MINUTES
OF MEETING
PINE
TREE WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
The
regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Pine Tree Water Control District
was held on
Present and constituting a quorum were:
David Rosenof President
Margaret Bertolami Vice
President
Paul Brewer Secretary
Donna Benckenstein Assistant
Secretary
Mark Weissman Supervisor
Also
present were:
Ed Goscicki Interim Manager,
D.J. Doody Attorney
Warren Craven Engineer
Randy Frederick Field Superintendent
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr. Rosenof called the meeting to order and Mr. Goscicki
called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Audience Comments
There
not being any, the next item followed.
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the August 2, 2007 Meeting
Mr.
Rosenof stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr.
Craven stated on page five, the word “models” should be “levels”.
Mr.
Rosenof stated on page nine, “Karyn” should be “Caryn”.
There
being no further corrections, additions or deletions,
On MOTION by Mr. Brewer seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with
all in favor the minutes of the
FOURTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s
Report – Acceptance of Financial Audit for Fiscal Year 2006
Mr.
Goscicki stated a copy of the audit prepared by Grau & Associates was
provided to the Board. The audit reports
are getting more substantial every year as you are seeing additional
comparative information. This is due to
a requirement of the new GASB rules.
This is also the reason why your audit fees increased over the last
couple of years as they are required to do more work. The only issue of substance, which they noted
in their audit, was in the fiscal year ending September of 2006, our
expenditures exceeded the budgeted appropriations and we went into deficit
spending. To remedy this situation, the
District should have done a budget amendment within 90 days of the close of the
fiscal year. Since this was not done, the
Auditor made a comment. We assured them
we put the procedures in place to make sure this happens. One such procedure, which we discussed with
the Board, was taking the accounting in-house to Severn Trent Services,
utilizing our own staff. This is the
only real issue to note in terms of procedures and policies. Otherwise, the audit is similar to last
year’s. The Board should accept the
audit by motion and not approve it.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I tried to call Grau & Associates to go over some items but I
did not know who our contact person was and ended up leaving many voicemail
messages. I finally reached someone who
went over the audit with me. From now
on, I want to know the name of the person who prepared the audit. Is this required?
Mr.
Doody responded no. Generally, the
opinion letter is signed by a member of the firm.
Mr.
Rosenof asked do they have to classify their CPA license when preparing an
audit?
Mr.
Doody responded they issue the audit under the auspices of the firm. This is how they sign it.
Mr.
Rosenof stated an engineer has to sign and seal any report they create.
Mr.
Goscicki stated in the future, if you want to contact the Auditor, let us know and
we will track them down. We deal with
them and know who the senior partner is.
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with
all in favor the financial audit for the fiscal year ended
Mr.
Rosenof asked what is the status of the drainage issue in south Pine Tree? The resident was supposed to speak to Ms.
Caryn Gardner-Young.
Mr.
Goscicki responded I did not bring it up at the last NSID meeting. This was because 80 to 90 residents showed up
at their public hearing and it was not the most conducive meeting to bring this
matter up. I do not think the NSID Board
will have a problem if we get to the point of where the community is ready to
take action and invest some of their resources to come up with an on-site
system. If they are willing, I do not
see where NSID is opposed to doing a shift in service areas for the pump
station.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I do not know if this is related but some residents in Country
Acres were talking about connecting to south Pine Tree on
Mr.
Craven stated
Mr.
Rosenof asked is there a way to get to the back of south Pine Tree with an
easement?
Mr.
Craven responded no.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I do not know if there is an easement between the wall and Whispering
Woods.
Mr.
Craven stated no.
Mr.
Rosenof stated so there is nothing.
Mr.
Weissman stated Whispering Woods has a road running in back of it.
Mr.
Craven stated this is a service road.
Mr.
Weissman stated it is one of their road’s.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it is
Mr.
Weissman stated it runs so close there is no room.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I tried to ride back there on my bicycle and could not get back
there. I did not know if there was any
sawgrass property left between the south wall and their wall.
Mr.
Craven stated when the Sawgrass Expressway was built; they actually took four
or five lots.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the problem is the water is not getting to our culverts.
