Santamaria Can’t Produce Tapes

Posted in Emails on August 28th, 2009 by admin – 2 Comments

From: Andy []
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 4:36 PM

To: ‘Jess Santamaria’; ‘’; ‘George Webb’; ‘’
Cc: ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’; ‘’

Subject: RE: Commissioner Santamaria’s Meeting Tapes


You wrote, “Since you seem to have such a good memory of past events…” Thank you for once again for acknowledging the accuracy of my well documented recount of the facts concerning this issue. This along with your BCC comment of, “Those of you who have read Mr. Schaller’s memo to all of us, [the BCC] all of his statements are in fact accurate” reinforces my position of the last nearly 18 months.

There is a certain amount of trust that a member of the public should have when meeting with an elected official. Trust that the public statements made repeatedly by that official are in fact accurate and true. Never once in all the times I have heard you say publicly that you tape all of your meetings did I ever get the benefit of a disclaimer from you describing what your definition of the word “all” is. How would a member of the public know how and when your statements would apply to them? Where should the public would go to find your disclaimers?

The meeting on July 21, 2008 was not an impromptu meeting. It was scheduled well in advance. As a matter of fact I was out of town prior to the meeting and drove over 1000 miles to be there on time and prepared. I took for granted that an elected official would too be prepared for a meeting that would lead to the changing of a County Ordinance at your suggestion. Since I am not a paid representative of any interest with motive for a financial gain, I was not afforded the same accountability practices of some of your other meetings. Am I to believe your “ALWAYS LET THE SUNSHINE IN !” expression means that some meetings you wish not to be aired in the light of day? Or, that a meeting with the average citizen that you represent does not rise to the level of importance as a special interest?

Commissioner I cannot be expected to recall events that I was never privy to. You never consulted me on your recording equipment or practices. I just took you at your word. I agree that any future meetings we have should be recorded to avoid any problems in accuracy. However, all BCC Meetings are recorded and you seem to ignore the recorded facts that were laid out for all the word to see and hear. They are available for you on the County’s website or at

Andy Schaller


From: Jess Santamaria []

Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 12:01 PM

To: Andy; BCC-All Commissioners; Robert Weisman; George Webb

Cc:;;;;; Marlene Everitt R.

Subject: RE: Commissioner Santamaria’s Meeting Tapes

Mr. Schaller:

Since you seem to have such a good memory of past events, you certainly should remember that there were no tape recorders of any kind during any of your meetings in my office, including the meetings with George Webb on July 21, 2008 and December 16, 2008 as stated in your 8/27/09 email. The tape recorder is always highly visible in the center of the persons in attendance, if in fact, a tape recorder is used!

My policy on tape recording meetings is primarily to tape record my meetings with special interests of individuals and/or business entities (such as developers, builders, land buyers or sellers, lobbyists, etc.) who have applications that will appear before the entire PBC Commissioners for approval or disapproval, usually involving substantial financial gain to the applicant. In my opinion, the Fargo road paving does not belong in this category. Unless of course, if you expect to gain a substantial appreciation of your property, if Fargo is paved! In the future, if you have I have any meetings, I will make sure our meetings are tape recorded with a copy of the recording provided to you.

Jess R. Santamaria
Palm Beach County Commissioner
District 6


From: Andy []

Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 2:28 AM

To: BCC-All Commissioners; Robert Weisman; George Webb


Subject: Commissioner Santamaria’s Meeting Tapes

Commissioner Santamaria,

I formally request that you provide me with copies of the tapes of our July 21, 2008 meeting with George Webb and our December 16, 2008 meeting, also with George Webb, that took place in your office. Your repeated public statements that you tape all of your meetings are also well documentedLet’s clear up the credibility issue once and for all. Produce the meetings tapes or further prove my credibility and your lack there of..


One more time Commissioner Jess Santamaria gets a history lesson in the events he was involved with. He is yet to disprove any of my well documented claims. Further, Santamaria hasn’t and or can’t produce the tapes of our meetings in his office despite his public pronouncements that he tapes every one of his meetings.

