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 Benckenstein Assistant
Secretary
Neil Study Supervisor
Mark Weissman Supervisor
Also present were:
Edward Goscicki Interim
Manager,
Kenneth Cassel Manager
DJ Doody Attorney
Warren Craven Engineer
Brenda Schurz
Randy Fredericks Field
Superintendent
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr.
Goscicki called the meeting to order and called the roll
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS Audience
Comments
There not being any, the next item followed.
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the May 1, 2008 Meeting
Ms.
Bertolami stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr.
Goscicki stated on page three, ‘greenage’ should be ‘drainage’. In the sentence which reads, “When you look
at it on a per acreage charge you are at $340 per acre compared to $209, the
second ‘you’ should be ‘they’.
On MOTION by Ms. Benckenstein seconded by Mr. Brewer with
all in favor the minutes were approved as amended.
FOURTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Resolution 2008-4 Designating Kenneth Cassel as District Manager
Mr.
Goscicki stated we introduced Mr. Cassel at the last Board meeting and we
provided you with a copy of his resume. We
would like to have Mr. Cassel take over as the manager for PTWCD. We brought this back to you today for your
consideration.
Ms.
Bertolami asked is there a caveat that he is not an interim District manager?
Mr.
Goscicki responded that is not a problem.
On MOTION by Ms. Benckenstein seconded by Mr. Brewer with
all in favor Resolution 2008-4 designating Kenneth Cassel as District Manager
was adopted.
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Engagement Letter with Grau & Associates to Perform the Financial Audit
for Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2008
Mr. Goscicki stated we brought this forward at the last
Board meeting. The Board asked us to
confirm whether or not Grau & Associates would honor their price for their
service from last year going forward for this year. We took it to them. They agreed completely and appreciate the
opportunity to serve this District for another year. The pricing in their proposal is the same as
it was last year, which is $7,300. We
will need a motion to accept the engagement letter with Grau & Associates
to perform the financial audit for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008.
On MOTION by Ms. Benckenstein seconded by Mr. Brewer with
all in favor the engagement letter with Grau & Associates to perform the
financial audit for fiscal year ending September 30, 2008 was accepted.
The
record will reflect Mr. Weissman joined the meeting.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Bids
A.
Project TK2008-1 – Purchase of ½ Ton 4x4
Pick Up Truck
Ms. Bertolami stated you each received the memorandum from
Mr. Goscicki regarding the pick up truck and the Triploid Grass Carp.
Mr.
Cassel stated the current truck is a lease vehicle. The lease is up in June. You authorized us to go out and secure bids
to purchase a truck versus leasing one.
The bid came in. One item which
developed between the bid and the meeting is Ford quit making 2008 models so
the dealer has to get it from another dealer.
There is an additional $1,200 fee to the $18,475, which puts it at
approximately $19,700 in order to get the truck. It is something which occurs in the
manufacturing of trucks. They run a
batch and send them out. When they are
out at one dealer, the dealer has to negotiate with another dealer to get the
truck for his sale.
Ms.
Bertolami asked is it going to be a problem since they are not making them
anymore?
Mr.
Cassel responded no. They make a run of
trucks. They produce 35,000 or 50,000
trucks and then they send them out to the distributors. They may not be producing this model truck
for another six months. They are
producing another model truck. During
this six month period, if all the dealers are out of trucks, you can either
wait six months for a truck or you need to find a dealer who has it and have it
brought in. We do not have the luxury of
waiting for another truck run to come in because our lease is up in June. We need to pick it up from a different
dealer.
Ms.
Bertolami stated it strikes me odd that the bid is dated May 28, 2008.
Mr.
Cassel asked Mr. Fredericks, do you want to give some input on your discussion
with the dealer?
Mr.
