Polk County OKs initial contracts for long-sought Agricultural Center south of Bartow
A contract with The Lunz Group LLC was approved by the commission for $1.57 million.
'This has been a lot of work for a lot of people. I've been after this since I have become a commissioner. And it's had a lot of roads up and down, bumps, bangs,' Commission Chairman Rick Wilson said prior to the unanimous vote.
In thanking those who helped push for the project, Wilson added, 'This is Polk County; this is going to be a nice facility for generations to come.'
An equestrian-themed public facility in Bartow was first publicly discussed at a County Commission agenda review on May 20, 2024.
Phase one would include a covered arena with seating. Overall, the complex will be designed to highlight Polk County's agricultural heritage.
Bartow's City Manager Mike Herr made the pitch for the facility last year to the commissioners once another site for the complex fell through after years of planning.
The last proposed equestrian center was to be developed in Fort Meade, but the Polk County Commission rescinded its pledge of $6.5 million toward the center in July 2023.
On June 3 after the commission vote, Herr was very happy with the decision to begin the initial phase.
'We are very excited about the County Commission hiring the Lunz Group. First, they are a local firm, so circulating tax dollars to a professional firm who is qualified is important,' Herr said.
'This is a very exciting day for the south-central area of Polk County," he said. "The Equestrian Center will serve as a driver for additional agri-tourism events at this site and will attract families from all across the region. It's a very good example of putting heads in beds. Our city cannot wait for it to be open.'
This article originally appeared on The Ledger: Polk County moves forward on long-sought Agricultural Center in Bartow
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 hours ago
- Yahoo
EU clears €4.1bn Just Eat takeover but prevents food delivery mega-merger
The European Commission has approved the €4.1 billion acquisition of Just Eat (JET) by Naspers, through its investment arm Prosus, after the technology group agreed to take concrete steps to reduce its influence in Europe's food delivery market. Prosus already holds a significant minority stake in Delivery Hero—one of the largest food delivery companies in Austria, Bulgaria, Italy, Poland and Spain—which operates popular brands such as Glovo, Foodora, and efood. The Commission said the measures were necessary to prevent Naspers from having significant sway over two of the sector's largest competitors, which could weaken competition and harm consumers. "To address the Commission's concerns, Naspers offered to significantly reduce its shareholding in Delivery Hero, below a specified very low percentage, within 12 months and to implement a set of additional commitments," the EU body said in a statement. "The Commission has the duty to assess mergers and acquisitions involving companies with a turnover above certain thresholds," the statement continued. Why is this important? In June 2025, the European Commission fined Delivery Hero and Glovo €329 million for operating a cartel—a high market concentration that lets them agree to drive up prices while not improving services—in the food delivery sector. That case reinforced regulators' concerns that without strict safeguards, large players may coordinate markets for profit instead of competing with both prices and quality. Related Chipmakers Nvidia and AMD to pay 15% of China revenue to US government Greek ban on ATM charges and limits on other banking fees comes into force today Just Eat runs familiar delivery platforms regularly used in Europe, such as Just Eat, Lieferando and others. Between them, these companies would control a significant slice of Europe's meal delivery market, which means most restaurants and customers would have limited alternatives. The European online food delivery market is worth tens of billions annually and has grown rapidly since the pandemic, making it a critical part of urban economies. This market has few big players, so any merger or ownership overlap can have an outsized impact on prices, restaurant commission rates and courier pay. The €329 million fine against Delivery Hero and Glovo in June 2025 proves that colluding within the market is not a theoretical risk and that European regulators have already caught major players gaming the market to limit competition. The deal is particularly notable as it is unusual for the Commission to demand a major sell-off of shares in another company or existing asset during a Phase I review, as it did on Monday. This signals that Brussels is taking a harder line on digital platform consolidation, especially in markets where just two or three players dominate across the bloc.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Complexity could delay payouts in car finance compensation scheme
Car buyers and banks are bracing themselves for the outcome of a review into a multi-billion-pound scheme designed to compensate borrowers who paid too much commission for car loans. However, critics say the scheme may be overly broad and complex, potentially delaying claim resolutions for years. It follows a year-long battle between lenders, legislators and even the government over three cases centred around salespeople being incentivised to charge higher interest rates – without the knowledge of buyers – so they could bank an increased commission. This ended at the start of this month with a landmark ruling at the Supreme Court. Lord Robert Reed ruled that in two of the cases such arrangements – known as discretionary commission arrangements (DCA) – were legal, but he judged that in the the third, known as the Johnson case, the value of the commission (over half the sale price) and how it was disclosed pointed to an unfair relationship between banks and car dealers, making it illegal under the Consumer Credit Act. In the wake of the judgements, finance watchdog the FCA announced it