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
Donna Benckenstein Assistant
Secretary
Mimi Bright Ribotsky Assistant
Secretary
Also present were:
John Petty Manager
D.J. Doody Attorney
Warren Craven Engineer
Randy Frederick Field
Superintendant
John McKune CH2M Hill
Michael Syzmonowicz Wrathell,
Hart, Hunt & Associates
Richard Michaud Public
Works Director,
Several Residents
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 August 3, 2006 Meeting
Mr.
Rosenof stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the
My
name is misspelled under the first order of business.
On MOTION by Mr. Brewer seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with
all in favor the minutes of the
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s Report
A. Acceptance
of Financial Audit for Fiscal Year 2005
Mr. Petty stated I will give you the highlights of the
audit. We have with us our Treasury Services
Director, Ms. Larned, if you would like any details. You have a clean audit. We have met the Auditor General’s
requirements in our accounting for fiscal year 2005.
Mr.
Rosenof stated Grau & Company are the auditors for a Water Control District
in Weston. I read publicity about Grau
& Company firing one of their clients.
Mr.
Petty stated Grau & Company has many clients in this area. We deal with them on several special taxing
districts.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I was curious if you knew what the circumstances were.
Mr.
Petty stated no, but I would like to find out.
Mr.
Rosenof stated they were not happy with how someone was running their
district. Do you need a motion?
Mr.
Petty responded yes sir.
On MOTION by Mr. Brewer seconded by Ms. Bertolami with all
in favor the financial audit for fiscal year 2005 was accepted.
B. Discussion
of Short Term Note
Mr. Petty stated I will defer to Ms. Larned to talk to you
about the short term note. At the last
meeting you asked us to look at other providers to see if the note was
competitive with them.
Ms.
Larned stated we checked around with various lenders in the area. We also checked with the Florida Association
of Counties. The issues the District
needs to consider in moving forward with any kind of lending instrument is the
concerns each of these lenders raised.
This is difficult to lend because the District does not own the
properties. They are hesitant as to the
collateral or security which will be used.
We have been able to articulate this is an existing District and because
of the assessment collection method they do not need security for
collateral. SunTrust is the only
financial institution who agreed to hold any financing mechanism that will help
the District in securing funds to perform hurricane clean up.
The
other lending institutions are hesitant.
We had difficulties in getting a quote unless it is at a taxable rate
because the District does not have ownership of those properties. In checking around with other financial
institutions, SunTrust is the only one who has been receptive to lending the
District money. It will be a taxable
rate. As far as the fees charged to us
by legal counsel, it is because we are asking for a short term note to take out
the amount we need and then flip it into a long term note. They are writing documents twice.
The
other lending institutions we asked to review this were not as agreeable or
flexible to look at this type of structure.
It is our recommendation to move forward with SunTrust given they are
the only ones who expressed interest in lending the District money.
The record will reflect Ms. Ribotsky joined
the meeting.
Mr.
Rosenof stated let me go back and refresh everyone’s memory as to what the
issue with SunTrust was. Do you want to
let us know what it was?
Ms.
Ribotsky responded we were given just one proposal and I wanted to make sure we
bid out. I did not know if the fees were
standard. I wanted to make sure we were
getting the best deal available.
Mr.
Rosenof asked are you looking for a motion from us?
Ms.
Ribotsky responded we do not have documents.
Mr.
Petty stated we are looking for direction from this Board to bring documents to
the Board for conclusion. If you give us
direction, we will be glad to put those documents together and bring them to
the Board at the next meeting for consideration.
Mr.
Rosenof stated so directed.
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion
of Matrix of Contracts for Management Services
Mr.
Doody stated I took direction from the Board and placed the responses next to
one another. I tried to identify for you
points of interest, which will guide you in respect to making a determination
in regard to selecting a manager for the District. The first item I identified in the matrix is
the formation of the entity to give you an idea as to the length of time they
are in existence.
The
second one, which is more important, is the scope of services. I took from their responses the language you
see in the matrix. I identified what
they will provide to the District. The
office location is identified.
Compensation is straight forward.
One of the responses addressed it and one did not. You have identification of personnel in terms
of the make up and composition of the particular entities. Finally, you have
identified governmental clients meaning municipalities and districts. It is based on their responses. I tried to outline a short summation.
Mr.
Rosenof asked where are the short falls from one to another? Do you believe they are both covering the
same services?
Mr.
Doody responded I found both proposals to be relatively consistent with one
another. If you see a shortcoming in the
scope of services, you might want to identify it and ask if they are prepared
to do it. One response was more detailed
with respect to the scope of services.
You can see it in terms of its length.
I did not see anyone going in a different direction. The only thing I will focus on, based on your
concern regarding disconnect, is clarification on assignment of personnel to
your District as to who will be the team.
Who will be assigned from either entity to PTWCD. Who will be your manager? Who will be your finance person? Who will be your recording secretary? There is a question of location and
facilities. You wish to address this
issue in the proposal. One entity has
offices in
Mr.
Rosenof stated Severn Trent Services does not address compensation. What is their annual fee?
Mr.
Petty responded our fee is as identified in the budget.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what is it?
Mr.
Petty responded it is $34,000.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked what is the issuance of bonds under compensation? It says $15,000 per issuance.
