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:
Salvatore J. Mendolia President
Steve Mendelson Secretary
Also present were:
Ed Goscicki Interim Manager -
Dennis Lyles Attorney
Jane Early Engineer
Pamela Rower
Nick Schooley Field Superintendent
Randy Frederick Field
Supervisor
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr. Goscicki called the meeting to order and called the
roll.
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the May 15, 2007 Meeting
Mr.
Goscicki stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the
There
not being any,
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all
in favor the minutes of the
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Change Order No. 1 – Triple R. Paving, Drainage, Water and Earthwork for
Pine Island Road Extension for a Net Increase of $10,520.00
Mr.
Goscicki stated this change order is for a net increase of $10,520.
Ms.
Early stated Triple R. Paving is doing the work on
Mr.
Mendolia asked did we know this before the project started?
Ms.
Early responded I did not think it was going to be an issue with the City of
Mr.
Mendelson stated I agree this work has to be done.
Mr.
Mendolia asked is there any way out of this?
Ms.
Early responded we have to do it.
Mr.
Mendolia asked did you say the city did not like it?
Ms.
Early responded the problem was when school started, the project started. With the school situated across the street,
the parents park there. There is a great
deal of congestion, which we did not anticipate. The month the project started, the sheriff
was even saying, “We need to do something different because it is not
safe”. The City of
Mr.
Mendolia asked will it cost us an extra $10,520?
Ms.
Early responded the maintenance of traffic cost us $6,450. We deducted drainage and added two smaller
drainage inlets as well as some irrigation sleeves for the medians.
Mr.
Mendolia asked were the irrigation sleeves anticipated?
Ms.
Early responded they were but as they proceed with the design of the
landscaping, we had to make some last minute changes.
Mr.
Goscicki asked what was the total price of this project?
Ms.
Early responded $1.8 million.
Mr.
Goscicki stated this is only a 1% increase.
Mr.
Mendolia stated I am surprised no one knew about it. This is a way to make money by leaving
something out and then having to put it in again at a higher amount.
Ms.
Early stated I believe we had unit costs for these items. We are using the same prices but installing
additional sleeves.
Mr.
Goscicki stated some of this work is being directed by the engineer as they go
out into the field and recognize items were not picked up in the design by directing
the contractor to take on additional work.
The contract is not making money.
It is a matter of fine tuning it.
Getting change orders on a construction project is not unusual in a
government setting.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all
in favor Change Order No. 1 with Triple R. Paving for Drainage, Water and
Earthwork for Pine Island Road Extension for a Net Increase of $10,520.00 was
approved.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Work Authorization No. 175 for Hydraulic Modeling Update and Culvert
Investigation
Mr.
Goscicki stated this work authorization is from CH2M-Hill to update the
hydraulic model of the drainage system.
You have a couple of different options on the way we can pump
water. The recommendation is to move
forward. This is an update to the
original design to look at what the capabilities of the existing system are
based on the current condition of the pumps and canals.
Ms.
Early stated we did similar projects for CSID and Sunshine to update their
models and make sure everything is still working. Mr. Nick Schooley has culverts inspected
every year. Some culverts on the
Mr.
Mendolia asked are you going to investigate to see what is happening?
Ms.
Early responded yes. We will run
different scenarios of storms to show if there are areas where the water is
high. If there is a potential problem we
can look at it.
Mr.
Goscicki stated your modeling will also identify potential solutions to those
problems and the engineer can bring back recommendations. What we get from a model like this is a
better plan for what we need to maintain, repair or replace as we go
forward. I think it serves us well to
put together a long term plan in terms of the capital improvements.
Mr.
Schooley stated like Ms. Early said, we have three culverts on the golf
course. We do not even know if they are
in the ground. One is crushed 250’ into
the fairway. There is also a 500’
pipe. We did not know if we even own the
pipe so we did an inspection this year to see if we owned it. Time and money was being spent. We assumed during construction they did it in
phases but when they reached this phase, they put a culvert in and then a
second one. We may not even need
them. If we need them and you want them
cleaned and maintained, you are talking about spending hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
Mr.
