Minutes for July 14, 2006
Back to Home Page
DRAFT
Board of Trustees
Regular Meeting
Friday, July 14, 2006
1:00 p.m. – Building D&E
The Barefoot Bay Recreation District held a regular meeting on July 14, 2006 in Building D&E, Barefoot Bay, Florida. Madame Chairman Wilma Weglein called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
Ms. Weglein requested prayer for all the servicemen serving in the United States and abroad. Also for the innocent people who are being bombed in the Middle East at this time. Amen
Ms. Weglein led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. McCahan called the roll. Ms. Howard was excused. Mr. Keegan, Mr. Carillion, Mr. Smith, Mr. Bailey, Ms. McCahan, Ms. Donahue, and Ms. Weglein were present. Mr. Malek was present as counsel.
Ms. Weglein requested approval of the minutes of June 2, 2006. Ms. McCahan made a motion to accept the minutes. Second Mr. Bailey. Motion carried. Mr. Carillion abstained as he was absent from that meeting.
Ms. Weglein requested approval of the minutes of June 9, 2006. Ms. Weglein commented Mr. Keegan led the Pledge of Allegiance. On page 6 of 10, change July 28th to July 25th, in two places. Ms. McCahan made a motion to accept the minutes as corrected. Second Mr. Bailey. Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Weglein requested Ms. McCahan to read Mr. Bolon’s letter of resignation. Ms. Weglein presented Mr. Bolon with a letter of thanks for his years of service to Barefoot Bay and a plaque to be engraved and presented at a later date.
Ms. Donahue presented the treasurer’s report. [Exhibit A] Mr. Hunt introduced Yvonne Claybourne of the auditing firm Bray, Beck and Koetter.
Ms. Claybourne attended the meeting to provide a status update on the audit progress. Unfortunately, at this point [we] are still waiting on capital asset information from the District. Because the potential is that the capital asset information may affect transactions have been recorded between the Recreation fund and the Shopping Center Fund, we can’t even provide you with status by fund. As we see the financial statements right now, there are more revenues than expenditures. I cannot tell you where the District falls related to budgeted appropriations versus expenditures. Again, because there’s the potential that the information we’re waiting on will change how transactions are recorded between the funds. [We] are concerned at this point that we are approaching a critical point. It takes time once [we] receive that last bit of information to warrant and substantiate it. Again, we can’t just accept what is provided [to us] on face value. We have to substantiate the accounting records that support those numbers. We need time to prepare that, we need time to make any final adjustments to the financial statements, which, at this point, are in working process. We have started putting numbers to paper but we are not putting anything final because we don’t know if the numbers are going to change. We have not been able to finalize letter management comments. Our concern is that we get time to get this information to the District; then the District has to prepare the annual financial report, which also needs to be reconciled to the audited financial statements. The information has to be presented to the Board of Trustees, approved, and delivered to the Auditor General prior to September 30. [We’re] concerned the process is approaching a point where it’s pushing it to get that information to them. Because of the phone calls made to the Auditor General, [they] may take a special interest in the District’s financial information. [We] need to be very conscientious when we’re putting this information together that we’ve given them as complete information as possible. As part of this process, [we] have to continue to read Board minutes up until the time we complete our fieldwork. We’re still reading council minutes as part of our audit of September 30, 2005. At this point we’re concerned because the Board is still being presented with bank statement information and not financial information. If you remember from the September 2004 audit, one of our comments has been without financial information, financial reporting information, of budget versus actual expenditures, this Board cannot make a determination of whether or not they are in compliance with their budget and thereby with Florida statutes. This continues to be a concern. Again without [us] being able to provide timely management letter comments to the District, the District is not getting an appropriate amount of time to react to clear those management points. At this point it is safe to say that what [you’ll] see in September 30, 2005 is what you’ll see in September 30, 2006 as management letter comments, including the timeliness of bank account reconciliations. This concerns our firm because our experience with September 30, 2005 was that while checks written was being captured in the accounts payable module, and checks received by the District were being recorded in various places in the modules, what wasn’t being captured in the financial reporting was wire transfers. A lot of the money [you] receive now comes directly into the bank account via wire. [We] are concerned that financial reporting is not currently being captured in the District’s general ledger. The status of the audit is we’re waiting on the District for information. This is information we’ve been asking for since November 2005. It was on the original information request list that was submitted to the District. The capital asset information is always on our information request list. In greater detail, we’ve been requesting the capital asset information since March [2006].
