MINUTES OF MEETING
PORT OF THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the Board of
Supervisors of the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District was held
on
Present and constituting a quorum
were:
Ted
Bissell Chairman
Dale
Lambert Vice Chairman
Norine
Dillon Secretary
Richard
Gatti Assistant
Secretary
Richard
Ziko Assistant
Secretary
Also present were:
Cal
Teague District
Manager
Alan
Baldwin
Dan
Cox Attorney
Ron
Benson Engineer
Robert
Edge Field
Operator
Paula
Davis
Karen
Ellis
Helena
Randel
Tom
Mack Staff
James
Shucart POI Hotel &
John
Agnelli Power
Corporation
Sue
Beck Resident
Jim
Dyer Resident
Raul
Ferella Resident
Fred
Fisher Resident
Larry
Kane Resident
Maggie
Marzelo Resident
Jim
Meistor Resident
Mike
Motwani Resident
Fred
Osswald Resident
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Bissell called the meeting to
order and Mr. Teague called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the
Minutes of the
Mr. Bissell stated each Board member
received a copy of the
Mr. Lambert stated on Page 33 just
before the ninth order of business, Mr.
Dennis Gassoway stated should replace Mr.
McKay stated.
Ms. Dillon stated on Page 10 in the
fourteenth paragraph, and Windward Cay
should be added at the end of the sentence.
On Page 14 in the last paragraph day
should be added after 90. On Page 17 in the fourth paragraph more should be deleted, for should be added after stated and the should replace than. On Page 18 in the eighth paragraph they need should replace this is.
On Page 19 in the thirteenth paragraph, in error should be added at the end of the second sentence. On Page 25 under the eleventh paragraph, automatic should replace automotive.
Mr. Lambert stated in the same
sentence blow should replace go.
On MOTION by Mr. Lambert
seconded by Mr. Ziko with all in favor the minutes of the
Mr. Bissell stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
There not being any,
On MOTION by Mr. Lambert
seconded by Ms. Dillon with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s
Report
A.
Consideration
of Audit Fee Agreement Engagement Letter from Dufresne & Associates to
Perform the Audit for the Fiscal Year Ending
Mr.
Teague stated this is a revised letter of renewal for the Board of Supervisors
from your Auditor, Dufresne & Associates.
I ran the numbers and did not agree with them, which is why I met with Ms.
Linda Dufresne last night and she agreed with the recalculation, for which you
will see a reduction of $1,100. This is
a revised engagement letter to amend the existing contract, and I agree with
the numbers represented here.
Mr. Bissell asked are there going to
be two or three funds?
Mr. Teague responded there will be
three funds, which has always been the case.
Ms. Dufresne’s quote was based on an assumption.
Ms. Dillon stated we budgeted
$14,000 for this audit and now we are looking at approximately $20,000.
Mr. Teague stated I am not certain
why this was done since I did not prepare the budget.
Mr. Bissell stated I believe they
thought there were going to be two funds as opposed to three.
Mr. Teague stated you have your enterprise
fund, general fund and debt service fund.
Do you have any comments?
Mr. Baldwin responded I do not.
Ms. Dillon asked do you know when
the audit will be complete since it has been late every year prior to this?
Mr. Baldwin responded my goal is to
have all audits complete by April 30th. Although Dufresne & Associates have given
low responses, we are trying to speed them up to ensure they meet our
deadline. I am asking for this April 30th
deadline in order to ensure the audit is complete for commencement of the
budget process. The actual figures for
the carry forward balances from the
previous year are correct.
Mr. Lambert stated we just received
the 2005 audit.
Mr. Baldwin stated that is correct. I heard there was an issue with the different
management companies regarding the Enterprise
Fund as well as the Water & Sewer
Fund during this timeframe.
Mr. Bissell stated although our
previous auditor was supposed to have it ready in March, it was finished
several months later.
Mr. Ziko stated they have not yet started
the current audit.
Mr. Baldwin stated it is supposed to
come in on Monday.
Mr. Ziko stated they should have started
after our fiscal year ended, and it has been four months now.
Mr. Baldwin stated they are still
finishing the prior year audit, and they cannot start a new audit until the
first one is completed.
Mr. Ziko stated the first one is already
18 months old.
Mr. Baldwin asked are you referring
to the 2005 audit?
Mr. Ziko responded yes.
Mr. Baldwin stated I thought it was
just recently completed.
Mr. Ziko asked why did it take 18
months to complete?
Mr. Baldwin responded I am not
certain.
Ms. Dillon stated although we must
have this report prepared, it is practically useless by the time the data comes
in.
Mr. Ziko asked is it a state
requirement to send this audit to them?
Mr. Teague responded that is
correct, and it becomes your annual financial report which Mr. Bissell will
sign today.
Mr. Lambert asked can we indicate in
this letter we want to have this finished by April 30th?
Mr. Baldwin responded I do not
believe so if you already signed the engagement letter and it is not stated
there.
Ms. Dillon stated we have not signed
it.
Mr. Teague stated you signed a
three-year agreement with them last year.
This is an amendment for the CPI adjustment which was included in the
agreement.
Mr. Lambert stated we can include a
deadline in the next agreement we sign with them.
