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:
Richard
Gatti Chairman
Dale
Lambert Vice Chairman
Ted
Bissell Assistant
Secretary
Norine Dillon Assistant
Secretary
Richard
Ziko Assistant
Secretary
Also present were:
Ed
Goscicki District
Manager
Dan
Cox Attorney
(via Telephone)
Ron
Benson Engineer
Tom
Mack Staff
Christopher
Shucart POI
Hotel &
Jim
Bartell Picayune
Numerous
Residents
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Gatti called the meeting to
order and called the roll.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer’s
Report
Presentation
by the SFWMD
Mr. Bartell stated I am the Project
Manager for the Delray portion of the Picayune Strand Restoration project. I handle the design and implementation of the
project implementation report which you have seen over the past couple of
years. Parsons Engineering along with
Nova designed our levees, canals and roads for our protection management and
water distribution system for the pump station.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the record will reflect the rest of this presentation will not
be recorded, but the consultant will provide a copy of it.
Question and Answer
Portion of SFWMD Presentation
Mr. Bissell asked if the elevation
of the water in one location is zero and three to four feet at another
location, how are you going to have water flow over this elevation?
Mr. Bartell responded it gets higher
moving from zero to nine.
Mr. Bissell stated if you plug this
area you will have an elevation of three to four feet and still not reach this
water level. There are some primitive
campgrounds back there. The other map
shows a flow over this area which is three to four feet in elevation higher
than the weir. How are you going to have
a flow over this without raising the water over the weir?
Mr. Bartell responded we are not
mimicking this exactly. This is a historical photograph of what existed prior
to this development being built. This is
an actual flow which is based on topography, and they are low lying areas.
Mr. Bissell asked how are you going
to flow the area in the street to a possible four-foot elevation above the
water currently behind the weir, and how can you flood it?
Mr. Bartell responded we are not
flooding this area. There may be three
to four feet of water across the entire site which is at a higher elevation at
this point but not any deeper.
Mr. Bissell stated I want to know
about the literature which is being distributed. I spoke to one individual who received approximately
15 pages of information from Clarence.
He asked me if I wanted a copy, but I did not believe was necessary.
Mr. Bartell stated Clarence works
with the SFWMD and Judy works with Clarence.
We coordinate closely with Clarence on everything we are doing. However, I am not certain what Clarence may
have received in terms of this project, but we will follow up. He does not have anything we would not
provide him. Our official meeting for
public comments on the record will take place next Thursday at
Mr. Lambert stated a couple of years
ago Mr. Gatti voiced our concerns at one of those public meetings. Are those concerns still on record?
A woman responded we are aware of
the potential irrigation problem as well as all of your other concerns.
Mr. Gatti stated please leave your
business cards with us.
Mr.
Goscicki stated let the record reflect Mr. Cox has joined us via telephone, and Mr. Benson has joined the meeting.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes
of the July 14, 2006 Meeting
Mr. Gatti stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr. Goscicki stated as the Board is
aware we had a challenge with this month’s minutes. When I sent the three tapes to the recording
secretary via DHL, only one tape came out of the package. As of this date, we are not sure where the
other two tapes are. However, we thank
Mr. Ziko for sending his electronic version. I decided to do this electronically because I
can download and email it tonight.
Mr. Ziko
stated on Page 29 in the first and last paragraphs growth should replace gross.
Mr. Lambert stated I received both
an electronic copy and a FedEx copy. Is
there a difference between the two versions?
Mr. Goscicki responded there should
not be a difference.
Ms. Dillon stated the minutes are
good. Although some of Mr. Holecek’s comments were more expanded than what the minutes
reflect, they suffice what he commented on and I do not recommend we amend them.
On MOTION by Mr. Lambert
seconded by Mr. Ziko with all in favor the minutes of
the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Hearing to
Consider the Adoption of the Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 (Resolution 2006-4)
and Levy of Non Ad Valorem Assessments (Resolution 2006-5)
Mr. Goscicki stated this public
hearing has been duly advertised in the local newspaper. Therefore, the first step is for Mr. Gatti to
open the public hearing for the adoption of the budget for Fiscal Year 2007 and
levy of non ad valorem assessments.
Mr. Gatti stated the public hearing
is open.
Mr. Goscicki responded I want to update
you as to where we are in the budget process after which we will open to public
comment. This is the third meeting in
which this Board discussed the budget.
We had a detailed discussion and workshop on the budget in June, and we
reviewed it again in July. I submitted a
revised budget to you this morning because there was a significant error in
terms of presentation, but not in terms of the actual impact. The biggest change we had in this year’s budget
compared to last year is the shifting of assessments between the general fund
and the water and wastewater fund. The
Board directed us to move the total revenue from those assessments approximately
$310,000 in order to reduce the assessments and general fund by this amount,
and increase the assessments in the water and sewer fund by a like amount. This was done in terms of our actual background
assessment work which was done in the cash flow analysis showing how the money
will work and where it will go. However,
this information did not carry forward to the budget document on the addition
to the wastewater fund, but it showed as a reduction in the general fund. I want to walk you through each page and let
you know what changes were made from the document which was in your
package. On Page 1 there were no
substantive changes, but there was a format change. The unappropriated
fund balance shows as zero. This now
shows up on Page 2 as the projected beginning fund balance. This is a formatting change which we just
went through. The dollars are still
there. Instead of showing it as a front
line, we showed it as a bottom line.
Mr. Ziko
asked what line are you looking at?