Fredericks responded I spoke to the dealer and according to him this is a 2008
truck. He was planning on ordering the
truck, but you cannot order it from the factory. This was his plan when he placed the
bid. Now he has to get one from another
dealer. He located one at another
dealer, but there is a holding fee of $1,205 extra. He was the only one who bid on this. We advertised this for two weeks in the paper
and we got one bid. Several people
called for the bid package, but we only received one bid.
Mr.
Weissman stated I would like a legal opinion as to whether we can hold them to
the bid.
Mr.
Doody stated we can hold them if there is a basis for it. If he does not honor it, you can take him to
court.
Mr.
Weissman asked do we need to do anything more than threaten him? How often do we buy a truck?
Mr.
Fredericks responded every four years.
Mr.
Weissman asked are we worried about our relationship with this individual? It is $1,200 of taxpayer money. Is it worth a letter from the attorney
telling him we are going to take him to court and we are going make sure the
press is aware he made a bid and is not willing to deliver?
Mr.
Doody responded I would not reference the press.
Mr.
Brewer asked if we are going to spend an additional $1,205 to have a truck
delivered, are we better off spending another $1,200 on a better truck they
already have?
Mr.
Weissman responded as long as the truck fills our needs. We are going to spend $1,200 more on a truck
for features we do not need.
Mr.
Brewer stated I would rather do that then pay $1,200 to bring a truck from
Orlando.
Mr.
Weissman stated I agree, but we should first try to save $1,200.
Mr.
Brewer stated I do not think you are going to have much luck. It depends on how much money you want to
spend with the attorney.
Mr.
Weissman stated I think a letter may be worth the investment to see what kind
of response we get.
Ms.
Benckenstein stated it is not just the letter.
He has to research the bid, write the letter and get back to us. It is billable by the hour so it is more than
just a letter.
Mr.
Weissman asked is this all of the documentation there is on this?
Mr.
Cassel responded this is the response to the bid. It is not the bid package.
Mr.
Weissman asked is this everything he needed to respond?
Mr.
Cassel responded yes. It met the specifications
of the size and type of truck requested.
Mr.
Doody stated you can reject the bid.
Mr.
Goscicki asked when does our lease run out?
Mr.
Fredericks responded June 2, 2008.
Mr.
Goscicki stated this is the challenge we have.
We found out late that the lease was up on the vehicle. One of the reasons we are not leasing anymore
is so we are not tied to lease schedules when we replace them. There is a little bit of a press on time
right now. We need to move forward. If the Board wants us to, we can go back and
approach the vendor with an alternative price.
I would like guidance from the Board as to what will be an acceptable
solution. How much leeway will you give
the manager and the attorney to try to negotiate something with them?
Ms.
Bertolami responded how about splitting the difference. Are we meeting in July? The lease is up anyway so we need to resolve
this.
Mr. Weissman MOVED to give District staff leeway to
negotiate at an amount not to exceed 50% of the increased charge of $1,205.
Ms.
Bertolami asked what is the alternative if they do not?
Mr.
Weissman responded we will meet here in August.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we will work out something.
We can either do an extension of the lease or work out something where
we borrow a truck from one of our neighboring districts on a short term basis. We will work something out.
Mr.
Brewer asked is the truck shot?
Mr.
Fredericks responded it is not shot.
They did an inspection on the truck.
They sent an inspector out who is not from Ford. He is a separate contractor. They nitpick every little thing. They want the truck back in showroom quality
after three years of being out in the field.
This person indicated we are going to have to pay $1,800 for damages to
the truck when we turn it in. When you
look at this truck you are going to say, where?
They charge you for things such as the tires not being the same size as
the tires which were on the truck when we leased it. We went to a tire store we deal with to get
new tires. They put on different size
tires. I did not know they did
this. You are going to get charged for
this.
Mr.
Cassel stated we found out one of the other districts is going through the same
thing. This guy will say you do not have
the same size specification tire, but when you go back to Ford they will say it
is still the same tires. They will
discount that as far as not making you come up with it.
Mr.
