Wednesday, August 7, 2013

ATTORNEY/CLIENT SESSION CITY OF LAKE WORTH- Part V - NOVEMBER 14, 2012

ATTORNEY/CLIENT SESSION
CITY OF LAKE WORTH

CITY OF LAKE WORTH
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
7 NORTH DIXIE HIGHWAY
LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2012
4:52 p.m. - 6:15 p.m.

IN ATTENDANCE: 

Pam Triolo, Mayor
Scott Maxwell, Vice Mayor
Christopher McVoy, Commissioner
Andy Amoroso, Commissioner
Michael Bornstein, City Manager
Glen Torciva, Esquire, Interim City Attorney
Brian Joslyn, Esquire, Outside Counsel

[FORWARD TO PAGE 53, LINE 3]
[People mentioned, other than listed "In Attendance", in order of mention: Peter Willard, Mr. McNamara, Ms Anderson.]

COMMISSIONER MCVOY: [...] Did the person get elected partly on that, that was what they campaigned on? So it's normal that they would vote differently than whoever was previously on, and they were presumably representing the will of the people because they got elected so it's appropriate. But can somebody make a case that this is somehow smelly? Apparently the feeling is they can. So I understand that. Go ahead.
MR. BORNSTEIN: I like the argument of this is democracy in action. Someone got elected on a platform and they did morally what they wanted to do. But on the other side I say well and good, but there's a cost to me. That's Greater Bay's argument. They can make that political decision but they have to pay for that political decision because we had a contract that was going to generate so much. 
MR. JOSLYN: Especially when you have the Mayor and City Manager saying no, we can't get out of the contract, we'll be sued for millions of dollars. 
MR. BORNSTEIN: Right.
COMMISSIONER MCVOY: I don't fully understand that, but that makes sense. 
     The piece that I want to bring into the discussion, I don't know that it affects the risk analysis. I agree with your risk analysis that we do not want to wander forward into a 50 percent, a 60 percent chance or 40 percent chance of losing and the cost of losing is multiple millions we don't have and it's tax payer money that shouldn't be sailing off to someone in Rochester. I totally get that. But let me add in a sort of philosophical part and I'd be looking for everybody's response on. What if the true situation is that Willard's outfit, which is Willard who has a very dubious reputation in a bunch of states, doesn't really do stuff, talks a good streak and hooks up with somebody who has actually built some things but it's kind of this loose organization. What if his intent from the get go was never to build a building but was to put us in exactly this situation that we're in now, put us at a point where we're at risk of losing and it's an extortion scheme to get public money into his pocket? What is our responsibility?
MR. BORNSTEIN: How do you prove that?
COMMISSIONER MCVOY:  I'm not asking it as how do you prove it.
MR. JOSLYN: Let me say as the person who has looked at all the documents and I've looked at them a couple of times, there's no evidence that that occurred.
COMMISSIONER MCVOY: That's not what you said in the last meeting.
MR. JOSLYN: Hold on a minute now. There's no evidence that that occurred at front end. It's very clear to me that these guys were taking steps to set the City up by October of 2008, because I have a memo from Peter Willard to himself of a list of talking points where he says just that. Okay? I showed that to the mediator and it didn't sway him all that much. So my view of this is they tried to do this on a shoe string. They came into town talking a big game. They surely did. And they tried to do it on the cheap. And then because things got slowed up with the lawsuits and with the challenges to the zoning also filed by Mr. McNamara up in Tallahassee that stopped the zoning cold for a year that, pardon me, that because they were so tight were running into trouble. 2008 was not the smoothest year as we all know and by that point I'm sure it was clear to them that they weren't going to be able to get financing for this deal and they adopted a new strategy. I think that is potentially demonstrable. I don't believe that they came into this with that as a concept. I really don't believe that. 
MAYOR TRIOLO: Question for you. What is the process, our public meeting is less than a half an hour, our public meeting, what can we discuss and not discuss?
MR. BORNSTEIN: Well publicly you're not supposed to talk about what happened at mediation, but you can certainly talk about the fact that the risk analysis. If you'd like we can lay out the risk analysis.
COMMISSIONER AMOROSO: I would personally -- I thought you gave a very clear layout of it and I agree with it. 
MR. BORNSTEIN: To me it's dispassionate. It's facts. This is the risk.
MR. JOSLYN: And I'd be happy to answer any questions that anybody has I guess.
MR. BORNSTEIN: In terms of commissioners I think your conversation is very appropriate in terms of what's best for the City weighing all these different factors, weighing all these risk factors in particular. 
MAYOR TRIOLO: Can we discuss the mock trials?
MR. BORNSTEIN: Sure. Yes.
COMMISSIONER AMOROSO: We can talk about past commission and how we got to where we are now?
MR. BORNSTEIN: Yes. I think that's what Brian -- I think you have to have that context.
MR. JOSLYN: No doubt. 
MR. BORNSTEIN: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER AMOROSO: And do we make the decision here or there? 
MR. TORCIVIA: There. It has to be public.
MAYOR TRIOLO: Vice Mayor?
VICE MAYOR MAXWELL: I got a phone call yesterday from a resident who was apparently made aware of this meeting and was told that we were going to be talking about this. Apparently an elected official reached out and was talking to folks about this. 
MR. JOSLYN: Were numbers discussed?
VICE MAYOR MAXWELL: Yes. My concern is that there's going to be push back saying don't you settle, don't you settle, because there are people in this community that are involved with the very players we've talked about in this meeting here today who are going to want us to go to the mat.
MR. JOSLYN: For them. 
VICE MAYOR MAXWELL: For them.
MR. JOSLYN: Well --
VICE MAYOR MAXWELL: We've got a problem here.
MAYOR TRIOLO: Already I have the blogs saying --
COMMISSIONER MCVOY: Wasn't the meeting noticed as a closed door meeting on Greater Bay?
MAYOR TRIOLO: Yes.
COMMISSIONER MCVOY: So that's public information. 
MR. BORNSTEIN: Look, I parked the car yesterday and Ms. Anderson came up to me and said don't give Greater Bay a penny. So there are people in this community who feel very strongly about this matter.
VICE MAYOR MAXWELL: How would anybody deduce from a notice that says closed door attorney-client session for the purpose of discussing the pending litigation, how would they deduce there's a settlement pending, that we were going to talk about a settlement? My point is that information had been sent and circulated and I as specifically told I don't want you to settle. Okay?
MR. JOSLYN: Are those people going to pay by way of special assessment if we get hit?

