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
Paul Brewer Secretary
Mimi Bright Ribotsky Assistant
Secretary
Also present were:
John Petty Manager
D.J. Doody Attorney
Warren Craven Engineer
John McKune CH2M Hill
Alexis Yarbrough Tripp
Scott
Ken Knight Stiles
Landscape Company
Diane Yousefi
Daniel Urrutia Resident
Karen Olsen Resident
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 June 1, 2006 Meeting
Mr.
Rosenof stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the
On
page eight, the third line down states, “Mr. Rosenof asked counsel?” Does anyone remember what I asked counsel?
Mr.
Doody responded I believe it was a general referral for my input regarding the
subject matter.
Mr.
Petty stated I suggest we strike it.
Mr.
Rosenof stated on the signature, it shows Ms. Rugg as Assistant Secretary. Should Mr. Brewer be listed to sign the
minutes? You usually have him listed.
Mr.
Petty responded we can have any Secretary or Assistant Secretary sign. She did this to make sure the documents went
through. She can sign for the Board if
we missed you at the end of the meeting.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I never saw it before.
Mr.
Petty stated it is an option we can put in.
On MOTION by Mr. Brewer seconded by Ms. Ribotsky with all in
favor the minutes of the
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Public
Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Budget for Fiscal Year 2007, Resolution
2006-4, and Levy of Non Ad Valorem Assessments, Resolution 2006-5
Mr.
Petty stated I would like to request the President call the public hearing to
order and then we will go over the items we changed for tonight’s meeting. The first meeting was a preliminary budget in
order to start these discussions. Since then,
actions by our sister district and considerations by this body in regard to
hurricane clean up have made us change numbers.
We would like to go over them with you.
You have the revised version. The
numbers have changed. Assessments are
projected to be double what they were last year, which was $81.87 per
unit. We expect them to be $145.90 per
unit.
Ms.
Bertolami asked do we need to re-advertise?
Mr.
Petty responded no. This is the public
hearing where we can take any and all comment.
We can change the budget as the Board feels will benefit the
District. Staff, residents, as well as
the Board can make comments on the budget and the Board considers all comments
to decide what is in the best interest of the District.
You
have a new item called debt service, which will pay for construction estimated
to be approximately $600,000 with a five year note. It is short term to keep it in the
maintenance fund. We have interest of approximately
$36,000. We figured this is the highest
level we will go for in a short term note.
We show it as a cost item, which was not in the first draft.
There
is another item called technology sharing under administration. It is a new item. It is based on your sister district, which
you have been using since your inception for the computer system and software
they have. It is currently AS400, which
is soon to be updated. Stream Software
is a relational database running your accounting package. They are looking at newer technology and are
pricing out the system, which appears to be $250,000. This is the amount they will bill you for
next year’s services.
Shared
personnel services we talked about at the last meeting. It is what you had in the past and is being
defined differently. The shared
personnel include Ms. Walker, Mr. Zilmer and Mr. Daly who represent finance,
human resources, customer service and accounting IT services. They have been in this building a long period
of time. They have always been utilized
by this District without a cost number shelved.
As CSID goes through its costs this year they are allocating to people
using it. This is what we previously discussed
in regard to PTWCD becoming more independent.
Electronic
document storage is the electronic filing system, which archives your documents
and makes it easier for us to search.
This is part of the function you have been involved with, which Ms. Rugg
has been doing for us. The next item is
administrative building costs, which is the rent we have in this building for
the personnel you are using. It is your
allocation of the use of this building.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated the City of
Mr.
Rosenof stated I believe he is saying it is for the personnel we are paying for
who need office space in this building.
This is our allocation. You have
five percent next to contingency. What
is it five percent of?
Mr.
Petty responded it is a matter of how you do your budget. It is my practice to not tell a Board I am
100% sure this is how the budget is going to play.
Mr.
Rosenof asked I understand, but it is five percent of what?
Mr.
Petty responded five percent of the total administrative category.
Mr.
Rosenof stated you have a $600,000 capital budget item. Where is the contingency for it?
Mr.
Petty responded there is not one. It is
a calculation of the amount where we went up to $600,000.
Mr.
Rosenof asked does $600,000 include its own contingency?
Mr.
Petty responded yes sir.
Mr.
Rosenof stated this is contingency for administrative personnel.
Mr.
Petty stated yes sir, for all of the line items under administrative. The next item is field operations. It is similar to last year other than we have
broken it out to your two field personnel who are your employees being shown
along with their associated costs. We
recommend they be enrolled in the
Mr.
Rosenof asked what are field supervisor services?
Mr.
Petty responded it is what you use to see before. It is Mr. Frederick. He is owned by CSID and they loan him out to
us for this fee.
Mr.
Rosenof asked where was this number shown before?
Mr.
Petty responded in previous years it was shown as shared personnel. You have salaries and wages, which are your
own people, and you have shared personnel, which use to be Mr. Frederick who
you share with CSID.
Mr.
Rosenof stated shared salaries and wages went down, but that went up.
Mr.
Petty stated the next item is culvert cleaning and inspection. We are proposing it go up when we look at the
work going down. We have culvert pipes
we are concerned about because you cannot see it. It fills up with debris and when a storm
comes you will not be able to handle the water you are designed to handle. We like to inspect our main pipes on a
regular basis for siltation and for any leaks.
It takes a diver to crawl up the pipe.
It is an industrial diver. In the
past we received good prices. In the
last couple of years these divers have been hit by OCIA. They are required to have over four divers in
the water for each inspection. The cost
has quadrupled. We are showing an
increase of $10,000 and we expect to do half of the work.
The
next item I want to bring to your attention is recharge water, which we are
doing through an Interlocal Agreement. We
are seeing bills on this item now.
Mr.
Rosenof asked did we not see bills for it before?
Mr.
Petty responded not for the first couple of years. We are now on a regular basis. Even though we allocated $10,000 per the
agreement, it is basically on whatever they need to pump. The next item going up is contingencies. It is five percent again. The same way as it is under
administration.
The
last item is reserves. We are utilizing
some of the reserves to offset the increase, but we kept $250,000 in the
line. It is $200,000 carried over from
last year and $50,000 added to this year’s number. At the end of fiscal year 2007 we will have
$250,000 in the fund.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can we use it for capital we spend this year?
Mr.
Petty responded yes we can. If an issue
happens in the next three months you wish to address, you can. You can also do it in the next budget year at
your discretion. We did not want to
deplete your reserve fund completely in addressing hurricane clean up. This is why we went to the short term note
and left some money in here.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can we tap into the fund if we have another hurricane next year?
Mr.
Petty responded yes sir. This is why we
left it there.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it will ultimately expedite clean up.
Mr.
Petty stated part of our discussion with Mr. Brewer at the last meeting was the
issue of whether we spend all the reserves on one hurricane clean up and leave
the District exposed.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it is a prudent thing to do.
