MINUTES OF MEETING

PINE TREE WATER CONTROL DISTRICT

 

            The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Pine Tree Water Control District was held on Thursday, May 4, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. at the District Office, 10300 N.W. 11 Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.

 

            Present and constituting a quorum were:

 

            David Rosenof                                                  President

            Margaret Bertolami                                           Vice President

            Donna Benckenstein                                         Assistant Secretary

            Paul Brewer                                                     Assistant Secretary

            Mimi Bright Ribotsky                                        Assistant Secretary

           

            Also present were:

 

            John Petty                                                        Manager

            D.J. Doody                                                      Attorney

            Warren Craven                                                 Engineer

            Mark Lauzier                                                    Parkland City Manager

                                                                                   

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS                               Roll Call

            Mr. Rosenof called the meeting to order and Mr. Petty called the roll.

 

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS                          Approval of the Minutes of the April 6, 2006 Meeting

            Mr. Rosenof stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the April 6, 2006 meeting and requested any corrections, additions or deletions.

            Mr. Rosenof stated “metes” is still misspelled.

            Mr. Craven stated the word “done” in the third sentence from the bottom on page 24 should be “dug”. 

            Mr. Rosenof asked any other corrections?

            Mr. Craven responded in the sixth line, on page 25, the word “swapped” should be “sloped”.

            Ms. Bertolami stated there are a number of things I did not say and there were some things, which need correcting.  I do not know if it is worth going through one by one.  Under the eighth order of business I asked for the social security numbers to be deleted from the report.  They have not been.  I would like to make sure this happens.  On page 19 where it says, “Ms. Bertolami stated I have to excuse myself,” it was Ms. Ribotsky who said it.

            Mr. Petty stated I will take care of it personally.

            Ms. Bertolami stated thank you.  There were a couple of others.

            Mr. Rosenof stated let us get them for the record.

            The record will reflect Ms. Ribotsky joined the meeting.

            Mr. Rosenof stated we are going over corrections in the minutes.  There was some confusion.  For the record, Ms. Ribotsky say hello to the microphone.

            Mr. Ribotsky stated hello.  My voice probably has a slight New York accent when you are transcribing.

            Ms. Bertolami stated for the record, my voice is usually softer than most.

            Ms. Benckenstein stated I am just here.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated she is firm and she sounds like an attorney.

            Ms. Bertolami stated on page four, the third line down, I did not say that.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated it was me.

            Ms. Bertolami stated in the middle of page ten, I am not sure it was me.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated it was me.

            Ms. Bertolami stated it was my statement half way down page 14. 

            Ms. Ribotsky asked are you talking about the third sentence going up from the fifth order of business?

            Ms. Bertolami responded yes.  On page 21, I made the motion seconded by Mr. Brewer.

            Mr. Rosenof asked are there any other corrections?

            Ms. Bertolami responded on page 32, there is another comment attributed to Ms. Ribotsky and it was probably Ms. Benckenstein.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated yes because I was not here.

            Mr. Rosenof asked is it CH2M Hill?

            Mr. Craven responded CH2M Hill.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I always thought it was CM2H.  Are there no more corrections?

            Ms. Ribotsky responded on the bottom of page 37. 

            Ms. Bertolami stated we got it.

            Mr. Rosenof asked are there any other corrections?

            There not being any,

 

On MOTION by Ms. Bertolami seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with all in favor the minutes of the April 6, 2006 meeting were approved as amended.

 

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                        Supervisor’s Requests

            Ms. Ribotsky asked may I make a request of the Chair?

            Mr. Rosenof responded yes you may.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated since the City Manager of Parkland is here to address specific issues with regard to FEMA reimbursement, is it possible for us to move it up on the agenda so he can go home to his family?

            Mr. Rosenof asked is there objection from the Board to move this item up?

            There was no objection from the Board.

            Mr. Rosenof asked which agenda item is the City Manager here for?

            Ms. Ribotsky responded it might fall under my request for Supervisor’s requests.  It is not a specific agenda item, but it is something which came up at the last meeting.  I do not notice it specifically drawn out on this agenda.

            Mr. Rosenof stated okay.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I called Mr. Petty a week and a half ago.  I went back through all of the old minutes.  There seems to be a communications breakdown, a process breakdown or something.  I am not sure where we got derailed.  Several months ago when we were discussing clean up of the Winner’s Circle Canal, I was under the impression things were going out to bid.  I went through the notes and we talked about approving bids.  We discussed who was going to do it, authorizing certain amounts and what needed to be done.  There were motions to approve going out to bid.  When I asked him to update me on the status of when the bids will be in, when we can award them and when the work will start, I was informed the bids were not issued.  It concerns me because I do not feel we are doing our residents justice if this has gotten to this point.  I do not know if anyone else was under this impression.

            Mr. Rosenof stated you missed me yelling at Mr. Doody at the end of the meeting last month.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I read about it.  I have the Parkland City Manager here to address any role Parkland may have in granting easements or anything like it.  I feel for me to push this issue to a point is inappropriate given my dual role.  When I sit on this Board I have a fiduciary responsibility to all the tax payers of PTWCD, which includes residents of Coral Springs.  I want to make sure I am not crossing the line.  When it comes to city questions, or city responsibilities, I feel it is more appropriate for the City Manager to address them.  He has been involved with residents’ concerns as well.  

            I would like to start out with an update from Mr. Petty.  We can sit here for a long time and go backwards, but I do not know how helpful it will be.  I looked through the meeting minutes and it appears we all thought things were underway.  I do not want to go back to where it broke down.  I want to spend time figuring out how we can bring closure to this, bring it forward and get an answer we can commit to the residents on the status of this project.  I do not feel any of us know the answer.  If everyone else does, I missed a great deal at the end of the last meeting.  I must have been missing a great deal at other meetings too.

            Mr. Rosenof stated let us start with an update from Mr. Doody because I know a great deal of issues is in your court as far as easements and what we can and cannot do.

            Mr. Doody stated with respect to legalities of the process I put together a temporary easement, which will access to the back of the canal.  I am of the opinion we had difficulty getting reimbursement by virtue of certifying the District has ownership of the canals based on the title work and if we can approach it through a special assessment basis. 

            Mr. Rosenof asked have we determined if a special assessment is only for the people affected at Winner’s Circle or all of PTWCD?

            Mr. Doody responded legally you can argue the benefits accrue to the entire District or you can identify your assessment area as those property owners who abut the property.  We will have to work in concert with the engineer to ensure there is a benefit accruing to the entire District.

            Mr. Rosenof stated one of the things I would like to point out is this could have happened at Winner’s Circle, Pine Tree or Butler Farms.  Whatever precedence we set, I like the idea of it being a District wide assessment.  Tomorrow it can happen to somebody else.  I do not want to be piecing who is affected by what.  I would rather have the ability to say something happened within the District, we all chip in and make it right for the District.  I do not know if we can do it legally.

            Mr. Doody stated legally you can approach it in this fashion.  You have a stronger legal position if you do it in a localized area similar to a sidewalk project.  If you are installing sidewalks, it will benefit the entire community.  There is generally an assessment roll applying to the properties next to it.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I do not necessarily agree with your analogy because it is an improvement.

            Mr. Doody stated I understand it is a fair point, but legally you have to show a special benefit according to the property.  You can arguably say everyone will benefit.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated in that case, everyone whose yard had something cleaned up should have received an assessment.  How is this particular area different than a canal we cleared out in front of someone else’s house?

            Mr. Petty responded I have experience with the assessment process.  The term we typically use in describing this is special and peculiar to the lot itself.  What is a special and peculiar benefit to that lot, which is not a general improvement to the area?  Why does it get an assessment?  We typically use an outside, independent, financial advisor.  Hank Fishkind and Associates are typically used in this case or someone of similar stature. 

