MINUTES OF MEETING
NORTH SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the North Springs
Improvement District was held on
Present and constituting a quorum were:
Salvatore J. Mendolia
President
Steve Mendelson
Secretary
Also present were:
Ed Goscicki
Interim Manager -
Dennis Lyles
Attorney
Jane Early
Engineer
Pamela Rower
Nick Schooley
Field Superintendent
Randy Frederick
Field Supervisor
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS
Roll Call
Mr. Goscicki
called the meeting to order and called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS
Approval of the Minutes of the May 15, 2007
Meeting
Mr. Goscicki stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of
the
There not being any,
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Change Order No. 1 – Triple R. Paving, Drainage, Water
and Earthwork for Pine Island Road Extension for a Net Increase of
$10,520.00
Mr. Goscicki stated this change order is for a net increase of
$10,520.
Ms. Early stated Triple R. Paving is doing the work on
Mr. Mendolia asked did we know this before the project
started?
Ms. Early responded I did not think it was going to be an issue with the
City of
Mr. Mendelson stated I agree this work has to be
done.
Mr. Mendolia asked is there any way out of this?
Ms. Early responded we have to do it.
Mr. Mendolia asked did you say the city did not like
it?
Ms. Early responded the problem was when school started, the project
started. With the school situated
across the street, the parents park there.
There is a great deal of congestion, which we did not anticipate. The month the project started, the
sheriff was even saying, “We need to do something different because it is not
safe”. The City of
Mr. Mendolia asked will it cost us an extra
$10,520?
Ms. Early responded the maintenance of traffic cost us $6,450. We deducted drainage and added two
smaller drainage inlets as well as some irrigation sleeves for the
medians.
Mr. Mendolia asked were the irrigation sleeves
anticipated?
Ms. Early responded they were but as they proceed with the design of the
landscaping, we had to make some last minute changes.
Mr. Goscicki asked what was the total price of this
project?
Ms. Early responded $1.8 million.
Mr. Goscicki stated this is only a 1% increase.
Mr. Mendolia stated I am surprised no one knew about it. This is a way to make money by leaving
something out and then having to put it in again at a higher
amount.
Ms. Early stated I believe we had unit costs for these items. We are using the same prices but
installing additional sleeves.
Mr. Goscicki stated some of this work is being directed by the engineer
as they go out into the field and recognize items were not picked up in the
design by directing the contractor to take on additional work. The contract is not making money. It is a matter of fine tuning it. Getting change orders on a construction
project is not unusual in a government setting.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Change Order No. 1 with Triple R. Paving for
Drainage, Water and Earthwork for Pine Island Road Extension for a Net Increase
of $10,520.00 was approved.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Work Authorization No. 175 for Hydraulic Modeling
Update and Culvert Investigation
Mr. Goscicki stated this work authorization is from CH2M-Hill to update
the hydraulic model of the drainage system. You have a couple of different options
on the way we can pump water. The
recommendation is to move forward.
This is an update to the original design to look at what the capabilities
of the existing system are based on the current condition of the pumps and
canals.
Ms. Early stated we did similar projects for CSID and Sunshine to update
their models and make sure everything is still working. Mr. Nick Schooley has culverts inspected
every year. Some culverts on the
Mr. Mendolia asked are you going to investigate to see what is
happening?
Ms. Early responded yes. We
will run different scenarios of storms to show if there are areas where the
water is high. If there is a
potential problem we can look at it.
Mr. Goscicki stated your modeling will also identify potential solutions
to those problems and the engineer can bring back recommendations. What we get from a model like this is a
better plan for what we need to maintain, repair or replace as we go
forward. I think it serves us well
to put together a long term plan in terms of the capital
improvements.
Mr. Schooley stated like Ms. Early said, we have three culverts on the
golf course. We do not even know if
they are in the ground. One is
crushed 250’ into the fairway.
There is also a 500’ pipe.
