund the League of Cities who are for eminent domain for economic development...oh...wait a second..they DO do that.

The next quote came from a budget workshop on 2/25/06 wherein the referendum on stormwater was being discussed and whether or not the people would vote for such a large loan reaching 20-25 million dollars:

This was heard by citizens who were present at the meeting as well as the press and the council members. Frankly, I was surprised to hear such a tone. If that is the case, then why vote at all. Reminds me of that saying, if voting meant anything around here, they would make it illegal. Secondly, how is that listening to the people if on the heels of that sentiment is the hard line of overturning their vote? Sounds like the urban growth boundaries vote wherein 73% of the people voted for it only to have it overturned by a judge in a suit brought forward by the Volusia Home Builders Association (News-Journal 1/22/06).

The notion of expanding the city charter's borrowing terms was for capital improvement projects NOT to solve stormwater issues. A little bit of rewriting history has been occuring. Parks and the campus style city hall were the reasons initially for increasing borrowing limits in the city charter not solving stormwater issues. Councilman Lenzen is asking the right questions in exploring the budget and how this stuff is going to be paid for. He would not be doing his job by asking these questions in the hopes of educating the public.

The last thing I will mention here, that is not in the article, is the way in which the meeting was run. The word is, I believe, egregious.

Look what is happening in Orlando: The Science Center is facing a financial meltdown with a huge deficit and the only way to correct the problem is with money, taxpayer’s money, and lots of it. First, Brian Toner, director of the Science Center, “unveiled a yearlong, $100,000 independent study on Monday that calls for a revamped science museum. But it comes with a hefty price tag -- $12 million to $18 million in capital expenses alone. The plan also calls for more money from local governments to prop up its operating budget of about $5 million”

Last year Orlando contributed $600,000 and Orange County $200,000 to the Center. But Mr. Toner says he needs more – “about $1 million a year from local governments and the money needs to be guaranteed”.

Is their not a common thread that ties the Orlando Science Center and the Partnership Center? Those threads being the need of taxpayer money to support and keep the projects going. It’s the thirst for the taxpayer’s money that has our system going out of control. Whatever our elected officials want, whatever their visions may be, it’s the taxpayer that foots the bill. Obviously there are projects when the use of tax money is necessary; the Partnership Center is not one of those projects.

A trend has developed with our city council of taking the easy way out. If they had to choose between three items, they would undoubtedly choose all three as they are not capable of making the hard choice which would most benefit the community while keeping a strong fiscal policy. The order of business today is the easy way: get it all and damn the taxpayer.

Last week in Deltona Mayor Mulder and Commissioner Zenaida Denizac made a hard decision and said no to the additional funding to the Partnership Center. Now it’s time for the Debary Council to also make that hard decision and say no thanks. The reasons to say no certainly outweigh the reasons to say yes. The Council should not place the Debary taxpayer into the irrevocable position of paying for the Partnership Center with an unknown future. The cost of building has skyrocketed and the annual fee is not certain. The possibility of becoming another Science Center is almost certain.

Please Mayor Coleman and City Council, not with the DeBary taxpayer’s money. Put the asked for $1,000,000 into the city flooding problem.

Three times now the Daytona Beach News Journal has come out in favor of government taking people’s homes. When the CRA was being debated in DeBary, they were for it; when the City Charter Committee recommended language protecting people’s private property, they were against it and said the committee was reacting to a conservative scare tactic; now that the state is looking to tighten up protection the News-Journal wants to loosen the grip before tension even begins. I’ve yet to see their editorial on Riviera Beach where 6000 people, mostly African-Americans, are being forced out of their homes to make way for new growth, which is on the water, of course. Click on the Castle Coalition for daily cases of eminent domain abuse. Click on the Eminent Domain/Growth link on this website to read about local issues of abuse and Lenny’s article on responding to the News Journal about the last time they did this.

Below is the News Journal’s editorial with my comments in red…they are in red for obvious reasons.

Florida lawmakers are poised in the 2006 session to make it harder for governments to condemn and buy private property for redeveloping blighted areas. Yet they should be wary of knee-jerk reactions to the New London, Conn., case in which the U.S. Supreme Court supported the right of that city to use "eminent domain."