Mr.
Weissman asked have we determined how many homes in the south Pine Tree area
are getting billed both by NSID and Pine Tree?
Mr.
Goscicki responded no. The resident
never gave us a copy of his tax bill.
Mr.
Rosenof asked should we ask for it?
Ms.
Bertolami responded you already did. The
minutes reflect you did.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we asked him at the meeting to send us a copy of his tax bill
with crossed out personal information.
Mr.
Weissman asked can we look up some of those properties through the Tax
Collector’s office?
Mr.
Goscicki responded the tax bills are sent to the legal address; however the
property owner may not be at the local address of the property. We had this situation come up with property
owners in this area where they called us and said they received two tax bills,
one from CSID and another one from NSID.
It turned out the property owner owned two parcels of property and the
bills were sent to the property with the legal address because the other was a
rental property. This could have been
the situation in this case. We do not
know, unless we see the tax bill but in order to do the research, you have to
look at folio numbers. We do not receive
electronic registers. We receive a hard
copy. If we can get an excel file, we
can do sorts and matches. We are
confident we are not double billing anyone.
Mr.
Rosenof stated but we may be double servicing someone. One of my concerns is someone is going to
remember asking us to do this.
Mr.
Goscicki stated one of the issues we are working on is to look at all of the
parcels within the District and identify the ones not currently being
assessed. We are going through the folio
numbers to determine what those parcels are and whether or not the District
owns those parcels or if they belong to other governmental entities.
Mr.
Rosenof asked are you actively going through this process?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what is the progress?
Mr.
Goscicki responded it has not been on our high priority list because we are
doing the assessment rolls for all of these districts. We will move this up our priority list for
the next meeting.
The
canal on NW 60th Terrace where we had the illegal canal crossing put
in, is not even owned by the District.
We prepared a letter with my signature to be sent to the City Manager in
regards to this matter. The letter says
we have done the research and we do not think this is our property. Before we send this letter out, I want to
meet with Mr. Craven to make sure we have the proper description of this canal
and it is not on District property. We
are working on getting this information, which we will attach to the letter.
Mr.
Rosenof stated the minutes from the last meeting reflected a procedure we are
going to put into place as far as us being notified of any changes to the
original plat. Has this been done?
Mr.
Goscicki stated we spoke with the city in regards to all three districts,
advising them of this matter.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it is probably best to put something in writing.
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney’s
Report
Mr.
Doody stated I reviewed the minutes from the last meeting and our office is
working on the matter involving the taxation.
We are also trying to ascertain what the District owns and does not own.
Mr.
Rosenof stated not only owns but assesses.
Mr.
Doody stated the minutes reflect approximately 762 acres are not being taxed.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer’s
Report
Mr.
Craven stated Mr. Frederick and I looked into Mr. Volpe’s erosion problem.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is this in Coral Creek?
Mr.
Craven responded on NW 56th Drive.
Mr.
Goscicki stated this is where there was the bend in the canal.
Mr.
Craven stated there is no doubt Mr. Volpe and two lots to the north lost some
canal bank due to erosion. Apparently,
this was precipitated by Hurricane Wilma when the winds came out of the
southwest. We never addressed, to the
best of my knowledge, any erosion problems on canals.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is this our canal or the HOA’s?
Mr.
Craven responded it is our canal. It was
dedicated to us by plat. It has not been
the policy of the Board to address problems like this because it only affects
the private property.
Mr.
Rosenof stated yes, but you could make the argument it affects everybody.
Mr.
Craven stated there is erosion but it is not substantial and nothing is in
jeopardy. Mr. Volpe’s house is not in
jeopardy. There is a decorative fence
adjacent to the property.
Mr.
Rosenof stated our concern is whether there is silt flowing up the canal
causing the bank to erode further.
Mr.
Craven stated not even remotely. It is a
large canal and certainly is not impinging the flow of water.
Mr.
Goscicki asked is the property line to the top of bank?
Mr.
Craven responded I did not review the construction plans so I do not know.
Mr.
Rosenof asked who maintains the canal?