Mr.
Petty responded that is standard in this industry. It is something Mr. Moyer started in the
1970s. There is a great deal of
administrative work which needs to be done in an issuance. There is a fee charged for doing so and it is
standard for both management groups to charge it.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated personnel is 13 on one and 100 on the other. Will we see who will be assigned to our
Board?
Mr.
Petty responded you will not get 100 people.
The resources, which will be allocated, will be based on the need of the
District. You currently know the staff
assigned. You know the problems we had
in the past with staff. We may not be at
the top drawer yet, but it has been stable for a while.
Mr.
Syzmonowicz stated we have the same approach.
Even though we have 13 people in our firm, not all of them will be
assigned to your District. You will have
a manager, a finance person and a recording person. If we need to add more personnel, we will
consider doing so. If we feel the scope
of service exceeds what we initially proposed, we will come to the Board and
suggest modifications to the contract.
Mr.
Brewer asked when are we going to put this to bed?
Mr.
Rosenof responded I will pose a question to Mr. Doody and the Board. How do we want to proceed? Do we want to decide whether or not we are
making a move? Do we want to decide who
we are moving it to or are we staying where we are? Do we want to get more information
first? Do we want to negotiate a
contract first? I am all ears as to what
you collectively think.
Ms.
Bertolami responded I believe we have enough information to make a decision.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we have consensus. How do
we want to approach it? Do we want to
vote on a motion to keep or move? How do
we want to do this?
Ms.
Ribotsky responded I will make comments and I want to know how everyone else
feels. I was the one who started this by
expressing my displeasure with the rotating managers. Since we started this search I have been
observing Severn Trent Services closely as to how they perform. The performance is not perfect. I have concerns with how the hurricanes were
handled. Part of it may have been with
learning how to navigate the new FEMA and the NRCS. Some of the mistakes might be on the part of
Severn Trent Services. They may also be
on the part of other entities.
Wrathell,
Hart, Hunt & Associates has clearly gone above and beyond as far as quality
of presentation and taking the time to understand the business. They have been professional. I have the philosophy that the devil you know
is better than the devil you do not know.
Things have been going smoothly, maybe a few hiccups here and
there. Based on my observations of the
last six months I am comfortable staying.
If we see things do not go well in the next six months, we can bring up
the issue again. I have seen a concerned
effort on Severn Trent Services to meet the needs and work better with the
engineer as well as the attorney. We
have two outstanding candidates, but based on the qualifications, the price,
and the scope of services I do not find anything making me want to change.
If
Wrathell, Hart, Hunt & Associates offered us the same services for $20,000
or offered us 10 more services for the same price, we currently do not have
anything to go by to judge their performances.
We have something to go by to judge Severn Trent Services
performance. I find the qualifications
and pricing comparable. We have someone
performing well. There are a few
hiccups, but no one is going to be perfect.
When we address the hiccups, they listen. If everyone else feels strongly to move, I
will not scream, but I do not see a compelling reason to change.
Ms.
Bertolami stated the things which make Severn Trent Services come out at the
top is their experience in Water Control Districts and their historic knowledge
of this District. Other than that, I
concur with Ms. Ribotsky.
Mr.
Brewer stated I concur with Ms. Ribotsky and Ms. Bertolami. We had a few hiccups. We should point our fingers while looking at
the mirror. It is all learning and we
have learned a tremendous amount. We
will bounce back better. We have a great
deal of work in this area to do ourselves.
I am for keeping them on. We went
through a few rocky roads, but we have taken the rocks out of the road. We can stay where we are at.
Ms.
Benckenstein stated I agree. The
problems have been fixed.
Ms. Benckenstein MOVED to retain Severn Trent Services for
District management services and Ms. Bertolami seconded the motion.
Mr.
Rosenof stated before we vote, let me add my comments. If we would have done this quicker, Wrathell,
Hart, Hunt & Associates would have been our new consultant. One of the logistical things I want to do is
figure out what time frame the contract is and what it is going to. If we want to do this again and go out for
bids, we should do it in a logical time frame.
Is it an every other year thing, every four years or every year thing?
Ms.
Ribotsky stated in my personal life I shop everything every two years. Two years is reasonable. It keeps the person you are working with on
their toes. It also makes you
competitive with the market. The bidding
process can educate you.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what date will this be?
Ms.
Ribotsky responded it should be earlier because of the budget. We should time it.
Mr.
Rosenof asked when is our fiscal year?
Mr.
Petty responded October 1st through September 30th. The contract has a 60 day stipulation
clause. You have a group you interviewed
and feel good about with Wrathell, Hart, Hunt & Associates. Your contract with us is similar to a
handshake deal. If you are dissatisfied
with our services, you have a 60 day trigger.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated what Mr. Rosenof is saying is we should have it mandated to
bid.
Mr.
Rosenof stated if we want to coincide it with our fiscal year, we should make a
collective decision at every September meeting of whether we will go to bid.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated it should happen in March.
Mr.
Petty stated the first or second quarter of the year are times where you can
make the change without too much difficulty.