[ENDED TRANSCRIPTION AT PAGE 59, LINE 2]

Ferris Bueller house: Luxury home featured in classic 80s comedy goes on sale for $1.5m | Mail Online

Nice example of Mid-Century Modern architecture. Reminds me of Philip Johnson's Glass House. One of the highlights of my career was meeting with Mr. Johnson in his Glass House. Click title for link to article.

Click here for actual text of HB 537

Pics from last night's (8/6/13) City Commission meeting...








Part III of the Public Comment on the LDR item at the 8/6 City Commission meeting...

Few People Using Winter Haven's Free Downtown Parking Garage | TheLedger.com

The designers may have been too successful in disguising the building's purpose. But it is a good example of how a parking garage can be made to blend in an existing downtown. Delray Beach has one that fits in well. Click title for link.

Public Comment on the LDR adoption 8/6 City Commission meeting - Part II

Public Comment from the 8/6 City Commission Meeting - Re Land Development Regulations

Public Comment on Unagendaed Items from the 8/6 City Commission meeting - includes a variety comments on the charter amendment...

Buy your movie tickets today!

Tickets are $7 and benefit LULA, Lake Worth Arts and the Playhouse. They are available at the Playhouse and the CRA offices at 29 J St. Show is at the Stonzek (part of the Lake Worth Playhouse) at 8 p.m.
A production made in Lake Worth!

EXCLUSIVE — Tiger Woods: My House is Sinking!

Foundations are important and so are soil conditions. In fact, if a building is seaward of the coastal construction control line, it should either be on pilings or protected by a seawall. By the way, how is our seawall by the casino building doing these days? Click title for link to article.

Commissioners vote to keep building heights as is in downtown... | www.mypalmbeachpost.com

A reasonably accurate portrayal of what went on last night. Click title for link. This is what I said under public comment. I'll have more videos up later today.
Wes Blackman, 241 Columbia Drive. I consider myself a veteran and a refugee of the master planning process that has gone on here for eight years. Around 1.5 million dollars have been spent in getting us to a point tonight when we can finally adopt a set of land development regulations that make sense and are implementing the city's comprehensive plan. Between these two documents, this is how land use is regulated in the state of Florida.
Is everybody happy? The answer is “no” everybody isn't happy. There are those people tonight who will complain that the city is not properly recognizing the results of the referendum held in March. That somehow the will of the people will not be recognized and incorporated in to this document. The city has a good reason that it is not including that language in that HB 537 made the election “null and void” since the charter change would ultimately result in a change to the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations – since that is how land use is regulated.
I would also like to point out that there was another petition drive, headed up by citizen Christopher McVoy which sought to repeal four ordinances related to the Beach and Casino land use and zoning designation. The petition drive got the required number of signatures, the city refused to put it on the ballot and the city ended up suing the people associated with the PAC. I'd like to point out that the Beach and Casino zoning district that is included in this set of LDRs tonight is the same one that was the subject of that referendum. No one is asking that be changed or repealed tonight.
My message is to understand the trajectory of the city, that not everything in this city has to result in a lawsuit and that we should agree to disagree sometimes so that the city can become the prosperous place it was designed to be. The prospect of maybe having two additional floors in a very limited area of the city – which already has tall buildings there – is not worth more delay and confusion about what you can do in Lake Worth. A question that has been asked, without an answer, for the past eight years.

From last night's City Commission Meeting - 8/6/13 - "Null and Void" Charter Change

Tuesday, August 6, 2013

ATTORNEY/CLIENT SESSION CITY OF LAKE WORTH- Part IV - NOVEMBER 14, 2012

ATTORNEY/CLIENT SESSION
CITY OF LAKE WORTH

CITY OF LAKE WORTH
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
7 NORTH DIXIE HIGHWAY
LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2012
4:52 p.m. - 6:15 p.m.

IN ATTENDANCE: 

Pam Triolo, Mayor
Scott Maxwell, Vice Mayor
Christopher McVoy, Commissioner
Andy Amoroso, Commissioner
Michael Bornstein, City Manager
Glen Torciva, Esquire, Interim City Attorney
Brian Joslyn, Esquire, Outside Counsel

[FORWARD TO PAGE 38, LINE 23]
[People mentioned, other than listed "In Attendance", in order of mention: Susan Stanton, McNamara, McCally, Damon Chase, Cara Jennings, Exline, Lucerne.]