Commissioner Santamaria has never been able to disprove any of my written facts that are supported by videos of his own actions and his emails and memos that I have documented on this site. It seems easier for Santamaria to shoot the messenger rather than to address the issues.

Santamaria is a major advertiser and the landlord of a local newspaper. It would be easy to see how a newspaper could use it’s editorial power to present a story in the best possible light, keeping their own best interest in mind. Should this happen, it would be a blatant and gross misuse of power and a further promotion of the lack of trust people of this county have with issues involving public officials.

Let’s see if Commissioner Santamaria takes the high road, produces the meetings tapes he claims he has and stops ignoring the well documented truth.

I was For it Before I was Against it!

Posted in BCC Meetings, Emails on July 17th, 2009 by admin – 1 Comment

We are all getting a lesson in politics from our County Commissioner Jess Santamaria. Commissioner Santamaria claimed in a memorandum to County Administrator Bob Weisman dated July 10, 2009 that, “It was about a year later that I realized homeowners outside of the Fargo Road were also considered to be assessed a portion of the cost.” That is clearly a false statement when you view this video at youtubeor view the top video at If Commissioner Santamaria did not believe assessing all 240 property owners without giving them a vote was justified, why did he make the following motion during the June 2, 2009 BCC Meeting?

“Motion to direct staff to petition the 12 properties on Fargo Avenue to determine if majority would be willing to be assessed for the paving of Fargo between El Paso and Arrowhead in an amount equal to the recent four-road assessment plus the same amount (approximately $1,300 – $1,600) that the other 240+/- neighborhood properties would be assessed (a total of approximately $8,800 – $9,100). This would be repaid over a 20 year period. If there is a majority in favor, staff should add Fargo to the MSTU program and prioritize the design and construction. Staff should then place the project out to bid and prepare an assessment roll. The properties along Arrowhead, Pinion, Yearling, Rodeo, Pinto and El Paso, between Fargo and Blanchette are also found to benefit from the Fargo paving and should be assessed equally for the benefit. In addition to their base assessment, the original 12 properties on Fargo will also be assessed the same amount as the six roads above. It is understood that the assessed properties above will ultimately pay for 100% of the final project cost.”

The video of Commissioner Santamaria making this motion can be seen at youtube or at : 6-02-09 BCC Meeting – Part2. The motion begins at 3:50. Not only does the commissioner make the motion, he defends it against Commissioner Aaronson’s objections.

After the July 7, 2009 BCC Meeting where the Board reversed the decision to pave Fargo, I asked Commissioner Santamaria why he did not defend his previous motion to assess all 240 property owners. He said,” I wasn’t going to be a dead hero against 200 people.”

Now that property owners in the Ranchettes showed up in mass to object to Commissioner Santamaria’s motion to assess all 240 property owners, the Commissioner has decided to ignore the facts and recreate history. I guess he’s made his decision to run for re-election and wants every vote. In an effort to do damage control, in true political form, Commissioner Santamaria is now sending out the email below.

Dear (Owner):

This letter is to make sure that you have a correct understanding of where I stand on paving of roads in the Ranchette Community, as follows:

Immediately following any request by a homeowner or a group of homeowners to pave any road or roads in the Ranchette Community, all affected homeowners, whether they will be assessed or not for the cost (whether 1% or 100%) should be given proper notice of all meetings, and should be given ample time to express their respective opinions. These notices to all affected homeowners should continue throughout the time this topic is being discussed prior to the final vote of the Commissioners in an open public hearing.


Hopefully the above statement clarifies any misinformation disseminated by anyone.

Yours truly,

Jess R. Santamaria
Palm Beach County Commissioner
District 6

Was Comm. Abrams’ Motion Valid?