            In determining the methodology of the assessment, which is a long term assessment where you are dealing with long term debt as anything past five years.  If it is an O&M assessment, it has to be assigned by the engineer.  He has to opine this is a fair way to do the assessment on an O&M.  This is why when we do the budget we ask him if he agrees.  It is currently on a per acre basis.  If the assessments are going to be another $100,000 and you want to stick it in a one year budget, it is a maintenance assessment.  We ask our engineer to determine the fair way of applying it.  If it is long term, I recommend we go outside and get an independent third party to evaluate this and look for the special and peculiar benefit.  You will have the research done should you need defense in the future, not that it cannot be attacked later on, but this is how you protect the District.

            Ms. Ribotsky asked can I ask one more question?  What did the title search determine?  Did it determine it is county property, city property or District property?

            Mr. Doody responded yes, yes and yes.  Kidding aside, the title work indicates there are various interests.

            Mr. Rosenof stated private entities as well.

            Mr. Doody stated yes.  It is not a clear and clean title.  I cannot certify the District has ownership. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated this is the root of the problem.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated in this situation, it might be in our better interest if the county has ownership.  We can ask the county to do it and they might be able to do it without a special assessment. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated in some cases, the county does not think they own it. 

            Ms. Ribotsky asked why is it not a clear title?  Is it because the property goes over onto another entity’s property?

            Mr. Doody responded it is more of a dedication process.  The transfer of ownership from a historical standpoint, we have had this debate going back to before people started to plat, the county takes the position we own it by virtue of a maintenance map.  In my humble opinion, a maintenance map does not transfer title.  It is not recognized under Florida Law as an instrument of conveyance.  I am relying on Fidelity Title.  I obtained what is referred to as an owner and encumbrance report.  It shows the owner of record as Broward County, Parkland Associates, LTD, the City of Parkland, Oriole Homes and PTWCD.  I have gone through these to try to take the pieces of the puzzle and put it together. 

            Ms. Ribotsky asked can we have the other title owners quick claim deed it to the District so we can claim ownership?

            Mr. Doody responded you can.  It is an option.

            Mr. Petty stated it is a direction the Board may wish to work with staff on.  When we talked on the phone, I said we would like to partner up with the City of Parkland so when we ask them to give us the title, the City of Parkland can say they feel it is a good idea too.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated what I think will be a good idea is, it is a canal.  We are in the drainage business and it seems it should belong to the District versus any of the other entities.

            Mr. Petty stated there is another issue on top of this.  It was dug from right-of-way line to right-of-way line.  There are no banks within the area.  Even if we got everyone else to quit deed it to us, we will own the waterway, but no banks.  That is private property. 

            Ms. Ribotsky asked is this different than any other place?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.  It is an issue because removing trees from the waterway is a fairly simple concept compared to repairing the erosion problems on the side if you wish to do so.  We had the engineer talk at the last meeting that due to it being so wide, the erosion does not show any hindrance to the flow.  Repairing it is more of an aesthetic issue than it is one for flow.  That causes issues with if it is a special and peculiar benefit to the District or to the landowner.  If you will direct us to try to get title to the canal, you may want to consider whether or not you want us to also talk to landowners about getting an easement to cover banks or ask the engineer if he prefers a program where we build banks in the waterways.  Because it is so wide, we may do it.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I will tell you my preference.  Right now the banks are not of eminent danger or posing a threat.  We have wood and trees in there, which right now are not a drainage problem, but Mr. Craven said once they start rotting and fall into the canal, it can be.  We can have two processes.  Phase one can be for us to take care of the canal and make sure we have a way to get in there to clean it out.  In phase two we can worry about erosion and the banks.  I do not want to tie the two together if it means delaying the clearing out of the eminent problem. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated let me get clarification from Mr. Craven.  Do you feel it is a problem with the amount of trees in the canal to hinder the flow?

            Mr. Craven responded I must have missed something.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated a few meetings ago you said it is not a problem at the moment because it is above ground.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I understand, but I believe I heard something different last month.  Do you believe the current trees, which will eminently fall in the canal, will be a flow hindrance and create a drainage problem?

            Mr. Craven responded over time they might.  At the present time I do not feel they are.

            Mr. Rosenof asked do you say present time because they have not fallen in the canal yet?

            Mr. Craven responded yes because they have not decomposed, they have not shifted and they have not gone to the bottom of the canal.

            Ms. Ribotsky asked do we need the banks for you to maintain the canal or can you maintain it without having any title or easements on those banks?

            Mr. Craven responded with the equipment the contractors are currently using, you can probably do it in the water by putting a barge there and working off of it.  It will be expedient to have the ability to have access to the sides in certain places by a temporary easement or an agreement.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated the City Manager can probably speak to this, but I can tell you one side will be easy to do with the property owner on the Winner’s Circle side.  We will not have to get a great deal of right-of-ways.  Am I correct?

            Mr. Lauzier responded on the Winner Circle Canal the city has 17’ from the eastern edge of the pathway.  The pathway is approximately five feet wide.  In various places there is 12’ of brush trees and knocked down vegetation between the pathway and the waterway, which is under your jurisdiction. 

            Mr. Craven asked is there a written description on this?

            Mr. Lauzier responded we do have a legal description for the 17’.  It is the city’s parcel.  There are parcel maps for it.

            Mr. Craven asked can we get a copy of them?

            Mr. Lauzier responded yes.  The issue with Winner’s Circle came about post hurricane.  We have a requirement under their Development Order that the maintainer will take a vegetative buffer between Winner’s Circle, the canal and the residents in Country Place.  We just finished negotiations with them on replacing the buffer.  As part of the buffer they will clean up what is on the ground between the 17’ city easement as part of their project.  The residents’ concerns are what happens to something, which is on the embankment leaning over the water, about to fall in the water or already fallen in the water.  Winner’s Circle is doing this as we negotiated with them on their own dime.  Because they have a Development Order requirement, they are not going to go in or on the water and do anything like that.  It is not their deal.  We are providing them access to our land to assist us with the clean up.  We will probably go back after to see if there is anything we can help with.  I do not think the City Commission will want us to go in the water or to that extreme.  We did not have ownership problems for some of the issues we are still dealing with on stormwater drainage that you do.

            In the case of Pine Tree, we are responsible.  We have drainage easements and we show the Natural Resources Conservation Services under the Department of Agriculture those easements.  We also have ownership of roadways.  Because those are water facilities, they entered into an agreement with us due to the fact we have responsibility of maintaining those areas.  The necessary ducks were in a row for the city to enter into an agreement.  You have a problem with it because you have to prove it before you can get off the dime with them.  You have to show it is yours.  If they are underlying the District’s responsibilities, whatever they might be, is not legally defined clearly.  You are probably stuck not being able to enter into these agreements with them.  You try. 

            Mr. Petty stated our issue at the current time is we cannot finish signing off on the documents with NRCS.  We lost our place in line and all monies have been committed by NRCS.

            Mr. Lauzier stated probably because of the fact they cannot say it is their responsibility.  If you have a mess, deal with your mess.  I am going to help the city, or whomever, because you have clear title, ownership and responsibility.  In Pine Tree we have to convey the water to your facility.  It is our responsibility, which we would like to talk to you about on another day.  Maybe you can take on the responsibility because we are not getting our grass cut anymore. 

            Mr. Craven stated I know I should be picky, but that was a number of subjects.

            Mr. Lauzier stated I see your problem.  That is my point.

            Mr. Craven stated we understand yours.  In sorting this out, there is a big root mass hanging on the bank.  The tree is in the canal.  How are you going to differentiate between the portion of the tree within your 17’?

            Mr. Lauzier responded if it has fallen on our 17’ and they can cut it up as well as pick it up, they will take it out.  If it is fallen on the water, hanging over the water or in the water bank, they are not going to touch it. 

            Mr. Craven asked what about the portion on the land?

            Mr. Lauzier responded they want to measure out 17’ and start there.  The city and PTWCD have to figure out if there is a foot, two feet, three feet or four feet.  You guys have to figure it out and I will handle the 17’ we are responsible for under the Development Order.  When it gets into county, city or private land underneath the canal, it is your problem.  This is where we are stuck.  We have an agreement for them to clean our part.  We will come in to make sure they have done a good job.  I will have to go to the city commission.  We will have to put our minds together, see what you guys are going to finish and go to the commission. 

