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:
Matt Lauritzen
President
Salvatore J. Mendolia
Secretary
Steve Mendelson
Supervisor
Also present were:
Edward Goscicki
Manager
Dennis
Lyles
Attorney
Dennis Baldis
Severn Trent Services
Jean M. Rugg
Severn Trent Services
Denise Ganz
Ruden McClosky
Rhonda Mossing
Mossing Management Consulting
Gary L. Moyer
STS Consultant
Miranda Hada
Prager, Sealy & Company
Michael Udine
Parkland City Commissioner
Tara-Lynn Patton
WCI
Patti Hitchcock
Town Center
Guy A. Mancini
Man Con, Inc.
Michael Hollander
Resident
Several Residents
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Lauritzen called the meeting to order and called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS
Approval of the Minutes of the July 7, 2005
Meeting
Mr. Lauritzen
stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the July 7, 2005
meeting and requested any corrections, additions or
deletions.
There not being any,
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor the minutes of the July 7, 2005 meeting were
approved.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Resolution 2005-9, Rescheduling the Public Hearings for
the General Fund Budget and Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund
Budget
Mr. Goscicki stated at this time staff is requesting we re-schedule the
public hearings for the General Fund and Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds
Budgets to the September meeting to enable us to finalize the line items and
numbers in the budget.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor Resolution 2005-9 rescheduling the public hearing
for the General Fund Budget and Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund Budget to
September 1, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. at the District Offices in Coral Springs, Florida
was adopted.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Discussion of Withdrawal of Man Con from Heron Bay Commercial Residential
Development Contract
Ms. Early stated at the last meeting we awarded the Heron Bay Commercial
contract to Man Con, who was the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Man Con has discovered the excessive
amount of hard rock in the area and this will create a hardship. Man Con was not familiar with this
particular area. WCI has time
constraints for the project and requests the Board to consider rejecting all the
bids and WCI will incur the expense and manage the
contract.
Mr. Lyles stated we also need to consider the release of the bid bond
required by the contract and under these circumstances ask to forgive the bid
bond and terminate their contract.
Mr. Mendolia asked do we need to rebid this
contract?
Mr. Lyles responded we are not going to rebid the job as per the
recommendation of the District Engineer.
We are going to let WCI incur the expense and manage the clean up. At some point they will give us a
turnkey project which will cost less than if we went with the third bidder or
rebid the job. District will
ultimately save money in the construction cost and on the cost of managing the
project as well as any risks inherent in entering into a contract. It can end up less expensive than it
might otherwise be, but the only way this bid bond can be waived is through an
action of this Board.
Mr. Goscicki stated it sounds like there are two motions required; one to
waive the bid bond forfeiture and the other to waive competitor bid
requirements.
Mr. Lyles stated we are not going to waive competitor bid
requirements. We are going to
reject all of the bids and that will be the second motion. The first motion is the action, if any,
you want to take on the request from Man Con to waive the forfeiture of the bid
bond.
Mr. Lauritzen asked are there any questions?
Mr. Medolia responded it is reasonable as long as it is a smooth
transition and the project will be taken care of properly.
Ms. Early stated yes. WCI is
already negotiating with companies.
Mr. Lyles stated the amount of the bid bond is 5% of $2.2
Million.
Ms. Early stated it is $110,208.
Mr. Lauritzen asked does it seem reasonable?
Mr. Lyles responded I am here to tell you what your options are. The law does not require you to do this;
however, the purpose of a bid bond and a forfeiture process is to make sure the
District is made whole because you will theoretically incur extra expenses to
redo the bid process and potentially pay a higher price. Your engineer is telling you it will not
be the case. You have the ability
to exercise discretion if you wish to and waive the forfeiture of the bid
bond.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor the Board waived the forfeiture of the bid bond to
Man Con, Inc. and terminate the contract.
Mr. Lyles stated we need a motion to reject all bids for the Heron Bay
commercial residential project number 330446.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor all bids received for the Heron Bay commercial
residential project number 330446 were rejected.
Landscape Maintenance
Contract
Mr. Goscicki stated we have one item not on the agenda. It is in regard to the landscape
maintenance contract. We received
bids and Staff is ready to make a recommendation to you for the award on the low
bid. Mr. Baldis will give you a
summary of what we have.
Mr. Baldis stated these are the bids we put out for landscaping of the
berm for Parkland Isles. I have a
list of the vendors who responded to the bid. We recommend Valley Crest
Landscaping.
Mr. Lyles stated you need to tell them why you listed three bidders and
show them as non-responsive.
Mr. Baldis stated there were two bidders who provided a lower cost. MPM did not provide a list of similar
contracts for the size and nature of Parkland Isles and there were line items on
the bid form not filled out.