Mr. Goscicki responded I am looking
at the first line on the first page. The
unappropriated fund balance shows as zero, but the
original document shows as $1,143,000 on Page 2. Otherwise, there are no changes on Pages 1
and 2 from the document which was previously sent. I want to run through the changes, and I will
address any substantive questions the Board may have. On Page 3 at the top, the retained earnings
were $103,000. This now shows on Page 4
at the bottom. The dollars stayed the
same, but they were moved. The big
change is on the wastewater fund under the water and sewer fund special
assessments. It was approximately
$700,000, but it is now reflected correctly as $1,028,000. The corresponding change which took place is
under the administrative expenditures on this page. The collection fees and early payment
distribution was $55,000. It is now
$77,000. These are the fees we pay the
tax collector and the property appraiser’s office for their role in the
assessment process, and is considered a percentage of
the assessment. Since the assessment
increased, this increased as well, but the total dollars in the budget did not
change.
Mr. Ziko
asked why did this increase so significantly from last year?
Mr. Goscicki responded although we
grossed it up in the revenue and netted it out in the expenses last year, we
did not do it this year. We just ignored
the cost in the budget presentation, and did not show it as part of the revenue
for the assessment, nor as an expense.
The revenue we are currently showing in the assessment is grossed up to
cover the discount fees and payments to the tax collector and property
appraiser. We grossed up the revenue to
show the actual revenue, thereby showing the actual expenses. In previous years we netted it out on both
sides and ignored it. The reason we do
this is we want to ensure the revenues match what is in the budget when we
track them each year.
Ms. Dillon stated conversely, we
increased this because we increased the assessment levy for water and sewer and
decreased the general fund assessment levy, but did not decrease the collection
fees from the general fund. In other
words, if you increase the collection fees in the water and sewer fund to
reflect the money transfer, the decrease seems logical.
Mr. Goscicki responded this should
have happened in the previous reiteration and should be the same percentage.
Ms. Dillon stated we still have
money from the special assessments levy to put in the water and sewer fund.
Mr. Goscicki stated this was done
correctly in the updated version you received.
The general fund was correct and the assessment was reduced. This number is 7.5% of the assessment revenue
on both sides. Therefore, the number is
correct. These are the only changes from
the previous document. With regards to
the cash flow analysis, we updated some figures in terms of the 2006 numbers,
which have changed those values slightly.
Mr. Ziko
stated your contract is still not accurately reflected, since there is $30,000
in the line item. $261 is for water and
sewer plus $87 only comes out to $348.
Your contract is $378. Therefore,
your contract should be adjusted without the $30,000 increase. You should leave the $30,000 in there, but
adjust the contract to accurately reflect what it is.
Mr. Goscicki stated the O&M
includes a $30,000 budgeted amount for renewal and replacement within our
contract. I thought I
double-budgeted this to provide a buffer, but I did not. Mr. Ziko is
referring to the amount shown as our contract amount and the actual contract
amount is the $30,000 for renewal and replacement. I believe Mr. Ziko
is recommending to the Board an increase in our budgeted amounts for the
contract to actually equal the contract amount.
Therefore, we will increase the total amount between those two funds by
$30,000.
Mr. Ziko
stated I want to see the contract reflect what it really is.
Mr. Goscicki stated as we bill
against the contract to keep it in line when we bill the renewal and replacement
funds, we will have to bill it out against the other line. I believe you are correct, and it will be
beneficial to us to increase the gross by an additional $30,000 and keep it as
an additional reserve for the Board in the renewal and replacement fund.
Mr. Ziko
asked once the $30,000 in the contract is depleted, then you may use the
additional $30,000.
Mr. Goscicki stated I will only do
this with the Board’s approval.
Ms. Dillon stated otherwise you are
going to be over budget on the contract which may cause problems in the future.
Mr. Ziko
asked how often will we get reconciliation of the $30,000 we are owed in the contract?
Mr. Goscicki responded the contract
requires us to provide you with a monthly summary as part of the monthly report
showing what our expenditures are against the amount. We will change the budget to reflect
this. The split is 75/25 in the contract
between the general fund and the water and sewer fund.
Mr. Ziko
asked why do we have to put it in the general fund at all since all of this
money is going to be spent in the water and sewer fund?
Mr. Goscicki responded in the past the
budget was structured with the salaries of POI employees involved in the
utility to be split evenly between the water and sewer fund and the general fund. When we put this budget together and looked at
the contract, we recognized activity which was related to the general
fund. Therefore, we split it 75/25, and
as we get some history we can give a better determination next year of the
appropriate split.
Mr. Ziko asked
since we just transferred $310,000 in collections from the general fund to the
water and sewer fund, why are we going to put more funds back into the general
fund?
Mr. Goscicki responded this was an
expense against the general fund. In previous
years the employees split their time evenly between the general fund and the
water and wastewater fund. Therefore, we
reduced the expenditures to the general fund.
I suggest we further reduce our expenditures to the general fund. Is all of this work related to utilities?
Ms. Dillon responded I believe this
is the case.
Mr. Goscicki stated there is some
general fund activity which goes on, but not 100%. There is some activity which is spent on
supervising and providing oversight for signage, roads and mosquito control,
all of which are general fund activities.
Mr. Ziko
stated mosquito control no longer falls under the general fund. It is part of your contract which is under
the water and sewer fund.
Mr. Goscicki stated this is part of
our contract, but is not related to the water and sewer fund, which is why we
had to split the contract between the two funds.