            Mr. Craven stated I do not want to misunderstand.  If I have a tree on the bank, it falls over and is in the canal, the root ball is on your 17’, the rest of the tree is in the canal, are they going to be responsible for cutting the tree, removing the root ball and leaving the rest of it there?

            Mr. Lauzier responded I do not think they have a plan to cut a tree, which is in the water, and creates a problem for you.  They are going to leave it there because it will be outside of the 17’.

            Mr. Craven stated a portion of it is going to be in the 17’.

            Mr. Petty stated let me interrupt.  I have two other Districts in the middle of this.  We have a contractor and I have been asked this question many times.  What exactly are you going to pick up?  What I can.  If I am a contractor and cannot pick up the tree because the majority of it is at a bad angle in the water, it will have to stay.  It comes down to a site specific condition.  I wish it was simple.  I have been asked the question as a district.  It is on my house, but the root ball is on your place. 

            Let us get back to basics.  Do you want to get back to a legal opinion, something you can hold me to?  This is an act of God.  An act of God says whatever falls on your property is your business and whatever falls on my property is mine.  We will cut it at the property line.  If this is what you want, this is what I will do.  If you want to talk as neighbors, here is what I can do.  If I can grab the thing, I will grab it.  I am sure it is what your contractor is going to do.  If I cannot safely grab it, it is yours.  I would rather go by the neighborly thing; otherwise, it is right at the property line.

            Mr. Craven stated I was not trying to be adversarial.

            Ms. Ribotsky  stated no, you were just trying to understand.

            Mr. Lauzier stated in our situation there is cost involved.  Obviously they will want to limit their costs.

            Mr. Craven stated I understand.

            Mr. Lauzier stated they might want to be particular about where the 17’ line is.  They may end up with six figure trees, which came down on our side and a root ball on the bank pointing towards another cut there.  I will have to deal with it.

            Mr. Rosenof asked what does your RFP say?

            Mr. Lauzier responded we do not have an RFP.  We have an agreement for them to clean up as part of their maintenance responsibility.  This is not part of the NRCS deal.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I thought we were talking about the NRCS deal.

            Mr. Lauzier stated the NRCS is going to clean up Pine Tree and The Ranches.  The Winner’s Circle canal is a deal with Winner’s Circle apartments.

            Mr. Rosenof stated the 17’ we are talking about…

            Mr. Lauzier stated is the same property we will be glad to provide you access through any of our easements to get there and clean out if needed.

            Mr. Rosenof stated let me talk in big picture terms.  Either the city is going to clean it up or we are going to clean it up. 

            Mr. Lauzier stated Winner’s Circle is going to clean up what we can get them to.  The city will come back and look at it.  I will go to the commission and ask them if they are happy with it or if something else needs to be done.  I will tell them they should not go in the water.  That is where you come into play.

            Mr. Rosenof asked is Winner’s Circle an HOA?

            Ms. Ribotsky responded no.

            Mr. Lauzier stated it is the property manager.

            Mr. Rosenof stated the point is whether all of the taxpayers in Parkland pay for you to do it, or if all the taxpayers in Parkland pay for us to do it, I am seeing a line we are spending a great deal of time splitting hairs on. 

            Mr. Lauzier stated you have a requirement in your development.  The development is Winner’s Circle.  We have a Development Order, which says we must maintain this buffer.  We are using our power of regulation and our Development Order to force them to do something at no cost to the taxpayer. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated I am saying beyond what they do. 

            Mr. Lauzier stated I have not gotten that far yet because they have not come in and done their thing yet.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated it is one of those things I do not think we are going to know until they are done.

            Mr. Petty stated Winner’s Circle is unique because their buffer does not have anything to do with drainage.  There are many trees down.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated there are two issues.  There is the east side of the path and the west side of the path. 

            Mr. Lauzier stated they are rebuilding the buffer, which is a separate issue.  I am talking about the clean up issue.  The clean up issue has to do with cleaning the old buffer.  Let us see how far we can get it and I will go to the commission with the result.

            Mr. Petty stated those are the pictures you sent out after the hurricane.  Mr. Frederick went out and we talked about it.

            Mr. Lauzier stated I do not want to give anyone the impression that Winner’s Circle is going in the water or taking the ones on the bank.  They are not going near those.  They said so already.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I guess we are making some progress.  We determined we can get into the water.  That was one problem.  We were worried if we needed a right-of-way or granting of easements.  We are getting somewhere. 

            Mr. Lauzier stated you can come in through Covered Bridge Park and come down the canal, where ever you need to or maybe through Six Acre Wood in the north side.

            Mr. Craven stated if I am not mistaken, I assume your 17’ are parallel and adjacent to our canal.

            Mr. Lauzier stated yes.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated on one side of it.

            Mr. Craven stated on the Winner’s Circle side.  In addition to this, we will need access through the paved areas.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated we own each end; Six Acre Park and Covered Bridge.

            Ms. Benkenstein asked Parkland does?

            Ms. Ribotsky responded yes.

            Mr. Craven stated as long as we will try to cooperate with everyone, we will need an agreement with the Winner’s Circle property owner to be able to utilize their paved areas.

            Mr. Rosenof stated otherwise we will not clean up their canals.

            Mr. Lauzier stated at the next commission meeting on May 17, 2006, we are bringing back a resolution and a Development Order amendment.  It will clearly define Winner’s Circle’s responsibility because they want to get out of the business of maintaining our property.  We shifted the buffer to their property.  We are going to cut and run now.  This is the last thing they will do.  They will clean up that side and reinstall a buffer on their property.  At that point I can talk to them.  Maybe there is an opportunity between their contractor, but it may just be a landscaping company.  They may not have the time, materials, men and equipment to get into whatever you have to do with these big trees and stumps.

            Mr. Petty stated that is a specific job only a few contractors can handle.

            Mr. Lauzier stated if you want me to explore it, I will.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated access is one issue.  The other question is getting the title. 

            Mr. Lauzier stated you are going to end up paying.  That is your problem. 

            Ms. Ribotsky stated we need to look for a title for the long term.  We need an access to do it from Oriole Parkland Associates, Ltd., which I think is Winner’s Circle.

            Mr. Petty stated most of this work is going to be done from a barge.  It appears off hand that access is available; although we want our engineer to work with the city to make sure we can get proper access.  You only need a launch point.  All of the material is put on the front end of the barge.  The barge pushes itself back to its launch point.  It takes everything and dumps it on the ground.  They pick it up again, put it in a truck and away they go.  We have been doing it all over Coral Springs for the last month or so.  The issue is if we can get started will PTWCD consider doing this on its own as a budget item and how to do it. 

            Mr. Lauzier stated your problem is funding without NRCS’s involvement.  It will be your issue.

            Mr. Petty stated it is the next step. 

            Ms. Ribotsky asked do you have an idea of how much it will cost?

            Mr. Petty responded it has not been put out to bid.  You have an estimate.

            Mr. Rosenof stated it ended up being $350 an acre.

            Mr. Petty asked do you remember our total construction cost estimate?

            Mr. Rosenof responded a couple of millions of dollars.  I remember doing the math and it ended up being $350 per unit. 

            Mr. Petty stated if we gave it to all 2,100 or whatever acres there are…

            Mr. Rosenof stated I would like the rest of the Supervisors’ opinion on it.

            Ms. Ribotsky asked to do a special assessment?

            Mr. Rosenof responded for the entire District.

            Ms. Ribotsky asked versus a long term financing option?

            Mr. Rosenof responded as opposed to the people affected in the narrow area, having the entire District pay for this.  My water at the edge of Pine Tree is contributing just as much to the guy who is on the border.  If I am going to clear the canal, I need to clear it for everyone.

            Mr. Petty stated the determination of the special and peculiar benefit is not allowed to be done by the Board.  You are the only ones who can approve it eventually.  One of the things we will be looking for, so we can have a good assessment the residents can rely on and we do not get called on, is to make sure we do not do it arbitrarily.  We should do so considering all of the facts.  If we are going to go for a $2 Million project, looking at our budget, every $100,000 of cost raises our assessments approximately $40. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated it is a 50% increase. 

