MINUTES OF
MEETING
SUNSHINE WATER CONTROL
DISTRICT
The meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Sunshine
Water Control District was held on
Present and constituting a quorum were:
Mary Macomber Vice President
Philip Sobers Secretary
Also present were:
John Petty Manager
Bruce Cranmer Attorney
John McKune Engineer
Janice Larned
Jean Rugg
Cory Selchan Field Superintendent
Terry Hodges Arbor Tree & Land
Mr. Petty called the meeting to
order and called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the March 8, March 9, March 27 and
Mr. Petty stated each Board
member received a copy of the minutes of the March 8, March 9, March 27 and
There
not being any,
On MOTION by
Ms. Macomber seconded by Mr. Sobers with all in favor the minutes of the March
8, March 9, March 27 and
Ms. Macomber thanked everyone for
their hard work.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Ratifications
of Actions Taken at the
Mr. Petty read the resolution
by title and asked for the Board’s ratification of the actions taken.
A. Resolution
2006-04 - A Resolution of the Board of Supervisors
of the Sunshine Water Control District Authorizing the Issuance of not
exceeding $6,700,000 Capital Improvement and Maintenance Notes of the Sunshine
Water Control District; Accepting the Commitment of SunTrust Bank to Provide
the Financing; Authorizing the Execution of a Loan Agreement Setting Forth the
Details of Said Notes; Repealing Resolution 2006-3 Adopted on March 27, 2006;
and Providing for an Effective Date
B. Resolution 2006-05 – A Resolution Authorizing a
Budget Amendment within the Adopted Budget for the Sunshine Water Control
District for Fiscal Year 2006 Subject to Closing Cost to be Determined
C. Resolution 2006-06 - A resolution of the Board
of Supervisors of the Sunshine Water Control District Authorizing the
Assessment of a Maintenance Tax to Secure a Loan from SunTrust Bank; Providing
for Method of Apportionment and Levy, and For Certification of Assessment Roll;
Providing for Effective Date
D. Resolution 2006-07 - Acknowledgement and
Agreement Waiving Conflict of Interest between SunTrust Bank and the District’s
Attorney’s
E. Resolution 2006-08 - Authorizing the Assistant Secretary to
Sign Loan Documents in Association with Limited Power of Attorney for
Administorial Duties Not in Conflict with any of the Resolutions Passed
On MOTION by
Ms. Macomber seconded by Mr. Sobers with all in favor the Resolutions 2006-04,
2006-05, 2006-06, 2006-07 and 2006-08 were ratified.
FOURTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS Distribution
of Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 and Consideration of Resolution 2006-09
Approving the Preliminary Budget and Setting the Public Hearing
Mr.
Petty stated as you are probably familiar with the process, we come up with a
proposed budget. If you approve it we
then disseminate it to the public for their use and input. We have additional meetings where we discuss
changes, projects and programs. At the
public hearing, we will ask you to set at today’s meeting, we will take public
input, give it due consideration, make a final budget and adopt it.
·
Several
things have happened this year. Let me
highlight those changes before I ask for your consideration. First let me take you to the third page where
we basically give you the summary of assessments per unit which is the overall
impact of everything on the inside. Last
year’s budget was approximately $80.25 per unit and we have a proposed budget with
options. The first one is to cover our
actions to date which is the removal of hurricane debris, and the debt service
we incurred with the intent we will take the debt service long term, which we
have not asked you to do yet but we have assumed it for proposed budget
purposes. Proposal number two is to
cover the projects on our list of things to do, which has increased in the last
six months. This is what I would like to
go over with you in detail on the next page where we have the summary of line items.
·
Unfortunately,
we were not able to increase the Supervisors’ fees since it takes a special
act.
·
Legal fees
have already been discussed and we are asking for no change at this time from
what was approved two months ago.