We did not know if we even own the pipe so we did an inspection this year
to see if we owned it. Time and
money was being spent. We assumed
during construction they did it in phases but when they reached this phase, they
put a culvert in and then a second one.
We may not even need them.
If we need them and you want them cleaned and maintained, you are talking
about spending hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Mr. Mendolia asked has the golf course been sold?
Mr. Schooley responded we are not sure who owns the golf course. It does not matter who owns the
culverts. If none of them affect
our drainage system, we will mark them on a map showing they are not ours and
maintain what is ours. If we
abandon them and do not need them, we will never spend another dime on them
because we do not care who owns them.
Mr. Mendolia stated this is the way to go.
Mr. Schooley stated as long as we know we are not going to flood because
it is crushed.
Mr. Mendolia stated we have not received any
complaints.
Mr. Schooley stated I have not had any drainage problems other than there
have been problems with blocked culverts.
Where there has been a problem, it has always been someone else’s
problem. We will save money by
abandoning it. I think there are a
total of five or six sites on the
Mr. Mendelson asked who owns the golf course now?
Ms. Early responded there is a new owner.
Mr. Mendolia asked does this fall under their
jurisdiction?
Ms. Early responded this is what we are trying to determine. It is one of the phases in this work
authorization. We could not even
find a plat. I spoke with WCI and
there is no one left there from when they instructed the golf course. I have drawings showing where these
pipes are supposed to be. They go
out with a diver and they cannot find them.
Mr. Mendelson asked who owns this property now?
Ms. Early responded the golf course. We are trying to show we do not need
these pipes. If the system works,
there is never going to be mention of the pipes again.
Mr. Mendolia stated now we are going through the exercise of getting a
culvert investigation performed.
Ms. Early stated exactly.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Work Authorization No. 175 for Hydraulic Modeling
Update and Culvert Investigation in the amount of $36,000 was
approved.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Award of Contract for Culvert Cleaning
Mr. Goscicki
stated on May 9th, we received three bids for the culvert cleaning
project. The lowest responsive
bidder was Industrial Divers who bid $11,600. Fish Tech bid $12,000 and Weld Tech bid
$28,378. Staff’s recommendation is
to award the contract to the lowest bidder, Industrial Divers in the amount of
$11,600.
Mr. Mendolia asked do we have experience with them?
Mr. Frederick responded they have been out here with us for 28
years. We trust them more than
anyone.
Mr. Goscicki stated they did their homework on this one as Fish Tech won
this contract in other districts.
Mr. Frederick stated Industrial Divers repaired the pipes on the Sawgrass
Expressway when the Turnpike Authority cut them. They ran wires through the pipes in
order to investigate. They made a
video if you want to see it.
Whenever top notch critical work has to be done, this is who should be
hired. CH2M-Hill uses them
exclusively. They are good. I have no problem with them
whatsoever.
Mr. Goscicki stated the price is right.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the culvert cleaning contract was awarded to
Industrial Divers in the amount of $11,600.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Discussion Items
A. SFWMD
Permit Modification
Mr. Goscicki
stated the engineer is dealing with the SFWMD permit modifications.
Ms. Early stated we changed some of the language. At the last meeting or the meeting
prior, we had a work authorization to do a permit modification with SFWMD
because NSID pumps to the everglades.
They wanted us to do a permit modification showing how we reduce the
phosphorus level in our water prior to pumping.
Mr. Goscicki stated we are one of two districts in
Mr. Frederick stated I think this pertains to
Ms. Early stated Mr. McKune, Mr. Hyche and I met with them several
times. I was concerned about
submitting a permit modification as they could come back and say we cannot pump
to the everglades. After several
meetings with them, they submitted an application showing an effort to reduce
phosphorus, if and when we have to pump to the everglades. I do not think we pumped there for two
and a half years.
Mr. Frederick stated it has been a couple of years.
Ms. Early stated the first couple of pages, gives some background on NSID
and how we pump. The last few pages
are the items they suggested to us, which we are implementing in the next six
months to a year. One of the items
is to prepare a Public Outreach Pamphlet, which we prepared and provided to Mr.