Mr. Baldwin stated it is going to become
one of our policies to state a specific due date in the engagement letter.
Ms. Dillon stated perhaps we can
stipulate if they do not have it ready by a certain time we can reduce their
fee.
Mr. Cox stated when you have a penalty
clause, you must also have a bonus clause.
For example, if you stipulated a charge of $100 from their fee for each day
they are late after April 30th, they must be paid an additional $100
if they get it in before April 30th.
Mr. Lambert stated this update is
just an extension of our contract.
On MOTION by Mr. Gatti
seconded by Mr. Lambert with all in favor the Audit Fee Agreement Engagement
Letter from Dufresne & Associates indicating an increase of $511.50 as a
result of the CPI Index increase of 3.1% increasing the total audit fee to $19,011.50
for the years ending September 30, 2005, 2006 and 2007 was approved.
Mr. Cox stated since the contract
expires at the end of this fiscal year, and this is the last fiscal year’s
audit which must be done under the contract, there is a new procedure in place for
next year which requires you to select an audit committee and determine the
standards for which you are going to base your decision on hiring an auditor. As a matter of fact, you may include timely
performance as a standard.
Mr. Lambert asked do we need an
audit committee in order to go out for proposal?
Mr. Cox responded you need an audit
committee to set the standards for development of the proposals, solicit the
audits and rank them for final consideration.
Mr. Lambert asked can the committee
consist of two or three community members?
Mr. Cox responded that is correct.
Mr. Lambert asked can there be more
than one Board member on the committee?
Mr. Cox responded since this committee
is subject to the Sunshine Act, you must meet in noticed public hearings, but
more than one Board member may serve on the committee as well.
Ms. Dillon stated Severn Trent received
bids from several audit companies the last time we did this.
Mr. Cox stated this policy changed
approximately one year ago.
Mr. Bissell asked does anyone wish
to serve on this committee with Mr. Lambert?
Mr. Cox responded it is not
necessary to do anything now, but we will have to go through this process at
the end of the year.
Mr. Bissell stated we should appoint
the committee right now.
Ms. Dillon asked what can Severn
Trent do to expedite this process for the District?
Mr. Teague responded we will send
out RFPs for proposals which we will rank, and we will do a spreadsheet
basically identifying strengths and weaknesses with regards to our experiences
with them. We also reflect a price.
Mr. Lambert asked do all of your
communities have to establish this audit committee?
Mr. Teague responded we are already
doing this.
Mr. Lambert asked do any other districts
have their Board members serve on the Audit Committee?
Mr. Cox responded all districts who
have been through this so have Board members on the committee.
Mr. Bissell asked do you want the
Board to act as the Audit Committee?
Mr. Ziko responded this is a good
idea.
Ms. Dillon responded I agree.
Mr. Lambert stated if there is a
community member who is interested in being on the committee I have no problem.
Mr. Bissell stated the Board will be
considered the audit committee.
Mr. Teague stated I have this.
B.
Acceptance
of the Financial Audit for Fiscal Year 2005
Mr. Teague the audit came back clean. All of the auditor’s comments from previous
years are identified at the back and have all been addressed.
Mr. Lambert stated we were in a bad
financial condition during previous years.
Mr. Cox stated on Page 35 at the
bottom it states you are no longer in a state of financial emergency which we
can report to the Governor’s office.
Mr. Lambert stated I recall you
saying last year something had to be done which I believe is to report this to
the Governor’s office.
Mr. Cox stated we were waiting on an
audit showing this situation cleared, and since we have this audit in hand we
can report it to the Governor’s office as of this date.
Mr. Lambert asked do you have to
send a separate document?
Mr. Cox responded I will send a
short letter.
Mr. Lambert asked can you send this
letter as soon as we approve this audit?
Mr. Cox responded I certainly can.
On MOTION by Mr. Gatti
seconded by Ms. Dillon with all in favor the Financial Audit from Dufresne
& Associates for the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2005 was accepted.
C.
Discussion
of Water Conservation Brochure
Mr.
Teague stated I believe we actually have something we all agree on. I received one verbal quote from OfficeMax
which was extremely high. I asked for
three other written quotes, but I received two.
The first one was from Minuteman Press of Cape Coral in the amount of
$540 and the second one was from Gulf Coast Printing in the amount of $494.60
for 1,000 copies. However, I recommend getting
2,500 copies in the amount of approximately $605, since there is a cost break involved
and it is within the budget.
Mr. Lambert asked what are we going
to do with the remaining 1,500 copies since we are probably only going to need
approximately 1,000 for distribution?
Mr. Teague responded we can leave some
with Mr. Edge at the plant in case you ever need them, and we can leave some
with your HOA or with the person who distributes new resident packages. It makes sense to double your order for $100
extra.
Mr. Gatti moved to approve
the proposal from Gulf Coast Printing in the amount of $604.60 to print 2,500
Water Conservation Brochures.
Mr. Lambert asked how many pages
does this brochure consist of?
Mr. Teague responded it is going to
be four pages which will be folded into a single document.
Ms. Dillon asked have you seen a
sample?
Mr. Teague responded I have not seen
it, but it is going to be in color on glossy, high resolution paper.
