MINUTES
OF MEETING
PINE
TREE WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
A
meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Pine Tree Water Control District was
held on
Present and constituting a quorum were:
Margaret Bertolami President
Paul Brewer Vice President
Donna McCann Benckenstein Assistant Secretary
Neil Study Supervisor
Mark Weissman Supervisor
Also present were:
Kenneth Cassel Manager
Brenda Schurz Severn Trent
Services
D.J. Doody Attorney
Warren Craven Engineer
Randy Frederick Drainage
Supervisor
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Ms.
Bertolami called the meeting to order and Mr. Cassel called the roll.
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the February 5, 2009 Meeting
Ms.
Bertolami stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the February
5, 2009 meeting and requested any corrections, additions or deletions.
There not being any,
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Mr. Brewer with all in
favor the minutes of the February 5, 2009 meeting were approved.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Resolutions
A. Resolution
2009-2, Removing Pamela Rower as a Signatory and Designating Stephen Bloom and Kenneth
Cassel as Signatories
B. Resolution
2009-3, Designating Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer
Mr. Cassel stated Ms. Rower who was designated as your
Treasurer is no longer with Severn Trent Services. We are requesting we replace her with Mr.
Bloom and me as signatories. I am a
signatory at the present time. In
Resolution 2009-2 we are putting Mr. Bloom, on instead of Ms. Rower, as a
signatory. Are there any questions?
There
not being any,
On MOTION by Mr. Brewer seconded by Mr. Weissman with all in
favor Resolution 2009-2, removing Ms. Rower as a signatory and designating Mr.
Bloom and Mr. Cassel as signatories, was adopted.
Mr.
Cassel stated Resolution 2009-3 is designating Mr. Bloom as Treasurer, Mr.
Koncar as Assistant Treasurer and me as Assistant Treasurer; making sure we
have continuity in the Treasurer position.
Mr. Bloom is located in Coral Springs as well as I am. Mr. Koncar is our Regional General Manager and
he is located in Jacksonville.
Ms.
Bertolami asked any discussion? Is there
a motion?
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with
all in favor Resolution 2009-3, designating Mr. Bloom as Treasurer , Mr. Koncar
as Assistant Treasurer and Mr. Cassel as Assistant Treasurer and Assistant
Secretary, was adopted.
FOURTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Acceptance
of Financial Audit for Fiscal Year 2008
Ms. Bertolami stated this was in a separate package.
The record will reflect Mr. Study joined the
meeting.
Ms.
Bertolami stated we approved the minutes and the two resolutions.
Mr.
Study stated you are moving fast.
Ms.
Bertolami stated we are moving fast. We
are at the point of the financial audit, which was enclosed separately.
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with
all in favor the financial audit for fiscal year 2008 was accepted.
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Interlocal Agreement between Coral Springs Improvement District and Pine
Tree Water Control District
Mr. Cassel stated we are trying to formalize and clean up
relationships so everyone knows exactly what is expected from the
districts. We have already done this
between CSID and SWCD. We are working on
it with NSID as well. Because there are
certain aspects we share and pay them for, we are trying to make sure it is
formalized in a written interlocal agreement so there are no conflicts.
Ms.
Bertolami asked was there a prior agreement?
Mr.
Cassel responded it was more of a gentlemen’s agreement which was going on for
years. As I came on last year I was
looking at a lot of these things we were doing and why we were doing them. I did not see a formalized process between
the entities I was managing. I was not
comfortable with this so I looked at it.
We really need to formalize the agreements for services provided so
everyone is clear as to what is provided by each entity.
Mr.
Brewer asked what does our attorney think?
Mr.
Doody responded I think the agreement is necessary. Mr. Cassel mentioned this to me late last
week and I should address one or two issues with him now. The idea is CSID is providing services to
PTWCD. The question is; how do we
differentiate when Severn Trent is working on behalf of PTWCD as opposed to
CSID?
Mr.
Cassel asked in which respect?
Mr.
