MINUTES
OF MEETING
PINE
TREE WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
The
regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Pine Tree Water Control
District was held on
Present and constituting a quorum were:
David Rosenof President
Margaret Bertolami Vice
President
Paul Brewer Secretary
Donna Benckenstein Assistant
Secretary
Mimi Bright Ribotsky Assistant
Secretary
Also present were:
John Petty Manager
D.J. Doody Attorney
Warren Craven Engineer
John McKune CH2M Hill
Jean M. Rugg
Janice Larned
Darryl Kisson
John Hart Wrathell,
Hart, Hunt & Associates
Madonna Dellolio Wrathell,
Hart, Hunt & Associates
Michael Szymonowicz Wrathell,
Hart, Hunt & Associates
Irving Rosenbaum New
Community Strategies
Robert T. Mearns New
Community Strategies
Dennis Baldis Governmental
Management Services
Richard Hans Governmental
Management Services
Luis Hernandez Governmental
Management Services
Neil Kalin Special
District Services
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr.
Rosenof Called the meeting to order and Mr. Petty called the roll.
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the May 4, 2006 Meeting
Mr.
Rosenof stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the May 4,
2006 Meeting and requested any corrections, additions or deletions.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated my name is spelled wrong on the first line of page six. In the last paragraph of page 24,
“Turnbridge” is spelled “Ternbridge” and “Woodier Oaks” should be “Whittier
Oaks”.
On MOTION by Ms. Ribotsky seconded by Ms. Bertolami with all
in favor the minutes of the
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Questions
and Comments on Proposed Budget
Mr.
Petty stated at the last meeting we gave you a proposed budget for discussion
and dissemination purposes. It is
standard policy for us to put it on the next agenda to discuss if any Board members
wish to make changes or get further information on a line item.
Mr.
Rosenof asked does anyone have any questions or comments about the budget? When we talk about the actual through a
certain amount that includes items of which we have cost recovery, I do not
want to overstate our budget if we have been reimbursed for some of the costs.
Mr.
Petty stated no sir. It would have shown
up as a revenue source in the budget.
Mr.
Rosenof stated the total projected for the attorney fee is $10,000. If $5,000 of it was cost recovery, would it
show under other revenue?
Mr.
Petty responded no sir. If it was under
cost recovery, it would not be part of this budget. It would be part of the authorization for the
attorney to enter into such agreements during the year.
Mr.
Rosenof asked did the actual through
Mr.
Petty responded not from the explanation you gave.
Mr.
Rosenof asked are you looking for a motion?
Mr.
Petty responded no sir. It is for
discussion purposes only.
FOURTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney’s
Report – Status on Title Work
Mr. Doody stated the issue has been resolved to great
degree. Mr. Craven provided me direction
with respect to the title work. It
appears the only entity we will need to deal with regarding the canal is
Ms.
Ribotsky asked did we find any other potential areas?
Mr.
Craven responded no.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked do you think this is our only property?
Mr.
Craven responded no. I did not look.
Mr.
Doody stated we isolated this canal to
Mr.
Craven stated there are only two major areas of concern as it affects the
drainage. It is the canal on the north
side of the Sawgrass Expressway and the canal we are currently addressing. If they were filled in or closed up, we would
have a problem draining everything. We
have other areas where there are questionable right-of-ways and easements, but
they are limited to local areas which do not have a major impact on the
District.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked will we never end up in an NRCS title issue where we will miss
out on potential funding for clearing them?
Mr.
Craven responded this will be a policy decision upon the part of the
Board. We have a number of areas where
we have flowage rights coming through where by we drain water to another
subdivision and ultimately to our outfall.
Those lakes, water bodies or whatever you want to call them, are owned
by the HOAs. I am not addressing those
situations. You need to look at this.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated if another storm happens and we have to apply for things, the
first thing we will do is a title search.
If we did a title search and it shows joint ownership, do we know if we
can do a joint application? Rather than
go through the quitclaim deed process, will it be okay to do an application in
conjunction with
Mr.
Petty stated the intent is to work on major drainage canals, which Mr. Craven
has talked about. There are secondary
issues we are not addressing at the moment.
We are going after the principal issues, the issues we are most
concerned with, which were raised during the NRCS application process problems
we discussed at the last meeting. You
will be continuing to look at proper title and ownership, not only for NRCS,
but for any practical application of government funds and maintenance thereof.
This
is something we needed to do all along.
We are on the right track. We
have a good start. I do not know if we
covered every possible nuance of a hurricane hitting next year, but if we can get
ownership for the primary corridors, we are covering the vast majority of costs
involved with a hurricane event.
Mr.
Craven stated it was discussed in the December meeting and you gave me
direction to look at all of the right-of-ways.
I am willing to do this, but they are not pressing at the moment. We have a different fire to put out. It does not take long to determine where we
have problems. The resolution to the
problems may take little time.
Mr.
Rosenof stated you attack the easiest ones first to get them out of the way.
Mr.
Craven stated after we get past this initial phase.
Mr.
Doody stated to address Ms. Ribotsky’s concern, it is a valid point. Historically, the ownership or title to the
canals has never been an issue of concern.
No one ever exercised any control or maintenance other than the
District. The issue arose when I had to
certify to it on a legal basis. We are
turning it up a notch for lack of a better term. It was never done with formality. We are formalizing what was done. We have gone a long way towards formalizing
the main system. It is a correction of
historic practices we are trying to address.
Mr.
Petty asked can you give me a time estimate of the process?
Mr.
Doody responded 60 to 90 days. I will be
working with the Deputy County Attorney next week. I have a professional relationship with
her. I anticipate there will be a level
of cooperation, but I believe the county commission is off for July. They are in recess; therefore we anticipate
getting on the agenda for August or September.
Mr.
Petty stated the reason I asked such a question is because Mr. McKune from CH2M
Hill, who has been doing a great deal of work for the hurricane clean up, has
developed a good relationship with NRCS.
He was able to get NRCS to put us on the list of approved projects if we
can get the contract signed.
Mr.
Doody stated call me next week after I speak to Ms. Azcoitia and I will give
you an accurate representation.
Mr.
Petty stated I do not want to get the Board’s hopes up because I believe it is
a small window. We thought the window
was closed. They opened it after Mr.
McKune basically stayed out on their porch for a night. It is a possibility if we can get title in
the window they will allow. NRCS is not
going to give us a big window. If we can
sign it within a time frame, we might be able to get some money back.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked are you saying it needs a county commission vote?
Mr.
Doody responded I believe so.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I imagine the way they will do it is by passing a resolution
supporting the deed. Given the amount of
funding we can get, can we request they pass the resolution contingent upon
something? We have done it before in the
city commission.
Mr.
Doody stated I will try.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated when there is a time pending and we tell them the amount of
dollars at risk, we can ask them to pass the resolution saying they will
authorize the deed contingent upon whatever.
This way we can capture it during June.
Mr.
Doody stated I will call tomorrow.
Mr.
Petty asked since you are asking for a political resolution from the county, is
it preferable to contact the City of
Ms.
Ribotsky responded yes. We can pass an
independent resolution to this affect.
Mr.
Doody stated let me work with you in this regard and you can reach out at that
point once I ask the question downtown.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated the City of
Mr.
Doody stated it is a statutory process.
It is not political so I am not sure if it will have any bearing on
it. I will make the inquiry.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer’s Report
There being no report, the next item
followed.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Award of Contract for Canal Clean Up
Mr.
Petty stated we asked our engineers to put this out to bid so if you wished to
consider this construction project and clean up at tonight’s meeting you would
have the pertinent information. Mr.
McKune has put it out to bid. We have a
summary of the bid. The bid is being
contested. At this time I will turn it
over to Mr. McKune to explain who the apparent low bidder is, the amount and
talk about his conversations with the contractor who submitted the concern with
the bid process.
I
will give you my opinion on it and I will defer to counsel. We have not adopted formal rules for this
process, which leaves it up to staff to do the review of anyone’s complaint on
a bid process. We asked the engineer who
prepared the bid specifications to look at the claim, talk to the person who
filed it, see if there is any merit to it and report at tonight’s meeting.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it is a big spread.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated we had one of these on the city commission. The reason for the big spread we had was
interesting. We had six bids come
in. They were all between $1.2 Million
and $1.5 Million. One came in at
$800,000. It turned out the reason was
because the applicant owned a landfill near where the work was being done. There may be a reason for this being lower.
Mr.
Petty stated Mr. McKune is familiar with most of the contractors capable of
doing this work. He has two contracts
currently in the $6 Million range of this type of work in the City of
Mr.
Craven asked who is filing the complaint?
Mr.
McKune responded Arbor Tree and Land Company.
