Is This OLF-8 Master Plan Actually an Opportunity to Get Growth's Impacts on Infrastructure Right?

I don't support it, But if we must accept thousands of additional residential units on OLF-8 in Beulah--I believe we should charge Impact Fees on OLF-8 specifically and exclusively---to offset the burdens on infrastructure and schools such high-density, high-intensity, urban-style residential will create.

As we stumble toward the end of the excruciating, apparently non-impartial, Rube-Goldbergesqe "effort" to finish the OLF-8 Master Plan----a question comes to mind that is worth asking.  Is this relentless, unending, concerted and orchestrated push for massive, additional residential development in Beulah on OLF-8 specifically---is this actually an opportunity to get growth's impacts on Infrastructure right as it pertains to what we allow on OLF-8?

One of the reasons I ran for this job in 2016 was because I saw the rampant, uncontrolled residential growth in Beulah that was permitted that swamped our schools and overwhelmed our infrastructure.  It was allowed to continue unfettered by the county because the state got rid of concurrency in 2011, and the County did likewise in 2013--stripping the concurrency provisions from the Land Development Code (LDC) in that year.  And then, the residential development floodgates opened in Beulah and we are seeing the resultant condition:  Schools overcrowded and traffic and stormwater infrastructure overwhelmed.

This is why I have funded the $300,000.00 effort to master-plan the greater Beulah area--a process that is moving forward.  It is also why I spent 13 months with a 9-member committee the county impaneled at my request to get community feedback about the best way to master plan this greater Beulah area--precincts 43, 68, and 5 (and subsequently the new precinct 114 in Beulah as well).  This "Greater-Beulah" contract has been awarded--and the work will commence soon.  More to come on that later.

And this is why--if we are now going to "approve" thousands and thousands of new residential units forced on us, constructed on OLF-8 at the behest of the "opinion" of DPZ and their influencers within the NFCU coalition--we ought to implement impact fees on any such residential construction contemplated on OLF-8 if we are legally allowed to do so.  We should do it because our infrastructure cannot take it without upgrades and the only Beulah elementary school is hundreds of students over capacity already.

To summarize: we don't have the infrastructure to support 60 DU/AC and the concomitant 1000's of housing units this would produce on OLF-8--so I am arguing against allowing this at all. 

Commercial development and jobs projects would build slowly, over years and decades--allowing for the infrastructure to build to match. If residential is permitted however--the private sector would swoop in and build apartments, townhomes, and condos faster than you could say "abracadabra" and we would be further gridlocked within 8-10 months. Residential builders are aggressive, determined, relentless and FAST. (They are not FDOT project managers struggling for years to finish two-lane blacktop projects…)

So----- If I must accept any residential on the field (which we do not need), I will argue for impact fees for this one geographic area, OLF-8, if legal to do so--in order that this massive residential influx if allowed will have to pay for the impacts to the school board and also for the road widening on Frank Reeder Road that simply cannot support this MASSIVE residential infusion of building.

Was the Meeting Noticed Properly?

 

There was a hastily-arranged "town hall" announced this week.  There will be multiple commissioners on the call and an issue that WILL come before the board will be discussed.  Was the meeting noticed properly, though?

Although I believe it is premature and didn't necessarily feel it was warranted yet, before the BCC workshopped the latest DPZ hybrid plan for OLF-8, a "Town Hall" online has been scheduled for next Tuesday afternoon by DPZ Co-Design.

This potential town hall was mentioned at our recent meeting---but again--- I did not know it was a firm, absolute "go" until late Wednesday afternoon.  Thursday, I had my aide Debbie Kenney sign me up online to participate---which I intend on doing.  Participating, interacting, and speaking.

Because although I recognize the current iteration for the OLF-8 field is much better than previous renditions----I still think it needs a lot of work and a lot of massaging to get it just right.  It's not like this is the last and final plan--regardless of who was in a special last minute meeting to cobble it together.  It did not come off the mountain on tablets inscribed by fire and lightning bolts from heaven....

So although I don't think it is ready for primetime and the "town-hall" is premature--I will participate.

But wait--what if my counterparts want to as well?  From the meeting comments and other things I have heard from other sources--it's my understanding at least one or two of my counterparts will be on the livestream townhall as well.

