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,
D.J. Doody Attorney
Warren Craven Engineer
Kenneth Cassel
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 Organizational
Matters
A.
Appointment of Supervisor to fill the
Unexpired Term of Office (1/2011)
Mr. Goscicki stated we have a vacancy on the Board. The Board has the ability to appoint a
Supervisor to fill the unexpired term.
This term continues until January of 2011.
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Mr. Brewer with all in
favor Mr. Study was nominated to fill the unexpired term of office.
B. Oath of
Office of Newly Appointed Supervisor
Mr.
Doody, being a Notary Public of the State of
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Audience Comments
There
not being any, the next item followed.
FOURTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the February 7, 2008 Meeting
Ms.
Bertolami stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr.
Craven stated on page 12, ‘foreman’ should be ‘poleman’.
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with
all in favor the minutes of the
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Distribution
of the Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2009 and Consideration of Resolution
2008-3 Approving the Budget and Setting the Public Hearing
Mr. Goscicki stated the Board will note we submitted two
budgets; a primary budget and an alternate budget. The only difference between these two budgets
is in Alternative 1 we essentially kept the same budget we have right now and
adjusted some items for inflation and projected salary increases. I believe we added 3.5% for salary
increases. The basic version submitted
has an additional $100,000 in expenses between the engineer and the
attorney. These are ballpark numbers to
get the Board started with the program of trying to research and document the
District’s land ownership. This has been
a topic of discussion at numerous Board meetings. The total effort to go through everything,
map it and go through the legal search of us changing title, will be more in
the order of $200,000 to $300,000 before you are done with this process. We wanted to plug in a number to get a
discussion started and see what the Board’s pleasure is in this regard.
The
other aspect of this budget has to do with the fund balance. Your fund balance has been significantly depleted
over the last two years due to restoration work following the hurricane. You are down to a nominal fund balance. We have enough fund balance in this budget to
continue to fund the three months operating reserves we need to have, which
covers us September, October and November until we start getting tax revenues
in. Even if you do not want to proceed
with spending all of the funds on doing property searches and title work, we
still think it is time for this Board to ratchet up your assessments and start
building your reserve funds again.
The
base budget we submitted to you plugged in this additional $100,000, which
brings the budget from a $337,000 budget to a $430,000 budget. It brings the assessment per unit from $161
per acre of property to $209, which is approximately a 30% increase. NSID’s general fund assessment is $70 per
parcel. They do not do it on an acre
basis. They do it on a parcel basis
being a single family home. The average
single family home site in NSID is a quarter acre or less. When you look at it on a per acreage charge they
are at $340 per acre compared to $209. In
CSID it was in the order of $180 per unit.
You are looking at over $600 per acre on an equivalent basis. If you are a half an acre parcel in PTWCD,
you pay half the assessment. If you are
a quarter acre parcel, you pay a quarter of the assessment. You are still on the low end of the
neighboring communities in the
Ms.
Bertolami asked do they do more out of their budget? Are there other projects they fund?
Mr.
Goscicki responded Mr. Fredericks can state directly to CSID in terms of the
level of service.
Mr.
Fredericks stated they have pump stations and things like that. That is an expense you do not have in
PTWCD. They have some mowing they have
to do. PTWCD owns a tractor, but you
have little mowing to do. It is not as
big of an expense for us as it is for them.
Mr.
Weissman stated I am going to go back to the same speech I made last year when
it came to the budget. Most government
agencies in the state are going to be looking at major cutbacks in service
because of the loss of revenue Amendment 1 requires. I have no objection to the proposed budget
with a 5% increase, but in lieu of the current economy and what is going on
with every other government agency it will be poor judgment on our part to look
into a 30% increase this coming fiscal year.
Timing is everything and I do not think the time is right for us to be
looking at this. We have the ability to
special assess in case some unforeseen natural occurrence creates a need for us
to have additional funds. I am in favor
of a 5% increase as opposed to a 30% increase.
Mr.
Brewer stated I will take the same stance I took a year ago. I think we are broke. It is not fair to the people. If we have an emergency, we are going to be
forced into a situation to borrow $1 Million.