MAYOR TRIOLO: Commissioner McVoy?
COMMISSIONER MCVOY: Yeah. I think as somebody who was involved in one of them I think I might have a bit more insight into who the people were and I think your statement that it was all the same people or kind of the same people is a little bit disingenuous. The only thing that's the same people is your office has been making money off of every single lawsuit all along the way.
MR. JOSLYN: Well we've also won every single lawsuit all along the way.
COMMISSIONER MCVOY: Maybe so but there is an issue there that is somewhat of concern.
MAYOR TRIOLO: He didn't file the lawsuits.
COMMISSIONER MCVOY: Whatever.
MR. JOSLYN: I take a Koranic view of this. I'm at the sword of my master.
MAYOR TRIOLO: The first question I asked when we came to these meetings from the very, very beginning when I spoke with Susan Stanton when she was the City Manager is why are we retaining the same lawyer to proceed further, I'm sorry, I've said this to you before, why are we retaining the same lawyer to represent us in these cases that is the same lawyer that told us to make the decision we made way back when. And that's the first conversation I had with Susan and Elaine years ago but here we are today.
COMMISSIONER MCVOY: Here we are today and I think we're getting a little side tracked but I'd like to be clear that I, the PAC had five people to it. To my knowledge and I think my knowledge is pretty accurate none of those people had any involvement or any overlap in any form with Save Our Neighborhood. Thay had no involvement with the contract suit that McNamara and McCally brought and I forget what the other groups were.
MR. JOSLYN: I'll tell you this, though. People you had out there that were getting signatures were involved in all these other cases.
COMMISSIONER MCVOY: Not to my knowledge but, you know, there may be some people.
MR. BORNSTEIN: Mayor?
MAYOR TRIOLO: Yes.
MR. BORNSTEIN: I know that all we're saying is related to our thought process in terms of settling this case, and I don't want to get far afield at all, let me maybe bring you back to -- Mike just stepped out a minute but I think that his comment earlier and my thoughts, I'm not sure what the Mayor's is, when you sit in these sessions and for your attorney to tell you his thoughts on the case, the pros and cons of the case, that's one thing. But when you sit in a mediation session and you hear both lawyers and you've heard the mediator and you're spending hours and hours analyzing it kind of intensely, and I took the same approach as Mike did. I was the jury. I was sitting there as a juror hearing Brian's presentation, hearing Damon's presentation and we had a similar, I think the Mayor had a similar reaction. 
MAYOR TRIOLO: I did as well.
MR. BORNSTEIN: We're in trouble on this case. All those other cases I know play into it, but the concern that I think all three of us had is that there's a better than 50/50 chance, and two mediators as he said and the jury consultants that we're going to lose. And then the question is how much could we lose. And it's again hard to quantify but I think the consensus was we had a realistic shot at getting hit with 5 and 7 and a half million dollars. That in my mind was the range. So if you've got a 60 percent or 70 percent chance of losing 5, 6, 7, $8 million then it comes down to well, how do we minimize that risk? What can we do? And one of my goals was to get whatever that bottom number was going to be and it took us a long time to get them to that number.
MAYOR TRIOLO: We came in at --
MR. BORNSTEIN: We started at 300,000.
MR. JOSLYN: Bumped to 5. But I'll say this. In the first mediation session we had with these guys before we had done the discovery to take the depositions of all their consultants who hadn't been paid and all of that other stuff that we're going to use to bloody them up at trial, they weren't going to come below $10 million. 
MR. BORNSTEIN: Right. I think the team, Brian and everybody else, did a good job of getting down from -- the only conversation I had with Damon Chase was with Brian a few weeks ago and he was adamant, adamant that they would never ever take less than $3 million. We got them to half, almost 50 percent of what I thought was their bottom line. So really the question today is strategically litigation-wise do you avoid the risk of a 5, 6, $7 million judgment and additional attorney's fees because you'd have some cost of somewhere between 3 and 400,000 going forward.
MAYOR TRIOLO: Plus an appeal.
MR. BORNSTEIN: Plus the appeal or do you pay that difference, that 1.1 or $1.2 million difference? That's really what you're paying because you're going to pay 300 to fight the case or pay an additional 1.1 or 1.2 to resolve the case and avoid the risk.
MR. JOSLYN: In terms of my fees, my normal hourly rate is 400, four and a quarter an hour. I'm doing this 275 an hour and have been from the beginning. So it's not that I'm sitting here got you guys hooked up to the milking machine and full hourly rates.
MR. BORNSTEIN: It's not attorney's fees either. It's expert fees.
MR. JOSLYN: The jury simulations cost us $55,000 to get it done just for example.
MR. BORNSTEIN: From a risk standpoint at least my two cents are it's worth it for the City Commission to think about seriously putting this case behind you and as the Mayor said the parade at trial would give the City a black eye. The other side is going to make Cara Jennings and by implication the City look horrible. It was very disturbing when they talked about deposition transcripts and comments. I don't really know Cara Jennings that well. I've only met her once at a conference. But the image that they're going to portray, we'll have media coverage for a week that will be negative to the City and I don't know what the cost is of negative media coverage, but the jury is going to hear that too and I think the biggest concern I felt out of that was this was a political decision, it wasn't a legal decision by the City Commission. They politically wanted to end the Greater Bay case and we shouldn't be punished for the City's politics. That's what Damon, if I'm on the jury I'm like yeah, you're right, you shouldn't be punished because they made a political decision. We'll argue legally we had the right to do it and everything else, but if the media keeps coming back to the smell test, it doesn't smell right. Commissioner gets elected, a week later you pull the plug. What happened in that one week to all of a sudden change the vote? And there wasn't anything on the record to change the vote. So I think we legally had the right to do it, but the emotional part of a jury I think they're going to say maybe you had the right to do it but these guys got screwed. I think that's the word somebody used, they got screwed. And they will award payment for that. 
MAYOR TRIOLO: Commissioner Amoroso?
COMMISSIONER AMOROSO: Real quick. Brian, I didn't understand that you were part of all these other lawsuits too. If you had to estimate what kind of money we spent on these other lawsuits, where would we be? 
MR. JOSLYN: Oh, my gosh.
COMMISSIONER AMOROSO: Just an estimate. We could look back to get clarification.
MR. JOSLYN: I think the two lawsuits in the middle while this was going on with Greater Bay was around $40,000. Exline was actually a summary judgment argument after depositions. Really, I'm not sure.
COMMISSIONER AMOROSO: Hundred thousand, 200,000?
MR. JOSLYN: The other couple of lawsuits, the attorney's fee award on Lucerne was $36,000 split in half between Mr. McNamara and his attorney. Around 40 for the two lawsuits going on while this was going on. Save Our Neighborhood we got involved real late on that so I just attended the final hearing and attended the appeal, 50 maybe. And this the last bill I just sent a bill today for $98,000 including costs of about 10 and we have billed to date $687,000.
COMMISSIONER AMOROSO: 687 plus we would add our own attorney to that and in-house staff because our attorney was working with you and in-house staff for public records and all that. 

