HomeMy WebLinkAbout1990 10 22 Regular
.
To the Mayor and my fellow Commissioners:
You are well aware that I have been on record countless
times questioning the validity and timeliness of the acquisition
of Seminole utilities. As you know, I have expressed on numerous
occasions my deepest concerns aoout the steps taken to acquire
the utility. I continued to be just as vocal after the closing,
and consequently started my own investigation after a number of
delays in getting answers to my questions.
.
It all began when the City Attorney failed to answer my
question satisfactorily about a $25,000.00 expense that was noted
as a deduction from the underwriters (Donaldson, Lufkin &
Jenrette) proceeds as a deposit. And my discovery that the city
staff usurped its authority when including the Tuscawilla park
property as part and parcel to the deal without the City
Commissionos expressed approval.
This highly irregular delay raised serious questions and
caused me to further inquire if Florida Statutes Sec. 218.385 or
218.386 and 286.23 were met. To this day I have not been given
the courtesy of a reply from the City Attorney.
Then I requested that the acquisition team be at the
August 13th meeting to answer a number of other questions I had
in addition to resolving the issue of the $25,000.00 check. In
my opinion, all I got was unsatisfactory answers once again, so I
.
.
.
.
---- -- ---- -
.~- --
-- ~---- ............---~---
--
continued my research further to uncover the facts.
Among the facts I uncovered and questions that still
remain unanswered are;
1. Was the Commission deliberately kept in-the-dark
about the facts surrounding the Topeka Groupos signed purchase
Agreement to acquire Seminole utilities for $6.5 million?
2. Were we misinformed about Seminole utilities request
for a 50% rate increase, when in fact no such formal request was
ever made before the Public Service Commission? Was this a
tactic to substantiate the value of the utility? Did it unduly
influence this commission to make a hasty decision to "close"
before rate payers faced such increases?
3. If Topeka was willing to buy, and seminole utilities
was willing to sell the utility for $6.5 million, how come we
paid 12.3 million only 14 months later after first making an
offer of $7.5 million in February of 1989? How could the price
have doubled in just 14 months? In fact the total price we ~~
end up paying for the utility could be in excess of $17 million.
This represents $12.3 Million plus paying the seller $2400 for
every ERC over 5500 up to 7500 that could cost the city an
addition $4.8 million.
~. Was the explanation to raise the service rates of
.
.
.
Seminole to match the West side service valid or was if used to
influence bondholders to purchase? We had previously been told
that the utility was not bondable due to unfavorable conditions.
with the rate increase plugged in, did that make a difference?
If the utility would have cost us say $6.5 million, the same
amount Topeka and Seminole agreed on, would the rate increase
have been necessary?
5. How we acquired without legal authority, Tuscawilla
park property, not in control of Seminole utilities, from the
utility? And how come the Commission was not informed in a
timely manner and kept up to date on this issue? Why did city
management fail to inform us of a meeting held on January 11,
1990, where in fact discussion took place about the parks being
included in the deal? The fact is the City Manager never brought
to the Commission this important issue as the notes of the
meeting clearly stated he would. Consequently, we have acquired
property not consented by the City Commission.
6. How could the City expect complete objectivity and
due diligence on behalf of this Commission by agreeing to have
the seller's investment banker and financial advisor act as the
City's financial advisor for the transation? ThatOs akin to
hiring the fox to guard the chicken coup. To further complicate
the issue, the seller paid our advisor for his services! While
we saved around $150,000.00 by agreeing to this unorthodox
arrangement with the underwriter, we did pay over $6 million more
- ....... ~ ........- ~.~~ ~ -_.~ - -- ----- ---------------------- -------------------- --- . -. - -
--- ....-.- ~
.
.
.
, .'
for the utility than Topeka had previously agreed to. How come?
7. How come the City never got 3 independent appraisals
for back-up to support the transation, yet we relied on the
seller's appraisals to justify the purchase price. By the
seller's own admission, the record shows that the seller received
a settlement which exceeded the valus as set forth by the
seller's own expert appraisers. Why would the City's negotiators
agree to pay in excess of the seller's appraised value?
8. Why has Coopers and Lybrand, the CityOs auditors,
refused to answer my questions, after sending 2 certified
requests, concerning full and complete compliance with Florida
statutes?
9. For all the work that was done on the city's behalf,
how come Parker and Johnson et aI, never billed us for any City
Attorney services, financial advisor services or bond council
services from January 1990 to date? And for some unknown reason
announced that they would not. Why not? Remarkably, the city
has received no record of any services performed by the City
Attorney and bond council on this transaction subsequence to
January 1990, when in fact we all know work was preformed. It is
my understanding that we were to be provided with all the
documentation for work performed related to the acquisition of
Seminole utilities. When can we expect itemized statements and
supporting documents? If they don't want to charge us thats
.
