MINUTES
OF MEETING
PINE
TREE WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
The
regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Pine Tree Water Control
District was held on
Present and constituting a quorum
were:
David Rosenof President
Margaret Bertolami Vice
President
Paul Brewer Secretary
Donna Benckenstein Assistant
Secretary
Mark Weissman Supervisor
Also
present were:
Ed Goscicki Interim Manager,
Julie Klahr Attorney
Warren Craven Engineer
Randy Frederick Field
Superintendent
Jay Evans Pillar Consultants
Diane Yosefi President
–
Bill Laystrom Legal
Counsel for
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr. Rosenof called the meeting to
order and Mr. Goscicki 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 September 6, 2007 Meeting
Mr.
Rosenof stated each Board member received a copy of
the minutes of the
There
not being any,
On MOTION by Ms. Bertolami
seconded by Mr. Weissman with all in favor the
minutes of the
FOURTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Permit Request from
Mr.
Craven stated our consultant, submitted plans for replacement of the drainage
swale, which we had ongoing discussions about over the past few years. I looked at the plans and felt it was
essential for the Board to give me some direction before we commence with the
review process. This is going to be more
expensive with our “pay as you go” system for cost recovery.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can you describe the work in more
detail?
Mr.
Craven responded it is not complicated.
They are going to take the swale and replace it with a reinforced
concrete pipe.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is this next to the FP&L easement?
Mr.
Craven responded yes. They are going to
put in drainage structures and catch basins from the back of the houses to the
FP&L right-of-way. They are going to
interconnect all new drainage canals.
Mr.
Rosenof asked interconnect to the houses?
Mr.
Craven responded interconnect the existing storm drainage system of canals into
a culvert system. The plan says “open
swale; enclosed with a reinforced concrete pipe running from Wiles Road, north
approximately half a mile into a canal”.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is this on our land or their land?
Mr.
Craven responded this is one of the questions to be resolved.
Mr.
Rosenof stated so we do not know.
Mr.
Craven stated if you recall, there was a combination of drainage and landscape
easement on the rear of those lots backing up to the FPL right-of-way.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we received correspondence from the City of Coral Springs since
our last meeting coincidental to this; indicating they own this ditch and query
the desire of this Board to take ownership of this ditch from them.
Mr.
Rosenof stated no.
Mr.
Laystrom stated they are talking about the canal
north of the ditch.
Mr.
Goscicki stated it was not clear from the drawings.
Mr.
Rosenof stated the basic questions are how we perform
cost recovery and who owns this land.
Mr.
Craven stated another question is who is doing the long term maintenance.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we cannot answer this question until
you tell us whose land this is.
Mr.
Craven stated as far as I know, the land does not belong to the District.
Mr.
Rosenof asked then why would we in any shape or form
take responsibility or convey it?
Mr.
Craven responded I am not even suggesting you convey it. However, we need a formula or policy to
resolve the question of future maintenance of the culvert.
Mr.
Rosenof asked why is it our responsibility to even
address it?
Mr.
Craven responded because it drains by
Mr.
Rosenof asked are you saying if it fails due to the
lack of maintenance, we are liable.
Mr.
Craven responded correct.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we have members of the public who wish
to speak.
Mr.
Evans stated I am with Pillar Consultants, the engineer for the project. According to the recorded plat, the easement
runs from
Mr.
Rosenof asked for clarification purposes, are you
talking about putting the pipe between the easement line and property line?
Mr.
Evans responded correct. It will fall
within the easement.
Mr.
Rosenof stated if the ownership is with the
individual landowners, it is their responsibility to maintain it.
Mr.
Evans stated the maintenance obligation stays on this plat.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the issue you have is a drainage swale running through here,
which the property owners, from what I can see from
Mr.
Rosenof asked are the individual property owners
maintaining them?
Mr.
Goscicki responded they appear to be. It
looks like different levels of mowing are occurring. They are looking for the District to take over
the ownership and maintenance of the pipe.
Mr.
Evans stated I do not think we are looking for this at all. The HOA will pay for it, have it installed,
own and maintain it. You now have an
entity to point a finger at and say, “I have an issue with this” as opposed to
40 different homeowners.
Mr.
Rosenof stated then the land above it will still be
the homeowner’s property.
Mr.
Evans stated correct. They own it now
and will continue to own it.
Ms.
Bertolami asked will the entity owning the pipe be the
homeowners?
Mr.