And that is where I think this knee-jerk, hastily called town hall may put us in hot water if we are not careful.  Although this is not a meeting of the board---if one or more board members speak on this land-use  issue at this special "OLF-8 Town hall" meeting (and this is OBVIOUSLY something that will come before the board for a vote)--if NOT properly advertised--- this could potentially be considered a meeting out of the sunshine.  I don't want that to happen.  I am going to speak, and I don't necessarily want my peers precluded from doing likewise.

So in a few hours when everyone wakes up, I'll send an email and find out.  I hope this event was properly noticed, with a 7-day ad.

Otherwise, if it wasn't, it would probably be wise to advertise it properly to a different date.

We'll see though, maybe DPZ and the county team did, in fact, already advertise it.  IF so, no big deal.  See ya Tuesday at the townhall!

Arm Wrestling over Acres

With the unveiling of the new "hybrid" plan that is being touted as the "last" iteration of a plan for OLF-8---now begins the final push by various factions to get the acreage they want for the purposes they desire...

A hybrid OLF-8 plan that I feel represents a good start at a compromise has been put forward last week by DPZ.  Again, I think it is a good start at a compromise, not a finished product by any means.  I want to see more acreage dedicated to good job creation, and much less toward residential.  I think the 45 acres for "public" uses, (school, park, walking trails, tennis courts, post office, etc.) could be increased a bit as well, to 50 acres.

But as we all know from the document dump of emails--there are factions working at cross purposes that do not want any commerce and good jobs at all--or the very bare bones minimum possible.  They want something different.

So now the rubber hits the road and here is where we complete this thing.  

And now it will be a battle of factions over space and acreage.  An arm-wrestling match over Acres.  

One very strong faction, Navy Federal Credit Union, apparently wants  lots of retail, residential, and amenities for their employees and the minimum amount of space as possible allocated for good, clean, high-tech jobs for the rest of the county and the region's benefit.  Perhaps they don't want to compete for talented employees with similar high-paying large employers should the county be able to land one or more for the field?  Seems plausible--but it is an educated guess solely because publicly they (NFCU) are silent as a mime on their true intentions/wants for this land.  The county's consultant, DPZ, marches lock step with what NFCU wants.  So do about a hundred and fifty nearby residents.

Another faction of SOME nearby residents hate all development generally, dislike NFCU and their growth and impact on Beulah particularly,  and bemoan all the residential growth in Beulah. These folks want the field to remain undeveloped.  They want no more development period, and wish Beulah had not ever grown the way it has.  There could be several thousand folks that feel this way.  They definitely want NO housing on this field.

Then there are the rest of us who want a good compromise, something for everyone, and for everyone to get a win.  This faction wants no or the absolute MINIMUM amount of residential construction on this field that was acquired for job creation--not to source land for residential developers to get richer with.  These level headed folks realize the power of job creation, and the value of the Triumph Grant that is achievable if sufficient land on OLF-8 is reserved for creation of at least 1000 good jobs. So they want land, a good portion, reserved for clean-tech, high tech jobs.  And finally, folks in this camp, like me, want community amenities, a park, a 15 acre school site, a walking trail, tennis courts, a sheriff's substation, some high end retail and nice restaurants and shops along with a post office if possible and a medical (urgent care) clinic--all in a nicely designed portion of the southern part of this parcel, in the south east corner, along 9-Mile road. 

So I believe the factions have to have their say, and what comes out of the hopper after will be the compromise we will live with.  the current plan looks like this: 

I am going to push for a minimum of 319 acres to be reserved for commerce/job creation.  I'd like to see 50 acres for public amenities and the school site, and the remaining portion of no more than 55 acres dedicated to the retail up front on 9-Mile Road with shops, restaurants, etc. along the frontage of 9-mile road in the South east portion of the field.  If high-density, high-intensity 4-story luxury rental apartments are a drop-dead, must have amenity upon which I have to compromise, then I would hold my nose and accept as little as possible of this, in the extreme north east portion of the parcel, right adjacent to NFCU's campus.  I would also apply impact fees to any such development so that such a developer would have to pay for the widening of Frank Reeder road to accommodate their impacts.  Maybe 15 acres tops for this, which would come off of the amenities and retail acreage--NOT from the commerce portion.   This is what I think would be fair and equitable.

