HomeMy Public PortalAboutPRR 16-2244From: Chris O'Hare [mailto:chrisoharegulfstream@gmail.comj
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2016 8:30 AM
To: Bill Thrasher <bthrasher@gulf-stream.org>; Rita Taylor <RTaylor@gulf-stream.org>
Subject: Request to Inspect Public Records - required vote for new assessment
Dear Custodian of Records,
I request to inspect certain public records for the purpose of informing myself of the
historic and current workings of the Town of Gulf Stream and its associated entities,
vendors, consultants, advisers, contractors and agents. The records I wish to inspect
may be material to current, anticipated or presently unforeseen legal action. In addition,
inspection of these records is essential to my ability to make informed comments in an
upcoming public hearing. The production of any and all responsive records is
therefore urgent and must be acted upon in compliance with Florida Statutes and
established case law as soon as possible.
Before making this public record request, I first searched online and in the public
records portion of your agency's website hoping I could locate the public records I seek
without having to write you directly. Unfortunately I cannot find the records I request to
inspect. Therefore I am writing you now and requesting you make every effort as
required by law to produce these public records without delay.
I make this request pursuant to Article 1, Section 24 of the Florida
Constitution and Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes. I hereby reserve all rights granted
to me under the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes.
I ask that you take the following action:
. Read this entire request carefully and respond accordingly.
. If you are not the custodian of the public records described herein please
determine who that person is and notify me immediately in order that I may
make this request to the appropriate person without delay.
. Reference Florida Statutes and appropriate case law when responding to this
record request.
. Do NOT produce any records other than records responsive to this request.
. Identify by name the person or persons responding to this request.
. Respond to this public record request in a singular manner and do not combine
this request with any other public record requests when responding to this
request.
" O n c e y o u h a v e d e t e r m i n e d t h a t y o u d o o r d o n ' t h a v e a n y r e c o r d s i n y o u r
c u s t o d y r e s p o n s i v e t o t h i s r e q u e s t , i m m e d i a t e l y a c t t o o b t a i n a n y r e s p o n s i v e
r e c o r d s t h a t m a y b e i n t h e c u s t o d y o f y o u r c o n t r a c t o r ( s ) .
" P r o v i d e o n l y t h o s e r e c o r d s f o r i n s p e c t i o n t h a t d o n o t r e q u i r e e x t e n s i v e u s e o f
i n f o r m a t i o n t e c h n o l o g i e s o r e x t e n s i v e s t a f f t i m e o r b o t h i n e x c e s s o f 1 5
m i n u t e s .
A s b a c k g r o u n d t o t h i s r e q u e s t I c a l l y o u r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e l e t t e r d a t e d J u n e 1 4 ,
2 0 0 1 6 a n d s i g n e d b y S c o t t W . M o r g a n w h i c h w a s r e c e n t l y s e n t t o T o w n r e s i d e n t s
r e g a r d i n g t h e U n d e r g r o u n d i n g U t i l i t y P r o j e c t . F o r y o u r c o n v e n i e n c e I h a v e
u n d e r l i n e d c e r t a i n p a s s a g e s t h a t a r e r e l e v a n t t o t h i s r e c o r d r e q u e s t . T h a t l e t t e r
r e a d s a s f o l l o w s :
D e a r G u l f S t r e a m R e s i d e n t s ,
S i n c e m y l a s t u p d a t e o n t h e P h a s e 2 u n d e r g r o u n d i n g p r o j e c t , t h e T o w n h a s
r e c e i v e d a n u m b e r o f i n q u i r i e s f r o m P l a c e a u S o l e i l r e s i d e n t s q u e s t i o n i n g w h y t h e
C o m m i s s i o n v o t e d t o p a y f o r t h e $ 5 7 1 , 0 0 0 o v e r a g e o u t o f g e n e r a l f u n d s i n s t e a d
o f t e r m i n a t i n g P h a s e 2 a l t o g e t h e r o r p r o c e e d i n g w i t h P h a s e 2 b u t r e - a s s e s s i n g
t h e P h a s e 2 r e s i d e n t s a l o n e f o r t h e e x t r a c o s t .