Mr.
Craven responded we do, for whatever maintenance there is. All maintenance is performed by boat.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is there a way to not make it any worse?
Mr.
Craven responded it is the same as making it get better.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I did not know if we could add some vegetation. The Board can agree or disagree with me but
as long as it is not impeding the flow of water, our mission is to maintain the
waterways. Beyond that, it is an
aesthetic issue.
Mr.
Craven stated I assure you, Mr. Volpe assumes the bank will be back up to his
patio because this has been a two year process to get to where we are today.
Mr.
Rosenof asked what are the solutions?
Mr.
Craven responded building a seawall.
There is also a process where they pump the silt into a synthetic nylon,
which has been used satisfactorily.
There has been talk about adding rubble; however, this is hard to put in
due to the location and getting access to it.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we used tubes in CSID, which has been successful.
Mr.
Frederick stated so far.
Mr.
Goscicki stated this process was expensive from what I heard.
Mr.
Frederick stated not really. It cost us
$22 per foot.
Mr.
Rosenof stated not bad at all. Let’s do
a foot for now.
Mr.
Goscicki asked a square foot or linear foot?
Mr.
Frederick responded linear foot. They
anchor the tube to the bank and pump the silt from the bottom of the canal into
the tube and let the water run out. When
this process is done, the sand is hard as concrete. Then they stack another bag on top and pump
the silt into it. They use the silt to
blend into the existing bank and sod.
Mr.
Rosenof stated this sounds like a decent solution. The question is whether there is an urgency
to do this now or wait a couple of years to see if the erosion gets worse.
Mr.
Frederick stated the issue with doing it now versus later is the possibility of
getting some funds from NRCS.
Mr.
Craven stated Mr. Frederick met with NRCS and discussed a number of
issues. They have the funds available
and indicated to Mr. Frederick we may be able to get funding for last year’s
culvert cleaning. There is also the
possibility of getting a portion of the funds for this erosion issue. There are some spotty trees remaining, which
we can get funding for their removal.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we are not touching the trees.
Mr.
Doody stated historically, the District does not engage in this type of
activity. From a legal standpoint, you
have to establish the property lines.
Are you preventing further erosion or undertaking restoration?
Mr.
Rosenof responded my position is to maintain the water flow.
Mr.
Doody stated this is the purpose of the WCD.
Mr.
Rosenof stated anything else is not within our charter.
Mr.
Doody stated you have to define what you are going to do. We are going to have to define the property
line. I am not familiar with the process
of how you support it and where it goes.
Mr.
Rosenof stated if our engineer says to us these five properties are in danger
of providing enough silt in the waterway to impede the flow, those are the properties
we should address. I do not think we are
going to listen to the owner who complains the most.
Mr.
Craven stated the canal adjacent to the property in question is oversized. There is no way we can put enough fill in
there from the current source to fill up the canal.
Mr.
Goscicki stated it sounds like the other issue is if the canal eroded to the
point where it impacted private property, I assume the property owner has some
recourse.
Mr.
Doody stated I do not think we have an obligation if it is a natural cause to
restore their backyard.
Mr.
Goscicki stated you make an excellent point.
This is an issue the other districts have. CSID resolved this without discussing it as a
policy issue. It can set a precedent for
you and can be an expensive precedent.
Mr.
Rosenof stated if the engineer is saying it does not impede the waterway, I may
offer them a solution.
Mr.
Craven stated we will give them the permit to do anything within reason.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we may even give them some advice.
Mr.
Craven stated only legal advice.
Ms.
Benckenstein stated depending on where the property is.
Mr.
Doody asked do we have a right-of-way?
Mr.
Craven responded yes. How much does it
cost to establish the property line?
Mr.
Frederick responded a few hundred dollars.
Mr.
Brewer stated we should offer Mr. Volpe the opportunity to find out where his
property line goes and let him reimburse us.
Mr.
Rosenof stated fine with me.
Mr.
Brewer stated either that or tell him to supply us with a survey of the
property.
Mr.
Rosenof stated he should have the survey.
Mr.
Craven stated he can show us where the property line is.