·
Engineering
fees are at the same level for retaining their services to come to the meeting
without any increase. Although I will
talk to you later in the meeting under the Manager’s Report, they have
submitted an increase for their hourly rate from three years ago.
·
The annual audit
we raised a little bit because we will have a debt service fund, and we think
the auditors will charge us for the additional fund to go through.
·
The
management fee has gone up because of the additional fund. We are going to have oversight of the debt
service fund, and therein lies most of the work we have to do.
·
Special
Consulting Services is for a lobbyist who we feel is going to be necessary for
the next few years to maintain the interest of the District.
·
We have
computer time which you have not had before.
What you are going to see in
the next several line items is a separation the District never looked at before
but actually was incurred by your sister districts. We share quarters at Coral Springs
Improvement District for administrative staff, management staff and field
staff. We pay rent I do not think has
changed in the 15 years since it was first imposed. We have telephone service, we have customer
relations; when all the people are calling about trees coming down in the back
yard they are calling the CSID. What you
are seeing is some allocation of costs for the first time because Sunshine is
getting to be that big of a District and it is time they carried a little bit
of their own responsibility. In this
regard, computer time for running your accounting software and your debt
service payable is put in at $2,400, which is an increase over last year. Shared personnel expense and administration
is the human resources who has been there forever, and cover your existing
field staff. Also on-site accountant, Ms.
Susan Walker. These are CSID shared
employees; CSID owns them and shares them with North Springs Improvement
District, Pine Tree Water Control District, Sunshine Water Control District and
themselves. Sunshine has had their services
for fifteen years without paying. It has
not been too much of a deal until this year when we started doing all this work
in the rights-of-way and they have been handling hundreds of calls.
Mr. Sobers stated none of this is being pro-rated.
Mr. Petty stated we are not going backwards in time; we
are going forward.
Ms. Macomber asked is this going to be an equitable
distribution in accordance with our sister districts?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
This is a percentage, approximately 10% of the on-site accounting work,
14% of the customer service director, not the staff, 5% of the HR. We are paying a fair share. Our budget is to the point where we should
pay it and not rely on them. Secondly,
we saw where CSID was threatened while we had legislation. The people who wanted the bill to go forward had
threatened CSID that if they helped us they would be sacrificed as well. They were warned on several occasions not to
help us. The attorney for the district
specifically came to a public statement on the matter.
Ms. Macomber stated I remember you talking about it when
apparently one of the representatives from CSID went to the commission meeting
and was taken over the coals.
Mr. Petty stated for one against six counting the city
manager, he held his own. They did what they thought was best for their District
and because of that action we are trying to make you a little bit more
independent than you have been in the past, which is why we are putting some of
these costs in. You may be faced with
that choice.
Ms. Macomber asked were they threatening the same kind of
action against them by legislation?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Sobers stated it is better to be proactive.
Mr. Petty stated I would be proactive for that issue,
yes.
·
Building
Rent is $4,800 and covers the staff and the building and we did not address it.
Mr. Sobers stated the Public Phone and Postage. I notice both of those particularly the
postage seems to be the same in light of what you have.
Mr. Petty stated most of this is for handling the
packages which we take our direction from Ms. Jean Rugg, so if our spending is
in line of what is proposed we typically will not change it. If you look further on down there is a new
item called Communication Expense which is for any mailings we may do to our
residents, which will very much reflect that new postage cost. What do you think Ms. Rugg?
Ms. Rugg stated usually the board packages are hand
delivered by my staff or district staff. Charges are minimal at this time.
Ms. Macomber stated the $65,000 basically is in
anticipation of notices we have to do.
Mr. Petty stated we put in a number of $65,000 for what I
call Communication which we discussed during the last six months. The public perception of this District has
been very economical for the last 30 years, and it may be the most effective
draining district in the state of Florida, not counting our sister districts,
we have equal status with also. We have
always done so with great pride at a low cost, and we always hope the residents
respect that. We have come to a point in
time where, while keeping faith with that trust in how we spend their money is
a very high regard, making sure they are informed of our actions and to see
worth in what we do also has to be covered.