I suggest the first quarter because the second quarter is when you begin
to receive revenue.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I suggest we open this up again in February of 2008.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it will be a simple notion of whether we are happy or want to go
through this process again. The one
thing I am most disappointed with throughout this process is you knew all of
the shortcomings. You admitted to things
Severn Trent Services did wrong. I am
personally upset you knew there were things you did wrong and no one was doing
anything about it. It still rubs me the
wrong way. I appreciate your
honesty. If we did not go through this
process, would we have had this admission? Would we have figured out how to get our
course corrected? I agree with
everything I heard and I agree we have come a long way in this last year, but
let us not let this happen again. If we
find we are getting off course, we need to get back on course in a hurry. I do not mean it to sound demeaning.
Mr.
Petty stated we will take this direction sir.
A
resident stated someone came and cut down our tree. I want to make sure we will discuss this.
Mr.
Petty stated it is an item coming up under staff reports.
Mr.
Doody asked are we going to do a new contract?
Mr.
Rosenof responded yes.
Mr.
Doody stated I will work with Mr. Petty to get a new contract before you for
your next meeting. I will include the
scope of services outlined. You can add
or subtract to the contract, discuss it and vote on it.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated we started this bidding process last October. It should not take 10 months to bid something
out. We need to adopt a formal bidding
process by resolution.
Mr.
Rosenof stated now that we will have a contract, it will be easier. At least we know what we are asking for.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated for this. I am saying in
general. We had other things we bid out,
which have taken a long time. We need to
smooth out and make how the District bids things out more efficient. We move slowly compared to how we can
move. We need to have a general calendar
we can stick to for bids. This bid took
10 months. The
Mr.
Doody stated you will need to be prepared to delegate a great deal to your manager. The fact you meet once a month has a tendency
to slow things down. If you want to
accelerate the process, things will have to be delegated.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated it seems the only time we communicate with Severn Trent
Services is once a month. I do not know
if this is the best way to operate.
There are ways to communicate, which will make things more
efficient. There is nothing to stop him
from sending out an email or memorandum to us asking for our comments prior to
the meeting. Why do we have to look at
the drafts at the meetings, make our comments and wait another month.
An
example is the SunTrust loan. A phone
call could have been made to each of us letting us know we could only get one
bank to bid and asking us if we were okay with you bringing the proposal to the
meeting. We could have been voting on it
at this meeting.
Mr.
Doody stated it is a fine line. You need
to discuss it in public.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I am not saying we do not have to discuss it, but there are
ways to get input before hand so what we are discussing is more of a finished
product.
Mr.
Doody stated I understand, but any decision will need to be made here.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated decisions need to be made here, but this is a perfect
example. You could have called us with
what the situation was. We could have
voted on it tonight. There is no reason
it could not have happened.
Mr.
Doody stated from a legal standpoint you are suggesting that instead of getting
your information at one time via the agenda, you will be more receptive to
receiving intermittent information via email.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated when it is more efficient.
There are usually two to three issues going on. They can be resolved faster if some are
addressed via interim communication. Maybe
we can get an update in the middle of the month. If we have input, we can give it to you. The meetings will be more efficient and we
will be able to do more things faster.
Mr.
Doody asked do you want a mid-month report?
Mr.
Rosenof responded only if it is important.
In regard to the SunTrust letter, I am concerned with moving forward. We know we have cash reserves. If it were the opposite, this is a prime
example.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated maybe it is not the right example.
Mr.
Petty stated the issue is we are trying to become more efficient. It is being suggested the Board adopt certain
policies making sure we are doing things as quickly as possible. We can come up with a procedures manual for
certain items and pass it through counsel.
We can submit it to the Board for consideration. My suggestion is you start the process slowly
and work off the successes. We can look
at the ones you do not like and dump them.
We can come to you with an example of a bare bones procedure manual. You typically do it through a rule adopting
process. You will get efficiencies
there.
Mr.
Rosenof stated there is a motion on the table.
I would like a letter to go to Wrathell, Hart, Hunt & Associates
thanking them for what they have done so far.
A genuine expression of how impressed we are with them. I mean it sincerely.
On VOICE vote with all in favor the motion as previously
outlined was approved.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s Report
(Continued)
Mr. Petty stated we had a call from a resident talking about
live trees being taken down by our contractor.
We explained the contract was for down trees only. We put a message into CH2M Hill who is doing
the inspection. Mr. McKune sent someone
out and saw they were removing live trees.
He pulled the contractor from the site.
This was on Friday of last week.
On Monday of this week they had another construction meeting to talk to
the contractor about his actions. I will
defer to Mr. McKune to relay what the contractor reported at the meeting.
Mr.
Rosenof stated let us go back to make sure we are up to speed. We had a meeting and signed a contract with
Stiles Landscaping.
Mr.
Petty stated he has been out there working and we are approximately 50% done.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked is this in
Mr.
Petty responded this PTWCD resident lives in
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I received an email regarding live trees in
Mr.
Petty stated when you get into
Mr.
McKune stated on Monday we had our usual meeting with the contractor to
coordinate the work. We reiterated the
conditions of the contract, which are to only remove damaged trees within the
limits of the water. He is not to take
out trees, which are not damaged on the canal bank. We know he was. On Monday he continued to do it. We went out to ask him why he was doing
this. He said he had an agreement with
the President of the HOA to do this. The
HOA wanted him to remove all of these trees down this berm.
