Wasteful Spending 101: City's 91-93 Coquina Avenue Land Purchase Requires Answers, Reconsideration, Outside Review and Investigations

Is HALF MILLION DOLLAR proposed City of St. Augustine land buy based on need -- or greed?

You tell me.   

By 2030, 30% of the roads in St. Augustine could experience flooding 90 days each year. 

Should City of St. Augustine Commissioners have voted to force taxpayers to spend some $500,000 to buy a small 0.6 acre slice of land at 91-93 Coquina:

1. without any proven flood control benefits?
2. without knowing the elevation?
3. without cost-benefit analysis?
4. without evaluating 2030 ocean level rise maps?
5. without U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or Florida Department of Environmental Protection permits for proposed berm? 
6. without going through nal budget process or evaluating other funding needs (Fish Island acquisition)?
7. purporting to be a "park," without a plans or planning?
8. without a background investigation of seller or agent?
9. without outside scientific, engineering or legal peer review?
10. without first researching eminent domain, conservation easement or donation? 
11. without first researching MSBU, MSTU, FEMA, or Florida Forever funding?
12. without any plan for ocean level rise?
13. without designating any Adaptation Action Areas or other zoning changes under 2011 legislation?
14. without a title search or appraisal before the vote?
15. without consideration of the existing 18 foot fight of way?
16. without legal research on prescriptive easements as a result of City creation and maintenance of ditch since 1940s, creating a creek out of the sere remnants of the Davis Shores canal?
17. without Planning and Zoning Board recommendation?
18. without any Ombuds, Inspector General or other independent ethics or organizational conflict of interest review?
19. without Data Quality Act compliance?
20. without considering the precedent for future wasteful spending on pig-in-a-poke purchases of wetland properties from wealthy landowners like bald eagle nest tree destroying THOMPSON BROS. REALTY?
21. based on undisclosed ex parte contacts from dodgy influentials who won't speak in public meetings, including former City Manager WILLIAM BRRY HARRISS, who lobbies City and County  Commissioners for developers and who is paid $1500/month as a putative "independent contractor"  consultant to Sheriff DAVID SHOAR?
22. based on emotional appeals by climate change denier who lives two blocks away, family law attorney LEANNA SOPHIA AMARU FREEMAN, Florida Bar No. 101117, FREEMAN LAW, P.C., 255 West King Street, Commissioner since 2008 and Vice Mayor of St. Augustine for 2019-2020, who ignores my requests to disclose her client list to verify compliance with Florida ethics laws, F.S. 112.313(7)?
23. at the behest of a secretive family trust of wealthy turpentine camp owner descendants and their politically connected agent, former St. Johns County Pas and Recreation Director, failed 2016 Mayoral candidate KRIS PHILLIPS' WFOY (RUSH LIMBAUGH HATE RADIO) talk show host and A.D. DAVIS CONSTRUCTION salesman SAMUEL TROY BLEVINS, Florida sales associate license SL3274236?
24. based on mendacious or lackadaisical, shallow or nonexistent analysis by a small circle of friends -- three (3) of the four (4) are University of Florida graduates and all are sadly lacking in critical thinking skills -- four (4) incurious, overpaid licensed professionals:

• JOHN PATRICK REGAN, P.E., City Manager, paid $173,497.47/year, plus considerable benefits, promoted in 2010 without a national search, Professional Engineer license 44117 (expires 2/28/19)?
• ISABELLE CHRISTINE LOPEZ,  Esq., City Attorney, paid $147, 49.91/year, plus benefits, promoted without a statewide search, Florida Bar No.  89818, board certified since 2004 in local government law, member of the Florida Bar City, County and Local Government Law Section Council through 2020?
• TODD JOHN GRANT, P.G., Assistant Public Works Director, paid $82,917.54/year, plus benefits, Professional Geologist license No. PG2369 (expires 7/31/20.)
• MICHAEL G. CULLUM, P.E.,, paid at least $107,250 year or $51.5625/hour, plus benefits, Public Works Director, with a graduate degree, Professional  Engineer license 41869 (expires 2/28/19).  MIKE CULLUM crudely invited me to "step outside" when I asked him about this scatterbrained staff analysis at the January 31, 2019 City ocean level rise meeting at the Galimore Center -- refusing, with "ODD TODD" GRANT to answer any of my questions, then later running away from me when I was on the phone outside later that afternoon).  My response to CULLUM's discourse at Galimore was to decline his public invitation to "step outside," but to ask him to step up to the mic to answer questions.