Mr. Lambert seconded the
previous motion.
Mr. Ziko asked is this the total
price?
Mr. Teague responded yes. Severn Trent will handle the marketing.
Mr. Ziko asked are we going to spend
$600 less than we anticipated?
Mr. Teague responded you will still
have to pay postage if you are mailing them.
On VOICE vote with all in
favor the proposal from Gulf Coast Printing to print 2,500 copies of the Water
Conservation Brochure in the amount of $604.60 was approved.
Mr. Lambert asked do we have to send
this to any other entities?
Mr. Benson responded I will send a
couple of copies to SFWMD with a letter stating this is part of our program for
the permanent requirement.
Ms. Dillon asked what else will we
have to do for SFWMD?
Mr. Benson responded we must have an
active program for which these brochures are considered the first step.
Ms. Dillon stated we hope when
everyone receives them they do not throw them away.
Mr. Benson stated we hope to see a
reduction in water usage for irrigation.
D.
Discussion
of
Mr.
Teague stated we were requested to do a financial analysis of your available
cash for the purchase of the fire station.
We updated your capital improvement program, the status report and a
cash flow analysis which is part of your budget. The single page shows a revenue
analysis. The first one which was
attached to your packet is from the budgeted numbers, and the second one which
shows a lower amount is from the projected amount. The adopted budget reflected retained
earnings of $124,028, which is the reason the numbers are different. Since you actually experienced a loss at the
end of the fiscal year, we are really looking at a negative fund balance.
Ms. Dillon asked what is included in
the retained earnings?
Mr. Teague responded retained
earnings are excess revenues over expenses as well as your fund balance all the
way through. An Enterprise Fund also has Retained
Earnings which are the same as fund balance.
Ms. Dillon asked does this reflect
the transfer of funds from the General
Fund to the Water & Sewer Fund?
Mr. Teague responded this was not
done. Water funds stay in the Water & Sewer Fund or the Enterprise Fund. Your General
Fund remains in the same place until there is a physical transfer for any
purposes approved by the Board. The
projected amount is more applicable to the fund balances in which you will see
Sewer & Water Retained Earnings with a negative value. As we go through this at the beginning of the
year, we are looking at $1.3 million in the General
Fund and a negative balance in the Water
& Sewer Fund at $36,000. The General Fund revenue is at $422,000,
which comes out of your budget, and the expenses are at $337,970. Mr. Goscicki backed out capital reserves in
the estimated amount of $375,000 which I agree with. If you look at what you actually need for
operation of general fund activities for this fiscal year, there is a positive
balance of $84,093. If you add this to
$123,000,000 above your existing fund balance, you should have $1.4 million in the
General Fund balance at the end of the fiscal year. You also adopted a CIP in the amount of $715,000. When you back this amount out, your adjusted
fund balance becomes $695,902.
Ms. Dillon asked are we committed to
$715,000?
Mr. Teague responded we have not
awarded the contract.
Ms. Dillon asked is it part of our
plan?
Mr. Teague responded that is
correct.
Ms. Dillon asked does this include
items for which we already signed a contract?
Mr. Teague responded according to
your status report, there is approximately $480,000 which has been encumbered
or contracted out. You already paid out
$219,000 leaving an overall available fund balance of $235,000. We included $9,000 in the CIP for the fire hydrant
relocation. However, I am not certain
this is where you intended it to be.
Ms. Dillon asked where is this?
Mr. Teague responded it is under Project I-3 under Paid.
Mr. Lambert stated I believe you are
referring to the relocation which resulted from the road paving.
Mr. Teague stated we did the same
analysis on the right-hand side of this section of your water and sewer. This year’s revenue out of your budget is
almost $1.3 million. Your expenses minus
$250,000 which was set aside for reserves is $546,000, giving you excess
revenue over expenses in the amount of $736,000. After you subtract the amount from the
negative retained earnings which you held, you will have retained earnings of
$670,000 this year. Since you included
$1,031,700 in your CIP this year, you actually have negative retained earnings
of $332,000 in the Water & Sewer Fund
as a result of the CIP program in your current budget. It brought down the positive fund balance
from the General Fund and the
negative fund balance from the Water
& Sewer Fund, for a total of $364,000 in funds. However, I have a couple of cautionary items
to discuss. First of all, the engineer’s
costs are not reflected in your CIP. They
were set out separately, along with your CIP, in the amount of $262,000 for
engineering costs. Secondly, the cash
flow projection in the General Fund is
reducing every year as a result of your capital improvement program. Therefore, if you are looking at building a
fire station, you should probably consider borrowing from an outside source.
Ms. Dillon stated we do not have
enough money to do this.
Mr. Teague stated I contacted your
underwriters. According to the audit
your current bonds are at 9% which is high, but it is for a short term as they
will be paid off in the Year 2010. Although
you may refund the bonds, it may not be worthwhile since it does not involve a
long enough maturation period before it becomes due. However, the possibility of extending and
rewriting it may provide an opportunity to generate additional funds, and
reduce the last three years to a lower rate.
Ms. Dillon asked do you have any
idea what the rate may be?
Mr. Teague responded I believe it is
6¼%.