            Mr. Petty stated being able to raise this revenue, one of the incentives for us to get a lower rate is to say this is a tax exempt loan we are looking for.  In doing so, we will have to have Bond Counsel opine this is for tax exempt purposes.  If it is for maintenance, they will typically not give you a tax exempt status.  If it is for facilities, which includes dirt work and clearing, you might be able to get that status.  There is a process to go through.  We understand the process.  We can start this quickly.  We can have this done in a fairly timely fashion, but there are a few steps to go through.  Counsel will be required to opine.  The engineer will be required to submit some work and we will have Bond Counsel involved because this will be a long term loan.  The money is available.  We have the banks on standby.  The people are available.  We had this set up for the last meeting.  We can do it, but we will have to consider it at a longer term because we will not have 75% payback from NRCS. 

            Ms. Ribotsky asked may I make a request?  It will be helpful for all of us, particularly given the confusion we had with the process of who is doing what, can you please put together a detailed project plan outlining each step; whose responsibility it is and when it has to be done by?  We can have an idea.  This is sounding like a 6 to 12 month process.

            Mr. Petty responded we can have a contractor out here in approximately 60 days. 

            Ms. Ribotsky asked to do the work?  You can do the work before you assess?

            Mr. Petty responded we have specifications done and yes you can because the instrument will be a short term note at first.  You will roll into a long term note on October 1, 2006.  It will give you the time.

            Mr. Doody asked what will you use to secure the loan?

            Mr. Petty responded we will use our assessments and it will be marked up as a maintenance assessment.  We will do a budget amendment to show the Board put it in the budget.  It also gives the Board the option of going to a longer term note to reduce it at the same time.  We just did it for the Sunshine Water Control District.  It is a construction note you revolve into a long term note before the term or payments are due. 

            Mr. Rosenof asked what we are talking about has nothing to do with your easement problems because if we do not get this federal money, will our easement problems go away?

            Mr. Doody responded no.  You will still need the easement.  There are opportunities to secure the easements to gain access.  Where we cannot, we will work around it.  What you are getting is a temporary access easement or construction easement.  It is of a temporary nature and you will have to approach the property owner and tell them the reason why you need it. 

            Ms. Ribotksy asked do we still need the quit claim deeds?  I believe it is part of a long term solution.

            Mr. Doody responded that is a valid point. 

            Ms. Ribotsky asked what is the process in getting the quit claim deed?  How do you get it through the city and the county?

            Mr. Doody responded my first impression is I will have to work with Mr. Craven in getting a legal description for each piece.  In some cases with the county it will be a political process.  There has to be dialog between the entities where we go above staff. 

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I am going to go back to the other question.  If there is legal work, can we have a short term plan and a long term plan along with target dates?  We are going into the next hurricane season.  Suppose there is more damage and yes, maybe we can recover.  God forbid more trees go down into the canal before this work gets done.  Would it not be nice if we had the quit claim deeds done ahead of time so we can take advantage of funding this year?  I do not know if it really is long term or maybe it is all short term.  I am feeling uncomfortable.  I do not want to go backwards.  This happened in October.  It is now almost six months later and we are developing our plan now.  I have a problem with the fact we did not know what the implications were and we were not aware of it.  I want it all detailed so no one says, I thought you meant this or the engineer says, I thought the attorney was working on this.  I do not want it going back and forth.  We need to come to a resolution on when this is going to be done and how.  I would like it in writing where we all agree to it at the next meeting. 

            Mr. Doody stated it is doable.  It is respectfully suggested you all, as a body, need to decide what direction you will go.  It will facilitate the plan you are looking for and it will make it happen if you agree on what you will do and when you want to do it.

            Mr. Lauzier stated I am trying to recap on the funding issue.  The tax exempt longer term picture, I imagine will not necessitate a canal bank re-judging or filling so it is infrastructure related in order to do rather than maintenance operational. 

            Mr. Petty stated other Districts currently under contract are looking at it as a tax exempt expenditure or a funding instrument based on them doing clearing and grading.  If I am just doing clearing, Bond Counsel might say it is maintenance. 

            Mr. Lauzier stated it is a legal determination you will make. 

            Mr. Petty stated we will try to go for it, but it is part of the issue.

            Mr. Doody stated that is important.  It sounds like you are saying you have to expand this project to ensure you get your tax treatment, so it will be beyond purely maintenance.  Is that correct?     

            Mr. Petty responded we are talking about cost implications.  We missed NRCS so our costs went up a considerable amount.  If we are going to be funding it with the assessment of the residents of PTWCD, we have to look at this as possibly having to go out and get funding for it, which might not meet tax exempt status.  It puts the interest rate up a couple of points, which increases our cost.  You need to take it into consideration as you evaluate the scope of this project.  Right now, you do not know what the scope is because we did not bid the project.  What your sister districts have done is look at projections, but before they decided on an action, they put it out to bid.

            We have Gee & Jenson, which you have authorized to work with your engineer.  They have the specifications in the bid.  The package is ready to go.  We did not give them authorization to go to bid at the last meeting.  If you would like to see what it is like, we can ask them to bid between now and the next meeting.  This way you will get a definite scope and a detailed specification on what you can do for that amount of money.  I will come back to you and bring the finance numbers so you have a better picture of it as well; if you can make tax exempt or not make tax exempt status. 

            Mr. Doody stated I want to remind you, you will be interviewing at the next meeting.

            Mr. Rosenof stated that is fine. 

            Ms. Ribotsky asked if our bids are out, when someone asks when we anticipate the work being done, what is our answer to be?

            Mr. Rosenof responded it is hush, hush. 

            Ms. Ribotsky asked when do we have the money available?

            Mr. Petty responded it is a tough question.  I cannot tell you what this Board is going to say once the prices hit and we show you what the impact is. 

            Ms. Ribotsky stated no one cares if the bids are out.  They want to know when the work is going to be done.  The one question they want to know, we cannot answer.

            Mr. Rosenof stated the answer is at the next Board meeting we will have the pricing and we will let you know. 

            Ms. Ribotksy asked will we be able to know at the next meeting?

            Mr. Petty responded we will have the bid back.  We have done this in 30 days before.  We are lucky they are in town.  We have two contractors working down the street from us in waterways in two other districts.  We can give them a short notice and get a good response.  Any other time, we would give them more to respond because they would not be in the area.

            Mr. Rosenof stated you have a date certain as long as you have people to handle it.  We are getting bids and we are reviewing them the first Thursday of next month. 

            Ms. Benckenstein stated it seems like things just crawl along.  At the next meeting we will have bids and at that time we can say we will go with a certain contractor.  Will you have the money in place?

            Mr. Petty responded no.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated that is the problem.  The work cannot start if the money is not in place.

            Mr. Petty stated we will start the fastest source of financing we know.  We will get it in place to give you the particulars of the interest rates, terms and what the impacts of those terms will be.  We will talk to you about how it evolves from a short term to a long term, what will be asked of your attorney, engineer and from outside counsels as well.  This can all happen fairly quickly, but there is a process which must be followed.

            Mr. Rosenof asked is there a permit required?

            Mr. Petty responded if there is, the City of Parkland will work with us in getting it as quickly as possible. 

            Mr. Lauzier stated we will help you with a permit, an easement or whatever you need. 

            Mr. Petty stated we have a positive action to follow.  We will get the bids for you.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I thank everyone for moving things around. 

           

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS                             Manager’s Report – Distribution of Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 and Consideration of Resolution 2006-3 Approving the Budget and Setting the Public Hearing

            Mr. Petty stated we handed out a proposed budget as our enabling legislation requires.  We have given this to you so we can start our budget process.  It is basically at the same level as it was last year with small increases due to current expenditures projected out to the end of the year.  There is no big item on here for me to point to.  The change between last year’s assessment per unit of $81.87 to $112.64 is due to not using so much of the carry forward to offset assessments as we used in the past years.  We are not incurring higher costs.  We are not using unrestrictive reserve funds to offset at last year’s level without getting direction from this body. 