First of all, eminent domain is different than creating a CRA. The paper is responding to an issue that the people are not, so that is the first problem. People are not fighting over the Fifth Amendment they are fighting over the abuses of the Fifth Amendment in creating CRA’s. What is the difference? I’m so glad you asked: in eminent domain the government must pay the fair market value while under a CRA only fair value must be paid. The difference? Fair value is tax assessed value NOT market value. Big difference. Either the paper doesn’t know that or they are being selective in their wording. Which is it? This is setting up a “straw man” argument wherein the paper is making an argument for something that the people aren’t arguing against in the first place. The people are against taking land from one person and giving it to another person for economic development. So much of this editorial would make you think the people are against eminent domain in any fashion; not the case.

Following the decision last June, some extreme property-rights groups began fanning emotional reactions nationwide. That has helped create the false impression that governments can come in and take property without just cause. That's not what the court said. Rather it said state laws prevail so long as they meet the Fifth Amendment requirements that land be used for public purpose and the owner be paid "just compensation."

The Fifth Amendment says public “use” not public purpose. The Supreme Court agreed with public “good” not public “use”. Public “good” means it increases the tax base of the city. Public “use” means that everyone benefits because it is a road, school, hospital, etc,. It is not a false impression that government can just come and take people’s property…they can and do exactly that. Just ask the residents of Riviera Beach. If the court says that state laws prevail, and state laws allow governments to take people’s property, then a false impression has not been committed. Only the false impression that this editorial can string a sentence of reason together.

Further, Florida laws are far more restrictive than Connecticut's. Before local governments in this state can claim private property, they must undergo extensive negotiation with the owners to reach a fair price. If agreement is not reached, a city or county must go through lengthy and costly legal steps before it can force a sale. And then, a jury -- not the government -- determines the final selling price.

They are far more restrictive?! This is just bullshit. If it is so restrictive, how could our city have thought at one time to include our whole city within the CRA? Then they reduced it to 22%. The definition of blight is so unrestrictive it invites governments taking people’s private property. Again, look at Riviera Beach: 2000 homes…gone! There was a case of CRA abuse in Ohio covered on 60 Minutes where if a home did not have a two car garage and central AC, they were deemed blighted. Restrictive? Again, the paper here is talking about eminent domain NOT CRA’s which are the threat that people are responding to.

Still, a number of bills before the Legislature would severely restrict the use of eminent domain. At the same time, a special House committee is studying ways to tighten Florida's property-rights laws.

In deliberating, state lawmakers should not impose so many restrictions that cities are left without sufficient means to condemn properties that are truly detrimental to the community. Cities, for instance, should be able use eminent domain to tear down eyesores that have become havens for criminals. They should have the means to redevelop deteriorated commercial business districts, not just because the tax base would improve but also because it would improve economic opportunity and the quality of life for the city as a whole.

They did have that power until they started to use it against their own people to take their homes. So now the tide has turned where the people don’t TRUST their government with that kind of power. So, no, they should not have that power because when they have that absolute power they are corrupted absolutely and who ends up getting screwed? THE PEOPLE.

Any changes to eminent domain laws would likely come through the 15-member House Select Committee to Protect Private Property Rights. The panel, appointed by House Speaker Allan Bense and chaired by Rep. Marco Rubio, is nearing consensus on what it might recommend to legislators.

Members agreed philosophically that local governments should continue to have the power of eminent domain. Most likely, the panel will propose more stringent standards for its use. Under consideration, for example, is revising standards within redevelopment areas so that the local governments must show a threat to public health or safety -- above the current justifications that relate to slum and blight.

The panel might also recommend that cities and counties present the courts with more comprehensive evidence to support the need for eminent domain in redevelopment areas. And it might seek property-tax relief for homeowners who are forced to move to more expensive houses.

There is little controversy in Florida for the use of eminent domain to allow construction of roads, utilities, airports, etc. The issue is with redevelopment areas, where property has been taken to build private developments that include public uses. While there may be room for tightening definitions, legislators should bear in mind that without eminent domain, a single property owner could block redevelopment that improves a community, including adding public parks and entertainment. Cities and counties should not be left without effective tools to rebuild deteriorated areas.

Private developments with public uses? Yes that is the issue and the paper seems to be arguing that you can kick middle class to poor people out of their homes to make way for the rich. Justice O’Connor realized that this was a class issue as well and it is mostly the middle and lower classes that are affected by these decisions. A single property owner should be able to block a redevelopment that wants a park or entertainment area. If people want true entertainment, I suggest they attend their city council meetings…not take people’s homes for it.