Doody responded in section A it say, “CSID Building licensed to PTWCD
(“Licensed Facilities”) will be designated by, shall be at the sole discretion
of the District manager of CSID,” and then section B states, “PTWCD shall not
use the Licensed Facilities (or fail to maintain them) in any manner
constituting a violation of any ordinance, statute, regulation or order of any
governmental authority.” Those are all
pretty standard. I am just trying to
have a discussion of the separation. You
wear dual hats.
Mr.
Cassel stated I do wear dual hats and part of the dual hats, and what I see as
a separation, are the day to day operations in our relationship with CSID; we
provide general oversight management, but day to day operations are managed
through Mr. Daly and Mr. Hyche along with Mr. Frederick in the drainage area. This is mostly looking at providing
employment services, personnel payroll, the storage of chemicals in a certified
chemical storage building, the storage of boats, trucks, fuel, uniforms and all
those kinds of things which you are paying CSID to handle for you now.
By
wearing two hats I actually end up having to fight for both sides. I have to make sure it is an equitable manner
for PTWCD and you are not overpaying. I
believe last year they were looking at increasing some of the rental charges
and I said we were not going to increase the rent. It is going to stay where it is and we are
going to trim this back here and there.
I have negotiated on both sides.
Did it potentially hurt CSID a little bit? Yes, but the difference was made up in other
places on CSID’s budget. Overall, it did
not hurt CSID and it benefited PTWCD.
Mr.
Doody asked does the compensation referred in paragraph three have the rent you
just referred to?
Mr.
Cassel responded yes it does.
Mr.
Doody asked is that $500 per month?
Mr.
Cassel responded yes. It is $500 per
month for the rental space, which includes the parking area for the boats and
trucks as well as the chemical storage facility.
Mr.
Doody stated this is a three year term with a 60 day notice provision. This document is an interlocal agreement,
standard between governmental agencies, for sharing of services and properties.
Mr.
Weissman asked is there any reason why the indemnification does not go both
ways?
Mr.
Doody responded I looked at that. It
certainly could. I am not so sure PTWCD
would want to assume and defend. I am
not sure what the liability to CSID is.
Mr.
Weissman stated I would prefer to see it both ways.
Mr.
Cassel stated we can do that. Mr. Doody
can get with Mr. Lyles and iron out that section.
Ms.
Bertolami asked is it a matter of housekeeping on page one where it references
the Chapter and House Bill?
Mr.
Cassel responded it needs to be filled in.
Ms.
Bertolami stated it looks like a good start.
Mr.
Study stated number three has a typographical error. It should be ‘forty thousand’ not
‘forth’.
Mr.
Cassel stated good catch.
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Mr. Brewer with all in
favor the Interlocal Agreement between CSID and PTWCD was approved as amended.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Award
of Uniform Bid to Unifirst Corporation
Mr.
Cassel stated I have to apologize for the cover memorandum. Ms. Schurz was out last week and I had to do
a lot of this myself in communications with the Recording Department. I made a mistake. It is not $3,800 in savings. That is for NSID. Your budget is approximately $700 per year
for uniforms. This cuts your expenses
from a little over $700 to $434 per year, which is approximately $265 in
savings.
Ms.
Bertolami asked was this done at the direction of our last month’s meeting?
Mr.
Cassel responded at the last meeting I mentioned we were going to be going out
for bids. CSID, NSID, SWCD and PTWCD
went out and bid once in order to save money for everyone. We bid out as a package, but it is actually
four separate contracts. The contract
will be with PTWCD where as the old contract was with CSID, which caused
confusion. We are trying to split them
out to make sure each entity has a contract, if possible. We were able to get savings for all the
districts.
Ms.
Bertolami stated thank you.
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Mr. Study with all in
favor the uniform bid was awarded to Unifirst Corporation.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s Report
Mr. Cassel stated I have two items. We will be presenting the proposed budget in
May for your review and approval. We
need to have it approved prior to June 15, 2009 so we will have enough numbers
in to make accurate projections. We will
approve the initial budget at the May meeting and set the parameters of the
budget, which can be reviewed later. We
have to meet deadlines to the state and local entities for setting the rates.