Landscaping Service Professionals did not have a sub-contractor list or
similar contract. The largest
contract they have is $42,000. They
are a large company, but they are more of an installation company rather than a
maintenance company. They are just
starting out with the maintenance division. They presently have five employees and
two mowers.
Mr. Lyles stated the recommendation for Valley Crest Landscaping is
because they are the low responsive and responsible bidder. You have the other bids shown on your
tabulation sheet. After the
explanation from Mr. Baldis they are clearly
non-responsive.
Mr. Lauritzen stated their bid is higher than five of the others. Can you find the discrepancy? The others seemed closer than this low
bid.
Mr. Baldis stated two years prior to this, Valley Crest was the company
taking care of the berm. The
residents were satisfied. This
number is slightly higher than what they were charging at the
time.
Mr. Lauritzen asked is this an NSID charge?
Mr. Baldis responded this is through the District.
Mr. Lyles stated this is for maintenance of District owned
property.
Mr. Lauritzen asked what are your thoughts?
Mr. Goscicki responded the fact they have a proven history gives us
comfort they know the project and have done the project successfully. They have provided good service in the
past. We are comfortable
recommending this award.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor the maintenance of the berm contract for Parkland
Isles was awarded to Valley Crest Landscaping.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Acceptance of Easements
A.
Drainage and Maintenance Easement for C-2 Canal
B. Temporary Access
Easement
Mr. Lyles stated these are straightforward and standard grants of
easements from WCI to the District for canal purposes. I reviewed them after they were
submitted in final form by the developer.
They are in order as well as in the usual form we are used to
seeing. Unless there are any
specific questions or concerns, they are ready for you to motion to accept the
grant of easements set forth in your agenda package.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor the drainage and maintenance easement for C-2 canal
and temporary access easement were approved.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Work Authorizations
A. Revised WA #146 Heron
Bay North – Plat 3 – Drainageways (29 AC)
B. Revised
WA #147 Lift Station #36
C. Revised
WA #148 Pine Island Road Extension – 2005
D. WA #150
Pine Island Road Extension – P& D for Engineering
Services
Ms. Early stated
items A, B and C were on the agenda last month and there were typos. They have the same prices, but the
language is different for the job description. I split #150 with #148. A portion of it was P& D design and
a portion of it is water and sewer.
I wanted them back on the agenda because I fixed the typos. Item D is part of #148. We broke it out so it is separate for
water and sewer.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor revised Work Authorizations #146, #147 and #148 and
Work Authorization #150 were approved.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Documents Related to Series 2005 Bond
Issues
A. Presentation on 2005
Capital Infrastructure Bonds
Ms. Mossing stated we are proposing bonds for five different areas:
Supplement 3 Area, Parkland Golf and Country Club Assessment Area A, Heron Bay
North Area, Parkland Golf and Country Club Plat and Parkland Village. I would like to point out the original
boundaries of the District in the supplement map. Land has been annexed to the District
over the years.
For Supplement No. 3 we will issue bonds to refund existing water
management bonds for present value interest savings. We have the Parkland Golf and Country
Club Assessment Area A located in the northeast portion of the plat. It is not within the supplement of the
water management bonds. We are
asking to create Assessment Area A.
Only the residents in this area will pay the bonds.
The Heron Bay North assessment area is located on the northwest corner of
the map. All of the residents
living in Heron Bay North will be benefiting from the water management system;
we are also proposing another layer of assessments.
In regard to the Parkland Golf and Country Club Plat, we are asking you
to create an assessment area for the purposes of issuing additional special
assessments. For the Parkland
Village area we will create an assessment area and issue bonds to finance
assessable improvements for Parkland Village.
Each of the supplement areas coincide with annexations of property into
NSID. They are used to design water
management plans.
We validated bonds in the amount of $10,880,000 for Supplement No. 3
area. We issued Series 1994 B Bonds
in the amount of $3,510,000 at a rate of 8.3%. The balance remaining of un-issued debt
is $7,370,000.
We propose issuing refunding bonds to refund the balance of $3,040,000
Series 1994 B Bonds. Refunding
these bonds will create annual savings of approximately 15%. The projected par amount is
$3,230,000. The estimated new rate
is 5.75%.
We propose issuing the remaining balance of validated debt in the amount
of $7,370,000. This will provide
proceeds of approximately $5.9 Million for construction and water management
improvements.
Mr. Lauritzen asked do you have the projected
amount?
Ms. Mossing responded we have 1,173 assessable units. Parkland Village plat will be recorded
next year. It will take three to
four years to build out Supplement No. 3.
The annual assessment per unit will be $515. There are currently 373
units.