I am not an advocate of borrowing money.
We have no reserve account. We
have no funds available. I do not see it
as a significant increase compared to what we discussed about other
districts. We cannot sit here on the
Board and say we are done if we get hit by a hurricane. We do not have a dime. I do not think it is fair to the people we
serve.
Ms.
Benckenstein stated I do not mind the $209 figure. I do not think it is terribly
significant.
Mr.
Goscicki stated you can approve any level you want today and not just the two
we proposed. You are approving the
budget for the purpose of setting a public hearing. Once you approve this budget tonight you can
always come down on the number. If the
Board approves an increase in the assessment, we will send a notification as we
did last year. It will be a much better
letter this year. I have already written
it and made sure the details are in there describing the per acre assessment
and if you have a quarter acre it is a quarter of the assessment figure. You are approving a number tonight, which
will be a maximum. We will be coming
back to the Board 60 days from now to adopt the budget. When you adopt the budget you make a final
decision on what the figure will be. You
cannot raise it above what you approve tonight, but you can always bring it
down.
Ms.
Bertolami asked when was the last time this was raised?
Mr.
Goscicki responded I think we did a 5% or 6% increase last year. You were running flat for many years prior to
this. You were able to do it because you
had a reserve fund. You were relying on
the reserves to cover some routine expenses.
This kept your rates stable, but the hurricane wiped this ability out. You do not have a pot of money to stabilize
your rates anymore.
Ms.
Bertolami stated the basic difference I see between the two is the ability to
go forward and determine the right-of-way or easement along the Sawgrass
Expressway; if it is what I understood you to say.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the Sawgrass Expressway is one of the hotter issues, but it is
really to start the program to ascertain what property values, right-of-ways
and easements you own.
Ms.
Bertolami asked can you go on the record saying how this helps all the
recipients of the PTWCD?
Mr.
Goscicki responded there are a couple of issues. If there is another hurricane, it is
important to the District to know what your assets are and the limits of your
responsibility because you will be looking for federal reimbursement. If you wind up spending money and then after
the fact find out it was not your property, you may not get reimbursed. There are also development issues you get
into it. Property being developed can
impact your right-of-ways. If you do not
know you own them, you cannot protect those rights.
Ms.
Bertolami asked do we have a handle on the percentage of properties which are
acreage versus one third of an acre for the District? We should all be aware of it.
Mr.
Goscicki responded I do not know off the top of my head. I looked at the assessment rolls. I might be able to pull it up on my computer
while we are here.
Mr.
Weissman asked do we know how Amendment 1 affects the District?
Mr.
Doody responded not as much as a municipality, but it will have an adverse
impact.
Mr.
Weissman asked do we have the ability to pass a 30% increase with Amendment 1?
Mr.
Doody responded I will have to look at whether the language contained in the
amendment can be construed to apply to this District.
Mr.
Weissman stated everyone needs to be aware that Tallahassee has continued to
look at these districts as a way of cutting out some of the expenses to the
residents by either combining them or eliminating them. It has been a battle in Tallahassee. I think we will be feeding this fire with a
30% increase.
Ms.
Bertolami stated point well taken.
Mr.
Brewer asked what is the difference between increasing their annual fee and
having an assessment?
Mr.
Weissman responded none other than the fact you will have a real reason. If you have a natural disaster as we had
before and you have to special assess in order to clean up what it created, you
will have justification.
Mr.
Brewer stated I think we have justification.
Mr.
Weissman stated we are saying we want to build up reserves, but at the same
time we are going to spend the money on other expenses.
Mr.
Brewer stated we are not going to develop a reserve account.
Mr.
Weissman stated so not only are you going to increase the assessment, but if
there is a disaster you will be forced into the situation of having to special
assess.
Mr.
Brewer stated at the beginning of this year the engineers came to us and told
us we can get $100,000 to do clean up if we had 25% out of pocket. We did not have the money. We could not buy down the deal because we are
broke. Somebody was willing to give us
$75,000 out of $100,000 and we could not take it because we could not afford to
do it. That was not a good move on the
District’s part because we could not go after the money to do clean up. You cannot sit here and run the District with
a zero balance.