[ENDED TRANSCRIPTION AT PAGE 46, LINE 3]

Cities surprised by responsibility for paying for rail... | www.mypalmbeachpost.com

It just so happens that the city is paying for an upgraded crossing at 2nd Avenue North today that is costing north of $300,000.  The street was supposed to be two-way at the time of the Publix opening. No one at the city during this period knew exactly what that meant and signalization at 2nd Avenue North and Dixie was installed as the street being one-way, but only one-way west of Dixie. By act of Susan Stanton, city manager back then, she demanded that 2nd Avenue North become two-way and the city went ahead with the stripping accordingly. In the meantime, FDOT and the FEC were screaming about the fact that the crossing and safety equipment at 2nd Avenue North for eastbound traffic was non-existent, since it had been taken away when 2nd Avenue North had been made one-way back in the late nineties. All this should be sorted out tonight and we will finally, and legally, be able to enjoy at two-way 2nd Avenue North.

And let's hope it will also meet the new standards that we are reading about in this article. Click title for link. Apparently, Lake Worth has 9 such crossings which may require up-grading at the city's expense. Perhaps we can get a report on that tonight.

Monday, August 5, 2013

Lake Worth height opponents say March 12 referendum is valid | www.mypalmbeachpost.com

Read it and weep...as I weep over 8 years of this being "in process" and it is has come to this - another lawsuit? Leave it to Laurel and the gang. Click title for link.

CITY OF LAKE WORTH CLOSED DOOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION DECEMBER 3, 2008 - Part VI

CITY OF LAKE WORTH
CLOSED DOOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT SESSION
CONFIDENTIAL
DECEMBER 3, 2008
9:00 A.M. - 10:20 A.M.

IN ATTENDANCE:

ROBERT BALDWIN, CITY MANAGER
JEFF CLEMENS, MAYOR
JO-ANN GOLDEN, VICE MAYOR
SUZANNE MULVEHILL, COMMISSIONER
RETHA LOWE, COMMISSIONER
CARA JENNINGS, COMMISSIONER
PAMELA LOPEZ, CITY CLERK
LARRY KARNS, ESQUIRE
BRIAN JOSLYN, ESQUIRE

---

[CONTINUED TRANSCRIPTION FROM PAGE 51, LINE 19]