Mr.
Brewer stated I do not know if we want him to show us where it is and then do
something. I think we need to be upfront
with him.
Mr.
Craven stated I agree wholeheartedly.
Mr.
Brewer stated we should send him a letter requesting he show us where his
property line is and then tell him where he can get the necessary permit.
Ms.
Bertolami stated we can just ask him for a copy of the survey.
Mr.
Brewer stated if someone asks for something and we do not tell them upfront,
there is going to be an assumption we are doing something. We need to let them know upfront we are not
doing anything to rebuild his property.
Mr.
Rosenof stated unless our engineer believes it is impeding the water flow,
which he says it is not doing. I am
referring to future cases.
Mr.
Goscicki stated it sounds like the message is if you believe the erosion is on
your property, you certainly have the right to fill in the erosion on your
property so long as you show us the boundaries of your property. If it is your property, you certainly have
the right to fill it but we have the right to make sure it is not impeding on
what we do.
Mr.
Brewer asked who is going to write the letter?
Mr.
Rosenof responded I hope our manager does.
Mr.
Brewer stated I hope it comes from an attorney.
Maybe Mr. Doody will volunteer.
If not, he is probably going to want to look at it anyway before it goes
out.
Mr.
Doody stated I will write the letter. Is
it going to Mr. Robert Volpe?
Mr.
Craven responded yes.
Mr.
Doody stated I will request a copy of his survey.
Mr.
Brewer stated if he has one. If he does
not have a copy, request he show us where his property line is so we can assist
him with obtaining the necessary permits to remedy this situation.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we will provide a copy of the minutes to the attorney since the
Board just dictated the letter for him.
Mr.
Craven stated the only other issue is whether or not the Board wants to proceed
to reclaim any funds from NRCS for the culvert cleaning.
Mr.
Rosenof stated of course.
Mr.
Brewer stated I want to get reimbursed for anything we spent money on.
Ms.
Benckenstein asked is there a timetable on when they have to get the money in?
Mr.
Frederick responded yes, but the representative was not sure what the timetable
was.
Ms.
Benckenstein stated we can get the bills together.
Mr.
Frederick stated they definitely want to get rid of these funds.
Mr.
Goscicki stated in the Sunshine WCD they literally increased the percent of the
reimbursement because there was less amount of work reimbursable. Rather than change the amount of money they
were going to give the district, they increased the percentage to match the
amount of money they committed to. I
never saw anything like this. I think
they are looking at similar situations here and at other work they are now
saying is reimbursable.
Mr.
Frederick stated we will try to recover what we can from the culvert
cleaning. What about the remaining
trees?
Mr.
Rosenof stated I do not want to touch another tree.
Mr.
Brewer stated I agree, not if we are going to be paying a percentage of it.
Mr.
Goscicki stated you are spending more money of which you will only get half
back.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I do not have much faith in CH2M-Hill.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s Report
There not being any, the next item followed.
EIGHTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of August Financials and Invoices
Mr.
Goscicki stated you will see on the financials where we are getting into the
same situation as last year where we were taking money from the reserves. This is programmed into next year’s
budget. It is not unanticipated as a
result of $300,000 in renewal and replacement work on the canal system, which
was not in the budget. You will see
negative numbers but we know about them and planned for it going into next
fiscal year.
On MOTION by Ms. Benckenstein seconded by Mr. Weissman with
all in favor the financials and check registers for August 2007 were approved.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
Mr.
Goscicki stated if you recall, we changed our meeting schedule. For next fiscal year, you only have five
meetings scheduled. Our next meeting is
scheduled for November 1, 2007. After
the November meeting, the Board will not be meeting until February. We will send out reminders.
There
being no further business,
On MOTION by Ms. Benckenstein seconded by Mr. Weissman with
all in favor the meeting was adjourned.
Paul
Brewer David
Rosenof
Secretary President
NOTES
for 9/6/07 Pine Tree Meeting
Attorney
·
Send a letter to Mr. Robert Volpe requesting he
show the engineer where his property line is or provide a survey and direct him
to where he can obtain the necessary permit.