Mr. Lambert stated we may have more
expenses in the future which we have not seen recently for the general fund,
and we can always transfer funds if necessary.
Therefore, I believe we should leave it at 75/25, since the operation is
not a 100% water and sewer operation.
Mr. Ziko
stated we are only talking about $7,500 for the general fund.
Mr. Goscicki stated the $30,000 will
just be split evenly between the two funds.
Mr. Lambert asked are
we in a position to approve the budget after public comment?
Mr. Goscicki responded the goal for
today is to receive public comment and for the Board to approve the resolution
formally adopting the budget and authorizing the assessment of levies for
special assessments based on this budget.
Ms. Dillon stated I still believe
the interest income in the budget is too low.
In one case you have $1 million with $5,000 interest for the water and
sewer fund. I know we are going to spend
it, but we should get more money than this.
Mr. Goscicki stated this will be the
case, and you are getting more money today.
In putting the budget together, I did not run a calculation for the
interest income. I essentially decreased
last year’s number since we are doing some significant expenditures and capital
improvement as well as spending down some of our reserves.
Mr. Gatti asked what do you want it
to be?
Mr. Goscicki responded we recommend
being conservative on revenues. You
should under-state your revenues, and over-state your expenditures in order to
avoid a situation in which there is not enough money to cover Board expenses.
Mr. Ziko
stated at the last meeting when Mr. Lambert asked you if we have enough money
for these projects, you stated we are still going to carry $500,000 by the end
of the year, which with 4% interest means we are probably going to carry
$750,000 on an average daily basis at $30,000 interest. You have $5,000 projected in the budget. How do you do this?
Mr. Goscicki responded if the Board
wants to increase the revenue projection, I have no problem.
Mr. Ziko
stated you show us earning $33,000 in interest this year, but projecting $5,000
for next year.
Mr. Goscicki stated it was not material
in terms of the $1.5 million budget we are dealing with.
Mr. Gatti asked does the Board want
to increase this number?
Mr. Ziko
responded I just want it to be more realistic.
Mr. Gatti stated Mr. Goscicki will
need to look at this.
Mr. Goscicki stated we must agree on
a number today since we need to approve the budget.
Mr. Lambert asked as long as our
actual numbers are correct what do we accomplish by changing this since the
budget is an estimate of what you believe you are going to spend?
Ms. Dillon responded we want to
ensure we are all aware those numbers are not realistic. Six months from now, we are still not showing
any interest income.
Mr. Gatti asked do we want to change
this?
Mr. Lambert responded no.
Mr. Gatti stated we should let this
ride since we are aware of it.
Ms. Dillon asked will there be a
benefit under the special assessments levy to split it into two, one for
regular maintenance assessments and one for the special assessment which we are
currently carrying in order to have an idea of what our normal ongoing
maintenance assessment is?
Mr. Goscicki responded I understand this
is for the benefit of the public. I
caution against using the terminology, special
assessment, because it has a specific meaning and the Board did not adopt a
special assessment. The Board increased
the assessments for O&M for a particular purpose, but you did not go
through a formal process of establishing a special assessment. Perhaps Mr. Cox can speak to us and I can
speak generally, but if you were going to establish a special purpose
assessment, there are some specific accounting requirements involved. It has to be set up as a separate fund, which
has to be tracked separately from other funds.
Instead, the Board needs to increase the level of assessment for a
period of time to deal with issues of increased maintenance, capital
improvement, as well as renewal and replacement of the facilities, as compared
to doing a special assessment which may create many accounting and bookkeeping constraints. Do you have anything else to add?
Mr. Cox responded this was a fair
statement and I have always tried to make the distinction for you.
Ms. Dillon stated we must stop
calling them special assessments.
Mr. Goscicki stated it was an
increase in the assessment for the purpose of maintenance and renewal.
Ms. Dillon stated it should be
called maintenance assessments.
Mr. Cox stated they are a component
of your O&M assessment.
Ms. Dillon stated the budget and
financials always refer to them as special assessments.
Mr. Goscicki stated the O&M
assessment is a special assessment, but I believe you were referring to an
increase as another special assessment within the special assessment, and we do
not want to create multiple breakdowns.
Ms. Dillon asked should we change
the nomenclature to either maintenance assessments or O&M assessments?
Mr. Goscicki responded this is
correct since it is considered a special assessment.
Mr. Ziko
stated when this was instituted I was not on the Board, but I was sitting in
the audience, and it was supposed to be for a five year period. This was carried out for six years and does
not seem to be going away.
Mr. Cox stated when this discussion
occurred I cautioned the Board about saying they were going to be assessed for
a period of time because you may not be aware of how much it is going to cost
over time as a result of changes in market conditions. For example, petroleum prices increased
significantly over the last few months, which has a
direct affect on the cost of concrete, asphalt and other materials as well as
labor for people having to secure transportation to get down there.
Mr. Gatti stated I do not recall us
setting it.
Mr. Ziko
stated they had three different levels of assessment, and we took the largest
one because it was only going to last five years. Now, it goes to the form of government and
there is nothing as permanent as a temporary tax, which is what we are dealing
with.
Mr. Cox stated the government cannot
predict what it is going to cost to fund operations for a period of time, but
it has the funds to construct the facilities.
This is why we are so adamant the Board should not set this for a
certain period of time.
Ms. Dillon stated I know we talked
about this last month, but I want to ensure we know what to say when someone
asks why this is set and still going on.
At one point, we told people it may be less than five years.
Mr. Cox stated I believe we also
have to acknowledge it may continue longer than five years.