Mendolia asked has the golf course been sold?
Mr.
Schooley responded we are not sure who owns the golf course. It does not matter who owns the culverts. If none of them affect our drainage system,
we will mark them on a map showing they are not ours and maintain what is
ours. If we abandon them and do not need
them, we will never spend another dime on them because we do not care who owns
them.
Mr.
Mendolia stated this is the way to go.
Mr.
Schooley stated as long as we know we are not going to flood because it is
crushed.
Mr.
Mendolia stated we have not received any complaints.
Mr.
Schooley stated I have not had any drainage problems other than there have been
problems with blocked culverts. Where
there has been a problem, it has always been someone else’s problem. We will save money by abandoning it. I think there are a total of five or six
sites on the
Mr.
Mendelson asked who owns the golf course now?
Ms.
Early responded there is a new owner.
Mr.
Mendolia asked does this fall under their jurisdiction?
Ms.
Early responded this is what we are trying to determine. It is one of the phases in this work
authorization. We could not even find a
plat. I spoke with WCI and there is no
one left there from when they instructed the golf course. I have drawings showing where these pipes are
supposed to be. They go out with a diver
and they cannot find them.
Mr.
Mendelson asked who owns this property now?
Ms.
Early responded the golf course. We are
trying to show we do not need these pipes.
If the system works, there is never going to be mention of the pipes
again.
Mr.
Mendolia stated now we are going through the exercise of getting a culvert
investigation performed.
Ms.
Early stated exactly.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all
in favor Work Authorization No. 175 for Hydraulic Modeling Update and Culvert
Investigation in the amount of $36,000 was approved.
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Award
of Contract for Culvert Cleaning
Mr. Goscicki stated on May 9th, we received three
bids for the culvert cleaning project.
The lowest responsive bidder was Industrial Divers who bid $11,600. Fish Tech bid $12,000 and Weld Tech bid
$28,378. Staff’s recommendation is to
award the contract to the lowest bidder, Industrial Divers in the amount of
$11,600.
Mr.
Mendolia asked do we have experience with them?
Mr.
Frederick responded they have been out here with us for 28 years. We trust them more than anyone.
Mr.
Goscicki stated they did their homework on this one as Fish Tech won this
contract in other districts.
Mr.
Frederick stated Industrial Divers repaired the pipes on the Sawgrass
Expressway when the Turnpike Authority cut them. They ran wires through the pipes in order to
investigate. They made a video if you
want to see it. Whenever top notch
critical work has to be done, this is who should be hired. CH2M-Hill uses them exclusively. They are good. I have no problem with them whatsoever.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the price is right.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all
in favor the culvert cleaning contract was awarded to Industrial Divers in the
amount of $11,600.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion Items
A. SFWMD
Permit Modification
Mr. Goscicki stated the engineer is dealing with the SFWMD
permit modifications.
Ms.
Early stated we changed some of the language.
At the last meeting or the meeting prior, we had a work authorization to
do a permit modification with SFWMD because NSID pumps to the everglades. They wanted us to do a permit modification
showing how we reduce the phosphorus level in our water prior to pumping.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we are one of two districts in
Mr.
Frederick stated I think this pertains to
Ms.
Early stated Mr. McKune, Mr. Hyche and I met with them several times. I was concerned about submitting a permit
modification as they could come back and say we cannot pump to the
everglades. After several meetings with
them, they submitted an application showing an effort to reduce phosphorus, if
and when we have to pump to the everglades.
I do not think we pumped there for two and a half years.
Mr.
Frederick stated it has been a couple of years.
Ms.
Early stated the first couple of pages, gives some background on NSID and how
we pump. The last few pages are the
items they suggested to us, which we are implementing in the next six months to
a year. One of the items is to prepare a
Public Outreach Pamphlet, which we prepared and provided to Mr. Petty for
comments. We will have to provide it to
Mr. Goscicki. This is something we can
print and send out in the mailing with the water bills.