At the 2/15/06 Special City Council Meeting there were only two items on the agenda: the proposed development at Meadowlea and the reviewing of city charter resolutions; however, after the second agenda item was finished, conversations wandered elsewhere as they are want to do. The need for direction on Highbanks Marina’s residents and how much time they should have to get building permits seemed to become, on the face of it, a third agenda item that had not been advertised. Moreover, City Manager Maryann Coursan had actually called in to the Assistant City Manager Anthony Gonzalez to have this issue resolved. When did she call? Could it have been put on the agenda and advertised? If not, then hold it two weeks until the next meeting. I understand that issues need to be discussed and resolved and only in full view of the public; but fairness also needs to be observed and it seemed like this crossed the line.

I felt that this was wrong and went to the podium to say as much. This seemed to be a separate agenda item and that residents from the Marina were not present to give their side of the story and what would be beneficial to their needs and quality of life. Highbanks Marina residents would be directly impacted by this decision that was coming very close to a vote.

This is why citizens need to stay until the end of the meeting because one never knows what is going to be discussed or perhaps even voted on. It is also the reason why a stop time needs to be passed in resolution form, through the city charter, or by policy so that citizens can hear all of the business that the city is discussing that may impact them. If citizens know that the meetings will end at 11pm, then they will stick it out to hear it all; in the very least they will know when it will end. In addition, this also is the reason why the council and staff need to learn how run a meeting. Robert’s Rules of Order needs to be adopted in some fashion as it encourages the efficient running of meetings and has done so since 1893, which, in and of itself, attests to its value and enduring importance.

If you leave early, you just never know what is going to be discussed. This time is was about the Marina residents; the next time, it might be about you.

"It will take three or four months for the architect to complete the drawings," Kent Sharples, president of Daytona Beach Community College, told partners Tuesday. "But until we have the operating agreement approved, we won't turn a shovel of dirt."

So the cities involved can cut checks for millions of dollars of your money with an unapproved operating agreement, but the college won't get into the deal until it is approved?! What the hell is that? Something tells me that if the operating agreement is changed to where overrun costs are split more fairly between the college and cities and the college has to take on more financial responsibility, they might not ever want to turn those shovels.

It seems that they are more protective of their constituency than our elected leaders are of theirs.

I was at the Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC) meeting last night (2/16) only to find out that the Partnership Center will be discussed again with the EDAC in the future. The agreement will be gone over and perhaps they want another vote of confidence and have it sent to the city council. It reminded me of a saying I once heard: you can't make chicken salad out of chicken shit. I'm looking forward to their responses to the concerns raised by so many. I hope they are prepared to defend their vision as we've spent a million dollars on a project that has changed names and purposes more than I care to remember. We could have used that million dollars for flooding problems in the city or save it for future emergencies. Vice Mayor Gunter had this project pegged a long time ago and while not enough listened to him then, perhaps enough are on board to prevent more money being pitched into this money pit.

If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again. Then quit. No use being a damn fool about it.

It’s not very often in life that a second chance is given, but Debary’s Mayor and City Council have been given this rare opportunity. The West Volusia Chamber of Commerce is looking for more funding from the taxpaying public. They’ve had a hard time raising enough money, so now they want more tax payers’ money. Debary has other priorities; flooding problems being number one, a new city hall, and few other projects that should be taken care of before the “Partnership Center”. Another million dollars to a project that has very little to offer the taxpayers of Debary is way out of order.

Once again it’s the Partnership Center (not a true partner for Debary). The Center went from $23 million to $30 million which is a 25% cost increase, yet incredibly it was reduced in size by 30% just a few months after the initial approval by Orange City, Deltona and Debary. The cost will continue to escalate. The possibility of coming back for more money is not out of the question, and the Center may have to be reduced to the size of Debary’s City Hall. Orange City and Deltona have pledged an additional $1.5 million each bringing the total for Orange City to $3 million and Deltona to $3.5 million. Next in their sights is Debary for $1million on top of the already pledged $1 million. Oh, by the way if operating costs exceed the states contributions, the three cities will make up the difference year after year after year. It won’t be the gift that keeps on giving it will be the gift that keeps on taking.

