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
Paul
Brewer Secretary
Donna
Benckenstein Assistant
Secretary
Mimi
Bright Ribotsky Assistant
Secretary
Also
present were:
John
Petty Manager
D.J.
Doody Attorney
Warren
Craven Engineer
Diane
Yousefi HOA
FIRST
ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Petty called the meeting to order and
called the roll
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the January 5,
2006 Meeting
Mr. Rosenof stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr. Craven stated there are six
references in the minutes indicating my responses were inaudible. I had several operations on my mouth and
there is no doubt my vocal situation is dim.
If at any time you do not understand what I say I will repeat it.
Ms. Benckenstein stated perhaps we
can put the tape recorder closer to Mr. Craven to make it easier for the
transcriber to understand his comments.
Mr. Petty stated we will make those
adjustments to our recording system and will contact Mr. Craven for his input
if there is a question. At the next
meeting we will bring better recording equipment and place speakers around the
table.
Ms. Benckenstein stated I did not
make the statement in the seventh paragraph on page six.
Mr. Rosenof stated it was made by
the president of the HOA.
On MOTION by Ms. Ribotsky seconded by Ms.
Benckenstein with all in favor the minutes of the
Mr. Rosenof stated if the Board
agrees, I want to add an item to the agenda to discuss future meeting locations
and how to stream line the process.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion of
Mr. Petty stated a revised proposal
from Butler Farms was brought to the Board at the last meeting for a straight
forward drainage improvement of a secondary drainage feature. The District Engineer had some issues and the
Board had additional questions. The
Board had the opportunity to look at those sites. Mr. Craven may wish to reissue his concerns
but today we are asking for a continuation of the line item which is
consideration of the latest revised proposal from Butler Farms.
Mr. Rosenof asked is there a copy of
the proposal?
Mr. Petty responded at the last
meeting there was an updated version belonging to these blueprints. To summarize it is basically a proposal for a
straight forward secondary drainage improvement. The Board is responsible and currently
practices on the primary drainage of Pine Tree Water Control District. We have the ability to take requests from any
entity wishing to advance their own drainage system and to petition the District
to be the managers of the system and construct such system. It has been a standard policy for water
improvement districts and other such special entities to consider those and if appropriate
to do so under a special taxing area for that benefit. This is a secondary drainage feature they are
having difficulty maintaining. They are
not in the drainage business and have not been able to enforce control over the
area and maintain it in a fashion that is reliable. They have come to the District with the
understanding it is in this business. If we do take it on, they will pay
through special assessments. We have advised
them it will have to be done through the public hearing process with residents. If the Board is satisfied the residents will
be willing to pay, they can consider putting in the secondary drainage feature
and maintaining it at the cost of that benefit area going through all the legal
requirements of defining the area of special impacting to the other residents. We asked the engineer to look at the area. He was given the direction by the proposer that
they would be comfortable with whatever he designed. They showed a side schematic of the squall the
exact way it was built in the beginning and left it up to our District engineer
to say if it was an acceptable design.
In our case the easement is such our standard District requirements may
not fit in an open squall design and we may have to look at piping such a
structure. If the engineer thinks it can
be done without harming its other residents financially or in any other way the
Board must consider whether it is setting a precedent of any other entity coming
to the District with the same request. If
it does fit the design criteria the Board has the due diligence responsibility
of the public hearing process and making sure the residents consider the
proposal. Once that is done and complete,
management will come back with a public hearing schedule and making a special
assessment within the District
Ms. Ribotsky asked will the Board
receive a presentation of the full financials and breakdown of costs before the
public hearing? The information should
be presented to the Board first including legal agreements agreed to but not
executed. We need to have a general
agreement of costs.
Mr. Petty stated first the engineer
evaluates the request and if there is no harm to the existing system he
prepares an engineer’s report with a conservative cost estimate. The Board will set a maximum amount of the
assessment because you will be placing a lien on the property. The report will include the allocation of
administrative, legal and other costs internally to the specific benefit unit associated
with the process. If the Board approves
the proposal today, there are a number of steps in the process which will take
about six months before construction begins.
Mr. Doody stated historically this
came as an outgrowth of some type of relationship between the District and the
City of
Ms. Ribotsky stated they are going
to pay for your services.
Mr. Doody stated the first step is
to proceed.
