MINUTES OF MEETING

NORTH SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

 

            The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the North Springs Improvement District was held on Thursday, August 4, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. at the District Offices, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.

 

            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.

 

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS                               Roll Call

            Mr. Lauritzen called the meeting to order and called the roll. 

 

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS                          Approval of the Minutes of the 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