Mr. Lambert asked do we have the
ability to go to get a new loan?
Mr. Teague responded yes.
Mr. Cox stated since the closing probably
will not occur until August or September of next year, you may borrow some
money from the bank, set up your repayment schedule and have an additional
assessment. You have plenty of time to
hold the required public hearings to set this in place, pledge the revenue in
the same way as the bond and do a short-term financing of three or five years. These costs will be related to the bond
issue.
Mr. Lambert stated we also have a
difficult time getting projects completed in the year we are planning to do them
for any number of reasons. When the time
comes to pay for this, we may be able to write the check and not have to worry
about going out for a loan as a result of projects we have not started or paid
for.
Mr. Cox stated this may be true, but
the process for doing an assessment for a project not included in your capital
program which is established by a bond issue must be done in a public
hearing. This involves identifying
everyone by registered mail a certain amount of days in advance, and the
purpose of this public hearing is to specifically determine whether or not to
purchase this property and finance it through a special assessment. Although this is legitimate use of your
special assessment power, we must go through this process. We may use short-term financing for this dollar
amount in order to avoid a validation and court process.
Mr. Ziko asked what dollar amount
are you referring to?
Mr. Gatti asked approximately how
much do we need for the land and building?
Mr. Bissell responded we do not need
anything for the building.
Mr. Cox stated the way the contract
is currently written, the maximum amount is $496,000 for the land. However, there are also some transactional
costs involved such as title insurance as well as the survey update.
Mr. Gatti stated we may want to do
something in terms of the community building.
Ms. Dillon stated I suggest we call
this extra room for lack of a better term, an All Purpose Room since we can use it as well as the fire station
personnel. Therefore, it is not
designated as a community training room.
Mr. Gatti stated the point I am
trying to make is we do not really know our total costs for this project.
Mr. Ziko stated we have a ballpark
figure from Mr. Cox for which we are going to base this loan amount.
Mr. Lambert stated we will probably carry
the full purchase price of the land for a short period of time and then we will
be reimbursed by the county.
Mr. Cox stated if the county decides
not to purchase it, the District expressed an interest in leasing it. You may lease it in an amount to cover your
costs over the same period which may be used as revenue.
Mr. Lambert asked do we need to look
at the possibility of borrowing $500,000 from another source?
Mr. Cox responded I suggest getting
this in place in the event other methods do not come through. The first step is to contact a couple of
local banks and determine what they want to do.
The institution holding your depository accounts will probably be
willing to work with us since they have seen the improvement in your financial
future over the last couple of years.
Mr. Ziko asked are we responsible as
a CID for the impact tax which the state charges on these loans?
Mr. Cox responded it is $.35 per
$100 which amounts to $1,755.
Mr. Ziko asked can we get exempt by
the state for this charge?
Mr. Cox responded I do not believe
so, but I will check.
Mr. Ziko stated the tax bills from
the North Hotel are putting us in debt by $330,000. We are looking for $500,000 for the fire
station and the North Hotel is putting us in the same situation as Ms. Marchand
did to us before. They are $330,000
short on their tax collections. Can we
commence foreclosure proceedings?
Mr. Cox responded no.
Mr. Bissell asked can we take it off
the county in order to do our own collection and shut off their water?
Mr. Cox responded you cannot shut
off their water unless they do not pay the water bill. If you take it off roll for the next year’s
assessment which is 2007, it becomes due March 31st at which time it
will begin to accrue a 1% penalty. It will
be one year on March 31, 2008 before you may begin foreclosure proceedings. Therefore, you are looking at March 31, 2009.
Mr. Ziko stated in the meantime, $160,000
gets added on which we cannot collect.
Mr. Lambert asked what is our risk
in removing it from the tax roll?
Mr. Cox responded there is more of a
cost of collection issue. There is no
risk of lien against the property. It
goes to the RV Park property through the tax roll process. If the tax certificates do not sell after a
couple of years, the county is in a position where it has to commence the
process of applying for a tax fee and they may ultimately lose the
property. We are protected since we have
the same interest as the county. If you
wish to take it to foreclosure, you will have to pay me to handle the process.
Mr. Lambert asked will either the
CID or the county have to take it to foreclosure?
Mr. Cox responded I will have to
determine where we are in the process two years after the certificates are being
stricken off to the county, in which case there may be a tax fee before we go
into foreclosure.
Mr. Ziko stated they already issued
one tax certificate which no one has picked up.
Mr. Cox stated I want to look at it
quickly.
Mr. Mack stated we need to come up
with the money to purchase the land first after which we can determine whether
or not we are missing anything from the county.
I know they are interested in leasing, but the purchase is currently
being worked on. I spoke to Chief Wilson
with regards to the community center, and he said it is possible to have some
type of combination building, which may help if you need to build a community
center immediately.
Ms. Dillon stated I do not believe
we need a separate building.
Mr. Mack stated he is open to this
possibility since it will save money in construction costs. We need 90 days notice as to what the county
wants to do. As soon as I know it is in
the works or is being submitted to the county, we will have a meeting and get
assistance in the process.
Mr. Lambert asked did the county step
back?
Mr. Mack responded this is not the
case, but the process is lengthy.