I c a n n o t s t r e s s e n o u g h t h a t t h e d e c i s i o n t o p r o c e e d w i t h t h e P h a s e 2
u n d e r g r o u n d i n g w a s m a d e t h o u g h t f u l l y a n d w i t h d u e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e c o s t s
i n v o l v e d , e s p e c i a l l y t h e c o s t o f n o t p r o c e e d i n g . F i r s t , t h e C o m m i s s i o n h e l d t h r e e
m e e t i n g s w h e r e t h e u n d e r g r o u n d i n g i s s u e s w e r e d i s c u s s e d - M a r c h 2 2 , A p r i l
1 3 a n d M a y 1 3 . A l l G u l f S t r e a m r e s i d e n t s a r e i n v i t e d t o a t t e n d t h e s e m e e t i n g s , a n d
t h o s e t h a t d o a r e g i v e n a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o c o m m e n t g e n e r a l l y a b o u t p u b l i c m a t t e r s
a n d a l s o t o s p e a k o n a g e n d a i t e m s b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d b y t h e C o m m i s s i o n . T h e
P h a s e 2 u n d e r g r o u n d i n g w a s t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t i s s u e a t b o t h o f t h e s e m e e t i n g s ,
a n d c o m m e n t s w e r e m a d e b y r e s i d e n t s , b y C o m m i s s i o n e r s a n d b y s t a f f .
S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e C o m m i s s i o n c o n s i d e r e d i t s o p t i o n s o f 1 ) t e r m i n a t i n g t h e P h a s e 2
p r o j e c t ; 2 ) d e f e r r i n g t h e P h a s e 2 p r o j e c t , o r 3 ) p r o c e e d i n g w i t h t h e P h a s e 2
p r o j e c t .
F o r t h o s e o f y o u w h o d i d n o t a t t e n d t h e m e e t i n g s , t h e C o m m i s s i o n f o u n d
t h a t t e r m i n a t i n g t h e p r o j e c t w a s n o t a v i a b l e o p t i o n . T o t e r m i n a t e P h a s e 2 w o u l d
r e q u i r e a r e f u n d o f t h e i m p a c t e d r e s i d e n t s ' d e p o s i t s ( $ 5 4 9 , 3 7 2 . 0 0 ) a n d a
reimbursement to FPL of their underground electricity design and installation
credit ($410,482.00), as well as losing the previously paid Ph. 2 engineering costs,
which on a conservative estimate exceed $100,000.00.
The second option of deferring the project did not make sense either since
there is no benefit to the Town in postponing it. Costs will only increase with
time, plus FPL will not remove the wires and poles from the Phase 1 portion of
the project until the entire project's utility wires (both Ph. 1 & 2) are pulled
underground.
In the Commission's opinion, the best option is to finish the entire project. It
is less expensive; it helps beautify the Town; it will help prevent prolonged power
loss in the event of a hurricane; it increases property values; and it is therefore in
the best interests of all residents.
As I have said before, there will not be a tax increase or another special
assessment to finish the project.
Some people have suggested that the Town should re -assess the residents
residing in the Phase 2 area for this additional amount of money. That would not
be fair, nor wise, nor appropriate. It is not fair to the Phase 2 residents since they
did not choose to be the second phase -it just happens to be where they live. They
did not cause FPL's delay in engineering the Phase 2 work- that was a situation
outside of Gulf Stream's control, necessitating a complaint to the utility
commission to remedy it. And, they did not cause the changed economic climate
that led to considerably higher electric labor costs- rather, that was a textbook
example of Supply & Demand, involving the electrical labor demands of All
Aboard Florida, as well as a number of other large municipal projects.
Re -assessment is not wise because legally, a new assessment requires
another vote by the Phase 2 residents, who would be unlikely to support
increasing their own contribution to the project. There is also the need for court
approval of any re -assessment process with no guarantee of approval. All of this,
of course, will cost the Town more time and money.
Perhaps most importantly, it is appropriate that the Town finish the
undergrounding project and pay the extra amount because undergrounding of
electrical, cable and telephone wires benefits the Town as a whole.
It will lead to a safer and more attractive method of supplying utility services,
which in tum augments property values and tax revenues. A Gulf Stream address
benefits all residents regardless of whether they reside in Place au Soleil, the
various condominium complexes, or the town core. Safety, delivery of service,
and property valuation are vital Town interests, and the Commission has a duty
to advance and protect those interests.
Please be assured that our Commissioners are thoughtful, concerned
individuals, who give their time and effort to the Town out of nothing more than a
sincere affection for Gulf Stream and a desire to see it remain as a truly unique
and wonderful town. We do not favor one group over another, or support one
neighborhood over another. We represent all of Gulf Stream, and we try to do
what is best for all residents.
Very truly yours,
Scott W. Morgan
I request to inspect any record wherein the Town's paid consultants working on
the Undergrounding Utility Project or any of the Town's attorneys concluded or
recommended that a new assessment requires another vote as referenced in the
above letter.
