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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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;
Ms.
Benkenstein asked
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
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
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
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
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
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
Mr.
Rosenof stated it will be a help because I know many people do look at the City
of
Ms.
Ribotsky stated the City of
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
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
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
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
Mr.
Rosenof asked what about
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I would not do that. I
would draw out of a hat, give a number and say you get there at
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
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I know they can. By
asking them to all be there at
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
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
Ms.
Ribotsky responded I can get there at
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
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:
Notes: