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.