We have never spent money on newsletters, on reporting to the residents
what we do, other than our annual landowners meeting which we know is fully
attended. We talked about this, and in
the budget for your consideration I have $65,000 for a website, at least two
mailings to the public, other styles of information as well, including inserts
into any other attachments such as the City Service if we do repair relations
with them that we can participate in their TV channel by putting up notices as
well, and all other forms of public communication on that issue. Website design is something you can do very
simply, but for the professional image there is typically a fee. I have quite a bit of experience in that
regard for my clients and to get the average business level you are in the
$20,000 design range for this District.
I can tell you the City of
Mr. Sobers stated with the $65,000 I am sitting here
thinking about the possibilities later on.
We know the City has its own web page, if there can be a link which says
Water District and have whatever information needs to be disseminated to the
public if they so choose.
Mr. Petty responded we would love to have the
relationship where they will provide us the opportunity. Their current position is they prefer to
control the message; they do not want us to have our independent message. We asked them during this process before the
bill was put out. We asked them if we
could put our message on the hurricane situation and our status on their website,
actually on their TV, not the website. I
gave them a notice and for four weeks it would not go up and when it did go up,
it was not what I gave them or the layout that I gave them with our picture and
everything on it. It was a text message
laid out with the wrong phone numbers and saying this was across all the
districts, not just one. They wish to
control the message and is why I put money in here so you can talk to your
residents and respond to their wishes and report back to them.
Mr. Cranmer stated this is the city’s position as
officially stated.
Mr. Petty stated I knew they wanted control but I did not
know why, I am still wondering why.
Anyway this is why the line item is there in the beginning. It does not answer all the questions but it
is an excellent start.
Ms. Macomber stated I think it is very prudent at this
point, giving what we are looking at and what we have been through.
Mr. Petty stated most of the other fees and charges are
the same as they were before. The
principal and interest expense at the bottom of the page is for the pump repair
work you did prior, on the short term note.
·
On the next
page under Field Operations, you see where we are taking money back from Mr.
Selchan and the rates are going down slightly.
It is actually not lowering the budget they are going up by 5% the way
we do every year. It does not look like
5% because it is not according to the budget but it is to actual pay. We have the ability to give a performance
increase of 5% across the board in whatever it amounts to, that is what we have
available.
·
Special Pay
went up the percentage along with all the other attachments to pay.
·
Water
Quality Testing is at approximately the same level as it was before.
·
Nextel
Phones and all the rest of are at about the same.
·
Electric has
gone way down. This in talks between the
accountant and staff.
Mr. Selchan stated electric driven pumps which we had in
the pump station consumed a large amount of electricity, which we no longer
have in the pump station so the electric goes down, but our propane goes up.
Mr. Petty continued to review the budget as follows:
·
Rentals and
Leases which is basically the vehicles we have for our field staff. We lease those vehicles since we tear them up
so much.
·
Field
Operations Services was what Mr. Roger Moore had been providing oversight of in
the past and I provide the operational expertise in my position, so you do not
get the charge.
·
Insurance is
a little bit higher, not much. We have
been getting insurance increases every year so we bumped it up a little.
·
Repairs and
Maintenance is a little bit lower than what it was in the past, but it still
has the box cut program in case that should continue. Hopefully we have good
relations so we can do such things. This
also has some funds left there from what we used in the past as spot tree
removal practices. We are going to talk
about that again under the Capital Program, but we left it funded at a similar
level to prior years.
·
Operating
Supplies are about the same.
·
Permits,
Fees, etc. for Schools, Licenses, etc. are about the same.
·
Capital
Outlay is zero because we are including it in a separate section.
