Minutes for August 11, 2006
Back to Home Page
DRAFT
Board of Trustees
Regular Meeting
Friday, August 11, 2006
1:00 p.m. – Building D&E
Madame Chairman Wilma Weglein called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m.
Ms. Weglein requested prayers for our troops and the problems that are occurring throughout the world, especially in Europe. Amen
Ms. Weglein led the Pledge.
Ms. Weglein entertained a motion for approval of the minutes from the June 27th meeting. Mr. Bailey made the motion. Second Ms. McCahan. Ms. Weglein requested the minutes reflect she had written a letter beforehand and was excused. The minutes were accepted as amended.
Ms. Weglein entertained a motion to accept the minutes from the July 14th meeting. Ms. Howard made the motion. Second Mr. Smith.
Ms. Weglein’s packet was not complete with exhibits and attachments. The other Board members’ packets are complete. On page 5 of 12, Ms. Weglein questioned Mr. Hunt regarding “the report had been given to the auditors in November, 2005”. Mr. Hunt responded the fixed asset report had been given to the auditors in November 2005. Ms. Weglein requested the phrase reflect “the original report”. The minutes were approved as amended.
Ms. Donahue presented the treasurer’s report, balances as of 7/31/06. [Exhibit A]
Yvonne Claiborne, and audit director of the firm Bray, Beck and Koetter presented the annual audit. Ms. Claiborne is the director in charge of the audit engagement for Barefoot Bay Recreation District for fiscal year ended September 30, 2005. Jamie Greene, the associate auditor who performed the bulk of the field work on this audit engagement. Ms. Greene handed out the audit communication letter to the Board. The letter summarizes what was presented to the auditors in the form of management representation letter by the District Manager and the chief financial officer at the end of the audit. It communicates to the Board information required by standards. The bound document summarizes what will be presented in the audit report.
The District is required by Florida Statute 11.45 to have an annual audit of [your] financial statements. Those financial audits are required to be performed in accordance with what’s called “the yellow book”, which is the government auditing standard. The Audits of State/Local Governments issued by the ARCPA provides guidance auditors use in preparing audit reports. The Auditor General, Chapter 10550 tells auditors what they have to do to provide an audit in accordance with Florida statutes.
The audit period covers the year ended September 30, 2005. For the second year it was prepared in accordance with the Government Accounting Standards Board Statement #34, which is the new financial reporting model. The audit report, on page 1, states the audit was conducted in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards and government auditing standards. The opinion is an unqualified opinion. This says the auditors were able to provide evidence the numbers in the bound document are materially correct. Supplemental information, which includes the management discussion and analysis, is not audited. That document includes economic forecast information that can’t be substantively audited. The report also includes a report on internal control and on compliance (page 36). This report covers the year ended September 30, 2005 and talks about the review of internal controls over financial reporting and auditors’ tests of compliance with laws, regulations, contracts and grants. In this report are reportable conditions noted for internal control. There is a compliance issue with relation to legally budgeted appropriations. The Recreation Fund is over expended by $122, 975. The Board did not receive the financial information necessary to make any budget amendments that might have been needed. Also, the budget included some FEMA expenditures which might have required a budget amendment.
Ms. Claiborne returned to the internal control issue cited in the report, which are deficiencies in the internal control structure. She said this is a more stringent comment than the Board could expect in the management letter. Cash management is the key control function in which the auditors noted a problem. There is an inappropriate level of management oversight regarding key control functions. The reconciliations of key balance sheet accounts were not completed. That’s cash accounts receivable, payroll liabilities, accounts payable, anything with a material account balance. Bank statements were missing or filed inappropriately which meant the auditors had to resort to requesting duplicate bank statements from the bank. (Page 3 of the handout, page 36 of the report.) Some of the other issues noted were deposits not recorded in the general ledger, primarily electronic deposits. There were some daily cash deposits that were not recorded in the general ledger. Subsidiary ledger information was not imported to the general ledger: the payroll ledger and the cash disbursement journals were held in subsidiary ledgers and were never merged into the general ledger. What cash disbursement information was imported into the general ledger contained historical information, but the import was done incorrectly which precluded the District from being able to complete the reconciliations timely. Daily deposits were not allocated to the appropriate revenue account which made the analytical analysis of the financial accounts challenging. Cash disbursements were coded to the incorrect funds and accounts. No general ledger equals no monthly financial reports. The District did not maintain its capital asset inventory ledger (page 37). The District tracked this ledger in software outside its accounting software in a computer that died from old age; the District was unable to recreate the ledger. The software was not replaced. At the time the District completed its physical inventory, there was no ledger to reconcile the list back to. The auditors provided the District with a copy of the capital asset ledger from September 30, 2004.
