Seawall questions asked

Since October 2015 I have been asking for information and a better method of communication. The Board has set up the process so you can ask the question and they can ignore you. Listed below are the major questions I have asked. Unfortunately, I have not received responses to these questions. For eight months I have been asking and for eight months Chairman Collins and Vice Chairman Cribbs have been stalling. Apparently, the Board feels the residents are on a need-to-know basis and we don't need to know.

It is time for a change in leadership.

October 22, 2015

I have provided my comments to the board members in writing. I respectfully request that all of these comments be recorded verbatim in the minutes of this meeting. My name is Steve Lockom and I live on Brighton Shore Dr. As a member of this community I expect my elected supervisors to respond on a timely basis when questions are asked. In my comments tonight I will ask board members a series of questions. I again respectfully request that their responses are recorded verbatim. Should any supervisor decide not to respond I respectfully request that to be noted in the minutes.

There was an emergency meeting held on September 3rd regarding seawall repairs. Unfortunately, I was out of town and could not attend. On September 10th the CDD send out a eblast that said in part, at the September 3 meeting, the District’s structural engineers recommended further emergency repairs. Based on that recommendation, the Board authorized additional contracts to install a new retaining wall and concrete cap (i.e., “Option 3,” with some modifications) at various locations within the community. The total length of these additional repairs is approximately 2,050 additional linear feet. Of the various options under consideration, Option 3 was selected because it was the only viable option to address the repair issues on a long-term basis at these locations.

At the end of this eblast it said, Minutes of the meeting, as well as a map of the repair locations, are or will be available on the District’s web-site at www.harborbaycdd.org. For additional information, or if you have questions about your particular property, please contact the District Manager’s office at 813-933-5571. The meeting was open to the public and conducted in accordance with the provisions of Florida law.

As of this morning the minutes have still not been posted. The map of the repair locations has been posted.

I sent an email on September 11th to Matt Huber with a cc to each supervisor as well as Jere Earlywine. I asked two questions.

1.Can you give me a breakdown of the approved funds by line item?

2. Why was this very important element not included in the recap?

On September 16th, I sent out a 2nd request for this information. I received a response from Matt about 1 hour later that stated, " We've received your request and should have something shortly."

On September 24th, I sent out my third request for the information to everyone. On September 28th, Matt responded with the line item detail of costs but ignored my request as to why this information was not included in the e-mail blast.

After receiving this I responded to everyone stating--Thank you for finally responding to my 3rd request over the past 17 days. One last question to you and the Board—Are you planning on sending this out to the community? If so when?

Matt responded on September 30th:

Steve,

Thanks for your input and concern. The Board had already planned to include this information in their next Eblast. Candidly, it is the responsibility of the CDD to communicate with the District's residents on these type of topics and the Board will continue to provide updates with the most recent information as it becomes available. The residents face far too many rumors and speculation, very many of which are untrue in whole or part, and most of which cause unnecessary angst for the residents. As you may already know, the CDD Board has specifically asked the residents to ignore communication on the seawall that does not come directly from the CDD.

As I said earlier, the minutes of this meeting are still not posted as of this morning. On October 8th, the Board released a 12 page FAQ that had the cost information included in it. The cost information was listed on the bottom of page 11. It took the Board 35 days from the date the motion was approved at a emergency meeting to formally tell the residents.

It should be noted that during this process, I only had two-way communication with Joe McNeil. Kathy called me once but did not leave a voicemail and then ignored my follow up requests. The remaining Board members never responded at all.

Chairman Collins, can you tell me the process for creating the September 10th Eblast document? In other words, who had input into creating the document? Who actually wrote the document? Who approved the document? Chairman Collins did not respond.

These 3 questions were asked at the end under the second audience comments

Can you tell me why the cost information was not included in the document? Joe McNeil responded that it was an oversight on his part when reviewing the document. No other supervisor responded.

Can you tell me why the cost information was not sent out after it was brought to your attention?

No supervisor responded.

Do you think 35 days is reasonable to get cost information out to your constituents when all the other details of the meeting were sent out in 7 days?

No supervisor responded.

December 17, 2015

I would like to comment on three areas tonight. They are accountability, communication and process. My comments will likely go past 3 minutes. At the end of 3 minutes I will stop and wait for you to tell me to sit down or continue.