Petty for comments. We will have to
provide it to Mr. Goscicki. This is
something we can print and send out in the mailing with the water bills.
Another item is a pumping schedule, which Mr. Schooley was talking about
with the study we are doing. They
are requesting we pump four hours and not pump for a few hours and pump another
four hours, instead of all of a sudden pumping non-stop for 24 hours a day. We are going to have to pump from the
everglades in order to fill Canal L-36.
There are a couple of coordination efforts involved with this. We used to pump the water south but we
cannot do so anymore. We are going
to look further into this. They
asked us to participate with the Broward Everglades Working Group, which meets
throughout the county, once a month.
Much of the discussion has been farm related but we have been
participating in their discussions about the phosphorus levels.
Two years ago, we installed a pump so we could pump the water from the
west basin to the east basin. We
are re-charging the east basin with our own water. Rather than pumping out of the district,
we pump to the east portion because the wells for the Water Treatment Plant draw
down the water so the water is always low.
Now Mr. Schooley has the capability to pump water from NSID west to NSID
east. This is why NSID always looks
balanced on both sides. One of the
reasons we have not been pumping to the everglades is we have been pumping
internally. I showed them what the
cost was. Pump Station 1 off of the
Sawgrass Expressway has four pumps but only one can pump to Canal L-36. Once you get the water to a certain
elevation in Canal L-36, all three pumps can pump water to the everglades.
Our concern was if this pump goes down, we cannot pump water at all to
the everglades until Canal L-36 fills up.
We came up with the idea of putting in a valve so the next pump can draw
water to the everglades or Canal L-36.
We came to the Board with a work authorization to valve all four of the
pumps because if any of the pumps go down, we cannot pump internally or pump to
the everglades. We have the plans,
are meeting with SFWMD and are in the permitting process. This is a big ticket item as it will
cost $600,000 in order to do this project.
I included it in here and said “This is subject to funding being
available to upgrade the pipe system for pump station 1 and improving the
efficiency and operation of the station.”
This is why we asked for an extension for this permit. I did not want to submit it until we
brought it to the Board for discussion because this is a great deal of
money. I do not know whether or not
it is in the budget.
Mr. Goscicki stated it is in the budget. However, there will have to be an
increase in assessments to be able to fund this project in its entirety and
still maintain some level of reserves.
Mr. Mendolia asked how can we even consider it?
Mr. Goscicki responded this is why we put the language, “Subject to
having funds available”. Ms. Early
and I discussed doing this project over a multi-year phase and doing one or two
pumps first.
Mr. Mendolia asked do you want to pay $200,000 at a
time?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes.
Ms. Early stated this solves a few problems. If one pump goes down, at least we have
another pump and we are showing SFWMD we are trying to avoid pumping to the
everglades if at all possible.
Mr. Schooley stated last year, this pump went down in the major part of a
storm. I did not sleep at night for
weeks because the water level was at 8.5’ and the normal elevation was between
7’ and 8.5’. I could not get the
water any lower. We tried to get
SFWMD to allow us to use the other pump to pump the water to Canal L-36 but they
refused to allow us to do so. One
pump fueled us last summer. If we
had a hurricane, we probably would have flooded. We had rain almost every day this month
and in running the model, we are currently at 8’. We have been at 8’ to 8.5’ for a week
and a half to two weeks. If we get
a hurricane we are in trouble because I cannot get the water
down.
Mr. Mendelson stated if we do this, we are going to have to assess the
residents.
Mr. Goscicki stated we prepared two alternative budgets for the Board;
one not increasing assessments and the other increasing assessments from $74 to
$87 if we go forward with this program and try to build some additional
reserves. We spent down a lot of
our reserves over the years. We may
want to modify the language to say, “We will make modifications to the pump
station” and spend $83,000 rather than $600,000, subject to funding being
available.
Ms. Early stated I can amend the language to do this project in
phases.