Mr. Lambert stated I was under the
impression they are stepping back based on what you said.
Mr. Mack stated this is not the case
as it was all part of the original discussion.
Ms. Dillon asked what can we do
today in order to proceed?
Mr. Mack responded there is nothing
you can do.
Mr. Lambert asked does our offer to the
property owner still stand?
Mr. Cox responded since I have it
with me, we can work on some of the language and I will have to get Mr.
Bissell’s signature.
Mr. Ziko asked did we establish the
area which we are referring to?
Mr. Cox responded we have done this.
Mr. Lambert stated we basically need
to decide whether or not we are going to proceed if we are possibly borrowing
money from an external source. We need
to get some direction today.
Mr. Cox stated they will sign 180
days from the effective date of the contract because if we sign it first it
transfers, they sign and send it back.
Basically, we had a discrepancy with regards to the property size of
1.89 acres versus 2.12 acres. I received
the survey and sent a copy to Mr. Benson who had his staff calculate it. The square footage to the smallest portion of
the property on the far east side is subject to the conservation easement which
changed the ratio from 1.89 to 2.78. The
contract was drafted to give us the right to claim this conservation easement
as a title issue. We can raise this
issue now and discuss how we are going to handle it over the next couple of
weeks and then sign the contract, or we can sign the contract and accompany it
with a letter stating we are raising this as a title exception and argue about
it after it is signed in order to keep with the period of due diligence.
Mr. Ziko asked is he trying to take
our easement as his property?
Mr. Cox responded his property does
underlie the easement. He owns the
property under the easement and we will be purchasing the property under the
easement.
Ms. Dillon stated I thought we owned
it.
Mr. Cox stated it is subject to a
conservation easement of which the District is a party to but has no value. If I were purchasing this land for a
commercial project, I would argue it cannot be used for anything since it has
no value. This is the position I would
take since we are back down to the number we came up with earlier which is
substantially less than $500,000, and closer to $400,000.
Mr. Ziko stated perhaps we can
negotiate a 50/50 deal.
Mr. Cox stated I will try to do
better. I have had easement evaluations such
as a transmission line easement causing the property value to decline by 10%
less than the overall parent parcel.
However, you can still use this property for a road crossover. There is some value in developing this
property for a fire station because it counts in your overall density
calculations.
Mr. Bissell asked does
Mr. Cox responded you are referring
to the state development fund, which we have money invested in. This is one of the depositories local
governments use under the statute which allows you to invest your money safely. They use your money to loan it to other local
governments. Therefore, you are eligible
for this program.
Mr. Bissell stated I would like you
to check into this.
Mr. Lambert asked who actually talks
to the people about getting this loan?
Mr. Teague responded I can talk to
the underwriters, but our financial staff handles everything else.
Mr. Cox stated I believe it is at 2.7%.
Mr. Lambert stated we should
consider this program.
Mr. Bissell stated if we can get
this money from the state, perhaps we can indicate in the contract the
possibility of paying it off in less than five years without a penalty.
Mr. Gatti asked how should we
proceed?
Mr. Lambert responded if we are
serious about this fire station, we need to ensure we have funds available to
close the deal.
Ms. Dillon stated we should first
pursue the state fund.
Mr. Lambert stated we need to give
some direction today if we are going to proceed with this.
Mr. Cox stated first of all, you need
to determine whether or not funds are available for this type of project. If this is the case, we can use them. If not, we need to look at local banks with a
depository and account holder. The third
option would be for the Board to authorize at the next meeting direction to
proceed with the special assessment appropriation and scheduling of the public
hearing to have in place within 180 days.
Mr. Ziko asked what is your estimate
of the special assessment? I recall
discussing at a previous meeting $160 for a five-year period per ERC in order
to get this financed.
Mr. Cox responded the special
assessment is estimated at approximately $500,000. We have more than 1,000 ERCs at $500 per
ERC. However, it will be less when it is
amortized over the period.
Mr. Lambert stated I prefer to stay
away from this.
Ms. Dillon asked is it reasonable to
expect you to have these financing options ready for us by the next meeting?
Mr. Teague responded one of the
Severn Trent staff members who will be calling in to us is Ms. Karen Ellis who
handles these matters. She also prepares
methodology reports and works with our bond counsel. Therefore, she may have some input if you
want to ask her. However, I will come
back at the next meeting with a recommendation and a full range of options for
financing $500,000.
Mr. Lambert asked does this require
a motion from the Board?
Mr. Teague responded no.
Mr. Gatti asked what kind of
direction are we going to give for the purchase of the land?
Ms. Dillon responded we did this at
the last meeting.
Mr. Cox stated you may want me to
discuss the issue of the value price before we sign the contract. You can sign the contract and raise the title
issue.
Ms. Dillon asked what happens if we
sign a contract for a certain amount?
Mr. Cox responded you can cancel the
contract for any reason.
Mr. Ziko stated I think we should
sign the contract in order to be able to proceed.
Mr. Bissell asked have we given them
$15,000?
Mr. Cox responded $15,000 is given
upon execution of the contract. Mr.
Teague will give me a check which I will hold in my escrow account. There is no risk involved. If you decide to cancel for any reason, Mr.
