MINUTES OF MEETING
NORTH SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT
The meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the North Springs Improvement
District was held on
Present and constituting a quorum were:
Matt Lauritzen
Chairman
Salvatore J. Mendolia
Secretary
Steve Mendelson
Supervisor
Also present were:
Edward Goscicki
Manager
Dennis Lyles
Attorney
Jane Early
Engineer
Janice Moen Larned
Jean M. Rugg
Susan Walker
Mel Entus
Gary L. Moyer
STS Consultant
Cedo DaSilva
CH2M-Hill
Michael Udine
Rhonda Mossing
Mossing Management Consulting
Fernanda Haido
Prager, Sealy & Company
Tara-Lynn Patton
WCI
Valerie Verger
Resident
Michael Hollander
Resident
Several Residents
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS
Roll Call
Mr. Lauritzen called the meeting to order and called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS
Approval of the Minutes of the August 4, 2005
Meeting
Mr. Lauritzen stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of
the
There not being any,
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS
Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of the Budget for Fiscal Year
2006 and Levy of Non Ad Valorem Assessments
Mr. Lauritzen declared the public hearing open.
Mr. Goscicki stated the various budgets for NSID are located under
section three of your agenda package.
They are for the general fund,
The total revenues in the general fund budget projected for 2005-2006 are
$1,083,377 compared to $1,024,767 from the previous year. Total administrative costs are
decreasing by a few thousand dollars.
Field operations are increasing from $808,299 to $870,868. The per unit assessments, on the bottom
of page two, are going down on the administration and maintenance side. The mitigation is increasing up to
approximately $100,000 per year. It
is based on having new property.
There is a significant increase in dollars budgeted for mitigation due to
the increase in number of properties being assessed; however, the assessment
only increased from $23 to $27.
There is a narrative explaining each of the line items within the
budget.
Mr. Lauritzen asked who did the budget?
Mr. Goscicki responded it was a team effort among Ms. Walker, Mr. Moore
and Mr. Keller. There was also
input from the engineer on capital improvements and operating
commissions.
The Heron Bay Commons budget is a continuation budget. It is structured to keep the total
assessment at $625,000. We look at
the total amount expended in previous years. That dollar amount of revenue has been
capped in past practice. The
assessments are driven by the number of units being assessed against the
property and the revenue.
Mr. Lauritzen asked what about the renewal and replacement funds on page
21?
Mr. Goscicki responded you are starting to run a significant renewal and
replacement fund. You are up to
over $1 Million and you have a sizable investment in the facility. We need to start looking at how much
renew and replacement fund you want to cover. This is getting near 10% of the value of
the facility.
Mr. Lauritzen stated the amount of units for the non ad valorem
assessments went from 2,500 to 3,090.
Mr. Goscicki stated Parkland Isles is the next budget. The total assessment has gone up from
$403.16 to $464.16. A great deal of
it is due to the landscaping as a result of hurricane
damage.
Mr. Mendolia asked who is going to pay for the increase?
Ms. Walker responded the residents of Parkland Isles are being assessed
for the berm and they are aware of the increase.
Mr. Mendolia asked when will they be assessed?
Ms. Walker responded as soon as this is approved.
Mr. Udine stated in regard to Heron Bay Commons you have a $40,000
revenue adjustment for money received for the room rental. According to Ms. Walker they feel the
cost is $48,000. They have already
paid $40,000. Has the District ever
asked WCI for $8,000 to pay the difference?
Mr. Goscicki responded we have not yet. We are waiting for the final financial
audit we requested for Heron Bay Commons.
We will compare it with what they proposed and the Board will come up
with a settlement.
Mr. Udine asked how much are you spending to deal with an $8,000 issue?
Mr. Goscicki responded the audit is their responsibility as part of their
current management contract.
Mr. Udine asked what about the operational audit?
Mr. Goscicki responded the operational audit was paid for by Severn
Trent.