Evans responded the homeowners will own the pipe and it will be their
obligation to maintain it.
Mr.
Rosenof asked the homeowners or the HOA?
Mr.
Evans responded the HOA.
Mr.
Rosenof stated this sounds like a simplistic
solution. Are you okay with this?
Mr.
Craven responded yes. I work for you.
Ms.
Bertolami asked are you concerned there will be more
maintenance into our canal?
Mr.
Craven responded no. My concern is with
continuity in the maintenance of the culvert.
Ms.
Bertolami stated if they maintain it, then we do not
have any problems.
Mr.
Rosenof stated you have to draft an agreement with
the HOA, which we have examples of. Who
is the new President of the HOA?
Ms.
Yosefi responded I am.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I hate to bring this up, but the last
time you were here, I heard different opinions, even from the HOA. Just the fact she is the President of the HOA
means she speaks for the HOA. Correct? I know we had some dissent last time of
people not agreeing with her position.
Mr.
Evans stated the folks who were here dissenting were defeated.
Mr.
Rosenof stated my concern is more of a philosophical
concern by virtue of the fact Ms. Yosefi is President
of the HOA. Can we assume she speaks for
the HOA?
Ms.
Klahr responded we can presume she not only speaks on
behalf of the HOA but once the agreement is drafted and approved by the HOA, we
can provide copies of our minutes saying the HOA approved it.
Mr.
Brewer stated Mr. Craven said awhile back this is an easement. I do not care if they maintain the pipe or
not because the only people who are going to flood are them. They are going to have to enter into an
agreement with
Mr.
Craven responded over and above this, if we need to make any repairs, we do not
have access.
Mr.
Evans stated your District has easements throughout Butler Farms, which grant
you right of access. This easement
connects to a public right-of-way giving you the right of access. This is normally how it works throughout all
drainage districts. Secondly, this ditch
is not there only to drain
Mr.
Rosenof asked does the attorney agree we have the
legal right to assess the HOA as an entity?
Ms.
Klahr responded yes.
The benefited property owners will get the assessment.
Mr.
Rosenof stated this is another issue we need to work
on. We are okay with the design more or
less.
Mr.
Craven stated I have not reviewed it.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we are okay with the concept. The question becomes the maintenance of it
and I think we are okay with the HOA.
The next issue is how we assess and who we assess to.
Mr.
Evans stated you are already assessing them.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I mean for the improvement.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we are not paying for the improvement.
Ms.
Bertolami stated they are paying for it.
Ms.
Klahr stated he is talking about if they fail to
maintain and the District steps in and does the work.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what is your opinion?
Ms.
Klahr responded those who benefit from the drainage.
Ms.
Bertolami asked will it be in the agreement?
Ms.
Klahr responded yes.
Mr.
Brewer stated we are only permitting the discharge. Correct?
Mr.
Evans responded
Mr.
Brewer stated it is on private property; not our property.
Mr.
Rosenof stated the argument I will make for being
involved is this gives us a mechanism for making sure it is maintained. If
Mr.
Evans stated
Mr.
Brewer stated correct.
Mr.
Goscicki stated since you are discharging into a District canal, you need a
surface water permit from this District.
Mr.
Rosenof asked does anyone else have any issues or
questions?
Mr.
Weissman responded I want to make sure cost recovery
is included in the agreement.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is the policy for us to give them an
estimate and they agree to it?
Mr.
Goscicki responded the discussion we had was to take this on a case by case
basis because there was no way to set a fee.
When we come into something significant like this requiring more
engineering and legal review, we set this up as part of the permit, for the
cost to be recovered through the permit fees.
Mr.
Rosenof asked are we obligated to give them an
estimate or is it part of the cost recovery?
Mr.
Goscicki responded it is good practice to give them an estimate so they know
what they are getting into. This sounds
like the direction we are going in to take this beyond just a simple permit and
get into an actual interlocal agreement because of
the complexity.
Mr.
Brewer asked are we going to do any inspections?
Mr.
Craven responded no.
Mr.
Rosenof asked not even of the outfall?
Mr.
Craven responded we can take a look at the outfall.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we have to inspect the outfall.
Mr.
Craven stated it is not required. The
engineering certificate is done in accordance with the plans.
Mr.
Brewer stated give them a ballpark number.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can you take care of this?
Mr.
Evans responded it should not cost more than $30,000 to $40,000.
Mr.
Goscicki stated it should be less.
Mr.