Mr. Goscicki stated if we put out the $600,000 number, there will be an
expectation for us to spend the full amount.
Ms. Early stated I did not want to submit anything without the Board’s
approval.
Mr. Schooley stated we can only use one pump to pump water to Canal
L-36. If this pump goes down and I
have another pump, we will be fine.
This is the north pump station.
We can have the center north pump running within a day or two or a
week. One pump going to the north
may be sufficient instead of running all of them because we are not allowed
to.
Mr. Mendelson stated in an emergency situation, we have to use what is
available.
Mr. Goscicki stated currently, if one pump goes down, you cannot pump
into Canal L-36 as the other three pumps are piped to only pump to the
everglades.
Ms. Early stated we can only pump to the everglades once Canal L-36 is
level. We would not be able to pump
until the canal fills up.
Mr. Goscicki stated the full $600,000 program will give you complete
flexibility to pump in any direction.
We are saying the first step is to get one of the other three pumps
re-piped and re-valved to give us some flexibility. You have additional flexibility because
the three pumps are identical. If
we re-pipe pump four and the motor burns out, they can take the motor off of the
other pump and get the pump back up and running.
Mr. Schooley stated we only need one pump.
Mr. Goscicki stated these are the things we are talking about as interim
steps. Getting one in place is
important because we do not have a backup pump and this is your primary
discharge point. If the Board is
satisfied with the report, let’s modify the one element to say we are going to
do this in a phased approach subject to funding being
available.
Mr. Mendelson stated just so the homeowners do not get an increase in
assessments. It is gradual and easy
to deal with.
Mr. Mendolia stated we should table this item for
now.
Mr. Goscicki stated you do not need to table it. You can give direction to Ms. Early to
modify the language and submit the permit modification.
Mr. Lyles stated the modification and language staff is asking you to
approve along with submitting the application based upon funds being
available. It will not be available
unless the Board, as part of the budget process, approves it. You are allowing Ms. Early to proceed
with the application but not authorizing her to spend money. You can make a decision on the hard
costs at a later time or make a decision not to spend money at all. Correct?
Ms. Early responded yes.
This authorization does not mean we are going forward with this next
week. It means if we have the money
we can do this in phases. The money
is not available unless SFWMD wants to come up with the money.
Mr. Mendolia stated we do not know whether this is for one pump or 10
pumps.
Ms. Early stated we definitely need one pump.
Mr. Schooley stated we need three or four phases. We will initiate the first phase and see
how it works. We may abandon the
other three phases or go to phase two.
If three pumps cost $600,000, then we are talking about spending $200,000
in the initial phase for one pump.
Mr. Lyles stated with this explanation as part of your record, you are
not committing to spend any money.
This is only allowing the engineers to get the paperwork processed and
filed. Through the budget process
and future reports by staff, you will know what the price is and will approve it
or not approve it at that time.
Mr. Schooley stated we cannot commit money because they might say
“no”. Until they say “yes” and we
get a permit in hand, no decision needs to be made.
Mr. Mendelson asked are we approving this permit modification pending the
approval of a permit?
Mr. Lyles responded no. This
allows staff to file the application upon your behalf for the permit but you are
not approving any expenditure, whether $1 or $600,000.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor staff was authorized to file the SFWMD permit
modification.
B. Joint
Application for Environmental Resource Permit to Use State Owned Submerged Lands
Ms. Early stated
this is part of the permit application to SFWMD and was taken care of with the
above motion.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Staff Reports
A.
Manager’s Report - Distribution
of Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 and Consideration of Resolution 2007-3
Approving the Budget and Setting the Public Hearing
Mr. Goscicki
stated I provided the revised budget to the Board.
Mr. Lyles stated for clarification purposes, you are not going to approve
it today but accept it as a proposed budget to start the advertising process for
a public hearing. This may or may
not require mailed notices.
Mr. Goscicki stated exactly.