The West Volusia Chamber of Commerce is acting like a group of panhandlers with their hands in the taxpayers’ pockets. This is the same group that when the ECHO Grants rated 14 projects in order of need and importance, the partnership center came in 7 th. However, just like spoiled children that do not get their way they whined to a higher power (County Council) to overturn the results of the findings and had it made eligible for a super grant from Volusia County. The ECHO grant would have given the project $500,000; the super grant would bring in $600,000 annually for four years.

I’m sure West Volusia Chamber of Commerce will have a lovely group of offices built they’re at the tax payers’ expense, with little cost to themselves. Build your own; don’t get it through a handout from the public.

If my children acted like they did, I would have spanked them and sent them to bed. It’s a shame that in today’ society we reward bad behavior.

They are championing this endeavor for the Daytona Beach Community College, the three cities mentioned above, and of course themselves. Now they want further commitments from the three cities. What some will do to get their way. Why should we reward their bad behavior? Next time I see a panhandler I may think he works for the West Volusia Chamber of Commerce. Please get your hands out of the taxpayers’pockets; try raising your membership dues? Doubtful.

If the Chamber of Commerce feels that this is a regional need, then put it to a referendum and let the people be heard; after all, it is their money you will be spending on this for a long, long time.

I hope the City Council will borrow one of the shovels, dig a hole, and give this project a proper burial.

The following articles were in the same paper on the same day. It seems the Partnership gets an “A” while it is bogged down in trying to figure out how to run it. I bolded choice words to bring out the irony in the articles. While it is expected to seat 3,000 people for graduations, it was “expected” to seat 5,000 people when this was first sold to DeBary’s Economic Development Advisory Committee (EDAC); therefore, it would not be impossible for this number of 3,000 to be reduced once again at some point in the future.

Deltona officials followed the course Monday set by Orange City and agreed to take a leap of faith -- committing extra money to further the Partnership Center, a long-sought multipurpose community center.

A joint project of Deltona, DeBary, Orange City and Daytona Beach Community College, the center will benefit southwest Volusia by providing a venue for conventions, cultural events and large community gatherings. Operating details have yet to be hammered out, but by committing additional funds now, the two cities paved the way for DBCC to secure a $3 million grant toward construction costs. Though the two cities expect the additional commitments to be reimbursed eventually, local leaders say it is a good idea to act now rather than wait as construction costs rise.

ORANGE CITY -- A $23 million joint project is at a standstill until business, city and college leaders decide how to operate a new multipurpose center.

The center, to be built in Orange City, is expected to seat 3,000 people for high school graduations and special events.

Officials from the college, cities of Deltona, Orange City and DeBary, and the Chamber of Commerce of West Volusia spent three hours Tuesday morning discussing an operating agreement.

Officials asked for a draft of the agreement by Feb. 17 so elected officials can vote the next week.

I tried to send a response to Sandra Wilson about her "My Word" editorial supporting the actions of our former Mayor. However, I instantly received a reply stating that Ms. Wilson only receives emails from pre-approved senders. As president of the Art League this surprised me, but maybe I'm naive. In any event, instead of filling out her form so I can send her an email, I just decided to put it on this website as my editorial. Here is my response to her editorial which follows my email.

Ms. Wilson, Yes, the Mayor upheld and gave support to the Art League of which you are the president. But to use that to color over how he tore this city apart with the attempt of trying to create a CRA that would last far beyond his term of office and put homeowners' property at the mercy of developers is not telling the whole story. Would developers ever take our homes? Who is to say? People in Daytona and around the country would say "YES!". The mayor's vision was kept secret, was not shared with the citizens, and in most cases his vision did not gain support with his own councilmen. 900,000 dollars for Rumors which would be used as a driveway? The mayor wanted to turn DeBary into Winter Park, Heathrow, Lake Mary, etc,; that is not vision...that is cookie cutter development. Look at the lights, the crosswalks, the village overlay requirements: they are seen all over Central Florida. If imitation is the highest form of flattery, then theft is the lowest form of creativity or "vision". A mayor's vision needs to be shared with the citizens who are going to have to live with the vision for the rest of their lives. Mayor Rosamonda did not do this. What the mayor was successful at was irritating enough people like myself to get involved in the city's actions. I'm glad DeBary has an art league for its citizens. But just because you got funding for it, doesn't mean that the mayor had "a good vision for DeBary." Norm Erickson

OPINION MY WORD

Mayor upheld DeBary arts center vision

Sandra Wilson

January 29, 2006

In reading Mike Lafferty's Jan. 19 summation of Mayor Carmen Rosamonda's service to DeBary, I felt his column was not quite on the mark.