Fredericks stated this guy said the price he gave us is not actually what you
are going to have to pay. When you turn
it in to Ford they are going to go over it again.
Mr.
Weissman asked did we lease it from the same dealer who bid on this?
Mr.
Fredericks responded yes.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we have done a lot of work with Plantation Ford over the years
between PTWCD, SWCD, CSID and NSID.
Mr.
Weissman stated maybe as part of the negotiation we should see that they take
this truck back without any penalty. It
is $3,000 of taxpayer money we did not budget for.
Ms.
Bertolami stated this is probably the last time you will get a 2008.
Mr.
Fredericks stated you may not be able to get a 2008. When they start making the 2009 models they
have to change all their guides out and everything. There is preparation time to do this so they
can start producing their 2009 models by August. You might have to go with a 2009 if you wait
longer.
Ms.
Bertolami stated maybe there is another resource to finding a 2008 such as the
internet.
Mr.
Fredericks stated I can go back and try to wheel and deal with this guy if you
want to do this.
Mr.
Study asked are we sold on Ford?
Mr.
Goscicki responded we put out a bid and they are the only ones who
responded. If we reject the bid, the
Board can authorize us to waive their procurement requirements. We can go out
and negotiate with a local vendor to see if we can find something under $19,000
or for the same deal. We may or may not
be successful in finding something.
Mr.
Fredericks stated for a four wheel drive truck this is actually a very good
price.
Mr.
Goscicki stated this does include a five year, 75,000 mile warranty. We added this standard warranty as part of
the bid.
Mr. Weissman MOVED to give the District manager leeway to
purchase the truck up to half of the difference between the bid and the new
asking price of the vehicle and Ms. Benckenstein seconded it.
Mr.
Brewer stated let us say they get within $100 of what we give them leeway to; I
do not think $100 will make or break the deal and we are sitting without a vehicle. We have two issues here. A: Figure out how they are going to take the
$1,800 in damages on the other truck back and make it go away as hard as you
can. B: negotiate the $1,200 to go away
as much as you can. If you can get
within $100 or so of whatever halfway is, can we give them the authority to go
forward so we can get this truck thing in action?
Mr.
Weissman responded I am not sure whether the dealer is going to give you the write
off and say we are accepting the vehicle as it is with no fees. That will come from Ford leasing.
Mr.
Goscicki stated when you turn your lease in and lease another one, they will
take the $1,000 and roll it into the next lease price. They are still getting their money. They are essentially financing it for
you.
Mr.
Fredericks stated the price of $1,800 will more than likely change. When we turn the vehicle in it is not going
to be this number.
Mr.
Weissman asked meaning higher or lower?
Mr.
Fredericks responded I am pretty sure it is going to be lower.
Mr.
Weissman stated there are no guarantees.
Mr.
Fredericks stated they put something in their inspection about the weather
stripping around one door. I looked at
it and I could not find anything. He is
seeing things I do not see.
Mr.
Brewer asked what will we pay for an additional three months on the existing
vehicle we are leasing? We do not know
the number. It may be $1,200 and we are
sitting here arguing over $1,200.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we are talking about two separate items. We have a lease and we expected to have some costs for damages when we turn
it in. We need to negotiate when we turn
the vehicle in and make sure we are not paying anything, in terms of damages to
the vehicle, we do not think is appropriate.
It stands alone. It was more for
your information. The other item is a
bid. We have a bid price where they
submitted a bid. They are now coming
back saying they do not want to honor this price. They had an unforeseen condition come up and
they are asking us for an additional $1,200.
We have every right to go back and say we want them to honor the
original price. I think we can move
forward with the motion the Board has out in front of us.
On VOICE vote with all in favor the motion as previously
outlined passed.
B.
Triploid Grass Carp
Mr.
Goscicki stated these are fish which eat aquatic leaves. We put out a bid. You periodically need to restock.
Mr.
Fredericks stated it has been three years and I have not put any in. We are getting signs of some leaves coming
back in certain areas.