We gave the Board some options because we felt it was significant and
important enough to work through a more detailed explanation with the Board in
terms of where you are in your overall fund balances and how much money you have
available to spend on these projects.
Ms. Pamela Rower who is our Controller for Severn Trent Services, has
been involved with this budget.
The first page is the General Fund budget, which includes the drainage
programs. In the prior version of
the budget, we discussed the historical practice of the District, which is the
use of shared employees between CSID, NSID and Sunshine. In some areas, this works effectively
well. It takes advantage of the
fact we have a number of employees with skills other districts may not be able
to afford on their own such as utility billing and customer service. Mr. Dan Daly serves in this
function. If each district was to
create their own utility billing system, software and customer service
representatives, they would be spending a lot of unnecessary funds. Every district cannot afford to have its
own Human Resource Manager overseeing payroll and personnel. Those expenses we see the synergies in
and the benefits. What we have lost
over the years is the effectiveness of doing the shared accounting. The way the shared accounting was
originally set up was with Severn Trent Services employees who happened to be
in-house and worked as part of Severn Trent Services. However, the Accounting Manager, Ms.
Rhonda Archer is no longer with us and now works for our Investment Banker. Ms. Susan Walker is now the only
accountant on staff. Rather than
getting synergies where we have 22 accounting professionals down the street and
having all the work done there, it has devolved to a point of having a single
person performing the accounting in isolation and us duplicating this work.
What I propose for this District as well as Sunshine, CSID and Pine Tree
is to bring the accounting back into Severn Trent Services contract as
originally proposed and decrease the Shared Services line in Administrative Expenses. This caused us to increase our services
by $20,000 in order to provide these services to you. We decreased the shared expenses by
$30,000 in the General Fund and Water and Sewer Fund. There is a net savings to the District
in this area of $20,000 due to the computer being utilized for billing
purposes. The billing services
staff will be paid from the Water and Sewer Fund. We removed Office Space and Office Rental; however the office space Mr. Daly, Mr. Zilmer and
others use will remain in the Water and Sewer Fund. The total Administrative Expense from last year to
this year decreased from $264,000 to $243,000.
Mr. Mendolia asked are we still getting the results we are looking for in
regards to the budget?
Mr. Goscicki stated you will get better results. You will have 22 Severn Trent employees,
working as a team and being backed up by our systems. We had problems where we could not
access our files because Ms. Walker happens to be on vacation and we could not
get into our files. Things like
this are not appropriate for an operation of this size. These are some of the benefits by
putting your accounting into real a business system. I wanted to make sure the Board was
aware of these additional items, resulting in a net savings to the
District. We are concerned about
our employees and are working with CSID to make all of this work and treat
people appropriately and fairly.
We re-structured the budget from the way you had traditionally seen
it. In the prior budget, you had a
line item on the revenue side called Carry Forward Surplus. The dollars in this line item masked
what funds you had to work with because it was not necessarily your entire
Reserve Fund. It was the portion of
the Reserve Fund you were anticipated to use in this upcoming fiscal year. Likewise, on the expense side, we showed
an emergency reserve last year of $500,000 for this pump station. We showed Carry Forward Surplus and a Reserve Fund but it never gave you a
clear picture of how much money you had to work with. This year, we moved those funds out of
the revenue and expense sides and put it down below to show how much money you
are making, how much you are spending and how much is left over in the Fund
Balance to use for new capital improvements. In the past, they were merged together
and did not show this clearly.
In the current year budget, we are using $163,000 from reserve funds to
fund current operations. This is
similar to your paycheck, sufficient to cover your living expenses or tapping
into your savings account to meet month to month expenses. In the current fiscal year, the budget
envisioned taking $163,000 out of our savings account to fund current
operations. There is nothing wrong
with doing this. You build up
reserves over time and it is appropriate to pull money out of the reserve to
stabilize your assessments. However, it is important for the Board to
understand this is what you did this year.
On the second page of the budget, we set the assessments at the same
level as last year. We said we were
going to keep the assessments at $74.57.