Ms. McCahan asked from whom Ms. Claybourne had been requesting the information. Ms. Claybourne responded, “Directly from the District Manager.” Ms. McCahan asked why the information hadn’t been remitted. Mr. Hunt responded the District put together a report that was submitted “last week or the week before”. However, it proved unsatisfactory to the auditors. The auditors met with Mr. Hunt on July 13th, and provided additional instructions. The new report will be delivered by Friday of next week [July 21st]. Ms. McCahan asked Ms. Claybourne if that would satisfy the auditors. Ms. Claybourne responded, “It’s not to our preference. It has to be in a format that we can substantiate financial presentation and that we can substantiate the expenditures that we’re recording. So it’s not a preference. It’s what’s required.” Ms. McCahan asked Ms. Claybourne if the auditors had told Mr. Hunt in detail everything they wanted him to do and in writing. Ms. Claybourne replied they had.
Mr. Hunt commented there are two common ways to calculate depreciation in fixed assets. One is straight-line calculation based on individual items, and the other is a percentage. The District used last year’s percentage with growth factor that is acceptable in some jurisdictions. The auditor’s preference here is for straight-line individual items, which total about 50, and which don’t present a major problem. Mr. Hunt commented the figures won’t be “off” more than a few hundred dollars either way because both calculations are normal and both present somewhat of the same thing.
Ms. Claybourne commented the statement needs to be clarified because straight line is not what the auditors require. The auditors require that the District follow generally accepted accounting standards that say depreciation needs to be allocated over the estimated useful life of the asset in a method that reasonably represents how the asset is being used. The percentage method is used against a cluster of like assets. However, the District did not demonstrate the assets had been clustered by use. The percentage was taken on all assets, whether it was golf course, operations, administrative, et cetera. The auditors are not challenging the fact that it was a percentage, or even telling the District how to calculate depreciation. However, the method used must fall under the guidance of generally accepted accounting principles which says [you] either do it by item, using a straight-line or an accelerated method that represents the life of the asset. And if [you’re] going to cluster assets, you have to demonstrate to the financial reporting mechanism and to your auditors that the cluster meets all the rules used for cluster allocation of percentage depreciation.
Ms. Weglein asked Ms. Claybourne for an estimate of how long the rest of the audit is going to take. Ms. Claybourne replied it would take two weeks to provide a draft from the time the auditors received the information. Then the District has to have time to respond to the management letter comments, and to prepare the management discussion and analysis. Mr. Hunt commented it would take one week to prepare the management discussion and analysis. Ms. Claybourne estimated it will take three weeks from next Friday [August 4th]. Ms. McCahan asked what a management letter contains. Ms. Claybourne commented in the back of the audit report there is a management letter. Management letter comments are recommendations and observations from the auditors of internal control problems, operational efficiencies; it contains things like the observation the bank accounts aren’t being reconciled on a timely basis. Auditor comments address that the Trustees have not been receiving timely reporting information, and will say what the identified problem was, what their recommendation is, and then the District has an opportunity to respond.
Ms. McCahan asked what was a reasonable time to reconcile bank statements. Ms Claybourne responded “No more than thirty days.” Usually a fifteen-day turnaround from the day it’s received is what most businesses target. To the auditors’ knowledge, the bank statements have not been reconciled beyond September 30, 2005. Ms. Claybourne commented the auditors know from reading the minutes that the general ledger is not up and running. Even if the District is reconciling to some subsidiary information, it is not being reconciled to the general ledger. The District has to understand the reconciliation is not complete until it is reconciled to the official books and records of the District. It has been reconciled to the trial balance the auditors provided. The auditors’ understanding is that the trial balance in its draft form as of September 30, 2005 has not been rolled into the District’s new accounting system. That means there is no possible way the District can be reconciling to a complete general ledger because there is no general ledger at this point.