Mr.
Goscicki stated under tab seven is the memorandum recommending the bid
award. This is for 1,600 carp. Nine bids were received. The lowest bid was for $3.65 per fish for a
total of $5,840. There is money in your
budget anticipated for this under aquatic weed control. The money is there and the price is a good
one. There are significant variations in
the bids, but you have three bidders which are close to one another. We think it is a legitimate price. Have you worked with this vendor before?
Mr.
Fredericks responded yes. This guy
called me today to find out because he has not heard from me. I was waiting to get approval from the
Board. There is a bid war out there
between him and another fish factory.
This is why we have such a good deal on this bid.
Mr.
Brewer asked is it up compared to the last time you bought?
Mr.
Fredericks responded the last time I bought was several years ago. I believe we paid $3.05 per fish. I averaged $3.50 a fish when I put this in
the budget. This is pretty close.
Ms.
Benckenstein asked how big are they?
Mr.
Fredericks responded these are 10 inches.
We used to get 4 inch to 6 inch fish, but we had a problem when we
started dumping them. Fish like bass
were eating them. We have fish factories
in Florida. He is coming all the way
from Arkansas. I do not know how he is
making any money out of this. He said he
is not. This is just a payback thing
between him and another fish factory.
On MOTION by Ms. Benckenstein seconded by Mr. Brewer with
all in favor the bid for Triploid Grass Carp was awarded to JM Malone & Son
in the amount of $3.65 per fish at a total cost of $5,840.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s Report
A. Assessment
Notification
Mr.
Goscicki stated at the last meeting the Board requested we send you a draft of
the assessment notification letter we send out to each of the residents
reflecting the increase in assessments.
We sent it to each of you and a copy of the draft is also in the agenda package. We want to get any comments, edits, additions
or deletions the Board might have. Some
of the language is prescriptive by state statutes in terms of the kind of
information we need to include as well as the details of how it breaks down in
terms of paragraphs. The third to last
paragraph on Hurricane Wilma is all additional language we put in. The last paragraph is very prescriptive in
terms of letting them know there is a public hearing, what the total amounts
will be and what the items will be as is some of the prescriptive language in
paragraph three which says what the total gross revenue will be and what the
percentage increase from the previous year is.
Ms.
Benckenstein stated I have a correction or at least a question.
Mr.
Goscicki stated I have two corrections I found on here also. “The proposed increase in the assessment is
proposed” and also, this is in the Hurricane Wilma paragraph, “start rebuilding
a modest” instead of ‘as’.
Ms.
Bertolami stated I have a question in the second paragraph. “This year the District will be collecting
the assessments for operations and maintenance.” Is this prescriptive language or can you put
something to make it “as in past years”?
It seems like a novice reading this will take it as a change.
Mr.
Goscicki responded that is a good idea.
We can change it to say, “This year the District will again be
collecting the assessments.”
Ms.
Bertolami asked are there any other comments?
Mr.
Study responded I have a general comment.
You are approaching this with a hurricane issue and yet we all know some
of the excess funds we are considering are going elsewhere. Are we in fact using the fund as standby
monies or are we trying to resolve an older problem, which is the legal
boundaries? I bring it to your attention
because there are issues which are directed to the District and then there are
local issues, which should be directed to the city. I believe if we are trying to build up a
reservoir of funds for emergency use, then those monies are dedicated for that
emergency use and has nothing to do with the legal boundary description.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the Board has the flexibility within your reserve funds to use
those monies for any legal purpose of the District. This is not being set up as a separate fund
reserve. It is all part of your revenue
and within your legal rights as a District.
You can use it for any legal purpose of the District. If you want to include language in the letter
saying we are using this to both build a reserve fund and to help define the
District’s boundaries as well as other services in this regard, we can add this
language in. The important part of the
message I was trying to get across is that Hurricane Wilma depleted the
money. This is absolutely factual. You had a significant reserve fund at one point,
which has been depleted because of all the work done. This is why we sent this to you as a
draft. We are happy to take any comments
from the Board which you would like to see added to this.