Ms. Ribotsky stated I propose we
have a signed agreement to receive cost recovery up to the public hearing. The legal and management costs will be
significant and we should have a written agreement from the HOA acknowledging it
is willing to go through the process.
Mr. Ribotsky stated in all fairness
we should give them a budget.
Mr. Petty stated what we are looking
for is the conceptual approval to move forward and then staff will recommend
how to proceed. They have offered in
their proposal to pay any costs in advance.
We do not know what the scope of work will be and we will leave this
open. A certain amount of dollars can be
put into an account in advance. As the
money is spent we go back to them with a minimal low level to get more funds. There were objections raised by your engineer
at the last meeting. The Board members
were to visit the site for a better understanding of the project.
Mr. Brewer asked what happened to the
City of
Mr. Petty responded we met with the
City of
Mr. Craven stated before we get too
far down the road my primary concern is the status of the easement. It belongs to the HOA and I would like this
clarified from our attorney or Mr. Mason.
We do not have any legal access to get in and we need to get this
clarified. This should be accomplished
before we move forward. There is a 15 ft
right of way which apparently belongs to the county and we need an agreement we
can utilize this for access and work. We
also need an agreement from Florida Power & Light that we can work off of
their right of way. Until we get those I
am reluctant to move forward.
Mr. Rosenof stated we have the issue
of cost recovery and preliminary activities which need to happen on site. Would the appropriate motion be to move
forward in concept with the two amendments? One is we want a written agreement regarding
costs coverage ahead of time and the other is research be undertaken by the HOA
on our behalf.
Ms. Benckenstein stated this was
done at the last meeting. A motion reads
“On MOTION by Ms. Benckenstein seconded by Ms. Ribotsky with all in favor
moving forward with the Butler Farms drainage project, the scope of the project
being generally described in a letter from Mr. Laystrom dated December 15,
20005 with reasonable cost recovery from the applicant was approved.”
Mr. Craven stated the letter did not
describe the specific items I am addressing.
Mr. Petty stated the intent was to
continue the discussion process to consider the application which we are
doing. The point the engineer brought up
is valid. There is work to be done
before the Board can say yes or no to the project in whole. To find out the answers will cost money. We can come back to the Board with a way the
existing residents will not pay for this consideration. It will be an agreement with the HOA to set up
a minimum and maximum amount to start expenses and we will highlight projects
as we uncover them to pull those monies out.
Ms. Ribotsky stated I want to make
sure it includes everything retroactive to date.
Mr. Doody stated what you are
talking about is the due diligence for the feasibility of this project and
while conceptually the legals are in place you now have physical
characteristics out there. There was
representation those monies were going to be reimbursed to the District and
they have not. The first step is there
has to be a complete understanding between the District and the HOA. If we are going to address these feasibility
issues, there is going to be reimbursement to the District.
Ms. Yousefi stated I need numbers as
soon as possible for the yearly budget.
We budgeted for higher than the normal dues for future reserves and we
increased another amount so we will be able to entertain special assessments. We do not know if the City or County are
going to take care of the 15 foot easement and if they do not, we have a
$450,000 loan available. We based our
budget potentially on this.
Ms. Ribotsky stated probably $5,000
to $6,000 has been spent already. Most
HOAs have some reserve funds and if we get payment for what we have expended to
date and then we set up an escrow account for the feasibility study I do not
have a problem.
Mr. Petty stated it is a valid point
that before we proceed all past due invoices be paid. The ball is in the court of the HOA. We can ask them to pay the bill and adopt a
budget.
Mr. Rosenof stated no formal bill
has been presented.
Mr. Petty stated Mr. Laystrom said
he would pay upon receiving those estimates.
We have not submitted bills to the HOA because they were submitted to
their representative Mr. Laystrom who said he would execute the payment.
Ms. Ribotsky stated we submitted the
invoices we received from Mr. Doody and Mr. Craven to him. We have not submitted an invoice from the
District which is probably the legal entity he needs to pay.
Mr. Doody stated with all due
respect to the HOA, they need to have a show of good faith and an ability to
perform.
Ms. Yousefi stated we have not
received any bills or invoices to know what the costs are.
Mr. Petty stated the next step is to
ask the HOA to prepare a budget to tell us what we have to work with to see if
it is something we can complete with that amount.