Mr. Lambert stated this document for
2010 gives a good indication we are either not going to do certain things, or
we will continue with the assessment.
Mr. Bissell stated if we did have a
five year agreement, we may extend it for one additional year if necessary.
Mr. Cox stated you must have this
flexibility.
Mr. Lambert stated we must always be
looking at this issue to see where we are headed.
Mr. Gatti stated we should look at
what we set because I do not believe we set a limit.
Mr. Lambert stated I looked at it
and I believe a limit was set.
Mr. Bissell it states five years.
Mr. Goscicki stated this was the
Board’s intention, but you did not establish an assessment which had a this provision, you just increased the current
assessment. However, you can reduce this
tomorrow or you can continue as it is.
This is the Board’s prerogative.
Mr. Gatti stated I recall the
discussion clearly. We were talking
about going for $350, $500 or $700. We
were voting on $500, but we changed it to $700 at the last minute. However, I do not remember setting the date.
Mr. Cox stated saying you want to do
this for five years is a statement of your intent, and you are not bound as a
legislative body to continue this assessment.
Mr. Gatti asked how does this fall
into what we are working on?
Mr. Ziko
responded if we are going to need it in the sixth year, it should be shown as
such in the budget. I wanted to know why
it was automatically shown in the budget without saying it will have to be
carried forward for a seventh or eighth year.
The
public hearing was open to public comment.
A
resident stated more funds are anticipated in the future than a couple of years
ago. As time goes on prices are
increasing, and I believe before we automatically continue the assessment at
this level, perhaps we are not legally bound to it, but it sounds like it was
brought up and people made a decision on this based on a five year period. Even though you legally have the right to change
this, there still is a moral obligation to this community to let them know what
is transpiring. There are many
residents, including myself, who thought this was for a five year period
only. If it is going to continue, you
need to let other people know since it was a substantial increase. You are always going to need funds; and prices
are increasing continuously. From our
standpoint, the ERCs purchased at close to $1 million
deserves consideration as well as taking into effect what $1 million means to
the community, either not continuing the increased assessment or having the money
to do other projects.
A
resident stated I have been living here for approximately seven years and I
budgeted for a public corporation for many years. To hear you say you are only going to budget
$5,000 for interest when I know it is going to be four or five times this amount
makes me wonder what else is in this budget which may have similar
irregularities.
Mr. Goscicki stated we are talking
about a $1.5 million budget between the two funds and whether or not we
budgeted $5,000 or $10,000 for interest income.
The
resident stated I thought it was from $5,000 to potentially $30,000.
Mr. Goscicki stated I would not
increase it to $30,000. We are talking
about approximately $10,000 in a $1.5 million budget.
A
resident stated earlier last year we were going to do a project at the water
treatment plant with the company from
Mr. Goscicki responded I believe you
are referring to the wastewater treatment plant improvements being done by Parkson Corporation for filtration technology. The total project cost is approximately
$600,000. The additional amount of
$239,000 has been encumbered this year, and some has already been spent down,
since the equipment was delivered.
Mr. Benson stated I will discuss
further during my report.
The
resident stated I thought if this did not work we would do something else.
Mr. Benson stated $239,000 is for
equipment purchases only. This was done
through direct purchasing, and we had to build other things for the entire
project. We are still waiting for the
DEP permit, and we expect it to be issued this month. We have an update on bids for the entire
project against the $900,000 budget.
The
resident asked is this all part of the same new project?
Mr. Benson responded this was the
main part of the project.
The
resident asked did it actually cost approximately $900,000 as opposed to $200,000?
Mr. Benson responded one year ago
the total cost was approximately $500,000.
However, the prices became considerably higher and we raised the budget
to $900,000.
The
resident asked what is the company now charging?
Mr. Benson responded $239,000 is the
discounted price for the equipment.
A
resident asked when the budget is passed will it be available to all of us?
Mr. Goscicki responded according to
the public announcement for the meeting they were available at my office and
will be available anytime thereafter.
The
resident stated I want to get a copy.
Mr. Goscicki stated if you give me
your address at the end of the meeting I will ensure a copy is mailed to you.
Mr. Gatti stated the public hearing
is closed.
Mr. Goscicki stated since the public
hearing is closed we have two resolutions for adoption. The first one is Resolution 2006-4 which is
for adoption of the budget for the Fiscal Year beginning
Mr. Bissell moved to adopt
Resolution 2006-4 relating to the annual appropriations of the District and
adopting the budget for the Fiscal Year beginning October 1, 2006, and ending
September 30, 2007, and referencing the maintenance and benefit special
assessments to be levied by the District for said Fiscal Year and Mr. Lambert
seconded the motion.
Ms. Dillon stated we should approve
this with the caveat we will receive copies with all of the amounts filled in.
Mr. Goscicki stated this cannot be done
until you adopt the resolution. I will
note for the record this is a motion to approve the budget as amended by the
Board today to include $30,000 in the O&M contract.
On VOICE vote with all in
favor the previous motion was adopted as amended.
Mr. Goscicki stated Resolution
2006-5 levies and imposes non ad valorem maintenance special assessments for POI. I will note in the budget package which we distributed
to you today we included a special assessment worksheet based upon the current budget,
and you will note there is actually a 3% reduction in the total assessment as
we ran the numbers through. Even though
we were working through a constant revenue stream, there is actually a net 3%
reduction across the board when you look at the actual assessments along with
the growth in the community. We cannot
run final numbers until we have an adopted budget. However, we are going to stay within the existing
assessment levels.