MAYOR CLEMENS: One of the things we need to do is we need to re-negotiate with the County because the County amendment calls for --
MR. KARNS: Completion.
MAYOR CLEMENS: -- our money and Greater Bay's money to be spent first before that $5 million dollars. So that's going to require a re-negotiation with the County to make sure that we stay in good relations with those Commissioners up there because they are not happy with how long this is taking.
MR. KARNS: And my guess is they're going to want to see concrete plans --
MS. LOWE: Plans for using that money.
MAYOR CLEMENS: Absolutely. Yeah. So, which means we're going to have to move forward if we're going to do something differently. I know we can't get into too much detail about that, but I think it does relate to whether or not we exit the Greater Bay contract, that we have -- you know, move forward on other plans. I don't want to belabor this, but what we'll probably have to do would be a revenue bond in the absence of that, is my guess. There might be some other financing instruments that we can look at, but if we decide to do a revenue bond we're going to have to show the ability to gain revenue up there at the beach, meaning we're probably going to have to look at those rev prices.
MS. JENNINGS: Definitely.
MAYOR CLEMENS: I just want everybody to be aware that this is coming. I know we don't want to discuss it here, but I want you to be aware that we're going to need to look at market revs for those properties. Okay. So I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think what we're going to decide to do is -- in a public meeting, we may even be able to add it to the special meeting agenda right after this if we decide -- decide to, I will ask Larry for that advice in a second, decide to send an order, a letter, saying that we're terminating the agreements for the reason that Mr. Joslyn has stated within 15 days, is there a consensus from the Commission to do that?
MS. LOWE: So does it -- so what we stated last night, as far as the workshop, that was out?
MAYOR CLEMENS: The workshop will then probably be -- well, we may have to have a workshop amongst ourselves and decide how we're going to proceed as soon as possible.
MS. LOWE: Oh, yeah.
MAYOR CLEMENS: But I would think the workshop with Greater Bay would be null and void as far as I'm concerned.
MR. KARNS: You know, I'm not real comfortable with it.
MAYOR CLEMENS: That's fine.
MR. KARNS: I'd really prefer, if you don't have a problem with it, is putting it on for the next agenda which would be the 16th because I know it delays this a little over a week, but, you know, this is --
MR. JOSLYN: Public perception.
MR. KARNS: Right. Right. And I think it is important especially this. You can't reach agreements at this meeting. This is really direction to us.
MS. LOWE: Uh-huh.
MR. KARNS: Any decision we make has to be made in a public meeting, especially if it is not on an agenda. I know there is nothing legally that stops us from having a regular meeting, like you've got scheduled right after this, and adding things to it. But, I just think -- I don't think that would sit very well with the public.
MAYOR CLEMENS: I actually disagree, I think the public would be happy to see that we've made this move. And I appreciate what you're saying, Larry. I thank you for the legal advice. If we don't do it at this meeting right after, then I'm going to call for a special meeting at some point this week.
MR. KARNS: That's fine. I don't have a problem with that.
MAYOR CLEMENS: Because, you know, whatever the Commission wants to do. You want to come back again? But I can tell you that the public is not going to be upset.
MS LOWE: I agree with you, Mayor, about what the public wants right now. They definitely want that. But I do agree with the attorney. I don't think we should -- because, like you said, I don't think we should go out and make that -- do that right -- like you said, call a special meeting this week and that way it gives us time to, you know, -- I disagree with you as far as doing it right after this meeting. But call a special meeting this week, you know. It is only a -- you know, we'll only be there a few minutes.
MAYOR CLEMENS: Is everyone able to make a meeting tomorrow at 5 or 5:30? Are you not available then?
MR. JOSLYN: Well, it is my 25th wedding anniversary.
COMMISSION: Oh.
MR. KARNS: You don't want to be in --
MAYOR CLEMENS: As far as I'm concerned, we're not going to make any public statements or anything like that. Why is it that we need you there?
MR. KARNS: Yeah, I think we're --
MAYOR CLEMENS: We're just going to make a directive to -- 
MS. LOWE: To do something and get out of here.
MAYOR CLEMENS: I think we've discussed it all we need to today.
MS. JENNINGS: If we call you at the restaurant and interrupt you --
MAYOR CLEMENS: Does anybody have an issue with the 5 or 5:30 meeting tomorrow? It gives us 24 hours to notice it.
VICE-MAYOR GOLDEN: Let's do 5:30. It gives people a chance --
MAYOR CLEMENS: Fair enough. I would just make our decision, get out -- get in and get out and allow for public comment if we want. All right. We will talk to the clerk about scheduling that. I guess the only thing else that -- the only thing else I would just like to say is just -- I know we all know this, but this is an attorney-client session. We do not go out and talk to this about anybody. I know we're excited about possibly moving in a direction and we may want to go out and talk to folks about it. It is real important when we're possibly going to be incurring future litigation that as much as we want to talk about how excited we are about it, that we try to keep it under our hat and just, you know --
MR. JOSLYN: We haven't made a decision yet, so it is inappropriate to discuss what occurs in a meeting like this.
MAYOR CLEMENS: Right.
MR. JOSLYN: I mean, you could run into Sunshine problems to in that regard.
MAYOR CLEMENS: Exactly. As excited as we may be or as much as we may want to crow about it, I think it is important that we don't talk about it.
MS. MULVEHILL: How is this announced for tomorrow night as a special meeting? What would be the --
MAYOR CLEMENS: We generally do an e-mail blast. We post it on our web site. We post it here.
MR. KARNS: Plus you can announce it at the meeting.
MAYOR CLEMENS: We can announce it at the meeting in here.
MS. MULVEHILL: Do we have a title?
MAYOR CLEMENS: It's a special meeting.
MS. MULVEHILL: Special meeting. Okay.
MS. JENNINGS: But what are we going to say?
MAYOR CLEMENS: I see what you're saying.
MR. KARNS: You really shouldn't be discussing -- this is really -- I think you've given us direction and the way to proceed with the --
MAYOR CLEMENS: Perfect.
MR. KARNS: -- with the lawsuits.
MR. JOSLYN: I just want to ask my one question then. If and when, if the contract is terminated, do you want me or am I going to be authorized then to approach McCauley's attorney to see if we can get that case resolved?
MAYOR CLEMENS: I'm glad you brought it back full circle because that is the reason we are here today is to discuss pending litigation and the purpose of us potentially taking this action tomorrow night at 5:30 is to -- to solve this lawsuit. So absolutely. I think --
MS. JENNINGS: I have a question on that. Are they going to have a right to request that the City pay their attorney's fees? 
MR. JOSLYN: They have a right to request it. You don't have any obligation and I would certainly urge you not to pay them any money. Okay. I have very strong feelings about Mr. McNamara's role as a citizen in this community. He has cost you a hundred if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees with meaningless lawsuits.
MS. JENNINGS: Maybe. But in this case they've also felt -- I mean --
MR. JOSLYN: That's for you guys to decide. All I am telling you is I would strongly urge you not to reward this kind of behavior.
MS. LOWE: No.
MS. JENNINGS: Well, is this -- when is the appropriate time to talk about whether or not we're going to pay legal fees to a citizen watch dogs that have kept us out of horrible contracts?
MR. JOSLYN: When it comes to that, if she says well, we may want some attorney's paid.
MS. JENNINGS: Then you will come back to us?
MR. JOSLYN: Of course. Of course.
MS. JENNINGS: Okay.
MAYOR CLEMENS: All right. Is there anything else that needs to be -- or anyone wants to bring up?
MR. KARNS: We need to -- I will get the clerk. I think she has to come back here and announce it or are we supposed to go in there and announce it.
MAYOR CLEMENS: I think we will probably go in there and announce it because what we need to do is adjourn the attorney-client session here. So I will do that. Do I hear a motion for adjournment?
MS. JENNINGS: So moved.
MS. LOWE: Second.
MAYOR CLEMENS: Motion and second. All those in favor?
COMMISSION: I.
MAYOR CLEMENS: We will move into the public meeting.
MR. KARNS: Thank you very much.
MR. JOSLYN: Thank you.