The
other item is the taxes are coming in as well as they did last year. There are some surplus funds in the checking
account. We recommend taking some of the
funds from your checking account which has a very low interest rate, as we have
done in other districts, and roll it into a six month CD to get some interest. Also, because of the $250,000 FDIC limits we
can make sure it continues to be protected for the maximum amount to the
District. With your approval we will
take what funds you do not need for operation and move them to CDs. Unlike other CDs, we will be able to pull
them out at any time with no penalties as a governmental agency. We will get some interest and the funds are
more protected. It benefits the District
in both ways.
Ms.
Bertolami asked do you need a motion?
Mr.
Cassel responded you can just direct us to do it.
Mr.
Weissman asked which banks are you doing?
Mr.
Cassel responded right now your account is in Wachovia. We moved accounts to different banks. Right now there is still one standing, but it
is anyone’s guess as to which one will be standing next week, next month or
next year. If you have a preference of a
bank to relocate funds to, we can take it into consideration as well. Hearing no other direction we will utilize
Wachovia and move what funds are not necessary for ongoing operations into a
six month CD and plan accordingly.
Mr.
Weissman asked if there is no penalty for early withdrawal and they are paying
a higher interest on a one year CD, why are we not putting it in a one year CD
or longer?
Mr.
Cassel responded I will check into it. I
will look for the highest interest we can pull.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney’s Report
A. Conveyance
of Tract K from the City of Coral Springs
Mr.
Doody stated I see the item identified is revisiting the conveyance from Coral
Springs. In reviewing the minutes of the
February 5, 2009 meeting I know Mr. Weissman raised some issues. He wanted to make sure there were no
homeowner issues related to the property.
I am not sure where we stand on that.
Mr.
Cassel stated I have done some research into this. Currently there are no issues the city can
point me to with regard to homeowners there at the present time.
Mr.
Weissman stated the City of Coral Springs who wants to get rid of the land is
not telling us where there may be problems.
Mr.
Cassel stated Mr. Frederick is out there and sees the land. He is probably more aware of this. The Board might remember, some of you were on
the Board and some of you were not, this was initially brought before the Board
in November of 2007. There were
discussions about the transfer of this right-of-way from the city to the
District.
I
received a letter in July of 2008 from Mr. Michaud, which explains the history
that there is no clarification as to why the land was not initially deeded
other than it was the county and it was originally set aside for widening of
Rock Island Road. The county then took
it out of their plan and they did not know what to do with it. It sat for a long time so they said it was
the City of Coral Springs, but we still had the drainage going through
there. It sat for a long time. The City of Coral Springs is not in the
maintenance of canals and drainage issues.
We have some flowage. I do not
know if we have a formal flowage easement or not.
Mr.
Weissman asked do we have an easement?
Mr.
Craven responded I do not think so.
Mr.
Cassel stated we have been maintaining it.
It falls into that category of what…
Mr.
Weissman asked so why would we not want to just take an easement from the city?
Mr.
Doody responded maybe they would not give us an easement.
Mr.
Weissman stated I understand, but…
Mr.
Doody stated we discussed this and for purposes of getting reimbursement,
ownership is a better form.
Mr.
Weissman stated okay. How many homes
actually border this property?
Mr.
Craven responded look at your picture. There
is an aerial.
Mr.
Cassel stated there appears to be approximately 20 homes.
Mr.
Study asked does this go all the way to the Sawgrass Expressway at the north
end?
Mr.
Craven asked the parcel?
Mr.
Study responded yes.
Mr.
Craven stated no. It stops at the north
end of the subdivision.
Mr.
Study stated okay. So it stops before
that little transition I saw down there and the pine trees.
Mr.
Frederick stated that is Pine Tree Estates after that. Where the little transition is before it goes
under the Sawgrass; that is Pine Tree Estates.
Mr.
Study stated so the Australian Pines are already ours.
Mr.
Frederick stated there are not many there.
Mr.
Study stated along the wall there is.
Mr.