Posted in BCC Meetings, Documents, Emails on July 16th, 2009 by admin – Be the first to comment

From: Andy []
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 12:16 AM
To: ‘’; ‘’
Cc: ‘’; ‘’
Subject: Commissioner Abram’s 7-7-09 Motion

Commissioner Abrams and Mr. Weisman,

I am unclear as to the validity and standing of the motion made by Commissioner Abrams concerning Fargo Avenue during the 7-7-09 BCC Meeting, Matters by the Public. The specific part of the motion in question is ”…delay the project until such time that an MSTU is established…” As many property owners in Palm Beach County can attest, the MSTU program has been established for many years and many projects. Recent evidence of an established MSTU program is:

1. In a letter dated March 6, 2008, Engineering sent MSTU petitions to property owners on Rodeo Drive under County Engineer George Webb’s direction. Staff recommended and the Board subsequently approved the assessment roll and construction contract for Rodeo Drive. Palm Beach County paid approximately $175,000 in MSTU funds to pave Rodeo Drive.
2. During the December 16, 2008 BCC Meeting, the Board unanimously approved the MSTU ordinance change that I requested during the July22, 2008 BCC Meeting. The purpose of my request was to have Fargo Avenue paved under the new MSTU ordinance change.
3. In a letter dated March 18, 2009, Engineering mailed MSTU petitions to property owners on FARGO AVENUE FROM ARROWHEAD DR TO ELPASO DR ALL PROPERTIES WEST OF LYONS (FRONTIER) EXCEPT PALOMINO DR. PROJECT NO. 2008134A. The letter clearly states, “Before the project can proceed using MSTU funds…” This petition was mailed one day after the March 16, 2009 BCC meeting during which Mr. Weisman gave his word to personally do everything he could to not allow a 16 month delay to happen in the paving of Fargo Avenue.
4. The petition accompanying the March 18, 2009 MSTU petition letter was worded with the same authority language as other MSTU petitions. The heading reads: PETITION FOR ROAD OR STREET IMPROVEMENTS UNDER CHAPTER 37, PALM BEACH COUNTY CODE OF LAWS & ORDINANCES.
5. During the June 2, 2009 BCC Meeting, the Board unanimously approved the petitioning of Fargo Avenue under the new MSTU ordinance change.
6. In a letter dated June 11, 2009, Engineering mailed MSTU petitions to property owners concerning FARGO AVENUE FROM EL PASO TO ARROWHEAD DRIVE STREET IMPROVEMENT #2008134. This is the same project number as the March 18, 2009 Engineering petition that specifically references the MSTU program.
Please tell me exactly when and under what authority did the MSTU program ceased to exist. As recently as June 2, 2009, Palm Beach County mailed petitions with a current MSTU project number. More than the required 50% YES votes were received as a result of the County’s petitions.

Is it regular County practice to petition property owners and pay 50% of the cost of a road paving project for a program that is no longer established as was the case with Rodeo Drive? Please explain.

Is it regular County practice for the BCC to unanimously approve the petitioning of a project for a program that is not established? Please explain.

Is it regular County Engineering practice to mail petitions that were unanimously approved by the BCC for a program that is not established? Please explain.

What authority makes Commissioner Abrams’ motion valid when the program is currently established? Please explain.


Andy Schaller

Santamaria – Weisman Recreate History!

Posted in BCC Meetings, Documents, Emails on July 13th, 2009 by admin – Be the first to comment

An exchange of written correspondence between Commissioner Santamaria and County Administrator Bob Weisman shows that both men need a history lesson. Mr. Weisman writes that Staff absolutely did not encourage the pursuit of paving fargo Avenue. He continues that Commissioner Santamaria and other members of the Board gave support only in the later ongoing meetings.

Commissioner Santamaria responds with his own claim of, “It was about a year later that I realized that homeowners outside of Fargo Road were also considered to be assessed a portion of the cost.”

Santamaria’s Memorandum
Santamaria – Weisman Responses

The video below proves that both Commissioner Santamaria and Mr.Weisman are either grossly mistaken or are deliberately trying to recreate history.

This is the response to Santamaria and Weisman
From: Andy []
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 12:56 PM
To: ‘’; ‘’
Cc: ‘’; ‘’
Subject: Comm Santamaria’s 7-8-9 Memo

Mr. Weisman and Commissioner Santamaria,

The issue of paving Fargo Avenue has continued for well over a year and has obviously caused memories to become clouded from time, mistakes, ever-changing staff opinions and public misconceptions.