It's true that many, if not most, of the mayor's intentions for the city were not achieved -- at least, not at this time. The work of a visionary is to see what can be in the future and set that vision in motion, which I think Rosamonda did.

Before Rosamonda took office he volunteered for one of the first fundraising efforts of the newly established DeBary Art League, to build a center for the arts in DeBary.

One of the first things Rosamonda did as a new mayor was to meet DeBary Art League members at a picnic at Gateway Park. There, he shared with them his vision, which included a center for the arts. He pledged his loyalty to that effort and promised assistance from the city to achieve it.

That was not an easy promise.

The quest of the Art League was not a popular subject among council members at that time. In fact, it seemed an impossible promise to some, but it was achieved. In 2004, the DeBary City Council agreed to a 50-year lease at Gateway Park to be the home of the center for the arts.

A year later, the council pledged $100,000 as a grant match to build the center. The mind-set of the council members was changing. Their efforts are the building blocks to achieve a reality from what was once only a vision.

The shifting vision of the city center to a public high school at Dirksen Road and U.S. Highway 17-92 was not initiated by Rosamonda as Lafferty's article implies.

It was the landowner himself who directed the Volusia School Board's attention to the property. Plans for the "city center" included prime property to be donated by the landowner for a center for the arts.

Nevertheless, Mayor Rosamonda saw the negotiations with the School Board as a final opportunity for DeBary to have a high school, and he favored that opportunity over the city center and the arts center.

Had the circumstances of the property, its location and limited size been different, who would have argued it as a worthy substitute?

Rosamonda also succeeded in establishing a partnership between the city and its not-for-profit organizations. The city and its organizations now work together to make many successful community events possible.

Some things Rosamonda envisioned may have slipped away, but not all. Some things have been set in motion to yet accomplish.

He kept his promise to support a center for the arts and provided the building blocks to achieve it. What happens next is left to those who take his place.

The thing to remember about Mayor Rosamonda was that he dared to dream a good vision for DeBary, and he left the possibility to achieve it.

Sandra Wilson is chairman of the board of the DeBary Art League.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Once again, the West Volusia Chamber of Commerce, at their annual Mutual Admiration Society meeting, have given a variety of awards to some well-deserving and some not so well-deserving “special” people.

Case in point is the tri-city Mayors, being awarded for “helping bring the West Volusia Partnership Center to Reality”. (This is the most recent name). There is no reality, no ground has been broken, no final plans have been made and there certainly is no final cost. The partnership between DeBary, Deltona and Orange City was written so badly that they want to rewrite the agreement and see if they can get the three cities to agree on it.

Commissioner Michele McFall stated that “I am hoping (the issues) can all be worked out because this is good for the community” and “I think the Partnership Center is an example of something that’s never been done before”. She is right, it’s never been done before, but at what cost to the taxpayer? As for the issues to be worked out I ask, “How can an agreement that will eventually cost the taxpayer millions be written so one side that, if it would have passed it would have gone down as buying the Brooklyn Bridge”? For Debary to commit one million dollars, and then have to make up any deficits, if they occur every year, is way out of order. This is a win for some, but not for Debary. Any monies that exceed state funding, such as electrical, air conditioning, heating, utility bills or whatever else, Debary will have to pay for. How could anyone say this is a good deal when electrical companies have just received a 19% increase? One of their talking points is that parents are tired of traveling to Daytona Beach for graduation ceremonies. That’s a weak argument because they would not give a second thought to go to the beach for a day, or go to the attractions, which are at least twice as far. The amount of money this project will cost compared to the use the taxpayer will get out of this Center, will be a staggering figure. If the taxpayer would use this facility five times in their lifetime, it would be a lot-a couple of graduations, maybe a concert, but not to tax millions of dollars for this privilege. So the question is: who will be the true beneficiaries of this project? I hope you don’t think the taxpayer?

If you read carefully through the agreement, you will find this to be just another bottomless money pit. The primary beneficiary will be the Daytona Beach Community College.