We propose issuing water management bonds to construct the Parkland Golf
and Country Club Assessment Area A water management system. The total construction and acquisition
costs are estimated to be approximately $5 Million. The par amount is estimated at
$3,655,000. The bonds will be
financed over 20 years with an interest rate of 6%.
The Heron Bay North improvements will consist of the water management
system infrastructure, Nob Hill Road, Pine Island Road, Trails End Road and
County Line Road. We are proposing
to issue special assessment bonds to construct the Heron Bay North water
management system and roadway improvements. The total costs are estimated at
approximately $6.5 Million. The
Series A par amount is estimated to be $5,965,000. There is a total of 800 assessable
units. The bonds will be financed
over 20 years at a 6% interest rate.
The projected annual assessments per unit are from $400 for Phase 1 to
$1,000 for Phase 2. The par amount
for the Series B Bonds is estimated at $1,915,000. They are due to be prepaid prior to the
closing of property. A completion
agreement with the developer will cover any cost overruns.
The Parkland Golf and County Club assessment area will have an additional
water management system. It will
cover Nob Hill Road, Pine Island Road, Trails End Road and County Line
Road. It will not include any
commercial area. The bonds will
fund approximately $23.3 Million.
The par amount of the long-term bonds is projected to be
$20,205,000. There is a projected
amount of 820 assessable units. The
long-term assessments will range between $500 and $5,000 per unit. The debt is to be amortized over 20
years at a rate of 6%. The par
amount of the short-term bonds will be $7,220,000. The short-term assessments are due to be
prepaid prior to the transfer of property and a completion agreement with the
developer will cover any cost overruns.
The total costs for the Parkland Village assessment area are estimated to
be $5.8 Million. The par amount is
estimated to be $7,660,000. There
are 302 projected assessable units.
The annual assessment per unit will be between $1,605 and $3,210. The bonds will be financed over 20 years
at an interest rate of 6%.
The schedule for issuing special assessment bonds begins in August, 2005
with the preparation of the Engineer’s report and the appropriation of costs to
benefiting property as well as our presentation to the Board. We have a great deal of people here
today. We looked at different
scenarios in order to keep the assessment levels down. In September we will hold public
hearings to finalize assessments.
In October we will have the bond validation hearing and there will be a
30 day appeal period. We will then
market and sell the bonds. We will
close at the end of the 30 day appeal period.
Mr. Lauritzen asked can we hear your comments?
Mr. Moyer responded water management bonds go back to the early
1900’s. Most of the state was
developed through drainage bonds.
The process was to go to court where they would appoint a commissioner to
the water management system to make a determination of the costs and the way the
costs were to be allocated. All of
that has been previously done for you.
Those are what we refer to as water management bonds. Every year the Board goes through the
process of allocating the principle and interest of those bonds based upon a
unit approach. That is what your
Supplement No. 3 area water management bonds represent.
In regard to special assessment bonds we identify a methodology to
allocate the cost of the improvements to the properties that are specifically
benefited by the infrastructure we build for each parcel of land within the
assessment area. That is the
process you will follow here for the next 60 days when you have a public
hearing. It is all driven by
engineering formulas. If you keep
it simple it might help you until you get into the process and then you will
pick up on the nuances of the types of bonds and the types of revenues generated
as well as the support for the bond.
Mr. Lyles stated there is a team of experienced and qualified
professionals who have been working on some aspects of this for over two
years. You had the process
outlined. Ms. Ganz, who is bond
counsel, is going to take you through specific actions you will be required to
approve today. Today is the start
of the process. We are not having a
public hearing today and we are not here to take any formal action regarding
levying assessments. You are
authorizing staff and your consultants to go forward with the process by
notifying the public by mail as well as publication in a newspaper of general
circulation of the upcoming processes and public hearings you will have. That will be when you hear comments from
property owners or anyone interested in this matter. This is just a matter of explaining the
overall process to the Board and walking through specific actions you need to
take if you are in agreement and you would like the process to go forward. You will have this in front of you a
couple more times for formal actions after public hearings and after documents
are presented to you.
Ms. Mossing stated all of these assessment levels were disclosed when the
properties were sold.
Mr. Udine asked are you going to start the public hearing notices with
Parkland Village?
Ms. Mossing responded there is only one landowner in Parkland
Village.
Mr. Udine asked can we post the meeting in the
website?
Mr. Goscicki responded when we send the public notice to the newspaper we
will put it in the website.
B. Consideration of
Agreements and Engagement Letters
Mr. Lyles stated
the next section of this plan is to have the Board consider the engagement
letters by the several professionals present today.
i.
Investment Banking Agreement with Prager,
Sealy & Co., LLC
Mr. Lyles stated the proposal for Prager, Sealy & Co., LLC is an
Investment Banking Agreement. They
have a representative to answer any questions. It is a standard form of Investment
Banking Agreement for the services they are going to provide to the
District. They only get paid when
the bonds are successfully validated and closed. Their fee is not to exceed 1.5% of the
par amount of the bonds.