Mr. Weisman:

In your 7-10-2009 response to Commissioner Santamaria’s 7-8-2009 Memorandum, you wrote: “Staff absolutely did not encourage the continued attendance of Mr. Schaller at the County Commission meetings in pursuit of his request. You and some other members of the Board gave support only at his later ongoing appearances.”

I ask you to watch this video compilation on youtube or view it at

This video shows Staff, George Webb specifically, “supporting” changing the MSTU program so that “this neighborhood” and others could take advantage of this program like they can with the water program. I requested a change in the MSTU program during the 7-22-08 BCC meeting and George Webb supported the change in many statements during that meeting.

Several months later, during two BCC meetings in December 2008, the MSTU ordinance was changed to reflect my 7-22-08 request. Do you actually think that George Webb supporting the MSTU change could be construed as anything but encouragement? An ordinance that was on the books for years was changed at my specific request as a result of my prior meetings with Commissioner Santamaria and Mr. Webb as recently as the day before the 7-22-2008 meeting. This ordinance change was supported by Mr. Webb and came approximately one month after my first BCC Meeting appearance.

Commissioner Santamaria spoke in support of changing the MSTU program as a way of achieving the paving of Fargo Avenue during the 7-22-2008 BCC meeting. Additionally, Commissioner Koons specifically called a point of order to ask Mr. Webb to give a “good faith effort” to catch Fargo up with the current projects. Mr. Webb responded with, “We’d like to do that. It would help cost wise to do that.”

To any rationally thinking person, changing an ordinance at the request of a citizen that was supported by Staff and unanimously approved by the Board, would constitute encouragement in anyone’s mind. Once the ordinance was changed, the only logical next step was to apply the MSTU change to Fargo as George Webb indicated during the 7-22-08 BCC meeting.

From December 2008 when the new MSTU ordinance was adopted, to the March 17, 2009 BCC meeting, your staff was (according to Tanya McConnell) working on the paving of Fargo. She plainly stated that Engineering management was responsible for the delay.

At this same March 17, 2009 BCC meeting, Commissioner Marcus reminded you and staff of the original reason for the MSTU ordinance change. She again asked staff to continue to pursue paving Fargo while the road contractors were still in the area. Commissioner Marcus said, ”…that was the idea in the beginning. That’s where the savings was going to be. They’re out there. Let’s keep them mobilized. Let’s just do this one strip of road and let’s get it done.” She also said, “We want you to go out there and pave this road.” Commissioner Koons said, “We have to do a better job.” Commissioner Marcus followed up with a direct request to you saying, “For the purposes of this one little road, could you get involved and do whatever you could not to make him wait 16 months” Your response was, “You can count on it.”

Respectfully, even the most pessimistic person in the world would be encouraged by the Board support and your word to the Board to do whatever you could to see that the problems were rectified and make the paving of Fargo happen quickly. The video does not lie. To date Sir, what have you done to correct the mistakes of Engineering and get Fargo paved?

Commissioner Santamaria:

During the same 7-22-2008 BCC meeting, you specifically asked Mr. Webb about the cost of paving Fargo under the proposed MSTU change to 100% participation by the property owners. Mr. Webb stated the cost would be shared by an estimated 100 to 200 property owners.

I find it hard to believe that you were under the assumption that there were 100 to 200 property owners along Fargo. We spoke very specifically on numerous occasions about Fargo only being 12 properties long. The idea of changing the MSTU to the 100% level was suggested to me, by you, on 7-21-08 when you and I and Mr. Webb met in your office.

During prior conversations and meetings with you, I consistently brought to your attention that Fargo was a road that was only 12 properties long. Despite my requests for you to actually come visit Fargo Avenue yourself to personally view the situation, you declined. For you to say that it was one year after my original request to change the MSTU, at your suggestion, that you realized that other properties would be assessed is completely disingenuous and inaccurate.