I agree. We learn from our own
mistakes.
Mr.
Petty stated we are trying to learn by spending the other guy’s money first and
keeping ours in reserve. By the other
guy I mean the commercial paper we will use instead of depleting our reserves
and then finding trouble with a commercial bank in trying to obtain funds
because we have no reserve.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked is there a methodology on what the correct level of reserve is
in percentage of total budget, capital budget, forecast of what the worst case
scenario can be?
Mr.
Petty responded the $500,000 we have been knocking around and is our current
target has been mutually approved from staff recommendations and Board
consideration. It hits everything we
have seen. We had $450,000 in the fund
at the beginning of the year. Our
projected construction cost for clean up is somewhere between $500,000 and
$600,000. We think your current
contingency level, plus a financing program, puts you in good stead to handle
future concerns and hurricane issues if you can keep $500,000. From what we have seen this year, and the cost
increases we are looking at, we have not recommended you put the fund back to
$500,000 in one year. We are asking you
to look at it over multiple years because we are taking a big hit on assessments. When it hits the pocketbook it is not a great
deal of money. You are talking about an
increase of less than eight dollars a month.
Mr.
Rosenof stated as long as I have been on this Board the consensus has been to
try to keep this as lean as we can.
Mr.
Petty stated we did not go crazy. We hit
the middle of the road. We are using our
financing capability to fund for five years in order to keep us from doing
higher assessments to the homeowners. We
only want to go up gradually if necessary.
Mr.
Rosenof stated hopefully we will have a couple of years with no storms and the
reserve will go nicely.
Mr.
Petty stated the assessments are projected to be $145.90 per unit.
Mr.
Rosenof stated remind me of a unit again.
Mr.
Petty stated it is per acre.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is Ms. Ribotsky going to get a fraction of it?
Mr.
Petty responded yes.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I have 1.08 acres so I will multiply it by $145.90.
Mr.
Petty stated yes.
Mr.
Rosenof asked has the number of assessable acres changed?
Mr.
Petty responded the property appraiser is the keeper of the flame there. We have to use their roll as the official record. The only way acreage can change is if it is
declared by the property appraiser as inaccessible.
Mr.
Rosenof stated every year we have a slight deviation on the assessable acres,
but this year we have not.
Mr.
Petty stated this is the proposed budget.
We have not gone to actual yet.
We will update it before we do the roll.
Mr.
Doody stated Resolution 2006-4 is a resolution of the PTWCD relating to the
annual appropriations of the District and adopting the budget for the fiscal
year beginning October 1, 2006, and ending September 30, 2007, and referencing
the maintenance and benefit special assessments to be levied by the District
for said fiscal year.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I open the public hearing.
Are there any comments from the public regarding the proposed budget? There being no comments from the public, we
will close the comments from the public.
Are there any comments from the Board?
There
not being any,
On MOTION by Ms. Ribotsky seconded by Mr. Brewer with all in
favor Resolution 2006-4 adopting the budget for fiscal year 2007 was adopted.
Mr.
Petty stated there is one more resolution associated with the budget we would
like you to consider at this time.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what is it?
Mr.
Petty responded the setting of the ad valorem rate. Resolution 2006-5 is a resolution levying and
imposing a non ad valorem maintenance special assessment for the PTWCD for
fiscal year 2007.
Mr. Brewer MOVED to adopt Resolution 2006-5 levying and
imposing a non ad valorem assessment for fiscal year 2007 and Ms. Bertolami
seconded the motion.
Mr.
Rosenof stated there is a blank in the resolution. Do we need to address the blank?
Mr.
Petty responded we can. The resolution
is referring to the assessment, which is on the budget, in the amount of $296,289.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is there a blank for the unit number as well?
Mr.
Petty responded there is not a per unit reference in the resolution. They are asking for the general fund and the
debt service fund. We have no debt
service fund. The second blank will be
zero. The first blank is $296,289. We will fill them in.
On VOICE vote with all in favor the motion as previously
outlined was approved.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion of
Management Services
Mr. Petty stated this is scheduled by the Board in
consideration of your ongoing review of management services. This is for discussion purposes. I do not know if you have any specific
actions.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated out of the five presenters I found two of them to be viable
candidates. Three of them did not show
any special attention to demonstrate the desire to want the business. One is Severn Trent Services and the other is
Wrathell, Hart, Hunt & Associates. I
do not feel I can pick one or the other at the moment, but I think it is worth
bringing each firm back to discuss any further detailed questions we have. We have a new adopted budget and we might
have more questions. I do not feel
comfortable picking one based on the presentations.
Mr.
Rosenof stated let us break this down.
Do you all agree we have two viable firms?
Ms.
Bertolami responded those were the two top I ranked as well. I did not find the other three approvable.
Mr.
Brewer stated we need to make sure we will be with a management company who
will be able to live and die by the budget.
We just talked about sharing employees and staff with the existing
management company we have.
Mr.
Rosenof stated that is a good point. We
cannot stop the budget process.
Mr.
Petty stated we have been able to provide economies of scale because of our
relationship with the Districts in your area.
If you do not choose us, those will not be available, but we will work
with you on a transition so you will have time to address any such impacts.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I appreciate it. Let me
ask Mr. Doody a question. Did we ever
come to the conclusion we have a written contract with Severn Trent Services?
Mr.
Doody responded no sir.
Mr.
Rosenof stated one of the things I would like to do, whether we stay with
Severn Trent Services or not, is have a written agreement. The written agreement will have to be a basis
for negotiation in future management as well.
I would like to see if you can generate a model used on other
districts.
Mr.
Petty stated we have a copy of an agreement between PTWCD and Severn Trent
Services. It has been executed on our
part. It has not been executed by
counsel, which is why he has not seen it.
It may be it had not been processed at the time. I can tell you what our intent was back in
the day.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what is the date on it?
Mr.
Petty responded it is 1997. It is on a
yearly renewal. It has the signature of
the Chair at the time, but I do not see counsel’s signature on it. We will have Mr. Doody redo it.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated Wrathell, Hart, Hunt & Associates fee appeared to be $37,500.
The binder you gave did not have a proposed fee, but in the budget it
appears to be $31,606. Can you confirm
if you charge a fee for preparation of and attendance at Board meetings,
notices, agendas and minutes?
Mr.
Petty responded it is included.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked what about maintenance and retention of districts, records
including all Board meeting minutes, policies, contracts and all other
documents?
Mr.
Petty responded it is $2,500. It is the
new item, document management, you are being billed for.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated it is not apples to apples.
What about bookkeeping, payroll, bill payment, coordination with
independent vendors and other accounting services?
Mr.
Petty responded it is included. The only
other item we add to it is technology sharing, which has the accounting
software and IT in it.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked how much is it?
Mr.
Petty responded it is $2,500.
Ms.
Bertolami stated another $2,500.
Mr.