Another
item is a pumping schedule, which Mr. Schooley was talking about with the study
we are doing. They are requesting we
pump four hours and not pump for a few hours and pump another four hours,
instead of all of a sudden pumping non-stop for 24 hours a day. We are going to have to pump from the
everglades in order to fill Canal L-36.
There are a couple of coordination efforts involved with this. We used to pump the water south but we cannot
do so anymore. We are going to look
further into this. They asked us to
participate with the Broward Everglades Working Group, which meets throughout
the county, once a month. Much of the
discussion has been farm related but we have been participating in their
discussions about the phosphorus levels.
Two
years ago, we installed a pump so we could pump the water from the west basin to
the east basin. We are re-charging the
east basin with our own water. Rather
than pumping out of the district, we pump to the east portion because the wells
for the Water Treatment Plant draw down the water so the water is always
low. Now Mr. Schooley has the capability
to pump water from NSID west to NSID east.
This is why NSID always looks balanced on both sides. One of the reasons we have not been pumping
to the everglades is we have been pumping internally. I showed them what the cost was. Pump Station 1 off of the Sawgrass Expressway
has four pumps but only one can pump to Canal L-36. Once you get the water to a certain elevation
in Canal L-36, all three pumps can pump water to the everglades.
Our
concern was if this pump goes down, we cannot pump water at all to the
everglades until Canal L-36 fills up. We
came up with the idea of putting in a valve so the next pump can draw water to
the everglades or Canal L-36. We came to
the Board with a work authorization to valve all four of the pumps because if any
of the pumps go down, we cannot pump internally or pump to the everglades. We have the plans, are meeting with SFWMD and
are in the permitting process. This is a
big ticket item as it will cost $600,000 in order to do this project. I included it in here and said “This is
subject to funding being available to upgrade the pipe system for pump station
1 and improving the efficiency and operation of the station.” This is why we asked for an extension for
this permit. I did not want to submit it
until we brought it to the Board for discussion because this is a great deal of
money. I do not know whether or not it
is in the budget.
Mr.
Goscicki stated it is in the budget. However,
there will have to be an increase in assessments to be able to fund this
project in its entirety and still maintain some level of reserves.
Mr.
Mendolia asked how can we even consider it?
Mr.
Goscicki responded this is why we put the language, “Subject to having funds
available”. Ms. Early and I discussed
doing this project over a multi-year phase and doing one or two pumps
first.
Mr.
Mendolia asked do you want to pay $200,000 at a time?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes.
Ms.
Early stated this solves a few problems.
If one pump goes down, at least we have another pump and we are showing
SFWMD we are trying to avoid pumping to the everglades if at all possible.
Mr.
Schooley stated last year, this pump went down in the major part of a
storm. I did not sleep at night for
weeks because the water level was at 8.5’ and the normal elevation was between
7’ and 8.5’. I could not get the water
any lower. We tried to get SFWMD to
allow us to use the other pump to pump the water to Canal L-36 but they refused
to allow us to do so. One pump fueled us
last summer. If we had a hurricane, we
probably would have flooded. We had rain
almost every day this month and in running the model, we are currently at
8’. We have been at 8’ to 8.5’ for a
week and a half to two weeks. If we get
a hurricane we are in trouble because I cannot get the water down.
Mr.
Mendelson stated if we do this, we are going to have to assess the residents.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we prepared two alternative budgets for the Board; one not
increasing assessments and the other increasing assessments from $74 to $87 if
we go forward with this program and try to build some additional reserves. We spent down a lot of our reserves over the
years. We may want to modify the
language to say, “We will make modifications to the pump station” and spend
$83,000 rather than $600,000, subject to funding being available.
Ms.
Early stated I can amend the language to do this project in phases.
Mr.
Goscicki stated if we put out the $600,000 number, there will be an expectation
for us to spend the full amount.