Mr.
Weissman stated I do not believe I was here at the time, but I would have asked
to borrow the 25%.
Mr.
Goscicki stated in looking through the assessment roll it looks as if it is two
to one in terms of the number of parcels which are a half acre or less compared
to one acre parcels. You have a lot more
parcels which are between a half and a tenth of an acre.
Ms.
Bertolami asked is there a motion to approve the larger assessment and in the
meantime Mr. Doody can look into whether it is doable?
Mr.
Doody responded you are of the mindset where you are contemplating increasing
it as recommended by the manager. Like
municipalities you initially start high because you cannot increase it beyond a
certain point, but you can always come back and reduce it. I am looking at the special act which created
the District. It says, “The collection
and enforcement of all taxes levied by the District shall be at the same time
and in like manner as county taxes, and the provisions of the Florida Statutes
relating to the sale of lands for unpaid and delinquent county taxes.” There is language tied to the statute. I will have to go back and look at the
amendment to see if it is contemplated that it applies to a governmental entity
such as the District. To allow yourself
leverage if you are inclined to keep it as an option, you have to vote for the
higher number tonight. You are not bound
by it. It will be advertised as such,
but you always have the opportunity to reduce it. You will not be able to increase it if you do
not take the higher number.
Ms.
Benckenstein stated the higher number is because we need the fees for the
attorney and engineer to see what property we own. I think it is a good idea. We need to do it before a hurricane hits.
Mr.
Doody stated for the record, and to help the new Supervisors, this issue came
up after Hurricane Wilma. There was a
request from members of the District to clean up various canals. The District had never undertaken this
particular function before. There was an
opportunity to get federal funds and those required to render an opinion of
whether the District owned the property.
This became a unique experience because we could not figure out who
owned the canal. This was the birth of
the discussion; the historical basis of us trying to get a complete
understanding of what constitutes the District.
What the District owns and what it does not own. What easements it has and what easements it
does not have. It is a question of when
you want to do this.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we put this forward for discussion from the Board. We think you need to increase your
assessments to start building a reserve and at the same time start undertaking
some of these tasks. We plugged a number
in here to show it as an expense. As the
Board goes forward you need to look at how much of this you will keep as a
reserve and how much will be spent on ongoing activities.
Ms.
Bertolami stated at this point we do not know how much it will cost legally or
for the engineer. We have discussed
starting with parcel numbers by pulling the plats. We need some money to start it.
Mr.
Study asked was the federal reimbursement either hampered or decreased because
you could not prove you owned the property?
Mr.
Doody responded we did prove it, but it was hampered because it slowed it
down. I was not prepared to render an
opinion and certify the District owned the property. A title search created issues. The title work I got back showed it was in
the hands of Broward County.
Mr.
Study asked where are we today in proving ownership of these parcels?
Mr.
Doody responded we have not progressed beyond that point.
Mr.
Study stated the budget is so tight at this point those funds are not
available.
Mr.
Doody stated that is correct.
Ms.
Bertolami stated I think there was time sensitivity to it too. We had to be able to get the documentation in
order to get it to an order of who came first to apply for those funds.
Mr.
Doody stated we went to the county and the county conveyed us some property.
Mr.
Study asked does the engineer, survey and legal dilemma initiate a special
assessment?
Mr.
Goscicki responded it will not be a special assessment. It will be an increase in the current
assessment. Right now all of your
revenue is generated though an assessment against the property.
Mr.
Study stated I think the owners will opt for a special assessment if they
understand what the legal ramifications are down the road that federal funds
are pending in a disaster, but just to increase when everything else in the
state being mandated to be diminished or hold the line is a problem.
Mr.
Weissman stated we are not sure $100,000 is sufficient to finish this.
Ms.
Bertolami stated I do not think it will be.
You spread it out over a couple of years and get it started.
Mr.
Study asked if a disaster occurred today, could we get federal funds through
the process you did two years ago?
Mr.
Craven responded if it happens in the same area where it happened before we
probably could, but if it happens someplace else the District will be taking
care of it.
Ms.