Frederick asked do you mean up at the very far north end?
Mr.
Study responded yes.
Mr.
Frederick stated yes, but with this property there are none.
Mr.
Brewer asked do we own the little stretch between where this stops and the
Sawgrass Expressway?
Mr.
Craven responded yes. That was conveyed.
Mr.
Weissman asked can we send a postcard to the 20 homeowners and ask them to
contact the manager if there are any issues with the land bordering behind
their houses on the City of Coral Springs?
If we do not hear anything by the next meeting, we can take action.
Mr.
Cassel responded that can be done.
Mr.
Study asked what is our position if someone has an accident in that area? Are we insured?
Mr.
Cassel responded yes.
Mr.
Doody stated we have insurance and we also have sovereign immunity. Again, it would depend on the facts of
whether it is associated with maintenance or ownership. I think they might come after both Coral
Springs and PTWCD.
Mr.
Study stated it is wide open. You can
get there from many different ways.
Mr.
Doody asked how deep is it?
Ms.
Benckenstein responded not very deep.
Mr.
Doody asked is it a swale?
Mr.
Craven responded no.
Mr.
Frederick stated it is not real deep.
Mr.
Doody asked is there water in it all the time?
Ms.
Benckenstein responded no.
Mr.
Frederick stated it is probably dried up now, but everything is.
Ms.
Bertolami asked is the section south of this Coral Springs?
Mr.
Cassel responded the section south goes into the Butler Farms piece.
Mr.
Doody stated the next item is an independent contractor’s agreement. I do not know if you all received it. I tried to get copies to you. It is just a draft. We can call it a template. We can call it a starting point. It is an agreement I rely upon for other
governmental agencies. It formalizes the
relationship between the District and Mr. Craven. There are two areas of focus which I
respectfully request some direction on.
One is the initial scope of services and that you would retain Mr.
Craven as an independent contractor. The
other is compensation. Mr. Weissman
brought up some concerns about insurance.
Looking on a preliminary basis Mr. Craven may be exempt, given the fact
he is a one man shop, from providing worker’s compensation. A good place to start is the scope of
services you want performed and what you are going to compensate him for those
services.
I
know there was a discussion with one of the Board members providing a similar
service. Under the Florida Statutes, any
officer or director is prohibited by law from providing services to any agency
or doing business with any agency which he or she is an officer for. We are precluded from pursuing that
opportunity by Florida Statute 112. I am
not trying to over lawyer this situation which is a somewhat simple document,
at least by my standard. As Mr. Cassel
has previously presented to you an agreement formalizing the relationship with
the other district, this too would benefit the District and Mr. Craven. I do not think we presently have a written
agreement.
Mr.
Cassel stated we have done exhaustive searching through all of our records and
could not find a formal agreement.
Mr.
Weissman asked should the scope of services be discussed between Mr. Craven and
the District manager?
Mr.
Doody responded yes and maybe the input from Mr. Brewer who has engineering
background to assist in the task.
Mr.
Brewer stated I do not anticipate anything different than what he has been
doing for as long as I have been on the Board.
Mr.
Weissman stated not that I ever expect to use this portion, but in regards to
lawsuits I would rather see we put in here binding arbitration should there be
any disputes. I would like to under
lawyer it.
Mr.
Doody stated okay.
Mr.
Craven asked where would that be?
Mr.
Doody responded we can put it under the indemnification provision.
Mr.
Weissman stated I think under 17.0.
Mr.
Doody stated we will also reference it there. Mr. Brewer, do you just want a
general and broad identification of scope of services?
Mr.
Brewer responded yes. That statement and
that he will continue to offer services as he has in the past. I do not foresee any services changing. I have been on the Board for I do not know
how many years.
Mr.
Doody stated he will be serving as a consultant. He will be providing consulting services
consistent with the needs of the District drawing upon his unique knowledge of
the District’s history and drainage infrastructure. Does anyone else wish to weigh in?
Mr.
Bertolami responded it sounds good to me.
Mr.