.
.
------------------------..-. -- - - . ---- .........--- -- - .......... - --~--
f~ne, .but where are the records as to who did what and when.
10. How come we paid almost $6,000.00 to Rose, Sundstrom.
and Bentley for research and expenses to attend the August 13th
meeting to brief the Commission on the background of the
acquisition, which I strongly protested. But according to
Coopers & Lybrand, the City Manager refused to pay them to answer
my questions about compliance with Florida Statutes?
While some may dismiss these questions as trivial and
attempt to make light of them, no one should ignore them as long
as they remain unanswered. Too many important questions
concerning the management, or should I say mismanagement of this
transation, leave one wondering if the taxpayers of Winter
Springs got a good deal or a bad debt.
What I cannot condone are those who in a position of
appointed authority in public servise failing to exercise due
diligence of the public trust. Neither can I condone this same
element from making decisions reserved for the elected body or
withholding pertinent information from them.
I feel there has been repeated attempts to hinder my
investigation which made at tim~s my inquires an exercise in
frustration and futility.
It is my opinion that this Commission may have been
.
.
.
- -
~----------~- _.._~---............-- -----.........------~~ ~---- ------~.._._------._~
~_..------------ ------~_.-..........---- ----.....-..---~ -
._ .. I
mi~led, given misinformation and or purposely misdirected as to
what was relevant and pertinent to make an informed decision on
the purchase of Seminole utilities. At the time I voted for the
acquisition, and perhaps all my fellow Commissioners, we thought
that the information we received up to that point was true and
complete. Under further scrutiny, however, that appears to not
be the case. While I believe the acquisition of private
utilities are in the best interest of Winter springs, I cannot
support the manner in which it was presented to us and the
possibility of paying over $17 million.
Therefore, I believe it is in the best interest of the
taxpayers of Winter springs to have the Auditor General, or
someone completely independent and not politically tied, take up
where I left off in order to get to the truth and settle the
matter once and for all.
Respectfully submitted;
M
William
City Commissioner
Winter springs
.
.
.
""
October 19, 1990
TO:
City Manager ~~
Land Development coordinator~.
FROM:
RE:
Request for Temporary Office Building
This is a request of Winter Springs Development Joint Venture to install
a temporary office building at 1301 Winter Springs Boulevard. This may
be granted by the Commission under Section 20-412 of the Code.
Please see attached.
Jfg
attach.
cc:
Mayor
Commission
City Attorney
City Clerk
.
.
.
.
October 19, 1990
TO:
City Manager ~
Land Development Coordinato~
FROM:
RE:
Request of Winter Springs Development for Temporary -
Office Modular Building
A meeting to discuss the above referenced was held on October 19, 1990.
Representing the project were G. Marvin and G. Burden. Staff members
present were City Manager Rozansky, Artman, Govoruhk, Koch, Kozlov,
Lallathan, LeBlanc and McKinney.
The request is to install a modular office building at the complex
located at 1301 Winter Springs Boulevard (NE corner of intersection of
Winter Springs Boulevard and Northern Way). Marvin explained that this
was a move to consolidate all their offices working on the Tuscawilla
area to one central location.
The Staff has no objection to this request, but the following points
were discussed.
There is already one temporary building on this site. Whether this
request is approved or not, all temporary buildings must be removed prior
to sale of this particular property.
Once the interior of Tuscawilla is developed, the operations may be
relocated north of the tracks along State Road 419/434.
This request may be solely granted by the Commission under Section 20-412
of the Code.
/fg
cc:
Staff
.
October 17, 1990
Mayor Leanne M. Grove
City of Winter Springs
626 Altorn Road
winter Springs, FL 32708
commissioner Arthur Hoffman
City of winter Springs
1436 Mt. Laurel Drive
Winter Springs, Fl 32708
Commissioner william Jacobs
City of winter Springs
404 South Edgemon Avenue
winter Springs, FL 32708
~Ocnr.\
WINTER SPRINGS DEVELOPMENT JOINT VENTURE
1301 Winter Springs Boulevard
Winter Springs, Florida 32708
(407) 365-3252
Cindy Kaehler, Deputy Mayor
city of Winter Springs
741 Mimosa Court
winter springs, FL 32708
commissioner Philip Kulbes
city of winter Springs
705 Glasgow Court
winter Springs, FL 32708
commissioner Paul P. Partyka
City of winter springs
684 Oswego Court
winter Springs, FL 32708
. Dear Mayor Grove and Commissioners:
The winter Springs Development Joint Venture, as the developer of
the remaining Tuscawilla Community, requests that it be allowed to
locate an office trailer (20' x 36') on the site which currently
serves as the Tuscawilla Realty, Inc. office and administrative
offices for the venture. The address is 1301 winter springs Blvd. I
winter Springs, Florida 32708.