Whether or not they have a basis will be up to Mr. Doody and Arbor Tree
and Land Company’s attorney.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked what is their basis for the complaint?
Mr.
McKune responded they are saying the low bidder did not strictly and literally
adhere to the requirements and specifications.
They list things such as not having a copy of the general contractor’s
license in the bid package. They have a
general contractor. They have a
license. It was not in the package. We are getting to the point where if you want
to do a strict, literal, interpretation you will have one answer, which will be
his attorney’s answer. In my opinion, it
is an informality.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated when you say one thing, like a general contractor’s license, I
would look at it aside. If there were
six “one things” I would say they have a substantial complaint. How many are there and what are they?
Mr.
Petty responded what we asked the engineer to review and opine on tonight is if
this is a material or non material deviation submitted by the low bidder. We can talk around it all we want about the
quantity and etcetera, but we need to ask the engineer if it is material or non
material.
Mr.
McKune stated in my opinion, everything in his complaint is non material. There is one item, which is questionable to
the Board. Did the main items require
the work be able to be done from the waterways because of the locations and the
rights-of way? They have done waterway
work. They have not done it to this
great of an extent from a barge with big equipment on the barge.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I view it as material.
Mr.
McKune stated I understand, but they have worked from the water and they are
prepared to plead their case with their experience.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is there a requirement for a payment and performance bond?
Mr.
McKune responded yes.
Mr.
Rosenof stated then I do not care if they have experience or not.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked do you have a copy of this complaint?
Mr.
McKune responded yes.
Ms.
Ribotsky asked does it list the reasons on it?
Mr.
McKune responded yes.
Mr.
Rosenof stated if the surety is willing to post a bond so they can do what they
say they are going to do, we are being subjective to say they cannot.
Mr.
Petty stated I agree. This is why we
asked for the performance criteria and this is why the engineer’s first
reaction is to say these are non material deviations. We need to ask counsel if he sees any
exposure for this Board since we do not have adopted rules for handling this
type of complaint. It falls to general
practices.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I am looking at the spreadsheet.
Somebody wants six months and somebody wants two months. Is there a reason why he is taking so long to
do it?
Mr.
McKune responded it is the total amount of time, which will be allowed by
NRCS. He thinks he can get the job done
within 90 days.
Mr.
Rosenof asked are there liquidated damages or anything you know of?
Mr.
McKune responded yes.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what are the liquidated damages?
Mr.
McKune responded I believe this one is $1,000 per day.
Mr.
Petty stated they are considerable. This
specification mirrors SWCD, which is a $3 Million plus contract currently
ongoing and the CSID contract, which is $1.8 Million and is 90% complete. These specifications were done under pressure
after the hurricane in cooperation with NRCS and FEMA by Mr. McKune. They are considered to be the best
specifications out there for this type of work.
Mr.
Craven asked did the low bidder bid on any other projects?
Mr.
McKune responded yes. He was the low
bidder on another job in
Mr.
Doody responded this is the first I heard of this. I have not seen any documents. I am not aware of any complaints. I can tell you the Florida Case Law
recognizes a major versus a minor deviation.
With all due respect to the Board I am not prepared to give you any
direction on this.
Mr.
Petty stated this matter happened yesterday and we were not able to bring it to
his attention. We were able to bring the
conclusion of the discussions with the contractor from today’s conversation.
Mr.
Rosenof asked how long are the bids good for?
Mr.
McKune responded 90 days.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I would like counsel to review the complaint. I would hate to wait another month, but I do
not want to put the Board and homeowners in jeopardy should any of these
complaints turn out to be material. It
is prudent to ask for counsel’s review and to bring it up at next month’s
meeting. Does anyone have any questions
or comments?
Ms.
Ribotsky responded I request we get a copy of the complaint.
Ms.
Bertolami asked is there any other procedure such as a telephone conference
call, which will bring us closer to two weeks rather than a month?
Mr.
Petty responded we can call a special meeting.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I would rather have that.
Mr.
Rosenof asked how long will it take you to review this?
Mr.
Doody responded if I can get it tomorrow and review it over the weekend, I will
be prepared to go next week.
Mr.
Rosenof stated with my experience in these matters, his complaint will probably
have technical issues with it as well.
Mr.
Doody stated he is arguing the low bidder did not comply with the terms of the
bid. I have to determine if it is a
major or minor deviation on part of the District. I am not coming to a predetermined opinion at
this point.