Mr. Hollander stated I am still waiting for records as of nine
months. How do you do an audit
without these records?
Mr. Goscicki responded Severn Trent hired a firm by the name of Rachlin
and Cohen to do a procedural audit.
We shared it with the Board at the last meeting. The management company is required to
provide us with the fiscal audit.
We have not seen the results.
Mr. Hollander asked how long does it take?
Mr. Goscicki responded it has been several months.
Mr. Hollander asked how do you approve a budget without knowing what is
going on?
Mr. Lauritzen responded you can refer your questions to staff. This is not the time. We are trying to appease you the best we
can.
Mr. Hollander stated I was told I was getting a letter that the records
were not there. Two months have
gone by and I do not have a letter.
Mr. Goscicki stated the procedural audit found there was no reason to
believe there were any misappropriation of funds. They raised procedural issues. They did not raise any concerns
regarding financial issues and the misuse of funds. Based on these findings we have grounds
to continue forward with the budget process. We have also asked for a financial
audit. If adjustments need to be
made to the current budget and future budget after we receive it, we will bring
it to the Board to take action.
Mr. Hollander asked what about the fact they are running a private
business out of the building?
Mr. Goscicki responded if the financial audit shows there are adjustments
needed and funds to be allocated to the District, we will deal with it at the
time.
Mr. Hollander stated your audit did not say anything about these private
businesses being run out of the building.
We have people running a private business out of a public facility I am
paying for and I want it stopped.
They are running a commercial business out of the building against the
bond issue. I was told in July that
NSID did not accept any money from WCI.
Now I see you took $40,000.
When is someone going to give me a straight answer?
Mr. Lauritzen responded thank you for your
comments.
Mr. Moyer stated maybe Mr. Hollander left before the meeting was
concluded last month. This Board
authorized Bond Counsel to determine whether the use by a private enterprise was
in any way violative of the bond covenant or any of the rules of the IRS. This Board has taken an action to
address this. Subject to certain
limitations in the IRS code private activities can take place in a public
facility. There are protocol and
limits to it. Bond Counsel is going
to be looking at this.
Mr. Hollander stated it is in the contract between NSID and WCI that the
building is not to be used for commercial use.
Mr. Moyer stated Counsel will review it.
Mr. Hollander asked when are they going to review it?
Mr. Moyer responded Counsel was authorized to review it 28 days
ago.
Mr. Hollander stated I brought it to their attention in March of
2004.
Mr. Lauritzen stated thank you for your comments.
Mr. Goscicki stated the next item is the proposed budget for your debt
service. You have a series of debt
services starting on page 37. Debt
services are constant from year to year like your mortgage payment. There is a slight decrease in each of
these assessments due to investment of funds and good use of those funds. The special assessment funds run through
page 37. You have some exhibits
summarizing the total assessments.
Mr. Hollander asked did the Board take $48,000 from WCI?
Mr. Goscicki responded the Board does not receive money from
anyone.
Mr. Hollander asked who took the $48,000?
Mr. Lyles responded after conversations with District staff a few months
ago, WCI concluded there was a value of approximately $40,000 associated with
its use of Heron Bay Commons meeting rooms for WCI purchases. They had not paid room rental fees as
was required of other users of those rooms. They went back into their records with
the assistance of District staff and they concluded there was use of the
facility amounting to $40,000. At
the time we indicated that might be the accurate number, but NSID wanted to
independently evaluate the use of the facility by WCI. We did not accept the $40,000 as a final
figure for use of the facility.
Some additional calculations have come up with another $8,000, but we are
not sure what the right number is until the audit is completed. It could be a higher number. In order to satisfy this Board and the
residents in Heron Bay Commons paying assessments to pay this facility, we want
to make sure an independent entity confirms the figure we will ultimately
accept. We will be waiving the
right to look to WCI for further payments on any additional usage that comes up
when we do that. They are going to
want a release at that time. Until
we have a final audit certified number, the manager and counsel for this Board
do not feel we can recommend accepting either figure. This is why it is not a closed matter as
of today.