(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED)

ATTORNEY/CLIENT SESSION CITY OF LAKE WORTH Part II - NOVEMBER 14, 2012

ATTORNEY/CLIENT SESSION
CITY OF LAKE WORTH

CITY OF LAKE WORTH
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
7 NORTH DIXIE HIGHWAY
LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2012
4:52 p.m. - 6:15 p.m.

IN ATTENDANCE: 

Pam Triolo, Mayor
Scott Maxwell, Vice Mayor
Christopher McVoy, Commissioner
Andy Amoroso, Commissioner
Michael Bornstein, City Manager
Glen Torciva, Esquire, Interim City Attorney
Brian Joslyn, Esquire, Outside Counsel

[FORWARD TO PAGE 19, LINE 4]

MR. JOSLYN: [...] It's the, you know, it's Ms. Jennings and Ms. Mulvehill's behavior both in the public meetings, in the workshops, and behind the scenes that give rise to the risk that these guys are picking up on.
MAYOR TRIOLO: Commissioner McVoy?
COMMISSIONER MCVOY: A couple of things. I do have somewhat the same recollection although I didn't come on in 2009, I came on in 2010 November. But my recollection is that all along the argument was this is pretty much of a slam dunk. This is a easy to win case. And my concern is that we're now several hundred thousand dollars in to your office and now it's not an easy to win case. And I have a concern that either it is or it isn't and that information could have been determined earlier on into the process rather than later on and would have had some influence on things, so that's one concern.
MR. JOSLYN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER MCVOY: Another concern is because as you well know you were on the other side of the fence and I was on the other side of the fence at one time. I was personally sued with stuff that came to my door saying your house was at risk and that came from your office and that was not a happy situation. And what I was involved, I was a member of the PAC, political action committee that said this community does not want the zoning changed that was needed to make that whole deal go through. I have no idea whether that constitutes shady behind the scenes dealings or whatever. I was not involved with the Commission so as far as I'm concerned there was nothing involved. 
MR. JOSLYN: No, it had nothing to do with you.
COMMISSIONER MCVOY: I understand that. But I think you do have to understand that I don't know that the argument that the various Commissioners were involved in shady things. What they were involved in to the extent that I knew from sitting way on the sidelines and involved in that PAC is that there was very widespread feeling in the community that the changing of zoning that was being pushed in order to make this deal go through was not something that the community wanted. So of course there are going to be multiple viewpoints in a community and different Commissioners have different allegiance to different viewpoints. That's normal. I don't see how that is something that gets turned into sneaky or smelly ot whatever. That's normal political process.
MR. JOSLYN: When you have one of the Commissioners who appears to be involved in spreading false information about the project, that they were going to put a hotel up, that they were going to put a giant building and rent it out to like Saks Fifth Avenue, they were going to open a shopping center, I mean there were hundreds of pages of this stuff circulated around the town. There's a difference between being on the Commission and in city meetings saying I oppose this. There's a big difference between that and what they are tying Ms. Jennings to and Ms. Mulvehill to a certain extent. 
     The other thing was that she was asked point blank if she helped Ms. Mulvehill get elected and Ms. Jennings said no, that none of my people worked for -- I didn't give her any money, I didn't give her any support. And Ms. Mulvehill in her deposition said yeah, her workers came over and helped me and I talked to her about Straticon and blah, blah, blah. So there are some issues there.
     Now I'll say this also. Until we took these guy's depositions and beat up on them for a couple of days there was no way they were going to settle for this kind of amount of money. When we were talking to them the week before is was 16 million or nothing. So obviously they felt they had some risk as well, which is the concept of a settlement is that everybody believes they've got some risk and you try to minimize that risk.
     So yeah, I thought we had a strong case. I still think you've got a very good case. But if it goes against you then Katy bar the door because you're going to have a judgment you can't pay, and that's the issue.
VICE MAYOR MAXWELL: And I want to try to keep up.
COMMISSIONER MCVOY: There's a lot of moving parts.
VICE MAYOR MAXWELL: And a lot of questions. I was going to ask the City Manager earlier but I'll throw this one out here. What happens, what happens to this City if we go to trial and we lose and we get hit with a 7, 8, $10 million, $15 million judgment?
MAYOR TRIOLO: That was our thought when we were sitting in that meeting. You're looking at bankruptcy.
VICE MAYOR MAXWELL: Seriously can somebody bankrupt the City?
MR. TORCIVA: We talked about that. That was a concern we had.
VICE MAYOR MAXWELL: We're almost bankrupt now with the behavior of the previous Commission.
MR. BORNSTEIN: We are a public corporation. We can go bankrupt. We don't have the disposable funds to pay off a large settlement.

[ENDED TRANSCRIPTION AT PAGE 23, LINE 12]

Something to watch as a community - "What is the good argument or arguer?"