will consult the finance industry on a scheme to compensate car buyers who paid excessive commission charges on car loans going back as far as 2007. The pot for those affected is set to be between £9bn and £18bn. While incredibly high, it is more than half the forecasted £44bn and leaves lenders – especially the likes of Black Horse – celebrating the rulings. During the review, which is set to be published in October, the FCA says it will examine how lenders should assess claims and what compensation may be due. There are concerns, however, that the process risks being held up by the complex natures of the cases as well as contradictory views held by the FCA and the courts. For example, the FCA deemed it was the nondisclosure of particular features within lending agreements, rather than the features themselves, that were deemed unfair, while the Supreme Court ruled that nondisclosure or partial disclosure of a commission paid by a finance company to a dealer was not. Faced with these partially opposing statements, the FCA's task will be to weigh up a range of factors and decide what it considers to be unfair. These will include the 'characteristics' of the consumer – a term it has yet to define but which relates to the Court's comment regarding their 'sophistication' – whether the loan complied with regulatory rules and the extent and manner of a commission's disclosure. The Johnson case, in which it was found the value of the commission relative to the loan was unfair, means this factor, too, will be considered, as will the nature of the commission. Alongside this, a major part of the FCA's review will be deciding what is an unfair commission payment, where that payment was not disclosed to the consumer, such as, for example, the 55% in the Johnson case. The FCA says in calculating compensation it will be informed by the degree of harm a customer suffered while considering the need to ensure that affordable loans for vehicles can continue to be offered. The Supreme Court decided the appropriate remedy in the Johnson case was the repayment of the commission. The FCA says it will consider this option alongside alternative remedies, but these are unlikely to exceed the full repayment of commission and could actually lead to lower payments. The FCA estimates most claimants will receive less than £950 in compensation per finance agreement to which interest of around 3% (per year) will be added. Following the ruling, the values of the major banks soared as the City realised the size of the compensation bill they faced had more than halved in size. This alone should tell car buyers who apply for redress that their chances of achieving it are much reduced. Added to this are the challenges facing the FCA's scheme, including the near-impossibility of lenders being able to produce documents relating to older finance agreements, many completed back in 2007. Philip Salter, former FCA director of retail lending, said: 'The FCA's statement is broad and complex. The Supreme Court provided legal clarity, but the challenge for firms now will be preparing for an immense operational and financial task. 'The FCA's approach requires firms to analyse their whole historical loan book against a complex matrix of 'unfairness'.' Others criticised the problems of establishing consumer loss. John Phillipou, chairman of the Finance and Leasing Association, said: 'The outline of the redress scheme is impractical. I understand the 'doing right' by the consumer, but one of the things is showing loss to consumers. That's going to be hard to prove.' In its defence, FCA chief executive Nikhil Rathi said: '[The] judgement helps us because we have been looking at what is unfair. Prior to this judgment, there were different interpretations of the law coming from different courts. It is clear that some firms have broken the law and our rules. It's fair for their customers to be compensated.' ]]>
Miami Herald
3 days ago
- Miami Herald
Trump administration kills $60 million grant for Overtown Underdeck park in Miami
Miami received word this week that the Trump administration is yanking $60 million from the Underdeck, a planned park in Overtown designed to lessen some of the isolation brought by construction of Interstates 95 and 395 in the 1960s, which devastated what was once a prosperous Black neighborhood. A notice from the federal Department of Transportation stated the Republican-backed legislation known as the One Big Beautiful Bill killed the remaining funds in a Biden grant program aimed at reversing damage done to neighborhoods from highways constructed decades ago. While similar in name and concept, the Underdeck project is not related to the Underline, a 10-mile park that has partially opened under Metrorail tracks south of the Miami River. The $3 billion 'Reconnecting Communities' program last year awarded the $60 million to Miami's Underdeck project, a 33-acre park to be created at street level under the new elevated I-395 span being built above in a separate state effort. With a budget of $82 million, the project depended on the federal grant from the Biden-era program, formally called the Neighborhood Access and Equity (NAE) program. The undated notice from the Trump administration states Miami can no longer have the money. Miami City Commission offices received the notice this week. 'The announced NAE funding has been rescinded and is no longer available,' read the notice from Loren Smith Jr., deputy assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Transportation. While known as the Underdeck, Miami commissioners voted last year to name the park after a late Miami civil rights activist, calling it the Rev. Edward T. Graham Greenway. In a statement, Commission Chair Christine King, whose district includes the park site, called the news 'disheartening' but not the end of the project. 'I am not discouraged,' she said. 'If we have to do only a section at a time, that space will be representative of our struggles, our culture, and our resiliency.' Miami Herald staff writer Andres Viglucci contributed to this report.