Petty stated she was talking about cost to cost. She will not be able to have it from CSID if
they split from us because they only have advantage of it through us.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated you have to add the two items you mentioned.
Mr.
Petty stated do not forget you will have to add $17,700 to their fee.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked what for?
Mr.
Petty responded for your human resources, Ms. Walker in financing and Mr. Daly
for IT maintenance as well as customer service.
It will not continue if you pick Wrathell, Hart, Hunt & Associates.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated these are some of the questions we need to discuss and resolve
before we bring this forward. It is
relevant to have both firms come back.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I agree. There is a great
deal of detail we can question people on.
The big picture I am trying to narrow it down to is if we all agree
there are two viable firms. We said
yes. The next question is where we go
from there. We need Mr. Doody to review
the agreement in place to make sure it is a model for either Severn Trent
Services or the new firm if we decide to switch. The next question from there is if the new
firm can live within the contract. I
cannot imagine any of these guys will do it much cheaper or much more expensive
than the other. Do you feel we should
send letters to the other firms letting them know they are not being
considered?
There
was Board consensus to send a letter to the firms notifying them they are not
being considered.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can you take care of it?
Mr.
Doody responded yes.
Mr.
Petty stated I suggest you send out the results you ranked two firms as your
top contenders and the next three as being at the bottom. This way you will have options.
Mr.
Rosenof asked do you want to sign it or do you want my signature?
Mr.
Doody responded whatever you prefer. I
can prepare it and send it to you.
Mr.
Rosenof stated put it on your letterhead.
Send me the package, I will sign it and send it out.
Mr.
Doody stated you cannot sign on my letterhead.
Mr.
Rosenof stated send it out with your signature.
Mr.
Doody stated I will invite the two firms you determined tonight to be present at
the August meeting.
Mr.
Rosenof stated send a letter to the two firms as a formality telling them they
have been chosen for further consideration.
Mr.
Brewer stated I do not see a reason to bring them here in August until we tell
them what we want to know. We need to
give something to come back to us with.
He needs to come back to us with another proposal financially.
Mr.
Rosenof stated you cannot have a financial proposal until you understand the
contract and you understand the needs.
Finances are last, once you work out all of the other details.
Mr.
Doody stated the meeting will be set up where you have the opportunity to
entertain discussion with them in August to make your selection in September or
you can do it all in September. The idea
was to have them on Board for the beginning of the fiscal year in October.
Mr.
Rosenof stated if we are going to switch, we have to do it for the fiscal
year.
Mr.
Petty stated you do not have to do it by
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I appreciate those comments, but what struck me about this firm
versus any other firm is they understood the way the District operated more
than I expected.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what is the Board’s opinion of how to move forward?
Mr.
Brewer responded bring them back in August so we can interview them and tell
them what we expect. They have to answer
more questions.
Mr.
Rosenof asked do you want to prepare the questions now?
Mr.
Brewer responded I can sit down and write some down to bring with me to the
meeting. I am more concerned about who
is going to work for us.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I am okay with coming prepared with questions.
Ms.
Bertolami stated I am going to be out of town.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we are going to review the contract. We will send out “Dear John” letters. We are going to do acceptance letters to the
two successful proposers.
Mr.
Doody stated we will ask them to be here.
Mr.
Rosenof stated those are the only action items for today.
Mr.
Doody stated if you are out of town, you can attend by phone. You cannot be considered part of the quorum.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can she vote?
Mr.
Doody responded she can vote, but she cannot be considered part of the quorum.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we need at least three people present.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s Report
A. Meeting
Schedule for Fiscal Year 2007
Mr.
Rosenof stated we talked about having all of our meetings in
Mr.
Petty responded any conflicts, which come up throughout the year we can take
care of. We are asking you to approve
this because it is more economical to put one advertisement out.
There
was Board consensus to approve the meeting schedule for fiscal year 2007 and to
hold all meetings at the
B. Audit
Committee Selection Process
i. Appointment of Committee Members
ii. Establishment of RFP Evaluation Criteria
iii. Authorization to Proceed with RFP
Mr. Petty stated we would like to pull this from the agenda
at this time.
Mr.
Rosenof stated that is fine.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney’s
Report – Consideration of Award of Contract for Canal Clean Up
Mr.
Doody stated at the last meeting Mr. McKune made a presentation to the effect
that four bids were received for the proposed hurricane debris removal canal
bank restoration project. A protest was
made by one of the bidders. I was asked
to review the process. Since the last
meeting I had the opportunity to consult with the District Manager. We have a collective recommendation. Given the review of the bid protest, it is in
the best interest of the District to re-bid this project. I understand there is consideration with
respect to timing for removal of the debris.
Part of the component of the project is the funds available from the
federal agency. While I filed the
paperwork with the county to transfer the title from
Ms.
Ribotsky stated there are two issues. It
is not only the bid protest, but also the question of the claim title to do the
work.
Mr.
Doody stated I am addressing the bid protest.
Even if you were to award a bid, the funding is still not available
because we are in the process of transferring title from the county to the
District.
Mr.
Rosenof asked at what point does it need to be complete?
Mr.
Petty responded the contract awarding the work specifying the type of
construction, which must be undertaken on each item, is filled out before you
award the contract. That is where we are
looking to sign the agreement with NRCS.
We have done everything within our power to maintain the open door with
the agency. We are hanging on by our
fingernails, but we are still on their list.
There are a couple of issues. The
Board has not given direction on whether or not we are going to do the work
because we have so many matters up in the air.
One is the NRCS contract and whether or not we have a clear title to
sign the agreement with them to be eligible for up to 75% of the funding. We wish to do it for due diligence to our
residents.
Mr.
Rosenof stated you have debt service to the budget. How much of the project are you showing in
the budget?
Mr.
Petty responded 100%.
Mr.
Rosenof asked if we ignored NRCS, can we still do the job?
Mr.
Petty responded that is the direction the Board put me in after discussions at
prior meetings.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I do not want to wait anymore.
I hope the public will understand an additional $40 a year to make sure
they do not get flooded.
Mr.
Petty stated trying to get federal assistance takes us into a timing
issue. We are in the middle of hurricane
season.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it will be the icing on the cake if we can get it, but it is
more important to keep our residents safe.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked will there be an additional assessment to the regular assessment
of $145.90?
Mr.
Rosenof responded no. It is included.
Mr.
Petty stated we are projecting the cost to the District at $600,000. You have money in your reserve in case we are
off by $10,000 or $20,000. We can cover
those types of contingencies. The re-bid
will tell us what the real numbers are, but $600,000 will cover both bids we
received the last time. Our corrective
language is not expected to raise the bid significantly.
Mr.
Ribotsky asked is it fair to say if we get money from NRCS, next year’s
assessment can be significantly lower?
Mr.
Petty responded I do not expect it. We
currently plan and accept $500,000 as a reasonable reserve. What you see in the proposed budget is a
reserve of approximately $250,000, which will be available at the end of the
year.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked will you use the money to fund the reserve in advance?