Ms. McCahan asked if former employees who had not done their jobs correctly had precipitated this problem? Ms. Claybourne responded she felt [we] are beyond that point. The records have been updated through September 30, 2005. At this point, the District is waiting for the new software company to finish the integration process so the auditors can ensure that Mara’s [Financial Manager] reconciling is going forward. Ms. McCahan commented, “So it isn’t anything the District is doing to sabotage the situation. Sounds like the current computer system doesn’t have the capability, or the facility has just been purchased, which will handle this process.” Ms. Claybourne agreed. The dilemma is that the proper software is not in place. Mr. Hunt commented once the general ledger numbers are in, he anticipates it will take about three weeks. Mr. Hunt commented the software is in the office awaiting the general ledger numbers. Ms. McCahan asked where those numbers come from. Mr. Hunt responded that once the District has the final audit, and when IMS is no longer involved, the District will have the required numbers. Ms. Claybourne said to her it sounded as though there had been a change in the process from what had been presented to them in March by the new software company versus what she is hearing now. In March the auditors told the new software company they would give them an unaudited trial balance as soon as the auditors were confident the District had reconciled all the bank accounts and receivable accounts. The audit adjustments that happened beyond that point would be posted into the new accounting software as soon as the audit was complete. That will provide the cash numbers and the receivable numbers at a point the reconciliation could be updated in the new software. Mr. Hunt commented the new software company has said they have given the chart of accounts to the auditors and haven’t received word back on the chart of accounts. Ms. Claybourne said she has substantiated evidence the auditors submitted the chart of accounts back to the software company in March and copied the District on that. Ms. McCahan requested this information. Ms. Claybourne commented it could be obtained from the District Manager.
Ms. McCahan made a motion that beginning Monday, July 17th, the District make every effort to complete every action the auditors need to complete the audit in one week. Mr. Hunt agreed it would be all done by [next Friday]. Mr. Malek commented this issue was not something the Board needed to vote on. The motion died for lack of a second.
Ms. Weglein requested Mr. Hunt to notify the Trustees when the task is accomplished.
Mr. Carillion commented that from the conversation it appears the process revolves around Mara [the Financial Manager]. He asked if Mara were comfortable that everything could be done by next Friday. Mr. Hunt responded, “I believe so.” Ms. Claybourne commented Mara would have to work in tandem with the Community Manger because the audit involves a time period that Mara was not employed by the District. Mara provides the legwork from the accounting records, while the Community Manager must provide the historical account in concert with the Financial Manager.
Mr. Hunt asked if the unbudgeted fund balance was in good shape. Ms. Claybourne responded that the cash flow was positive.
Mr. Keegan asked if these kinds of problems were common to other public groups that Bray, Beck and Koetter audits. Ms. Claybourne responded they are. Timeliness of bank reconciliations is a common problem. The auditors would like to see that improve since this district is running a great deal of money through the bank account.
Mr. Torpy commented that before [we] got into the process of creating a new resolution and amending your whole Deed of Restrictions enforcement process, the District had sent 17 new matters to his office. Some of them meet the criteria of the new resolution, some of them don’t. Under the resolution that was adopted, and to be sure it’s “kick started” in the right direction, the District needs to schedule a workshop to process the caseload. Mr. Torpy assured the Board there would have to be a workshop every 3 or 4 months to deal with the Code Enforcement cases that should be processed on to his office. Mr. Torpy wants to make sure every member of the Board understands the process that was adopted and gains practice with it. Secondly, in September there is going to be a greater problem with [folks] not being in compliance because of still-remaining hurricane damage. That resolution and your Deed of Restrictions enforcement process is going to have a dramatic effect on the Bay. It is important to put the workshop higher on the priority list. Prior to the workshop, Mr. Torpy will meet with Mr. Hunt and Mr. Austin to be sure we have our act together with all the cases so [we] can streamline the presentation. Mr. Torpy suggested the workshop be two hours to finish the work he has in mind. He requested the workshop be scheduled by mid-August. Mr. Malek said he would coordinate with Mr. Hunt and Mr. Austin on the date. Mr. Torpy plans to walk the Trustees through the workshop with actual cases to ascertain how the Trustees wish to proceed with them.
Russ Heady spoke for the veterans in defense of the proposed veterans building. Mr. Heady made the point that the park area on Veterans Way is not hallowed ground.
Min Bolon asked Mr. Hunt about the fixed asset report. Mr. Hunt responded the report had been given to the auditors in November 2005. Mr. Hunt commented the report’s format needed revising thereafter and was re-submitted to the auditors. Ms. Bolon asked for clarification of “unbudgeted fund balance”. Mr. Hunt responded the term applies to the Special Revenue Fund; it is a “cash cushion” for emergencies and unforeseen events.