Ms. Weglein requested that John Young leave the room for creating an altercation and disrupting the meeting.
Not all the capital assets the auditors inventoried were marked as District property. Auditors noted dispositions were not formally approved by the Board of Trustees. Some assets were lost to hurricanes. Some vital assets need to be replaced. The State is asking the auditors to remind [everybody] of their responsibilities. Some of the State rules relating to fixed assets are attached to the back of the report. The Chief Financial Officer has a complete document from the State Auditor General. There is no depreciation accounting, and no formal policy related to the calculation of depreciation. With the former community manager there was a great deal of conversation about the policies the District was going to adopt. The Board held special workshops to form a policy of depreciation and assess a formula to calculate estimated “useful life” of assets. When the former community manager left, “the ball got dropped”. When the auditors went to find that formal policy, it did not exist. The Florida Auditor General, effective July 1, 2006, has transferred rule making authority for tracking and recording capital assets to the State’s Chief Financial Officer (Department of Financial Services).
(Page 37, The payroll process.) There were deficiencies in the controls related to the payroll process. There was incorrect withholding of the FICA taxes from wages. Tips were doubled by the system when recorded in the payroll ledger. Because reconciliations weren’t prepared at the end processing of each payroll cycle, that wasn’t caught until it was too late. Paychecks written outside the normal payroll cycle would not have been a problem if there had been a system in place to track those checks. As a result, the payroll taxes on those checks were not remitted to the IRS timely. There was an incorrect calculation of payroll tax deposits which resulted in overpayments to IRS which were subsequently reimbursed to the District. There was no reconciliation of reasonableness or review of the payroll function. The payroll information was not imported to the general ledger providing for cash reconciliation and a major account reconciliation. There was insufficient training of payroll personnel. The people preparing the payroll and the people supervising the payroll process did not have the appropriate level of training. There was a change of payroll clerks during the year, and she was simply following what had been done in the past and with what little training she had. Unfortunately, that training did not include how to locate and identify errors in the payroll system. The system itself had idiosyncrasies that created incorrect paychecks. Again, if you’re not taught to look for those, it’s very challenging.
The management letter is on page 39 – 42 of the report. A great deal of what is going on right now probably was impacted by the fact the District did not have the appropriate level of training. Training is necessary to ensure the software conversion is successful. Training is necessary to mitigate future problems. Regarding the deteriorating financial condition, every year the State Auditor General requires the auditors perform a financial condition assessment. The assessment includes 18 financial indicators of criteria. It compares 5 years worth of information related to the District and compares to what is considered the District’s benchmark (other comparable districts). The results of the financial condition assessment were inconclusive. The auditors were not able to establish enough favorable indicators based on the criteria set out by the Auditor General and by the accounting standards to say the financial process was favorable. There also were not enough indicators to say it was unfavorable. Five of the sixteen indicators have to be favorable in order to call it favorable, otherwise it is inconclusive. The deteriorating financial condition is based on a lack of targeted fund equity levels which refers to the 2 ½ month reserve operating expenditures. For the District this would be approximately one million dollars, while currently the operating reserve is about $432,000. The State would not consider this sufficient to support the District’s operations in case of catastrophe. There is a lack of adequate controls to ensure economic and efficient operation of the District and the safeguarding of assets. These are indicators of a deteriorating financial condition that needs to be addressed.
The slide on page 6 of the handout breaks down the cash balances. The Bank number is different than the general ledger because of the items that haven’t yet cleared the bank. The fund balance in retained earnings is a comparison of 2004 versus 2005. Except for the Recreation Fund, which recognized a reduction of the fund balance for this year, most retained levels from the previous year. On page 7, the theoretical definition of “net assets” is if [you] were to take all the assets and convert them to cash and pay all the bills, this is the amount that would be left over. Fifty four percent of the District’s net assets are made up of capital assets, or non-cash assets. The number reported in the financial statement is not a number that is going to be converted to cash at that number because it is a book value not a market value. Debt service represents a reserve of 24% of the District’s net assets. FEMA dollars received and not yet spent represent 9%. Unreserved is 19%, the bulk of which is in the Recreation Fund. Governmental revenues (page 7 of the handout) breaks out the revenues. Sixty three percent of revenues comes from assessments. Services represents 14%. These are the two biggest income generators. On page 8, the bar graph presentation is expenditures. The bulk of expenditures from 2004 are FEMA money being used for hurricane damage replacements.