What the loser wins in an argument? Have you ever thought about that?

Florida Expected To Soon Be Third-Most-Populous State | WFSU

Behind California and Texas - they're coming! Click title for link.

Ribbon Cutting Ceremony for New Urban Arts Lofts - This Friday, August 9th at 10 a.m.


Abandoned Walmart is Now America’s Largest Library | WebUrbanist

This urban re-use story has been bouncing around the Internet for about a week. There is a real land use problem that revolves around "gray boxes" - former big box retailers that leave smaller footprint stores so that they can open other "super stores" with larger footprints in the same geographic market area. Many communities are left with land with acres of parking lot surrounding dark store buildings. Not sure if this particular re-use concept could be universally applied, but in this instance it worked well. Click title for link.

A budding bike business — then Google called - Business - MiamiHerald.com

Cool business for the Lake Worth Park of Commerce, but this producer of bikes is in Pompano Beach. Neat story. Click title for link.

Dynamic Towers: Architect Dr David Fisher designs skyscraper that ROTATES 360 degrees | Mail Online

I am sure this will spawn nightmares among some of the height sensitive crowd. These sorts of buildings ARE NOT allowed by our new LDRs. Click title for link.

Sunday, August 4, 2013

Then Commissioner Mulvehill talking about saving the Casino building - January 27, 2009...




Make no mistake, these ARE high-rise buildings, well over 6 stories...

ATTORNEY/CLIENT SESSION CITY OF LAKE WORTH - WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2012

ATTORNEY/CLIENT SESSION
CITY OF LAKE WORTH

CITY OF LAKE WORTH
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
7 NORTH DIXIE HIGHWAY
LAKE WORTH, FLORIDA

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2012
4:52 p.m. - 6:15 p.m.

IN ATTENDANCE: 

Pam Triolo, Mayor
Scott Maxwell, Vice Mayor
Christopher McVoy, Commissioner
Andy Amoroso, Commissioner
Michael Bornstein, City Manager
Glen Torciva, Esquire, Interim City Attorney
Brian Joslyn, Esquire, Outside Counsel

[Forward to Deposition Page 10, Line 10]

MAYOR TRIOLO: Wasn't there a closed-door session with one page and then in that meeting -- didn't that happen before the vote?
MR. JOSLYN: There was a closed-door session before the vote. I was asked to opine whether the contract gave the City an out by Mr. Karns and I said yeah, the contract says if you don't reach the zoning approval date by June 30 of 2007, both sides had a right to terminate the agreement. 
     What I didn't understand at the time and nobody explained until I started looking at all the e-mails and the minutes was that you have this undercurrent in the City of what they are terming a conspiracy of City Commissioner and outside people getting another City Commissioner elected who approved her views to terminate the agreement after being told for a year that if you do this you're going to be sued for millions of dollars. And the perception, the risk is that a jury buys that perception as opposed to focusing on the language of the contract. 
     What is it the mediator said that the other side has a simple story to tell and we are going to have to explain. And his belief was the more you have to explain the more you're going to lose or the bigger your risk of losing. So I have two guys, one a retired District Court of Appeal judge, who is our first mediator a year ago, and quite frankly I thought after the depositions of the principals I thought we were in a much stronger position and the mediator said look, the risk you're going to run is that the jury is going to think this is kind of sleazy of the town. You go along all this time with these guys and then you terminate with this stuff in the background.
     The City had to -- there was a push by Greater Bay in 2007 to put out a notification of what was going to happen on the project because there was so much false information being deliberately distributed by members of the public, a number of whom are very closely allied to this particular City Commissioner.
     So when you weigh up do we win do we lose, I think you have a good shot. But if you don't win then your damages are going to be the minimum they have is 7 million. That's without breaking a sweat on their calculation. If you stretch it to a larger building they're just figuring 20 million on what they say they could have made on the City's project out here using the City's projections which turn out to be significantly defective. 
     So to get to the damage figure that they're using, they base their damage calculations on the City's five-year projection of the project. Okay? And what they did was they said well, this building is 20,000 square feet, we were going to build a 40,000 square foot building so we're scale up the five-year projections to 20 years and then double the size of the building and that gives us a damage figure of 16 to $17 million.
     The $7 million figure is if you just use the 20 years with the 20,000 square foot building. We have an expert who says this is nonsense. We could have knocked the damages down to some extent maybe. It depends on how aggravated a jury would be at what they are going to trot out as the City's nasty behavior or actually not the City so much as the City Commission being manipulated by a couple of City Commissioners. 
     It's a big risk and that's why you settle cases because you have a risk. Do you win at trial? Maybe you do. I have a lot of confidence in our abilities. I have a lot of confidence in our facts. But if you get hit you have a problem because it isn't going to be for the amount we settled on, it will likely be for the 7 million, something approaching $7 million.
     MAYOR TRIOLO: What were the results of the mock trials?
     MR. JOSLYN: The mock trials? Geez, I got a jury verdict in one case, what was it, 15 minutes I think I whacked you for $20 million and all I was saying was give us 2. Okay? We had four different juries that day. Everybody awarded more than $5 million in damages.
     So walking a thin line through trial is difficult but doable, but when the last mediator said look, I think you really have, and I said look, I know you're doing your job, a private meeting I had with him, I know you're doing your job, you're trying to beat us up and stuff but I'm very confident. He said I don't think I'd be that confident. He goes they can make the City look really bad. You know, from what he knows of local politics and people that are on the jury are apt to know that Lake Worth has had problems in the past. So then the four of us sitting in the room sort of did a well the mean of 7,900,000 bucks is or for $7,500,000 is like $3.7 million. I mean if you just get hit for half of what they're talking about you've got problems. If they tag you for all of it, and I'm not talking about the 16 or 17 million, I'm talking just 7, $8 million, the City's continued existence is perishing.