Ms.
Early stated I did not want to submit anything without the Board’s approval.
Mr.
Schooley stated we can only use one pump to pump water to Canal L-36. If this pump goes down and I have another
pump, we will be fine. This is the north
pump station. We can have the center
north pump running within a day or two or a week. One pump going to the north may be sufficient
instead of running all of them because we are not allowed to.
Mr.
Mendelson stated in an emergency situation, we have to use what is available.
Mr.
Goscicki stated currently, if one pump goes down, you cannot pump into Canal
L-36 as the other three pumps are piped to only pump to the everglades.
Ms.
Early stated we can only pump to the everglades once Canal L-36 is level. We would not be able to pump until the canal
fills up.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the full $600,000 program will give you complete flexibility to
pump in any direction. We are saying the
first step is to get one of the other three pumps re-piped and re-valved to
give us some flexibility. You have
additional flexibility because the three pumps are identical. If we re-pipe pump four and the motor burns
out, they can take the motor off of the other pump and get the pump back up and
running.
Mr.
Schooley stated we only need one pump.
Mr.
Goscicki stated these are the things we are talking about as interim
steps. Getting one in place is important
because we do not have a backup pump and this is your primary discharge
point. If the Board is satisfied with
the report, let’s modify the one element to say we are going to do this in a
phased approach subject to funding being available.
Mr.
Mendelson stated just so the homeowners do not get an increase in
assessments. It is gradual and easy to
deal with.
Mr.
Mendolia stated we should table this item for now.
Mr.
Goscicki stated you do not need to table it.
You can give direction to Ms. Early to modify the language and submit the
permit modification.
Mr.
Lyles stated the modification and language staff is asking you to approve along
with submitting the application based upon funds being available. It will not be available unless the Board, as
part of the budget process, approves it.
You are allowing Ms. Early to proceed with the application but not
authorizing her to spend money. You can
make a decision on the hard costs at a later time or make a decision not to
spend money at all. Correct?
Ms.
Early responded yes. This authorization
does not mean we are going forward with this next week. It means if we have the money we can do this
in phases. The money is not available
unless SFWMD wants to come up with the money.
Mr.
Mendolia stated we do not know whether this is for one pump or 10 pumps.
Ms.
Early stated we definitely need one pump.
Mr.
Schooley stated we need three or four phases.
We will initiate the first phase and see how it works. We may abandon the other three phases or go
to phase two. If three pumps cost
$600,000, then we are talking about spending $200,000 in the initial phase for
one pump.
Mr.
Lyles stated with this explanation as part of your record, you are not
committing to spend any money. This is
only allowing the engineers to get the paperwork processed and filed. Through the budget process and future reports
by staff, you will know what the price is and will approve it or not approve it
at that time.
Mr.
Schooley stated we cannot commit money because they might say “no”. Until they say “yes” and we get a permit in
hand, no decision needs to be made.
Mr.
Mendelson asked are we approving this permit modification pending the approval
of a permit?
Mr.
Lyles responded no. This allows staff to
file the application upon your behalf for the permit but you are not approving
any expenditure, whether $1 or $600,000.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all
in favor staff was authorized to file the SFWMD permit modification.
B. Joint Application for Environmental
Resource Permit to Use State Owned Submerged Lands
Ms. Early stated this is part of the permit application to
SFWMD and was taken care of with the above motion.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Manager’s Report - Distribution of Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year
2008 and Consideration of Resolution 2007-3 Approving the Budget and Setting
the Public Hearing
Mr. Goscicki stated I provided the revised budget to the
Board.
Mr.
Lyles stated for clarification purposes, you are not going to approve it today
but accept it as a proposed budget to start the advertising process for a
public hearing. This may or may not
require mailed notices.
Mr.
Goscicki stated exactly. We gave the
Board some options because we felt it was significant and important enough to
work through a more detailed explanation with the Board in terms of where you
are in your overall fund balances and how much money you have available to
spend on these projects. Ms. Pamela
Rower who is our Controller for Severn Trent Services, has been involved with
this budget.