Brewer asked is this going to come back to the Board?
Mr.
Rosenof responded it has to come back to the Board
after review of the agreement. We have
to come up with an estimate, which the HOA has to agree with and draft the
agreement. The Board will then consider
agreement and if approved, it will be executed.
Correct?
Mr.
Goscicki responded we will get you a letter within the next week saying we
received your permit application and per the Board’s direction, you need to do
this work through an interlocal agreement. There will be permit, engineering and legal
reviews associated with it. Once we
receive their concurrence, we will send a letter back to them saying “Yes this
is the way we want to go and recognize the costs will be incurred by the HOA in
moving this program forward. We will get
the interlocal drafted and move forward”.
Ms.
Bertolami stated we do not meet again until February.
Mr.
Evans stated we should at least get the engineering review started. An estimate will not change this.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can we do this with a letter of
agreement?
Mr.
Goscicki responded I will send a letter to the HOA saying what we think it will
cost and while they are signing it, Mr. Craven is out there working.
Mr.
Weissman stated we want the HOA Board to approve the
cost. You can always call the Board to
get the vote or have a special meeting but we want the HOA Board to take action
on this before we do.
Mr.
Goscicki stated I am sure the review fees will be miniscule compared to the
construction fees.
Mr.
Rosenof asked are we obligated to make sure the HOA
has the cash in hand before entering into an agreement?
Ms.
Yosefi responded since we last met with you, we were
able to obtain a loan of $500,000 from Bank Atlantic. We have an eight year special assessment of
$169 with three years left. We have been
paying $10,000 per month since May.
Within five years, our loan will be paid off. We already have an agreement towards the cost
of construction. We had a meeting with a
positive vote of the homeowners.
Mr.
Laystrom stated we paid all legal fees in the past.
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Consideration
of Award of Contract for the Purchase of Aquatic Weed Control Chemicals
Mr.
Goscicki stated we worked cooperatively with CSID and NSID in putting out a
joint bid for aquatic weed control chemicals.
We use eight different chemicals in the aquatic weed control
program. The bid was structured to allow
us to choose from various vendors who submitted the best prices for the
appropriate chemicals. We gave you a
spreadsheet laying out the recommended low bidders on each chemical. Mr. Andy Waypa has
been involved for 20 years and other staff at CSID and NSID have been involved
even longer. They provided their
expertise so when you look at the chemical prices and who they are
recommending, in some cases it is not always the lowest price.
Mr.
Rosenof stated such as the quote from Helena Chemical
for Cutrine Plus of $12.24 and $11.50 from
Diversified Waterscapes for F-30.
Mr.
Frederick stated we used F-30 this past year and did a comparison treatment with
the Cutrine Plus and F-30. The results with the Cutrine
Plus were a great deal better than F-30.
With the difference in money, we are better off with the Cutrine Plus than F-30.
Mr.
Weissman asked is the Reward a superior product to
where no one else makes anything comparable?
Mr.
Frederick responded no.
Mr.
Weissman asked what about purchasing larger
containers? I notice we are purchasing
2½ gallon containers as opposed to 55 gallon drums. It makes sense to purchase larger sizes if
all districts are sharing this product.
Mr.
Frederick responded it is safer purchasing a smaller container. We do not use 55 gallon jugs because they get
heavy and are hard to handle.
Mr.
Goscicki stated you have a valid observation because there is a safety issue with
the large drums.
Mr.
Weissman stated we are paying a great deal of money
for these 2½ gallon containers.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we are using a common bid; not common inventory.
Mr.
Weissman asked would it make sense for us to divide
the contents of the drums with the other districts and have each district pay a
fraction of the cost? We are looking for
ways to save money.
Mr.
Frederick responded you would have to get all of the other districts to
agree. I do not know if this is going to
happen.
Mr.
Weissman asked did we use 55 gallon drums in the
course of our budget year?
Mr.
Frederick responded we probably used bigger ones. We will have to see whether the chemicals are
available in 55 gallon drums.
Mr.
Weissman stated I used this size as an example.
Mr.
Frederick stated we never ordered this way in the 30 years I have worked for
the District.
Mr.
Weissman asked are we running low on these
chemicals? Can we wait until February?
Mr.
Frederick responded last year’s supply ran out on October 1st.
Mr.
Rosenof asked are we saving money by buying bigger
sizes? I use tens of thousands of
gallons of paint in my business and still buy the paint in five gallon
buckets. There is no price break on
larger sizes and I cannot stand a 55 gallon bucket on a scaffold. We have to see if there is a price break for
purchasing larger sizes.
