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.
Tuesday, August 6, 2013
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.
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.
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
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)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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
![Dr. W. H. Cotton’s ode: “Oh, My Lake Worth, Florida!” [circa 1920].](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUL75cv6zJQFjX15ojOIIz9AjnbqH4asHJTYSDhnGnYr7rJZRha1NcNTirj2xPcId158vkz5Hw-wXgOfrlztj8Zr8jLFFCfuEN6PyV44ZlpMRmJ68xbtFL9vzxNiG7xDs_HJvm/s1600/LakeWorthPioneers.JPG)