At the board meeting on October 22nd I requested that my comments be entered into the record verbatim. On October 23rd I sent an electronic copy of my statement to Mr. Huber. He responded that, "The Board did not make a motion to accept and file this information into the minutes as you requested. Therefore, the minutes will state as they usually do in regards to resident comments." Seeing that Mr. Huber was technically correct that the board did not make a motion, I decided to take that excuse away. Per the November 19th minutes, "On a motion made by Mr. McNeil and seconded by Mr. Collins, with all in favor, the Board approved items A as amended for the Harbor Bay Community Development District."

The amended item A was in part to correct the minutes from." Mr. Lockom had a concern about communication." to, "Mr. Lockom had a concern about communication. Specifically, he wanted to know why it took District Manager Matt Huber 17 days and 3 requests to respond to how much money was approved for the seawall repairs at the emergency meeting." The posted minutes still do not reflect this change. Mr. Huber needs to be held accountable. We pay him to do a job and he is not serving the residents appropriately. When should I expect this to be corrected?

As for communication, we had a workshop on December 14th. 5 items were posted on the CDD webpage on December 11th. They included maps, the RFQ, and some cost information. Was a e-blast sent out to notify the residents that something had been posted? No, there was not any notification.

On the day of the meeting at 4:34pm the draft copy of the dredging study was posted. Any notification? No! Was a draft copy of the Langan presentation posted as requested? No!

You might think that there was a problem with the e-blast system, yet after the workshop items were posted, an e-blast was sent out for tonight's meeting with all the documentation required. I simply cannot understand why this board refuses to be proactive with information.

The FAQ's posted on October 8th talked about the dredging and navigation study being completed in 2 to 4 weeks. Magically, the draft is posted at 4:34pm and yet Langan has the time to incorporate the data into the presentation given at 6pm. Trying to manage the conversation about the seawall by controlling information borders on being unethical. This Board should be ashamed.

My call for better communication totally revolves around this. Inundate us with information. That allows you to tell the people who are just blabbering to go look at the documentation. If they don't want to take the time to look at it that becomes their fault and you can point that out. If they have questions about the detail of something that has been posted, fine. Answer their question and either they will learn something or you will learn something. If they have questions, because they didn't look at the posted information, then direct them to where it is posted on the website. I would only help those that are willing to help themselves.

As for process, the process is the solution and if you want to gain the community's respect you will define the process.

I would post a Gantt chart that shows the steps that need to happen and the expected dates. This will allow you to manage expectations since no expectations have been set and therefore the community is all over the place. If you want to get some harmony in the community, this is just as important as the decisions that will be made.

My personal opinion is that there is nothing defined and documented about the process and that makes what is happening haphazard at best. This is one of the reasons that you are being attacked. No one has confidence that you can complete the process successfully.

Think about what needs to happen between now and the time that the RFQ responses are received. Do we have a process? Are there things that can be done and discussed prior to the RFQ being received. Has a process been created to discern between option 1A and option 3? If option 1A cost $6M and option 3 was $60M the decision would be easy. Where is the breakeven point? $10.8M? $9M? $8M? This SHOULD be discussed prior to receiving cost estimates because it will force you to come up with a process without knowing the bid responses.

We should be discussing the assessment process. If part of the reason that option 3 is chosen is because of navigability issues, is it fair that the community as a whole pays equally for it? How do you define what the community as a whole receives as a benefit vs. the specially accrued benefit that homeowners on the canal receive? It makes sense to do that now before the costs come in.

Going through the issues now and putting that out to the community that shows all the complexities and nuances of the decision making process allows the homeowners to gain some confidence that the process will be fair and objective. Because of the lack of information everyone has concluded that they are going to get screwed. You are wasting valuable time by not identifying issues that can be addressed now. At UPS we called this an unavoidable delay. There are many things that can be done between now and the time the RFQ responses are received. What is the rest of the Board excluding Mr. Collins working on now?

I understand that the Florida Sunshine Laws makes the process difficult. Mr. McNeil tried to get a discussion going at the workshop. Some Board members had technical questions, but a discussion never ensued. The discussion could include questions and answers but it must first be a discussion. What does everybody think? What should your decision be based upon? Having to go through this process in public meetings will expose everyone. That is a difficult situation. I understand that. But to not start discussing it now is a dereliction of your responsibilities.