Certain myths that were part of the height campaign...

The City Commission did not raise height limits in the downtown. They lowered the allowable height to 45 feet between Dixie and Federal Hwys. They created more restrictions if someone wanted to build a 65 foot building east of Federal, by limiting that to only buildings with a minimum of 50 hotel units. This height limit was on the books for years and allowed many more types of buildings before - and we still have a "quaint, charming town with that old Florida feel."

No one is talking about "skyscrapers" - which were once defined as anything over 10 stories and now that doesn't even qualify. High-rise buildings are considered this according to an international standard:
high-rise building (ESN 18727)
Definition:
A high-rise building is a structure whose architectural height is between 35 and 100 meters (between 115 and 328 feet). A structure is automatically listed as a high-rise when it has a minimum of 12 floors, whether or not the height is known. If it has fewer than 40 floors and the height is unknown, it is also classified automatically as a high-rise.
Abstract:
A multi-story structure between 35-100 meters tall, or a building of unknown height from 12-39 floors.
A six-story building doesn't even approach a "high-rise." So you were lied to if you were told that these land development regulations were going to allow high-rise buildings in downtown Lake Worth. If you were lied to and scared that was about to happen, get on down to the City Commission meeting on Tuesday night and tell everyone what you were told. We are talking about a limited number of lots and a very small allowance for a new building (there are already buildings this tall and taller in the area east of Federal) that could reach 65 feet if it has 50 or more hotel rooms.

This does not a "concrete canyon" make. Would you really rather live next to abandoned buildings and vacant lots? Really?

Oh, and as for the state legislation that nullified the election, that is just too bad.

Crumbling balconies boon for restoration firm | www.mypalmbeachpost.com

This is the kind of work Straticon was doing at the Omphoy that fateful day when they wandered to John G's to meet with Suzanne and Cara, but the details of who called who are "fuzzy." Click title for link.

Saturday, August 3, 2013

For those that will live/stay above the 4th but at or below the 6th floor east of Federal and only if there are 50 or more hotel units...

Subject: Commission Approves 65' in Zoning Code: E-mail exchange between Laurie and Ramsay

Hi all-
I am writing to let you know that the commission will approve our new zoning code on Tuesday night Aug 6th with 65' heights in the downtown area east of Federal, and 45' heights in the first few blocks into neighborhoods north & south of Lake/Lucerne corridor west of Dixie. These heights are in violation of our charter.

The commission has decided that new state legislation gives them the authority to nullify the legal and state certified March election results. We (and our attorney) are confident that they 1) have purposely misinterpreted the intent and scope of the legislation and 2) are using it to exert authority they do not have. State law does not allow a local governing body to nullify a legal election.
Please come to the commission meeting and speak on public record to establish standing in case we have to take legal action to enforce our charter. They are focused on a hotel district in the Bryant Park/Parrot Cove area east, so please alert your friends in those neighborhoods and encourage them to join us at the meeting.
If you have questions you can contact me 561-305-6259 or Jo-Ann 561-628-7592.

Hope to see you there . . .
Laurie
Hello,

I know some of us have other plans next Tuesday, but if the commission acts like it did the first time, they will make us wait until 10:00p.m. to speak, so you could arrive after 6:00p.m. and should be allowed in.  This is a critical issue as they want to turn this area into a "hotel" district, which, in my opinion will have a seriously negative impact on the many mom-&-pop hotels/motels North of Lake Ave and South of Lucerne Ave on Federal Highway.

Additionally, this will create a concrete barrier to ocean winds that flow through the town.  It will also make this a very densely populated area, with transient individuals, which I'm sure the homeowners in that area will not be pleased with.  Do you really want to drive down a "concrete corridor" on your way to the beach?

You don't have to speak but your attendance will help show support for keeping our "small, old Florida" town feel.  I think there is a better way to increse our tax base income but the commission does not seem to be open to any other reccommendations but this one.

If you did not vote in support of this charter amendment in March, please do not be offended by my email.  I happen to live in the 1st block in from Lake Ave and prefer not to allow land developers to come in and start putting up apartment complexes where there are vacant lots or abandoned buildings.

Sincerely,
Ramsay 
           Hi Ramsay,
Hope to see you there. It shakes them up a little when they see a lot of unfamiliar faces at a meeting. They're used to their usual fan club! The meetings have actually become much shorter since this commission started. They don't debate or discuss too much, their priority is to get home by 9 pm. It seems that decisions are made long before any public discussion takes place. So the only reason the meeting would go longer is if there is a lot of public comment on this item, and I hope there is.
Thanks for letting your neighbors know . . . .
Laurie
Ms. Decker rallying the troops. Conduct yourselves accordingly. That "Laurie" is Laurel Decker, head of the Respectful Planning PAC. You can reach her by e-mail at lowriselakeworth@gmail.com or the telephone numbers indicated above. The Jo-Ann identified in the first e-mail is a former City Commissioner who used part of her personal family fortune funding the petition and referendum campaign.

Proof Steve Ellman = FireAnt

The above comes from here.

You would think that if you wrote an article like this on the height issue in the downtown, you would want to disclose that you were part of the Respectful Planning PAC- in the interest of full disclosure and in the name of professional journalism.

See post below.