Mr.
Petty responded yes. It is our first
recommendation as your manager to fill the reserve before you take back
assessment levels.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I believe our position is we prefer to do the project now and risk
not being reimbursed than wait any longer at the risk of having a catastrophe
should another storm hit us this year.
Mr.
Doody stated if you want to proceed to award the bid, it is an option
available. I want to advise you of the
statutes of the law on the record addressing major and minor deviations and
have you make a determination.
Mr.
Rosenof asked on the first issue regarding our clear title to the land, which
we will fix, do you believe, from a logistic point of view, they can be worked
out?
Mr.
Doody responded yes sir.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can we do the work legally?
Mr.
Doody responded yes sir. I believe you
can.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we can figure a legal way to do the work.
Mr.
Doody stated yes sir.
Mr.
Petty stated let me clarify it will be flow way work, removal of trees over the
water, but no bank work.
Mr.
Rosenof stated please address the irregularity issue.
Mr.
Doody stated you have a bidder who has provided a written protest to the
District raising issues with respect to one of the bidder’s response. If you are not inclined to re-bid it, within legal
context it is my recommendation you revisit the issues and clarify them through
a rewording of the bid package.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it will delay us approximately 30 to 60 days.
Mr.
Petty stated approximately 30 days. We
will be able to bring it back to you for award at the next meeting. Because you are making the determination to
go ahead regardless of the funding source it gives us ample time. It does not put us back too far. We hope both companies participate in the
bid. We have worked with them in other
agencies and have respected both companies.
They have done good work.
Mr.
Rosenof asked who are the companies?
Mr.
Petty responded Stiles Landscape Company and Arbor Tree & Land, Inc.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is Stiles Landscape Company the low bidder?
Mr.
Petty responded yes with Arbor Tree & Land being a close second. We have worked with both.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is there not enough work to keep Arbor Tree & Land, Inc.
happy without them wanting to sue us.
Mr.
Petty responded do not ask me this question.
Mr.
Doody stated I want to make sure the record identifies under Section 1.18 of
the bid package, subsection A says, “until final award of contract, the owner
reserves the right to reject any and all bids, with or without cause.” It is within your legal authority to reject
the bids as tendered.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we may have to defend a challenge.
Mr.
Doody stated if you award the bid, you run the risk of having one of two bidders
challenge.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we will have to pay you to defend these challenges.
Ms.
Yarbrough stated I am with the law firm of Tripp Scott and with me is Mr.
Knight from Stiles Landscape Company. I
want to continue reading the paragraph Mr. Doody read to you authorizing the
owner to waive any informality or irregularity with respect to the bid or
accept the bid which is in the best interest of the owner. “With regard to any protest of irregularity,
the owner has reserved the right to waive those irregularities or informalities
in the bid package as well.” If there
are irregularities, you have the power to waive them.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it is understood. Do you
consider this an irregularity or a material breach of the bid package? I have not heard what the objection is.
Mr.
Doody responded this is the determination I asked you to make as the governing
body.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is it not our counsel’s job to make the determination?
Mr.
Doody responded based on my examination, my recommendation is you re-bid. There are deviations warranting re-bidding.
Mr.
Rosenof stated this is you talking as an attorney. If it was your house, would you want to
re-bid it?
Mr.
Doody responded I represent the District.
I am here in the sole capacity of that as counsel.
Mr.
Rosenof asked does anyone else in the public have comments on this issue?
Ms.
Yarbrough responded there is a $110,000 difference between the lowest bidder
and the second lowest bidder. With
regard to the owner or the District deciding what is in the best interest and
waiving irregularities, there is a substantial difference.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what are irregularities?
Mr.
Doody responded I am addressing the memorandum provided to Mr. Petty by Mr.
McKune on
The
second issue was a list of equipment which will be used to complete the project
must include adequate barges and vessels normally engaged in work of similar
nature. According to Arbor Tree & Land,
Inc. adequate equipment has not been established. The response from Mr. McKune is Stiles
Landscape Company’s bid package included a list of equipment to be used for the
project, which included a barge as well as an array of other equipment. In recent conversations with Stiles Landscape
Company they advised us they do not currently own the barge, but they plan to
purchase one for this project.
The
third objection was a minimum of one waterway/debris removal project completed
by the firm submitting the bid within the last three years for a governmental
agency which at a minimum must approximate the amount of contractors bid for
this project. Arbor Tree & Land,
Inc. stated waterway experience has not been identified within the last three
years. The response from Mr. McKune is
Stiles Landscape Company has a bid project submittal listing one recently
completed project for Jacaranda Golf Course with an estimated contract amount
of $500,000. The project is a private
project and not a governmental agency.
The qualification of bidders asks for submittal of a bid within the last
three years for a governmental agency.
There is a concern from a legal standpoint as to whether or not you want
to consider these major or minor deviations.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is it your recommendation we relieve these requirements when re-bidding?
Mr.
Doody responded I will work with Mr. Petty and Mr. McKune to see what we can do
to ensure the District gets the project completed and does not incur
liabilities.
Mr.
Rosenof asked my fear is, with Stiles Landscape Company sitting in the room, if
I knew the next lowest bidder was $150,000 higher, what will I do when I
re-bid? I am going to raise my
price. Knowing Stiles Landscape Company
the way I do, I assume they will do it.
We have to weigh the cost of a potential challenge versus the cost of a
potential $150,000 amount we can leave at the table.
Ms.
Yarbrough stated with regard to the four protests, three of them are
credentials which have been provided to the District since then. They are not credentials created subsequent
to the bid package. If you are talking
about whether it is material or immaterial, you know they are credentials. We gave you the references, which have been
checked out. The only other one dealing
with the substance of the project is the equipment. CH2M Hill reviewed it and felt as though the
equipment was sufficient.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated your assessment is correct.
There is no way we can get close to $150,000 in litigation.
Mr.
Craven stated the biggest problem you face with the potential of a challenge or
litigation is not buying extra time.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can they stop the project?
Mr.
Craven responded I would think so.
Mr.
Doody stated the reason they will stop is an injunction.
Mr.
Rosenof asked will a judge grant an injunction against a governmental agency
trying to protect its residents? It will
be an unpopular decision.
Mr.
Craven responded it is your biggest problem.
Once you get into a court situation you loose control.
Mr.
Rosenof asked do you feel a contractor, which gets a great deal of its work
from districts like ours, will take this action? Do you feel they will think twice before
taking action against this District?
Mr.
Petty responded I consider it a risk to the District and recommend it be
re-bid. We would like to have the opportunity
to have both firms compete on a fair ground addressing these technical issues
to the benefit of the District. We are
not trying to cut out either one. We are
trying to do what is most timely, which is to re-bid and get it back to you at
the next meeting.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can we just ask them to re-bid and keep Stiles Landscape
Company’s bid?