We ran the numbers and said, “What will this do to us if we keep the
assessments the same”. Keep in mind
last year we borrowed money from reserves to balance the budget. If we fund $500,000 for this pump
station, we will wind up in a negative cash position. We not only had no reserves left but we
went negative by $137,000. When I
say “No reserves”, I mean no available reserves. However, if we set aside $200,000 for
three months operating expenses, $500,000 for the lift station and $250,000 for
the best management practices program, we end up in a negative situation. Therefore, we either need to cut back on
the capital improvement program or increase the revenue and assessment
side. A Board just cut a project
from $500,000 to $250,000 for the first year and went from a negative $137,000
to a positive $120,000.
The bottom line is we can keep assessments at $74.57 and still generate
$120,000 in our fund balance going forward. We also added $50,000 per year as part
of the expense side to start building reserves back up. CSID has a goal to build up $1 million
over time in reserve funds to deal with the hurricane. We are saying for this year, “Let’s at
least get another $50,000 and start building the reserves back up”. The bottom line is if we want to balance
the budget, make the revenue equal in your operating expenses and not pull any
money from reserves, we will need to increase the assessments from $74.57 to
$86.11. If the Board wants to stay
with the current level of assessments, we will take $155,000 out of reserves to
fund the operating expenses and reduce the size of the capital program, which
was budgeted this year and carried over to next year. You will still carry a cash forward
surplus of $120,000. You are in a
good position. You are not swimming
in cash but with the current political climate, I think this Board is trying to
keep these assessments level. This
is a workable budget.
Mr. Mendolia asked what do we need to do?
Mr. Lyles responded you will need to adopt the resolution but can have a
motion for each budget.
Mr. Goscicki stated I request the Board adopt Resolution 2007-7 approving
the General Fund Budget showing an assessment of $74.57 by pulling $155,000 from
the Reserve Fund to fund current operations and reducing the size of the pump
station project to no more than $250,000.
Mr. Lyles stated what is before you is the proposed budget, which you are
approving the proposed budget for advertising purposes.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the proposed budget for fiscal year 2008 was
approved.
Mr. Goscicki stated the next budget is for Heron Bay Commons. We re-structured this budget the same
way. In the current fiscal year, we
are projecting to spend $305,000 out of reserve funds but we are going to be in
the negative as the current assessment is $654,000 and expenses are
$960,000. Therefore, your expenses
for operation and maintenance of the facility exceed the revenue. You are balancing this by pulling money
out of reserves. Next year, we will
be in a similar situation.
Ms. Rower stated according to this budget, we will not use any carry
forward surplus.
Mr. Goscicki stated according to the first page, you want to balance your
revenue with your current expenses.
What you are bringing in with assessments against what you are paying out
in your current expenses will require an increase in assessments from $215.25 to
$247.91. The second page is the
options page. The third page shows
what will happen if we do not raise assessments. We need to pull $95,000 out of the
current reserves to fund the shortfall and keep the assessments level. We are comfortable with this
number. It is not an inordinate
amount to pull out of reserve funds.
What you currently have in reserves, is what we are projecting. You had a beginning fund balance of $1.3
million at the beginning of this year but we spent $895,000. This is largely due to the fact you had
$869,000 in improvements to the facility as a result of the hurricane. Another reason is your current budget is
not balanced and you need another $100,000 to balance this
budget.
Going forward, you start next year with $431,000 in your reserves because
you spent down those monies.
However, as you pull out your three month operating reserves and $95,000
to balance the budget, you are left with $150,000 in uncommitted fund
balance. This is not a large sum of
money but a solid dollar amount we are comfortable presenting in the
budget. If you want to have a
completely balanced budget this year and start building up reserves, you will
need to have $30,000 in your reserves just to close the
gap.
We have three different options for the tennis courts in the order to
fund $900,000; option number one is to not have the tennis courts, option 2 is
to fund it over five years and option three is to fund this over ten years. If you fund the tennis courts over five
years, you are looking at an increase of $71 in assessments. Is the $71 over
$247?