I ask you to take note of §119.07(1)(c) Florida Statues and your affirmative obligation to
(1) promptly acknowledge receipt of this public records request and (2) make a good
faith effort which "includes making reasonable efforts to determine from other officers or
employees within the agency whether such a record exists and, if so, the location at
which the record can be accessed." I am, therefore, requesting that you
notify every individual and entity in possession of records that may be responsive to this
public records request, including individuals and entities under contract with your
agency, to preserve and produce all responsive records on an immediate basis.
If you contend that any of the records I am seeking, or any portion thereof, are exempt
from inspection or disclosure please cite the specific exemption as required
by §119.07(1)(e) of the Florida Statutes and state in writing and with particularity the
basis for your conclusions as required by §119.07(1)(f) of the Florida Statutes. Produce
for my inspection all responsive records and ONLY redact that portion of the record that
you consider exempt. To be clear, if you consider an entire record to be exempt,
produce that record in its entirety with all portions redacted that you consider exempt. I
specifically ask you to do this in order that I may inspect fully redacted records for the
purpose of challenging a particular redaction or establishing a reference for a future
request of a record that is only temporarily exempt, as in the case of a public record that
was prepared by an agency attorney exclusively for litigation and is only exempt from
disclosure until the conclusion of the litigation.
If the public records being sought are maintained by your agency or contactors for your
agency, in an electronic format please produce the records in the original electronic
format in which they were created or received. See §119.01(2)(f), Florida Statutes.
Again I ask that you provide only those records for inspection that do not
require extensive use of information technologies or extensive staff time or both in
excess of 15 minutes. Take note of §119.07(4)(a)3.(d) Florida Statues and if you
anticipate that any records exist, the production for inspection of which will require
extensive use of information technologies or extensive staff time or both in excess of 15
minutes, then please provide those records that can be produced within the first 15
minutes and advise me of the cost you anticipate to be incurred by your agency for the
remaining records prior to incurring this cost. Please do not incur any costs on my
behalf without first obtaining my written authorization to proceed. If you produce only a
portion of all existing responsive records, please tell me that your response includes
only a portion of all existing records responsive to this request.
If you anticipate the need to incur any costs that I would be statutorily required to pay in
order to inspect these public records which would exceed $1.00 please notify me in
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Delivered via e-mail
June 23, 2016
Chris O'Hare [mail to: chrisohareeulfstream(cDamail.coml
Re: GS #2244 (required vote for new assessment)
As background to this request I call your attention to the letter dated June 14, 20016 and signed
by Scott W. Morgan which was recently sent to Town residents regarding the Undergrounding
Utility Project. For your convenience I have underlined certain passages that are relevant to this
record request. That letter reads as follows: Dear Gulf Stream Residents, Since my last update on
the Phase 2 undergrounding project, the Town has received a number of inquiries from Place au
Soleil residents questioning why the Commission voted to pay for the $571, 000 overage out of
general finds instead of terminating Phase 2 altogether or proceeding with Phase 2 but re-
assessing the Phase 2 residents alone for the extra cost. I cannot stress enough that the decision
to proceed with the Phase 2 undergrounding was made thoughtfully and with due consideration
to the costs involved, especially the cost of not proceeding. First, the Commission held three
meetings where the undergrounding issues were discussed - March 22, April 13 and May 13. All
Gulf Stream residents are invited to attend these meetings, and those that do are given an
opportunity to comment generally about public matters and also to speak on agenda items being
considered by the Commission. The Phase 1 undergrounding was the most important issue at both
of these meetings, and comments were made by residents, by Commissioners and by staff.
Specifically, the Commission considered its options of 1) terminating the Phase 2 project; 2)
deferring the Phase 2 project; or 3) proceeding with the Phase 2 project. For those of you who did
not attend the meetings, the Commission found that terminating the project was not a viable option.