Ms.
Benckenstein stated I think your language covers everything. It says to cover the costs of this storm’s
remediation work. Part of this is to get
surveys and determine what the boundaries are.
I do not think you have to be as specific.
Ms.
Bertolami asked will it be helpful if it indicates it was not just the District
spending this money and some of it was paid back under funding?
Mr.
Goscicki responded those are details.
You are going to have a public hearing on this. The purpose of this memorandum letter is to
notify people there will be a public hearing and to give them the information
that assessments are going up a certain amount.
Giving them general information as to the reason why is at the pleasure
of the Board. You are going to have a
public hearing to be able to fully vet and discuss with any resident who cares,
the full level and detail of every line item in the budget someone wants to get
into.
Ms.
Bertolami asked when will the public hearing take place?
Mr.
Goscicki responded it will be August 7, 2008.
Mr.
Study stated the problem which came up at the last meeting was there were funds
available, but we did not have $25,000 to go after $100,000, or whatever it
was. If we start growing the pot, so to
speak, and then we concentrate on the legal matters of description, we still will
not have the $25,000 to get the $75,000 for a corrected mode. That is my only problem.
Mr.
Goscicki stated it is fully within the purview of this Board. You approve an overall budget. You are not approving a detailed line item
budget. You are approving a budget by
fund. You only have one fund. Within the confines of the budget, you can
tell us how to spend the money.
Mr.
Brewer stated the Board has been neglecting the legal issue for years; not just
this Board, but Boards before us. It is
because there is a big number sitting there looking at us. We need to spend X amount of dollars, for how
many years we do not know, to get this mess cleaned up. It raised its ugly head because of the
hurricane. We could not make a claim and
prove what we owned. We are spending
some money legally to say we will not get caught in this trap again. If a storm hits this year, we are going to be
trapped again. We are going to go after
issues on the legal end of it in danger areas we feel will leave an open door on
possible hurricane clean up so when we do go after the money there will be no
uncertain terms. Mr. Doody can say we
own this and we own that. There are
certain areas we know we own 80% of, but 20% of it we have know idea if we
own. This may not be the right
percentage. The legal was put in there
so we will be able to go after money with certainty from FEMA and other
organizations because we declared we own it.
Ms.
Bertolami stated but we would approve the expenditures.
Mr.
Study stated we are currently looking at a substantial increase in a very
economically tough time. I seriously
have a problem with this in general.
Ms.
Bertolami stated the up shot is we can approve up to the advertised amount.
Mr.
Goscicki stated absolutely. At the last
meeting the Board approved a proposed budget and set the public hearing date
for the budget. You approved the budget
for the purpose of setting the public hearing.
The public hearing will be on August 7, 2008. The dollar amount which will go in this
letter is based on the approved budget.
The Board can amend the budget today since we have not sent out the
public hearing notice yet and you can amend the budget at the public hearing to
bring it down to any level you want. You
are capping what you can do when you approve the proposed budget. You set the public hearing, send out the
assessment letter and say this is the maximum we are going to do. At the public hearing where you adopt the
budget for the next fiscal year you lock it down and say this is what the
assessments are going to be.
Ms.
Bertolami asked will it be appropriate to approve this document by motion and
move on to a discussion of the budget which will actually be what is taken into
this document?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes. We want to make
sure we are giving a full explanation for what we are doing in this
document. The dollar amounts were left
blank in the letter. The dollar amount is
a separate discussion item. If the
letter is acceptable to the Board, I do not need a motion. I just need consensus from the Board. If this is okay, we can move on to the next
item which is discussion of the proposed budget.
Ms.
Bertolami stated I think the letter says what it needs to say.
B.
Questions or Comments on Proposed Budget
Mr.