Mr.
Rosenof asked does he not need a permit?
Mr.
McKune responded we told him we do not care what he does with the HOA. You cannot remove trees under our contract
outside of the scope of the contract.
This portion of the meeting could not be
transcribed due to multiple voices speaking simultaneously.
Ms.
Bell stated my address is
Mr.
Petty stated I apologize for the confusion.
Ms.
Bell stated our area is confusing. It
will soon be annexed into
Mr.
Rosenof asked are they on an easement or on your property?
Ms.
Ribotsky responded I have a problem with a contractor who lets anyone walk up
to them and say, “Hi. I am the President
of the HOA. Take it out.” What kind of contractor does this?
Mr.
Petty stated we are in complete sympathy with the homeowners. In regard to the contractor working outside
the contract, we want them to be held accountable. We have tried to talk to them about the
issues and give them our concerns to the best of our ability. Stiles Landscaping is a professional company
and needs to be held accountable for their actions. All of the calls from residents have been
directed to Stiles Landscaping. We have
given them the address so they can take any necessary actions to hold them
accountable.
Mr.
Rosenof asked was it a subcontractor of Stiles Landscaping or was it Stiles
Landscaping?
Mr.
Petty responded I do not have information on who cut down the trees. I know it was the same group of people
working with us on removing down trees for Hurricane Wilma.
Ms.
Bell stated it was a subcontractor from Stiles Landscaping. Everyone has been very nice.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I do not mind them working for someone else while they are out
there, but you figure they would have a permit to cut down so many trees.
Mr.
Brewer stated they are working for someone else under our contract.
Mr.
Rosenof stated they are out there already and we are paying them a lump
sum. If they pick up additional work
while they are out there, I do not have a problem.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I do because our job needs to get done.
Mr.
Rosenof stated they have a certain amount of time to get our job done.
Mr.
Brewer stated I understand we have another problem in
Ms.
Ribotsky stated someone was told by
Mr.
McKune asked where was this from?
Ms.
Ribotsky responded someone who talked to the crews.
Mr.
Craven asked where?
Ms.
Ribotsky responded at the
Mr.
Petty stated we are not contracting with Coconut Creek.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked do we have a bond with Stiles Landscaping?
Mr.
Petty responded a performance bond.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated they are ripping out root basis of trees. They were only supposed to clean the canals.
Mr.
Petty stated the only time you can remove a root ball is when you are picking
up a tree which has fallen over the water.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated these were standing trees.
Mr.
Petty stated no one is supposed to touch a live tree. The exception is if it was damaged by the
storm and leaning over the water. We
will take anything leaning over the water.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated you will cut, but not go to the root ball on something leaning
over the water. Someone needs to go out
there. I requested someone coordinate
with the City of
Mr.
Petty responded it did. At our
preconstruction meeting we contacted the City of
Ms.
Ribotsky asked did they participate in the preconstruction meeting?
Mr.
McKune responded yes.
A
resident stated they use to tag trees they were going to take down.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated they usually tag them.
A
resident stated no one tagged anything.
Mr.
Petty stated there was no reason to tag because we were only supposed to go
after downed trees. Going after live
trees was not part of this contract. The
contractor working in this regard was doing so at his own risk without this
District’s approval or direction.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated someone needs to go out to the job sites tomorrow to make sure
they are clear on the scope left to be done.
Is there any way to assess what trees they improperly removed and can we
hold them responsible for replanting them?
Ms.
Rosenof asked did Stiles Landscaping admit wrongdoing?
Mr.
McKune responded no, because they are working for someone else. They feel it was their professional responsibility
to remove these trees, but not for us.
Mr.
Rosenof asked are we the ones who have to remedy it or is it the homeowners who
have to sue them?
Mr.
Doody responded there needs to be clarity to this situation. You are not going to like my first
recommendation. We need to consider
terminating this contract. We have a
contractor doing work outside the scope of this contract and creating liability
for this District. If you are not
prepared to take this action, suspend work until we have a meeting with them to
set forth what they will do to indemnify this District.
Mr.
Rosenof stated they will be fined.
Mr.
Doody stated the District may be fined.
They are saying they did not do anything wrong. This bothers me. They were told to cease taking this action
and they disregarded orders from the owner.
This is creating liability. I do
not know what Stiles Landscaping’s position is from a legal standpoint. If they are going to walk away and we have to
chase them six months from now, I do not know the scope of the liability. These guys are acting in a cowboy like
fashion.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated the crews are telling residents they are from Coconut
Creek. Why would they not say they work
for Stiles Landscaping.
Mr.
Petty stated the recommendation to suspend work is a practical one. We heard from the City of
Mr.
Doody stated if the City of
Mr.
Petty stated I suspect
Mr.
Rosenof asked is there a preemptive letter to
Mr.
Doody responded we did not put anything in writing at this time. I told the Assistant City Attorney this Board
is taking this seriously. Mr. Petty has
had discussions wit the City Manager’s office.
Mr.