            Page one and two are biggies.  Where it says total expenditures, it tells you the adopted budget for this year was $312,894.  We are projecting it out to $310,781.  It is a small decrease of approximately $2,000, but your assessments go up because we are not using unrestricted carry forward money from the prior year to offset until we get direction from this Board.  If you look on page three, you see what those funds are projected out to be by the end of this fiscal year.  It is approximately $150,000.  If you take the $150,000, or some amount of it, let us say you take $90,000 and throw it at offsetting the revenues, you will be at the same level as last year.  That is a Board decision.  Based on us being hit by hurricanes last year, we thought we might like to have reserve money for such instances and $150,000 is not a large reserve.  We wanted to show you what it will be like if you just assess for your normal operating budget without offsetting from savings from your current year.

            Mr. Rosenof asked is any of the cost recovery for Butler Farms reflected here?  I see we spent a total projection of $10,000 in attorney fees.  How do we show offset cost recovery?

            Mr. Petty asked are you talking about miscellaneous income?

            Mr. Rosenof responded yes.

            Mr. Petty stated we show it as miscellaneous income in your monthly financials.  It is not listed in your budget.  It is not something normal to the District.  I can put a line item in and call it miscellaneous income if you would like.

            Mr. Rosenof stated we always base our next year’s budget on what we spent this year.  If what we spent this year was an extraordinary expense because of something, which was cost recovered, I will hate to raise the budget unnecessarily.

            Mr. Petty stated if you look on page one, you will see the attorney fees of last year’s budget being at $10,000 and the proposed for the beginning budget process is at the same level. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated it is more of a theoretical question than an actual question. 

            Mr. Petty stated we are taking the one time instance and not considering it as a budget item, but as an abnormality we will take care of during the year.  Butler Farms pays for any increase in revenue.

            Mr. Rosenof stated let me rephrase the question.  When you say what we spent on attorney fees, is it net of cost recovery or gross?

            Mr. Petty responded it is net.

            Mr. Rosenof stated my question is answered.

            Mr. Petty stated I have shown you the budget is basically the same level as it was in the past because we did not want to include any projects without discussion. After last month’s meeting we saw difficulties in determining ownership of certain properties; therefore, we did not want to start anything before the Board considered the matter further.  It seems the Board has.  I looked at an analysis of what our assessments can bring in.  An increase of approximately $40 per acre brings us approximately $100,000 worth of revenue.  If your construction project, or your loan for the construction project, requires $200,000 a year in principal and interest payments, you will need an $80 increase to offset it.  I thought I would give you the information for consideration.  I can come back to you at next month’s meeting with a couple of examples of a budget, which can handle what the bid comes in at.

            Mr. Rosenof asked should we be warning our residents of this pending assessment?

            Mr. Petty responded until you make a decision, you do not know if you are, but it does not hurt to soften the ground even if you do not plant.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated as far as warning, we should have it as part of the budget process and budget hearing.  When we make announcements for the budget hearing, we might want to be specific about what we call out.  The first year I was on the Board we went up a few dollars.  Last year we went down.  We might want to put it in bold, this year there will be a special assessment, and call it out when we have the budget hearing.

            Mr. Rosenof stated no one comes to our budget hearings.  A neighbor in Pine Tree is about to get hit double his assessment.  I am cool with paying it.  I would like to know it is being considered.  How do we do it?

            Mr. Doody responded the special assessment process under the statute asks for notice requirements for a public hearing.  Are you asking about getting the word out in the community?

            Ms. Ribotsky responded yes.  The notice requirements are in a newspaper.  It is a legal advertisement no one looks at.  Should we be sending a post card to everyone’s house?

            Mr. Rosenof responded I do not want to spend any money to do it.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated we can do a city email, but it does not necessarily cover all the people in a District.  It is only Parkland residents.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I wonder if we can get an email list for everyone in the District.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated there is no email list to purchase.  They go stale a week later because people change their email addresses all of the time.

            Mr. Petty stated there is a consideration out there.  If you did not sign them up yourself, in other words they did not see what you are offering and they say yes to it, you are considered a spammer.

            Mr. Rosenof asked do we have a website?      

            Mr. Petty responded no.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated we can put it on the City of Coral Springs’ website and the City of Parkland’s website.  I cannot speak for Coral Springs, but I can speak for Parkland.  We can put it on the websites as a special notice.

            Mr. Rosenof stated it will be a help because I know many people do look at the City of Parkland website. 

            Ms. Ribotsky stated the City of Coral Springs has always been cooperative and they communicate better with their residents than we do.

            Mr. Rosenof asked can Severn Trent post part of the website?

            Ms. Ribotsky asked who would know to go to it?

            Mr. Rosenof responded I am saying in our website, we can have a link to Severn Trent’s website and have it posted there.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I do not think it is a bad idea, but it is more active.  It requires another step for a resident to go through.  If we are worried about them not looking at emails or our website, we should not ask them to go through our website and click to another website. 

            Mr. Petty stated we can do it, but Supervisor Ribotsky is correct.  It is another click.  If they are already there, you might as well let the notice be there.  We do not have people looking at our site for PTWCD.  It takes a while to build interest.

            Mr. Rosenof stated physically the information can be loaded by the manager with the latest update.  It assigns a specific page on a specific website.  The link on Parkland’s website or the City of Coral Springs’ website says for PTWCD, click here.  They do not have to go to Severn Trent and drill down.  We can just have a specific page on Severn Trent’s website where our manager can update the information.  I am not talking about multiple clicks.  Whether it is hosted on Parkland’s website or wherever, you need to have a page.  I am just saying to point to a page on his website and he can control it.  Otherwise, you will have the information in two places and it may not always be updated.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated if we did a survey of the taxpayers in the District, I would say 50% do not know what PTWCD is.  They just pay their taxes and do not know it is a line item on their taxes. 

            Mr. Petty stated there is a reason for it.  We do not spend money on public relations.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated it is also small, relative to their other taxes.  I do not know if there will be any interest in finding out more information.  I do not think people will click on the link or know it applies to them.  People do not know if they live in the District.  I am a fiend on communications.  If I thought it could provide them useful information, I would rather do one mailing for $.40 or $.50.

            Ms. Benckenstein stated we probably do not need to do anything.  Do we?

            Ms. Ribotsky responded legally we do not, but morally it is a big bump for some people.  Not everyone is living in the one acre lots in Pine Tree.  Some people are living in the condominiums.  Five hundred dollars might be more to them.  With this special assessment plus the taxes, we are talking about going from $87 to an increased assessment and a special assessment.  We are talking four times what they paid the year before, which is a significant amount to increase someone’s taxes.  I can understand wanting to reach out to them.  I am not opposed to a mailing or the City of Coral Springs and the City of Parkland putting a notice on their website. 

            Ms. Benckenstein asked should we not find out how much this is going to cost before we do anything like it?

            Mr. Petty responded this is the tough part of being on this Board in that we will have the bids back in 30 days and we will ask you to make a decision.  You will not have a great deal of time to canvass the body for a reaction.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I am less concerned with canvassing the body for reaction.  I will do what I think is right and I have no problem making the decision.  I want to buffer the people in the District and say, “understand we are about to do this, we are going to do what is right for the District, but understand we are doing this so do not be shocked when you get your bill.”

            Ms. Ribotsky stated we can press release it to the local newspapers.  You want to get the word out so people are not surprised.

            Mr. Petty stated we have residents who want to know when it is going to start.  There is an issue because we are in the middle of deciding this.  Informing them is a good idea.  We can do the website and we can do it quicker than what most people think is required.  We have people onsite.  What may be more valuable to the Board is the status report of what is going on with the clean up.  It may be more responsive to the communication concept you were referring to than it is about telling them we are considering the matter just as status.  It is going out to bid and the Board will consider the return of the bids.  We can have pictures of the conditions out there to let them know we are thinking about the canals or we can show a map of the area under consideration.  At least they have a place they can be directed by the city, the Board or any resident to get current information.

            Mr. Rosenof stated with all due respect, I have to disagree with you.  Even if three people look at the website, to me it is great. 