Bertolami asked should we come back to this at the end of the meeting?
Ms.
Benckenstein responded if we make a motion to accept this and it was seconded
and approved, it will depend on whether or not we go through with this.
Mr.
Doody stated it is considered a preliminary vote. You are not taking final action with regard
to your budget.
Mr. Weissman MOVED to approve Alternative 1 of the proposed
budget and no one seconded it, therefore the motion died.
On MOTION by Mr. Brewer seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with
Mr. Brewer, Ms. Benckenstein, Ms. Bertolami and Mr. Study voting aye and Mr.
Weissman voting nay, the proposed budget for fiscal year 2009 with a per unit
assessment of $209.14 was approved.
On MOTION by Mr. Brewer seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with
Mr. Brewer, Ms. Benckenstein, Ms. Bertolami and Mr. Study voting aye and Mr.
Weissman voting nay the previous motion was amended to adopt Resolution 2008-3
approving the proposed budget for fiscal year 2009 with a per unit assessment
of $209.14 and setting the public hearing for August 7, 2008 at 6:00 p.m.
Ms.
Bertolami stated this is a motion to have a public hearing.
Mr.
Goscicki stated you are approving this budget, which allows us to hold a public
hearing. Adopting the budget is the
final motion you will make in August.
The language gets confusing because it is an approval, but not an
adoption.
Mr.
Doody stated consider it tentative. This
is what cities do. You are going to have
a public hearing to adopt your budget in August. You have not adopted it tonight. You initiated discussion. You made a preliminary determination. You will come back in August to consider it
and adopt it.
Mr.
Weissman asked have we cleared any potential conflicts with the August 7, 2008
date? I know there are certain bodies
such as the school board we cannot conflict with.
Mr.
Goscicki responded we will look into it.
Ms.
Bertolami asked how will we establish the direction of what to do first and to
keep the cost contained for determining ownership?
Mr.
Goscicki responded in terms of keeping the cost contained we will work with
both the engineer and attorney. We will
get proposals from them on how to proceed with the work and get cost
estimates. We will then come back to the
Board to approve the work authorizations for them to proceed. There will be a process after the budget is
adopted. At the beginning of the new
fiscal year we will work with the engineer and the attorney to put together a
proposal.
Mr.
Doody stated correct me if I am wrong, but the money will not be earmarked for
it.
Mr.
Goscicki stated that is correct.
Mr.
Doody stated you have the money in the budget and whether or not you spend it
for this remains to be seen.
Mr.
Goscicki stated you do not approve a line item budget. You are approving an overall budget. We will have discussions to move money within
the overall budget. It is all within one
fund.
Mr.
Brewer asked in the front end of this are we more or less wanting to look at
some areas we think are major problems?
Mr.
Craven responded yes.
Mr.
Doody stated you will direct us.
Mr.
Brewer stated there are some areas we know we have issues with. Between the two heads, you put it together
and let us know.
Mr.
Goscicki stated in the assessment letter going out to the affected property
owners we can add some additional description.
There is some descriptive language we need to have in there, but we are
not precluded from adding additional descriptive language saying the reason for
the proposed increase in assessments is to start building a reserve to deal
with the next hurricane as well as starting a process of better documentation
of the District’s property. If it is the
pleasure of the Board, I will be happy to add it to the letter.
Ms.
Bertolami asked will you bring it with you to the next meeting?
Mr.
Goscicki responded I will email out a copy to all the Board members. If you have any comments, kick them back to
me. If there is no problem with moving
forward on the legislative side, we would like to get it out within the next
two to three weeks. I will finalize the
draft and get it out.
Mr.
Weissman stated if you can, preface your comments with the fact the reserves
were reduced to nothing because of the last storm.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s Report
A. Introduction
of Ken Cassel
Mr.
Goscicki stated I introduced Mr. Cassel to some of the Board members prior to
the meeting. When I took over a little
over a year ago, I indicated to the Board my tenure was an interim tenure. As the Board knows I am not a resident of the
area anymore. I used to live here and I
have background knowledge, but I now live on the other side of the state. I am involved in another aspect of Severn
Trent’s business, but I came in to assist in the management of this
District. We now brought Mr. Cassel on
board. He is managing our division’s
responsibility to manage the districts within this geographic area. He is moving to the Coral Springs area and
has been appointed the District manager for CSID and next Thursday we
anticipate he will be appointed as the District manager for NSID.