Mr.
Rosenof asked let us see if we can ask the manager to convene a special meeting
as soon as possible after Mr. Doody’s review.
Do you need a motion to table it?
Mr.
Doody responded yes sir.
On MOTION by Ms. Bertolami seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with
all in favor consideration of award of contract for canal clean up was tabled
until Mr. Doody can present the Board with direction on the complaint made by
Arbor Tree & Land, Inc. at a special meeting.
Mr.
Rosenof stated this item was tabled. Do
we need to do it to a certain date?
Mr.
Petty responded no sir. We are not
continuing the meeting. You asked for a
special meeting.
The
record will reflect Mr. Brewer joined the meeting.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s Requests
There
not being any, the next item followed.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Audience Comments
There
not being any, the next item followed.
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of
Financials and Invoices
Mr. Rosenof asked are there any questions or comments on the
invoices?
There
not being any,
On MOTION by Ms. Benckenstein seconded by Ms. Bertolami with
all in favor the financials and invoices were approved.
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Presentations
of Proposals for Management Services
Mr. Doody asked are there any questions I
can go over before you recess?
Mr.
Rosenof responded let us talk about procedural issues. Remind us again on the timing. How long do they have to do the presentations?
Mr.
Doody responded they can have a presentation of up to 20 minutes. They then have 10 minutes for questions or
comments. You allocated 30 minutes for
each presenter.
Mr.
Rosenof asked how many presenters do we have this evening?
Mr.
Doody responded we have five. Other than
this, I have no comments. One entity
contacted me to confirm. I believe they
are at
Mr.
Rosenof asked if we take notes, are they public record?
Mr.
Doody responded yes.
Mr.
Petty stated this is off the subject, but there are extra people in the
audience.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I did notice.
Mr.
Petty stated this is Ms. Larned, our Treasury Director for Severn Trent. Behind her is Mr. Kisson, a financial advisor. I brought them here in the case you did award
contract, we arranged for a financing instrument to fund such a construction
project. Unless you want to talk to them
tonight, I will bring them to the next meeting. The secretary will stay for the record to take
notes. My intention is to leave during
the other presentations.
On MOTION by Mr. Rosenof seconded by Ms. Bertolami with all
in favor the meeting recessed at
The recessed meeting reconvened at
The first presentation is from Wrathell,
Hart, Hunt and Associates.
Mr.
Hart stated we became who we are in January of 2005 because we recognized the
dynamics in the industry had a great deal of upheaval taking place with such
consistency of performance in so many years, but some things changed. We also recognized the existing number of
Districts within the State of
The
second thing we analyzed for over a six month period of time was the model of
service delivery, which had been existing for a long time. We found one of the things being brought up
most of the time was dissatisfaction of service and not feeling completely
serviced. When someone was hiring the
outside manager, there was a need for there to be confidence, personal
relationship and the feeling you were getting the first and foremost
attention. You did not always have to
wait until there was a crisis before you heard from them. We found we needed to be a company dedicated
to being proactive and more suggestive in how you should be managing the
District or to improve the management of the District.
We
found this is the best definition of a true service oriented business and
therefore, we needed to understand what kind of people we wanted to bring
together who were going to be interacting with people like you. I want to go to Mr. Wrathell because he was
with Severn Trent for six or seven years.
He was tutored by the gentleman who was the father of this industry, Mr.
Moyer. He grew up through the process
and has a tremendous background in the industry. He has managed over 50 Districts in the State
of
My
background is varied. I had 25 years
with Meryl Lynch. I ran two major
engineering firms. I ran Keith &
Schnars for approximately five and a half years as operating partner. I have approximately 20 years worth of
concurred public service, as a municipal elected official, a mayor for three
terms and serving in the county commission for a couple of terms. More importantly than all of this blended
together, it provided me with an understanding as to when it came to districts,
each district has its own interests; whether it is making sure the canals are
properly cleaned up and more importantly making sure there are reserve funds
set up so you do not find yourself in an assessment crisis. By bringing Mr. Wrathell together with me we
found we had a few people with both experiential backgrounds as far as CDD
management was concerned and someone like me with a financial background as
well as an engineering background mixed with public service.
As
a third leg of this partnership, with a background in his own investment banking
business, Mr. Hunt has been the president and owner of a company called Gardner
Michael. It was one of the few
consistent surviving investment banking firms and is headquartered in the State
of
I
want to close by saying we have dedicated ourselves as a company to client
service as our first provision of importance.