            Ms. Ribotsky stated okay.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I would rather it be there, and no one use it, than it not be there.  What does everyone else think?

            Ms. Bertolami responded it is minimum cost and it is effective.

            Mr. Brewer asked what concerns me more about it is who is going to monitor whether or not it is current?

            Mr. Rosenof responded the manager.

            Mr. Brewer asked what if it is inaccurate?

            Mr. Rosenof responded we fire him.

            Ms. Benckenstein stated I do not think we have much information to share.  It will be more of a problem than anything else.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated it is part of the budget process.

            Mr. Petty stated working with our other clients we typically ask the Board this question; content is something the Board likes to hold on themselves, is there someone on the Board you would like to delegate it to?

            Mr. Rosenof stated Ms. Ribotsky is the communications expert.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I think it is all part of the budget process.  The special assessment, everything, is going to be a part of when we send out our notices and post them.  Last year I had Parkland put in a link and we sent out an email saying the PTWCD budget hearing was on this day and the assessment will go up to here.

            Mr. Petty stated it sounds like Supervisor Ribotsky knows quite a bit about it.  I am not trying to suggest we shang-hai her into this action.  We are looking where staff would show you a page before we turn it to public view.  We are looking for the okay of what you want to send out. 

            Ms. Ribotsky stated the only thing I would want to send out is the budget and the proposed assessment.  I do not think we know anything else.

            Ms. Bertolami asked did we not post it on the website last year?

            Ms. Ribotsky responded yes.

            Mr. Rosenof asked which website did we post it on?

            Ms. Ribotsky responded the City of Parkland.

            Mr. Rosenof asked what about Coral Springs?

            Ms. Ribotsky responded we asked them.  I know we directed the Manager at the time.  We asked him to give it to the City of Coral Springs as well.  We had a notice of budget hearing with a summary.  Staff wrote it and they  took care of sending it to the City of Parkland.  I did not even ask Mr. Lauzier.  I just said, talk to our city manager.  I know it was on there because I saw it.  It had “Special Notice, PTWCD Budget Hearing,” and it had the date with the information as well as a link to the budget pages.  We had a link to a PDF of the proposed budget and the announcement of the two hearing dates.  I believe Coral Springs was supposed to have the same or they were sent the same by the manager at the time.  I know for a fact it made the Parkland pages.  It was on the front page and we had this as a PDF along with an announcement and a summary.  I think there was a narrative, which went with it.

            Mr. Brewer asked during our past hour of conversation, am I under the assumption we are going to take the whole District and make sure if we have a hurricane next year, we will be able to get all of these monies because we have solid access to everything in this District?

            Mr. Doody asked solid access?

            Mr. Brewer responded easements and access to the whole District.  Mr. Craven and I have talked about it and there are many holes to this thing.  If this is the case in this budget, we do not have any money for you to do it.  To make sure we have a map saying we are clean to go.  We can get money from FEMA, this guy and that guy because our District is solid.  We have all of the title work.  I look at it as being a big job if you have to clean it up. 

            Mr. Doody stated it is and I think it is your ultimate goal to have complete ownership of the canal system.  I cannot tell you it is going to be solid within a year.  We have an approach now.  I will call the county to look at the deeds.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated the City of Parkland will be the easiest.

            Mr. Brewer stated I do not want to be sitting here a year from now and turn around saying we have the same problem we have now.  We cannot file for money because we do not own them.

            Mr. Doody stated you will be further down the road.  Will there be some issues out there?  Yes, I anticipate there will be.  I would rather be wrong telling you there may be issues and perhaps there will not be.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I would rather be in the right direction than nowhere. 

            Mr. Brewer stated I know you will not do it in a month and it may take a year, but we do not allocate for it.  We keep talking about all of these things we want to do, but we do not have any money.

            Mr. Petty stated if it is part of the overall project for drainage, it can be put into the construction fund.  Engineering and legal for this type of hurricane preparedness and debris removal will be appropriate as a line item.  You can consider an estimate from your counsel on funds necessary to pursue this for the next year.  We can put it in the construction account. 

            Ms. Ribotsky stated it cost a significant amount of money to do a title search.  Are there other areas, which may be of question and this can happen to?  This happened to come to our attention now, but are there any other potential areas we can end up in the same situation with, which have five different owners because a developer took over and the city was involved?

            Mr. Craven responded absolutely.

            Mr. Doody stated I think it is inherent to this District.

            Ms. Ribotsky asked what will be the anticipated cost of doing title searches for everything and what will the potential payoff be?  If we have to spend $10,000 in title searching to potentially get $2 Million of reimbursement the following year, I would rather roll the dice on it.  Do we want to identify areas we know may be of conflict due to multiple developers?  I can tell you the canal in front of my house, which by the way has my neighbor’s trampoline in it…

            Mr. Craven asked where do you live, Butler Farms?

            Ms. Ribotsky responded Turnbridge.  I saw it in the hurricane.  It blew into the canal and it is still there.  You can see some of it sticking out.  Whittier Oaks was one developer.  On Hillsboro Boulevard is the canal on one side and Ternbridge had another developer.  I can imagine that canal might have three different property owners too.  Are there areas we should be looking at to say they might be high risk for reimbursement or do we want to wait until it happens?

            Mr. Craven responded we can sit down with a map and highlight the areas needing to be addressed.  It is not a big deal. 

            Ms. Ribotsky asked can I ask at some time in the next few months we do it and look at what it might cost to do title searches for those areas, which might be of risk?

            Mr. Craven responded I will handle a mark up of the District map, which will show the areas of concern.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated if we lost out on $2 Million of reimbursement because we did not know about this and we now know how this process works, we should do a preemptive strike.

            Mr. Craven stated I want to explain something to the Board.  This does not come as a surprise to myself and I am sure it does not come as a surprise to Mr. Doody.  Historically this Board was more interested in maintaining a reasonably low assessment than anything else.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I agree, but now as a result, I do not think anyone could have hypothesized this.  None of us ever went through an NRCS application.  This was a learning experience, not that I want to raise assessments, but by not doing some of the title searches and determining any conflicts, we just lost out on potentially $2 Million of reimbursement money. 

            Mr. Petty stated the more accurate number is between $750,000 and $1 Million.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated we almost missed out on $1 Million and we should have spent a few thousand dollars on title searches ahead of time.  I would like Mr. Craven to mark it up and Mr. Doody to give us an estimate of what it might be to properly assess the title situation.  We can then make a determination if we want to go forward with it.  Now that we know we have potential problems for reimbursement, let us try to get rid of them before they happen. 

            Mr. Petty stated I think you have given a strong indication to staff to work on this issue and by the next meeting, we will have a good indication of what the costs are because it will be pursued by counsel.  We will see what the barriers are. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated let us go back to the budget.  Are there any other comments about the budget?

            Mr. Petty responded I would like the Board to keep in mind this is the proposed budget.  We will be discussing this.  We can modify this at the Board’s pleasure.  Today, we are just asking you to approve it so we can discuss it as a public document and set a public hearing date in order to advertise appropriately for it. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated if there are no objections, I would like to entertain a motion. 

            Ms. Ribotsky asked do we need a motion?

            Mr. Rosenof responded we do.

            Mr. Petty asked may I ask it reference Resolution 2006-3?  I would like to read it for the record, “A resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the PTWCD approving the budget for fiscal year 2007 and setting a public hearing thereon pursuant to Florida law.”  A date of July 6, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. at the District Office.

 

On MOTION by Ms. Ribotsky seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with all in favor Resolution 2006-3 approving the proposed budget and setting a public hearing for July 6, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. at the District Office was adopted.

           

            Mr. Rosenof asked do we need a motion regarding what we will ask Mr. Doody to do regarding the title work or is it just direction?

            Mr. Doody responded it is just direction. 

 

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                          Attorney’s Report

            A.     Professional Liability Insurance – Informational Only

            Mr. Doody stated with respect to the item identified on the cover letter for the agenda, Professional Liability Insurance, information has been provided to you in the agenda package.

 

            B.     Status on Title Work

            Mr. Doody stated I believe we discussed this. 