Mr. Carillion asked if there had been a resolution concerning the over expenditure. Mr. Hunt said he could not determine reading the audit whether Resolution 2005-7 [November 17] was taken into account. The resolution adjusted the budget $547,364. Mr. Hunt agreed to research the question with Ms. Greene and bring the answer back to the Board.
Mr. Keegan asked how the list of shortcomings compared to the audit of the previous year. Ms. Claiborne responded other than the deteriorating financial condition which came about for a different reason, it’s like comparing “apples and oranges”. September 30, 2004 had a different community manager and a different finance officer. A lot of the things the auditors were seeing in September 30, 2004 became serious issues in September 30, 2005. Mr. Carillion asked if it was advisable to contact the auditors when there is a change of key management personnel. Ms. Claiborne responded that whether or not the District would need a cash audit depends on the events and changes around the finance officer. When the community manager changes, the auditors could determine if an audit was called for depending on the circumstances surrounding the change. Ms. Claiborne agreed it would be useful to have the auditors interview the new personnel, as well as the departing personnel if the opportunity presents, and members of the Board to determine if there are any gaps that need to be addressed in the interim. Presenting what the auditors expect from those key roles is advisable. Ms. Claiborne commented they had met with Mr. Morgan because he came on about the time the auditors began fieldwork in the District, and were attempting to put the general ledger together when Ms. Sercocci was hired. The auditors met with Mr. Hunt prior to September 30, 2004 and had discussions about accounting expectations.
Mr. Carillion asked Ms. Claiborne how often the auditors get financial reports from the District. Ms. Claiborne responded historically the auditors did not receive anything until they arrived for the audit unless there was a specific issue. Currently, the auditors have requested a monthly report once the new software is up and running. During the transition to GASBE 34, the auditors did see some financial information, but did not receive it monthly. Mr. Carillion commented the problems seemed to just “pop up” without warning. Ms. Claiborne replied all the warning signs were there. The Board has not received monthly financial reports from the accounting system in over year. All the warning systems of a breakdown in the accounting system were there, and the audit firm was not notified. The audit firm discovered the District had no system when it came out for audit fieldwork pursuant to September 30, 2005. Mr. Carillion asked if the audit firm could monitor the District on a monthly basis. Ms. Claiborne responded it is part of Mr. Hunt’s plan to have the auditors assist the financial officer in generating financial reports from the new software to ensure the reports are meaningful from an auditing perspective.
Ms. Weglein commented Mr. Glashauser [a former Board member] was requesting financial reports which was a “flag” that should have alerted the Board to a problem. There were several meetings over a two year period where the reports were requested and promised. On page 30, “contingent liabilities”, it says “the district experienced damage from multiple hurricanes during the fiscal year. Most funding for related damages will come from FEMA and insurance proceeds. Approximately $800,000 in repair and replacement costs will not be covered under insurance or FEMA proceeds.” Ms. Weglein commented she is concerned about paying this amount back if this is, in fact, what the District owes. Mr. Hunt replied the amount mentioned is a theoretical figure of the value of the material that was lost in the hurricanes [of 2004] that neither insurance nor FEMA will reimburse. The golf course maintenance facility is an example of this. The District received $42,000 to replace the building that was lost, but the new building will cost more than that. The pier is another example of this principle. Ms. Weglein asked about the $50,000 from the League of Cities loan. Mr. Hunt replied the District had to take the $50,000 in order to secure the loan. The District has not accessed the loan otherwise. Ms. Weglein commented she reviewed the lease files [in the Administration office]. She stated the files are in deplorable condition. The beauty parlor’s lease expired December 31, 2005. The tenants are required to insure the buildings for liability. The only up-to-date insurance binder available was for the water and sewer agency. Ms. Weglein asked Mr. Hunt to locate the tenants’ insurance binders. Mr. Torpy commented the leases require the insurance, but it doesn’t mean the insurance was actually bound. Mr. Torpy’s office has requested the files, Mr. Hunt has agreed to provide them. The way that kind of insurance is acquired, and proof it continues to exist varies, but typically once an insurance company has listed an entity such as Barefoot Bay as a rider, they will then notify [you] if the insurance coverage lapses. The initial notices are missing.
Ms. Howard asked Ms. Donahue if she has insurance on Elle’s Toning. Ms. Donahue replied she does, and it is still in effect. She offered to give a copy to the District. Mr. Torpy commented a copy of the rider should be in the lease file as being in force and effect with Barefoot Bay named as the leaseholder/insured. Mr. Torpy commented the second issue to be addressed is that many of the tenants have been in place for so many years some of the leases expired. Some of the leases have been in place so long that some of the leases didn’t require the tenant to be responsible for the insurance when they were written. Mr. Torpy commented the discussion has always been about whether the Shopping Center is being run truly as a business or is it being subsidized by the Bay.