We have all sorts of corporate expertise of residents that are willing to help. Have you as a board discussed how to access this intellectual property? Why not? What are you waiting for?

This seawall issue will not fix itself. It is not the sole responsibility of Mr. Collins. It is the responsibility of the entire Board. Set up a process with roles and responsibilities, publish it and then work to get it done! The community is here to lend support to the process. You must have a process first before you can implement it.

March 13, 2016

Board of Supervisors,

Please review my questions which are listed in red. I am sending this well in advance so you have the necessary time to review my issues. Please use this time wisely.

I have attached Florida statute 170 for your review on special assessments. The email below begins on May 18th, 2015 trying to get an answer to how special assessments can be charged back. (Please read from the bottom up to get the history) It is up to the Board to make that determination. Yet the Board has never had a discussion on this item. The special meeting on Thursday is to address this yet the assessment charge back has already been decided by counsel. At the July meeting Jere told someone who had a question that it would be done by frontage. (See e-mail string below comments)

Of course to do that by frontage there needs to be equal benefit to all. So beginning with the financial workshop, slides were inserted to support this contention.

Slides 23 and 24 say:

Per Florida Statutes, special benefit acts as a logical connection to property from the improvement system being constructed and includes but is not limited to, ADDED USE, ADDED ENJOYMENT, INCREASED ACCESS and INCREASED PROPERTY VALUES.
Also, specifically to the Master Surface Water Management System as discussed in this scenario, the benefit is improved flood protection as well as satisfying the requirement of the DRI – without the Master Surface Water Management System there wouldn’t be a Mirabay.

III. USE vs. BENEFIT (Cont.)

Benefit is not based on use. The district-wide master improvements are a system of improvements benefiting all landowners of the district and are assessed proportionately based on lot size for the residential units.

Fla. Stat. s. 170.02 METHOD OF PRORATING ASSESSMENTS – “Special assessments against property deemed to be benefited by local improvements…shall be assessed upon the property specially benefited by the improvements in proportion to the benefits to be derived therefrom, said special benefits to be determined and prorated according to the FRONT FOOTAGE of the respective properties specially benefited by said improvements, or by such other method as the governing body…may prescribe.” Per Florida statues

I cannot find any statute that says a special benefit acts as a logical connection to property from the improvement system being constructed and includes but is not limited to, ADDED USE, ADDED ENJOYMENT, INCREASED ACCESS and INCREASED PROPERTY VALUES. What statute is that? It is not in section 170.

Jere points to improved flood protection and increased property values as to why the charge back should based on frontage and that those improvements are equal for all residents.

What are the increased benefits of flood protection if option 3 is selected over option 1. How will all of Mirabay benefit equally by choosing option 3 over option 1. In fact, there are no increased flood benefits by choosing option 3 over option 1. Just increased cost. How will my property value increase at the same rate as someone who lives on the canal and gets a new seawall. The value of my house will not go up because people on the canal have a new seawall and I have the lien and assessment on my property to pay for this. Clearly this is not of equal benefit. How about the ability of people on the canal to be able to get their jet ski in the water with option 3 but not with option 1. Is that of any benefit to me?

Now let's look at the subtleties of the documentation for the special meeting tabs. Page 25 of 57 item VI.

VI. ASSESSMENT ALLOCATION – SERIES 2016 ASSESSMENTS

As described above, the District is contemplating issuing up to a total of approximately $19,690,000 of Series 2016 Bonds to finance the construction of the Series 2016 Project. This debt is to be allocated among the benefited parcels in proportion to the benefit received from the Series 2016 Project pursuant to the allocation methodology described herein. The debt will ultimately be allocated using the same methodology that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in connection with the Series 2001 and Series 2002 Bonds. It was determined that each platted lot within a product type will receive a similar amount of benefit from the 2016 Project.

This seems a bit premature. Who determined that each platted lot would receive a similar amount of benefit?

Page 26 Item 6A. Assessment Allocation

As stated previously, the allocation of the Series 2016 Assessments remains consistent with the methodology used for the Series 2001 and Series 2002 Bonds. Table 6 reflects the preliminary Series 2016 Assessments per Platted Unit. As allocated, the Series 2016 Assessments fall within the cost/benefit thresholds.