The
first page is the General Fund budget, which includes the drainage
programs. In the prior version of the
budget, we discussed the historical practice of the District, which is the use
of shared employees between CSID, NSID and Sunshine. In some areas, this works effectively well. It takes advantage of the fact we have a
number of employees with skills other districts may not be able to afford on
their own such as utility billing and customer service. Mr. Dan Daly serves in this function. If each district was to create their own
utility billing system, software and customer service representatives, they would
be spending a lot of unnecessary funds.
Every district cannot afford to have its own Human Resource Manager
overseeing payroll and personnel. Those
expenses we see the synergies in and the benefits. What we have lost over the years is the
effectiveness of doing the shared accounting.
The way the shared accounting was originally set up was with Severn
Trent Services employees who happened to be in-house and worked as part of Severn
Trent Services. However, the Accounting
Manager, Ms. Rhonda Archer is no longer with us and now works for our
Investment Banker. Ms. Susan Walker is
now the only accountant on staff. Rather
than getting synergies where we have 22 accounting professionals down the
street and having all the work done there, it has devolved to a point of having
a single person performing the accounting in isolation and us duplicating this
work.
What
I propose for this District as well as Sunshine, CSID and Pine Tree is to bring
the accounting back into Severn Trent Services contract as originally proposed
and decrease the Shared Services line
in Administrative Expenses. This caused us to increase our services by
$20,000 in order to provide these services to you. We decreased the shared expenses by $30,000
in the General Fund and Water and Sewer Fund.
There is a net savings to the District in this area of $20,000 due to
the computer being utilized for billing purposes. The billing services staff will be paid from
the Water and Sewer Fund. We removed Office Space and Office Rental; however the
office space Mr. Daly, Mr. Zilmer and others use will remain in the Water and
Sewer Fund. The total Administrative Expense from last year to
this year decreased from $264,000 to $243,000.
Mr.
Mendolia asked are we still getting the results we are looking for in regards
to the budget?
Mr.
Goscicki stated you will get better results.
You will have 22 Severn Trent employees, working as a team and being
backed up by our systems. We had
problems where we could not access our files because Ms. Walker happens to be
on vacation and we could not get into our files. Things like this are not appropriate for an
operation of this size. These are some
of the benefits by putting your accounting into real a business system. I wanted to make sure the Board was aware of
these additional items, resulting in a net savings to the District. We are concerned about our employees and are
working with CSID to make all of this work and treat people appropriately and
fairly.
We
re-structured the budget from the way you had traditionally seen it. In the prior budget, you had a line item on
the revenue side called Carry Forward
Surplus. The dollars in this line
item masked what funds you had to work with because it was not necessarily your
entire Reserve Fund. It was the portion
of the Reserve Fund you were anticipated to use in this upcoming fiscal year. Likewise, on the expense side, we showed an
emergency reserve last year of $500,000 for this pump station. We showed Carry
Forward Surplus and a Reserve Fund
but it never gave you a clear picture of how much money you had to work
with. This year, we moved those funds
out of the revenue and expense sides and put it down below to show how much
money you are making, how much you are spending and how much is left over in
the Fund Balance to use for new capital improvements. In the past, they were merged together and
did not show this clearly.
In
the current year budget, we are using $163,000 from reserve funds to fund
current operations. This is similar to
your paycheck, sufficient to cover your living expenses or tapping into your
savings account to meet month to month expenses. In the current fiscal year, the budget
envisioned taking $163,000 out of our savings account to fund current
operations. There is nothing wrong with
doing this. You build up reserves over
time and it is appropriate to pull money out of the reserve to stabilize your
assessments. However, it is important
for the Board to understand this is what you did this year.