Doody stated you are saying the reliance is upon Mr. Craven’s knowledge to the
system, the boundaries and how the system works. Now we move on to the issue of compensation.
Mr.
Craven stated historically, we always worked on an hourly basis for time
involved on any task.
Mr.
Brewer stated refresh my memory on how we are doing on recovery, review or
anything submitted to us by a developer, owner or etcetera. If they bring us something to review, what
are we being charged and what are we collecting back to ourselves.
Mr.
Craven stated Mr. Brewer and I had a conversation about this, this
afternoon. I think cost recovery has
been a hit and miss operation for the District for the last 10 to 15
years. When there is something which
needs to be charged back, we should collect some money up front. For instance; reviewing set up plans. We get them, I look at them, make a
recommendation to the Board, the Board approves it and by the time you are
billed for my time it is three months later and the project has gone bye, bye.
Ms.
Schurz stated we charge a permit application fee.
Mr.
Craven stated it is not big enough.
Ms.
Schurz stated it needs to be increased.
Mr.
Brewer asked what are we charging now?
Ms.
Schurz responded $150.
Mr.
Brewer stated we need to bring that up.
Ms.
Schurz stated yes.
Mr.
Brewer stated the reason I say this is because I have seen other districts bump
theirs up a little bit. It is not a big
number anyway, compared to some of the other things I see out there as far as
permit application fees. I think the
permit application fee is not covering our cost. We are providing services and not getting
reimbursed.
Mr.
Doody stated to reflect on what Mr. Craven commented on, historically the
District has no legislation in place allowing for recovery. We have not passed a resolution imposing the
recovery basis on any permits. There has
been occasion where during the course of a more labor intensive issue, part of
the condition of approval was the imposition of compensation to the District to
recover costs associated with both Mr. Craven and legal services provided. You can do it several ways; through an
increase in permits or on a case by case basis.
Right now, there is no cost recovery formally in place for the
District.
Mr.
Brewer stated let me give you examples of a couple of ways I have seen it work. I do not know if it will work for us in this
case or not. The City of Plantation; I
submit a project for review and they do a calculation of how much I have to pay
depending on the project. It is not a
bond, but an escrow account. If they
spend $700 of it, they return the balance of it back to me. If they get to $1,400, they call me and say
they need more money. Every job has a
different cost factor to it. If somebody
wants to do something on one of these lots, it can be $350. If it is a 22 acre shopping center sitting on
441, it is definitely going to have more of a cost to it. I do not know if we have been eating the cost
as a District, but I do not think we should.
I am not trying to kill the developer, but if he has 22 acres, he should
be paying a different fee than a guy who has two acres.
Mr.
Doody stated correct me if I am wrong, but we do not see too many permit
applications.
Mr.
Brewer stated no we do not. You are
right. It may not be an issue.
Mr.
Doody stated for his services the intent is to take a look at putting together
the District from an engineering standpoint.
You may not have an opportunity to recover any costs. They are waiting for permit applications to
come in. Even during a more robust
economy, I do not think there are many permit applications.
Mr. Brewer stated the issue
with Coral Springs and accepting the deed; how much could you spend on it where
you are going an hour, two hours on phone calls trying to figure out what they
want to do to make us happy and accept the deed. That is the cost of doing business for the
District in this case, but if it was an individual coming to us with the same
thing, how would we handle that cost recovery?
Mr.
Doody responded at that point you ask Mr. Craven for an estimate of the cost
and that would be a condition of the acceptance. We can do it on a case by case basis.
Mr.
Brewer stated I do not have a problem with that. It is fine.
Mr.
Doody stated if they say they do not want to do it, then thank you very
much. The idea is not to make money, but
you are trying to recover the cost of doing business. In this case I do not see it as a viable
option.
Mr.
Brewer asked what is our application fee right now?
Ms.
Schurz responded our application fee is $150.
We charge a surety bond in other districts, which is refunded to the
applicant once the permit is closed out.
PTWCD does not do that.
Mr.