Mr. Lauritzen asked is it a reasonable fee?
Mr. Lyles responded compared to a number of transactions I have been
involved in it is well within the range of reasonable.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the Investment Banking Agreement with Prager,
Sealy & Co., LLC was approved.
ii.Wachovia Fee Schedule for Bond
Issues
Mr. Lyles stated
Wachovia is one of the primary banks serving as trustees for bond issues for
public agencies. They do this all
over the State of Florida on a regular basis. They have a special division within the
bank to form trustee services. They
do not have a representative present today, but they have a proposal. It is within the normal range of
proposals for bond issues such as this one. The fees are somewhat modest, but they
are essential. You have to select a
trustee. With the validation
proceedings, we will have the court approve the trustee. By recommendation of the entire team as
well as staff you authorize utilizing Wachovia Bank, NA as the trustee for the
bond issues described to you and to serve as escrow agent in connection with the
bonds.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor Wachovia Bank, NA as trustee for the escrow and fee
schedule of the bond issues was approved.
iii.
Engagement Letters with Ruden
McClosky
a.
Water Management Refunding Bonds, Series
2005A and Water Management Bonds, Series 2005B
b.
Special Assessment Bonds (Parkland
Village Assessment Area)
c.
Special Assessment Bonds (Parkland Golf
and Country Club Assessment Area)
d.
Special Assessment Bonds (Parkland Golf
and Country Club Assessment Area A)
e.
Special Assessment Bonds (Heron Bay North
Assessment Area)
Mr. Lyles stated Ruden McClosky has been previously engaged by this Board
and approved to serve as Bond Counsel on some of these issues and other issues
as well. A series of separate
engagement letters have been assembled in the agenda packages. All of the letters are directed to the
individual issues outlined by Ms. Mossing.
Ms. Ganz is here from Ruden McClosky. While bond counsel fees are significant,
these are within the range of what is fair.
Mr. Udine asked do all of the bond areas have to be sold
together?
Ms. Mossing responded they will be marketed together, but they are all
separate.
Mr. Udine stated you should approve the Parkland Village one as quickly
as possible. Because it has been
six months, hold off on the Heron Bay one and approve everything else. There are some reports we have not had
for six months.
Mr. Moyer stated all of these are process driven. Whatever issues we have on Heron Bay
Commons can be addressed during this process.
Mr. Udine stated you should have the issue resolved before moving
forward.
Mr. Moyer stated the security for the bond is what is placed on top of
the land. That is what this Board
and the bondholders have to look at.
If there is an issue with Heron Bay Commons, it is not tied to these bond
issues.
Mr. Lauritzen stated there has been a year and a half to two years of
work in the making for all of this to happen. It has nothing to do with the issue at
Heron Bay.
Mr. Udine stated this is your way to get the issue resolved in thirty
days. What if the issue cannot be
resolved. It is not anything out of
the blue. WCI built a good
project. They are doing an
excellent job, the houses will be beautiful, the city is going to make tax
revenues and NSID is going to make tax revenues. Why can we not get this issue worth less
than $100,000 resolved and move on.
This is your chance. You are
the trustee of our dollars.
Mr. Lauritzen stated I understand.
There are many variables in play here and we have to take one variable at
a time. Right now we are speaking
of this bond issue. I would like to
concentrate on that.
Mr. Udine stated when Mr. Keller brought this up in April you said you
wanted to see the reports. He said
it was going to be done in 45 days.
I do not know if they are done or not.
Mr. Lauritzen stated that is a whole separate issue. We will get to it.
Mr. Lyles stated we are not authorizing the bonds to be issued or sold
today. All we are authorizing today
is to do a newspaper advertisement for a public hearing. It is not appropriate for the Board to
decide to vote on something today.
They need to do it after they hear from interested parties at the public
hearing. The time to bring up these
concerns and issues is at the September 1, 2005 public hearing.
Mr. Udine stated I agree with you, but the public hearing can get crazy
with things like that. This is a
nothing issue. Why can we not get
this issue resolved? There have
been two District Managers.
Mr. Lauritzen stated that is part of the problem and we are trying to
work with you. In the last four
months we have gone through two managers.
It is not something that is fine to put on the back burner, but we have a
great deal of business to attend to.
We are not trying to hide from it.
We will fully disclose it.
Mr. Udine stated you have been very open, but it should be something
relatively inexpensive and easy to finish.
Mr. Lauritzen stated we are doing the best we can.
Mr. Goscicki stated I will be handing out the findings from the
management audit Severn Trent performed during the Manager’s
Report.