Mr. Hollander stated one of the documents I am looking for is the room
rental agreement. I do not know if
WCI filled those out or not. I
filled out a room rental agreement when I rented out a room. It says ACT Janitorial has to set up and
take down the tables and chairs. Is
WCI paying for this fee or are the residents paying for it? I do not have those documents. I do not think your auditors have it
either. How are they going to make
a determination?
Mr. Lyles responded the auditor will indicate the documents were not
sufficient to prepare and complete the audit if that is the case. If they give us an audit, it will be
based on complete reference.
Mr. Hollander stated these papers are important. Who picked $40,000 out of the
hat?
Mr. Lyles responded we have not accepted $40,000 as the number and the
calculation is not being made by WCI nor employees of
this District. It is being
calculated by an independent audit.
When we have the final figure submitted to and approved by the Board, you
will be entitled to see a copy of the public record.
Mr. Udine stated I have no problem with what is being done. What is the deal with the revenue coming
in from the vendors who service the building? Does the money come back to the
District?
Mr. Lyles responded the revenue is put back into an account for the use
of the Heron Bay Community only. It
goes to offset the cost of running the Heron Bay Commons facility and not into
the general revenues of NSID.
Mr. Udine asked if the tennis pro gives a lesson and charges $50, does
the $50 go right to the tennis pro or does it go to Heron Bay
Commons?
Mr. Lyles responded the tennis pro gives the lesson and receives a fee
for it. The arrangement between
Mr. Udine stated as long as that is happening I am good with
it.
Mr. Goscicki stated we are looking for the audit to verify transactions
have been consistent, the numbers are being applied appropriately and revenues
have been booked appropriately.
Mr. Udine asked is there going to be a paper trail of money? When the
food people were out there they paid some money back to NSID. Is it going to be the same type of thing
with the tennis program?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes.
Mr. Hollander asked why did they not do it for six years?
Mr. Lauritzen responded we do not know if they did or did not do it. This is why we are having the
audit. When we get all of the
answers we will share them with you.
Mr. Goscicki stated the next tab is the water and sewer enterprise fund
budget. The total budget increased
from $8.2 Million to $8.9 Million due to a function of growth in the
system. The unit cost increases are
a reflection of the cost of living, useable salary and other increases. There are no policy changes in terms of
salary benefits or anything consistent with the previous years budgets.
Mr. Lauritzen asked have we made any decisions on the security situation?
Mr. Goscicki responded we are looking to make some changes as a cost
saving measure. We moved away from
armed security to unarmed and we are also looking at using video cameras with
push button security wire to the operator station.
Ms. Walker stated you can also look at cutting down on shifts until the
next meeting.
Mr. Lauritzen stated that is a good idea.
Mr. Goscicki stated Mr. Doug Height is working with the security company
on those issues. I introduced the
Board to Mr. Mel Entus who had to leave.
He is a contract employee of Severn Trent and will be helping out on
operational issues as we move forward with looking for a permanent replacement
for Mr. Moore. He has 26 years of
experience as a utility manager in
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the public hearing was
closed.
Mr. Goscicki stated Resolution 2005-18 is for the adoption of the final
budget for NSID.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Resolution 2005-18 adopting the final budget for
fiscal year 2006 was adopted.
Mr. Goscicki stated Resolution 2005-19 is for NSID levying assessments
for the payment of debt service and maintenance costs for the period of
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Resolution 2005-19 levying assessments was
adopted.
Mr. Lauritzen stated we need a motion to approve Resolution
2005-20.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Resolution 2005-20 levying non ad valorem
assessments was adopted.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Resolutions
A.
Resolution 2005-25 Designating Edward Goscicki and Jean M. Rugg as
Assistant Secretaries
There being no questions or comments,
On Motion by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Resolution 2005-25 designating Mr. Goscicki and
Ms. Rugg as Assistant Secretaries was adopted.