On MOTION by Mr. Lambert
seconded by Mr. Bissell with all in favor Resolution 2006-5 levying and
imposing a non ad valorem maintenance special assessment for Fiscal Year 2007 was
adopted.
Mr. Goscicki stated I thank the
Board very much and we will move forward on this.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion
of Open Items
Proposed Fire
Station
Mr. Mack stated at the moment, the
gentleman we are dealing with on this issue is building a house and he does not
want to deal with the RV park or anything else until this
is finished, which leaves us in a quandary as to what to do. I recommend to the Board we continue to
pursue the 1.9 acres on Route 41. There
is a process which we have to go through.
Will we have to make an offer first before we go anywhere else?
Mr. Cox responded I believe we will
definitely have to make an offer. I
suggest making the offer not under the contract, but appeal to the gentleman
and describe the situation to him, and if he is not receptive there is a
requirement before any eminent domain can commence, we have to get county
authorization. However, I believe they
will require you to try to negotiate with the owner of the parcel and provide
them with a written offer as requested as well as an appraisal based upon this
offer, and try to reach an agreement for the compensation amount as a first
step.
Mr. Gatti stated we should try to
reach a consensus.
Mr. Lambert asked did we pay for the
property appraisal?
Mr. Mack responded yes.
Mr. Lambert stated I want to see the
appraisal.
Mr. Mack stated I have not seen it.
Ms. Dillon stated I also have not
seen it.
Mr. Mack stated I believe it was
appraised at $240,000.
Mr. Cox stated in order to get the
authorization you need the appraisal.
Mr. Gatti stated someone has an
appraisal.
Mr. Mack stated Mr. Cox has it.
Mr. Gatti asked do you have it?
Mr. Cox responded I have it, and I
thought I sent it via email to everyone.
Mr. Gatti stated first of all we want
to see the appraisal. Is it the
consensus of the Board to proceed in this direction?
Mr. Lambert asked how many ERCs are attached to this parcel?
Mr. Cox responded I believe there
are 12 ERCs.
Can we give them one side of the road?
Ms. Dillon responded yes.
Mr. Cox stated I thought there were
12 ERCs for each parcel. Do you recall?
Ms. Dillon responded we have a total
of 20 for the two parcels.
Mr. Cox stated this amounts to 10 ERCs for each parcel.
Perhaps we can tell him we do not need any of them and he can use the 20
ERCs on his other parcel.
Mr. Lambert stated we better
determine how many ERCs are attached to this.
Mr. Cox stated there were 10 ERCs and we do not need any, and he has 20 since they were
split evenly.
Mr. Mack stated that is a bargaining
chip right there since we do not need the ERCs.
Mr. Cox stated you should take a
good look at the appraisal and see if it included the ERCs.
Mr. Mack stated I believe it does
include them.
Mr. Cox stated it should include the
ability to hook to the plant because I believe I asked the appraiser whether or
not they had a vested right to the plant just as we did on all of the other
appraisals.
Mr. Mack asked can this process be
stopped at any time if something is developed across the road?
Mr. Cox responded that is correct. You either sign a contract with him or if we
file for eminent domain you do a quick
take in which you post the money and determine whether or not there is a
fair market value to the appraisal. The
title transfers immediately and I believe you negotiate the compensation later.
Mr. Mack stated although it was not
budgeted for, we may have to expand the assessments for another year. However, I believe the people here will
understand why this has to be done.
Mr. Gatti asked what is the Board’s pleasure?
Ms. Dillon responded for the record
I would rather get donated land, but DJ is aware if this not really going to be
feasible for a few years, we do not want to wait this long to get a fire
station.
Mr. Lambert stated I want to read
the appraisal, and if we are talking down the lines of eminent domain, I want
to look at other parcels we may be able to purchase.
DJ stated we may be able to take
care of this by the next meeting.
Ms. Dillon stated there is still the
possibility of getting the donated land.
Mr. Mack stated there is no other
land available. The other parcel near
the hotel was sold and is being used for storage.
Mr. Gatti asked what is the Board’s pleasure?
Mr. Lambert responded we want to see
the appraisal.
Mr. Gatti asked can you please
ensure the Board members receive a copy of the appraisal?
Mr. Cox responded I will certainly
do this.
Mr. Lambert asked did the same
company who did the other two appraisals also do this one?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
Mr. Lambert asked can we go into
their website and look at it?
Mr. Cox responded I do not know if
they put the appraisals on the website.
Mr. Lambert stated if they did, it
will be the easiest way for us to look at it.
Mr. Mack stated we need to make a
decision, and I do not believe making an offer will hurt. We can stop at any point. However, we need to proceed.
Mr. Lambert stated we do not know
what offer to make.
Ms. Dillon stated we need to look at
the appraisal.
Mr. Gatti stated I do not believe we
can make an offer and withdraw it.
Mr. Cox stated we certainly can
withdraw an offer up to the point of acceptance.
Ms. Dillon asked what if he accepts
the offer?
Mr. Mack responded perhaps he will
donate the property for the community center.
Mr. Gatti stated perhaps this is
premature before we consider making an offer.
Mr. Cox stated I have written
contracts in which you may terminate for any reason or no reason at all during
the first 30 days. Perhaps we can put up
$5,000 for the contract and after the end of 30 days when you are supposed to
close and you decide to terminate, all you have to do is forfeit the $5,000,
and the only reason you are going to forfeit $5,000 is to get the other land
free. No one is going to chastise you
for losing $5,000 in order to get the same $235,000 along with all of your
closing costs.