But hey, 5 of us, the elected commissioners, will eventually be the ones who vote on this.  

We will see where it goes.  

I've put my cards on the table here, though.  I can't wait to finish this.

Who is it That You Think is Your Client?

In the effort to Master Plan OLF-8, The Escambia Board of County Commissioners is DPZ's sole client.  Disturbingly--there does not appear to be an understanding of this on the part of DPZ's "team leader."

Who is your client?    This seems like a very basic, fundamental question that is easily answered.

But there now appears to be some disagreement between the Board of County Commissioners and our design consultant DPZ Co-design--on who it is that is the client of DPZ in the local effort to create a master plan for OLF-8 in Beulah.

In the recent public BCC meetings last week, I have asked this point blank.  And I was told at these meetings by DPZ that the County is the client.  This is absolutely the case, 100%.  Look no further than our current contract with DPZ-where the Board is the sole client.  The contract is between DPZ Co-Design and the Escambia Board of County Commissioners---and no one else.

But in a recent email from DPZ Co-Design team leader Marina Khoury to me, she indicates, incorrectly, that "all citizens" and "all stakeholders" are also her "clients."  What??  What kind of nonsense is that?

So I asked our attorney for her opinion--- which she quickly provided.  

“Pursuant to your ask, it is my opinion that privity of contract exists solely between the BCC and DPZ.  The BCC is a legal entity and even though the BCC is a board elected by the public, the BCC is the actual client and not the public.  I certainly understand that sounds counterintuitive, but hopefully the board is supporting the wants of its constituency.”

It is odd that this even has to be discussed and defined for Khoury, but nevertheless it must be.  

This is due to some disturbing threats to "embarrass" the commissioners and also  insinuations and accusations of malfeasance leveled against the BCC by partisan stakeholders (NOT DPZ's client) simultaneously copied to members of the DPZ "team" late last year and early this year the contents of which were NOT shared with the board (DPZ's client) in real time.  (These emails only came to light upon local journalist Rick Outzen receiving and publishing them as a part of a public records request he made of DPZ.  These revelations have now morphed into more than a dozen print, TV, and online media pieces that have portrayed DPZ and Navy Federal Credit Union in a negative light while simultaneously casting doubt on the impartiality of the initial plans put forth to the BCC by DPZ)  

Some see this lack of immediate notification by DPZ to the client, BCC, of these serious allegations and plans/schemes against the board as a serious breach of trust.

DPZ team leader Marina Khoury, however, sees things differently.  

She apparently dismisses such concern in an email to me late Sunday evening when she doubles down on the faulty assertion that she did not need to notify the BCC of these emails on which she was copied.  Khoury stated at the meeting that "she stands by each and every email that has been turned over!"  And in her email to me she actually quadruples down in answering my question about why she

Regulations and Rules for Registered Architects in the State of Florida

Some nebulous professions in Florida like community liaison, media specialist, campaign operative, campaign coordinator or communications specialist may not have firm fixed rules, regulations, and codes of conduct.  Not so for Registered Architects in the State of Florida...

As everyone in Pensacola who is not living under a rock knows by now--there has been some very, very concerning and troubling issues surrounding the Board's project to Master Plan our OLF-8 property in District 1.

As emails have surfaced and many have now been examined, one of the things that most concerns me is the lack of notice by our consulting team, led by Registered Architect Marina Khoury, about schemes and plans to undermine the Board of County Commissioners' project at the OLF-8 field that appear to have been developing on a separate track concurrently with the public Charette Process.

Team Leader Khoury was copied on emails where the client (Escambia County) was being targeted by third party individuals for "Public Embarrassment" and also where insinuations were being made that the Escambia County Commissioners (DPZ's Client here) were acting with "malfeasance."  Yet no notice to any County staff was made.  These emails sent to our consultant via email copy to her created what even the most casual observer would instantly realize was potentially a serious conflict of interest! At a minimum such emails sent to the "team-leader" of our consultant group would have necessitated IMMEDIATE consultation with the client.  Didn't happen.

I have asked our County Attorney if our contract has been breached due to some of these sorts of machinations I'm now seeing within these released public record emails.  

And County Attorney Alison Rogers has now provided me her response and also additional documentation concerning the professional duties, responsibilities, Canons, and obligations of a Registered Architect under the AIA (of particular note, the canons under III)and also under Florida Administrative code.