Ms. Rower responded yes. No
matter which option we choose, the $71 number is included.
Mr. Goscicki stated if the Board decides to move forward with the tennis
courts; they need to decide whether to fund it within five or ten years. A five year payback loan will result in
an increased assessment for the five year period of $71 per unit. If you wanted a ten year payback loan,
the increased assessment will be $41 per unit.
Mr. Mendolia asked will this budget be presented to the
residents?
Mr. Goscicki responded if the Board approves this budget for the purpose
of setting the public hearing, we will send out a notice to every single
property owner informing them their assessment is increasing and the date, time
and location of the public hearing.
At that time, the Board will make a decision as to whether or not to move
forward with this option.
Mr. Mendelson asked do you inform the residents why there is an increase
in the assessment?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes.
We will put in the letter the reason for the increase, which is to fund
additional capital improvements to the tennis courts and expansion of the tennis
courts.
Mr. Mendolia stated this should be a good meeting.
Mr. Goscicki stated the question is whether we want to fund the tennis
courts in five or ten years.
Mr. Mendelson stated I recommend going with the least amount of
money.
Mr. Goscicki stated the assessment notice needs to set a number. Once we set this number you cannot go
higher. The Board could approve the
five year payback today. At the
next meeting, you can always reduce the amount and fund it over ten years.
Mr. Mendolia stated we should let the residents decide. Why do we need to
decide?
Mr. Mendelson stated as many people are involved in tennis, the same
number of people are not. The
people not involved in tennis will argue why they should be paying for something
they are not using.
Mr. Lyles stated it is ultimately going to be your decision. You are going to hear the input from the
residents because this is a public hearing but you are going to have to vote on
it one way or another.
Mr. Mendolia stated I agree.
Mr. Lyles stated if you think one of the outcomes at the public hearing
is the five year note, then you need to send the residents a notice saying,
“Your assessments are going to increase as much as $71.83. The money will be used for capital
expenditures to increase the number of tennis courts and improve
them”.
Mr. Mendelson stated as long as they know what is going
on.
Mr. Mendolia stated they will know about the $71.83 assessment but not
about the $41 assessment.
Mr. Schooley asked can you say “Between $47 and
$71”?
Mr. Lyles responded no. We
have to give them the maximum amount; however, the letter can say “This assumes
a five year payback in the amount of $71.
If we assume a ten year payback, the amount of the assessment will be
$41”. As long as you state the
highest number, you can add information.
A resident stated I have a feeling the crowd showing up at the public
hearing will be pro-tennis. They
will say, “We never knew about it so why are we paying”?
Mr. Goscicki responded they will know about it. This letter will be sent to every
property owner.
Mr. Lyles stated by first class mail.
Mr. Goscicki stated I think we have consensus from the Board to go
forward with the five year option and explaining to the residents, the number
can be reduced. The only question
regarding the base budget is the Board’s desire to keep assessments level,
assuming we do not build tennis courts at all.
Mr. Lyles asked does this mean the total assessment will be
$100?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes, over the current year assessment
number.
Mr. Mendolia stated it is not going to happen.
Mr. Goscicki stated what I am hearing from the Board is the desire to
keep the base assessment the same if we do not go forward with the tennis
courts.
Mr. Lyles stated you will start confusing them with different kinds of
increases.
Mr. Goscicki stated we will also go forward with the option of building
the tennis courts.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the budget for Heron Bay Commons for fiscal year
2008 was approved as presented.
Mr. Goscicki stated the next budget is the Parkland Isles proposed
budget. There was a slight
reduction in assessments from $499.41 to $495.86. There are no significant changes in this
budget other than a slight reduction in plant replacement
costs.
Ms. Rower stated I think we should keep assessments level due to the
small carry forward.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the budget for Parkland Isles for fiscal year
2008 was approved as presented.