7. When City officials pay no attention to the taxpayers and do as they pelase, vote them out at the next election;

9. When you ask a question to a city councilman, don't walk away; stay there and gently demand an answer;

Do your share. Do not let others do it for you. Follow the rules above and you can take back your City.

At last night's City Council meeting City Attorney Ardaman stated that the City does not use Robert's rule of order to oversee their meetings. I was taken aback by his response so I look in the City Charter and found out he was right.

What I did find in the Charter was Sec. 4.12. The Council shall determine its own rules and order of business and shall provide for keeping a journal and minutes and votes of its proceedings. The journal and minutes shall be public records.

I strongly recommend that Robert's Rules of Order be placed in the City Charter so everyone including the Mayor and Council know what is going on. When you make up your own rules confusion is what you get and business is more difficult to complete. We must all stay on the same page.

Update: The Likakis Erickson Marks (L.E.M.) Institute has found out through further investigation that the DeBary City Council does indeed follow Robert's Rules of Order. This was instituted under the mayoralship of Don Smith. More specific information will be forthcoming.

AFTER HEARING ABOUT THIS I ALSO HAD SOME CONCERNS SO I WENT TO GOOGLE SEARCH FOR ROBERTS RULE AND FOUND A WEBSITE AND ASKED WHETHER OR NOT A CITY HAD TO USE ROBERTS RULE OR NOT - I WAS CONTACTED BY MR CALLOWAY OF PARLIAMENTARY STRATEGIES AND TOLD THAT MOST CITIES DO USE THE RULE OF ORDER BUT IT IS NOT ILLEGAL NOT TO DO SO. HE SUGGESTED THAT I CONTACT OUR CITY AND SEE WHAT BOOK OF RULES THEY WERE OR WERE NOT USING. I SPOKE TO MARYANN COURSON AND FOUND OUT THAT ON 12/9/1993 "MAYOR SMITH RECOMMENDING UTLILIZING ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER AS A PROCEDURAL MANUAL TO CONDUCT CITY COUNCIL BUSINESS. CITY MEMBER LITTLE MADE THE MOTION TO ACCEPT SAID RECOMMENDATION; SAID MOTION SECONDED BY CITY COUNCIL MEMBER RUTZ CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY." FOR SOME REASON THIS WAS NEVER ENTERED AS AN AMMENDMENT TO THE CHARTER WHICH I FIND UNUSUAL. MARYANN SAID SHE WOULD CONTACT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO MAKE HIM AWARE OF THIS FACT - DOES THIS MEAN WE NEED TO RESEARCH EVERYTHING THAT WAS EITHER SECONDED OR NOT FROM DECEMBER 1993 TO DATE?

From Norm Erickson: Why this is not in the city charter I don't know. Apparently Mr. Ardaman was not aware of this when he made his statement. Perhaps a round of Robert's Rules of Order for everyone is in order. Meanwhile, another look at the process for selection of Vice-Mayor may be in order as it may not have been legitimate.

If we're not following Robert's Rules of Order, then what rules ARE we following?

And how would the people know if they (the Council) are following the rules or breaking them?

Will this be the year? The year the citizens of DeBary become part of the decision making process regarding how their tax dollars are spent?

The year the “new” City Council will be more concerned with the needs of DeBary and the need to communicate better with its citizens? The year to reinstate a feeling of trust to the people who elected them.

Mr. Coleman had a year to sit in the audience among the people without Council influence; and hear what the people really wanted and what they were concerned about. And Mr. Lenzen can bring a fresh voice to the proceedings and with a little luck this Council can start to get us back on the road to earning their trust.

Why should we even have to write about trust? Unfortunately we do because past governing bodies have shown a callous disregard for the needs and desires of the people who elected them— both business and residential. And it is only in the past few years that enough people have become aware of what has been going on and began to voice their concerns. So here are some of the reasons why.

They have attempted to slip through multi-million dollar projects on a number of occasions. Their lack of concern for the people is shown by the comment-“If they want to know what’s going on, they should come to Council meetings.” But when they do, they find the “people’s business” is at the end of the agenda. Who can-or wants-to stay past 10, 11 or 12 am to get to the meat of their concerns? A classic example of this attitude is the passing of a 1.3 million dollar expenditure just short of 3am. Who was there to question it? And the way it was worded would make Congressional Pork Barrel experts smile. It was for “the City’s share of the West Volusia Training and Convention Center and Skateboard Park.” The Skateboard Park was a piece of land on Dirksen and had nothing to do with the Convention Center.