Nancy Rogers prefers to have the veterans building in the park area by the shopping center.
Loretta Lynch presented a list of questions. Mr. Bailey asked Mr. Hunt to prepare a letter answering Ms. Lynch’s questions.
Ms. Weglein commented $24,000 for the audit was budgeted to be paid in 2005-2006. To date, the auditor has been paid $64,254.25. A little over $5,000 has been paid to The Torpy Group. The software company, through the end of May, was $70,683. IMS has been paid $4,259. The total is $144,207. The computer budget was $32,000. Ms. Weglein commented these amounts are being paid out this year.
Mr. Hunt agreed the audit had run over the budgeted amount. The initial appropriation for the computer company was $47,000 to which $13,000 was added. Mr. Hunt pointed out $30,000 was budgeted last year, and $30,000 this year for computer upgrades as discussed in the budget workshops. Mr. Hunt commented that when the audit comes back and the numbers are cleared up, the Board should look at ramifications for IMS and what the Board wants to do about that. Mr. Hunt expressed hope the Board would judge “this administration” on all the revenues and expenditures. Mr. Hunt urged the Board to consider the “big picture” and not just a single item.
Mr. Hunt commented there is an A/C unit at Property Services intended for the 19th Hole. The Board has not decided where the A/C unit should go.
Mr. Malek commented, with respect to any questions Ms. Lynch has on her list, the Board’s opinions on ethics or Mr. Hunt’s opinions on ethics should be directed to the Ethics Commission. It is not the Board’s place to present opinions on ethics. Ms. Weglein responded the Board still wants Mr. Hunt to reply to Ms. Lynch’s questions in writing. Mr. Malek requested the Board put that in the form of a motion.
Mr. Bailey made the motion. Second Mr. Smith. Motion carried unanimously.
Joe Walker presented a history of the veterans in Barefoot Bay and urged the Board to consider the site on Veterans Way for their building.
Roland Boas pointed out the SBA funds are not a disbursement but a transfer. Mr. Hunt commented the $66,000 is reported every month as the debt service from the Special Revenue Fund.
The pier project received 3 bids. Raff Engineering submitted the low bid of $559,000. Ms. McCahan made the motion to accept Raff’s bid. Second Mr. Bailey. Ms. Weglein requested the pier project, particularly Frazier Engineering’s plans , be closely monitored. Mr. Hunt commented FEMA is paying 90% of the cost. Ms. Donahue asked if FEMA had approved the plans. Mr. Hunt replied affirmatively. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Hunt referenced the comments from Brevard County regarding the County’s review of the plans for the maintenance building. Frazier Engineering advised Mr. Hunt they have replied to Brevard County Building Department.
The District solicited bids on canal cleaning in The Press Journal and the Orlando Sentinel. The District received four inquiries from the Orlando area.
Ms. Weglein asked if there were any more comments on the employee handbook. If not, Mr. Torpy’s office will finalize the proposed draft and present it to the Board.
Raymond Cabral applied to fill a seat on the Violations Committee. Ms. Weglein entertained a motion to approve Mr. Cabral’s request. Mr. Carillion made the motion to appoint Mr. Cabral to the Violations Committee. Second Ms. McCahan. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Hunt commented the District received one bid on the Shopping Center painting project in the amount of $7,100. That is 40% of the $20,000 budgeted for the project. Mr. Hunt requested the Board add a 15% contingency factor, which would bring the amount to $8,100. Mr. Hunt commented many people have contacted him about changing the color of the post office building to complement the color scheme of the shopping center complex. Ms. Donahue requested new wall sconces. Ms. McCahan requested priming be put into the bid. Mr. Hunt agreed to add that language at the pre-construction conference.
Ms. McCahan made the motion to award the Shopping Center painting bid to the sole bidder, adding a $1,000 contingency to the original bid. The motion will also include the price of the sconces Ms. Donahue requested, and will include the primer language Ms. McCahan requested. Second Mr. Bailey. Motion carried unanimously.
The cameras at Pool 3 are operational. The Pool 1 cameras will be installed next. Other cameras will be installed at the direction of the Board.
