MINUTES OF MEETING

NORTH SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

 

            The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the North Springs Improvement District was held on Tuesday, June 19, 2007 at 4:33 p.m. at the District Office, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.

 

            Present and constituting a quorum were:

 

            Salvatore J. Mendolia                                 President

            Steve Mendelson                                        Secretary

 

            Also present were:

 

            Ed Goscicki                                                Interim Manager - Severn Trent Services

            Dennis Lyles                                               Attorney

            Jane Early                                                   Engineer

            Pamela Rower                                            Severn Trent Services

            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 May 15, 2007 meeting and requested any corrections, additions or deletions.

            There not being any,

 

On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the minutes of the May 15, 2007 meeting were approved.

 

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 Pine Island Road.  The majority of this change order is for traffic control with the City of Parkland because of the school.  The cost for this work is being paid out the bond issue.  For the drainage, we deducted some larger inlets and installed smaller inlets.  We also added irrigation.

            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 Parkland as much as it has become because of the school.  We intended to close the road and not have any maintenance or traffic issues; however, because of the children accessing the school, it has become a safety issue.  I had my inspector out there who met with the county.  They agreed to assist with the maintenance of traffic. 

            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 Parkland contacted me and said “You need to do something”.  We worked with them in order to make the situation safer.

            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 Heron Bay golf course are either propped or covered.  There is no way to access them.  I cannot even determine who they belong to or whether they were dedicated to the District or they belong to the golf course.  We want to run some models to make sure if we decide to eliminate those culverts altogether, we do not have a problem.  In Parkland Golf and Country Club, some of the lakes under construction were re-arranged.  We also want to make sure the model works with the new alignment and make sure the pumping schedule we have works.

            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 Heron Bay golf course.

            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 Broward County pumping to the everglades.  No other cities or counties pump.

            Mr. Frederick stated I think this pertains to Florida as well.

            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