Who has determined that the Series 2016 Assessments fall within the cost/benefit thresholds? The 2001 and 2002 bonds were to actually create the infrastructure for Mirabay. Just because those were charged by frontage doesn't mean these should be charged by frontage.

Just so everyone is on the same page, I expect there to be a robust discussion of my questions. Any reasonable person will see that the benefits for option 3 for those that live in the areas where the engineer says either option is reliable are greater than the benefits of option 1. That is the main reason it costs more. Therefore, this Board should commit to a different assessment structure for those costs above and beyond the cost of rip rap as the benefit to the community as a whole is different than those who will receive said benefit.

Counsel chose not to produce two assessment schedules. One as an equal benefit for all and a 2nd that shows increased assessment for the cost exceeding the rip rap solution. I do not understand why. This would have given the Board the chance to discuss the pros and cons of each potential solution and come up with the correct decision. The Board now has the responsibility to have this discussion.

Should this board decide that option 1 and option 3 give equal benefit to all homeowners and not additional benefits to those that receive the new seawall then I will seriously consider filing a lawsuit for injunctive relief. This will only tie things up and cost everyone more money. This Board has a second chance to do the right thing. Please use it wisely.

March 24, 2016

Steve Lockom

Last week this Board made an extremely important decision. You voted to accept resolution 2016-02 exactly as written. The resolution was written and approved by the working group. The only elected official on the working group is Bob Collins. Quoting from the preliminary special assessment allocation report prepared by Rizzetta & Company:

VI. ASSESSMENT ALLOCATION – SERIES 2016 ASSESSMENTS—As described above, the District is contemplating issuing up to a total of approximately $21,845,000.00 of Series 2016 Bonds to finance the construction of the Series 2016 Project. The debt will ultimately be allocated using the same methodology that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in connection with the Series 2001 and Series 2002 Bonds. It was determined that each platted lot within a product type will receive a similar amount of benefit from the 2016 Project.

I specifically asked who determined that all product types would receive equal benefit. Both Paul Curley and myself asked if you could explain if we choose option 3, how the additional estimated $5M spend would be of equal benefit to all the residents vs. just the homeowners who would receive a new seawall. Despite our requests this Board ceded its responsibility to the working group without asking a question. The only comment made on the allocation was a veiled threat by the Chairman, saying that we could charge every household the same amount. The implication was clearly to silence everyone. The Chairman could have said, "What do the rest of the Board members think? Do you think there is equal benefit for all or do you think the homeowners receiving the new seawall derive a special benefit?" But of course any discussion may have lead to a resolution that he doesn't support so therefore let's not have the discussion.

The reason I bring it up is because tonight there is an item on the agenda to discuss the criteria for choosing option 1 or option 3. EVERY supervisor has an obligation to be involved in the discussion. The two most important decisions to be made regarding the seawall mess are what solution and who should pay for it. This Board disgracefully made a decision last week without having a discussion. Notice I didn't say this Board chose incorrectly. This Board didn't have the decency to discuss it.

Bob Collins told me a month ago that you only get one chance to do it right the first time. Today is Bob's lucky day. He gets a 2nd chance to do it correctly tonight. Show us Mr. Chairman that you know how to lead. Do your job and FACILITATE a conversation about the criteria for selecting option 1 vs. option 3. As for the rest of the supervisors, we elected ALL of you to represent us. If you do not have the ability to speak your thoughts, you should not be on this Board. I look forward to hearing a ROBUST discussion tonight.

April 21, 2016

Two items to discuss tonight. They are the Hecker bid and Newland.

1. You cannot seriously consider Hecker's bid since it was the only bid received. Here is a company that bid $11.9M for the option 3 fix as well as section 2 and 3. Here is a company that has $5.3M of revenue in the past 3 years combined. Here is a company that can only put up a surety bond of $1.2M but thinks if we break the project up into 10 segments everything will be OK. Here is a company that has Total Equity of $297,000 as of 12/31/15. How many more red flags do you need? I ask the working group lead by this Chairman to explain why only one company bid on the proposal. What did the major players that we asked to bid respond when we asked them why they didn't respond? We did ask, didn't we Mr. Chairman? I implore the rest of the Board to ask the chairman what the results of the exit interviews were with the companies that chose not to bid. I would have thought this would be listed on the agenda as a line item but it is not.