Teague must file a motion, give me a letter and I will return the money.
Ms. Dillon asked have you heard from
the owner or has all communication been through correspondence?
Mr. Cox responded I really have not spoken
to him since I received the survey. Since
he is represented by counsel, I spoke to his attorney a couple of times.
Mr. Gatti stated I believe we should
have ownership of the property. Although
it is acceptable to go to any of these agencies and borrow money for this
project, the revolving fund takes many years to put together.
Mr. Cox stated you must have your
project scope of work and the overall scheme of what you want to do prior to
funding and you can get a commitment from them fairly quickly. However, I am not certain whether or not the
water and wastewater improvements have been used for this type of fire station.
Mr. Gatti stated we used it in the
city.
Mr. Cox stated in that case, all of
your engineering must be done. Although
knowledge of water and wastewater funds exists, you must ensure it is available
for this type of project.
Mr. Ziko asked does 180 days from
the date the contract comes back to us allow enough time to get the funding in
place?
Mr. Cox responded I believe it
does. We can surely put a package
together over the next 60 days. We have
been in situations in which we had to do pre-financing or gap financing for 90
days until the escrow is funded.
Mr. Lambert asked can we use state
funds to do some of our CIP projects?
Mr. Cox responded this is another
alternative we can certainly use.
Mr. Lambert stated perhaps we can
get the lower interest rate by doing this.
Mr. Cox stated once the engineering
is done, we can get it to them and Mr. Benson probably has this sort of
financing experience as well.
Mr. Lambert stated I believe this is
the most sensible way of proceeding.
Mr. Gatti stated if we ask for this
amount of money for something they have not done before you have six months to
a year. We were told repeatedly the
minute we show ownership of this property, there are several agencies ready to
jump in there with us. Is this a fair
statement?
Mr. Mack responded they need to get
approval first.
Mr. Gatti stated if
Ms. Dillon asked is a signed
contract sufficient to purchase the property?
Mr. Cox responded a signed contract
creates a beneficial interest. Although
you do not have legal title, it is basically recognized for purposes of
planning and zoning. When you go out for
financing it shows you have a sufficient interest in the property. Also, one of the planners from Mr. Benson’s
firm is currently doing a conditional use approval for the county for one of
the other fire stations. Therefore, we
do have to take it through the conditional use process. However, I am not aware of who is funding this.
Mr. Gatti stated I believe Mr.
Lambert’s idea of revolving funding for other projects and building the fire
station with cash we have on hand is a good one.
Mr. Benson stated they usually look
at their commitments with other municipalities relative to the money they have
available, and there is usually different criteria for what they consider to be
the highest priority. There is also a
process for the water and wastewater programs, which Mr. Cox and I can discuss.
Mr. Gatti stated I recall they were
reluctant to go with huge projects. They
prefer to go with some middle of the line and lower end projects.
Mr. Benson stated for example, the
City of
Mr. Gatti stated we received the
funds from the city because we were ready to go with the projects. Many people tie up the money because they are
close to being ready to start the projects.
Therefore, the city decides to give the funds to someone else.
Mr. Cox stated with regards to this
program as it is related to the water loss issues, they are running between 35%
and 56% continuously, and will be something they consider quickly as far as
where we are at.
Mr. Benson stated we must determine which
current projects are receiving the highest priority.
Mr. Gatti stated we need a list in
order to proceed with the property purchase.
Mr. Cox stated we are on track. I need to get the contract signed and start
the discussions over how much land we are actually purchasing.
Mr. Gatti stated it is in place and
we are actually coming to this point.
Mr. Bissell asked should we sign the
contract now?
Mr. Cox responded I believe you
should sign it.
Ms. Dillon asked should we do so
with those caveats you were discussing in terms of the property size?
Mr. Cox responded this was all part
of what we discussed at the other meeting.
Mr. Lambert asked is staff aware of
where we want to go as far as getting some state money as well as a better look
at what it takes to go to a local bank?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
Mr. Mack stated
Mr. Bissell stated the Board is
committed.
Mr. Cox stated we want to go with a
standard proposal for conditional use approval in the amount of $24,000, which
holds our cash for engineering firm fees, and is slightly below the price to
assure our consultants for competitive negotiations as requirements.
Mr. Bissell asked can we negotiate
this?
Mr. Benson responded we did not give
you a proposal for the project. This was
one for which the county already has a contract.
Mr. Cox stated we need to be clear
on this. We need to find out from the
county specifically if we are responsible for obtaining the conditional use
approval. If this is the case, we probably
need to go out for RFQs to get some proposals from engineering planning firms who
handle conditional use approvals, which can probably be discussed at your next
meeting.
Ms. Dillon asked if we purchase the
land, and the county builds the station, how much engineering is the county
responsible for as opposed to us paying to do this?
Mr. Cox responded I have more experience
with typical land transactions. The way we have always handled this is instead
of using negotiable contracts, we have held the seller responsible for having
the property ready for its intended use.
What was always negotiated at the actual closing was whether they were
reimbursed for any costs they incurred in preparing the property by getting a
conditional use approval or anything necessary to prepare it for your intended
use. The fact they are building the station
implies they have a plan which is suitable for the building, and we may ask the
county to reimburse our costs in obtaining the conditional use approval unless they
intend to pay the entire cost.