This land deal stinks.   

Signing off on shoddy work, four state licensees rubber-stamped a major potential waste of city resources, in response to an unknown amount of secretive ex parte lobbying.  

Still waiting on responses to several records requests from stonewalling CULLUM & Co.. 

• Did CULLUM lie about the elevation and efficacy of this 91-93 Coquina land deal, a/k/a "FREEMAN's FOLLY"
• Did other-directed City management, legal, engineering and acocounting staff breach their professional ethics and fiduciary duties by failing to question or push back at the scheme? 
• Who are Commissioners' professional clients?
• Did CULLUM lie when Mayor Nancy Shaver asked the elevation of the property?
• Who recruited neighbors to lobby for an end r-un around the budget process?
• Who benefits from this dupey deal if it goes through and becomes a precedent?
• Does anyone in this bunch have a clue, or even a plan?

Who will tell the people?

Why don't we have a City Ombuds and Inspector General yet?

Who will act to protect the public interest from more p-poor planning. 

Will City Commission, Governor Ron DeSantis, FDLE, FBI, Florida Bar or DBPR take action?

Attorney General and Senator Robert Kennedy would say to his staff, "Don't tell me what I should have done, tell me what  should do NOW."

Mayor Shaver, Commissioners: you must schedule this stinky land deal for a full and fair debate, with answers to public questions. 

It stinks of corruption. 

Reminiscent of purchase and demolition of of $300,000 car wash from NORBERT TUSEO, at behest of Mayor JOSEPH LESTER BOLES, JR.and City Manager WILLIAM BArry HARRISS, Attorney RONALD WAYNE BROWN, longtime lawyer for THOMPSON BROS. REALTY (also representing THOMPSON BROS. REALTY is r3 former City Attorney GEOFFREY DOBSON, who long represented develpers as well as the City of St. Augustine.

Read prior articles:

CITY OF ST. AUGUSTINE: CLOSER CONTROLS AND BETTER DATA REQUIRED ON LAND PURCHASING

https://cleanupcityofstaugustine.blogspot.com/2019/01/city-of-st-augustine-closer-controls.html

JOHN PATRICK REGAN, P.E. REFLECTING POOL? 

https://cleanupcityofstaugustine.blogspot.com/2019/01/john-patrick-regan-pe-reflecting-pool.html

From Historic City News:
https://cleanupcityofstaugustine.blogspot.com/2019/01/city-should-reject-250000-land-purchase.html

From Capt. Lee Geanuleas, U.S.N. (ret.) St. Augustien Residents Count:

First, apologies for the length of this posting, but last night Historic City News published a letter from a homeowner who lives adjacent to the proposed 91-93 Coquina Ave park (gray area in photo below) and it got me thinking. Here's the link to the letter:

https://historiccity.com/…/letter-how-will-a-public-park-al…

Looking further into the Coquina Ave outfall ditch ownership question over the weekend I've concluded it's fairly murky at best. In her letter to HCN, the owner of 83 Coquina Ave (pinkish area) states that her deed gives her ownership of part of the ditch below the outfall (yellow dot on map). 

Interesting.

But as noted in my 26 January post, the St Johns County property appraiser's website indicates that the Thompson brothers own the marsh and the mouth of the Coquina ditch up to the Coquina Ave outfall (blue outline in the picture). 

Curious. 

And then I heard that city staff believe the property line for 91-93 Coquina Ave extends to the middle of the Coquina Ave ditch and possibly includes the outfall itself. The picture below has a red dotted line to illustrate the situation, although it's just an approximation. 

Hmmmm...

So, at this point it's safe to say ownership of the Coquina ditch south of Coquina Ave isn't all that clear. Not unusual when you're dealing with property that probably goes back to Spanish land grants, but certainly not an inconsequential technicality. 

The problem is this "murkiness" on what ownership of 91-93 Coquina Ave does and doesn't provide relative to the Coquina Creek stormwater outfall access wasn't brought up by staff to the City Commission before they voted 5-0 to approve the City Manager's pursuit of the property purchase and an expenditure of almost a half-million dollars from the city's reserves (and that doesn't include what it will cost to actually create the park). Yes, the City Attorney did say that a "detailed title search" hadn't been done, but the whole thrust of the Public Works Director's project sales pitch was that purchase of 91-93 Coquina would provide the city legal access to the storm water outfall in the ditch. He showed a graphic that unambiguously indicated the outfall as part of the 91-93 Coquina Ave parcel. 