Mr.
Petty responded no.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked what are the chances of getting things straight with the NRCS
within the next month?
Mr.
Doody responded when the county commission gets back from their recesses, the
resolution will hopefully be approved which will convey the title to the
county.
Mr.
Rosenof asked are you saying waiting 30 days to do anything for our
reimbursements?
Mr.
Doody responded that is correct.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I can boil this down to a potential loss of money on the table
versus a possible injunction.
Mr.
Petty stated I believe 30 days of not doing work may put us in a position of
getting a favorable application signed once we do have approval of having more
work qualify.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I do not understand what you said.
Mr.
Petty stated I want to ask Mr. McKune.
Anything we do outside of the contract will probably not be
reimbursed. If we do 30% of the job
before we get title and we get the NRCS agreement signed, we will not get
compensated for it. The 30 day wait may
be well spent in saving money to the District because we may get more money
from federal assistance.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it is either the potential loss of $150,000 on the table versus
a potential challenge. It is basically
where we are. Which risk do we want to
take?
Mr.
Petty stated I do not know you will leave $150,000 on the table. The money on the table is unknown. You have two bidders. One may come down now that he has seen the
competition, while the other seeing what the other charged may go up. Hopefully they will look at their actual cost
and give us the best price they can understanding the business.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked is there anyway to settle with the second bidder or offer them
another type of work in place of this to potentially stop them from protesting?
Mr.
Doody responded no. I do not advise you
to.
Mr. Brewer MOVED to re-bid the canal clean up and Ms.
Ribotsky seconded the motion.
Mr.
Brewer asked is there anyone from the public who wants to comment on this?
Ms.
Yarbrough responded Stiles Landscape Company feels re-bidding will create an
unfair process. You already have a good
deal with $110,000 less than the second bidder.
You are opening up to another bidder to try to underbid after he has had
the opportunity to review the bids.
Mr.
Rosenof asked are you saying you will file a protest if we re-bid it?
Ms.
Yarbrough responded perhaps.
Mr.
Knight stated CH2M Hill has visited our project in
Ms.
Ribotsky stated there is an unknown in terms of what might happen in the next
30 days as to increasing the scope of work we are trying to get accomplished
and putting a fine edge around as opposed to what can potentially happen in
terms of companies being so busy they do not want to bid. I withdraw my second to Mr. Brewer’s motion.
Ms. Ribotsky MOVED to award the contract
for canal clean up to Stiles Landscape Company.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what changed your mind?
Ms.
Ribotsky responded there is a risk in awarding everything. Based on the risks of increasing the costs,
things can come down and be more damaging to the residents. If there is a protest, I do not want to say
people make idle threats, it is a serious legal issue. From a business perspective, with the amount
of tree work out there, I do not know how much energy their company is going to
want to spend pursuing this through litigation versus spending their resources
to get more work. I am willing to take
the risk for the sake of getting the work completed faster and controlling the
costs, running the risk it can go more than $115,000.
Mr.
Rosenof asked does the first motion die?
Mr.
Petty responded yes, due to lack of a second.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we are looking for a second to Ms. Ribotsky’s motion.
Ms. Bertolami seconded the MOTION as
previously outlined.
Mr.
Doody stated prior to you calling for a roll, I would like to make sure this
record is complete with respect to the termination I feel to be instrumental to
the action you are considering. Statutes
of Florida Law provides a bidder cannot be permitted to change his bid after
the bids have been opened except for minor irregularities. I ask you to revisit Mr. McKune’s memorandum
to make a determination on the record that you consider these minor
irregularities. I want to ensure
compliance with the bid documents. You might
award a bid depending on the votes, but you need to ensure compliance in strict
adherence to your bid documents. You
have a potential bidder who says there is a discrepancy with respect to the
compliance.
Mr.
Rosenof asked do you need a motion?
Mr.
Doody responded yes sir. I would like to
have you take these issues one by one so the record is complete with your
findings. You are the legislative
bodies. You will make the determination
of whether or not these issues are minor.
Mr.
Rosenof asked do we need to withdraw the motion for now?
Mr.
Doody responded yes sir.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I withdraw the previous motion.
Ms.
Bertolami stated I withdraw the second to the motion.
Mr.
Doody asked will you afford me the opportunity to revisit the issues.
Ms.
Bertolami responded I would like to hear them.
Mr.
Doody stated with respect to the first one, there was a question about the
license not being provided as required.
Can you state for the record if the license was later submitted?
Mr.
McKune responded the license was submitted.
Mr.
Doody asked was it a major or minor deviation?
On MOTION by Mr. Rosenof seconded by Ms.
Bertolami with all in favor the late submittal of the State of
Mr.
Doody stated the second issue was a list of equipment to be used to complete
the project, which must include adequate barges and vessels normally engaged in
work of similar nature. The protest
identified adequate equipment has not been established. Mr. McKune can elaborate on his response as
set forth in the memorandum dated June 7, 2006.
Mr.
McKune stated they submitted a list of equipment in their bid and it did
include a barge. At the time we received
the bid we assumed the barge was on hand.
We subsequently found out they were going to purchase a barge for this
project. Reference was made to our visit
to a job they are currently doing in
Mr.
Doody asked is the barge required to do the work?
Mr.
McKune responded yes.
On MOTION by Mr. Rosenof seconded by Ms.
Ribotsky with all in favor the issue of Stiles Landscape Company not
establishing adequate equipment was determined to be a minor deviation.
Mr.
Doody stated the third qualification required a minimum of one waterway/debris
removal project completed by the firm submitting the bid within the last three
years for a government agency which at a minimum must approximate the amount of
contractors bid for this project. The
protest is the waterway experience has not been identified within the last three
years. The second component to the
protest is waterway experience does not at a minimum approximate the amount of
the contractors bid.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated this is so huge I do not think there were many agencies out
there who could have come up with a scope of work of this size until this
hurricane hit.
Mr.
McKune stated let me address the intent of the specification. This was a large event. We wrote this intent to preclude having
someone get the job who is a neighborhood landscaper. We do not want a group of neighborhood
landscapers getting together and bidding it.
This is written as a statement of standard.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I read into the record last month the fact that usuries are
willing to back them on this, which makes me believe they have the capacity to
do this.
Mr.
McKune stated Mr. Doody is correct. The
large job they mentioned for Jacaranda is not for a public agency, but it
states their ability to do a job of this size.
It is minor that it is not a governmental agency.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked who developed the RFP?
Mr.
Petty responded it was done by our engineers CH2M Hill for SWCD, CSID and
NSID.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked do we know if any of those districts had similar issues in
people being qualified to bid?
Mr.
Petty responded we had multiple people qualify for the bid meeting all the
specifications of the contract and meeting all material in all three
districts. In every contract there are
always small items. Both companies we
are talking about today have been awarded contracts in these areas in our
sister districts in
On MOTION by Mr. Rosenof seconded by Ms.
