Comment Up
As I did not attend the meeting last month in Orlando nor have I listened to the audio of that meeting, my comments are solely formed by reading the Minutes. This is basically what happened at the FMPA meeting in Orlando on April 19.
Our Visionary commission was in attendance along with new City Manager Michael Bornstein, Utility Director Rebecca Mattey and various executives of the FMPA who undoubtedly came across as our "best friends." They are smooth and they put up another big stall, thus winning the game with a poor city with no "fight."
1. The Mayor stated that the City had a new-vision Commission/Administration that understood the pending litigation issue regarding our natural gas transmission line and said she hoped both sides (FMPA and the City) could find an amicable solution. The implication was that the old commission did not know what in the heck they were thinking when they wanted to get the money that was due the City.
2. As this visionary trio wants to settle everything possible when it comes to law suits, they agreed at this meeting to accept FMPA's offer back in 2009 of Option 3 whereas FMPA established a minimum payment to the City each year of $237,564 for 5 years. It was supposed to be close to $720,000 a year for the same term. We have paid approximately $2.3 million in gas transmission fees since January 2009.
3. The Vice Mayor who seems to be appointed as our top negotiator for everything these days, told FMPA that he was "grateful for the opportunity." What opportunity? To negotiate down what is owed to us? He then asked them to discuss a proposal for settlement and bring it back to Lake Worth. That proposal is on tonight's agenda.
4. Again, Maxwell thanked the FMPA for the opportunity to have the settlement discussion and said that the City was pleased to move in a "positive direction." That means, get the damn thing off our backs...getting some kind of money settlement is better than nothing...give us your best shot.
5. City Manager Bornstein said he looked forward to working with the FMPA and taking a more active role and that he appreciated the opportunity to attend this meeting. He's the city manager for heaven's sake; he should be attending the meeting. We are confident that he will take a more active role.
6. Mayor Triolo thanked the FMPA for their consideration and said she looked forward to an improved relationship. What consideration? Screwing us on what they owe? Improved relationship? We are getting the heck out of FMPA are we not? All we ever wanted was what was owed to us in the first place.
7. Tonight under New Business C, FMPA has proposed its "best shot." The Commission will vote to accept an $850,000 settlement from FMPA (quite a bit less than the original Option 3 and certainly a lot less than what they owed) to be paid in equal installments over the next 18 months.
The essence of this settlement of $850,000 from Florida Municipal Power Agency to the City of Lake Worth over 18 months will be monthly payments of $47,222.22 from July 2012 through December 2013; which will be posted to the Electric Fund (401). Upon settlement, legal fees for Fiscal Year 2012 will be reduced significantly, and eliminated for Fiscal Year 2013 estimated at $300,000. And FMPA will still be our best buds.
Okay, folks. All of you who want to screw the City, come on down. We will give you breaks never dreamed and then some. You want to sue us? Go right ahead. We will settle 10 to 30 cents on the dollar because we can't stand law suits and we have no will. This is our new vision. You don't have to perform per your contract. What the hey. Greater Bay next? Give us a figure and you get it.
11 comments:
how would you deal with the knowledge that there will be no recovery of attorney fees and costs by either party regardless of the outcome?
Lynn you seem to be saying that the commission is making a big mistake by accepting this settlement. Do you know if our attorney has recommended the settlement to the commission? What legal reasons prevent us from getting more? Spell out the legal issues and explain to us why you believe the city is making a mistake. To just say that the commission is wrong is not enough. No one accepts a settlement when their attorneys tell them they are legally entitled to much more and the chances of winning in court are very good. Do you have any knowledge of what our city attorney is advising the commission? I would need more legal information before I could say that this settlement is wrong. Do you have that information to share with all of us? If so please explain. Also, what are the legal costs to proceed to trial on this case? If we win would we come out ahead after paying lawyers. If we lose do we have to pay their legal fees too. What are the financial risks of going to trial and than a possible appeal. There is so much more to be considered before you sit in judgment of this settlement.
Just a few points to consider:
1. FMPA has over $2 billion in assets. This size allows FMPA to draw out any lawsuit and run up the opposition's (Lake Worth) legal fees.
2. What was the previous offer made by FMPA to Lake Worth? The audio of the meeting does not provide this information.
If our legal counsel, both internal and external, feel that the best course of action is to settle, then the City Commission should do so. Of course, once the lawsuit is settled, all records will be open to the public including all the closed door sessions. That will be very interesting reading.
John--You sound like a lawyer!
Up until now and a new commission with a new vision, it was the city attorney's opinion to pursue what was owed to us.
Because an entity has deeper pockets, is that a reason to fold? Obviously the City believed it was in the right to begin with. We now have a different "vision" sitting on the dais.
And look, I can make any comment I choose here. You don't agree, fine. I basically can't stand the games that lawyers play. It seems it is the guy with the most $$$ that will win in our system. Look what the City did with the billboard "suit?" Disgraceful.
I COULD NOT AGREE MORE THAN WITH MR.RINALDI'S POST. YOU CAN MAKE ANY COMMENT YOU CHOOSE.IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOU WAITED FOR ALL THE FACTS TO COME OUT.
WELL MAYBE WE'LL FIND OUT TONIGHT as we never know why they do what they do particularly when we have spent $$$ defending our rights in legal matters. Commissions should not have the right to cut bills in half, stop law suits when we are legally in the right and giving wise guys a free ride.
So, agree with Mr. Rinaldi all that you want. Be a wimp. In fact, let's all just sue the City. We are guaranteed to come out awarded $$$$.
The problem is the city attorney knows in order to keep their job they have to keep the commission happy. We saw that when the CAVERS were in control in didn't take long for them to get rid of Larry, now the PAVERS are in control and Elaine is trying to keep her job. I really feel the city should have a firm representing them instead of one individual. Over the last 10 years the commission has received legal advice that made the majority on the dais happy, not based on strong legal facts.
Many of the lawsuits the city is fighting were caused by weak lawyers trying to keep their jobs.
You could be right. I would like us to hire a city attorney that gives the right advice, not one who caters to the commission. How lame is that? We need two good attorneys on staff. On special cases, we have expert outside counsel and we pay an arm and a leg. Outside attorneys love to run up bills. City staff attorneys don't do that. I would love to see a city attorney on the caliber of Larry Smith. Also, I like city attorneys to jump in there and give advice to commissions without being asked.
I have no intention of suing the Ciry, but I do expect competent legal advice be provided by the City Attorney and any outside legal counsel. Since the recent meeting in Orlando was the first public meeting regarding this issue, I don't know how anyone in Lake Worth except those included in all the previous closed door meetings would know what the City's position has been over the course of this litigation. And if this blogger does know, then someone has not maintained the confidentiality required of her of him.
Whoever you are, it is easy to deduct that the City's position was to go forward and win this case. We have been on it for how many months now? Two years certainly can convince me that we wanted to pursue this case until this new commission. A baby can figure that one out without your remarks of any impropriety going on.
This decision was probably more about making up a budget shortfall than it was about doing right by the city. These wimps (CM included) have no idea where to come up with $1M dollars for 2012-2013 GF budget. They figure they just found $300K.
Um, unless it was budgeted in Utilities. Whoops. Can you say "assessment"?!
My understanding is that the city was positioned to win the case. We don't have visionaries. We have lackeys.
Post a Comment