Weissman stated I would like to express concern again with the increase in the
budget as proposed; however, I think we can make a case for a separate special
assessment if we want to create a reserve fund after the elimination of our
reserve fund from the last storm. I
think it is something the public will accept as a one time replenishment of the
fund and not a recurring expense. Once
we add on to the budget we know what typically happens. The following year we are adding on again. Instead of nickel and diming people I would
rather see a one time assessment of whatever dollars we feel we need in a
reserve fund in order to have funding available in the event of a storm. I think the public will understand it better
than if they hear we increased the budget 25%, we use it to amend our
boundaries and by the time a storm comes there are no funds to do the work
which needs to be done. This is my
feeling.
Mr.
Brewer stated I do not think anything in this budget will hold. You better figure this budget is going to
grow 10% to 20% based on what I see outside in this world right now. I know I am going to raise my prices every
time gas goes up, every time a loaf of bread goes up and every time a gallon of
milk goes up because I am not going to work for free. I can tell you right now this economy is
coming hard at us and I think we crunched these numbers. I do not think they are going to fit. We just lost almost $.25 cents per fish to a guy
who is doing it at cost. He is on a war
path so it is good for us. We are saying
we want to try to crunch the numbers down.
I think we are getting ready to commit suicide. The reason I am saying this is because we are
going to have a District with no money.
I do not want to be sitting here in hurricane season saying we need to
borrow $1 Million.
Mr.
Goscicki stated there are some challenges in here. We budgeted fuel at four dollars a gallon and
we are there now. We are in an uncertain
economic time right now in terms of what we are looking at for next year and
how much things will go up.
Mr.
Brewer stated I hope it goes down, but the indications I see do not show this
happening. This concerns me a little
bit. The budget we are using may not be
real and this concerns me.
Mr.
Weissman asked speaking of gasoline prices, have we looked at an alternate fuel
source vehicle such as a hybrid or even propane which is a dollar less a gallon?
Mr.
Goscicki responded no we did not.
Mr.
Weissman stated I believe it is a $3,000 add on to do propane. I assume over four years we will use more
than $3,000 worth of fuel. This will be
a win/win situation unless there are other alternatives such as a hybrid.
Mr.
Goscicki stated I do not think there are hybrid trucks out there now, other
than SUVs.
Ms.
Bertolami stated I am trying to put this in perspective in terms of what your
chart shows on pages three and four. It
shows the taxable units at $2,126.63. The
difference between the current assessment and next year’s proposed assessment
is approximately $38. More than half of
the properties are less than an acre.
You are really talking about an increase of around $10 to $20 for most
of the properties. I do not think it is
out of line. As Mr. Brewer was saying, I
think we are facing times when we should have been doing more minor increases
all along. Now we are playing catch up
and this is the situation we are looking at.
Mr.
Goscicki stated you are absolutely right.
The percentage increase is significant on a percentage basis, but when
you look at the real dollars in terms of assessments per property owner who is
going to be paying this, it is not a huge amount. We gave you some of the comparisons with NSID
and CSID last month to show you currently your assessments per property owner
on the average lot size are significantly less than your neighboring
communities. This has always been a very
frugal District and rightfully so. You
are very cognitive of taking care of taxpayers’ money, but you had a huge
hurricane which cost you a great deal of money.
This is really the driving force on this. You spent your nest egg. It is gone.
You also have the continuing need the Board has been talking about for
years to try to get a better handle on your property boundaries as a result of
the hurricane. Other property
development you can handle on a case by case basis, but when you get into a
major storm you have large tracts of land you are trying to log down whether or
not you own the property so you can get federal reimbursement. It is not a result of being wasteful over the
years. I am saying all of this for the
record. This Board has not been
wasteful. It has been very frugal in
what they are doing. You had a hurricane
event you cannot control. This is the
cost of dealing with it.
Ms.