That being said, there is plenty of time to rebid this. Hecker chose to price option 3 at $714 per linear foot. This is the same cost as the emergency repairs. Once the emergency repairs are completed, should additional repairs become emergent you can give Hecker what they want, a contract for $1.2M or less. Simultaneously, the rebidding can be done.

2. Who is negotiating with Newland? Has this Board assigned a person to negotiate with Newland to use their credit line to pay for the solution that this Board ultimately chooses? Why would Newland want to do this? Newland is responsible for 32.09% of any financing costs that this Board chooses to issue. You might ask, how do I know this? I did an analysis and sent my documentation to Scott Brizendine. Scott agreed that my analysis is correct.

Based on Hecker's bid cost, Langan's soft costs, and the amount left in the capital fund, we would need to borrow $9.4M before we paid for closing costs for a bond. Estimated closing costs are $1.9M. So why would Newland be interested? 32% of $1.9M in closing costs is $610,000. That is Newland's closing cost savings never mind the fact that I am sure their line of credit would be for an interest rate significantly less than what we can get a bond for. This only saves them more money.

Over the last few months I have asked the Chairman to show leadership and communicate better. So again I will ask the Chairman to answer my questions right now.

Mr. Chairman

1. Did you talk to the companies that did not bid on the RFP?

2. Who is negotiating with Newland?

Steve Lockom

April 23, 2016

Dear Bob:

I am writing to you because I have asked numerous questions over the last 6 months without receiving substantive answers. At the December 17th, February 25th and March 17th meeting I asked about your thoughts on how option 3 would be allocated between residents that receive a new seawall vs. those that live on the canal or off the water. Specifically, I wanted to know why you thought there was equal benefit and therefore Florida Statute 170.01 did not apply. To this date I have not received a response.

On February 25th I asked the you to lead a discussion and come up with criteria for the selection process of option 1 vs. option 3. You had that discussion on March 24th. Your contribution was we should go with option 3 because little kids like to play on the rocks and there could be some liability if a child got hurt. Of course, without rocks a little kid could fall in and drown. You failed to mention this. The Board under your leadership failed to set any criteria for choosing and approved option 3 without any criteria on April 21st.

At the April 21st meeting, I asked you if you have assigned anyone to negotiate with Newland on financing the new Seawall. You did not respond.

It seems very clear to me that you will only respond when you think it benefits you to do so. I believe you feel that the residents are on a need to know basis and you will control the information as best you can for as long as you can so you can implement your solution the way you want it implemented.

I am going to ask you some specific questions. You can choose to ignore me, answer them or explain the difficulty in answering them. I will be happy to meet with you face to face to review these questions. The bottom line is I believe you have an agenda that the solution is option 3 and that the whole community should pay for it based on frontage and that is what you are going to make happen regardless of cost.

That being said, you should know that I have an agenda. I am going to use your lack of response to your constituent's questions against you. I will make public my questions to you and the answers received. I will ask the same questions at the public meetings and video tape it so it can be posted on your CDD opponent's website for the November election. Should you continue to ignore my questions I will use your silence against you in the November election.

Here are my questions. Please respond prior to the April 28th meeting.

1. Newland has a 32.09% stake in any financing costs associated with the new seawall. Since closing costs will run about 20%, it makes good sense for Newland to finance the seawall if they can do it for less than the community issuing a junk bond to pay for it. Who has been assigned to look at the possibility of Newland financing the new seawall? If no one, why not? If someone has been assigned, who is it and what is the status?

2. Hecker is the only company that responded to the RFP. They did not meet the bonding requirements. They did not submit a valid bid that met our requirements. You stated at the April 21st meeting that you were concerned that Hecker could pull their bid and we would be left with nothing. Hecker is a company with minimal revenues without our bid. They did not meet our requirements. We are negotiating from a position of strength not weakness. Without us Hecker has nothing. If we are going to go with Hecker then we should renegotiate with them. They need our business. They don't have the ability to get bonded for the rate we require. If we are going to break the jobs up to meet their limited bonding requirements, then they need to lower their price. Anyone with a business background would understand that we are negotiating from a position of strength not weakness. What are your thoughts about renegotiating with Hecker or rebidding the job?