Mr. Smith commented on the sublet “My Cousin Vinnie” made to the present proprietor of the convenience store. He wanted to know if the sublet arrangement had expired or been rewritten. Mr. Hunt responded there is an assignment of lease from “My Cousin Vinnie’s” to the convenience store and Mr. Hunt believes it is not expired. Mr. Hunt commented that the files had not been a priority, but since the auditors brought it to the District’s attention, it will be in the future.
Mr. Hunt requested from Ms. Weglein that Ms. Claiborne be allowed to address the deteriorating financial condition and the “snapshot effect”. What the Board is looking at is a picture of the fiscal health of the Bay in that particular financial year, and one of the strong recommendations the auditors made for the deteriorating financial condition, which is always a significant finding, is that [you] put into effect a capital program and you start charging for it to replace items. The Board has now done that. The reason the recommendation is in here and the reason the financial condition was still deteriorating as of September 30th, 2005 is because that’s the date the Board put the capital program in place. In essence, that’s a snapshot in time of a problem that no longer exists. Next year’s audit will show in today’s budget there is more money available than since [you] bought the place from Avatar.
Ms. Weglein commented she believed a motion had been made that when there was surplus money, $50,000 was to be put into a contingency fund. Ms. Weglein feels the contingency fund should be put into effect from the undesignated funds.
Ms. Weglein asked Ms. Claiborne what the next step is. Ms. Claiborne responded the Board may adopt the current plan, the District Manager develops responses to the management letter that the Board then approves, and the whole is submitted to the Auditor General. The report must be submitted to the Auditor General within 45 days of when the Board approves it. Mr. Bailey requested a report from the auditors every month to ascertain that responses occur timely. Ms. Claiborne responded the auditors could provide status based on conversations and what they see in Board minutes. She did not feel that a substantive test on a monthly basis would be feasible. If there is a gap in perceptions between the auditors and the community manager, then the audit firm could help form different criteria. Ms. Claiborne commented when the financial reports have been presented to the Board monthly for 90 days, there should be some level of comfort with the financial reporting.
Mr. Keegan asked Ms. Claiborne if she thought the 2006 audit would be about the same as the 2005 audit or better. Ms. Claiborne declined to speculate. However, she did not think the district would have time between now and September 2006 to address all of the recommendations. Maybe the significance of the issues, if they have appropriate management oversight and controls back in place prior to fiscal year end, might mitigate and be placed in management comments as opposed to compliance issues. Ms. Claiborne feels bringing the reconciliations up to date and completing the software conversion before fiscal year end are the most critical issues.
Mr. Torpy commented the concept of the IT person has been blown out of proportion. The IT person does not take care of the functions the auditor is concerned with. The IT person ensures the equipment functions.
Mr. Carillion is concerned there might be personality problems among the auditor, the attorney, and the community manager and the financial officer. Ms. Claiborne commented that by accounting standards she is required to report to the Board any dispute of professional conduct. If she cannot resolve conflict with key management personnel, she must report that to the Board. Happy hour notwithstanding, she believes everyone can get through the audit.
Ms. Weglein suggested a workshop be scheduled to address the management issues. Ms. Claiborne commented the District’s responses to the management letter were not available for this meeting. She advised that if the Board was planning a special meeting, they should not approve the audit report immediately. Do not distribute the audit report until the responses have been presented to the Board and they are accepted. Mr. Hunt commented he does have a response, but in light of what was discussed in terms of tracking Resolution 2005-07, the response may be incomplete. Mr. Hunt requested to hold off accepting the audit until the resolution can be accounted for. Mr. Torpy commented since the report has been transmitted to the District, it is a public document, but should be viewed with the reservation that it is not as of this date the approved document. Ms. Claiborne stated the handout is a public document, but the bound copy has not been officially approved, and should be retained by the Board members, and the extra copies retained by the audit firm until officially approved for distribution to the regulatory agencies.
Mr. Carillion made a motion to send a financial report monthly to Bray, Beck and Koetter beginning fiscal year October 1, 2006. Second Mr. Bailey. Motion carried unanimously.
Bill Farris made several verbal additions to his resume. Mr. Keegan noted Mr. Farris wanted to be known as a problem solver rather than a “person attacker”, and asked Mr. Farris what that meant. Mr. Farris feels that attacking people personally or in groups doesn’t accomplish anything. Ms. Howard asked Mr. Farris’s motive for applying for the Board’s vacant seat. Mr. Farris quoted the American College Dictionary for the definition of “non-partisan”, which says the word means “objective”. He would like to see the Board be more objective and less divisive. Mr. Farris supports more workshops. He feels the Sunshine Law impedes productivity.