Mr.
Frederick stated I do not think there is.
The manufactures set price for Reward is $93.50 per gallon. This is why three of the bids are the same.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I understand but Mr. Weissman’s point is valid.
Is it a big number or a small number?
Mr.
Frederick responded I do not know.
Mr.
Rosenof stated until we know, it is hard to make a
decision as to whether or not it is worth it.
If you tell us it is not worth the difference, then it is not worth
arguing about. It is a valid point to
ask these questions.
Mr.
Frederick stated it might be worth a call to the distributors to find out.
Mr.
Rosenof stated good idea.
Mr.
Weissman asked what do we do with the 2½ gallon
containers after we are finished with them?
Mr.
Frederick responded we have to clean them out, rinse them and puncture them
with holes. We then throw them into the
dumpster.
Mr.
Weissman stated I am wondering if we can refill them.
Mr.
Frederick stated we use them for our purposes like to carry out the Aquastar for our grass treatments. We get this chemical in a 30 gallon drum.
Mr.
Rosenof stated you cannot refill a container.
Mr.
Frederick stated you can refill a container but you have to refill the
container with the label of the chemical in there.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it is illegal if you put your own
label on the container.
Mr.
Frederick stated it is only illegal if you have the label on the container and
a different chemical.
Mr.
Weissman stated in the case of Reward, we have 2½
gallon containers.
Mr.
Rosenof asked how much of these chemicals do we use
in a year?
Mr.
Goscicki responded I have an invoice for $9,000 just for the Reward.
Mr.
Rosenof asked does this represent a quarter?
Mr.
Frederick responded for 100 gallons. The
treatment we use this particular chemical for needs to be in gallons as there
is one gallon per acre. It is the most
expensive chemical we use but it is used by everyone in the industry.
Mr.
Weissman stated I was trying to find out if there was
a less expensive way of purchasing the Reward than paying $93.50 per gallon
because we are purchasing 2½ gallon containers.
Mr.
Frederick stated I do not think the container size makes a difference.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we have a budget of $20,000 for aquatic weed control for next
year. Last year we spent $18,000.
Mr.
Frederick stated you do not know what problem you are going to run into.
Mr.
Goscicki stated I am just trying to give the Chairman an indication of the
magnitude we are spending for chemicals.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I like the idea of looking into any
cost savings. If there are chemicals you
need between now and the February meeting, I do not mind buying them on a
piecemeal basis. Perhaps by the next meeting,
you can tell us what our savings are for buying in bulk.
Mr.
Frederick stated I can call the distributors.
Mr.
Rosenof asked who determines what chemicals we use?
Mr.
Frederick responded staff goes to seminars with the chemical companies. All of the districts get together and decide
on which chemicals to use. Usually we
get free samples of certain chemicals, try them and pick the ones we like the
best and feel do the best job.
Mr.
Goscicki stated this is one of the reasons why Mr. Frederick is licensed to be
able to do this work. He has the skills.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what governmental agency is saying
these chemicals are safe for the environment?
Mr.
Frederick responded these are legal chemicals mandated by the State of
Mr.
Rosenof asked who grants you the permit?
Mr.
Frederick responded DEP. We get
permitted every four years. We have to
list what chemicals we are using, what we can spray them on, approximate acres
we are spraying, etc.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we will be bringing the same bid to NSID next week. The NSID Board will probably approve
this. Once this Board approves it, we
will make sure this District does not have any preclusion in their enabling
legislation about piggybacking off of another governmental entity. CSID and NSID for some reason in the enabling
legislation are not allowed to piggyback.
You are not limited this way.
Ms.
Klahr stated you said various districts joined in
this bid so if you wanted to buy off of their bid, you could.
Mr.
Goscicki stated exactly. In the short
term, we can buy off the NSID contract if we need to and get the chemicals we
need between now and February. In
February, we can come back to the Board and say, “We can save $10,000 by
bidding in bulk” or decide to re-bid it ourselves in bulk and in the interim
still be able to buy the chemicals off of NSID.
Mr.
Rosenof asked are we looking at the right
environmental sensitivity in picking these chemicals? Is there another way to control aquatic weeds
without putting more chemicals in our surface water system?
Mr.
Frederick responded in the past we used carp.
Mr.
Rosenof stated so you do not know of another way to
do this.
Mr.