A year or so ago, thousands of dollars were spent to get a CRA put in DeBary. The first time the people heard of this was when it was due to come up for a Council vote. Luckily, both the business and residential community raised enough questions to delay the vote. For instance, why was 20% of the City declared a “slum and blight area”? However, the Council persisted on trying to pass this and it took the hiring of a lawyer and a massive protest by the citizens and the business community to defeat it. How close did we come to eminent domain? Very. In spite of Council protestations that “we would never do that”.

City Hall. Instead of planning to create a City Hall that would serve the needs of the City AND the people, thousands of dollars were spent on plans and designs that would never see the light of day. It became personal and aesthetic decisions and the public be damned. For example, how can one justify the expenditure of 900,000 dollars for what was finally acknowledged to be a driveway that would lead to one of the proposed locations for City Hall? And by the time additional nearby properties were bought, the cost would have exceeded 3-7 million dollars.

The latest chapter is that the County Council did allow the land behind the current Town Hall to be used to build the new City Hall. That was decided on December 7 th. The next day at 6:30 in the morning Councilman Fulton sent out an email with an attachment of the preliminary plan for DeBary City Hall. On the attachment is the date 11-11-05. Who authorized these drawings? How was that done so quickly yet people are still flooded and/or having contaminated water flowing into their homes?

How does one grant 250,000 dollars to the Streetscape Committee which was an ad hoc committee that for all intents and purposes had never held a public meeting? After questioning about who and what they are, they were forced to be declared a “Committee” which required them to meet on specific dates and times just like other Committees.

These are but a few of the things that have taken place in the last few years. Some problems began four and five years ago and are still not resolved. SO, let’s hope the current Council will not only be more fiscally responsible with the Taxpayer’s money, but also will pay more attention to the problems and needs of DeBary before getting mired in grandiose projects.

There are many strange and mysterious places in this world of ours. The Bermuda Triangle, the shifting sands of the Sahara Desert, Stonehenge and the Monoliths on Easter Island, to name just a few. Here in Volusia County we have our own, it’s called the bottomless pit. Here are some of the projects that we tax payers will end up feeding the bottomless pit.

For example, let’s take the Partnership Center , getting ready for construction in Orange City , that started out at a cost of more than $23 million. Today, it is projected to cost a mere 25% more with a 30% reduction in size, with not a shovel of dirt being moved. What will it cost when the project is completed? Not to worry, the taxpayers will fill the bottomless pit.

Next we have the new Orange City High School, originally budgeted at $40 million, the new estimated cost, $70 million and climbing, with construction to begin in April 2006. Not to worry, the taxpayers will fill the bottomless pit.

Spirit Elementary School original bid in 2003 was increased by 18% increase in July 2004. Not to worry, the taxpayers will fill the bottomless pit.

Elementary School X in Orange City was estimated at $14 million, under construction, to be completed March 2006. What will be the final cost to us? Not to worry, the taxpayers will fill the bottomless pit.

Middle School DD in Orange City , was estimated at $26.8 million, construction to begin March 2006. What will the bottom line cost us? Not to worry, the taxpayers will fill the bottomless pit.

Elementary School Z in Deland, was estimated at $17 million. A building site has not been selected. Who will pay the cost overrun ? Not to worry, the taxpayers will fill the bottomless pit.

Elementary School Y in Deltona, was estimated at $17 million, scheduled to start in April 2006. Cost overrun!!! Not to worry, the taxpayers will fill the bottomless pit.

Middle School HH and High School FFF, in Deltona, no estimate on final cost. What is the bottom line? Not to worry, the taxpayers will fill the bottomless pit.

High School HHH in Deltona, no estimate on final cost. What will it be? Not to worry, the taxpayers will fill the bottomless pit.

All figures were taken from an article printed in the Beacon December 1-4 2005 edition.

The cost overruns on new schools are mostly contributed to construction costs. All new schools are designated with letters because no names have been assigned. To place this burden on the taxpayer shows the system we have now is out of control. It seems that who pays is not the question, we already know that. But how a certain select group will get their way at taxpayers’ expense.