Ribotsky with all in favor the third objection as stated by Mr. Doody was
determined to be minor.
Mr.
Doody stated this constitutes the bid protest.
Mr.
Rosenof asked do you want to restate your motion?
Ms. Ribotsky MOVED to award the contract
for canal clean up to Stiles Landscape Company based on the Board’s
determination the bid protest items are not material and Ms. Bertolami seconded
the motion.
Mr.
Rosenof stated let me ask a couple of procedural questions. Who is the construction contract written by?
Mr.
Doody responded we can ask the bidder to submit one for our review.
Mr.
Petty stated we can handle it with the engineer.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what is the timeframe on the contract?
Mr.
Petty responded it was to match NRCS in case we do get funding. I believe it is a total of six months. We have seen most contracts by similar
entities happen quicker than this.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I assume Stiles Landscape Company used 120 days because it was
the maximum amount you were allowed under the reimbursement.
Mr.
Knight stated yes. I looked at many of
these contracts.
Mr.
Rosenof asked are you willing to do it in a shorter timeframe if you get
approval tonight? Are you willing to
contractually obligate yourself to a shorter time period?
Mr.
Doody responded I do not want to go there.
It is a deviation from the bid. I
asked Mr. Petty to make sure the record is clear because there is a deviation
in terms of time. Do not allow him to
amend his bid now.
Mr.
Petty stated change orders go specifically to the contract, which was spelled
out in the bid specification. The amount
of change which can be anticipated is also spelled out. If the Board wishes to reduce the time, it
will be something we will try to negotiate according to the bid document.
Mr.
Rosenof stated the reason I am leaning towards doing this is because of the
timeliness factor, but if their contract does not require them to finish for six
months we lost.
Mr.
Petty stated it is to both of our advantages the contract be done in an
expeditious manner.
Mr.
Rosenof stated he can get six more contracts tomorrow and decide to put ours
off.
Mr.
Petty stated he only has one barge.
Mr.
Knight stated we are not that type of company.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I know.
Mr.
Doody stated I want to make it clear with respect to the bid. Their bid was substantial completion in 180
days and final completion in 210 days.
Arbor Land & Tree, Inc. was substantial completion in 60 days and
final completion in 90 days.
On VOICE vote with Ms. Bertolami, Ms.
Ribotsky and Mr. Rosenof voting aye and Mr. Brewer voting nay the motion as
previously outlined was approved.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked when will it start?
Mr.
Petty responded we will ask the notice to proceed go out immediately.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is there a permitting agency?
Mr.
Petty responded no sir. You are the only
agency authorizing the work. They need
no other permits.
Mr.
Knight stated with most of the canal projects you have a preconstruction
meeting and then have a notice to proceed.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked is it fair to say within 30 days?
Mr.
Petty asked Mr. McKune, would you like to counsel our Board on the timeliness
of notice to proceed?
Mr.
McKune responded we will establish a preconstruction meeting next week and
issue the notice to proceed at the meeting.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked is it fair to tell residents within 30 days?
Mr.
Petty responded we have a standard we used in your sister districts. It alerts homeowners to the presence of a
contractor in their backyard if they are abutting the canal. We will do it by door hangers to everyone
affected as soon as possible, which means we will start tomorrow if it is okay
with the Board. We will try to send it
out ahead of the contractor by two days or so to notify them.
Mr.
Rosenof stated let me ask you a procedural question. You say we cannot amend the bid, but we have
not written the construction contract yet.
Can the construction contract require them to start within a certain
amount of time?
Mr.
Petty responded it will be written in conformance with the bid document.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer’s Report –
Consideration of Plat – Epstein at
Mr. Craven stated we received a plat for a parcel of land at
the northwest corner of
Mr.
Rosenof asked any questions or comments from the Board? Is there anything Mr. Brewer needs to do
procedurally because he has a conflict of interest?
Mr.
Petty responded there is. I spoke to
counsel about it.
Mr.
Doody stated he stated the conflict for the record. He has a financial gain in this matter. Under the statute he should abstain.
Mr.
Brewer stated I abstain.
Ms.
Bertolami asked did you say this was approved by the city?
Mr.
Craven responded yes.
On MOTION by Ms. Ribotsky seconded by Ms.
Bertolami with Ms. Bertolami, Ms. Ribotsky and Mr. Rosenof voting aye and Mr.
Brewer abstaining the plat for Epstein at
Mr.
Urrutia stated I talked to Ms. Rugg last month and scheduled the Butler Farm
easement to be on this agenda. I do not
see it.
Mr.
Petty stated Ms. Rugg does not set the agenda.
The agenda is set by the manager.
As secretary she can put items for consideration. The Butler Farms issue and the easement as
well as its request from this body came through counsel for the HOA. We have spoken to Mr. Laystrom and as far as
the request is concerned, the matter has been resolved. We will need a formalized request from the
entities at Butler Farms to consider the matter further. I did not put it as an item in the agenda.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what is the issue?
Ms.
Ribotsky responded I was told we were waiting for a proposal.
Mr.
Rosenof stated remind us where we are.
Mr.
Petty stated we determined we could consider the matter only by expending funds
of District and as such we would need the people asking for this to agree to
pay for any cost incurred by the District up to a certain amount. We were waiting to see what amount their
attorney would be capable of obtaining from the HOA. This Board estimated it to be approximately
$25,000. I contacted counsel for the HOA
to see if he wished to pursue the matter.
At the time he reported unless he called back, he considered the matter
settled.
A
resident asked settled in what way?
Mr.
Petty responded you will have to talk to Mr. Laystrom. As far as the District is concerned, because
there was no further response, the request has been pulled.
Mr.
Urrutia stated we as private citizens know the matter is not resolved.
Mr.
Petty stated as far as this body is concerned, the request we have been working
on for over a year is.
Mr.
Urrutia stated the president of our association is here.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked can I ask a question first?
We are out of order on the agenda.
Mr.
Urrutia stated I understand.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I am willing to talk about this under audience comments. I do not mind having an open discussion.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s Requests
Ms. Ribotsky asked does the District have to pay for more
disaster recovery?
Mr.
Petty asked of what? We do not have
title to anything at this time.
Mr.
Rosenof responded I think she means records and things like it.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated no. Do you have a plan
in place for the District for drainage?
Mr.
Petty responded no.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked can we put this on the agenda?
I think every governmental entity should have protocols and policies in
place. Who gets called? How do we triage? Should we start looking for damaged
areas? What lessons have we learned from
the last hurricane? It is almost a year
later and we are still fixing some of these things. We learned lessons along the year. If we put them in procedures, we can make
things more efficient in the event of another disaster happening.
Mr.
Rosenof asked there is no plan at all?
Mr.
Petty responded we do not have a specific plan of attack on trees, which fall
in the water. We have specific policies
in place with our personnel for addressing emergencies.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I believe that is what Ms. Ribotsky is talking about.