This request is made as a result of our desire to increase our on-
site management team and our belief that this presence will enable
us to conduct our activities more efficiently within the community.
The temporary use of this facility would likely be concluded within
a two year period, as our remaining development operations will be
decreasing as we go forward.
At the recommendation of the City Staff, we have
location on existing pavement so that no additional
runoff will be generated from this activity. I believe
location works well with the existing structure on the
that it will be in keeping with the intended use of the
land.
selected a
stormwater
that this
site, and
parcel of
.
~~~':7I"n~t-:-"'Ii
D 'I ~:,:"';:""', \ iJ \~, ',f ',....,' '".~ ",',,'
~~ ,"','" I'..' .t!
~ . ?(l--; I r ',' ,tf I"'" 1"7' j
r ",;' .. - ""= ....,;. /<:. J I II n
~''''~
OCT 1 '7 1990
A Joint Venture between Home Capital Development Group,
a subsidiary of Home Federal of San Diego, Calif. and Gulfstream Housing Corp.
CITY OF WiNTER SPRINGS
CITY HALL
.
.
.
Page -2-
The trailer will be new and will have painted wood siding.
of course install skirting and the necessary landscaping
to create an environment that will compliment of the
offices and landscaping.
We will
in order
existing
Your consideration of this variance request is most appreciated.
Sincerely,
0A~~/>f~~
Glenn Marvin
Vice President
Gulfstream Housing Corp. for
winter Springs Development Joint Venture
cc: Lou Vogt
Don LaBlanc
Dick Rozansky
.
.
.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
11 26 EAST STATE ROAD 434
WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA 32708
Telephone (407) 327-1800
WINTER SPRINGS COMMERCE &
INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT BOARD
October 17, 1990
Mr. Richard Rozansky
City Manager
City of Winter Springs
1126 East SR 434
Winter Springs, FL 32708
Dear Dick:
This letter is to request that the Commerce and Industry Development
Board be placed on the Agenda for the October 22nd meeting of the
Winter Springs City Commission.
The subject to be addressed is a Business-to-Business Directory to
be produced by the Commerce and Industry Development Board for the
businesses in Winter Springs. Funding will be accomplished by a
minimal charge for those wishing to participate, and availability
scheduled for January, 1991.
We feel this is a positive step, along with our recent survey, toward
keeping and encouraging the expansion of the Winter Springs commercial
and industrial community. Results of the survey will be presented at
a later meeting.
Creating a favorable climate for our present business citizens is a
factor heavily weighed by a company considering future location here--
the other area of focus for this Board.
Sincerely yours,
~F
Chairman
RES/slf
.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS
.Building Department
1126 East S.R. 434
2/9/V'
DATE :t}ihJ
I
..'
t:"/
':!U'll'l' APPLICA'l'ION (Type or Print)
) <<'1'I"'C'I'OR ~ 0'2:[ \ \Cl _qQ.\? I CI.. PH ( '\Dl ) .3~'l- -C> 3 00 .
J<<'I'R1,C'1'OR'5 l,DDRESS .40 I l;'~~ J,......,..,o .j.J -p:.MDN~- ~-P:,' . ~ !..lQ.L
St:rc~t City Zl.p
Q!.u::mJNER I S NAME --Li1J I'~ ..k. Db V1 M~ r-q b.~....Lt t:..-
~I
OI~S'l'f,UC'l'lON ADDI"{ESS b ~ ~~ J_~ N e
0'1' ~ BLOCK ~ SEC'l'. UNIT ~/DIVI~~
'Al~CCL l~o.1 / :l / .J CJ SOJ ZONING /L_I7-:rt
r
RE C u:- .~ 'i n" I'",
. ' ,_, ~! ".... II 1
. .,~". ... .'
)/~~~
Cltl Of H.lnrer: Se~
~~Cle ~
'n E 01' P "1'>11 '1' , () au ILD I NG ( ) ROOF I NG ( ) ADDI TICN .~ I:l
( ) R-o-w-s'rREETCUT-JACK & BORE () FENCE ) POOL ( ) SCRpEN ENCLOSURE
lCSC1UBE \~Ol(K TO BE DONE c:.:?f6a~r-:pGMc.x::\~L (fY' t ~ L--I \~O
tl>rla,~,ccf!t/({,{lfIn,1 ~~?~Z=V---= ~ +~ ~-
>>*. "54-(' v c..hl /~ 5. /
LIVING)( CARPORT/PORCH GARAGE tI1.