3. At the March 17th meeting Resolution 2016-02 was discussed and approved. In that resolution it says, "The debt will ultimately be allocated using the same methodology that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in connection with the Series 2001 and Series 2002 Bonds. It was determined that each platted lot within a product type will receive a similar amount of benefit from the 2016 Project."

I asked at that meeting who determined that each lot would receive a similar amount of benefit and how that was determined. I've yet to receive an answer so I will ask again.

a. Who determined that each lot would receive a similar amount of benefit?

b. What basis was used to determine what benefit was received?

Please let me know your response to each of my questions. I would suggest you respond. Should I get no response, I will ask and videotape your response at the April 28th meeting. I have been trying to get a discussion going with you for over 6 months. You feel you can just ignore me. I feel that unless you start responding to me on a timely basis I will do everything in my power to see you are not reelected. The choice is yours.

Respectfully submitted,

Steve Lockom

April 28th, 2015

Dear Board members;

I want to officially file my objection to your plan to charge all properties on an equal basis based on frontage. I have asked repeatedly who determined that a new seawall benefits those that receive it equally as those that don't live on the water. At the special meeting on March 17th I asked and I am quoting,

"The second issue is to charge back whatever bond is issued based on Fla. St 170.02. which allows the chargeback to be based on frontage. To be able to use this statute the benefits must be of equal value to all the properties involved. In the resolution it is stated. The debt will ultimately be allocated using the same methodology that was adopted by the Board of Supervisors in connection with the Series 2001 and Series 2002 Bonds. It was determined that each platted lot within a product type will receive a similar amount of benefit from the 2016 Project."

Jere, you and your company wrote this. Who had input into this resolution besides you and your law firm? Who determined that each platted lot will receive a similar benefit? Based on what factors was this determined?

Are you saying that when comparing option 1 to option 3 the increased cost of $5M benefits all homes equally? Based on what?

I am still waiting for an answer. What do I have to do to get an answer? I put this in writing and handed it out to counsel and every board member. What is the answer? Jere, are you going to answer this now?

As for all the nonsense going on with Terrabrook being late to the game, what is wrong with this board? Terrabrook is by far the largest stakeholder. They are responsible for 32.09% of all financing costs. The next largest stakeholder is Alidade Mirabay LLC at 7.11%. Terrabrook should have been part of the discusssion from the beginning. They are responsible for almost 1/3 of the cost. Do you live in a vacuum?

This board has approved option 3 for section 1 without knowing the cost or how to pay for it. This is the same as me buying a house without knowing the sales price or if any bank will loan me the money.

So Jere, how do I get my questions answered?

Steve Lockom

May 26, 2016

I am handing out my opening comments from the March 17th, 24th and April 21st meetings to Matt Huber and Jere Earlywine. These comments were passed out during each of the meetings and are therefore part of the public record. Mr. Huber chose not to include them in the March 17th meeting minutes which are to be approved tonight. I am not sure about the March 24th or April 21st meeting minutes as they are listed as under separate cover so I have included copies and fully expect these comments to be included in those meeting minutes as well.

Tonight you have Business item 4. Consideration of Proposed budget. It is listed as under separate cover. I spent a lot of time reviewing the budget last year. I continue to review the expenses this year. You have a public meeting where the agenda is supposed to be posted 8 days before the meeting. Because of the lack of accountability and oversight of this Board I had to chase to get the agenda posted. And it has 3 items under separate cover that we don't get to see. Yet this Board accepts this service level from Rizzetta. You hired them. You can fire them. Get them to do their job or find some company that will.

Finally, I will go back to communication or the continued lack thereof. Newland had two meetings two weeks ago. People asked questions. Newland answered their questions. The Chairman was there for both meetings. He did not have a note pad. Many of the questions that were asked received a response of, "You'll have to ask your CDD."

When will you start to answer our questions, Mr. Chairman? I sent you every resident's response to the informal survey that I took. 131 -5 the vote was against what this CDD approved. When will you tell us why our thinking is so wrong? When will you tell us why you know better than us? How many residents did you respect by responding to their concerns?