Petty stated the public works director, Mr. Michaud, is in the audience for
this particular issue. They asked
several questions. I deferred not to
answer any “what if” scenarios because we have been receiving phone calls
threatening litigation over the issue. I
would rather not make statements for this body.
We have an issue. There are costs
involved. The recommendation to suspend
the work is practical. We talked to our
contractor about how he will resolve this issue. We are holding him accountable for his
actions. We will bring it back to the
Board once counsel feels we have an acceptable answer.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I never had a case where someone did more than they are supposed
to. He is not doing his work; therefore,
the performance bond should cover it.
Mr.
Doody stated I do not have confidence in getting protection from the
performance bond in acts of this nature.
It is not a question of too much work.
It is a question of violations.
Mr.
Rosenof stated he is going to have action taken against him for lack of
permits.
Mr.
Doody stated we are also in the line of fire to some degree. There has to be representative action
taken. I understand the importance and
sensitivity of this project, but it is creating potential liability. We need to get it under control.
Ms.
Benckenstein asked should we not terminate them?
Mr.
Doody responded I do not know if there are grounds, but you need to consider
it.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I would not terminate them until we give them a chance to
respond to see how they will rectify the situtaion. If we terminate them, we have to rebid
everything. Terminating opens us up to
another risk in regard to finances.
Mr.
Rosenof asked do we need to give them an opportunity to cure if we terminate
them?
Mr.
Doody responded if we give them notice.
I want you to consider it.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is there a time limit on the opportunity to cure? Do we have to give them three weeks to come
into compliance with the contract before we are allowed to fire them?
Mr.
Doody responded even if that is so, I do not feel they can come into compliance
given the actions. They are not going to
replant trees tomorrow.
Mr.
Ladni stated I live in Garden Acres,
Mr.
Petty stated we need to be rational in allowing the contractor to give their side
of the story as well. Our counsel is the
best person to work as the administrator of this issue. We need to get direction from this body to
suspend the contract and tell staff to administer the problem of this liability
issue. The issue is how to correct what
we consider to be a liability issue.
Mr.
Rosenof asked are we suspending the contractor as a permitting agency by
issuing a stop work order?
Mr.
Petty responded not at a permitting agency.
Mr.
Rosenof asked are we not a permitting agency?
Mr.
Petty responded we are the ones who contracted them.
Mr.
Rosenof asked who is the permitting agency?
Mr.
Petty responded there are no permits for taking out downed trees. We are cleaning up debris.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it is not a stop work order; it is a suspension of contract.
Mr.
Petty stated yes.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated there can be code enforcement for the work they did. We will be liable and not the contractor.
Mr.
Petty stated there may be all kinds of liability issues we wish to cover. Our contract is written to cover us to go
after the contractor for this, but we may get stuck in the middle on one or two
of these items.
Mr.
Rosenof stated keep track of hours because there will be cost recovery.
Mr.
Doody stated as you recall this was an issue when it came before you regarding
the award of this bid. I received
several calls from counsel representing Stiles Landscaping. I can give him a call telling him we need a
meeting immediately. We need to focus on
sitting down with him, his client and our representatives in getting this
straightened out. We may want to have a
special meeting so we can report back to you before October.
Mr.
Rosenof asked how much of the work is finished?
Mr.
McKune responded over 50%.
This portion of the meeting could not be
transcribed due to multiple voices speaking simultaneously.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked how could they get 50% of the work done without anyone from the
District checking on it intermittently?
Mr.
Petty responded we had inspectors out there more than daily.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked how come we did not catch this?
This is my concern. The District
should be inspecting this daily, if not every other day. How could we not catch any of this?
Mr.
Petty stated I am going to defer to Randy Frederick who has his staff doing
customer service in front of the contractor.
I will also refer to Mr. McKune.
How did this happen underneath your inspections?
Mr.
Frederick responded I was unaware this was happening. When I received a call I called CH2M-Hill and
told them these trees were being cut down.
They went out there. I was told
the contractor stopped. The next day I
received a call they were doing it again.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked what is the policy and procedure? Who was supposed to look at the job site?
Mr.
Petty stated you have been asked the question of staff which was supposed to be
onsite doing customer service. Was
anyone onsite and how often do you put people out there for customer service?
Mr.
Frederick responded I did not have anyone from customer service out there from
our staff. I believe CH2M-Hill had
people out there.
Mr.
McKune stated our guys are out there all of the time. We do not get there at dawn when the workers
get there.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked was 50% of the work completed in a day?
Mr.
Brewer responded no. They have been out
there for two to three weeks.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked why was none of this caught?
Mr.
McKune responded 50% does not relate to this.
It relates to the project.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked how come this was caught by you calling him and not you?
Mr.
McKune responded our guys caught him and told him not to do it.
A
resident stated they told us in the beginning they were only cutting the dead
trees. One morning I see them cutting
green ones. I told him it was not dead. He told me he had to take all of them except
for the Pine Trees and the Plum Trees. He
said the solid is not strong enough and the roots are not holding.
Mr.
Ladni stated they also said FEMA sent them and told them to do it.
Ms.
Bell stated they said it was FEMA and they also thought the property was owned
by the county.
Mr.
Petty stated let us get something straight.