B.
Resolution 2005-26 Designating Janice Moen Larned as Treasurer and Edward
Goscicki as Assistant Treasurer
There being no
questions or comments,
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Resolution 2005-26 designating Ms. Larned as
Treasurer and Mr. Goscicki as Assistant Treasurer was
adopted.
Mr. Goscicki stated I would like to introduce our new Fiscal Manager Ms.
Larned. She will be taking over all
fiscal management responsibilities for our organization having to do with
financing, accounting, assessments, etcetera. She has a wealth of experience. She was the CFO for the City of
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Change Order No. 5 with Triple R Paving, Inc. for the
Paving, Drainage, Water and Waste Water for Nob Hill Road, University Drive
(Phase 2) and County Line Road for a Net Decrease of
$230,695.10
Ms. Early stated this deduction is for
Mr. Mendolia asked it is being reduced now, but will it come back
later?
Ms. Early responded not in this contract.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor Change Order No. 5 with Triple R Paving, Inc. for a
net decrease of $230,695.10 was approved.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Permit Request for NSID & Pinetree
Interconnect
Ms. Early stated Mr. Moore had us put an
interconnect between Pinetree and the District. We want to have a paper trail showing we
did the permit even though NSID is the permittee.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the permit request for NSID and Pinetree
Interconnect was approved.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Staff Reports
A.
Attorney
There being no report, the next item followed.
B.
Engineer
There being no
report, the next item followed.
C. Manager – Meeting
Schedule for Fiscal Year 2006
Mr. Goscicki
stated the only item is the proposed meeting schedule for the next fiscal
year.
There was Board consensus to move the meeting time to
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor the meeting schedule for fiscal year 2006 was
approved as amended.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Supervisor’s Request and Audience Comments
There not being
any, the next item followed.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Approval of Invoices, Requisitions and Financial
Statements
There being no questions or comments,
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the invoices, requisitions and financial
statements were approved.
At
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Public Hearing to Consider the Imposition of Special
Assessments:
Mr. Goscicki reconvened the recessed meeting at
A.
i.
Discussion of Engineer’s Report
ii. Discussion
of Assessment Methodology
Ms. Mossing stated this is for public improvements. It is located at the center of
NSID. The total costs are $5.8
Million, which include a surface water management system, roadway construction,
landscaping and off-site roadway improvements. A bond issue of approximately $7,660,000
is needed in order to fund these costs.
The difference between the two numbers is referred to as cost of
issuance. The assessments allocated
for the properties are based upon the projected development plan and the
benefits to be received. They range
from 80’ estates. Each assessment
unit will be allocated a principle related to the bond issue based upon the
product type. The larger lots will
receive a larger assessment and the smaller lots will receive a smaller
assessment. The projected annual
assessment per unit ranges from $1,605 to $3,210 per year. We are projecting the bonds to be
financed over 20 years with an interest rate of 6%. There is no prepayment
penalty.
Mr. Mendolia
asked is there no prepayment penalty in any case?
Ms. Mossing responded if the District prepays the bonds there will be a
penalty associated with it. It is
usually built in to the marketing of the bonds. If a resident prepays their expenses,
there will not be a penalty. The
only time the District would consider prepaying is if we decided to refinance
the debt. If we did it within a
certain period of time, there will be a percentage penalty associated with
it. It is to ensure the bondholders
they are going to have the bonds outstanding for at least a minimum period of
time.
Mr. Lauritzen asked is 6% an estimate?
Ms. Mossing responded it is a conservative
estimate.
Ms. Haido stated the projected range is between five and a quarter
percent to five and an eight percent.
Ms. Mossing stated we anticipate entering the bond market in
October.
Mr. Moyer stated the interest rate is driven by credit and rating. Because these are unrated bonds, you
will pay a little higher.
iii. Public Comment and
Testimony
Mr. Lauritzen stated I declare the meeting opened for public
comment.