As I peruse the information related to Architects under the FAC--I see areas of this code that may have

Today’s Meeting on OLF-8 With DPZ: Some Positives---yet the Concerns Still Linger

 

This email, above,  that threatens to undermine the BCC's project and "embarrass" commissioners was copied to DPZ team leader Marina Khoury early in January......but DPZ's client was NOT notified...why?

This morning’s regular meeting of the board of county commissioners included a continued discussion about OLF-8 following our contentious committee of the whole last week—where emails that were embarrassing to our “consultant” and very condescending (if not overtly hostile) to the commissioners and our project came to light in Rick’s Blog.  These were a result of a public records request made by Outzen in which the unflattering emails were turned over and subsequently published.

It has resulted in a significant PR Black eye for DPZ and Navy Federal Credit Union---with the latter being named a “Loser” in this week’s iNWEEKLY “Winners and Losers” section...(p. 4-5 of the edition)

Since that time additional emails have been turned over and a repeated pattern has emerged that is troubling to me; when innocuous, routine issues are discussed—our county project management team is copied.  When interaction between NFCU and some neighbors that are against any commerce on the field occur—our county staff is not copied.

And now I see that in multiple emails copied to our consultant’s team leader, Registered Architect Marina Khoury, troubling insinuations and outright lies are told about our project and the commissioners---yet this information was not passed along to the County by project manager Khoury.  The client was not told of this at the time it was happening, last summer and fall.  Why NOT?  In one of these emails it is stated that the goal is to “embarrass the commissioners”--in another—the dark insinuation is made that the commissioners are engaging in “malfeasance” as far as it pertains to the OLF-8 project.  Again--these emails were copied to our “supposed” consulting group DPZ’s team leader.  But county staff was not warned/notified/or told.  I confirmed that today through our Administrator.

Theresa Blackwell can say whatever she wants, she can send emails out to the PNJ, neighbors, whomever she chooses.  Navy Federal personnel can do likewise.

But when anyone associated with this project—either in the community or stakeholders—copies our consultant on intentions to “embarrass us”and insinuations we are engaging in “malfeasance”—we MUST be notified immediately-as we are the client.  To purposely not notify us is very, very unprofessional and deceptive.  It appears it may also be a breach of professional ethics.  This is being researched.

This email, above,  that insinuates the BCC is engaging in malfeasance was copied to DPZ team leader Marina Khoury back in September......but DPZ's client was NOT notified...why?

So yes, I’m glad Chairman Bender had a meeting with NFCU’s Keith Hoskins and others and brought a

Is the Push for Housing on OLF-8 Actually About "Affordable"---------- or is it Really All About "Upscale" Rental Housing?

If the push is for "affordable" rental units to be constructed on OLF-8--I don't see how rents of between $1,000 and 2,000 Monthly on a proposed 900 such units on the OLF-8 property fits that bill....$1,000 monthly for a studio sounds like a Luxury rental in Pensacola.....

The surreal revelations of last week surrounding our supposed BCC consultant's recommendations for OLF-8 have taken a dramatic series of sideways turns as I have now read through all the emails previously provided via a public records request.

As I have now pointed out in a series of blog posts--It appears that our consultant was working against some of our priorities as it relates to OLF-8.

But why the unwavering, uncompromising lobbying by DPZ for rental housing on OLF-8?----why the dogged, unflinching push by them to build more residential housing on this field that was acquired by the county to create jobs?

The first red flag was their outright refusal to consider the value of jobs and payrolls from companies that might become employers on that field--when attempting to rate/rank the "value" of plans they would bring before us.  This resulted in apples to pineapple comparisons of plans that were faulty.  We finally got them to bring an analysis from the Haas Center of the power of payrolls on our area---- if the right jobs are targeted and placed on OLF-8.  Now we are getting a better analysis of the economic value and power of jobs.