Mr. Lauritzen asked are there any other questions in regard to the
engagement letters from Ruden McClosky?
Mr. Hollander responded I am still waiting for documents from this guy
you want to loan money to. I have
been waiting for these public documents for nine months.
Mr. Lauritzen stated we will address this issue at the end of the
meeting. Do you have any comments
to make on the engagement letters from Ruden McClosky?
Mr. Hollander asked are you going to make the document you spoke about
public?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes.
As soon as it goes to the Board it becomes a public document.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the four engagement letters with Ruden McClosky
as presented were approved.
C.
Consideration of Resolutions and Engineer’s
Reports
i.
Engineer’s Report for Supplement No. 3
Water Management Plan Improvements
Ms. Mossing stated we have written an engineer’s report for each
assessment area. Part of the
process is for the Board to accept the engineer’s report in order to authorize
the infrastructure program so we can move forward with the public hearing and
financing for the program. In the
agenda we listed the engineer’s report, the resolution authorizing the issuance
of the bonds and a resolution confirming the levy of the benefited
assessments. It goes through the
engineer’s reports for the various assessment areas.
Mr. Lyles stated we are talking about significant financial undertakings
and we have separate resolutions along with the engineer’s reports. Because you just authorized the
engagement of Ruden McClosky as bond counsel, the rest of the agenda is Ms.
Ganz’s responsibility and she will walk you through it. We will do an overview of what these
resolutions provide and then we can take them up by reference to the resolution
number as well as the different parts of the community that will be improved by
these infrastructure improvements individually and have a vote on
them.
The engineer’s report for Supplement No. 3 Water Management Plan
Improvements has been submitted to the Board. You will see it again at the public
hearing and at your next series of discussions on this matter. Unless there are any questions about the
engineer’s report itself, a motion to accept the engineer’s report prepared by
the District Engineer regarding Supplement No. 3 Water Management Plan
Improvements will be in order at this time.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the engineer’s report for Supplement No. 3 Water
Management Plan Improvements was approved.
ii.
Resolution 2005-10 Authorizing Issuance
of Water Management Refunding Bonds, Series 2005A and Water Management Bonds,
Series 2005B
Ms. Ganz stated
this resolution authorizes the issuance of the water management funds Ms.
Mossing described to you. Refunding
bonds and bonds to finance the project in order to complete the water management
plan. It authorizes the issuance of
not exceeding $3.5 Million of Refunding Bonds to refund the 1994 Bonds for
present value interest cost savings for necessary reserves with the cost of
issuance and it authorizes the issuance of not exceeding $7,370,000 Million
Water Management Bonds, Series 2005B, to finance the completion of the water
management plan for any necessary reserves and pay for the cost issuance of the
bonds. This has been previously
explained and these bonds have been judicially validated.
This resolution provides for certain parameters of the bonds and it
provides specifically for the not exceeding principle amounts I described to
you. It provides the 2005A
Refunding Bonds will mature no later than the final maturity date of the bonds
being refunded and the 2005B Bonds will not mature later than the latest date
following your issuance permitted by law.
As Ms. Mossing described there is a 30 year maturity for those
bonds.
It provides for certain other informational details relating to the bonds
including a form of an Escrow Deposit Agreement which relates to the bonds to be
refunded. It appoints Wachovia
Bank, NA as escrow agent with respect to those refunding bonds. It provides for the sell of the
bonds. It provides for the bonds to
be secured by benefit taxes levied in Supplement No. 3 in accordance with the
commissioner’s report. It appoints
Wachovia Bank, NA as trustee paying agent and registrar. It provides for general authority
relating to these bonds.
We will come back to you with documents relating to the marketing of the
bonds, the disclosure document to be used and a form of a purchase contract with
Prager, Sealy & Co. setting forth further details on the parameters of the
bonds. We will be coming back to
you for final action with respect to these bonds. This gives us the ability to begin to
finalize the financing documents and prepare the marketing documents to go
forward.
Mr. Lauritzen asked would you like to articulate the motion for
us?
Mr. Lyles responded at this point we are going to take these up in
sequence with brief explanations as we go forward. A motion to adopt Resolution 2005-10
will be in order at this time.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Resolution 2005-10 Authorizing the Issuance of
Water Management Refunding Bonds, Series 2005A and Water Management Bonds,
Series 2005B was adopted.
iii.
Resolution 2005-11 Confirming Levy of
Benefit Taxes in Supplement No. 3
Ms. Ganz stated this is a simple resolution confirming the levy of the
benefit taxes imposed pursuant to a resolution adopted in 1993. The benefit taxes levied in 1993 in
accordance with the Commissioner’s report are those which will secure the bonds
being issued now to refinance the 1994 Bonds and pay for the new money
project. It is a confirming
resolution.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor Resolution 2005-11 Confirming Levy of Benefit Taxes
in Supplement No. 3 was adopted.
iv.