Mr. Mack stated Mr. Cox has the
appraisal at $240,000, and I believe this is what the offer should be. In the meantime, we will get the
appraisals. I am not certain what is going to change, but this is his price.
Mr. Cox stated I am having some
difficulty hearing Mr. Mack.
Mr. Goscicki stated please come
forward since Mr. Cox cannot hear you.
Mr. Mack stated I believe you have
the appraisal.
Mr. Cox stated I do not know whether
or not I have it electronically.
Mr. Mack stated we were discussing
the price of $240,000.
Mr. Cox stated if I do not have the
appraisal, I may have sent it to Mr. Goscicki.
Mr. Goscicki stated I believe it may
be in the file.
Mr. Mack stated I want to see this
move forward.
Ms. Dillon stated we do not know
what the appraisal states with regards to the ERCs.
Mr. Cox stated this is the way we
did all of the others.
Mr. Lambert stated losing 10 ERCs from our income stream is permanent. Are you volunteering to purchase those ERCs in order for us to maintain our income stream?
Mr. Mack responded you are not going
to lose ERCs.
He has the other parcel.
Mr. Lambert stated they do us no
good sitting in our pocket unless we are going to pay taxes every year.
Mr. Cox stated the contract price
does not include the value of those ERCs since we are
transferring them to the other property he owns.
Mr. Lambert asked what if he does
not want them?
Mr. Cox responded as part of
contract negotiations, you can tell him if he does not want them, we will do
something different.
Mr. Gatti stated Mr. Cox will get us
a copy of the appraisal. Will you have a
better idea of where you are at the next meeting?
DJ responded I believe this will
change hands to the new owner by the next meeting
Mr. Ziko
asked is the new owner someone who may be purchasing the RV park? Is this new owner aware we want to get this
parcel for a fire station?
DJ responded I suppose he will be
more than willing to get another proposal.
Mr. Ziko
stated he is obviously not going to own it in 30 days. Is it going to be under contract in order for
us to start working on this?
DJ responded the contract is going
to be ready in the next couple of weeks.
Mr. Ziko
asked do you think it is reasonable to hold off for and additional month?
Mr. Mack responded since we have been
working on this for a number of months, one more should not make a difference.
Mr. Ziko
asked should we proceed now or wait?
Mr. Cox responded it does not matter
because someone is going to do something with the property which enhances the
value somehow over the next 30 days, but this is the risk you are taking.
Mr. Ziko
stated I believe we will wait the 30 days.
Mr. Cox stated I am going to propose
we hold an Attorney/Client session either by phone conference or in person to
discuss all of the different issues which have been going on for the past
couple of weeks with regards to this project at the end of this month. We will have gotten you the appraisals by
then for your review.
Ms. Dillon asked are you talking
about have an attorney/client session as well as a regular meeting?
Mr. Cox responded I recommend a brief
special meeting limited to this subject.
Ms. Dillon stated we must have a
public meeting.
Mr. Goscicki stated you have to
advertise it and notice an executive session.
Mr. Cox stated we can address this
issue outside of the executive session and hold the executive session as well.
Mr. Bissell asked how is the last
Friday in August?
Mr. Cox responded according to my
calendar I can actually attend in person on Monday, August 28th in
the morning. I am going to be down there
for a meeting on both Monday and Tuesday.
Mr. Bissell asked what about
Tuesday?
Mr. Cox responded Tuesday evening
will be acceptable for me at approximately
Mr. Benson asked is it necessary for
me to attend this meeting?
Mr. Cox responded no. I will talk to you between now and then and
we will go from there.
Mr. Gatti stated I want to end this
discussion. We are going to get the appraisal
and perhaps we can talk to Mr. Mack on Tuesday.
DJ stated perhaps you should make and
accept a proposal on this property. If
the other one comes through, you can hold the purchased property as an asset,
which sits in your bank account basically for appreciation purposes without
losing its value. Therefore, you may use
it for some other asset.
Mr. Gatti stated as a public agency,
I am not certain whether or not we have this freedom.
A
resident stated I believe the fire station being right on Route 41 will be
beneficial to both this community as well as the fire department. I personally believe we should make an offer.
We should not wait if we can get the land for $240,000.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney’s
Report
Mr. Cox stated I was trying to
contact the people handling the ponds and I have not received a response, but I
will continue to follow up. As an alternative, we can decide whether or not we
want to relocate the ponds into the lands which you own.
Ms. Dillon asked are you referring
to
Mr. Cox responded I am referring to
the current landowners.
Mr. Ziko
asked is the owner of the property on
Mr. Cox responded yes, and we can
try to determine what is going on with the remaining ones.
Ms. Dillon asked do we have the
permits and everything else we are waiting on for the easement?
Mr. Cox responded
Ms. Dillon asked has the hotel given
you this?
Mr. Cox responded I have sent two
letters and have not heard back from them.
Mr. Shucart
asked who did you send the letters to?
Mr. Cox responded I sent them to the
address where the Secretary of State and property tax information goes. I can get another copy of it.
Mr. Gatti asked where should he send
the letters?
Mr. Shucart
responded he should have sent them to Sunstream.
Mr. Cox stated I sent them to 2614 Tamiami Trail,
Mr. Gatti asked is this correct?
Mr. Shucart
responded yes, but he can send another one there and I will get it.
Mr. Cox asked is this the correct
address?
