Port Citrus has a memory problem

Welcome to no-frills Monday.

Wish I could start the week off with something a little more glamorous (!), but it’s your basic, run-of-the-mill County Commission advance.

During the course of my journalism career, I’ve written, oh, approximately 6 million of these. I know, that number is crazy. Probably on the low side.

---

Remember, the County Commission meets today, not Tuesday, so commissioners may attend the Florida Association of Counties annual conference in Orlando.

Two workshops in the morning, followed by a full afternoon agenda. Let’s get to it:

— First up, at 9 a.m. impact fee workshop. This is the impact fee report we’ve been anticipating. I touched on it some the other day; not surprisingly, it recommends hefty increases — $7,949 now to $13,109 proposed for a single-family home.

The two biggest category jumps are in transportation and schools. Road impact fees would rise 35% to $5,193. School fees would be higher; $5,298 eased in over two years — a 157% bump. You read that right.

The proposed school impact fee increase comes as the district announced a $3.5 million shortfall due to a drop in enrollment. That would seem to counter the report’s recommendations, so it’ll be interesting to see how all that shakes out.

Commissioners support public education, no doubt. But if they’re looking for a bailout on these fees, expect schools to get flayed first.

(By the way, dumb law: Why does the County Commission set school impact fees? Why isn’t that left with the School Board? I’d rather see the School Board approve higher fees and deal with the political fallout, than watch commissioners hem and haw about it.)

— Port Citrus workshop at 10 a.m. Here’s all I’m going to say about that: Where is the port study?

I recall this item coming up in May when it mysteriously appeared in the capital-improvement plan (CIP) as a $4 million lift to buy property.

Two commissioners had no idea where this came from. Two commissioners weren’t surprised at all. That’s revealing in itself.

The board decided to schedule a workshop to hammer it all out.

When this issue arose, my mind reverted back 12 years to when this matter was seriously discussed. We had a Port Citrus dot on the map, the county was part of a state ports council, and all we needed was the feasibility study to say it’s all good.

The study did not say that. In fact, it said the Cross Florida Barge Canal was not deep enough for the draft of cargo ships. It suggested we focus on a marina.

(Mike note: A reader was kind enough to send me the study. Here it is.)

Then the political makeup of the County Commission followed, and Port Citrus was shelved. It returned on paper only until now.

I asked for the feasibility study when the matter came up and was told to make a formal public records request. I couldn’t remember when the study occurred or who did it, so I didn’t make the request.

Besides, I figured the County Commission scheduled a Port Citrus workshop, so surely the study would be a part of that agenda, right? RIGHT?

Nope. It’s only mentioned in passing with no details. It’s like the county wants to pretend the experience never took place. Well, it did. Ten years ago, the county spent over $300,000 developing a Port Citrus plan. For some reason, none of those details are included in this vital Port Citrus workshop.

It seems the new and improved Port Citrus plan is to spend millions of dollars buying property from a well-connected landowner.

I’d like to hear some conversation about an economic vision for the barge canal. Let’s hope that commissioners break this down into tiny bite-sized pieces. Cuz right now, it’s just too much to swallow.

— Highlighting the afternoon session are public hearings on two proposed lobbying ordinances brought by Commissioner Diana Finegan in wake of the 491 mess.

One ordinance mimics state law in preventing a former commissioner from lobbying the county for six years after leaving office. This is in response to former Commissioner Ruthie Schlabach’s hiring as a lobbyist and the role she played in the inappropriate appropriation request for 491.

I’m 100% in favor.

The other requires lobbyists to register if they’re being paid to lobby the county. I like this idea too, but I hope we don’t make it too bureaucratic. I’d also suggest that the listing of registered lobbyists and their clients be readily available on the county’s website for citizens to see.

— There’s other stuff, but you get the gist. I’ll be watching workshops online from the World Headquarters, then in person for the afternoon.

Have a great Monday, friends.

​Join the discussion on our Facebook page.

Support the blog by subscribing to JWC Inner Circle for 99 cents/month.

Individual donations are appreciated through Venmo, PayPal, or Patreon.