You do not have a conspiracy by the contractor. You have a contractor who has been clearing
trees after Hurricane Wilma for the last nine months. They are telling everyone the same deal and
that it is FEMA. We do not do anything with
FEMA. It is NRCS as this Board
knows. You are talking about guys who
cut down trees for a living and they are spitting out what they have been for
the last nine months. You are not
getting a good answer from those guys.
Mr.
Ladni stated yes, but he is getting paid for each tree.
Mr.
Petty stated he is not getting paid for each tree. Mr. McKune is supposed to be out there
inspecting him, but not constantly. He
needs to do enough to make sure the job complies with the contract. As soon as we received calls from the
residents telling us they were removing trees, on Friday we responded. We had the contractor out before the end of
the day. We do have inspectors who go
out regularly. Even though Mr. Frederick
did not have staff there on this day, we do have customer service handing out
door hangers ahead of them to let them know what we are doing.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated that is not the problem.
The door hangers and the notifications are not the problem.
Mr.
Petty stated we have something which was not anticipated. The contract clearly states it is not
supposed to happen. We handled it within
a 24 hour period, which is responsive.
We will hold the contractor responsible as the contract says we must as
well as counsel has indicated. We have
the right answers. We are putting the
contract in suspension since we did not get the contractor to obey our
instructions from Friday.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I do not want to defend CH2M-Hill and Severn Trent Services, but
we have a stupid contractor. I am a
contractor for a living. I would not
anticipate someone doing something he is not getting paid for, does not have a
permit and is illegal to do. You cannot
anticipate someone is going to be this stupid.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated no, but I thought it was more than 24 hours.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I agree there is some culpability, but let us not lose focus of
who is to blame.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I want to make sure for future jobs we have the necessary
amount of inspections.
Mr.
Michaud stated I have been getting calls all week from angry residents living
on the Hidden Hammocks side of the canal.
Their main issue is the loss of privacy.
The canal bank looks bad. It is
totally decimated. It is a liability
waiting to happen. It is a hazard for
anyone who goes near there. There is an
opportunity to make something good out of something bad. Make it look nice.
Ms.
Bell stated it looks very natural. It is
not a manicured look. It has been there
for 18 years.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I agree, but it is a great chance to replace the Australian
Pines with something else.
Mr.
Petty stated through the suspension of the contract you will have the attorney
working with the contractor on mitigating this.
We will also work with our partner, the City of
Ms.
Bell stated it is not complete. They
came as far as the end of our property.
It is thinned out, but they did not continue on.
Mr.
Petty stated when we are handling how this will be resolved, we will be talking
to you as homeowners on your satisfaction.
You are not giving up any rights by going after the contractor
separately in this matter. We are doing
this for the District. We will offer
this Board a recommended solution and you will decide what you should do.
Ms.
Bell stated I can understand why Hidden Hammocks is upset. What they have done to the bank is
unstable.
A
resident stated one of the plum trees fell today.
Mr.
Petty stated understand the bank condition will be addressed. It is something we are familiar with. We have rebuilt a couple of miles of it after
Hurricane Wilma. We know the issue as
well.
Ms.
Bell stated they may have to continue to take the rest of the Australian Pines
out because of what was done on one end.
Mr.
Petty stated if you have 50’ trees here and you put in 10’ trees, it will look
silly. We will work with you on this
issue. The City of
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I was just able to pull up a picture someone emailed me from the
Winner’s Circle area. This is a 12’
clearing of trees beyond where the bank is.
Mr.
Petty stated the City of
Ms.
Ribotsky stated this was done by the PTWCD people. The City of
Mr.
Petty stated this is news to us.
Mr.
Rosenof stated let us move on. I hope we
are taking a great deal of pictures.
This is one of those cases where I would have liked an email a few days
ago. Tonight is the first time hearing
about it. It would have been appropriate
to receive an email on this. We will get
to the bottom of this as quickly as possible.
Let us move on.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney’s Report
Mr. Doody stated this District was created by a special act
in 1961. A bill was passed in 2000,
which served to consolidate all previous legislative enactments regarding this
District. This particular act also
provides this Board consist of five members, three of whom are elected and two
of whom are appointed. The three who are
elected have specific terms. After the
terms expire, one needs to stand for reelection or someone needs to be
elected. The issue of a general election
first came to my attention by virtue of an advertisement placed by the State’s
office stating on November 7, 2006 various entities identified as US Senators,
Representatives of Congress, Attorney Generals,
It
identified two seats as being open. As
you know there are qualification periods.
The qualification periods came and went.
There were no individuals from this Board who qualified. We have a legal issue as to how to proceed
with an election. Those members who are
elected serve until they are replaced.
Even if your term expires, you continue to serve until you are
replaced. This District was created by a
special act.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked when is the election?
Mr.
Doody responded November 7, 2006.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated qualifying is by tomorrow at 12:00 p.m. for this election. If the two people can get their papers into
the Supervisor of Elections, it has not passed.
Mr.
Doody stated I was under the impression it was.
That may be part of the problem.
It is a good point, but let us put it aside and bring it back for
discussion in a moment. We contacted the
Supervisor of Elections’ office and they said we have nothing to do with
it.