On
the second page of the budget, we set the assessments at the same level as last
year. We said we were going to keep the
assessments at $74.57. We ran the
numbers and said, “What will this do to us if we keep the assessments the
same”. Keep in mind last year we
borrowed money from reserves to balance the budget. If we fund $500,000 for this pump station, we
will wind up in a negative cash position.
We not only had no reserves left but we went negative by $137,000. When I say “No reserves”, I mean no available
reserves. However, if we set aside
$200,000 for three months operating expenses, $500,000 for the lift station and
$250,000 for the best management practices program, we end up in a negative
situation. Therefore, we either need to
cut back on the capital improvement program or increase the revenue and
assessment side. A Board just cut a
project from $500,000 to $250,000 for the first year and went from a negative
$137,000 to a positive $120,000.
The
bottom line is we can keep assessments at $74.57 and still generate $120,000 in
our fund balance going forward. We also
added $50,000 per year as part of the expense side to start building reserves
back up. CSID has a goal to build up $1
million over time in reserve funds to deal with the hurricane. We are saying for this year, “Let’s at least
get another $50,000 and start building the reserves back up”. The bottom line is if we want to balance the
budget, make the revenue equal in your operating expenses and not pull any
money from reserves, we will need to increase the assessments from $74.57 to
$86.11. If the Board wants to stay with
the current level of assessments, we will take $155,000 out of reserves to fund
the operating expenses and reduce the size of the capital program, which was
budgeted this year and carried over to next year. You will still carry a cash forward surplus
of $120,000. You are in a good
position. You are not swimming in cash
but with the current political climate, I think this Board is trying to keep
these assessments level. This is a
workable budget.
Mr.
Mendolia asked what do we need to do?
Mr.
Lyles responded you will need to adopt the resolution but can have a motion for
each budget.
Mr.
Goscicki stated I request the Board adopt Resolution 2007-7 approving the
General Fund Budget showing an assessment of $74.57 by pulling $155,000 from
the Reserve Fund to fund current operations and reducing the size of the pump
station project to no more than $250,000.
Mr.
Lyles stated what is before you is the proposed budget, which you are approving
the proposed budget for advertising purposes.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all
in favor the proposed budget for fiscal year 2008 was approved.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the next budget is for Heron Bay Commons. We re-structured this budget the same
way. In the current fiscal year, we are
projecting to spend $305,000 out of reserve funds but we are going to be in the
negative as the current assessment is $654,000 and expenses are $960,000. Therefore, your expenses for operation and
maintenance of the facility exceed the revenue.
You are balancing this by pulling money out of reserves. Next year, we will be in a similar situation.
Ms.
Rower stated according to this budget, we will not use any carry forward
surplus.
Mr.
Goscicki stated according to the first page, you want to balance your revenue
with your current expenses. What you are
bringing in with assessments against what you are paying out in your current
expenses will require an increase in assessments from $215.25 to $247.91. The second page is the options page. The third page shows what will happen if we
do not raise assessments. We need to
pull $95,000 out of the current reserves to fund the shortfall and keep the
assessments level. We are comfortable
with this number. It is not an inordinate
amount to pull out of reserve funds.
What you currently have in reserves, is what we are projecting. You had a beginning fund balance of $1.3
million at the beginning of this year but we spent $895,000. This is largely due to the fact you had
$869,000 in improvements to the facility as a result of the hurricane. Another reason is your current budget is not
balanced and you need another $100,000 to balance this budget.
Going
forward, you start next year with $431,000 in your reserves because you spent
down those monies. However, as you pull
out your three month operating reserves and $95,000 to balance the budget, you
are left with $150,000 in uncommitted fund balance. This is not a large sum of money but a solid
dollar amount we are comfortable presenting in the budget. If you want to have a completely balanced
budget this year and start building up reserves, you will need to have $30,000
in your reserves just to close the gap.
We
have three different options for the tennis courts in the order to fund
$900,000; option number one is to not have the tennis courts, option 2 is to
fund it over five years and option three is to fund this over ten years. If you fund the tennis courts over five
years, you are looking at an increase of $71 in assessments. Is the $71 over $247?