Mr. Goscicki stated page 25 is the Debt Service Fund Budget. The Debt Service Funds include the 1990
A Series Water Management Bonds, 1998 Series Water Management Bonds, 2005 A
Series Water Management Refunding Bonds and 2005 B Series Water Management
Bonds. These are based on the
attached Amortization Schedules.
The per unit assessment in all cases remain the same. We recommend the Board’s
approval.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the Debt Service Fund Budget for the 1990 A
Series Water Management Bonds, 1998 Series Water Management Bonds, 2005 A Series
Water Management Refunding Bonds and 2005 B Series Water Management Bonds was
approved as presented.
Mr. Goscicki stated starting on page 30 is the Special Assessment Fund
Budget. This budget is for the 1997
Series Heron Bay Special Assessment Bonds, 1997 Series Parkland Isles Special
Assessment Bonds, Heron Bay TPC Assessment Bonds and Series 2005 A-2 Special
Assessment Bonds for the Parkland Golf and Country Club assessment
area.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the Special Assessment Fund Budget for the 1997
Series Heron Bay Special Assessment Bonds, 1997 Series Parkland Isles Special
Assessment Bonds, Heron Bay TPC Assessment Bonds and Series 2005 A-2 Special
Assessment Bonds for the Parkland Golf and Country Club assessment area was
approved.
Mr. Goscicki stated I provided Resolution 2007-3 to the Board approving
the budget for fiscal year 2008 and setting the public hearing. Does this resolution need to list each
budget?
Mr. Lyles responded no. The
budgets will be attached to the resolution.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Resolution 2007-3 Approving the Proposed Budget
for Fiscal Year 2008 and Setting the Public Hearing for July 12, 2007 at 4:30
P.M. at the District Office, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral Springs,
Florida was adopted.
B.
Attorney’s Report
Mr. Lyles stated our special act amendments were signed by the Governor a
few days ago and took effect immediately.
Therefore, as of this date, we are operating under new guidelines such as
an increase in our bidding thresholds to $250 or our ability to transition to a
popular election, at the Board’s discretion with three members when the District
is built out. The Board will decide
when it is time to convert the election system. It can be done now with a simple vote of
the Board but is not required. The
compensation for the supervisors attending these meetings has been increased for
the first time in 33 years. We do
not have to go back to Tallahassee next year.
Mr. Mendolia stated great news.
Mr. Goscicki stated we have some money in your budget if we need to bring
a Lobbyist on board.
Mr. Lyles stated if someone files legislation harmful to the District, we
will need some help in Tallahassee to deal with it.
C.
Engineer’s Report
There not being any, the next item followed.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Approval of Requisitions and Invoices
There being no questions or comments,
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor the check registers for the month of May for the
General Fund in the amount of $137,507.92, Heron Bay in the amount of
$151,345.12, Parkland Isles in the amount of $19,350.12, Heron Bay Mitigation in
the amount of $2,985.14 and the Water & Sewer Fund in the amount of
$425,523.51 were approved.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Supervisor’s Requests and Audience Comments
Mr. Mendolia stated I received a resume and feel this individual will fit
in with this project perfectly.
This individual is Mr. David Gray.
Mr. Lyles stated if this is the desire of the Board, we need a motion
appointing Mr. Gray to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Matt Lauritzen.
Mr. Mendelson nominated Mr. David Gray as
supervisor to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Lauritzen and Mr. Mendolia seconded
the motion. There being no further
nominations, with all in favor, Mr. Gray was appointed
supervisor.
Mr. Goscicki stated we could have balanced the budget by cutting the
Heron Bay Commons fee from $700,000.
Mr. Mendolia asked when do we finish paying this mortgage
off?
Ms. Early responded it was sold in 1997.
Mr. Goscicki stated I assume this was the 1997 special assessment bond
for Heron Bay Commons. The original
principal was $7.9 million. It runs
out in 2018.
TENTH 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.
Steve Mendelson
Salvatore J. Mendolia
Secretary
President