Brewer stated I know. I just turned in a
$350 application fee to NSID with a $2,500 trash bond note to it. I know most of the districts went to $350 for
application fees across the Board.
Ms.
Schurz stated you are correct. The
application fee is $350. The renewal fee
is $200.
Mr.
Brewer asked is that what we are charging?
Ms.
Schurz responded no. It is what the
other districts are charging.
Mr.
Brewer stated I think this just brought most of them in line recently. They all went up a little bit.
Mr.
Weissman stated maybe we should put that on the next agenda.
Mr.
Brewer stated yes. At least to visit it.
Mr.
Cassel stated okay.
Mr.
Brewer stated anything which comes to us is an application form. He is going to look at it and you are going
to look at it.
Mr.
Doody stated not necessarily. Not unless
there is a legal issue.
Mr.
Cassel stated it would typically be Mr. Craven and me reviewing it as well as
Ms. Schurz’s time, which is part of your management fee anyway. It is inclusive in our services and the
things we do.
Mr.
Weissman stated when we pass the budget is an appropriate time to discuss this.
Mr.
Craven stated I do have a problem right now and I do not know what to do with
it. I just got it in the mail the day
before yesterday. SFWMD is after WCI
Communities to convert a construction permit into an operation permit. The operational will be us. One of the threats in the letter from SFWMD is
you are going to have to certify that it is functioning the way it is supposed
to. If it is not, they are liable. This is going to take research to find out
where the thing is because they just refer to it by a number. Someone from the District is going to have to
look at it and see what shape it is in because when they convert it the
liability will go onto us.
Mr.
Weissman asked is this going to be from WCI Communities? You are going to have to wait for the
receiver to approve the expenditure. We
may be waiting a very long time.
Mr.
Brewer asked do we use it for flowage?
Mr.
Craven responded I do not know where it is.
Mr.
Weissman stated WCI Communities has reneged on all of their commitments to the
city so the likelihood of seeing any money back from them is pretty slim. Why would they put in the effort to do this?
Mr.
Craven responded we are up against another regulatory agency.
Mr.
Weissman stated I understand, but at the present time it is still held by WCI
Communities.
Mr.
Cassel stated I think Mr. Craven’s concern is they may force WCI Communities to
move it from a construction to an operation permit and do it regardless of the
outcome to the District it ends up in. I
think that is where Mr. Craven’s question is and we want to make sure if it
comes to us, it is in a functioning manner.
Mr.
Weissman asked would we get a non funded mandate from SFWMD to take on this
obligation?
Mr.
Craven responded yes. I do not know how
thorough their review process is when they go into something like this. Normally this is taken care of at the time of
construction.
Mr.
Cassel asked can you send me a copy of the letter and let me dig into it a
little bit?
Mr.
Craven responded I will send the whole thing to you.
Mr.
Cassel stated I am working with SFWMD on a number of other issues.
Mr.
Craven stated I will send it over to you.
Mr.
Doody stated I would respectfully like to draw your attention to the issue of
compensation. How much per hour?
Mr.
Craven responded you have been billed $200 per hour for meetings. There are all different kinds of categories.
Mr.
Cassel stated in the budgets we have been budgeting $12,000 a year for
engineering with a safety factor. In the
projected completion of the fiscal year 2008 budget engineering services we are
around $5,000. We have not been expending
what we have been budgeting due to the fact there have not been many things
happening. He comes to the meetings and
he keeps tracks of things. Based on the
current rate structure we are currently billing I think it is appropriate.
Mr.
Weissman asked is this acceptable to you Mr. Craven?
Mr.
Craven responded the rate structure is.
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with
all in favor the Board approved the current engineering rate structure and will
incorporate it in the Independent Contractor Agreement.
Mr.
Craven stated the real problem is establishing what the insurance coverage is
going to be.
Ms.
Benckenstein asked what is normal? Do
you know?
Mr.
Craven responded no. Worker’s
compensation is a non issue. Liability,
if it is general liability, should not be a big problem. When we get to specific areas you are looking
at big dollars and this is a relatively small job. It is the only one I have.
Mr.