I ask that you watch and listen to yourself in this video on youtube or view it at

Are you suggesting that you realized the scope of your 6-2-09 motion before or after the unanimous Board approval? If it was before, why did you make the motion and defend it when Commissioner Aaronson had questions? If it was after, then I submit that you should be sure to “realize” the facts of a situation and the impact of your actions before you encourage citizens to be involved with County Government and pursue issues with your continuing support.

I do not wish to be reimbursed by you for my expenses. Rather, I would like to see you stand by your sense of fair play and duty as my District Commissioner to pursue the correction of mistakes made by your staff and pave Fargo Avenue to completion. Staff’s encouragement, the Board’s encouragement and your personal and professional encouragement to me dictates a need to continue this issue to its final favorable outcome.

Your campaign was based upon elected officials doing what was in the best interest of the people and to restore confidence in our Commission. My personal evaluation of your position in office as my elected representative will be based heavily upon my interaction with you for nearly half of your term thus far, and your future results. You have consistently called for the public to become involved in issues. Fargo is a very public issue and all eyes are upon you and your involvement.

My hope is that you don’t drop the ball on Fargo and become another District 6 Commissioner that we the citizens can’t count on. I am sure you have faced bigger challenges in your life than the paving of a dirt road that is only 12 properties long. Surely a man of your business experiences and abilities is capable of handling this issue. I hope I am right?


I respectfully request once again that both of you view the video at on youtube or view it at Your written communications to one another are continuing evidence of the ongoing and constantly occurring problems with this issue. Apparently there is a need for a short refresher of the facts as the line between personal opinions and hard facts has obviously become blurred.

Andy Schaller

Why should I pay for Fargo?

Posted in BCC Meetings, Emails on July 2nd, 2009 by admin – Be the first to comment

From: Andy []
Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2009 8:55 AM
To: ‘’
Cc: ‘’; ‘’
Subject: Fargo Avenue : Why Should I pay?


You are hearing from some Ranchettes owners that they never use Fargo and should not have to pay for the paving. To them I offer the following using their logic:

I have paid County taxes for 19 years on my Ranchettes property and for 10 years on multiple County properties. My hard earned tax dollars have been paying for:

County Roads: I have never had a County road in front of my properties so I need a refund for the last 19 years.

Schools: I don’t have children and probably never will so I’m going to not only need my money back and I won’t be paying in the future.

Library: I have the internet and no children so I’m going to need the money back and I won’t be paying in the future.

Fire Rescue: I have never had a fire or medical emergency so I am going to need the money back and I won’t be paying in the future.

County Parks: I have no children who play baseball, softball, football, tennis, basketball, soccer or play golf on a County public course so am going to need the money back and I won’t be paying in the future. If I personally want those services I can join a private facility. Note: I do have a boat and you will be charging me a boat launch fee on a pay per use basis.

County Debit: I won’t ever personally use Mecca Farms for anything so I am going to need the money back and I won’t be paying in the future.

Health Care: I have private insurance that I pay for so I am going to need the money back and I won’t be paying in the future.

Public Transit: I own vehicles that I pay County taxes for and do not use public transportation so I am going to need the money back and I won’t be paying in the future.

Everglades: I didn’t cause the problem so I am going to need the money back and I won’t be paying in the future.

The list can go on and on. Some Ranchettes owners work for the County in the above mentioned areas and seeing how my tax dollars have paid for their salaries for the last 19 years they personally owe me a refund and should expect a pay cut as a result of me not paying future taxes . Also any Ranchettes owner who has had a child in public school over the last 19 years or who will ever have a child in public school owes me a refund. Any Ranchettes owner who over the last 19 years has ever called Fire Rescue, had a child play sports at a County facility, saw the school nurse, rode the bus, went to the library or will ever have a child participate in any public activities owes me a refund. While we are at it, Engineering management owes the Ranchettes about $50, 000 for the delay in Fargo paving according to Tanya Mc Connell’s statements to the Board.