Mr. Ziko asked is the conditional
use handed down by the county?
Mr. Cox responded that is correct. A conditional use involves a zoning category
for your permitted uses as well as accessories to those permitted uses. Conditional uses are typically considered to
be appropriate for the underlying land use in which there may be additional
considerations for protection of safety and welfare requiring a hearing before
the county commissioner in order for them to determine whether or not there are
conditions related to signage, traffic control devices and sound controls, among
other issues.
Mr. Lambert asked is this why you are
looking at the retention pond?
Mr. Cox responded this is related to
the plan, and once you have conditional use approval, you may obtain site plan
approval which ensures you have the appropriate capacities for stormwater,
parking spaces and meeting their traffic standards with regards to separation
of open curb cuts.
Mr. Lambert stated with regards to
the open retention pond, if the current capacity does not support building and
paving on the line, will expansion by going down be an acceptable resolution to
problem?
Mr. Benson responded I anticipate
some stormwater management requirements as part of the property
development. We may probably discharge
into the existing stormwater management system.
We will have to do some stormwater improvement on the site as part of
the site project, which we will be able to tie into the system without any
question.
Mr. Lambert stated it will be nice
to take advantage of this.
Mr. Benson stated the design of the
stormwater management system was for properties which developed and excluded
those lots which were required to have their own stormwater management system,
although it could tie into the other system.
Mr. Cox asked are they required to
treat their own systems?
Mr. Benson responded I have not done
the research, but I believe it will be acceptable as long as we put in some
kind of stormwater management system to a certain level on the site which does
not comprise a large amount of land.
However, we may be able to tie it in with the type of development we are
referring to, but we cannot put everything into the existing system.
Ms. Dillon stated I want to go on
the record I will not support spending $500,000 for this property unless we
have a good sense the county is going to build a fire station here.
Mr. Cox stated we have 90 days to
get a commitment from the county. We can
express to them it is extremely important we have this commitment.
Ms. Dillon stated otherwise we will
end up owning unnecessary property.
Mr. Bissell stated I will communicate
with Mr. Cox in approximately two weeks.
ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion of District
Financial Issues
Ms.
Davis, Ms. Ellis and Ms. Randel joined the meeting via telephone.
Mr. Lambert stated since I do not
necessarily need to see the revenue analysis every month, perhaps we can see it
on a quarterly basis. Can these other
documents be part of what you give us every month?
Mr. Teague responded with regards to
the CIP Status Report, they are asking if this can be included in their
financials every month.
Ms. Randel stated I believe we can
do this.
Mr. Lambert stated this is what we
have been looking for.
Mr. Teague stated we have had it,
but I believe we just need to know you needed this information. We will go through the reporting format of the
financials. Ms. Randel put together the
financials you received. We realize you
did not receive the check register and the three fund balances were not on the
front page. The fund balance in the Jet
Report is reflected as retained earnings and was on a separate sheet. I just distributed exactly what she had in
September which was put into this month’s figures.
Mr. Lambert asked is this document
created out of your financial recording system?
Ms. Randel asked can you repeat the
question?
Mr. Teague asked was the fund
balance sheet you prepared which reflected all three funds done on an Excel
spreadsheet or through the Jet Report?
Ms. Randel responded it was done on
an Excel spreadsheet.
Mr. Teague stated we are still
working with the Jet Reports and we are trying to identify which core reports
we are going to prepare.
Mr. Lambert asked what is on this
report which you cannot get on a Jet Report?
Mr. Baldwin responded since your Enterprise Fund is a non-governmental
fund, the Jet Report does not pull a non-governmental fund into the
report. In other words, your general and
debt service funds are in the capital projects which is a governmental
fund-driven financial. The other fund is
basically similar to a company with excess revenues. Therefore, it is not currently incorporating
because we have to run two separate programs within our software to do so. We are trying to go back to our IT Department
in order to determine whether or not there is a way to automatically
incorporate the balance sheet items as one balance sheet instead of running two
separate balance sheets.
Mr. Lambert asked do you believe the
program can be set up to do this?
Mr. Baldwin responded I am certain
it can be done, but I do not want to put something on another department over
which I have no control.
Ms. Dillon stated I believe the
Board wants to see this combined balance sheet every month.
Mr. Teague stated I brought to the
Accounting Department’s attention, and I sent Mr. Ziko the format of the core
report as the type of report you want.
You want all of your fund balances on one sheet which they are working
on. Once they get a consensus from all
of the District Managers as to what type of report they want to see, they are
going to bring it to IT in order to determine whether or not we can work with
the existing software package to prepare these types of reports.
Mr. Lambert asked how long will it
take for them to determine this?
Mr. Teague responded since we
already sent this out, the answer should come fairly quickly.
Mr. Baldwin stated I already set up
a spreadsheet which will document our progress in order to prepare your
financials and determine whether or not it is necessary for the accountants to indicate
everything on one spreadsheet. I believe
Accounts Payable is also creating their portion as well.