To terminate Phase 2 would require a refund of the impacted residents' deposits ($549,372.00)
and a reimbursement to FPL of their underground electricity design and installation credit
($410,482.00), as well as losing the previously paid Ph. 2 engineering costs, which on a
conservative estimate exceed $100, 000.00. The second option ofdeferring the project did not make
sense either since there is no benefit to the Town in postponing it. Costs will only increase with
time, plus FPL will not remove the wires and poles from the Phase 1 portion of the project until
the entire project's utility wires (both Ph. 1 & 2) are pulled underground. In the Commission's
opinion, the best option is to finish the entire project. It is less expensive; it helps beautify the
Town; it will help prevent prolonged power loss in the event of a hurricane; it increases property
values; and it is therefore in the best interests of all residents. As I have said before, there will not
be a tax increase or another special assessment to finish the project. Some people have suggested
that the Town should re -assess the residents residing in the Phase 2 area for this additional amount
of money. That would not be fair, nor wise, nor appropriate. It is not fair to the Phase 2 residents
since they did not choose to be the second phase -it just happens to be where they live. They did
not cause FPL's delay in engineering the Phase 2 work- that was a situation outside of Gulf
Stream's control, necessitating a complaint to the utility commission to remedy it. And, they did
not cause the changed economic climate that led to considerably higher electric labor costs -
rather, that was a textbook example of Supply & Demand, involving the electrical labor demands
of All Aboard Florida, as well as a number of other large municipal projects. Re -assessment is not
wise because legally, a new assessment requires another vote by the Phase 2 residents, who would
be unlikely to support increasing their own contribution to the project. There is also the need for
court approval of any re -assessment process with no guarantee of approval. All of this, of course,
will cost the Town more time and money. Perhaps most importantly, it is appropriate that the Town
finish the undergroundingproject and pay the extra amount because undergrounding ofelectrical,
cable and telephone wires benefits the Town as a whole. It will lead to a safer and more attractive
method of supplying utility services, which in tum augments property values and tax revenues. A
Gulf Stream address benefits all residents regardless of whether they reside in Place au Soleil, the
various condominium complexes, or the town core. Safety, delivery of service, and property
valuation are vital Town interests, and the Commission has a duty to advance and protect those
interests. Please be assured that our Commissioners are thoughtful, concerned individuals, who
give their time and effort to the Town out of nothing more than a sincere affection for Gulf Stream
and a desire to see it remain as a truly unique and wonderful town. We do not favor one group
over another, or support one neighborhood over another. We represent all of Gulf Stream, and we
try to do what is best for all residents. Very truly yours, Scott W. Morgan I request to inspect any
record wherein the Town's paid consultants working on the Undergrounding Utility Project or any
of the Town's attorneys concluded or recommended that a new assessment requires another
vote as referenced in the above letter.
Dear Chris O'Hare [mail to: chrisohareeulfstream@smail.coml,
The Town of Gulf Stream has received your public records requests dated June 20, 2016. The
original public record request can be found at the following links htto://www2.aulf-
stream.ore/weblink/0/doc/94184/Pagel.asox.
Please be advised that the Town of Gulf Stream is currently working on a large number of
incoming public records requests. The Town will use its very best efforts to respond to you in a
reasonable amount of time with the appropriate response or an estimated cost to respond.
Sincerely, Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records
advance of your incurring that cost with a written estimate of the total cost. Please be
sure to itemize any estimates so as to indicate the total number of pages and/or
records, as well as to distinguish the cost of labor and materials. Again, please do not
incur any costs on my behalf without first obtaining my written authorization to proceed.
The phrase Town of Gulf Stream when used herein refers to the Town in its entirety
including all employees, appointees, officials, assignees, counsel and consultants
including Town Manager, Town Clerk, Town Police Chief, Town Commissioners, Town
Mayor, Town Departments, Town Police Officers, Town Employees, Town Engineer, the
law firm (Jones Foster Johnston & Stubbs P.A.) that claims to be the Town Attorney
including all attorney, partner and employee members of that firm; the Town Counsel of
Sweetapple, Broeker & Varkus including all attorney, partner and employee members of
that firm, the Town Counsel of Richman Greer, P.A. including all attorney, partner and
employee members of that firm and any other entity associated with the Town and
subject to public records law.
The term public records, as used herein, has the same meaning and scope as the
definition of Public records adopted by the Florida Legislature as Statutes Chapter
119.
A record that does not exist because of its disposition requires the creation of a
disposition record. In all instances where you determine a record does not exist please
determine if the record once existed and in its replacement provide the disposition
record for my inspection.
All responses to this public records request should be made in writing to the following
email address:
chrisoharegulfstream@gmail.com
TOWN OF GULF STREAM
PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
Delivered via e-mail
July 14, 2016
Chris O'Hare [mail to: chrisohareeulfstreamOgmail.coml
Re: GS# 2244 (required vote for new assessment)
I request to inspect any record wherein the Town's paid consultants working on the
Undergrounding Utility Project or any of the Town's attorneys concluded or recommended
that a new assessment requires another vote as referenced in the above letter.
Dear Chris O'Hare [mail to: chrisohare¢ulfstream@gmail.coml,
The Town of Gulf Stream has received your original record requests dated June 20, 2016. Your
original public records request can be found at the httv://www2.gulf-
stream.org/weblink/0/doc/94184/Pagel.aspxx. Please refer to the referenced number above with
any future correspondence.
Please be advised that there are no such records.
We consider this matter closed.
Sincerely, Town Clerk, Custodian of the Records