Mr.
Petty stated she asked for emergency management plans, which have been
filed. We have not filed with any
agency.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I did not say it was filed.
Do we have one that a government agency would have? I never said the word “file”.
Mr.
Petty stated I assumed you meant any other government agency we may have filed
with.
Mr.
Rosenof asked I think what Ms. Ribotsky is trying to ask is if we have another
hurricane, who gets called? When do they
call? How do you go into action? Who takes the place of the people who maintain
the canals if we cannot find them?
Ms.
Ribotsky asked have we amended it from last year based on what we learned? We learned a few significant things from the
NRCS issue. We need to immediately go in
and see where there may be areas we need to get title on right away. The plan needs to be updated.
Mr.
Petty responded items such as getting title and writing procedures for this
Board will be non binding. I cannot tell
you how to respond to concerns of transfer of ownership and
responsibility. I can give you
recommendations, but I cannot write your rules.
If we are talking about writing a response for emergency management, the
current policy of your field personnel and management team is based on 30 years
of experience in this area to drainage.
We take our personnel and lock them up in the building you see behind me. Every other agency sends them home. After the last storm, this District along
with its sister districts stationed out of here did better than anybody in a
three county area.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I simply asked my question and I got my answer. You have a plan. That is all I wanted to know. You do not have to get defensive about
it. I simply wanted to know if you have
a plan and if you have looked at it again.
I do not need a half of an hour about what the plan is. I respect the fact we have one.
Mr.
Petty stated I apologize for being sensitive on the matter. I am proud of the way our personnel responded
during the last hurricane and, like you, I am frustrated by the issues facing
this District today. I wish I had a more
concise issue so it does not happen in the future, but until these answers
happen, we get title and we adopt policies for the District’s drainage system
in a primary and secondary responsibility, I will be unable to write additions
to the current plan. I look forward to
doing so.
Mr.
Rosenof asked I think what Ms. Ribotsky is asking for is do we put our people
in a room and lock them in a room? I did
not know that. I am glad to know it. I am glad you have a procedure in place. I am more concerned with things like document
retention. Do we have a place where
things get backed up onsite?
Mr.
Petty responded yes sir.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I did not know this.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I am assuming if they have a plan, those things are in the
plan. Now I know we have a plan, I am
assuming the plan is comprehensive. I am
not going to get into your operations.
How you execute it is up to you.
Ms.
Bertolami asked did I understand you to say there are policy changes you would
like this Board to look at?
Mr.
Petty responded the Board has several policy issues to address in the
investigation of title transfer. We are
looking at the primary system and the title thereof since it is where the
majority of the trees fell this time. We
also have an issue before this body for consideration for the agreement of
taking care of the swales on the secondary drainage system. We do not have an agreement in place with the
City of
Mr.
Rosenof asked do you have the policies you mentioned in writing?
Mr.
Petty responded many of the field policies are in loose leaf form and not in a
single book. Many of the office policies
are in a straight forward book.
Mr.
Rosenof asked may I ask those policies be reviewed by the Board so we can help
you look at it and suggest things we need to do?
Mr.
Petty responded I suggest we give you a copy of Severn Trent Services’
emergency response, which covers all of your office transactions and
monies. We will ask for a report from
Mr. Frederick in regard to field operations.
Mr.
Rosenof stated let us do it in a time certain.
We do not want to tell you how to do your business, but I would like to
see how you do it. If there are things
we can look at, we may have input.
Mr.
Petty stated we understand the Board’s comfort needs to be addressed.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Audience Comments
Ms. Olsen stated I live in Butler Farms and my house was
condemned. When you said at the April 6,
2006 meeting you were waiting to see if you had approval for funding to go
forth, was it to get the surveying and the engineering?
Mr.
Petty responded it was for professional expenditures, which will cost the
District money whether it be legal, engineering or administrative. We spent considerable time coming up with our
current position of evaluation and we only asked for legal counsel to be
reimbursed. It was for a very specific
issue. It was for covering the rest of
the taxpayers of the District. We asked
for this policy. We contacted the
representative who brought the proposal to us, Mr. Laystrom. He told us the matter was resolved unless I
heard further from him in the next week.
That was over a month ago. He
said most of the trees had been removed.
He was working with the city in this regard and the HOA he represented
considered the matter complete.
Ms.
Olsen stated the trees have been removed, but I thought what was up for
discussion on April 6, 2006 was either culverting the area or bringing is back
to its original condition. He said it
was solved? As of April 6, 2006 the
trees had already been removed. It was
to find out about culverting or redoing the ditch. Neither one has been done. Did Mr. Laystrom tell you the matter has been
solved? This is what I am trying to find
out.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it is my understanding.
Mr.
Petty stated none of the work was supposed to commence before discussions
occurred between the District Manager and the representative.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we are looking at two different things. We did not do the tree removal. We were looking at a separate project of
whether to do a culvert or restore the ditch to its original position. It required a great deal of administrative
time, surveying and legalities. We gave
your attorney the option to say you were willing to spend a certain amount of
dollars to investigate this in order to move forward. When we contacted him again, he said the
situation was resolved.
Ms.
Olsen asked what do you mean by resolved?
Mr.
Rosenof responded you decided you did not want to do it.
Ms.
Olsen asked we do not want a culvert or have it brought back to its original
condition?
Mr.
Petty responded we have no way of going back to the homeowners to verify
whether or not their representative was inaccurate. Our dealings were with the attorney for the
HOA. We had every reason to follow his
direction and no alternative to go back to another entity, in this case an HOA,
to ask them to continue in a process we did not start.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I am a believer of not going backwards and going forward. Let us not figure out what happened. Let us use this time to move forward. Let us figure out what we can do to make
everyone happy and move forward.
Ms.
Olsen stated the ditch does not have a culvert and it has not been redone to
its original condition.
Mr.
Rosenof stated the maintenance of the culvert, as of today, is not our
responsibility. We are willing to do it.
Ms.
Olsen stated we understand our HOA dropped the ball with you. Can you assist us?
Mr.
Petty responded this Board has historically been a friend of Butler Farms. This will be the third time we evaluated
doing an agreement with Butler Farms.
You were the very first item of business when we were created. You are the first resolution on my list. It turns out we had to cancel because of lack
of payment you did not abide by within a year.
Ms.
Yousefi stated I read the minutes and faxed them to Mr. Laystrom. We have been in meetings and we are going to
have another meeting with the city. We
have 650 homeowners. We have
approximately 6 homeowners who want the culvert. We are doing a letter because we were going
to get a loan for $400,000 to remove trees.
The trees were removed by FEMA.