·
R & R is
at $277,000 and there are two programs we are looking at. The reason we put some money in here is
because we do not know if we can actually call this a capital improvement. I am going to toss these off our “to do”
list. We have, of course, the capital
program of removing downed trees, which we are already doing and you will have it
on your debt table, which is at the back of the budget. We also evaluated our existing drainage
system which is 37 years old.
I personally drove the east
outfall leg of it and got my first look at what Mr. Selchan has known for some
time, which is the homeowners in Margate have been eating away at our system
like termites at wood. The original
system was, you have your canal top off bank which was about 80’ to 100’ and
there was a 3’ high berm.
Ms. Macomber asked working or just parked?
Mr. Petty responded this is where they store them. They answer their phones from their
homes. We had several boats, boat
trailers and this is besides the fixed landscaping.
Ms. Macomber asked is this on the
Mr. Petty responded yes, this is on the
Ms. Macomber asked will we have access to the berm if we
put up a fence?
Mr. Petty responded we will. Between our property and private property is
where we will put it. Our permit with
the Oriole Apartment Complex is for having a private fence between their
property line and the water, they were saying people were walking the canal
bank and gaining access to their property.
They have this very pretty ornamental entry feature to this area where
those beautiful Australian Pines were and the owl sat, which is now a health
threat. You can see where this was
almost like a cathedral setting. The
permit has to be revoked, I believe, in our future best interests. In the budget what I will be showing you in
these costs on option one and option two, is a capital program that cannot only
go after the living trees still standing and we see as a threat during a
hurricane, but some issues we need to address is such as the berm and the
fence. You have been here longer than I
and Mr. Selchan has more experience than I; there are other areas we need to
address of a similar nature. I would
like to put it in this budget for your consideration so you can see what will
happen to the assessments and I will take you back to page three and the
existing budget is $80.25 per unit, it is $82.27 under the proposed budget. This includes the $3.7 million we just received. The reason it is almost equal is in last
year’s budget we had the one time fee for the cleanup of Hurricane Charlie, if
you recall, of $300,000 plus. We did it
in a one time note. It ends up being
almost equal to the principal and interest payment we paid for clean up after
Hurricane Wilma. We are just going to
take it out over 15 years. Handling what
we already completed to date, if you approve the 15 year deal, we are going to
stay at almost our current level of $82.27.
If we consider some of the other programs let us say we allow $600,000 a
year to be spent on capital improvements or on principal and interest payments
to effect capital improvements, which ever method you feel better with, if we
do it with the principal and interest basis it means I get more money in a loan
fashion and we can do all the projects very quickly. If we do the $600,000 per year we do it on a
time and incremental basis.
Ms. Macomber asked when we talk about capital
improvements, if I understand it the capital improvements are taking down the
additional trees?
Mr. Petty responded I call capital improvements anything
with a dollar amount that scares me.
Ms. Macomber stated I know there was a distinguishing
issue regarding maintenance and capital improvements.
Mr. Petty stated it was the tax exempt status on the
loan. As far as budgeting is concerned
we do not have to deal with it. You are
absolutely right, when it comes to borrowing the money, tax exempt status does
not apply to maintenance items. The
capital projects have to be not capital maintenance projects, but capital fixed
asset projects and is why you get the bond counsel on their side to make the
determination it is a tax exempt project.
Mr. Sobers stated you mentioned earlier there is a total
assessment per unit at $82.27 or $117.85.
Would you happen to know what is the homeowner base within the city,
roughly how many units, and does it include homeowners and business?
Mr. Petty responded approximately 16,000 units. I am going to put you to page two, taxable
units of 16,272. We don’t have 16,000
acres in Sunshine, these are units.
These are the breakout of the acres to the units. Commercial interests, I have not looked at
the allocation but since this is basically per acre, divided by number of
units, I am pretty sure they have a unit count, but I will check on that. They should have gotten a unit count per
acre. They have drainage just like
everybody else. It is based on the
relationship to a single family home that you usually factor in an acre of land
whether somewhere between three and five.