Goscicki stated there is insect control.
There was a program the county tried using years ago.
Mr.
Frederick stated they are not going to let a local district do something, which
has not been tested. They can put you on
a list for experimental testing.
Mr.
Goscicki stated it is labor intensive to pluck bugs and bring them over to the
next area.
Mr.
Frederick stated we used grass carp in the past, which helped a great
deal. This is probably why we do not use
as many chemicals. Our major problems
are with the torpedo grass and unsightly algae.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the direction from the Board is for us to research if buying in
bulk will result in any significant savings.
In the interim, we will be able to purchase the chemicals from the NSID
approved aspect of this contract.
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded
by Ms. Bertolami with all in favor all necessary
chemicals for aquatic weed control will be purchased from the NSID chemical bid
until the February meeting.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion
Items:
A. Request from FDOT for Final Closeout of
Permit 2005-2 for Sawgrass Expressway Six-Laning from Coral Ridge Drive to Florida’s Turnpike
Mr.
Craven stated when we first started this project, the Board and attorney agreed
to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with FDOT to
have legal access on the Turnpike to our gates and establish the six culverts
going underneath the Sawgrass Expressway are legal
and ours. This agreement was never
brought to fruition. In my opinion, it
should be completed prior to the closing out of the permit. We also need to have a certification from our
engineer stating the work was performed in accordance with the plans. We are going to take exception to the repairs
we made to the one culvert and have a physical inspection done by Mr. Frederick
to lakes three and four to make sure we have access to our sound walls. I do not believe this is going to be a cost
recovery item.
Mr.
Brewer asked do we need to correspond back to FDOT telling them we are not
going to be doing anything?
Mr.
Craven responded I will call them.
Mr. Weissman moved to table the
request from FDOT for final closeout of Permit 2005-2 for the Sawgrass Expressway six-laning
from Coral Ridge Drive to Florida’s Turnpike until the February meeting and Mr.
Brewer seconded the motion.
Ms.
Bertolami stated I noticed some areas of ponding on both sides of the wall. Is this of concern to the District?
Mr. Craven responded yes. We will bring this to their attention.
On VOICE VOTE with all in favor the prior motion tabling the
request from FDOT for final closeout of Permit 2005-2 for the Sawgrass Expressway six-laning
from Coral Ridge Drive to Florida’s Turnpike until the February meeting was
approved.
Mr. Craven stated if anyone else has
seen anything detrimental, please let me know.
B. Volpe
Erosion Problem
Mr.
Craven stated the attorney wrote a letter to Mr. Volpe.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is this the resident who lives on
Riverside Drive just south of the Sawgrass
Expressway?
Mr.
Craven responded no. This resident lives
in Coral Creek. We did some surveying in
anticipation of the original survey indicating any deviation from the platted
property. The only survey they supplied
to us was a mortgage survey showing the lot lines. This survey was of little to no use to us and
we still do not know if there is an encroachment on the property.
Mr.
Weissman asked have we made a request back to them as
to what we want?
Mr.
Craven responded no.
Mr.
Weissman stated I suggest we send a letter advising
them what the resident needs to provide us with.
Mr.
Craven stated if we get something back.
I was unclear as to what we were supposed to tell him.
Mr.
Rosenof stated tell him either the problem is the HOA’s or ours. I
think this was the bone of contention.
Mr.
Craven stated we will take care of it.
Mr.
Brewer asked was the purpose of the survey to see if the erosion was causing
any problems?
Mr.
Craven responded yes.
Mr.
Brewer stated it was not whether or not it was our erosion.
Mr. Rosenof
stated whatever the issue is, we need to know who owns the property.
Mr. Brewer stated the bottom line is if
it is not eroding on his property, it is our erosion not his.
Mr.
Rosenof stated right.
Mr.
Brewer stated it does not look bad as far as he is concerned.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it is eroding around the bank. Are you going to request another survey?
Mr.
Craven responded I am going to write him another letter telling him the survey
was inadequate and requesting information as to any encroachment on his
property. If he has a survey identifying
any encroachment, we need to see it.
I
have two other minor issues. We received
a call from Calvin Giordano. They are
going to put in a couple of feet of bike trails on both sides of Holmberg Road
for the City of Parkland. They wanted to
know if we needed a permit. I told them
in my opinion; they did not need one.
Mr.
Rosenof asked how does Holmberg Road drain now?
Mr.
Craven responded the water goes into a swale and sits there and evaporates.