We have been meeting with the city because approximately six homeowners
want a culvert, possibly twenty homeowners would like a culvert. There are 650 homeowners. We were looking for a $400,000 loan. We did not need it for the trees. We are sending a letter to the homeowners
wanting to know if they are willing to keep the special assessment where it is
to do a culvert as well as taking into consideration making sure property
owners who have erosion do not have more erosion. We might come to you with a check for
$25,000. We do not know what we are going
to do yet. We are talking to the
city. You do not need to do it. We can contract with anyone to do the
job.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is this correct Mr. Doody?
Mr.
Doody responded yes.
Mr.
Rosenof stated they do not have to go through us.
Ms.
Yousefi stated we do not have to anymore.
Mr.
Petty stated you never did.
Ms.
Yousefi stated we were trying to get you to help get the tree removal
done. The tree removal happened.
Mr.
Petty stated the trees were taken out of the equation six months ago even
before FEMA became involved. We do not
do tree removal.
Ms.
Yousefi stated we were going to get a loan for you to help us get to the next
stage. Now the trees are out of the
picture. Anyone can do the job. We have people who want us to culvert. We need to notice our homeowners.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we are going to do what we can to help you, but we need to do
this one at a time. What are you asking
from us tonight, if anything?
Ms.
Yousefi responded when I read the minutes I thought the figure of $25,000 was
still to be determined. When you said
the figure of $25,000 it was not clear when I spoke with Mr. Laystrom if we
needed to know the scope of the job.
Mr.
Rosenof stated the $25,000 was to start the title work, the survey and to do
feasibility surveys. It sounds as if
there is consensus among the Butler Farm residents here. Who do we listen to?
Mr.
Doody responded you have to make the determination as to what the benefit is
for the District with all due respect to the individuals here. I have not been able to glean as to what the
District is being asked to consider.
Mr.
Rosenof asked do we need a unified front from Butler Farms for us to act or can
each of these citizens petition us individually?
Mr.
Doody responded they can petition you individually, but you are not obligated.
Mr.
Rosenof asked do we have to assume the Butler Farms President speaks on behalf
of Butler Farms?
Mr.
Petty responded your policy in the past has been to leave it to the District
Manager. We currently have a proposal
representing Butler Farms, which has design characteristics in it. It is what we have been considering. If you wish to put it back on track even
though their counsel has asked us to finish the job based on what you heard
today, we will have to reference this specific project because it is what we
priced.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what is the project?
Mr.
Petty responded putting the drainage back to its original condition according
to specifications.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked who owns the property?
Ms.
Olsen responded we each own it individually.
It is a 35’ non access easement and we pay taxes on it. When they do the survey of our property it
extends past it. They are supposed to
maintain it, which they do not.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated if the HOA owned it, they would be the contracting entity.
Mr.
Doody stated yes.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated because they have title in this particular case.
Mr.
Doody stated you need a construction easement, but you will have to get the
whole line.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked there must be a formal agreement for the HOA to maintain
it. It depends on the original deed of
who determines how it is maintained.
Does the HOA vote for the six homes or do the six homes…
Ms.
Olsen stated there are 24.
Mr.
Petty stated I understand why the question is being asked, but the District is
not in the business to provide legal advice to HOAs.
Mr.
Rosenof stated at one point we talked about who we assess for this. I thought it was ours.
Mr.
Petty stated we will not consider this project unless this property is
transferred to the District or a suitable easement thereof. We will not work under an HOA maintenance
assessment. It was one of the blockades
to us starting this project. Whether
there was enough room to do the project was an engineer’s concern. We are not talking about who owns it. It will not be a sticky situation for us
because we will own it if we were to do the job. We are considering possibilities at this
time. We are not committing to actions. It was under the agreement we had in working
with Mr. Laystrom and the HOA to attempt to work well with our neighbors in
helping them out with a problem they have as private property owners or
HOAs.
Mr.
Craven stated when this was developed the swale was an intricate part of the
drainage plan. It was one of the permit
requirements for continued use of many of the properties in there for it to be
maintained properly. The responsibility
was placed in the hands of the HOA. It
does not address who owns the specific piece.
Mr.
Rosenof stated at one point when we were trying to figure out how we could assess
this as a maintenance issue; we questioned whether the 24 houses should get a
special assessment, all of Butler Farms or the entire Pine Tree Estates.
Mr.
Petty responded part of it was the work we will do in the future. I can tell you from experience on doing
assessments for these types of issues, the question is who gets special and
peculiar benefit and what is it? Is
there a change between a home having access to the canals to an internal home,
which may get drainage through the outfall of the canal. In the case of putting a culvert pipe in, I
will opine there is a change in assessments between having an increase in yard
if you abut what was the old canal versus internal drainage. If it is maintained in its current shape and
put back to its design, I will say everyone benefits from the drainage concern
because you are addressing it.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is all of the drainage in Butler Farms going through this ditch?
Mr.
Craven responded no.
Mr.
Rosenof stated you cannot make the assessment if we improve the swale, all of
Butler Farms is affected.
Mr.
Petty stated what we discussed in the past and what we will tell you in the
time of your consideration is this will be done by an independent body who will
do an assessment report.
Ms.
Olsen stated what drains into the area is the street. The drains are in the middle of our street
because we are on cul-de-sacs. The
city’s water drains into there and
Mr.
Petty stated our engineer will give counsel to the Board on what drainage went
through what area of Butler Farms. It
may be immaterial in consideration tonight because our engineer will have to
opine under any action by this body. The
issue at hand is if this body has clear direction from Butler Farms to do
anything.
Ms.
Olsen stated my objection to the statement you made is you said the internal
lots receive no benefit from it.
Mr.
Petty stated no. I said it will be
opined at a later date.
Ms.
Olsen stated if they do not have the drainage into here, their lots flood out.
Mr.
Petty stated we cannot argue assessment methodology before any work is
constructed.
Mr.
Urrutia stated the only reason we came here is because we saw you were
interested in helping our community more than what our HOA was trying to do for
us. They dragged their feet for six
months.
Mr.
Petty stated I suggest I be allowed to speak with the body here tonight at a
date as soon as possible to discuss these matters and see if we can run to a
consensus on the issue. I can bring it
back to the Board.
Ms.
Yousefi stated we did not come here with knowledge of the $25,000. The HOA represents 650 homes. For the HOA to vote to give you $25,000 we
have to think of 650 people agreeing with the monetary expenditure. There is confusion on our part of re-grading
versus putting in a culvert.
Mr.
Urrutia stated there is no confusion.
They were willing to help. You
did not accept it.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I appreciate Mr. Petty’s willingness to meet with you to try and
resolve these issues. You are acting as
a lone voice. You are going be more
effective than coming at us individually.
I hope you can agree on how you want us to help you. We are more than willing to do what we can to
help you, but you have to work out your issues and then come to us. I will say this issue is closed unless there
are Board members who want to speak.
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There
being no further business,
On MOTION by Mr. Brewer seconded by Ms. Ribotsky with all in
favor the meeting was adjourned.
Paul Brewer David Rosenof
Secretary President