I will check on the exact methodology. Every year we do an assessment based on our
best acknowledgment of the issue and then we ask the engineer to opine on the
record that it is fair and equitable way of assigning these costs. When we get to the long term debt part of our
issue is to come up with the methodology for handling the debt service
allocation since it is not the same. We
do not have the engineer opine on debt service.
it is usually done by an independent counsel. In this case the financial advisor or someone
capable of doing the work.
Ms. Macomber asked if I am to understand what you are
saying under proposal number two, we cover the work that we have ahead of us?
Mr. Petty responded it is already on the books. It includes everything we talked about in the
budget, plus paying for the hurricane debris cleanup we currently have under
contract.
Mr. Macomber stated this does not take care of going
beyond.
Mr. Petty stated the “to do” list is why we asked you to
think about this one. If you recall when
we were looking at this for the cash flow, we did not take into account the
$340,000 of Hurricane Charlie was a one time shot. We just took it as our standard cost and how
much this would add to it. It brought us
up to about $140 per unit. At the time
we thought it was still a good service at a great price.
Ms. Macomber asked did we ever get our FEMA reimbursement
from Charlie?
Mr. Petty responded for Charlie we are not going to get
it. They told us we did not qualify and
is why it is a one time hit in our budget.
With the work we are doing now with Mr. McKune and NRCS we are fairly
confident we will get our 75% and we then will go after the state for their
4½%. If I recall our current contractor
has submitted his first bill and our engineer is processing it as we
speak. We will find out how quick they
pay on the invoice, because that is how we are supposed to get our money this
time around is on the invoice. Once we
pay our contractor, they pay us.
Mr. Sobers stated based on the estimates of the 16,000
units if you were to go with the $82.27 in proposal one we certainly run a
shortfall based on the proposed budget.
Mr. Petty stated there are two sections of the budget. I am going to direct you to the last page of
the budget where the debt service is applied; since it is two different
assessment methodologies, one that is opined by the engineer and the other by a
professional. They both go on the same
tax bill and we combine them at the time.
Ms. Macomber stated it is the $22.64 versus the $58.22 –
the debt service piece.
Mr. Petty stated proposal number one has $22.64 and the
other is $58.22, add that to – on page two of the budget in the description – $80.25
and $59.63.
Ms. Macomber stated just the 59.63 – the difference in
those two figures. The general fund stays
the same right?
Mr. Petty responded right. As you can see we are asking you to think
about quite a few new items. We tried
not to put in too many as to cause too great a confusion. This is a proposed budget and of course it is
subject to modification between now and its approved concept. We think the value brought to the residents
is still very high. We think we still
have every right to hold your reputation intact by saying you provided the best
drainage system for the least cost anywhere in the state. We are still at a very low number per
unit. I do not know that residents
appreciate the difference between $100 per year and $80 per year. I think they understand the PR campaign hits
them a little harder than the $20. This
is not an end to itself. We expect over
the years to come Sunshine Water Control District will adapt to what ever the
challenge is and these numbers will continue to fluctuate. This is what we would like you to consider
for adopting for the purposes of dissemination to the public and to the
residents.
Ms. Macomber asked do we need to elect either proposal
one or two?
Mr. Petty responded no, you do not. It is just for information. We are asking you to adopt a proposed budget
and set the public hearing date which I will defer to Ms. Rugg to give you the
lowdown.
Ms. Rugg stated Resolution 2006-09 approves the budget
you have just been discussing for fiscal year 2007 and setting the public
hearing for July 12th at 6:30 at the Commission Chambers and what we
will do after this meeting is to send this to the City of Coral Springs and get
our 60 day time clock going.
Ms. Macomber asked do we know what day of the week July
12th is?
Ms. Rugg responded it is a Wednesday.
Mr. Sobers asked is the 60 day time clock 60 days from tomorrow?