When will you start communicating with the residents so you can unite the community? This is all a one-way street. We can ask our questions and you will ignore us. If you can't do your job, then resign. Otherwise set up a process where communication is a two-way street, where we can ask questions and you actually answer them.

Steve Lockom

June 23, 2016

Steve Lockom

Tonight I am discussing how Rizzetta continues to try and control information that members of this Board do not want published. I have handed out my opening comments since October 2015 and they have been included in the minutes as an attachment or a separate tab. We now have 5 meetings worth of minutes to be approved and none of my handouts have been included in the proposed minutes.

Matt knows or should know that Florida statute 119.011 (12) says “Public records” means all documents, papers, ... in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency. Since I handed out my documentation during official business of the CDD meeting, it becomes a public record.

Of course, just today Pete Williams tells me that the Board still has to decide whether to include my public record in the CDD minutes. So now according to Rizzetta they agree my handouts are part of the public record but the Board determines to include or exclude in the minutes. I am not sure of the purpose of a public record that is excluded from the minutes of official business of an agency. I am not sure that the Florida Legislature agrees with your ability to exclude. I can assure you that hiding public information was never their intent.

It is interesting that Rizzetta had included my documents previously so when the Board approved the minutes my documents were included. Now the Board will have to make a motion to add my documents in. I wonder who decided to tell Rizzetta to exclude my documents? I am sure that Matt Huber did not make that decision by himself.

The reason my public records are being withheld is because they shed a bad light on the working group which has refused to answer my questions. At the March 17th, March 24th and April 28th meetings I referenced resolution 2016-02, which states in part " It was determined that each platted lot within a product type will receive a similar amount of benefit from the 2016 Project." I have asked the following questions multiple times since March 17th.

Are you saying that when comparing option 1 to option 3 the increased cost of $5M benefits all homes equally? Based on what?

It is now June 23rd. Over 3 months have gone by and I still have not received an answer. Does this Board not realize they were elected to represent the residents? Someone, anyone, tell me how I get my answer.

July 28, 2016

On April 27th Dr. Garlanger asked Langan to please provide their data, calculations and analysis addressing whether the refurbished cap has any effect on the safety factor against passive failure. Dr Garlanger noted that no additional tiebacks are proposed for the refurbished cap in Langan's riprap with the refurbished cap design, so it is unclear to him how the refurbished cap will increase the safety factor of the design.

Since June 6th I have asked every board member 11 times for the answer to Dr. Garlanger's question. The original response from Langan was The Harbor Bay Community Development District chose the New Wall design option so it didn't matter.

On June 11th, I was told there were ongoing oral discussions regarding this matter and all public records had been provided. I then asked, did Langan calculate a factor of safety for rip rap with a refurbished cap or not.

On June 16th, I was told that "Staff" went back to Langan and they don't have any public records responsive to my request. Notice the legalese here. I asked if Langan calculated a factor of safety and they talk about public records.

After 4 more follow ups I was told on June 29th that Langan is still reviewing files for original calculations on original design, but they should have that before long.

On July 7th, I am told as for the questions, those are basically technical questions that the Project Engineer has not been authorized to address but it’s worth remembering that the District has gone to great lengths to provide information to the public about this project.

On July 13th, Pete Williams responds, Langan Engineering may still have other working related documents with calculations that have not been memorialized and transmitted to the CDD in the form of an official report. If the Board wishes to incur the cost of Langan to perform this work, they would need to vote to do so at their next regular CDD meeting.

So why is this important? For Section 1 The Board chose between a rip rap with a refurbished cap or a new seawall. If the refurbished cap added no additional structural integrity, then why wasn't the choice between rip rap and a new seawall? There was no vote on what solutions were workable. That was handled by the working group.

The implication on the cost side is enormous. Based on Hecker's bid response, the new seawall cost for section 1 was $9.4M

The refurbished cap cost was $7.1M

This makes the choice easy. For another $2.3M we got a brand new seawall.

However; The rip rap cost was $2.8M. So was the choice really between $9.4M and $7.1M or was it between $9.4M and $2.8M.

This Board has a fiduciary responsibility to ask the question. I pray that it will be asked and answered.

Steve Lockom

Paid for by Steve Lockom for CDD Seat 5.