Ms.
Rower responded yes. No matter which
option we choose, the $71 number is included.
Mr.
Goscicki stated if the Board decides to move forward with the tennis courts;
they need to decide whether to fund it within five or ten years. A five year payback loan will result in an
increased assessment for the five year period of $71 per unit. If you wanted a ten year payback loan, the
increased assessment will be $41 per unit.
Mr.
Mendolia asked will this budget be presented to the residents?
Mr.
Goscicki responded if the Board approves this budget for the purpose of setting
the public hearing, we will send out a notice to every single property owner
informing them their assessment is increasing and the date, time and location
of the public hearing. At that time, the
Board will make a decision as to whether or not to move forward with this option.
Mr.
Mendelson asked do you inform the residents why there is an increase in the
assessment?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes. We will put in
the letter the reason for the increase, which is to fund additional capital
improvements to the tennis courts and expansion of the tennis courts.
Mr.
Mendolia stated this should be a good meeting.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the question is whether we want to fund the tennis courts in
five or ten years.
Mr.
Mendelson stated I recommend going with the least amount of money.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the assessment notice needs to set a number. Once we set this number you cannot go
higher. The Board could approve the five
year payback today. At the next meeting,
you can always reduce the amount and fund it over ten years.
Mr.
Mendolia stated we should let the residents decide. Why do we need to decide?
Mr.
Mendelson stated as many people are involved in tennis, the same number of
people are not. The people not involved
in tennis will argue why they should be paying for something they are not
using.
Mr.
Lyles stated it is ultimately going to be your decision. You are going to hear the input from the
residents because this is a public hearing but you are going to have to vote on
it one way or another.
Mr.
Mendolia stated I agree.
Mr.
Lyles stated if you think one of the outcomes at the public hearing is the five
year note, then you need to send the residents a notice saying, “Your
assessments are going to increase as much as $71.83. The money will be used for capital expenditures
to increase the number of tennis courts and improve them”.
Mr.
Mendelson stated as long as they know what is going on.
Mr.
Mendolia stated they will know about the $71.83 assessment but not about the
$41 assessment.
Mr.
Schooley asked can you say “Between $47 and $71”?
Mr.
Lyles responded no. We have to give them
the maximum amount; however, the letter can say “This assumes a five year
payback in the amount of $71. If we
assume a ten year payback, the amount of the assessment will be $41”. As long as you state the highest number, you
can add information.
A
resident stated I have a feeling the crowd showing up at the public hearing
will be pro-tennis. They will say, “We
never knew about it so why are we paying”?
Mr.
Goscicki responded they will know about it.
This letter will be sent to every property owner.
Mr.
Lyles stated by first class mail.
Mr.
Goscicki stated I think we have consensus from the Board to go forward with the
five year option and explaining to the residents, the number can be
reduced. The only question regarding the
base budget is the Board’s desire to keep assessments level, assuming we do not
build tennis courts at all.
Mr.
Lyles asked does this mean the total assessment will be $100?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes, over the current year assessment number.
Mr.
Mendolia stated it is not going to happen.
Mr.
Goscicki stated what I am hearing from the Board is the desire to keep the base
assessment the same if we do not go forward with the tennis courts.
Mr.
Lyles stated you will start confusing them with different kinds of increases.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we will also go forward with the option of building the tennis
courts.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all
in favor the budget for Heron Bay Commons for fiscal year 2008 was approved as
presented.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the next budget is the Parkland Isles proposed budget. There was a slight reduction in assessments
from $499.41 to $495.86. There are no
significant changes in this budget other than a slight reduction in plant
replacement costs.
Ms.
Rower stated I think we should keep assessments level due to the small carry
forward.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all
in favor the budget for Parkland Isles for fiscal year 2008 was approved as
presented.
Mr.