Mr. Petty responded it is 60 days from the day you adopt
the proposed budget.
On MOTION by
Ms. Macomber seconded by Mr. Sobers with all in favor Resolution 2006-09 a
resolution of the Sunshine Water Control District Approving the Budget for Fiscal
Year 2007 and Setting the Public Hearing for July 12, 2006 at 6:30 p.m. at the
Commission Chambers, Coral
Springs City Hall, 9551 West Sample Road, Coral Springs, Florida was adopted.
Ms. Macomber stated it is interesting you have creative
thinking in terms of some of these issues we have been facing and need to be
able to prepare for.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Permit Requests
A. Capital
Supply, Inc., for Surface Water Management Permit for Parcel D at
B. Village Green Apartment Homes for
Right-of-Way Permit for Irrigation Water
C. Coral Springs S.W.M.P. The Meadows and The
Dells, for Surface Water Management Permit for Improvements
D. Kimley Horn & Associates, Inc., for
Right-of-Way Permit for Left Turn Lane Extension at
E. FDOT, HDR Engineering, Inc., for Work
within CSID Right-of-Way Permit at SR 817 (
Mr. Petty stated we have consideration of permit requests,
which are the standards we have for surface water management permits and right
of way permits. I do not mean to put these
down into small items because Ms. Rugg works hard on all these permits. If I may ask the Board would you like to
consider them one at a time or consider them as a package?
Ms. Macomber stated I just have a question. Just a point of notice, in the Village Green
apartment homes, the permit itself says Coconut Creek instead of
Ms. Rugg stated the actual owner of the proposed work
lives in Coconut Creek.
Ms. Macomber stated on the Coral Springs SWMD, I presume
this is something that is being brought to us by the city? The storm water master plan is the city’s
master plan?
Mr. Petty responded I am going to defer to the engineer,
but I do not know that I would call the city’s plan a master plan.
Ms. Macomber stated they call it a master plan, storm
water master plan.
Mr. McKune stated it is being done by Chen &
Associates.
Ms. Macomber asked this is all the city’s work, right?
Mr. Petty responded this is roadway drainage system.
Ms. Macomber stated the engineers have approval over all
this.
Mr. Flavin stated the master plan for swales and canals.
Mr. Petty asked will that be on the areas of the walkway
drainage they have. Is that what you are
talking about when you say swales and canals?
Mr. Flavin responded no, they have swales.
Mr. Petty asked we do not have curbs off the roads where
there is a swale system?
Mr. McKune responded right.
Ms. Macomber stated may I ask who the gentleman is that
is talking?
Mr. Petty responded I am sorry we have not asked you to
give us your name for the record.
Mr. Flavin stated Ed Flavin with CH2MHill.
On MOTION by
Ms. Macomber seconded by Mr. Sobers with all in favor the Items A. through E.
as submitted subject to engineering recommendations were approved.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A.
Attorney’s
Report
Mr. Cranmer stated the Margate Bill died a
formal death. I received a congratulatory call from the attorney for the City
of Coral Springs.
Ms.
Macomber stated I thought that was extremely interesting. At the outset the City Attorney got so upset
over the whole issue, it is interesting he would come back. We do live in a world of metaphors.
Mr.
Cranmer stated Mr. Petty expressed a fear if we agreed to merge. I then received a call from Ms. Mary Turner
who is the Governor’s gatekeeper with a special bulletin; we had dealt with her
the last time. Ms. Turner is very
clinical, she gathers information and gets a package together. She called to congratulate us and somehow the
media got the message that a meeting was called.
Ms.
Macomber stated he vetoed Mr. Stacy Ritter’s bill.
Mr.
Cranmer stated it was very unusual to get a call from her. She spent a lot of time on the phone. Now we are on good terms with the City of
Coral Springs.
Mr. Petty stated we hope to work
with the city we live in and we all care a great deal about it to the best of
our abilities.
Ms.