The District has committed to hiring Bussen and Mayer to do a “quick and dirty” study on whether the original design conforms with their project objectives when they did the original study. During the recent rains, the weirs worked perfectly with backflow into the Community Complex lake, which would not have occurred had it been dammed.
There will be a presentation at the July 25th meeting regarding the veterans building including cost recommendations for each of the three proposed sites. Mr. Keegan supplied a CAD program that “puts” a mobile home on each of the sites to provide a virtual visual. Those packages will be presented to the Board next week. Mr. Keegan said he hoped the Board could make a determination at the July 25th meeting after reviewing the material. Ms. Donahue said she received a lot of mail about the veterans building. She feels it is not the Board’s right to give away Barefoot Bay land for any group. Mr. Malek commented that a constituency vote on this issue is inappropriate. Mr. Bailey expressed a desire to meet with the commander of the veterans’ affairs. Mr. Malek commented there was nothing illegal about that as long as none of the commanders are on the Board of Trustees. Mr. Hunt clarified for the Board that the land being sought by the veterans would be granted on a long-term lease with the District.
Mr. Hunt presented a proposal from Seacoast Bank. Mr. Hunt commented the Seacoast proposal would save the District about $10,000 a year. Mr. Hunt and Staff have met with several banks, and one of the proposals may save the District $25,000 a year. Mr. Hunt proposed a discussion of banking services could be put on the agenda for August 11th.
Mr. Malek commented he had been working closely with the Brevard County Commissioners on the non-binding charter referendum to finalize the language. They have completed an initial draft. The draft may be sent to the Brevard County attorney for his review this week. The County attorney will take it to the County commissioners for approval in order to get it placed on [our] ballot. Fred Galey is involved with this as well.
Mr. Malek and his staff counted the ballots from the Deed of Restrictions amendment mailing. [Exhibit B] Vinyl fencing missed the balloting process. Four affidavits of certification have been rendered to Mr. Hunt. Ms. McCahan requested the unopened ballots “from Tibby’s time” be boxed up and removed from Mr. Hunt’s office.
Mr. Malek addressed 200 Calico Court. IRS placed a $300,000 lien on the property. It sustained severe hurricane damage. Brevard County would probably give a report supporting a “health and safety” issue, but any lien the District could place on that property would be subordinate to the IRS lien.
Mr. Malek has contacted the attorney representing the owner of 837 Lychee. The property deed has allegedly been sent to Brevard County for recording. Mr. Bohne, acting for Brevard County Code Enforcement, is investigating occupancy problems.
Mr. Malek has contacted the new owner of the Stoangi property concerning any liens Barefoot Bay has on that property. The property was sold in a tax sale, and the District’s liens are properly recorded.
Mr. Carillion asked Mr. Malek about the property on Plover St. Mr. Malek said that property is in the hands of Brevard County now. Mr. Carillion asked if there were any way Barefoot Bay could bring pressure to bear regarding that property because now they’re not cutting the grass. Mr. Malek commented the District has a lot mow process in place that could become a lien that could be collected when the property is sold. Mr. Carillion commented the property now looks like a slum and smells terrible. Mr. Malek replied there were some things the District could not control. Mr. Malek commented the neighbors were not willing to cooperate by signing affidavits.
Mr. Keegan asked if there had been a meeting with the County attorney in the last week. Ms. Weglein said she had not met with the commissioners or the attorney. Mr. Malek commented his understanding is a citizen called in a complaint to Commissioner Voltz. As a courtesy, Ms. Voltz requested the Trustees chairperson be there. Since the County attorney was going to be in attendance, Mr. Malek was asked to attend. Mr. Malek spoke with Ms. Voltz, but Ms. Weglein elected not to go. Mr. Malek then contacted Ms. Voltz and explained he would not attend either since the original meeting was between Ms. Voltz and a private citizen. Mr. Malek does not know if the meeting between Ms. Voltz and the citizen took place, but he and no one from the Board was there. Mr. Keegan asked f Mr. Bolon was there. Ms. Weglein replied, “I believe he was the citizen.” Mr. Keegan asked Mr. Malek if he was aware of the subject of the meeting. Mr. Malek responded he thought it was about the audit. Mr. Malek commended Ms. Voltz for involving the chair and himself, but also made the point that a private citizen can go to a commissioner about anything they wish.