Ms. Dillon responded this is correct
and Mr. Shucart recommends you send another letter.
Mr. Cox stated I will mail it out
before the end of the weekend.
Mr. Lambert asked what is the status
of the easements for the pump station?
Mr. Cox responded I will have to
speak to Mr. Benson because I have not had the opportunity to get the exhibit,
and I thought it was going to be modified.
Mr. Benson stated we sent the
exhibits. I will call you about this
after the meeting.
Ms. Dillon asked how many letters
have we sent to the gentleman with the easement on
Mr. Cox responded we got it back and
resent it, but I have not received a response.
However, I may have a telephone number for an attorney I worked with on
another issue involving him from a long time ago, and if I do I will call him
about it.
Ms. Dillon stated please follow up
on this.
Mr. Cox stated the gentleman who
owns the land splits quite a bit of his time between
Ms. Dillon stated I know we are
going into executive session, but I do not believe the Board has ever received
copies of correspondence between you and Orchid Cove.
Mr. Cox stated I will bring all
correspondence with me. I do not want
any of this to become a part of the public record until necessary.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer’s
Report
Mr. Benson stated I want to thank
Mr. Ziko and offer my apologies because last month a
question was asked with regards to some fire hydrants, and the information I
provided which was given to me by one of my employees was incorrect. When we widen the road on the east side four
fire hydrants are going to be too close to the edge of the pavement. We currently are not too close, but once the
pavement is widened they will be, and I gave the answer which my employees gave
me who were supposed to personally check on this. As part of this project the contractor will
extend four fire hydrants from approximately 18” to 42” from where they are
currently located. The only reason this
has to be done is because it was not a line item when we bid the projects.
Ms. Dillon asked is there a cost
involved?
Mr. Benson responded there is a cost,
but there is an allowance in the contract for owner-directed additions. Therefore, the work will be done under this
and we will keep it within the budget.
Mr. Ziko
stated as I recollect the paving was going to start in September between the
two projects which they currently have.
Is this going to be done prior to the start of the paving project?
Mr. Benson responded the same
contractor will do this wherever it fits into his schedule with his crew doing
the other work related to the project.
Mr. Ziko
asked do they just put a t on the
main line and run it over?
Mr. Benson responded they will
disconnect the stub out pipe and extend it.
Although it is not a lot of work, there is a cost involved.
Mr. Ziko
asked are they going to increase the rate?
Mr. Benson responded they should not. However, I appreciate you bringing this to my
attention. I sent someone else out to
measure them at my cost.
Mr. Ziko
stated I only looked at four of them and there are two more which are further
south on the road. Did you look at those
as well?
Mr. Benson responded I have
measurements of all of the hydrants on both sides of the road.
Mr. Ziko
stated I spoke to the county to try to determine what the clearance was for the
east side, and I found out the hydrants on the west side of the road are on the
other side of the swale which is illegal according to
Mr. Benson responded those hydrants
were placed there more than 15 years ago.
Mr. Ziko
stated the fire department will not go through a swale to connect to a hydrant.
Mr. Lambert asked is this
technically a swale?
Mr. Benson responded I believe it is
a drainage swale. Those hydrants are
approximately 20’ to 30’ from the edge of the pavement, and some are 14’. Those were all probably put in more than 15
years ago and have been there all along.
Mr. Ziko
stated we should leave them as they are.
Mr. Benson stated we can relocate
them and make those closer and the others farther.
Ms. Dillon asked do you have to
interface with the fire department in order to work on the hydrants?
Mr. Benson responded this is not
necessary.
Ms. Dillon stated this does not
speak well for the people we gave the bid to.
Should this have been something they looked at when they gave us the
bid?
Mr. Benson responded they put their
bid together primarily from the drawings and specifications.
Mr. Lambert asked what is the
lifespan of a hydrant?
I noticed yesterday when I rode by the hydrants appeared to be older. Should we move the older ones as well or
strictly put in new ones?
Mr. Benson responded all the
hydrants in service are periodically checked by the fire department and I have
not heard of any which are in need of replacement. Fire hydrants have a long lifespan of
approximately 20 years.
Mr. Ziko
stated there is one which I do not believe is one of the four with a 30 degree
tilt on it, which looks as if it was hit by a car. Can this be corrected at the same time?
Mr. Benson responded it probably was
hit by a car. We can arrange to have
those hydrants replaced for a little more money. It is work which has to be done anyway, but
is not included in the bid.
Mr. Goscicki stated I suggest to the
Board using the contract to do the relocation which Mr. Benson and Mr. Dick can
review.
Mr. Benson stated if we are going to
replace them we should use someone besides the road contractor, since their
area of expertise only involves moving the hydrant.
Ms. Dillon asked are some of these
the same hydrants which were too tall?
Mr. Benson responded I asked about
this and they were not supposed to have been.
Ms. Dillon stated you told me when I
emailed you they were supposed to begin the paving either at the end of
September or beginning of October.
Mr. Benson stated we asked the
contractor when he was going to start and he told us within two weeks. We asked again since the two weeks passed
with no work being done. However, it
took approximately two weeks to get all the insurance certificates, bonds and
paperwork signed. When we checked again
with the contractor they told us this is a small project they are fitting in
between two major projects. One is on
U.S. 41 in
Mr. Lambert stated it is going to be
a difficult situation trying to do this work when people get back.
Mr. Benson stated they expect to do
it soon.
Ms. Dillon asked will it only take
two weeks to do the work?
Mr. Benson responded that is
correct.