There not being any, the next item followed.
iv. Equalization of
Assessments
v.
Adoption of Resolution 2005-21
Ms. Mossing stated the next step is the equalization of the
assessments. It is contained within
Resolution 2005-21.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Resolution 2005-21 equalizing assessments within
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the public hearing for the
B.
Mr. Lauritzen stated we are opening a public meeting to discuss the
Parkland Golf and Country Club assessment area.
i. Discussion of Engineer’s
Report
ii. Discussion
of Assessment Methodology
Ms. Mossing
stated this is for two assessment areas.
There will be a number of improvements affecting all of the Parkland Golf
and Country Club area. There will
be another assessment area called Assessment Area A. The northern area needs to have
improvements constructed for water management purposes. They have a separate series of
assessments for those. They will
need separate water management bonds.
There will be a lake associated to the Parkland Golf and Country Club
Plat area and they will be associated with the water management area to the
north. The total estimated cost
associated with the Parkland Golf and Country Club plat is $23,343,333. Water management related costs are
estimated at $5,014,346. There will
be an issuance for a par amount debt of $23 Million worth of improvements in two
series. Series A bond is a
permanent long term 20 year bond.
Series B bonds are the short term bonds which will be paid prior to
transferring the property to the homeowner. The Series A
bond will remain for the life of the debt for a 20 year period.
The proposed bonds for the Parkland Golf and Country Club Assessment Area
A are in two series as well. The
Area A assessments were based upon all of the
properties benefiting from the improvement. The projected annual Series A Assessment per unit is $650. The Parkland Golf and Country Club
assessments are based similar to the
We are planning a 20 year special assessment bond with an estimated 6%
interest. We tried to be
conservative when establishing our assessment rates. We are looking at capitalized interest
for one year. The assessment can be
prepaid by the residents without any penalties.
iii. Public Comment and
Testimony
There not being
any, the next item followed.
iv. Equalization of
Assessments
v. Adoption of Resolution
2005-22
There being no
questions or comments,
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Resolution 2005-22 equalizing assessments within
the Parkland Golf and Country Club Assessment Area was
adopted.
Mr. Laurtizen stated the public hearing is closed.
C.
Mr. Lauritzen
stated I will now open the public hearing for the Parkland Golf and Country Club
Assessment Area A. It is after
i. Discussion of
Engineer’s Report
ii. Discussion
of Assessment Methodology
These discussions
were covered under the Parkland Golf and Country Club Assessment Area
discussions.
iii. Public Comment and
Testimony
There not being
any, the next item followed.
iv. Equalization of
Assessments
v. Adoption of Resolution
2005-23
There being no questions or comments,
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Resolution 2005-23 equalizing assessments within
Parkland Golf and Country Club Assessment Area A was
adopted.
At
D.
The recessed
meeting reconvened at
i. Discussion of
Engineer’s Report
ii. Discussion
of Assessment Methodology
Ms. Mossing
stated this area is located in the northern area of
The projected annual assessments will be $400 per unit for Phase 1 and
$1,000 per unit for Phase 2. There
are 379 lots included in the Phase 2 area.
The bonds will be financed for 20 years with a conservative estimated
interest rate of 6%.
iii. Public Comment and
Testimony
There not being
any, the next item followed.
iv. Equalization of
Assessments
v. Adoption of Resolution
2005-24
There being no
questions or comments,
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Resolution 2005-24 equalizing assessments within
Heron Bay North was adopted.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor the public hearing was
closed.
ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Certain Documents Related to the Issuance of
Bonds
Ms. Mossing stated we do not have any more documents tonight. We will bring the delegation resolution
as well as any other documentation to the next meeting scheduled on
Mr. Lyles stated we adopted a meeting schedule by motion earlier that had
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Adjournment
There being no further business,
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor the meeting was
adjourned.
Jean M. Rugg
Salvatore J.
Mendolia
Assistant Secretary
Secretary