Macomber asked is it appropriate for me at this point to let you know what I
did?
Mr.
Petty responded very much so.
Mr.
Cranmer stated we had a meeting scheduled with the City of Margate for the 18th.
I have not received any indication whether
it will be cancelled or not. I am
wondering what your thoughts are about going forward with your complaints about
their incursions in to our right-of-way.
Mr.
Petty stated I think we have two issues, one is in your letter to the attorney,
where you asked him to substantiate any need for us to go to the meeting. His reply was it was already scheduled and
they would have a meeting before that date to let us know if they would
consider the matter. The 3rd
I believe and we have not heard anything.
The issue of our relationship with our neighbor is one I think I will
address through the capital program. I
know of no other way to do it. I asked
Mr. Selchan, who has been near a saint in this relationship for 20+ years and I
talked to Mr. Nick Schooley who is also the previous manager before Mr.
Selchan. The issue is I do not think we
can handle it as a neighbor to neighbor since we are not on equal ground. We are government, they are the people who
have the voice and the vote in the City of
Ms.
Macomber asked what time will it be on May 18th, do we know?
Mr.
Petty responded we do and I will make sure staff sends you a fresh notice of
that date. We polled the Board for that
date to make sure they could be available because we wanted a full board. If the situation is to the point they are
looking to exert some undue pressure on this body, stand assured staff is
positioned, even with our commitment to our lobbyist, to protect the Board by
leaving the chamber.
Mr.
Cranmer stated the City Attorney is very solicitous, very professional and
cancelled their agenda. I deferred to
Mr. Petty and we were pretty well received.
The Assistant City Manager was reasonable, it was a very good and
productive meeting.
Ms.
Macomber stated you had a pretty good relationship up to a certain point.
Mr.
Cranmer stated I thought it was very professionally handled by Mr. Steinfeld, very
genuine. Of course the commissioner was politically
skeptical and they would watch and wait to see what we did. Now we have done what they wanted, they want
us to meet the Board and we have to talk to them about the Oriole people and they
are not going to like that.
Mr.
Petty stated at our meeting what I suggest is we go there with this intent; we
get our resolution from the City of
Mr.
Cranmer stated I think we sever the two issues.
Mr.
Petty stated I see that as the logical next step. It is their turn to come forward with a
simple resolution that the action has been stopped. If they do not come forward with the
resolution, if we cannot get the working relationship going at that meeting, at
that time I am probably going to ask you to leave the chambers, that we ask the
city with all due respect to submit any further requests of additional services
they want from us in writing for us to give due consideration to and possible
dissemination to all residents within our District before we make a decision
and we leave. If you want, I will tell
you the proactive side says if the City of
Mr.
Cranmer stated perhaps we should just ask them to terminate the Chapter 164
procedures by letter indicating no further meetings are required we complied
with their needs.
Mr.
Petty stated I believe that is what they did opine to and Mr. Steinfeld said it
is a resolution.
Mr.
Cranmer stated if we get that kind of resolution at the meeting then we do not necessarily
have to discuss a lot of this and it can be done separately.
Mr.
Petty stated without undue pressure put on us in this one time public
event.
Ms.
Macomber asked is there any way to pre-ordain it happening?
Mr.
Petty responded we may suggest the best course is with counsel talking with
their counsel since that is probably the most professional and straight-line. We are dealing with the Assistant City
Manager who has been good to his word, but we do not know that since he is
acting City Manager that his position may not be taken from him and we may be
dealing with another City Manager, so that may be the cleanest way if I may
suggest.
Ms.
Macomber stated sounds good to me if we can process on good terms ahead of time.
Mr.
Cranmer stated to close Chapter 164.
Mr. Petty stated I do not think I
promised anybody that I did not want that call.
Mr.
Sobers asked are you going to make that happen prior to our meeting?
Mr.
Cranmer responded yes.
Ms. Macomber stated I spoke with Commiss