Mr.
Goscicki stated all we can do is hope for sandy soils.
Mr.
Craven stated we received correspondence from the Girl Scouts regarding the
capability of the District to provide drainage.
I responded to their letter by informing them they were within the
District and gave them the runoff per acre.
I told them they had no way of getting runoff off of their property to
one of our facilities because they were landlocked. I do not know what they are going to do.
Ms.
Bertolami asked was there a canal along the north
side of Holmberg Road 20 years ago?
Mr.
Craven responded a long time ago. We
never claimed it nor entered into any easement.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it was a coincidence.
Mr.
Craven stated if you can find the documentation, I would be more than happy to
look at it.
Mr.
Weissman stated it is called “drainage by
circumstance”.
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s
Report – Update on Drainage Issues for NW 57th Street
Mr.
Goscicki stated we received the following letter of resignation from Mr. Rosenof:
“Please
accept my resignation from the Pine Tree Water Control District Board.
I
am resigning in order to comply with Florida State law in my bid to be elected
City of Parkland District 3 Commissioner.
The
date of my resignation shall become effective upon the yet to be determined
date of my appointment.”
Mr.
Goscicki asked what date will this become effective?
Mr.
Rosenof responded the first Commission meeting after
January 29th.
Mr.
Goscicki stated I asked our attorney to look into this issue in terms of what
this means to the District.
Mr.
Weissman stated it is based on the date of election;
not by when he is sworn in.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the opinion of the attorney is the resignation is not
revocable. In other words, the effective
date will be on January 29th and there will be a vacancy on this
Board. At that point, the remaining
Board members can fill this vacancy by appointing someone to fill the unexpired
term.
Mr.
Weissman stated we are not meeting until February.
Mr.
Goscicki stated on February 7, 2008.
This is the situation we are currently in. We will see where the Board goes in February.
The
Board asked us to look at the assessment roll in regards to the parcels not
currently being assessed and listed as governmental owned. We did this in cooperation with the Property
Appraiser’s office. They are preparing
for us a detailed list of the owners but they informed us there are no churches
or synagogues or any other entities other than the governmental entities shown
on those parcels. We asked for the
complete list so we can see how many of those are parcels we might own and to
find out who the other governmental entities are. We will follow up.
Mr.
Rosenof stated the basic premise is Holmberg Road is
owned by the County.
Mr.
Weissman stated it was taken over by the City of
Parkland.
Mr.
Rosenof stated correct. Does the city get assessed?
Mr.
Goscicki responded governmental entities do not get assessed.
Mr.
Rosenof asked how about the Girl Scouts?
Mr.
Goscicki responded they get assessed.
Non-profits get assessed. This is
why we are checking.
Mr.
Weissman stated there were claims made by a resident
saying he was being assessed by us and NSID.
Can we do a random check of a couple of homes to see if this is the
case?
Ms.
Klahr responded no.
Ms.
Benckenstein stated this resident was supposed to
provide a bill to us and we never received it.
He may have been mistaken.
Mr.
Weissman asked where did he obtain the names of those
agencies from?
Mr.
Frederick responded he has been calling everyone.
Mr.
Rosenof stated at the end of the day, the goal is to
say there are so many physical acres in the District, so many assessed acres
and the residuals should be the acres owned by governmental agencies. We have never been able to have this formula.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we are locking it down.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it should not be too hard.
Mr.
Goscicki stated it is a matter of getting the detailed list from the Property
Appraiser.
Mr.
Rosenof stated if we find some acres that are not
assessed, great.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the Board asked me to approach the NSID Board about a possible Interlocal Agreement for the drainage area on NW 57th
Street. The question was in the event
the community does what Butler Farms just did by putting in some type of
on-site drainage structure, whether NSID accepts the drainage into their
District rather than this District. This
Board made a motion and they are willing to look into this with Pine Tree. The basic issue was to be no cost to NSID and
the water quality not being detrimental to NSID. I think you received a favorable opinion.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can you make sure Ms. Caryn Gardner-Young understands this in case they approach
her?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes. I will send a
letter to the City Manager.
Mr.
Weissman asked do we know how many property owners
are affected?
Mr.
Rosenof responded 30 to 40.
Mr.
Weissman asked does it pay for us to send out 40
letters advising them of the action taken?
Mr.
Rosenof responded it would not be a bad idea. There is no HOA.
Mr.