We
wanted to introduce you to Mr. Cassel, get you to review his resume and answer
questions if you have any. We propose
you bring forth a motion at the June meeting to appoint Mr. Cassel as the
District manager to replace me. You will
gradually see less of me and more of Mr. Cassel. His resume is in your agenda package under
Section 6A. He has had both
developmental experience in the private sector and significant governmental
experience. He has significant knowledge
of this area of the world. He was born
and raised in the Miami Dade area. He
understands the water management districts of Southeast Florida.
B. Debris Disposal – City of Parkland
Mr.
Goscicki stated we want to bring the Board up to date. The Board requested we contact the city
regarding the dumpster we use for trash and debris removal from the
canals. The dumpster is in CSID. The question was raised if we could locate it
here, the franchise fee would go to the City of Parkland rather than the City
of Coral Springs. I approached the City
Manager. At this time there is not an
opportunity, but we are going to stay in touch.
As the city develops other facilities, there might be an opportunity to
do this. We will continue to look at
this.
Ms.
Bertolami asked do you have any thoughts on this?
Mr.
Weissman responded I think there is some construction going on in the old city
hall. I assume when it is complete they
will be able to locate an area there, unless you are aware of anywhere else.
Ms.
Bertolami stated the City Manager thought it was the best location she could
think of. The problem I see is the
process for site plan approval. It is a
cumbersome process in the city and I would think the Zoning Director will want
it clearly shown on the site plan. It
seems logical to get this up front rather than as an add on.
Mr.
Weissman stated I agree. Maybe you can
suggest it to her.
Ms.
Bertolami stated if we take the other approach and drag our feet on it, it will
be shut out.
Mr.
Weissman stated I am sure there will be a dumpster located there anyway.
Ms.
Bertolami stated maybe what we need to do is get a hold of the site plan
kicking around now for reconstruction over there and make a determination.
C. Assessment Rolls
Mr. Goscicki stated the next item is a copy of a letter I
sent to all the Board members back in March.
I just wanted to put it on the record.
The Board asked us to look into the assessment rolls and double check to
make sure there were no parcels slipping through the cracks that were not being
assessed when they should be assessed.
We did a detailed review with the Broward County Property Appraiser as
well as our own staff to go through and look at what is out there. Our determination is there are no parcels
which should be assessed and are not being assessed. The only parcels not being assessed are
governmental entities, religious organizations and common properties of
HOAs. When you look at the assessment
roll you will see you have a lot of multi-family homes and condominiums. The units are being assessed even though the
common area is not being assessed. You
are picking it up through the individual properties.
D. Acceptance
of the Financial Audit for Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2007
Mr. Goscicki stated this was emailed to you and duplicate
hard copies were handed out to the Board members. The most significant comment is on page two
under FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS. You
will note on the second bullet the change in the District’s total assets
decreased by $209,837. More important on
bullet three, your combined ending fund balance reflected a decrease of
$187,004 from the previous fiscal year.
This is all due to the expenditures the District made dealing with
Hurricane Wilma. This just follows up on
the comments Board members made earlier.
We have a significantly depleted fund balance and the reason for it is
the expenses to deal with the hurricane issues.
Otherwise, there are no negative comments in the audit. If there are any questions, we will answer
them. If they are difficult questions,
we will ask the auditors to come to the June meeting to answer them. The only motion we need from the Board is too
accept the audit. You do not approve the
audit. It is done by an independent
third party and the Board just accepts the audit saying you received it.
On MOTION by Ms. Benckenstein seconded by Mr. Weissman with
all in favor the financial audit for fiscal year ending September 30, 2007 was
accepted.
E.
Audit Committee Selection Process
i.
Appointment of Audit Committee Members
ii.
Establishment of RFP Evaluation Criteria
iii.