Master Engineer’s Report – Various
Assessment Areas
Ms. Ganz stated the next part of this agenda deals with the engineer’s
report for various assessment areas included in your package. This particular engineer’s report
describes the improvements by assessment area for what was called Parkland Golf
and Country Club Assessment Area, Parkland Golf and Country Club Assessment Area
A and the Heron Bay North Assessment Area.
This report describes in sections the various improvements necessary as
Ms. Mossing described in her presentation.
Included in the report is an apportionment of benefits to each of those
assessment areas by their specific projects.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the master engineer’s report for Parkland Golf
and Country Club Assessment Area, Parkland Golf and Country Club Assessment Area
A and the Heron Bay North Assessment Area was
approved.
v.
Resolution 2005-12 Establishing Parkland
Golf and Country Club Assessment Area, Declaring Special Assessments and Setting
a Public Hearing to Meet as an Equalizing Board to Determine Special
Assessments
vi.
Resolution 2005-13 Establishing Parkland
Golf and Country Club Assessment Area A, Declaring Special Assessments and
Setting a Public Hearing to Meet as an Equalizing Board to Determine Special
Assessments
vii.
Resolution 2005-14, Establishing Heron
Bay North Assessment Area, Declaring Special Assessments and Setting a Public
Hearing to Meet at an Equalizing Board to Determine Special
Assessments.
Ms. Ganz stated each one of these is the initial assessment resolution to
begin the proceedings necessary to get to the public hearing we have been
discussing. There will be a
separate public hearing for each of these assessment areas described in
Resolutions 2005-12, 2005-13 and 2005-14.
Resolution 2005-12 relates to the Parkland Golf and Country Club
Assessment Area, Resolution 2005-13 relates to Assessment Area A and Resolution
2005-14 relates to the Heron Bay North Assessment Area. Pursuant to each of these resolutions
you establish the reference to a legal description attached to the resolutions
for the specific assessment area.
In addition, you approve the engineer’s report attached as an exhibit to
each of these resolutions, which describes the particular projects relating to
each assessment area. It determines
the apportionment and benefit to each of those assessment areas will be in
accordance with the engineer’s report.
It calls for a date for a public hearing to be held. We were thinking of September 1, 2005,
which is a regular meeting date for you.
I prepared the notices to be published and to be mailed to the
landowners.
Mr. Lyles stated we will have to declare the place of the meeting today
in these resolutions we are discussing.
Ms. Mossing stated the Marriott is not a bad idea.
Mr. Lyles stated you will be assured of having enough room, everyone
knows where the Marriott is and there will be plenty of
parking.
Ms. Mossing stated let us ask the Board to approve the Marriott as the
first choice and the Parkland City Hall as the second choice. This way you will not have to call a new
meeting if the first choice is not available.
Mr. Lyles stated that is a good idea. The schedule is 4:30 p.m. for the budget
hearing and regular meeting of the Board.
We will start the first public hearing for the assessments for the
various bond projects at 6:00 p.m., then go 6:30 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. We are going to combine the two Parkland
Golf and Country Club hearings at the same time; although, we are going to have
two different motions at the end to approve the financing.
Ms. Ganz asked let us do 6:00 p.m. for Parkland Village, 6:15 p.m. for
the next one and what do you think should go next?
Mr. Goscicki responded the highest amount of residents is in Heron
Bay. We might want to have Parkland
Golf and Country Club next because there are fewer residents then in Heron
Bay.
Ms. Ganz stated we will do 6:00 p.m. for Parkland Village, 6:15 p.m. for
Parkland Golf and Country Club and then Heron Bay North at 6:45
p.m.
Ms. Mossing stated I will first call the Marriott. Our second option is the Parkland City
Hall. If all else fails we can meet
at Heron Bay Commons.
Mr. Lyles stated let us adopt Resolution 2005-12 as presented by the Bond
Counsel and with the location of the meeting being in the order announced, the
Marriott, Parkland City Hall or Heron Bay Commons beginning at 6:00
p.m.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Resolution 2005-12 establishing Parkland Golf and
Country Club Assessment Area, declaring special assessments and setting a public
hearing at either the Marriott, the Parkland City Hall or the Heron Bay Commons
at 6:00 p.m. on September 1, 2005 was adopted.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Resolution 2005-13 establishing Parkland Golf and
Country Club Assessment Area A, declaring special assessments and setting a
public hearing at either the Marriott, the Parkland City Hall or the Heron Bay
Commons at 6:00 p.m. on September 1, 2005 was
adopted.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor Resolution 2005-14 establishing Heron Bay North
Assessment Area , declaring special assessments and setting a public hearing at
either the Marriott, the Parkland City Hall or the Heron Bay Commons at 6:00
p.m. on September 1, 2005 was adopted.
viii.