But initially--the vision from DPZ focused solely on the ad-valorem revenue the structures built on OLF-8 would generate for the county.  (Which are significant--yet paltry when compared to the impact of payroll dollars from a large employer rippling through an economy yearly--generating home purchases, retail purchases, gas tax and sales tax for the county.)  As an example of this at Thursday's meeting I pointed out something important that I learned earlier in the week after speaking with Escambia County Property Appraiser Chris Jones.  Navy Federal Credit Union has built about a Billion Dollars worth of facilities adjacent to OLF-8.  And if you peel off the incentives applied via eDATES provided to NFCU---the ad valorem value of the facilities constructed comes to about $4 Million yearly.  (The county only collects about half of that, though.  The balance goes goes to the School Board, the Sheriff's MSTU, and the Library MSBU).  The payroll that the 8400 Employees of NFCU generate, by contrast, is estimated to be in excess of $350 Million per year.

What's better:

$350 Million per year for jobs     or    $2 Million per year in the county's coffers as ad valorem revenue.

But wait!  It's not an either or.  We get both--as long as we put good companies on the field!

What we don't get, if we build a bunch of residential and low-wage retail on the field, is BIG PAYROLL dollars rippling through the economy.  We only get the facilities' ad valorem tax revenue. Which as I illustrated in the example above is paltry in comparison...

So I went back to the complete draft Weitzman study from last August and looked at the pages our DPZ Communications Subcontractor was highlighting in emails I have seen.  Pages 248-251 were what he

Why is the BCC's Consulting Team Working against the BCC: Part III--A Tremendous Push for Housing on OLF 8

The apparently relentless push for housing on OLF-8 by DPZ, given what the public is saying, seems akin to the trope about a square peg and a round hole...

Housing on the OLF-8 property was always a NO for me and my vote.  I knew the majority of my constituents agreed with that one point---by an overwhelming majority.  They know what I know already as a 17-year resident of Beulah right on 9-Mile Road.  We have too much residential already and our infrastructure has not kept up---and so NO, these citizens DON'T want any more housing on the OLF-8 field, period, thank you very much!

Two automated, large-pool statistically-significant polls that have been run county-wide among registered voters confirmed this.  The first one was run in August of last year.  The last one was run less than one month ago.  What do they both have in common?  Two important things: First off-folks don't want housing on OLF-8 and secondly--folks want us to pursue high-paying, high tech jobs on OLF-8.  A huge majority of the respondents county-wide want this.

Now, there are some who do not understand statistics and polling and believe these surveys should not "be trusted" because these persons critical of the surveys, themselves individually,  were not called to give input.  Others attack the credibility of the firm that conducted the poll.  But to do so really, really spotlight's someone's ignorance.  These polls were automated, run by an auto-dialer with touchtone voting.  So-regardless of who runs the auto dialed telephone poll---it has no bearing on the outcome or the results.  The results are the results are the results--whether your best friend or worst enemy asks the questions via this sort of a computerized system. So to attack the results is simply a ridiculous, feeble, and disingenuous tactic that has no basis in logic.  The final feckless argument I hear is "The questions were leading!!"

Again--this is outrageous.  Look at a couple of examples of the questions:

"Should the majority of the OLF 8 land, by Navy Federal, be used for more housing and retail shops; or

Why is the BCC's Consulting Team Working against the BCC: Part II--Why Was the Client Kept in the Dark?

Public Record emails seem to indicate that many meetings were set between the county's consultant DPZ CoDesign and groups of citizens that were working against the county's interests as it pertains to the OLF-8 project in District 1's Beulah Community.  Why was the county (the client) kept in the dark about the substance of these meetings?

 After a document dump of emails from late last week it became painfully obvious, to even the most casual observer, that the consulting firm we hired to implement the board's unanimously approved guidance document in conjunction with citizen input county-wide was being tainted.  And I don't say this lightly or without evidence.

As I discussed here and here--it appears to me that our consultants were giving an inordinately magnified voice to one large employer and their interests, NFCU, and a small group of nearby residents who were/are vocally opposed to any commerce being developed on the OLF-8 property.

I believe this was being done to magnify this opposition in an attempt to present this as a "mandate" or "ground-swelling" of grass-roots approval supporting residential construction on the field and in strong opposition to any commerce on the field.

As I've now carefully gone through the emails that were presented last week, I see DPZ's Communications Contractor Travis Peterson of Impact Campaigns working directly with both of these groups on what appears to be a second track---not in alignment with the county's (aka the client's) interests.  For instance, whenever a meeting is discussed where the "Beulah Coalition" ( a small group of  Navy Federal Credit Union employees and several nearby residents, primarily of the "Nature Trail" subdivision) is to be appraised of an update or given a briefing--County project managers are not on the distribution lists--not invited.  But DPZ staffers are copied on these invites.  Why not the county's project managers?  Why no invite for the client?"