As
I was saying, Florida Statutes have two chapters dealing with drainage. Chapter 298 is a drainage and water control
district chapter. Chapter 189 is for
special districts. The special act for
PTWCD defers to both. It is a
hybrid. PTWCD does not operate under
Chapter 298 nor does it operate under Chapter 189. It draws from components from both of those
chapters. I know the manager thought
there was going to be a landowners election.
The provisions of Chapter 298, Florida Statutes, and all amendments
thereto now existing or hereafter enacted are declared to be applicable to the
PTWCD in as far as not inconsistent with the provisions of this act or any
subsequent special acts relating to the PTWCD.
Not
withstanding the foregoing, the provisions of Section 298.11, 298.12 and 298.54
of Florida Statutes shall not be applicable to the PTWCD. If you go to those particular sections,
298.12 is annual election of Supervisors, term of office and vacancy. It says, “Every Year in the same month after
the time for the election, it shall be called a meeting of the landowners in
the District.” Our special act
specifically excludes this. Chapter 298
does not apply. It is not a landowners
District under Section 298.12.
Section
five of the PTWCD special act states, “The District is an independent District
as defined in Chapter 189, Florida Statutes.”
It defers you back to Chapter 189.
“The Board shall consist of five members except as otherwise
provided. Each member shall be elected
in compliance with all applicable election laws by the landowners of the
District.” Now it sends us to Chapter
189.
Under
Chapter 189.405, elections, it says, “If a dependent special district has an
elected governing board, elections shall be conducted by the supervisor of
elections of the county wherein the district is located in accordance with the
Florida Election Code.” By our special
act we are an independent special district.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated it rules out Chapter 189.405.
Mr.
Doody stated that is correct. The second
paragraph states, “Any independent special district located entirely in a
single county may provide for the conduct of district elections by the
supervisor of elections for that county.
Any independent special district that conducts its elections through the
office of the supervisor shall make election procedures consistent with the
Florida Election Code.”
The
next subparagraph states, “Any independent special district not conducting
district elections through the supervisors of elections shall report to the
supervisor in a timely manner the purpose, date, authorization, procedures and
results of any election conducted by the district.”
Ms.
Ribotsky stated we have a landowners meeting, but we have a supervisor of
elections.
Mr.
Doody stated no. You have an election of
landowners in the District under a procedure created by you.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated there is a landowners election and we report back to the
Supervisor of Elections.
Mr.
Doody stated only landowners can vote. I
do not want to call it a landowner’s elections.
Instead of eligible electors, the eligibility is based on landownership.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated you do not have to be registered.
Mr.
Doody stated if you went down to the Supervisor of Elections office to
register, they probably will not let you qualify.
Mr.
Rosenof asked why do we not call a meeting of the landowners of PTWCD and have
them elect us?
Ms.
Ribotsky responded you need to advertise.
Mr.
Doody stated I suggest you give me direction of what you want to do, but you
have to hold an election. You need to
have your own qualifying period and your own election. You might want to do it at the same time as
the general election, November 7, 2006.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked what happened at the last election?
Mr.
Doody responded it was before 2001 when the Supervisor of Elections office
helped with this.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated everyone is in until you tell us what you are going to do.
Mr.
Petty stated you serve until relieved.
Mr.
Doody stated we have a Board. That is
the good news, but you do need to hold elections. I can call the Supervisor of Elections office
and work with them. I can bring this to
their attention and try to throw it back on their lap.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I do not want you to throw it back in their lap. For legal purposes we should put a memorandum
of understanding to the Supervisor of Elections.
Mr.
Doody stated after I contact Stiles Landscaping’s lawyer I would like to
contact the Supervisor of Elections’ lawyer to make sure they are consistent
with this. I do not want any questions
to be raised as to the legalities of the actions of this Board. We need to solidify this Board. The Supervisor of Elections identified Mr.
Brewer and Mr. Rosenof as holding the seats needing to qualify. I cannot tell you how they arrived at this.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked what does SWCD do?
Mr.
Doody responded they may be operating under different laws. We have this special act, which is our blue
print.
Mr.
Petty stated I agree with counsel. These
special districts created by special acts are referred to as being
independent. Each has its own set of
oversight criteria. Counsel is
recommending you adopt a procedure so you can be sure in your election
process. It is a fine recommendation and
we should follow it. I do not think
there will be a problem in doing so.
Counsel will be able to look at statutes in other districts to come up
with a procedure.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can it be as simple as putting an advertisement in the paper?
Mr.
Petty responded I will defer to counsel.
Mr.
Doody stated I will suggest a procedure you can tweak, reject or accept to
follow. I will try to have it before you
in October so you can have something in place for elections in November. The idea is to simplify it. I would like to run it by the Supervisor of
Elections office and get their blessing.
Mr.
Rosenof asked do you want to get their blessing or tell them what we are doing?
Mr.
Doody responded I do not want anyone causing problems down the road. My partner represented the Supervisor of
Elections office for 25 years. We are
well versed in election laws. This is
not typical. We need to set up a clear
and concise procedure for you to follow.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer’s Report
Mr. Craven stated the consultants for the City of Coral
Springs proposed a park in Whispering Woods, which is approximately 30
acres. It is a modification to an
existing permit to the Whispering Woods property on Wiles Road. We have been going back and forth. They have been making modifications to their
proposal and they have a couple of more modifications to do. I am sure they will comply. I would like the Board to give me the
discretion to issue the permit when those modifications are made.