Ms. Dillon stated I will be
surprised.
Mr. Ziko
asked are both sides going to take two weeks?
Mr. Benson responded yes.
Mr. Ziko asked
are they going to mill the material on the east side?
Mr. Benson responded they are
milling, and they are going to match up the new surface with the existing
surface, with special attention to the pavers and the driveways. Therefore, milling was identified on the
drawings. On this side at the little
circles on Eveningstar Cay for instance, the
decorative features are also identified in the milling.
Mr. Lambert asked for clarification,
are the fire hydrants good enough to just move?
Mr. Ziko
responded I believe so.
Mr. Lambert stated we should not
anticipate ordering new ones.
Mr. Benson stated we can replace any
fire hydrants which fail in the future when they are tested by the fire
department. I gave you some of this
information verbally two months ago. Two
contractors bid the entire project higher than we anticipated and those were
the first two on the list. We added in
the cost of the equipment purchased at $264,000, and both of those were over $1
million for the total project cost of which we budgeted $900,000. I also told you we received bids for portions
of the project from a local contractor.
The first two are local general contractors, and we received bids from
specialty contractors who registered for certain parts of the contract. This may possibly save money. We are going to work with a series of four
subcontractors to handle certain portions of the project. Unfortunately, between all four contractors
there were some items which were excluded from the project. We had to estimate and tried to get each of
those contractors to pick up what was excluded.
At least two contractors told us they have too much work and the
construction prices increased significantly in
Ms. Dillon asked with regards to our
capital improvement program, which project are you referring to?
Mr. Benson responded it is the
project which had a number of things grouped together and revised.
Mr. Goscicki stated I believe it is the
WW18 Dynalift Membrane MBR Membrane System.
Mr. Dillon stated we currently have
$661,000 in there.
Mr. Benson stated there is $239,000
in equipment and $25,000 was already paid for the previous equipment, and you
have to add this together.
Mr. Goscicki stated if you look at
the total for the wastewater program you will see $239,000 which was spent and
fell off the line item, but it is in the same column.
Mr. Benson stated $239,000 plus
$661,000 totals to $900,000. The column
with Parkson Equipment has $264,000 because we also
have a contract for $25,000 for the bar screen, which is another project. The best competitive price I have is
$998,000.
Mr. Goscicki stated this includes
$239,000 for the equipment.
Mr. Benson stated we can have either
a new or additional contract with Parkson. It may be better to have a new contract
stating they are responsible to make and install the equipment; hire the
contractors to install the pipe, among other things. This is the best option I have today. Unfortunately, I have no control over contractor
pricing for larger projects. This
general area of
Ms. Dillon asked is it possible to
lock it in today?
Mr. Benson responded this is the
price today, the contract is signed, and they want to build it immediately.
Mr. Lambert asked are we still
waiting for the permits?
Mr. Benson responded last month DEP
told us verbally we were getting our permit.
We called again, and they told us the permit is not ready, but is
getting close.
Ms. Dillon asked did they say this
last month?
Mr. Benson responded they said they
had everything except for the pipe, but it is almost done.
Ms. Dillon moved to accept the bid from Encore
Construction and Parkson MBR in the amount of
$998,000 to expand the water treatment plant and Mr. Bissell seconded the
motion.
Mr. Lambert asked are you going to
redo the contract?
Mr. Benson responded there will be a
new contract which Mr. Cox will review, and if you approve it today I just need
the Board to authorize Mr. Gatti to execute it.
Fortunately, they are anxious to get the work done, and they are trying
to get the new system installed.
Mr. Lambert stated our only
roadblock is the permit.
Mr. Benson stated we also have to
get the building permit.
Mr. Lambert asked will they handle
this as part of their bid?
Mr. Benson responded the contractor must
apply for the permit.
On VOICE vote with all in favor the previous motion
was approved as amended.
Mr. Benson stated we talked for many
months about the SFWMD permitting process.
We received a telephone call as well as an email from a permit writer
basically saying the permit is ready to go to the governing board for approval
and they requested we send them an email communication asking them for two more
weeks because they need to meet a deadline which they were not quite ready to
get to their governing board, and we asked them to bring this to the next
meeting. Since this has been going on
for a long time, the two-week extension was the best thing for us to do to help
the permit reviewer and writer. The
permit should be approved at their meeting which is taking place in
August. I am glad the person who was
talking earlier about this big project in the Everglades for the local area
acknowledged we have a consumptive use permit for many years, and if we do not
have sufficient irrigation water they will have to correct it at their
cost. However, we are not expecting this
to be the issue.
Ms. Dillon asked how realistic is
this to happen?
Mr. Benson responded I believe it is
going to be the same as we have had in the past. It is part of our plan to deal with the
saltwater periodically and perhaps I will contact some of the people who
attended today, and possibly negotiate with them to give us some assistance in
filling out our next application for a grant.
Perhaps they may feel able to encourage the other part of their agency
to give us another grant.
Mr. Gatti stated we should look for
a reason to get Mr. Clarence Teirs down here since he
is heavily involved with the approval.
Mr. Benson stated perhaps our
project does not exactly fit the definition of their evaluation criteria under
the program where they give grants, and maybe they have another group with
potential responsibility for these people.
It is always good to keep trying to get a grant, and I will contact the
people who were here today and see if I can convince them to give one to us in
the future.
Mr. Lambert asked did you get an
opportunity to look at the drawings for the median as far as where the
connections are going to be?
Mr. Benson responded I have a set of plans and I was supposed to go the