 

            C.     Engineer for Independent Projects

            D.     Craven, Thompson & Associates

            Mr. Doody stated this goes into an area still remaining open because there is a discussion regarding item D, Craven, Thompson & Associates.  I did contact the principles of Craven, Thompson & Associates.  I had an opportunity to talk to Mr. Craven independently.  I spoke to Mr. Cole and Mr. McDonald as well.  Mr. Craven correctly identified the fact there is a consulting arrangement between Craven, Thompson & Associates and Mr. Craven.  Mr. McDonald confirmed there is no formal agreement between the District and the engineering firm.  There is going to be a discussion regarding your wish to avail yourselves of the resources of Craven, Thompson & Associates. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated if nothing else, their professional liability insurance. 

            Mr. Doody stated yes sir, but I do not believe it was provided to the District.  We obtained the services of Mr. Craven through an informal arrangement with Craven, Thompson & Associates.  We obtained Mr. Craven for specific purposes such as attending the meetings and the likelihood you have independent projects to go with an engineering firm outside the Craven, Thompson & Associates group.  That brings him to the CCNA compliance.

            Mr. Rosenof asked what is CCNA?

            Mr. Doody responded Competitive Consulting Negotiations Act.  It pertains to engineers, architects and landscape architects.

            Mr. Petty stated what is offered in the alternative is Mr. Craven’s experience is considered vital to the District.  On occasion the District may have use of a general engineering firm, including its insurance capabilities.  For consultation on the existing system and for advice to this body, it is Mr. Craven who is of higher value.  I am going to go to the experience of counsel and say I know municipality’s accounting get pre-approved engineering firms who are considered local.  They go through CCNA and come up with a list of approved engineers they feel can do the work and then try to parcel it out as fairly as possible or rotate the awards.  I think you might want to consider something similar.  This way you will have Mr. Craven giving you advice. Should an engineering project come up, you have a list of approved engineers you can utilize specific to your needs. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated let me summarize so I make sure I understand.  You are suggesting we continue to hire Mr. Craven as an independent consultant.

            Mr. Doody stated I am not suggesting anything.  I am bringing it to your attention as the legal establishment.  I tried to show the legal relationship between the District and Craven, Thompson & Associates.  What direction do you want to go?

            Mr. Rosenof responded at one point we talked last month about wanting to maintain a relationship with Craven, Thompson & Associates for professional liability sake.  Are you saying, as a consultant, your advice is we may not need professional liability to have Mr. Craven as our consultant?       

            Mr. Doody responded no, just the opposite.  I would say you should formalize your relationship with Craven, Thompson & Associates who has retained Mr. Craven as a consultant so we have an umbrella, if the focus is on liability.

            Mr. Petty stated since we do not have an existing contract, we will have to go through the CCNA.  You may not be guaranteed Mr. Craven’s services because you may not find the engineering firm he is currently associated with as your number one.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated it is subjective.  It is not a low bid and like you said, Mr. Craven is invaluable. 

            Mr. Doody stated in a ranking of one, two and three you have to address the ranking.   You do not have the opportunity to go to three.  You have to start negotiating with number one under the statute.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I do not see it as a big risk.

            Mr. Petty stated I just want to make sure the Board understands.

            Mr. Rosenof stated with the consensus of the Board, I would like to direct staff to assure the relationship with Craven, Thompson & Associates through the CCNA so we have a formal agreement with them.  I guess we have to ask other engineering firms to look at that as well, to be our engineer.  Is this correct?

            Mr. Petty responded I will look at it.  You may want to go back and look at the legislative history as to how the relationship was formed between the District and Craven, Thompson & Associates and if there is a resolution passed. 

            Mr. Craven stated be my guest. 

            Mr. Doody asked are you here since 1982?

            Mr. Craven responded 1982.

            Mr. Doody stated I do not think I will be successful in this regard. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated the other part of the equation is to prepare a pre-approved list of engineers.

            Mr. Petty stated if you are going out to bid, you can do it one of two ways; for a single engineer or for multiples it will be the same bid.

            Mr. Rosenof asked do you think we will ever need more than one engineer?

            Ms. Ribotsky asked have we ever needed anyone yet?

            Mr. Rosenof responded yes now.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated other than this.

            Mr. Petty stated the idea of having multiple bids is you will pay your monthly retainer to your resource of history in that the other engineering firms will be on standby without retainer.  If you have a single engineering firm with this engineer working for that engineering firm, you will pay the firm the retainer in your negotiations. 

            Mr. Craven stated it probably will not be a bad idea to have one or two.  When an emergency comes up, it can be a problem.

            Ms. Ribotsky asked is there a way to put it out to bid and say you would like an affiliation with Mr. Craven as a consultant as part of an RFP?  If the purpose of having a firm is for billing and insurance purposes, but not necessarily for working purposes, technically you can affiliate with anyone.  Am I right?

            Mr. Doody responded yes.  I was formulating something along those lines, but I know Mr. Craven has a relationship with Craven, Thompson & Associates.  I am not sure how a disruption in this relationship will affect him.  I will explore and discuss it with Mr. Petty and Mr. Craven to see if this is feasible.  I understand what you are saying.

            Mr. Rosenof stated to summarize, what we want you to do is to figure out a way to shore up a relationship with Craven, Thompson & Associates so he can remain their consultant.  We will pay Craven, Thompson & Associates and find two engineers to back up and work with him. 

            Mr. Doody stated we have a great deal going on at this point.  Can I focus on shoring up Craven, Thompson & Associates and if you wish to go in another direction, you can do it?

            Mr. Rosenof responded okay.

            Mr. Doody stated I think you will need the engineering services of Craven, Thompson & Associates to go ahead with this project; otherwise, you will be dissatisfied with the timing because you will be in the process of bidding out your manager and your engineer.  You are taking on one of the largest projects this District has undertaken in the past 25 years.

            Mr. Craven stated ever.

            Mr. Doody stated I suggest maintaining the status quo to allow you to accomplish it effectively.

            Mr. Rosenof asked what do you mean by shoring up?

            Mr. Doody responded I will get back to the principles and tell them we need to have a formal relationship.  We will have an acknowledgement that they extend liability coverage to the District as a result of Mr. Craven’s services.  I think what we do is continue the fact Mr. Craven has been here a long time.  We continue the relationship and they need to formalize their relationship more from a legal standpoint to allow them to give us coverage.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I am not sure I said anything different, but okay. 

            Mr. Doody stated they have not billed the District for the last four to five months.  This is why I am talking about formalizing and getting everything back on track.  To make sure the lines of responsibility are clearly identified.

            Ms. Ribotsky asked can we do it without going out to bid?

            Mr. Doody responded I do not think you need to if you are not going to replace Mr. Craven. 

            Ms. Ribotsky asked rather than shore up the relationship, if we are not going to appoint an official, can we do a number of short term renewing agreements?  Can we treat him as a permanent project for multiple projects so we do not have to put it out to bid?

            Mr. Petty responded I am going to caution the Board to be careful.  There is a requirement for CCNA.  We are talking openly about how we can get around CCNA to take care of our engineering.  We have an emergency situation with our canal, which we declared at the last meeting.  I think counsel is giving you the right advice.  Let us prioritize.  Let him work on it, see what we can do and let him comeback at the next meeting before opining on what ifs.  I would like to see if I can get you to do that part and come back to you for next month.

            Mr. Rosenof stated okay.

            Mr. Doody asked do you understand you do have an engineer right now?

            Mr. Rosenof responded right.

            Ms. Bertolami stated we just lost a contractor.

            Mr. Petty stated good point.  We will have more information at the next meeting.

 

            E.     Easements

            Mr. Doody stated the last item is easements.  I think we touched on this.  You get a temporary access easement to allow you access to any specific canal.  It will have to be on a case by case basis and identify the property owner.  It will be temporary and broad in nature.

            Mr. Brewer stated we do not want to be sitting here a year from now with no funds.  We are going to find the areas, which might be an issue and can cause a problem down the road, and maybe we will attack those areas.

            Mr. Craven stated there are some.  This is the worst one.

