Archive for June, 2009

PBC Engineering: Ranchettes Q&A

Posted in Documents on June 29th, 2009 by admin – Be the first to comment

Palm Beach County Engineering has released the following Q&A informational piece.

mstu_ranchettes_subdivision

BCC Meeting 7-7-09

Posted in BCC Meetings on June 29th, 2009 by admin – Be the first to comment

If anyone wishes to speak about the paving of the Ranchettes, they can during the next BCC Board Meeting during Matters by the Public which is scheduled to take place at 2pm.

Matters by the Public: Any citizen shall be entitled to be heard concerning any matter within the scope of the jurisdiction of the Commission, with the exception of any items scheduled to be considered by the Board on upcoming meetings, under the section entitled “Matters by the Public,” on the first meeting of each month. EXCEPTION: NO MATTERS BY THE PUBLIC DURING THE MONTHS OF JANUARY AND AUGUST. Speaking times are as specified above. Matters by the Public

Directions to the Governmental Center:
301 N. Olive Avenue
West Palm Beach, FL 33401

The Palm Beach County Governmental Center is located in Downtown West Palm Beach.
On I-95 head towards West Palm Beach
Take exit 70 onto OKEECHOBEE BLVD east toward DOWNTOWN
Go 1.7 miles to OLIVE AVENUE
Turn Left on OLIVE AVENUE
Go 0.7 miles and you will arrive at 301 N OLIVE AVENUE
Get Directions with MapQuest

Limited parking is available on the street, in nearby private lots, and in the County Parking Garages. These facilities charge for parking.

If you are unable to attend you can Watch the meeting LIVE on Channel 20.

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 [mailto:andy@upinarms.net]
Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2009 12:31 PM
To: ‘Robert Weisman’
Cc: ‘George Webb’; ‘jsantama@pbcgov.org’
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 [mailto:RWeisman@pbcgov.org]
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!
Ruby

What about us?

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

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

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

Commissioners,

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…

Sincerely,

Andy Schaller

Fargo to be paved…

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

Today during the BCC Meeting, the Board voted 5-0 to approve sending petitions to the 12 property owners on Fargo to pave the entire legnth of the road from El Paso to Arrowhead. If 50% plus 1 of the petitions are returned with a yes vote, all of Fargo will be paved.

More details to follow…

Say What?

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

“The big wheel comes around.” In this case it is the big wheel of truth! In the Item Summary (6F2) for tomorrow’s BCC Meeting, Staff finally tells the whole truth (almost). Staff has done a complete reversal on most everything previously presented to the Board as fact. Here are a few highlights:

April – Drainage negatively impacted Fargo because of the east/west pavings.
June – No it didn’t…. We helped Fargo!

April – We have left over funds from the currecnt projects to fix Fargo drainage.
June – No we don’t… It cost more than we thought.

April – We were right to petition Fargo exactly as we did when we did.
June – We should have told the Board and had more oversight.

These are just a few of the many reversals. The story continues to unfold. The full item review is here:
6-2-09 BCC Agenda Item 6F2

SEE YOU THERE ON TUESDAY

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

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

GREAT JOB SO FAR

ERIC
A A ND W ANNUALS
SEE YOU THERE ON TUESDAY

“…why all roads here were not paved”

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

From: Sherry Laufersweiler [mailto:draperydesign@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 7:10 AM
To: Up In Arms Forum
Subject: Re: Up In Arms Forum: BCC Meeting 6-2-09

I live on Arrowhead and cannot understand why all roads here were not paved. I called roads dept to ask why and was told they petitioned in 2002 and there was not enough interest. Unlike the water they never asked again. I’m not sure how many new homes have been built since then, but I think if asked now there would be a different reply.I was surprised at the letters sent recently and a few days later saying ignore the first lettert. I’m sure this alone came as a cost to taxpayers. Commisioners need to get on the same page and work efficently to correct this problem. Wouldn’t a time in the early evening be better for a meeting so more of us working people could attend? Thank You Sherry Laufersweiler