Mr. Bailey commented that no one has found irregularities in the District’s financial business. He objects to a former trustee taking District business to the County. He asked Mr. Malek what could be done about such unethical behavior. Mr. Malek replied he understood Mr. Bailey’s frustration, but unfortunately there is no accountability when a person wants to talk to a person they voted into office. Ms. Weglein said any trustee could speak with Ms. Voltz because each member of the Board is a voter in Barefoot Bay. Mr. Carillion has gone to the County about Code Enforcement issues. Ms. Weglein has gone to Ms. Voltz about issues with the Sherriff’s department and getting coverage for the Bay. Mr. Bailey commented it bothered him that someone would question the integrity of the Board, or that any member of the Board would knowingly allow any financial irregularities to take place. Mr. Malek respectfully reminded the Board that they are in politics now. Politicians are targets. Ms. McCahan said she was upset about how the incident got started and how it grew, who was going to attend, and what the subject was going to be. Ms. McCahan considers her trustee position to be a service position, not a political one. Her personal comment is that she wishes “this whole thing” had not happened. She said the District has been struggling with serious issues for a long time. She wishes people would back off and let business go forward without so much acrimony. The bottom line is the Trustees have the interest of Barefoot Bay at heart or they wouldn’t be sitting on the Trustees Board and taking so much abuse.
Ms. Weglein commented 5 capital projects were scheduled for this year. In October, the new phase of capital projects comes due, and some of the old ones haven’t been accomplished. The weir project was supposed to have been 2004-2005. The ADA has been addressed only in the Lounge doors. Ms. Weglein commented the people of Barefoot Bay have confidence in the Trustees that what is committed will be done. Ms. Weglein said she wants to see the projects get done. Ms. Weglein urged everyone to get out of the past. Ms. Weglein commented one reason the financial issue keeps coming up is because the auditor is upset. Ms. Weglein stated if the auditor had not come to her, she never would have become involved in the audit issues. Ms. Weglein said the Board members have to begin working with one another and not against one another.
Mr. Hunt clarified for the record that the 5 projects were a four-year program that was put in place. Some of them have not got funding yet because that funding was to be put in place over the four-year period. That is the way it was presented in the budget, and that was the way it was adopted.
Mr. Hunt commented the Board would get the audit on August 14th. One, it is going to show that the hand written reports that were given to the Trustees all this time in the months that [we] have reported to you have been extremely accurate. Nothing is going to change in the fixed assets report, and [I] already know the bottom line the auditors have reported [to me]. The second thing [I’m] predicting is the audit is going to show, and [we’ll] give supporting documentation to the audit, that [we’ve] accomplished more projects in the last 12 months than in any other single 12-month period that this Board has been in existence. Thirdly, those people who are going to talk about added expense are going to talk about a whole number, they’re not going to talk about the over-budget number which is different and which will be somewhere around $40,000.
Mr. Carillion presented the ARCC report for the month of June. [Exhibit C]
Mr. Bailey reported work orders from June 1 to July 7th were 157 written, 141 were completed, and 16 are still open as of today. The trees that were bending the fences at the Micco Road RV compound were removed. Mr. Bailey plans to post the pictures of the work done on the Building A bulletin board to show the improvement. Mr. Bailey commented that doing the work in-house saved thousands of dollars. The District has bought rain suits, boots, steel-toed shoes, hard hats, safety belts, safety goggles, dust masks, eye wash stations and first aid kits. This totaled $1,755.68. The District sponsored CPR classes and safety seminars. This totaled $1,625. Mr. Bailey complimented Mr. Hunt on bringing the District’s employees into OSHA compliance.
Mr. Carillion asked if the pool host were qualified on the defibrillator. Mr. Hunt responded that because of staff turnover, not everyone was qualified on the machine. Mr. Hunt commented 10 or 15 employees would be sent to school to qualify.
Ms. Donahue reported vandals got to the tennis courts again. She asked that cameras be considered for that area. There is a 4-foot alligator in the weir by the tennis courts. Ms. Donahue requested the alligator be trapped and released somewhere else. There are signs around the lake warning of alligators, but people still fish from the banks and children play near the lake.