Mr. Rosenof asked is it not the
other way around?
Mr. Petty responded no, then we will
have to expend time to do an estimate which will require more work and more
bills. If they tell us how much they
have to spend we can tell them how far we can get with those funds. They can then say by resolution of the HOA or
whatever format they adopt they are committed to expending those funds for this
matter with the District.
Mr. Brewer stated Mr. Doody and Mr.
Craven must inform the Board how much time it will take them and whether we can
move forward or if not, what needs to be done to move forward with this project.
Mr. Craven stated access is primary
and we need documentation that we can utilize the right of way and research the
permit process. I do not know if there
will be environmental problems.
Mr. Doody stated I do not think
there will be a problem getting access from Florida Power & Light but we
must find out.
Mr. Craven stated we need a bonafide
agreement with Florida Power & Light and we must find out who owns the 15
feet.
Mr. Brewer asked why is everything
from where we are stopping to north of the Sawgrass being done by the City of
Mr. Petty responded the City of
Mr. Rosenof asked would they not
take it and give us more room to reconstruct if the 15 foot exists lying west
of the 35 foot homeowner’s piece and we file for an abandonment?
Mr. Craven responded absolutely.
Mr. Rosenof stated we are asking the
HOA to do the preliminary work, i.e. find out about the 15 feet, get current on
payments and obtain a written agreement as the future costs are recovered. Are we in agreement to move forward if these
three tasks are achieved?
On MOTION by Ms. Ribotsky seconded by Ms.
Benckenstein with all in favor requesting the HOA to research ownership of the
15 foot easement, reimburse the District for expenditures incurred to date and
prepare a written agreement for the recovery of future costs was approved.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion of Management Services Proposals
Mr. Petty stated the attorney was handling
this issue.
Ms. Ribotsky stated according to
page 14 of the
Mr. Petty stated I will follow up.
Mr. Rosenof stated this item is
tabled until the next meeting.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion of Pine Tree Tax
Bill/Assessments – Under/Over Collection
Mr. Petty stated the Board requested
we resolve the question of whether it is a per unit or a per acre assessment
and concerns the assessments done this year were going to cause sharp falls in
the budgets. Resolution 2005-5 adopted
the methodology and it is a per acre assessment. Section 2 stated “That a maintenance
assessment in the sum of $81.39 per acre is hereby levied upon each tract or
parcel of land within the Pine Tree Water Control District.” The confusion is the Board’s understanding it
is a per parcel but it is on a per acre per parcel.
Ms. Ribotsky stated we were told by
Julie it was supposed to be by parcel.
Mr. Petty stated it is by parcel but
there is a per acre per parcel component to it.
Mr. Brewer asked what does this
mean?
Mr. Petty responded if you have a
fraction of an acre you will pay a fraction of the $81.39.
Mr. Brewer asked is the $81.39 pro
rated on a per acre basis?
Mr. Petty responded yes, it is for
every taxable parcel within the District.
Ms. Ribotsky stated my invoice is
correct.
Mr. Petty stated most water or
drainage districts in the state are done on a per acre basis because it is your
land which has benefited and the amount of land which has benefited.
Mr. Rosenof asked is everything
correct on our budget?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Rosenof asked how often do we
check to see how many taxable acres are in the District?
Mr. Petty responded every year the
property appraiser is required to give us the amount.
Mr. Brewer stated in the resolution
it is worded 2,150.30 assessable units.
Mr. Petty stated it is assessable
units which is folios.
Mr. Rosenof stated next year we
should change the wording to parcels.
Mr. Brewer asked do the 2,150 units
translate into acres?
Mr. Petty responded no. The formula is $81.39 times every taxable
acre within the District.
Mr. Rosenof asked how many taxable
acres are within the District?
Mr. Doody responded the whereas
clause is correct, it can be parcels or units. This is the basic formula and
what the property appraiser gives to the manager’s office is the number of
acres that has not been carried over to the resolution. We can do that this coming year.
Mr. Rosenof asked what does the
2,150 represent?
Mr. Petty stated I did not check to
see if it was acres, homes, lots or folio numbers. In my mind it was the folios but I did not
verify this.
Mr. Rosenof stated meaning a folio
can be five acres or point five acres.