To say that Fargo does not benefit any of the east/west roads is to say that not only do you not use Fargo now but neither you nor anyone associated with your property now or forever in the future will ever use Fargo. This includes Fire Rescue or the Sherriff’s Department that might need the fastest route to your property, the delivery company, any worker who comes to your property, anyone who will visit your property, pick up or drop off your child and so on. I and many others could very easily say that my property was assessed for Blanchette Trail in the 1980’s unfairly. Why should I have been charged for a few hundred feet of road that I would travel that is in front of someone else’s house only to have to drive a mile east on a dirt road to reach my house. The amount of times I have traveled the 1 mile east or west on my formerly dirt road totals maybe a couple of handfuls in the last 19 years. The road was too bad. It was easier to travel a few hundred feet north on Fargo and to access the paved road Palomino. Now that Rodeo is paved I have probably used it more in the first month than I did in the first 19 years. The natural flow is to head in the direction of travel. Since Rodeo was paved, thank you Mr. Webb, I have seen neighbors from the entire paved length driving, walking, riding bicycles, skateboarding, rollerblading and a host of service traffic utilizing the pavement. Some owners have argued to the Board that lack of pavement on their street is negatively impacting their property value. For most perspective buyers, I would guess, continuous road pavement to and from their driveways would not be a drawback.

To you the Commissioners, I offer the following:

The United States and this County is a Republic. We elect officials to act in our best interest for the present and for our future. As a Board you unanimously voted to petition the 13 property owners on Fargo. To my knowledge you have at least a 70% response in favor, YES votes, of paving Fargo. This road was deemed to have been a benefit to a number of properties and the County has a history of assessing “all users” according to Tanya Mc Connell. The reason we are in this mess is because the Engineering did not follow the normal County practice for road design as it would have negatively impacted Fargo with 9 pavement changes in a 12 lot distance. Engineering, according to Mr. Weisman, has made mistakes in handling the Ranchettes paving process. Now the Board has unanimously approved a plan to correct some of these mistakes. I ask now as I have in the past that you apply the normal County procedures as it relates to property assessments and paving Fargo Avenue. I would also be extremely thankful if you found County funds to help Ranchettes owners with the paving costs.

This is a logical decision that you have made, not an emotional one. If we are going to run this County on emotions, I have many County decisions that I never had a vote in that I would like to have overturned. Remember this is a Republic.

Andy Schaller

June 17, 2009 District Forum

Posted in BCC Meetings, Emails on June 18th, 2009 by admin – Be the first to comment

From: Andrew F. Schaller []
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:31 PM
To: ‘Robert Weisman’
Cc: ‘George Webb’; ‘’
Subject: RE: Fargo Avenue Assessments

Thank you for your email. I was aware of their attendance. It is my understanding that the County is using the normal policy as stated by Deputy Engineer Tanya McConnell to the Board, to asses all users. Further it is my understanding that the Board has the right under the ordinance to not petition anyone. So it’s my guess that the focus of their feelings must be in the way that the County has handled this situation from the start. I’m sure the first petitions sent out to approximately 170 property owners at twice the cost of the Board’s recent decision for the County recommended 240 or so property owners has caused many to have questions. Additionally you have stated publicly that mistakes have been made and that your opinion was that another road deserved paving more than Fargo.

Anyone who has followed this situation has heard conflicting opinions from Staff, a promise for full disclosure, and many, many unfounded claims and accusations by lesser informed individuals.. The best effort I could come up with to help everyone was to mount the best public effort I could with a website and personal conversations. Honestly, I am not surprised that property owners are now speaking up. This issue has had so many twists and turns and has continued for so long that many thought that whatever is decided or presented by Staff will change by the next meeting. These thoughts are backed up by the facts. Some are counting that this decision will be business as usual and par for the course. The Board made a decision on June 2, 2009 based upon information provided by County departments, homeowners and even yourself who said you were fine with the motion.

This should be a good lesson for everyone when dealing with property owners and how Engineering’s decisions can have a long reaching impact on many.