Resolution No. 2005-15, Authorizing
Issuance of Special Assessment Bonds for Various Assessment Areas, Approving
Form of Master Trust Indenture and Authorizing
Validation
Ms. Ganz stated Resolution 2005-15 is a validation resolution. It provides for the authorization of
bonds pursuant to a master indenture attached to the resolution. The resolution provides for not
exceeding $42,100,000 of bonds. We
took the information in the engineer’s report for the three assessment areas and
sought the bond amounts the engineer determined necessary to pay for the
construction cost as well as financing cost. We grossed them up slightly for purposes
of the resolution so we can move forward with validation.
There is nothing committing you to issuing this much in bonds. It is a not exceeding amount. If there is any refinement to the
engineer’s report, we will make sure the bonds issued tailor what is needed to
put the appropriate amount in the construction funds together with the financing
cost.
Under the master indenture the District will be able to issue bonds by
assessment area. Those bonds will
be separately secured by the special assessments levied in each assessment area
for the specific project being financed.
It is a master document in the sense we can issue bonds under it. Each bond issue for each assessment area
will have its own supplemental indenture.
It will set out the terms and conditions of the bond issue. It will be separately secured. Homeowners in one assessment area will
be paying for only their project under their bond issue.
This resolution authorizes the bonds I described, it approves the form of
the master indenture attached to the resolution, it appoints Wachovia Bank, NA
as the trustee for all of the bonds issued under the master indenture and
authorizes us to go forward with the judicial validation of the bonds. It is a mechanism where we will assert
the court and the court will issue a judgement saying the District followed the
appropriate procedures to issue the bonds and to secure the bonds through the
assessments. It is a stamp of
approval from the circuit court which is important in terms of marketing the
bonds.
We want to get started on this because we have to get a hearing
date. Once we go to court and get
the validation judgement, there will be a 30 day period in which an appeal can
be made. The bonds cannot be sold
until the 30 day appeal period expires.
It provides for the negotiated sale of the bonds to Prager, Sealy &
Company and it provides general authority.
This is the first step in getting the bonds issued. We will have to come back to you again
for the water management bonds, with specific documents relating to the
marketing of the bonds and the sale of the bonds as well as the details pursuant
to which those bonds will be sold to Prager, Sealy &
Company.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Resolution 2005-15 authorizing issuance of
special assessment bonds for various assessment areas, approving form of master
trust indenture and authorizing validation was
adopted.
ix.
Engineer’s Report – Parkland
Village
Mr. Lyles stated this is the third of the three engineer’s reports we
have been discussing. This is
specifically targeted to the improvements identified by the engineer as
necessary for the District to undertake to benefit the property within Parkland
Village.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor the engineer’s report for Parkland Village was
approved.
x.
Resolution 2005-16, Establishing Parkland
Village Assessment Area, Declaring Special Assessments and Setting a Public
Hearing to Meet as an Equalizing Board to Determine Special
Assessments
Ms. Ganz stated this is an initial assessment resolution for the Parkland
Village assessment area. It creates
an assessment area by reference to a legal description attached to the
resolution. It approves the
engineer’s report and appropriates it by reference. It contains an apportionment benefit in
the engineer’s report to the property and the assessment area. It determines the lots and parcels in
the Parkland Village assessment area to receive benefits in accordance with the
engineer’s report. It calls for a
public hearing date to be set. We
determined the date to be September 1, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. in the Marriott as your
first choice. It provides for
publication of the notice of the public hearing and mailing to the affected
landowners.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor Resolution 2005-16, establishing Parkland Village
assessment area, declaring special assessments and setting a public hearing at
either the Marriott, the Parkland City Hall or the Heron Bay Commons at 6:00
p.m. on September 1, 2005 was adopted.
xi.
Resolution 2005-17, Authorizing Issuance
of Special Assessment Bonds for Parkland Village Assessment Area, Approving Form
of Master Indenture and Authorizing Bond Validation
Ms. Ganz stated this is a Bond Resolution relating to the Parkland
Village assessment area. It
authorizes the issuance not exceeding $7,660,000 of special assessment
bonds. It is consistent with the
engineer’s report you approved and is pursuant to a master indenture attached to
the resolution. The bonds will be
issued pursuant to a supplemental indenture that will further set forth the
details of the bonds. It approves
Wachovia Bank, NA as trustee for the bonds and it authorizes the judicial
validation of the bonds. It
provides for the negotiated sale of the bonds to Prager, Sealy & Company and
provides general authority to your staff.