Mr. Ziko stated perhaps we can break
out the assets on the combined balance sheet and have a subtotal of cash
operations to include the plant, equipment and property since the Total Assets line is misleading when
compared to the cash we have to work with.
Perhaps we can put a subtotal line entitled, Other Assets under Due From
Other Funds which will include the plant and property since it accounts for
close to $4 million. You can subtract $4
million from the $8 million you are showing us as total assets. I prefer to see a cash asset.
Mr. Teague stated you are really
asking for identification of the statement of revenues and expenses. A balance sheet is a snapshot of everything
put together quickly.
Mr. Ziko stated the snapshot only
needs one other line. You have total
liabilities in here as one line broken out and then you total out down
below. Perhaps you can add another line
titled, Total Cash in order for us to
be able to determine how much money we have in a particular month. Are you reevaluating the property every
month?
Mr. Teague responded no.
Mr. Ziko stated it is basically
going to stay the same except you are going to add an additional line titled, Total Cash.
Ms. Randel asked are you looking for
totals on fixed assets?
Mr. Ziko responded yes.
Ms. Randel asked do you want totals
for both operating and state board account line items?
Mr. Ziko responded give a subtotal on
everything from Due to Other Funds to
Cash Operating Account and put the
subtotal in there as one extra line.
Ms. Randel stated you only want to have
two line items, one for Fixed Assets
with a Subtotal and Current Assets with a Subtotal. Is this correct?
Mr. Ziko responded yes.
Ms. Randel stated I believe we can
do this.
Mr. Teague stated you still need to
keep it to one page.
Mr. Ziko stated we are only going to
add one more line to it.
Ms. Dillon stated there is plenty of
room.
Mr. Teague stated I do not want one
line to carry this to a second page.
Will it be on an Excel spreadsheet?
Ms. Randel responded I believe we
can do this because it is in Excel.
Mr. Lambert stated I am concerned
using another program will bring the human error factor into play. Someone must check to ensure everything is
correct.
Mr. Teague stated Ms. Randel and I
will handle this. I am not certain the
balance sheet is ever going to be a core jet report in the format you are
requesting. We may always have to do
this on an Excel spreadsheet. Since
there are limitations to what we can do, I do not want to have to reconcile
these ourselves.
Mr. Baldwin stated this is
understandable and is what we are here for.
Mr. Lambert stated on the last page
of our package there is a table which shows a distribution from the county for
the assessment roll. I tried to find
some of these numbers on the Statement of
Revenues. For example, the net
amount for the General Fund for
December shows two entries, but I cannot find anything on the General Fund statements reflecting the
same number.
Ms. Randel stated we are combining
tax collections with financials. If you
look on Page 2 under the General Fund,
there is a line item under Revenues
called Special Assessments: On Roll. The Year
to Date amount is $289,194.
Mr. Lambert asked do you use gross
instead of net?
Ms. Randel responded that is
correct.
Mr. Teague stated if you take the
discounts out and show them as expenditures, you will have the net.
Ms. Randel stated you will find the
discount portion on Page 4 toward the bottom under Other Current Charges, under the line item titled, Collection Fees & Early Payment Discount
in the amount of $16,902.
Mr. Lambert stated my error was in
watching the net numbers.
Mr. Cox stated the reason you need
the gross is because your budget is gross.
Mr. Lambert stated the other item I
was unable to find came off of the Statement
of Revenues Versus Expenditures, which I believe is an Excel
spreadsheet. This is Revenues for Meter Fees for the month of
December in the amount of $5,000. I had
difficulty finding this on the Statement
of Revenues for the Water.
Ms. Randel stated I believe the
issue is on Page 11 in which I see a total amount which does not technically
show all of the revenues for the Water
& Sewer Fund we would like to see.
Water & Sewer revenues are
all being combined to one line, but the detail is not provided in the Jet Report.
Mr. Lambert stated we should be able
to look at the detailed information under Schedule
Attached. I cannot find any numbers,
but it appears to be $5,000.
Ms. Randel stated the $5,000 line
items are not shown separately in the Jet Report.
Mr. Lambert asked are these items
under Special Assessments or Assessments?
Ms. Randel responded the Year to Date figure in the table on Page
11 under Assessments is $43,223 which
represents a combination of line items we see in the monthly detail as well as
the combination of the water, sewer and irrigation revenue along with other
fees. When you combine those four line
items, you are safe if you come up with $43,223.
Mr. Lambert stated I also came up
with some other questions which you may or may not be able to answer. There is an item for Rentals & Leases in the amount of $100 per month on the Water & Sewer spreadsheet.
Mr. Teague stated this is an
overhead expense which we share with the
Mr. Lambert stated we will continue
to see Current Month Actual, Year to Date Actual and Adopted Budget & Variance on the
statements.
Mr. Teague stated this is what we
are currently discussing.
Mr. Baldwin stated we are currently
investigating this because it seems different regions want to see their
financials in different ways. I
supervise the western and southern parts of
Mr. Lambert stated I have a
difficult time dealing with the format changing every two or three months and
trying to determine where everything is going.
Ms. Dillon stated you cannot get
used to a format which keeps changing.
Mr. Baldwin stated when the new Jet Report was initiated, I knew it was not going to be we