From: Robert Weisman []
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 9:55 AM
To: Andrew F. Schaller
Cc: George Webb; Tanya McConnell N.; Marlene Everitt R.; Denise Nieman; Chuck Suits; Johnnie Easton; Robert Weisman
Subject: Fargo Avenue Assessments

Mr. Schaller, please be advised that approximately 20 Ranchette property owners who would be assessed for Fargo Avenue appeared at Commissioner Santamaria’s District Forum last night in Wellington. Generally, they objected to the Commissioner that they did not have the right to vote on the proposed assessment and that they did not use Fargo and should not be assessed for it.
They intend to appear at the County Commission on July 7, at 2 PM, under Matters by the Public, to ask the Board to reconsider.

Ruby says:

Posted in Emails on June 10th, 2009 by admin – Be the first to comment

June 7, 2009 at 12:54 am
Ms. Parker,
I’m glad that you are in favor of getting the other roads paved. You should get with Mr. Schaller to coordinate your effort as he has done a tremendous amount of work with positive results so far, maybe he would be willing to help since he has become so familiar with the ins and outs of the county. Obviously the county made several mistakes to the detriment of our community, and Mr. Schaller was very thorough in detailing them, perhaps that’s why Fargo is now being addressed. I hope the two of you can work together on getting the rest of the community roads fixed. This website is great and it keeps us all informed on what’s going on. Thank you Mr. Schaller!

What about us?

Posted in BCC Meetings, Emails on June 5th, 2009 by admin – 1 Comment

From: Sandy Parker []
Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 3:36 AM
To: Burt Aaronson; Jeff Koons; Jess Santamaria; Karen Marcus; Steven Abrams; Shelley Vana; Cathy Stewart

Dear Commissioners,
I would just like to say that after hearing about the decision of the commisssioners at your last meeting on Tuesday to go forward with the paving of Fargo in Palm Beach Ranchettes this has to be one of the biggest cases of unfairness by the county of Palm Beach Government that I have seen in a long time. We as homeowners on El Paso and Pancho Way came before the Board about our road paving which we petitioned for and were approved for back in 2004. County engineering has in my opinon not been truthful to not only the residences on these two street’s but also to the commissioners about our situation. We tried to no avail to explain the entire process that occurred to the Board when we went to the meeting back in April but in three minutes you can’t compete with engineering who has whatever time needed to state his argument, and you certainly are given no time to have a rebuttal. Mr. Webb stated that when we originally petitioned back in 2004 Pinto Dr. who petitioned at the same time as us but did not get the 51 percent needed to pave their road (they counted the three roads as one petition)and so we were not put on the MSTU. In reality that is the first untruth because as Ms. McConnell admitted at a meeting with myself and Mr. Weisman approx. 5 weeks ago the engineering dept. goes ROAD BY ROAD therefore we should of had our two roads put on the MSTU as we had more than the 51% needed for El Paso and Pancho Way and we were told by Mr. Rich that we were approved. Then Mr. Webb advised the commissioners that at a later date they decided that we could have only just our two roads paved so we were put on the MSTU. Next came the second mistruth. He said that in 2007 when a petition went out for the roads to be paved at a much higher amount we did not get 51 percent. This part is true. What he negelected to tell you is that neither did any of the roads that were on the MSTU in our neighborhood at that time get 51 percent. Not even close. (We know this because we went and got copies of the petitions). And of those roads that did not get the 51 percent Pinto (specifically) who applied after we did back in 2004 were not taken off the MSTU. Next but certainly not the least of engineering’s mistakes PINTO DR. and parts of RODEO who got left on the MSTU and not only did not get the 51 percent at the higher amount but who never even got 51% of the lesser amount that got offered to them after they got left on the MSTU, were surveyed by the engineering dept. by mistake. Now this is where it gets really twisted. Engineering sent employees of the county out to try and get enough petitions signed so that because of their mistake with the survey and them not wanting to waste the county’s money they offered these two roads who never got the correct percentage at any amount to have their roads paved. And admittedly as we have been told by Ms. McConnell if this mistake was not made on the surveying by engineering they were going to let our two roads get paved since we had ( and I might add always had) the percentage needed.