Goscicki responded they need to create an HOA and have some legal entity own
it, similar to Butler Farms.
Mr.
Craven stated they are going to have a problem.
Mr.
Rosenof stated they are going to have a huge problem
but at least by doing this, we have done all we can and now the onus is on
them. If they really want to do this,
they will. There are some structures in
the potential easement. There is
playground equipment and other items.
Mr.
Frederick stated like Mr. Craven said, the water quality is going to be a
problem because they have horses and farms.
Mr.
Goscicki stated they are going to need to dig a retention basin.
Mr.
Rosenof stated or pipe it.
Mr.
Brewer stated I do not think they want to spend any money.
Mr.
Goscicki stated no.
Mr.
Brewer stated they want to know why the District is not taking care of it.
Mr.
Rosenof stated because it is private property.
Mr.
Brewer stated they do not want to hear this.
For $185 per year, they feel we should be there.
Mr.
Weissman stated I think it is a good idea for us to
offer them an option. Whether or not
they choose to do it, is not our problem.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I agree.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the concern they raised was lack of cooperation between the
districts.
Mr.
Weissman stated now they cannot get their neighbors
to work together.
Mr.
Rosenof stated who knows, they may want to do this.
Mr.
Goscicki stated I received an inquiry from the City of Coral Springs in regards
to what I thought was this drainage ditch but apparently is not. I will be meeting with Mr. Rich Michaud later
this week.
Mr.
Craven stated let me advise you.
Mr.
Goscicki stated please do.
Mr.
Craven stated not now.
Mr.
Goscicki stated I just want to find out what he is talking about.
Mr.
Craven stated if they want to give us a canal, we will take it.
Mr.
Goscicki stated as we know more, we will inform the Board.
EIGHTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney’s
Report
Ms.
Klahr stated I was in touch with Mr. Craven earlier
this week in regards to the closeout of the permit for the Sawgrass
Expressway. Mr. Doody
received a phone call from the Florida Department of State in regards to
commissions issued by the Governor for individuals elected to the auspices of
this Board since 2001. He drafted a
letter for this purpose.
NINTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer’s
Report
There
not being any, the next item followed.
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s Requests
Mr. Brewer stated I do not know how we are going to do this
but somehow or another we have to figure out these boundaries.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I agree.
Mr.
Brewer stated we have no money budgeted for this item and we keep asking the
manager, engineers and the attorney what we own. We need to allocate some funds to allow them
to find out. I do not know if we need a
proposal saying how many dollars we will spend or if we should allocate some
money this year and some next year.
Mr.
Rosenof stated this is what we talked about
doing. There has to be something easy to
resolve. Maybe we can do this without a
budget.
Mr.
Goscicki stated currently you have no money budgeted to do this undertaking. This is a significant undertaking. I estimate you are looking at between
$100,000 to $200,000 in fees for engineering and support staff to do field
verification and records review. This is
purely an estimation. We do not do this
work ourselves.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what happens when we find a house in
the middle of our easement, which is probably going to happen?
Mr.
Goscicki stated the Board decided in their budget deliberations for this year
we will deal with them on a case by case basis for this year and work within
the current budget we have and see what we can do next year.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we can put this off for a long time.
Ms.
Klahr stated I do not want there to be any issue on
why we have not done anything yet. There
is some information we need to obtain.
We have the actual boundaries of the District, which are listed in the
legislation but those are the outer boundaries.
I am trying to find out the inner boundary.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we talked about this issue
before. I would not mind seeing a master
plan with 25 areas we need to address in order of complexity and take the
easiest ones first.
Mr.
Goscicki stated let me have some discussions with staff to see if we can put
together a plan; even if it is a multi-year plan.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we can use our reserves for this. If we end up with a reserve one year, we will
use it. If not, we will not do it. I hate to not be able to capture money from
the state and federal government because we do not know whether or not it is ours. I am very frustrated.
ELEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of September Financials and Invoices
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded
by Ms. Benckenstein with all in favor the financials
and check registers for September 2007 were approved.
TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
Mr.
Goscicki stated the next meeting is scheduled for February 7, 2007. If any issues come up in between meetings,
feel free to give me a call. If the
Board wants to schedule a special meeting, so long as the Board is in agreement,
we can schedule one.
There
being no further business,
On MOTION by Ms. Benckenstein
seconded by Mr. Weissman with all in favor the
meeting was adjourned.
Paul
Brewer Margaret
Bertolami
Secretary Vice
President