We will never say anything against anyone else because there are very
good providers of service in this business.
We want to make sure you know if we provide somebody we say is going to
be here to do the job, they will be here to do the job. If we tell you we are going to give financial
accounting and other information on time, it will get there on time and it will
be correct. We went from zero districts
in January 2005 to 24 districts now throughout the State of
I
would like to introduce to you Mr. Szymonowicz and Ms. Dellolio. Mr. Szymonowicz will bring you through some
of the specifics of the presentation and then we will open it up to questions
and answers.
Mr.
Szymonowicz stated good evening. I am
the director of financial services for Wrathell, Hart, Hunt and
Associates. My official background is in
economics. I have a Masters Degree from
Ms.
Dellolio stated I am a graduate of the
Mr.
Szymonowicz stated if we are so fortunate to be chosen, the two of us will be
the people you will be dealing with on a daily basis with regards to the
financial side of the District’s operations.
As required by the stipulations of the RFP, I was involved with the
initial meeting with your District Engineer and walked some of the fields as
well as canals of the District to familiarize myself and get a grip on the
reality of the District.
In
talking with the District Engineer and upon doing some research, I found this
District has been in business for over 40 years. It was originally created in 1961 to provide
drainage for some residential portions as they existed at the time. The District has since expanded as the
agricultural portion of this area has decreased in size and it essentially
provides drainage to the eastern portion of the City of
The
District encompasses approximately 2,200 acres and it is currently governed by
Florida Statute Chapter 2001-320, which mandates representatives of the two
municipalities be present on the Board.
The primary services provided by the District are water control, aquatic
weed control, ground water recharge canal rights-of-way, swale mowing, cleaning
of canals and culvert inspection services.
The District utilizes two of its own employees to provide these services
and shares a field supervisor as well as other resources with CSID.
The
water control system is gravity based and consists of a major canal, which
takes water from south to north into the
The
primary maintenance responsibility is canal maintenance. This includes aquatic weed control as well as
right-of-way cleaning and mowing. The
majority of these services are provided by District staff and supervised by the
field supervisor. There is periodic
mowing of swales in the back of the homes in the Pine Tree Estate area of the
District. Regarding this particular part
of the service, I know the District had some problems as some of the residents
have not lived up to their responsibilities.
They either destroyed the swales or not maintained them to the standards
the District wanted them to. Although
these areas are not directly the responsibility of the District, there is a
chance to work with the municipalities to try to use some of the municipal
powers, specifically code enforcement, to make sure the swales are maintained
by the rightful owners. To provide these
services the District primarily relies on its two employees. For some other services such as inspection of
culverts and some of the underwater sections of the system, it uses third party
vendors.
The
management model we are proposing, should we be accepted, is to provide
financial services through me. The
treasury and assessment roll services will be provided by Ms. Dellolio and two
other staff members. Administrative
services will be provided by two staff members under the direction of Mr.
Wrathell as the District Manager, in cooperation with the existing District
staff supervised by the field supervisor, which is shared with CSID. We believe the sharing of resources is a
prudent approach, which the District has wisely chosen. We will recommend the sharing of resources be
continued. We feel there is considerable
knowledge in the two personnel and in the supervisors, who know the daily
operations of the District, to know how to best structure and guide the system
to its intended use. We will work
effortlessly with them to make sure their needs are supported without being overbearing
in trying to change the direction of the District too quickly.
The
particular services we recommend in the management section will be to attend
all the meetings of the Board of Supervisors and to provide dialogue with the
Board on all issues relating to the District.
We will identify policies and analyze their administrative as well as financial
impact on the District. We will prepare
the annual budget and implement it throughout the year. We will prepare District contracts as
required in cooperation with the District Attorney. We will ensure compliance of statutes and to
record all meetings. We will coordinate
contract administration for the third party vendors.
On
the financial side we will provide this service in house. We will assist the District Manager in
preparing the budget. We will record
financial transactions. We will make
sure the invoices are paid on time. We
will prepare assessment rolls, which at this time are on a per acre basis. We will ensure District funds are properly
invested in accordance with District investment guidelines. We will coordinate with the independent
auditors.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I do not want to cut you off, but we want to leave some time for
questions and answers. Can we wrap this
up?
Mr.
Szymonowicz responded this is the last slide.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I know you started late, but I do not want to get too off track.