SEWEn' (POTABLE WATEn 1 SEPTIC TANK PERMI'1' No. Co 8 7 () - rr
2$'1' INA'l'ED VALUE OF JOB ..\P I v-, I ~ + J- 0 ~ 0 MODEL
DATE SIGNED
EXP ~/ ?D(r'L
EXP~/1....1 q/ _
J
t.l{CllI'l'EC'l'URAL COMMI'l'TEE
S'1'A'i'l:: lillCIS'l.'lU\'l'ION or CER'l'IFICATION NUMBER c::::;f7 col e,J '2-4-
\W1U~NANS CONP. No. (D If' - Ll (?- 9 ct J 19..1.0 _0 I -9D
By Signing B~low I Acknowledge That The Above Information
('oniorrn To 'rile Cir.y of Winter Springs Building
~~~~11Will R
A1Jpll.c...nt:':; Nallle (prOnt)
Is Correct, And Agree To
tions. I Agree
maged Condition.
O).l -jb
te
ALL REINSPECTION FEES SHALL BE PAID BEFORE REINSPECTION IS MADE
aaa~~.aa.............**.*..***.********************************..***.***.*.*********-*********
'l'llE fOLLOHING 'l'O DE ENTERED B'i 'l'HE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ONLY I
~AILURE TO COlvlPL Y WITI-I
~fIE l\tiECl-Il~l"JlCS LIEN LAoW FEES: q~
.~~ B,ESULT IN THE PROPERTyDLDG $ ROW
) \:~'Eli. P A YI1\fG TWICE FOR TOTAl: FEE DUE $
)UILDII\fG IlvlPROVEMENTS.
CALCULATED VALUE $
17 ) co a
.
APPROVED B
-
nADON $
-
DATE
""NOTICE: 'n nddiUon to tho rcqu1romonts of thIs PEllMI'!' No.
ponnlt, \1\OrO may bO :lddition:J ro~trjctlons ap-
pliC:lbto to lhl5 proporty thaI m~y bo found In tho
(\, 11"\,j~ r~cord~~ of this county."
.---
-~
.
BUILDING PERMIT
TO BUILD, ALTER, REPAIR, REMOVE, DEMOLISH, OR USE
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS, FLORIDA
OWNER LILLIAN & RAYMOND GARCIA
Street Location 638 MORT.QN LANE
2/9/QO
V
OATE ~Jih.f
I
Lot
R
Block
M
Unit
PH (tfD1) 3;'l,~b~o6
DI\J\~~' ?tlOI_
( Zip
SectiorL
Permit To
7 S bd- . .
-__ u IVISlon
REMODEL GARAGE
N. ORLANDO RANCHES
~/I~
REC.rci\/11-=~r)
-...." '" P..~~...
I/~~
Cltl Of H.lnter. S~
~~~
( l ADDITION ~ .
l POOL ( l SCRpEN ENCLOSURE
~ \ b L --I \fJJv--C/
~d:l~ ~-
-- -------
Structure /'1 CJVo
Value $ ~te80.
Zoning
R1AA
Living Area ~ S-C
ROBERT ~ARDIA
Contractor
County Use
.!'~here~y acknowledge that the above IS '. --
to~the Wmter Springs Buildlllg R I correct, and dgree to conform
~. egu atlOns and Codes.
l~,
,.-.
. R~~arks
c.
......
"..D
. .
APPLICANT C8C018724
^ -r'4~
f) \~ ._.T
,
~l
-'" ';) \:..'
- 1- '. \-)
-;...; Y'
\
E
C TANK PERMI'f No. (9 R 7 () - If
,
{I,
'~.I
(..II
Plans Approved
Building Depa"m~~ -
9-- /t 19 :7'0
9 s-" eo)
DATE SIGNED
EXP &,/ "Dft2
EXP ~I 1... I Cll
I
?-4
3740 l}Gl O~)j~2U,I'\~l0!.;hEt;
And Agree To
tions. I Agree
maged Condition.
Date
Total Fees $
~.l.ib
te
~PECTION IS MADE
-..........---...----.------.-*---
'1'IlE FOLLO\HNG '1"U UJ:. !;.IU......~~ ~ _ ____
FAIL URE TO COlvlPL Y WITI-I CALCULATED VALUE ~
TflE lvlECF1J\1\JlCS LLS1\J L...JrW FEES: (:}~
.!-\..~\I:.B.ESULT IN THE PROPERTyDLOC $ '::1 U - ROW
Ovvl\jEl~ P}-\.YI1\J-G T\/VICE FOR TOTAL' FEE DUE $
BUILDI1~.G IlvlPROVEMENTS. APPROVED D
17 J co a
.
""l\IOTICE: 1n uddillon to tho rcqu1romonts 0' thfs PEHMI'l' No.
porrnlt. \llOrO m:lY bo ::lddition::J ro~tricllons 3P-
plipCl\:llfJ l~ lhlfJ Ql'QQQ(IV U'itl.! tl1~y bo!~_un~_~n tho
-
RADON ~
-