Ms. Weglein addressed Mr. Malek’s letter regarding the railroad crossing. Chris Hill, Ms. Voltz’ assistant, reported the soil test from Crystal Bay should be back within the next 10 days. Brevard County plans to award the bid to perform construction on Micco Road the first week of August. Micco Road improvements should begin the first week of September. Brevard County is working with Emergency Operations on the railroad issue. Ms. Donahue commented on a curfew in Barefoot Bay. Mr. Hill responded an ordinance of that kind would be difficult because of the excuses people use for being out past a certain time. It’s not impossible, but Ms. Voltz felt the Commissioners probably wouldn’t go for it. Ms. Weglein asked if the ordinance would have to cover the whole county. Mr. Hill replied that, technically, curfews could be applied to certain areas. Ms. Donahue asked if a letter signed by 5,000 residents would help? Mr. Hill said that would certainly help.
Mr. Keegan thanked all the members of the Veterans’ Council for their attendance at the meeting.
Ms. McCahan requested that the security issue be put on the next agenda. She said vandalism costs about $5,000 to $6,000 a year. To hire a security person will cost between $50,000 and $80,000. Ms. McCahan requested a formal discussion so the issue can be laid to rest with a decision from the Board. Mr. Carillion commented off-duty police who perform security services are paid as part-time employees.
Ms. Weglein commented when she requested a telephone connection to the meeting on June 27th she intended to use her personal cell phone to connect with Barefoot Bay. Mr. Geer informed her there was a severe storm in the area and the meeting might not be held at all. Mr. Geer informed Ms. Weglein the telephone that was available for the telephone connection did not make calls out. Ms. Weglein said the only reason she asked for the connection was that it had been done on a previous occasion, and because she felt the budget vote was so important.
Bill Ferris reported his personal watercraft that was stolen from the Micco Road RV compound was recovered. The thieves have not been apprehended. Mr. Ferris said serviceable camera equipment could be purchased at WalMart for $45.
Jeanne Osborne asked the Board to remember Ann Lowry, the chairperson of the Violations Committee, in their prayers as Ann is in the hospital. Ms. Osborne commented the miscellaneous $11,000 in the budget is money collected by the golfers intended for the 19th Hole. Ms. Osborne urged the Board to buy a new refrigerator for the 19th Hole. The District maintains an eating establishment there, and it needs to be first class. That’s part of general maintenance, not a Board issue. Mr. Malek clarified that the vote in November on the non-binding charter amendments will not change the charter, but the Legislature could act on the proposed charter amendments without another vote.
Elizabeth Showers supports the veterans, and she opposes the veterans’ new building.
Min Bolon questioned the word “lease” in regard to the veterans building. Ms. Bolon cited the fact that when Petals and Palms made improvements to District property (i.e., the reflection garden, etc), those improvements became the property of the District. Mr. Hunt responded the District has not gotten to that point in the veterans’ discussion. It depends on what the Trustees instruct him to negotiate. Ms. Bolon pointed out the pools generate guest pass money, so the statement that they don’t generate any money is inaccurate. Ms. Bolon commented Barefoot Bay residents pay taxes to have police protection.
Mr. Carillion made a motion that the Community Manager write a strong letter to Brevard County requesting patrol units in Barefoot Bay at night. Second Mr. Bailey. Motion carried unanimously.
Bruce Bolon said he went to Commissioner Voltz about the charter. The charter states the audit will be done by April 1st. Mr. Bolon was curious about what jurisdiction the County has over Barefoot Bay in this matter. Ms. Voltz requested County and District auditors be present in a meeting. Mr. Bolon phoned Ms. Weglein to make the request since he was no longer a member of the Board of Trustees. Mr. Bolon contacted the Torpy Group since the County attorney would also be present. Mr. Bolon learned in the meeting that the County has no jurisdiction whatsoever over Barefoot Bay. Mr. Bolon stated no one else showed up, so he and Ms. Voltz had a conversation and “both of us went off happy.”
Lois Beglaw, as a member of the veterans’ auxiliary, said the veterans should have a place of their own to display their many trophies and other accomplishments.
Ms. Weglein entertained a motion
to adjourn. Mr. Carillion made the motion to adjourn. Second Ms.
McCahan. Motion carried.
The meeting adjourned at 3:40 p.m.
PHONE: (772) 664-3141
FAX: (772) 664-1928