Weissman asked do you know what it will cost?
Mr.
Craven responded I have no idea.
Mr.
Weissman stated you are saying worker’s compensation is a non issue. You have no problem with general
liability. It is only a question of do
you know?
Mr.
Craven responded I am not sure what commercial liability is.
Mr.
Weissman stated you probably need a professional liability policy.
Mr.
Craven stated he specifically put in commercial liability.
Mr.
Doody stated to cover liability, bodily injury and property damage.
Mr.
Craven stated that is just regular liability, but it does not cover
professional liability. I do not see
there is anything we are doing or will be doing.
Mr.
Study stated you are not sealing any of these.
You are reviewing as an independent consultant.
Mr.
Craven stated yes.
Mr.
Study stated your opinion is being passed before this Board. Liable for what?
Mr.
Brewer responded any design work we would probably send out.
Mr.
Craven stated we would.
Mr.
Brewer stated all design work.
Mr.
Craven stated I will not do any design work.
I will be more than happy, at your direction, to hire someone to do a
little design work.
Mr.
Weissman stated you are not going to seal any plans.
Mr.
Craven stated no.
Ms.
Benckenstein asked is he required to have any insurance?
Mr.
Doody responded it is up to you. It is a
policy matter.
Mr.
Weissman asked did you say you have no problem carrying general liability?
Mr.
Craven responded it is really not that expensive.
Mr.
Weissman stated so we can just incorporate general liability in the contract.
Mr.
Doody stated this really addresses the issue.
If you want me to, I can clean it up and put it in your agenda for the
next meeting. Do you want me to do it
that way?
Mr.
Brewer responded it is fine with me.
Mr.
Craven stated I have a question.
Ms.
Bertolami stated go ahead.
Mr.
Craven stated I would like to get going on getting this property straightened
out. I had all good intentions at the
first of the year to try to get it done before the hurricane season. If we are going to put this off until May…
Mr.
Doody stated there can be an authorization to proceed and we will just
formalize the agreement in May.
Mr.
Brewer asked is that fine with the Board?
Ms.
Bertolami responded yes.
Mr.
Brewer asked do we need to send a letter to Craven & Thompson?
Mr.
Doody responded I do not think we have a relationship with Craven &
Thompson.
Mr.
Brewer stated we do not have a contract with them.
Mr.
Doody stated so no. They are looking to
us and we are not looking to them. It
was an affiliation based on Mr. Craven’s affiliation with Craven &
Thompson.
Mr.
Brewer stated okay.
Mr.
Doody stated this concludes my report tonight.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer’s Report
Mr. Craven stated the only thing I had to report is what I
am going to send to Mr. Cassel.
Mr.
Study asked is someone going to research and find out what this obstacle is?
Mr.
Cassel responded Ms. Schurz and I will take care of it. We are dealing with a number of other issues
between WCI Communities in other districts.
We are familiar with most of the rabbits and which holes they took off
to.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s Report
(Continued)
Mr. Cassel stated I have one other thing I forgot under the
Manager’s Report. A couple of months
ago, in one of the other districts we manage, the IRS came in and started
picking at the fact that Supervisors are not being paid as payroll; they are
being paid as 1099’s. It used to be a
call on the attorneys and IRS did not come on a hardness that it had to be as a
payroll scenario versus a 1099. They
have reversed themselves over the last year and are saying it should be done as
payroll versus a 1099 situation. I want
to let the Board know. We have the
paperwork for the Board to fill out to change it so we can do it the way they
are going to be looking at it from now on.
We have the paperwork here for you tonight.
Ms.
Bertolami stated thank you.
Mr.
Doody stated just to touch on this. Your
compensation is based on this special act.
It is specifically in there that you get paid $100 per meeting.
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’
Requests
There not
being any, the next item followed.
ELEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of Financials and Check Registers
There
being no questions or comments,
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with
all in favor the financials and check registers were approved.
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There being no further business,
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with
all in favor the meeting was adjourned.
Kenneth Cassel Margaret
Bertolami
Assistant Secretary
President