Huh? I couldn't find anything on the county appraiser's website that showed what the Public Works Director presented to the Commission. Where did he get that graphic? 

Thankfully a private citizen who spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting stressed the need for due diligence, particularly when determining who actually owns the ditch. She was spot on target. 

And while the City Commission gave the green light for the purchase, they included a caveat that it was contingent on doing the due diligence typically associated with a real estate transaction. Good for them. 

But all that "due diligence stuff" is done out of the public spotlight. Who's to say that the deal to purchase 91-93 Coquina Ave wouldn't close without a public discussion that purchase didn't give the city the legal access to the Coquina ditch that was the genesis of the purchase proposal? Stranger things have happened, right? At the end of the day the city would have a nice little park and access to the outfall could be quietly gained from the actual owner through an "implied easement" that in Florida law allows government entities access to maintain vital infrastructure. (Note: one wonders why this no-cost option wasn't pursued from the start.) 

Is it all about the park? 

Then there's the issue of not publicly noticing the purchase plan and giving those most affected a chance to comment and share their views. As you can see in the Historic City News letter, a neighbor living immediately adjacent and very possibly the actual owner of the Coquina outfall ditch was not even aware of the city's plan. 

How can that be? 

My concerns with all this aren't that the city shouldn't purchase 91-93 Coquina Ave for a park and flood mitigation purposes. But shouldn't that sort of thing be done through the normal budget process and relative to other city priorities? 

Good government decisions require candor and full disclosure so that the decision makers (the City Commission) can make their best possible decisions. And based on what I've read and heard so far, it seems city staff didn't quite meet that standard. The hearing had the vibe of a "railroad" job; get a vote to green-light the acquisition and then, if contrary information subsequently surfaces, fallback on the "unanimous decision of the Commission" to minimize the value of the new information and move ahead regardless. Not a bad political strategy when you think about it; generate serious political cover and then execute the deal out of the public eye. 

Additionally, when the city is going to make decisions that directly impact its residents' quality of life, it must let them know in advance and actively seek their input. Yes, a number of residents spoke at the meeting. Interestingly, they were virtually all strongly in favor of the purchase proposal. That's understandable given what that neighborhood has been through over the past two years, but that raises a question; who notified them and why were they notified (some living blocks away) and the neighbor who possibly owns the ditch outlet not be aware of this significant development on her own property? Was there some "stage management" going on?

And let's not overlook the topography of the area. While the parcel at 91-93 Coquina may be a relative "low spot" along Quarry Creek, as a few South Davis Shores residents made clear in the public comments, it is not the only low spot along Coquina Ave. Put a 150 foot flood-control berm along 91-93 Coquina Ave and the flooding will just find another path onto the road bed and into the neighborhood (201 and/or 211 Coquina?). 

Shouldn't some detailed engineering have been done and presented to the Commission confirming the efficacy of the berm before they were asked to vote? Could the flood mitigation that's so critical to the neighborhood be a mirage and just political cover for a park? That would be a true shame and a very questionable use of the public's money. 

What a ditch....

....

Lee Geanuleas Talking with a friend who is very familiar with the "ditch." It's a remnant of one of the original Davis Shores canals. Sometime in the 1940's (most likely) the canal was partially filled in by the city to create a ditch and people who owned property backing on to the canal were offered the opportunity to buy the newly created land and extend their lots back to the new ditch. Not everyone took that opportunity. That explains why the SJC Property Appraiser's map shows a patch work of lot ownership along the ditch; some lots extend to the ditch, others are still owned by the city. 

Most interestingly, this friend noted that the ditch/canal is tidal. It communicates freely with Quarry Creek through the culvert under Coquina Ave. As a result, it hosts marine life and birds. Fish come and go from the canal and possibly spawn in it. With this in mind, I'm wondering how CoSA can get Florida DEP approval for installing back-flow preventers that will stop the tide from coming in through the culvert and sustaining the canal?  

Does anyone have any thoughts about that? Maybe it's time to form "Friends of Coquina Creek"?