There are 2,150 folios which may represent 5,000 acres.
Mr. Petty stated correct.
Mr. Craven stated I would like a
definite answer to what the tax assessment is looking at the taxable acres
within the limits of Pine Tree.
Mr. Rosenof stated it should show in
the budget distinctly.
Mr. Craven stated we should have a
gross tax of $160,000.
Mr. Petty stated on page two of the
budget there is taxable units which is acres as 2,137.62 for this fiscal
year. That was in the budget preparation
when you actually do the assessments and is why you see the difference between
$81.39 and $81.87 and is based on the number the property appraiser gave us at
that time under certified rule. We take
the amount of the budget and divide it by the number of acres and come up with
a per acre figure. We look at only
taxable acres and then we fill in the blanks on the folio list we get from the
property appraiser and submit it to the revenue collector.
Mr. Rosenof asked when do we do
this?
Mr. Petty responded we begin the
budget process in May.
Mr. Rosenof stated we will review
this again when the budget process begins.
Mr. Petty stated we will provide the
Board with the spreadsheet so you can see the calculations.
Mr. Rosenof stated members of the
Board live in the
Mr. Petty responded from a
management standpoint we advertised the meetings at alternate locations every
other month. This was adopted by the
Board and advertised. If a new meeting
schedule was advertised to hold those meeting at this location we would re
advertise at an additional cost.
Mr. Rosenof asked how far ahead do
you advertise?
Mr. Petty responded we typically do
one year at a time.
Mr. Rosenof asked is it for the
calendar or fiscal year?
Mr. Petty responded the fiscal year.
Mr. Rosenof stated we can review it
again in October to avoid spending additional advertising costs.
SIXTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A.
Attorney
There
being no report, the next item followed.
B.
Engineer
Mr. Craven stated due to hurricane
damage the District had three major areas where FEMA marked trees which posed a
problem. One area of major concern was
the north side of the Sawgrass and all the debris will be removed by the state.
Another area is the road right of way and canal banks north of Butler Farms to
the Sawgrass which the City of
C.
Manager
Mr. Petty stated we have trees down
and residents who are concerned. We have
met with the City Manager of Parkland on the issue. The easement we have is a line through water
and we have all the trees over the water and being able to go over to the bank
and do bank reshaping may be an issue.
We have limited time to apply for any available federal funds for the
removal of debris over the canal. The
NRCS is the agency we apply to. We do
not go to FEMA unless NRCS is out of funds.
They have a time frame for submitting claims which is less than a week. We spoke to the City Manager regarding
ownership and private property and the City of
Mr. Craven stated I did not attend
meetings with NRCS or FEMA but it is my understanding they require the location
of all the trees needing removal and photographs as evidence and certification
the sites have been cleared after completion.
Mr. Petty stated if the District
embarks on the project of debris removal you do so at a risk to the District
without any guarantees from the Federal Government about pay back. The cities have all understood this in their
debris removal after the hurricane. The
policies are in effect for a 75% payment from NRCS if you apply and are
accepted. There is an additional 12 1/2
percent from the State of
Ms. Ribotsky stated this is
necessary because if it is not done within the next week we run the risk of
performing the work and paying 100%.
This cost will go back to the tax payers.
Mr. Petty stated you will be getting
a work authorization from your engineer relating to this job.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s Request and Audience Comments
Mr.
Rosenof stated there will be a state of the union address for the Pine Tree
District and I need a one page report stating what Pine Tree Water Control
District is doing; what the tax assessment is going towards and what is being
done about hurricane damage from Mr. Petty
An
audience member asked will additional funds be budgeted for future hurricane
damage?
Ms.
Ribotsky responded it will be addressed during the next budget preparation
period.
Mr.
Petty stated three areas we looked at are; increase the assessments and build a
reserve, come up with a financing policy so funds are available with a letter
of credit to produce those funds for an emergency reaction and have a pro
active solution. This District is
different because it has flow way easements which do not have banks to clear. I do not know if you can do the pro active
part but certainly the financing mechanisms can be considered.
Mr. Rosenof stated we look forward
to your input to implement these suggestions.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of Invoices
There
not being any, the next item followed.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There
being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Paul Brewer David
Rosenof
Secretary President
NOTES
·
Agenda Item - Discussion of Management Service
Proposals