Mr.
Rosenof asked do you need a motion?
Mr.
Craven responded I do not know.
Mr.
Petty stated we would like it in a motion.
On MOTION by Ms. Ribotsky seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with
all in favor Mr. Craven was authorized to issue a permit for the
Mr.
Craven asked with regard to the situation discussed with the removal of the
trees, does the Board feel I should be involved in discussions with the contractor?
Mr.
Petty responded Mr. Craven’s skills in such negotiations are well known. If Mr. Craven volunteers to join the group, I
would love to have him.
Mr.
Doody stated his history of the area will be helpful.
Mr.
Rosenof stated welcome to the team.
Mr.
Craven stated we are going to have to sit down in a workshop in regard to who
owns what and what property is the District’s.
We have a situation where these people are looking across a piece of
property. Some people say it is county
property. Some people say it is our
property. We need to resolve these
problems as to who owns what and what rights we have.
Mr.
Rosenof asked how do you propose to make the determination?
Mr.
Craven responded we will need to pull deeds and titles as well as do legal
research.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked are you doing this already?
Mr.
Craven responded we did it on one.
Mr.
Doody stated we did it on one item.
Mr.
Craven stated the reason I bring it up is because it can be extensive. I would like to go over my philosophical view
of the matter with the Board to get started.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I agree it has to be done, but it has to be an iterative
process. I do not think we will bite off
a whole apple at once. We need to do it
piece by piece.
Mr.
Craven asked are we going to research this right-of-way?
Mr.
Rosenof responded it is a good thing to do.
Mr.
Doody asked what right-of-way?
Mr.
Craven responded where the trees were, where the canal was or where the road
is.
Mr.
Doody asked do we need a title search?
Mr.
Craven responded we do not need a title search.
We have indemnification.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked do we need a survey?
Mr.
Craven responded we may need a survey to determine where the property is. Get me a copy of the file.
Mr.
Petty stated there are a couple of issues.
We can operate and maintain with easements, with title, with contracts
and through Interlocal Agreement. All of
these items need to be brought before the Board for an understanding of what is
within the District’s purview. We have
met as late as today with the City of
Ms.
Ribotsky stated we should do a title search for everything else on the
property.
Mr.
Craven stated I am not disagreeing with you, but if it is a dedication on the
plat, it is a question of locating it physically on the ground as well as
determining what is there.
Mr.
Petty stated things have moved. Canals
have been dug out. We have seen canals
which were one size on the print and are now another size. The issue of where the right-of-way line or
easement line is something we need to know.
Mr.
Rosenof stated for the next meeting let Mr. Petty prepare a procedure for how
you feel we need to go about doing this and in what iterations we want to do
it. I do not feel we have the resources
to do it all at once.
Mr.
Craven stated I was not suggesting it.
Mr.
Rosenof stated you need to prioritize which portions of the District are most
crucial, what needs a survey, what does not need a survey and how long you feel
it will take.
Mr.
Frederick stated without knowing where the property line was when these trees
were being cut down, I did not have any rights to stop them from cutting the
trees down.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I agree.
Mr.
Petty stated we need this understanding.
We will bring the procedure to the Board at the next meeting.
Mr.
Brewer stated the situation of what we own and do not own is critical.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I agree.
Mr.
Brewer stated we cannot sit here and look at it two to three years from
now. If we get hit by another hurricane,
we are back to the same problem we had before.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I agree, but there are priorities Mr. Petty can look at.
Mr.
Brewer stated we need to get Mr. Craven to look at it and tell us where we are
most vulnerable.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I agree.
Mr.
Craven stated this is why we should have a workshop.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked do we not need to get this situation done and see who owns
it? Rather than taking another month,
can we not give it a directive? If we
need a survey or a title search, do it.
Mr.
Petty stated we already hit the priority and this is why we are working on the
main outfall we have. This is our
primary drainage system. What you are
seeing is a great deal of sideway pieces we want to go after to look at. This clarity has to come to us and we can
bring it to the Board in a straightforward policy at a workshop and a
meeting. You will get enough information
so you can make a decision.
Mr.
Brewer stated we are in a position in Hidden Hammocks. If you remember correctly, we had some people
on the other side of Hidden Hammocks who were not happy because they had
Australian Pines on their houses. These
people are saying they love the Australian Pines which might be on their houses
next year. They are big enough to get on
a piece of property not in our District.
We can say we are taking them down because of that.
Mr.
Frederick stated the contractor mentioned something about other things there
and redoing the canal bank by landscaping them with something nicer. I would like to address the
Mr.
Petty stated we will look into the issue brought to us by the Supervisor.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s Requests
There
not being any, the next item followed.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Audience Comments
There
not being any, the next item followed.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of
Financials and Invoices
There being no questions or
comments,
On MOTION by Ms. Ribotsky seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with
all in favor the financials and invoices were approved.
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There
being no further business,
On MOTION by Ms. Benckenstein seconded by Mr. Brewer with
all in favor the meeting was adjourned.
Paul Brewer David Rosenof
Secretary President