 

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                               Engineer’s Report

            Mr. Craven stated I think we discussed everything.  We have before us a plat, which was hand delivered.  I am going to have to review it.  It appeared before the Board in May of 2005.  At the time, it was held up due to the fact the city did not approve it.  By a motion from Ms. Ribotsky and a second from Mr. Brewer with all in favor Lot 208 was approved conditioned upon city approval and a signed copy by the surveyor be provided for District files.  That was in May of 2005.  We are now in May of 2006.  I have to look at the date.  I am not comfortable making a recommendation one way or the other.

 

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                              Discussion of Presentations for Management Services

            Mr. Rosenof asked who is taking this?

            Mr. Petty responded it is a Board discussion.  I will summarize what I recall from the last meeting.  There was a suggestion we have it in the big room at city hall.  We contacted city hall to check the availability.  It does not appear to be available at this time.  We believe we can do a nice presentation in the room we normally get at city hall.  I do not think it will be a problem for any of us. 

            Ms. Ribotsky stated if that room is not big enough, there is a room in the library, which has a screen and is bigger.  I do not know how many people these people are bringing.

            Mr. Petty stated I do not know about my associates, but I am going to tell you I prefer the room we currently use because I will be closer to the group I am talking to.

            Mr. Rosenof asked do we have presentations scheduled for next month?          

            Mr. Doody responded yes sir.  I sent the letters out.

            Mr. Rosenof asked do we not know who is coming yet?

            Mr. Doody responded I am under the impression all five.

            Mr. Petty stated I was not aware there was an RSVP required.  I got mine.  I have every intention of showing up.

            Mr. Rosenof stated that is good.

            Mr. Brewer asked did you mail the rest of them or not?

            Mr. Rosenof asked does this have to be a public notice?

            Mr. Doody responded no sir.  It has to be on the agenda.

            Mr. Rosenof stated the only thing we need to discuss tonight is coming up with criteria by which we are going to look at these presentations.  We want to talk about what we are going to look for and how we are going to grade the presentations.  We talked about subjective versus objective grading criteria.  I think we all agreed it was going to be subjective.  We want to come up with a scoring sheet.

            Mr. Doody stated you can rely on your personal professional experiences.  You are going to have to be…

            Mr. Rosenof stated be completely and utterly subjective is what you are saying.

            Mr. Doody stated yes sir.  That is how a city manager is selected.  It is how a city attorney is elected.  I am basing the experience on when I was scrutinized and went through it.  I had the pleasure of serving 10 different city mangers.  They used a great deal of criteria, which was never written and never spoken about. 

            Ms. Ribotsky stated the way we did it when we picked our City Manager in Parkland was similar.

            Mr. Rosenof stated he is the only one who wanted the job.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated we had 80 resumes.  We narrowed them down to ten.  Of the ten, we each ranked our picks.  We kept narrowing it down until we got to three of the ten and then we had totally subjective discussions.  There were some rankings involved, but when it came down to the finalists, it was purely a vote.

            Mr. Doody stated you exercised your discretion.

            Mr. Rosenof stated we are going to vote at next month’s meeting.  How would you rank them?  Oh, I did not know we were going to rank them.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated you want to discuss process.

            Mr. Rosenof stated right.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated my recommendation is we each go away from those presentations and come prepared for the next meeting.  Of the five, maybe we should each have a rank of one and two.

            Mr. Rosenof stated that is the kind of thing I am trying to discuss now.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated maybe we should each rank one and two.  We might eliminate one off the bat and then have discussion. 

            Mr. Rosenof asked is having Mr. Petty in the room an appropriate thing when we have this discussion?

            Mr. Doody responded it is always a sensitive question.  I am going to give you the legal answer, which is yes.  You have to because of the Sunshine Law.

            Mr. Rosenof stated he has the same right to be here as anyone else.

            Ms. Ribotsky asked how do we pick the order of the five in terms of time slots?

            Mr. Doody responded I will get to it.  You can ask them if you wish, but you cannot tell them they have to leave.  Anyone can attend.  This is the Sunshine Law.  If all other applicants wish to watch the presentation, they are allowed to do so.  I am sorry your question was?

            Ms. Ribotsky responded we had that for the city manager interviews.  One of the applicants listened to all of the public interviews for the other ones and it is their right.  My question is, of the five, did we give them time slots yet and if so, are we drawing out of a hat?

            Mr. Doody responded everyone is going to be there at 6:00 p.m.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I would not do that.  I would draw out of a hat, give a number and say you get there at 6:00 p.m. and you get there 6:20 p.m.  I think it encourages them to sit in each other’s presentations, which by default gives the person who goes last a benefit.  I would prefer we take the five numbers, draw half hour slots, randomly pick out of a hat who goes first, second, third, fourth, fifth and give them time slots to come. 

            Mr. Rosenof asked what are we doing for questions and answers?  We have 15 minute presentations and how long for questions and answers?

            Mr. Doody responded I think it was 20 minutes and 10 minutes.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I prefer to rip off little pieces now or you do it back there.

            Mr. Doody stated they can show up at 6:00 p.m.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I know they can.  By asking them to all be there at 6:00 p.m. it tells them to sit in on the other presentations and it makes them sit there for two hours.

            Mr. Petty stated the people you have invited to participate have shown professional courtesy in the past and I have no desire to sit here and listen to the other presentations for fear that I may inappropriately display some action.  I would not want them to do so during my presentation.  For professional courtesy, they are all aware of it and I am as well.  I will ask that the secretary stay here to record the minutes and I will bring her with me.  I will bring Ms. Rugg out.  Professional courtesy aside, it is very nice to have a time slot in this particular case because 30 minutes may not be enough.  You may want to continue this meeting as an option if it gets into the wee hours.  We are going to have a great deal to discuss at the next meeting.  If you decide the hour is late and you need supper, you might want to continue it to a certain time and date.  We can bring it back to this office and finish it.  The people coming for the presentation understand the process may get to the point where this can be continued.  They are not unaware of this. 

            Ms. Ribotsky asked if they are the one with an 8:00 p.m. slot, why make them come at 6:00 p.m.?

            Mr. Petty responded it will be very nice if you can do it.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I think I would ask the attorney to do it randomly.

            Mr. Doody asked alphabetically?

            Mr. Rosenof responded randomly.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated literally pick them out of a hat.

            Mr. Petty asked can I ask the Board to give counsel what time he should put aside for the regular meeting, which I assume we will hold first?

            Mr. Rosenof responded I would do the opposite.  I would do the presentation first.

            Mr. Doody asked is it possible to have a special meeting prior to it and spend an hour from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.?

            Ms. Ribotsky responded I can get there at 5:00 p.m.

            Mr. Petty stated we can advertise this to get it an hour earlier.  It is not a problem.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated we are going to have the bids we need to go through.  I do not want to miss it.  Can I request we order a pizza or something?

            Mr. Petty responded at least a pizza.

            Ms. Ribotsky asked what day is it?

            Mr. Rosenof responded June 1, 2006.  Is there anything else under discussion of presentations for management services?  We are going to go to 5:00 p.m. first.  We will do our regular business from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m.  At 6:00 p.m. we will start the presentations.  If we have left over and we are still kicking it at 11:00 p.m. when we are done with presentations, we will go back to regular business.  If not, we will continue to another date and time certain to complete our statement.  Is this a fair statement?

            Mr. Brewer stated it sounds good.

 

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                           Audience Comments

            There not being any, the next item followed.

 

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                             Approval of Invoices

            There being no questions or comments,

 

On MOTION by Ms. Ribotsky seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with all in favor the invoices were approved.

 

TENTH ORDER FO BUSINESS                             Adjournment

            There being no further business,

 

On MOTION by Ms. Ribotsky seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.

 

                                                                        

 Paul Brewer                                                                   David Rosenof

 Secretary                                                                        President


For Next Meeting:

 

  • Quick Claim Deeds
  • Bids for Clean Up of Canal

 

Notes:

 

  • PTWCD budget information on website
  • Formalize Agreement with Craven, Thompson & Associates
  • Title Work