I could go into the over cost of the Ocean Center, Voltran and a few more money- sucking projects that have cost the taxpayer immensely, but I can hear something on the horizon that will make all of this seem like a walk in the park. Can’t you hear it; it’s coming closer and closer. It’s the train whistle tooting for the light rail system. Present cost allotted at $478 million. By the time the taxpayers get to shovel tax money into that bottomless pit, it may surpass $1billion. That’s right; it could get up to $1 billion. Not to worry, the taxpayers will fill the bottomless pit.

Mike Lafferty had a wonderful column in the Orlando Sentinel on December 1, 2005 titled “You want to help subsidize racing, right”? (Click on Newspaper Articles on this website to read Lafferty’s article). In his article, he points out how the Florida Marlins, Jacksonville Jaguars, Tampa Bay Lighting and the Miami Heat all professional athletic teams, and even the International Game Fish Association, all receive corporate welfare checks paid by, you guessed it, the overtaxed taxpayer. Now Daytona International Speedway and Homestead-Miami Speedway are lining up to get in on some easy money. This is already costing Joe Taxpayer millions, what’s a little more.

DeBary is not far from giving Corporate Welfare to its own business property owners- (not a business renting space). The Economic Development Advisory Committee voted 4 to 3 to give matching funds for signage and exterior repairs to privately owned buildings with no ceiling limit. Let me see now, a person who owns a business collecting rent and making a profit, should have the tax payers pay for half of certain improvements with no limit to the cost. Years ago, the limit was $5000, and then was changed to $2500; now there is no limit. Not a bad deal.

There is legislation that allows this to be done. It may be the law, but that does not mean that it’s right (just look at eminent domain). The people living in Orlandia Heights, Dutchman’s Bend, and a few more areas that have been denied any help because they live in PRIVATE AREAS. So now, at tax payer’s expense, this city may help commercial property owners to improve their private property along the 17-92 corridor. Not to worry, the taxpayers will fill the bottomless pit.

Stay alert to how our elected officials are spending our hard-earned money. Remember, for all of the above-mentioned projects, the money is generated from the pubic, through our taxes. Don’t be fooled when they say it comes from grants (your taxes), fees, levy, tariff, etc. It’s all from or a form of tax. We must make leaders accountable for spending our tax dollars and not letting them go on spending sprees. They must do a better job on making hard decisions and learn how to do without.

This first editorial has to do with what was NOT in the Daytona Beach News-Journal: recommendations for mayor and councilmen in our last election. The newspaper came out for candidates in a number of cities but not DeBary. Why? Why would they recommend candidates in so many cities but not DeBary? We’ve had flooding issues, eminent domain issues, city hall issues; this city is at a crossroads in its future and what does the paper do? Nothing. Nada. Why?

If anyone knows the answer, please email the website and explain it to me like I’m seven.

I might be totally off base here, but if I lived in a mobile home/trailer/RV-Camper park, I would be pretty nervous about the city looking into all of these places near the water and so attractive for condominiums. Having been through the CRA issue, I know that if certain people had their way, the bulldozers would be gassed up and ready to go; if not tomorrow, then sometime down the road.

The restrictions put on businesses for improving their investment is so stringent that it precludes improvement. I believe this was to strangle businesses so they would go away so that we could have another Winter Park, another Winter Springs; another sterile, stamped, city in its beautiful earthtone stucco. We already have their crosswalks, lights, and benches.

Monuments and shrines to attest to someone’s greatness are insignificant compared to the testament of inspiring citizens to their civic responsibility. Apathy is the usually agreed upon enemy of any government entity; Mayor Rosamonda has done more, regardless of the manner in which it was performed, to combat apathy, encourage people to get involved, and motivate people to volunteer for committees. One need only to look at the number of citizens willing to run for office the last two elections to see what has been touched off here in this city.

Aristotle believed that being involved in the affairs of the city/state was the only way one could reach their fullest potential. I know that I get this sense of connection with myself and others by attending meetings, being involved, and making valued friendships with other citizens.

The word idiots, from which the English word idiot is derived, was used by Greeks of one who put private pleasures before public affairs and who was hence ignorant of what really mattered in life.

By that reckoning, curing idiocy will be Mayor Rosamonda’s lasting tribute to this great city and its citizens.