Goscicki stated page 25 is the Debt Service Fund Budget. The Debt Service Funds include the 1990 A
Series Water Management Bonds, 1998 Series Water Management Bonds, 2005 A
Series Water Management Refunding Bonds and 2005 B Series Water Management
Bonds. These are based on the attached
Amortization Schedules. The per unit
assessment in all cases remain the same.
We recommend the Board’s approval.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all
in favor the Debt Service Fund Budget for the 1990 A Series Water Management
Bonds, 1998 Series Water Management Bonds, 2005 A Series Water Management
Refunding Bonds and 2005 B Series Water Management Bonds was approved as
presented.
Mr.
Goscicki stated starting on page 30 is the Special Assessment Fund Budget. This budget is for the 1997 Series Heron Bay
Special Assessment Bonds, 1997 Series Parkland Isles Special Assessment Bonds,
Heron Bay TPC Assessment Bonds and Series 2005 A-2 Special Assessment Bonds for
the Parkland Golf and Country Club assessment area.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all
in favor the Special Assessment Fund Budget for the 1997 Series Heron Bay
Special Assessment Bonds, 1997 Series Parkland Isles Special Assessment Bonds,
Heron Bay TPC Assessment Bonds and Series 2005 A-2 Special Assessment Bonds for
the Parkland Golf and Country Club assessment area was approved.
Mr.
Goscicki stated I provided Resolution 2007-3 to the Board approving the budget
for fiscal year 2008 and setting the public hearing. Does this resolution need to list each
budget?
Mr.
Lyles responded no. The budgets will be
attached to the resolution.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all
in favor Resolution 2007-3 Approving the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2008
and Setting the Public Hearing for July 12, 2007 at 4:30 P.M. at the District
Office, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral Springs, Florida was adopted.
B. Attorney’s
Report
Mr.
Lyles stated our special act amendments were signed by the Governor a few days
ago and took effect immediately.
Therefore, as of this date, we are operating under new guidelines such
as an increase in our bidding thresholds to $250 or our ability to transition
to a popular election, at the Board’s discretion with three members when the
District is built out. The Board will
decide when it is time to convert the election system. It can be done now with a simple vote of the
Board but is not required. The
compensation for the supervisors attending these meetings has been increased
for the first time in 33 years. We do
not have to go back to Tallahassee next year.
Mr.
Mendolia stated great news.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we have some money in your budget if we need to bring a
Lobbyist on board.
Mr.
Lyles stated if someone files legislation harmful to the District, we will need
some help in Tallahassee to deal with it.
C. Engineer’s
Report
There
not being any, the next item followed.
EIGHTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of Requisitions and Invoices
There
being no questions or comments,
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Mendelson with all
in favor the check registers for the month of May for the General Fund in the
amount of $137,507.92, Heron Bay in the amount of $151,345.12, Parkland Isles
in the amount of $19,350.12, Heron Bay Mitigation in the amount of $2,985.14
and the Water & Sewer Fund in the amount of $425,523.51 were approved.
NINTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s
Requests and Audience Comments
Mr.
Mendolia stated I received a resume and feel this individual will fit in with
this project perfectly. This individual
is Mr. David Gray.
Mr.
Lyles stated if this is the desire of the Board, we need a motion appointing
Mr. Gray to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Matt Lauritzen.
Mr. Mendelson nominated Mr. David Gray as supervisor to fill
the unexpired term of Mr. Lauritzen and Mr. Mendolia seconded the motion. There being no further nominations, with all
in favor, Mr. Gray was appointed supervisor.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we could have balanced the budget by cutting the Heron Bay
Commons fee from $700,000.
Mr.
Mendolia asked when do we finish paying this mortgage off?
Ms.
Early responded it was sold in 1997.
Mr.
Goscicki stated I assume this was the 1997 special assessment bond for Heron
Bay Commons. The original principal was
$7.9 million. It runs out in 2018.
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There
being no further business,
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Mendelson with all
in favor the meeting was adjourned.
Steve
Mendelson Salvatore
J. Mendolia
Secretary President