Mr.
Szymonowicz stated absolutely. There
will be some administrative duties, which will consist of preparation of
meeting agendas, advertising notices, transcribing minutes, serving as a
steward of public records and any other general administrative services as
required. If I may, I would like to
briefly tell you what we feel are the greatest challenges to the District. It is not so much in the administrative set
up of the District, but it is in dealing with the aftermath of the storm. We feel an important part of your roles as
Supervisors is looking into the needs of the District. We will recommend you devote sufficient
financial resources for clean up of damages and you devote financial resources
for mitigation for future damages, which is something the current District
Manager is recommending.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated you are obviously a newcomer to the field. Explain what you learned over the last year
with your 24 transitions, what you failed at and how you think you can do
things better.
Mr.
Hart stated the first 11 Districts we acquired transitioned over from an
existing provider. The breakage we had
was in the first 60 to 90 days. We
wanted to make sure all of the records were transitioned over. Our first bumps were because nine
transitioned all at once in the first 60 to 90 days. Of the 24 districts we have, 17 of those have
transitioned from an existing provider and seven were new districts. As I said in my opening remarks, we have 14
more in formation. We learned in the
first three to four months on how to do this right. We created a system, which is simple. We work co-operatively with whatever districts
are transitioning to us to make sure all of the records are there and we make
an assessment to make sure we have everything we need.
Mr.
Rosenof asked are your offices moving to Coconut Creek?
Mr.
Hart responded that is correct.
Mr.
Rosenof asked do you see a need for having the offices for this District within
Coconut Creek or do you need office space elsewhere?
Mr.
Hart responded they will be in Coconut Creek.
We will be locating our office within five minutes of the central part
of this District.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what resources can we share with your other districts similar to
how we do with CSID?
Mr.
Szymonowicz responded I know you share some hardware and you share Mr.
Frederick with CSID. Most of our other
clients are located on the west coast of
As
we mentioned, we feel the sharing of resources with CSID is a prudent
approach. We have similar arrangements
in many of our districts in the west coast.
We have shared employees. We have
shared contractors. We have shared
facilities. We know how to structure
interlocal agreements in a way for both districts to utilize resources in a way
they will not over bill their resources.
They are not building towards the maximum point, but they are
anticipating what will be the most likely level of services utilized and
acquire services in a way so they can provide services at a reasonable cost to
the residents.
Ms.
Ribotsky stated I am looking at your list of references and it is interesting
that you are moving from
Mr.
Hart responded we have grown out of our headquarters’ legitimate use of size. We need to find more space. We have a field operation in
Mr.
Rosenof stated if there are no other questions, we thank you very much.
The second presentation is from New
Community Strategies.
Mr.
Rosenof stated before we start, let us do a quick introduction so you know who
is here.
The
Board and Ms. Rugg introduced themselves.
Mr.
Rosenbaum stated we met with Mr. Craven so we are familiar with your
District. We do quite a few
districts. With me is Mr. Mearns. He is with our company and was the city
manager for his county. We worked
together for approximately 19 years. The
third member of our team was unable to be here.
He had a family emergency. His
name is Mr. Wallace. He is our finance
person. He is the Finance Director in
As
you can tell we know everyone else in the business as they come in because we
all cross paths along the way. It is
nice to see this much interest. I will
talk to you about my company and how it is different. We all take different approaches and each
district is different. Mr. Mearns
manages a district, which not only does water control, but does recreation and
a host of other things. He manages the
Indian Trail District in the
I
will start out by telling you about our company. We have been in business for approximately 10
years. We manage other similar
districts, including the Belmont Lakes CDD and the Coral Bay CDD. We do financial analysis and management for
the finance departments of the City of Bal Harbour,
We
have 12 full-time employees and 6 part-time employees. We are adding people as functions expand. We also manage a couple of HOAs. It is not our core business. We do planning work. We have a full-time grant writer on
staff. If this arrangement goes forward,
the grant writing services will be available to the District. We have gotten a few grants related in the
water management area. We have gotten
beautification grants in the districts we manage in
We
also do municipal planning work and support work for the City of
Our
staff has been around
When
I left city management 12 years ago, after 25 years in it, I became a college
professor. A college professor’s
compensation is not good. I started this
company and we started special districts.
We did Belmont Lakes CDD in
As we went along, we added entities. Mr. Wallace joined us approximately four
years ago when he retired from
We
added the