Benckenstein stated I think we can be too frugal. We would be remiss in not increasing it;
especially if it only means $10 to $20. We
are also below our next door neighbors.
Ms.
Bertolami stated that is a good talking point, but I think we need to consider
they have different types of equipment and machinery. There is a reason why they are higher
too. What I would like to see for the
public hearing is some kind of a graph or chart showing the actual dollar value
and maybe showing a pictorial of what the increase will be. For example, 50% of the properties are here
and they will be an extra $10, 37% are here and they will pay an extra
$18. However it breaks down. Something to pass out to whoever attends; not
on color paper, black and white is fine.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we have in house color printers we can put this on and do it efficiently.
Mr.
Weissman stated it all sounds good, but remember we are going to send a letter
to everyone which is going to say we are increasing the assessments 30%.
Mr.
Brewer stated they are not increasing it 30%.
Mr.
Weissman stated it says, “This is an approximate 30% increase in the
assessments per unit from last fiscal year.”
Mr.
Brewer stated we might want to eliminate it because someone may live on ⅓
of an acre.
Mr.
Weissman stated it is still 30% more than what they paid last year.
Mr.
Brewer stated my taxes went up $5,000 last year. I do not see you changing them over at the
City Commission.
Mr.
Weissman stated that has nothing to do with this.
Mr.
Goscicki stated let me suggest I add another sentence in here saying the
current assessment per acre is $161.03 and the new assessment per acre will be
$209.14. We can give the same example I
broke down where a ¼ acre will pay a quarter of that. We will put the actual dollar amounts in
there.
Ms.
Bertolami stated I think it will help. So
what are you looking for on this budget?
Mr.
Goscicki responded there is no action for the Board to take. If the Board wanted to make any changes to
it, this is an opportunity to do so. If
you had any comments or suggestions, we could incorporate it. At the public hearing you will take formal
action on the budget.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney’s Report
There
being no report, the next item followed.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer’s Report
Mr. Craven stated I had communications with Butler
Farms. They still have not received the
permit from SFWMD nor have they received concurrence from Broward County Water
Management.
Number
two: If you recall, Broward County proposed to the Board to provide additional
irrigation water to assure a water supply.
They are still fooling around with it.
They still have an agreement they want to send to us. This is just for your information.
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’
Requests
There
not being any, the next item followed.
ELEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of Financials and Check Registers
Mr.
Goscicki stated we have given you a number of different documents for the
standard financial package. The first tab
is your balance sheet, which is a status of where you are today. They are a value when you compare them from
balance sheet to balance sheet. It shows
you where you are today, what your assets are and what your liabilities
are. When you start seeing your accrued
expenses go up significantly, that is when you get worried.
The
second tab is your statement of revenues and expenditures. This is your budget actuals. We are a little down on revenues from where
we would like to be. We are a little shy
on collecting all of the assessments, but you can see on the total
administrative expenses we are under spending.
We are under spending in total field expenses by $56,000. Overall on the budget year to date you are in
a positive situation. You are under
spending even though you are under receiving in revenue.
Ms.
Bertolami asked is this typical?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes. You are required
by law to underestimate revenue by 5%.
We also try to be conservative on expenditures. We try to overestimate expenditures when we
are budgeting and we try to underestimate revenue. The trend report shows your revenue and
expenditures by month. The assessment
collection tab shows you when your assessments come in. You can see the bulk of them come in the
December timeframe and then start trickling off, but you can still see some
revenue coming in. You have 89% of your
revenue collected for the year, which is typical. Cash and investment balances essentially
tells you where your money is. You still
have some money with the SBA. Fortunately
it is only $4,000. After that you have
your bank reconciliation and check register.
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with
all in favor the financials and check registers were approved.
TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There being no further business,
On MOTION by Ms. Benckenstein seconded by Mr. Weissman with
all in favor the meeting was adjourned.
Donna Benckenstein
Margaret
Bertolami
Assistant Secretary
Chairperson