You will be presented again with the opportunity to approve the specific
details of the sale of the bonds as well as the marketing documents relating to
those bonds.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor Resolution 2005-17, authorizing issuance of special
assessment bonds for Parkland Village assessment area, approving form of master
indenture and authorizing bond validation was
adopted.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Staff Reports
A.
Attorney
Mr. Lyles stated at the beginning of this meeting you adopted Resolution
2005-9, rescheduling the budget hearing to September 1, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. at
this location. Because we settled
on the meeting taking place at the Marriott beginning at 4:30 p.m. we need to
make a motion to reconsider Resolution 2005-9.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Resolution 2005-9, rescheduling the public
hearings for the general fund budget and water and sewer enterprise fund budget
was reconsidered.
Mr. Lyles stated the resolution is back before you. Given the fact you have scheduled the
public hearing on these bond matters to take place at another location and
another time, you might want to modify the time and place set forth in
Resolution 2005-9 to 4:30 p.m. at the Marriott. If we cannot have it at the Marriott we
will publish the notice and amend this resolution at the
meeting.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Resolution 2005-9, rescheduling the public
hearings for the general fund budget and water and sewer enterprise fund budget
to September 1, 2005 at 4:30 p.m. at the Marriott Hotel in Parkland, Florida was
adopted as amended.
B.
Engineer
There being no
report, the next item followed.
C. Manager – Discussion
of General Fund and Waste and Sewer Fund Budgets
Mr. Goscicki stated I would like to handout the report Severn Trent
commissioned from Rachlin and Cohen.
This is the operations audit.
Based on the issues raised by the public and the Board, Severn Trent
undertook an operational audit to look at the practices between NSID and the
Heron Bay Association, WCI, to see how the financial transactions were
operating. We brought in the firm
of Rachlin and Cohen to conduct it.
This was not a financial audit.
It was a procedural audit for the processes, procedures and what were the
current practices in place and historically in place in terms of governing this
operation.
The findings start on Section B of the report. They list findings and
recommendations. The findings are
encouraging. They are the type of
good news/ bad news things you find in most audits. The primary finding the Board should
focus on first is item G on the third page. “Our un-audited review found no evidence
of any willful wrong doing; attempt to circumvent established procedures or loss
of funds.” It is important for the
public to hear this and understand that the review done by this independent
agency did not find any wrongdoing.
They did find a lack of process and standard operating procedures. There has been change over in the Board
and staff over the years. As a
result the procedures and processes set up and understood by individuals were
either lost, modified or changed over the years. You have a process which is not well
documented in terms of how things get done.
The recommendation is for the Board to have Rachlin and Cohen establish
standard operating procedures. I
recommend for the Board to look at this.
We will bring this back as a discussion item on next month’s agenda. At that time we will see if it is the
Board’s pleasure to move forward with an authorization for Rachlin and Cohen to
proceed to phase two of this work.
The only other item is if the Board has any comments with regard to the
budget, this is the time for us to receive comments. If you do not have any comments at this
time, you can contact us individually with any concerns you have. We will deal with them one on one with
you and get them incorporated into the final budget for adoption on September 1,
2005.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS
Supervisor’s Requests and Audience Comments
Mr. Udine asked are members of the public allowed to call Mr. Morera to
ask him a question in regard to this.
Mr. Lyles responded because Severn Trent commissioned this audit
privately, they are going to have to clear any communication for which they will
receive a bill.
Mr. Udine asked can I ask them whatever I want if I ask them to bill
me?
Mr. Goscicki responded Rachlin and Cohen is working as a contractor for
Severn Trent. They do not have any
obligations and we will put them in an uncomfortable position to be
responding. If you have comments, I
recommend you bring them to the Board.
If the Board wants further explanation on the issues, they will bring
them back to us and we will have them exposed. We need to keep any conversations going
through the Board. This is a report
we prepared for the Board. If the
Board wants to further explore it, we are happy to do so. You can contact the Board through me, as
the manager, and we can bring it up for discussion with the Board at the next
meeting.
TENTH 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.
Mr. Goscicki stated our current process on requisitions for construction
contracts is they are reviewed and approved by the engineer. They are then sent to me for further
authorization, the accounting staff and then to the developer. We have a number of steps. I propose on an issue where the
District’s engineer has certified the acceptability of those payments, there is
no need to run it back to the District Manager.
Mr. Moyer stated it has to be signed by an authorized officer of the
Board in addition to the engineer.
It is part of the bond.
Mr. Goscicki stated I would not want to inconvenience a Board Member
unnecessarily, never mind.
ELEVENTH 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 at 5:54 p.m.
Salvatore J. Mendolia
Matt
Lauritzen
Secretary
President