Now Fargo another road in our neighborhood who has never ever petitioned, and this is the part I don’t understand (according to the county there is a process you have to follow to have your roads paved and being petitioned and approved in that order, is part of that but Fargo is allowed to apply and then gets to be petioned so apparently the rules which according to Mr. Webb must be adhered to do not apply to Fargo). Why is that?

I understand that Mr. Shaller (who owns a house on Fargo but does not actually live in our neighborhood) was able to obtain an appt. back in June I believe with Commissioner Santamaria & was able to convince him this is something that should have been done when the other roads were paved. Possibly if I had been given the appointment that I asked for with Commissioner Santamaria over a period of several months and was able to explain what our situation was, something could have been done to help us. Unfortunately I never was able to get that appointment and because I work two jobs unlike Mr. Shaller I am unable to come to the meetings on a monthly basis or spend countless dollars printing up posters as he did. However I too am a taxpayer just as he is and have lived in this neighborhood for 26 years and yet my voice is not being heard. Having money and the ability to use your time how one sees fit should not affect how we are helped as taxpayers. We had a meeting with Mr. Weisman and have been emailing since then hoping that he would be able to be a voice for us with all the commissioners. I understand that the county says there is no more money but at least do the fair thing and give us the opportunity to have our roads paved as is Fargo. If this can’t be done then as I have asked Mr. Weisman please put our roads back on the MSTU, honor our original petitions and maintain our roads which we have been doing for the last 25 years. I do not know that this email will be read in it’s entirety or given any merit but it is my hope that it will not be ignored.

Thank you,
Sandy Parker
Palm Beach Ranchettes

Unanimous BCC Approval

Posted in BCC Meetings, Emails on June 3rd, 2009 by admin – Be the first to comment


Thank you all very much for your unanimous support today. I thank you and my neighbors on Fargo thank you. This portion of road needed your help badly and now will benefit many.

This is my first issue before the Board and I have learned a lot. The most important thing I learned was that many good and caring people work for the County. Nearly everyone I spoke with concerning this issue was helpful, professional, caring and seemed to be a generally nice person. This includes everyone from Staff to workers in the field. I did my best to tell everyone that I appreciated their professional efforts and thanks for their help.

Commissioner Santamaria,

From day one of this issue you have been most accessible and have extended every professional and personable courtesy to me. Your assistant Johnnie has been wonderful! You couldn’t ask for better. Thank you to both of you for one year’s worth of professionalism, caring and concern.

Commissioner Marcus,

You came to our neighborhood road meeting in 1998 and came to our aid in 2009. Not only did you take time to meet with me and give me ample time to explain myself but you also personally returned my telephone call.
Additionally, Cindy was very nice and courteous to me. Thank you for caring and for your support.

Commissioner Vana,

As one of the new Commissioners that was new to this issue, your support came quickly and completely. The first time I called your office to speak with you, I was given a time to expect your return call and you did respond at that time. During our meeting, your interest and caring was evident and much appreciated. Danna really took an interest and came out to see the road situation first hand. Her efforts are most appreciated as well. Quianna is a professional and friendly voice in your office. Thanks to all.

Commissioner Abrams,

Lucia spent about 35 minutes of her day with me when I did not have a scheduled appointment. I was there to see another commissioner and she gave me time before and after my other appointment. She was both professional and courteous as well as nice to me. I thank her for her time.

Mr. Weisman,

For your help and oversight in this matter, all Ranchettes owners who will benefit from this additional paving project, say Thank You.

Mr. Webb,

I am thankful we now have a resolution to this issue. This plan is the best solution for all of us that own property on Fargo or use Fargo to get to our properties. Michael Marquis provided me with the construction plans, supporting documents and information concerning the Ranchettes. He has been great to work with and most helpful.

Thank you again and see you next time…


Andy Schaller


Posted in Emails on June 1st, 2009 by admin – Be the first to comment

From: Eric Aanonsen []
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 6:50 AM
To: Up In Arms Forum
Subject: Re: Up In Arms Forum: BCC Meeting 6-2-09