Terri Berry, the County's Project Manager for the OLF-8 initiative said at Thursday's meeting she was told, specifically, that she was "not invited" to these meetings.  This is a red flag--no matter how many ways folks from DPZ want to rationalize that.  It was inappropriate.  Another county staff member with whom I spoken and with knowledge of this topic confirmed that the county's staff "did not" participate in meetings with this Navy Federal Credit Union/DPZ citizens group.

But looking past that part---why was the client, the county, not appraised of the content/outcome of

Why is Navy Federal Credit Union--Through Spokesman Bill Pearson--Working with our DPZ Communications Consultant AGAINST the County's Economic Development Strategy?

As I continue to go through dozens and dozens of emails that were dumped last night--I keep finding indications that the Escambia Board of County Commissioners has been purposely undermined.

A few weeks back--a flyer with misinformation/disinformation began making the rounds in "chain-style" emails.  I figured it was a disgruntled resident perhaps.  Maybe it was one of the folks that want us to build thousands of residential housing units on OLF-8 (A concept I have opposed from day 1).

NFCU Public Affairs Manager Bill Pearson
sent this unflattering email --above--to our alleged 
consultant team's communications
director--who then spread it to those in the
community who are most vitriolically opposed
to any commerce on OLF 8

Now-it appears as if the mystery has been solved.  The individual who wrote the talking points, according to this email trail, is a gentleman named George Stephenson.  I don't know him, wouldn't be able to recognize him if he walked by me in a room.

As a citizen he is entitled to his opinion and to say whatever he wants about the project.  He has the freedom of speech.  This is America--not Myanmar or China.

But here is where the story goes sideways....

It looks as though Travis Peterson (one of our supposed team members at DPZ that is making $200 per hour working "for" the county)  has fed his distilled talking points  on our economic development strategies--commerce parks in particular--to NFCU executives and these "No Commerce Park on OLF-8" individuals--including George Stephenson.

And the spin on what was sent was unmistakably negative.  For instance, a recent unsuccessful bid to offer 10 acres of our Technology park was spotlighted by Peterson.  But wait--- Travis Peterson was alerted to the Tech Park issue via an apparently unsolicited email from NFCU Communications Director Bill Pearson! (above, right screen capture)

And as if all of this isn't bad enough---then I find this email document where Navy Federal Credit Union spokesman Bill Pearson is editing the bullet points of the "No Commerce Park on OLF-8" groups position paper.

And I am seeing various other emails where NFCU brass like Bill Dagnal are brought into the loop.

I am also seeing LOTS of emails where a loose Navy Federal Credit Union led "confederation" is

Why is the BCC's Consulting Team Working Against the BCC? Part I

 

Take a look at this email, above.

It is one of many emails I requested and received today regarding the OLF-8 project.

It all started with posts I read in Rick's Blog.  He requested these OLF-8 related emails from DPZ ---a private company that is (allegedly) working for the County on helping to design a great plan for our OLF-8 property.

They (DPZ) didn't know (apparently) that their emails related to the county's project were public records under the Florida Sunshine law.  And so they stonewalled the initial request.  Eventually, they realized they had to comply and so they put together the emails and made them available.  And now I have copies, too. 

 And what I see as I go through these emails is what appears to be a deliberate attempt to discredit the board and the county's position.

At the meeting on January 7th I was attacked personally--and the DECADES long plan to create jobs at the OLF-8 field was attacked.  The BCC was excoriated by the very speakers that Travis Peterson, above, is encouraging.  Evan as the BCC pays his $200.00 per hour salary as a part of the DPZ team.

What gives?

So tomorrow morning I will have some questions for DPZ.  Like these:

Who do you consider your client to be?

Why are your team members assisting those that are actively working to discredit your client?

Why are you not being impartial and unbiased?

There are a lot more emails.  I'm going through all of them-----page by page, centimeter by centimeter.

Yes, I'm going to have some questions tomorrow.  

The first one is easy:  

Why is the BCC's Consulting Team Working Against the BCC?

more to come.....