Authorization to Proceed with RFP
Mr. Goscicki stated we need to select an auditor for the
next fiscal year. The Board has two
options. Your current auditor is Grau
& Associates. They have been your
auditor for the past two years. We have
been satisfied as your managers with the quality of work they have done. The Board has the ability to continue this
contract. The contract we executed with
them has the provisions to renew it for additional annual periods at the
pleasure of the Board.
If
the Board does not want to extend or renew the contract for another year, there
is a structured process we need to go through which was implemented two or
three years ago. The Board will need to
formally establish an audit selection committee, put together an RFP and
authorize us to proceed with the RFP. The
committee can be representatives of the Board or staff.
The
manager’s recommendation at this time is to continue with Grau &
Associates. We talked to them and we
have not been able to get a final number from them for next year. If the Board wants to stay with Grau &
Associates, I recommend the Board authorize the manager to enter into a new
contract for not more than 5% of their current fee.
Mr.
Weissman asked what is their current fee?
Mr.
Goscicki responded a little over $7,000.
Mr.
Weissman asked what is our cost to go out for RFPs?
Mr.
Goscicki responded it is mostly time and effort the Board is going to put into
the process. There is some advertising
costs you will go through.
Mr.
Weissman asked will it cost us $2,000?
Mr.
Goscicki responded I do not think it will cost you $2,000.
Mr.
Weissman stated it will likely be more than the 5% increase.
Mr.
Goscicki stated with no guarantee you will get proposals which will come in at
less.
Mr.
Brewer asked do we do this annually?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes. There have been
so many changes in the last couple of years on the auditing requirements and
the GASB requirements. Each year I have
seen another set of requirements with a phase in approach. The phase in is pretty much complete. This audit would have been three pages three
years ago. It would have been half of
what it is now. They are required to do
much more analyses and comparative information from year to year than in the
past.
Mr.
Weissman asked when does their year run out?
Mr.
Goscicki responded I know if you do not have the audit in by September, you
start getting calls from the state. This
was just delivered in April for the previous fiscal year. It is now time to get an auditor on board so
when we start the new fiscal year they can start the audit process. We bring this to you now in case you want to
go out for an RFP. We have some time,
but you want someone on board by October 1, 2008.
Mr.
Weissman stated I suggest we authorize you to go back to them, tell them they
stick to the same price with no increase and we will discuss it at our June
meeting.
Mr.
Goscicki stated okay.
Mr.
Weissman stated let us see if they are willing to commit to this price.
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Mr. Brewer with all in
favor the Board authorized staff to talk to Grau & Associates and request
they offer extending the contract with no increase in fees.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney’s Report
There
being no report, the next item followed.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer’s Report
A. Butler
Farms Drainage Improvements
Mr.
Craven stated as you are aware we approved the plans for Butler Farms with some
contingencies. I do not have any idea
whether they have complied with any of them.
Mr.
Brewer asked what does this mean?
Mr.
Craven responded they had to get approval from Broward County Engineering Water
Resources. They were going to have to
agree to clean out all of the existing drainage that went into it as well as a
couple of other things. I have not heard
anything from them.
Mr.
Brewer asked are they going to have to bring this back to you or us before we
issue a permit?
Mr.
Craven responded it was approved, but they need to comply with all of these
contingencies.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’
Requests
There
not being any, the next item followed.
TENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of Check Registers and Invoices
Mr. Goscicki stated the Board will note we included check
registers since January, but we only included the financials through March 31,
2008 because the financials are cumulative through that period of time. We are giving you more information on the
financials than we had in the past. These
are all standard reports we produce for the Board off of our financial
management system. If this is more
information than you want, we do not have to provide it at all. We wanted to show you the kind of information
we can produce for you on a regular basis.
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with
all in favor the check registers and invoices were approved.
Ms.
Bertolami asked are their any thoughts on the amount of paperwork we have?
Mr.
Weissman responded it can be reduced to a disk.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we can easily email the information to you. I would keep the basic financials and budget
actuals, but everything else can be put on a disk and sent out with the
package.
Ms.
Bertolami stated okay.
ELEVENTH 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 Debra Myers
Assistant Secretary President