Lillian Richards commented her experience as a City Commissioner in Westminster, CA for 8 years would greatly help with understanding and participating in the work of the Board of Trustees. She has an under- graduate degree in political science. Mr. Keegan commented on the 9 week course at the Brevard Citizens’ Academy that Ms. Richards attended. Ms. Richards responded the course dealt with the overall experience of how county government works. There were studies on environment, agriculture, transportation, traffic engineering, emergency management and public safety, animal services, budget planning, zoning and growth, and permitting and enforcement. These are some of the issues that come before the Board, and Ms. Richards has acquired a working knowledge of them. Ms. Richards expressed pride in the way people have recovered since the hurricanes of 2004. Ms. Donahue asked how many Boards Ms. Richards has served on in Barefoot Bay. Ms. Richards responded she is an inspector for ARCC, has participated in Homeowners Association, Friends of the Library, and has been the Barefoot Bay Historian.
Ms. McCahan nominated Lillian Richards. Second Mr. Carillion.
Ms. Howard nominated Bill Farris. Second Ms. Weglein.
The recording secretary distributed ballots for voting. Ms. Richards was chosen 6-2. Mr. Torpy read the oath of office to Ms. Richards and she was seated on the Board.
Loretta Lynch urged the board to look into new management based on the audit.
Richard Bleau thanked the auditors for their diligence. Mr. Bleau objects to the delay regarding the golf maintenance building. Mr. Hunt responded “DRC” refers to the County’s Development and Review Committee. The first time applications for the maintenance building went to the County, it was passed around to 20 different departments. The County handed back about 11 comments to the District. Frazier Engineering answered the comments. The County commented on Frazier’s answer, and returned yet another package of comments to the District. There are now 2 or 3 comments which the District is responding to next week. Mr. Hunt anticipates a permit for construction in September.
Steven Rice urged the Community Manager to resign. Mr. Rice is upset about the audit. He commented on the $250,000 Mr. Hunt mentioned in the last meeting that the Bay would owe in hurricane damages (that the insurance and FEMA do not cover).
Stephen Savalli commented on the IT person the Board discussed. Mr. Torpy explained the IT person was a technical person that would be hired to run the computers, not the day to day operations of Barefoot Bay. Mr. Savalli objects to hiring new people when there is a deficit in the reserve fund.
Charles Sweeney commented before the age of computers, accounting was done by hand and a monthly balance was produced without fail. Mr. Sweeney holds the Board responsible for the debacle with the accounting system. Mr. Hunt responded there has been a hand tracking of the expenses “since the beginning”. There is $169,000 unbudgeted fund balance in the Special Revenue Fund. On page 14 of the audit there is a figure to reflect against the $169,000, and that figure is $190, 447. Mr. Hunt attributes the $20,000 difference to conservative rounding. Mr. Sweeney said the Board has been claiming it did not receive accounting reports, so either the Board is not considering Mr. Hunt’s efforts as financial reports or [Mr. Hunt] is not producing what the Board actually wants.
Ms. Weglein cautioned the Board about talking off-microphone since the Board expects respect from the audience on the same issue.
Ms. Howard asked Mr. Hunt to reiterate what he said about page 14 of the audit. Mr. Hunt said on page 14 there are four columns: the original budget, the final budget, the actual expenditures and the various with final budget. The 3rd column there is a fund balance end of year of $190,447. His hand calculations had presented the number as $169,000 as a result of conservative rounding down.
The final comments from the County regarding the maintenance building were given to the Board. Mr. Hunt anticipates when Frazier resolves the last one or two issues, a permit will be issued in September.
The low bid for canal cleaning costs is $19,800. A notice to proceed will be issued upon Board approval. Ms. McCahan urged the Board to approve the bid. Mr. Hunt, responding to Ms. Weglein, said there had been two bids submitted. Ms. Weglein commented the canal section behind Iroquois is “all green”. Ms. Weglein asked Mr. Hunt to find out when the canals had last been sprayed for vegetation.
Ms. McCahan made a motion to accept the bid for $19,800 to clean the canals. Second Mr. Bailey. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Keegan commented he had received many telephone calls from concerned citizens. He said the Veterans’ Building was not going to sprout up over night. There are many issues to resolve before the building will actually appear. Ms. McCahan made a motion to form a committee with John Keegan at the head of it to promulgate a lease and to resolve the issues inherent in getting the Veterans’ Building project to fruition. Second Ms. Howard. Motion carried unanimously.
Golf Course Pumps – Watertronics : both pumps at the golf course need to be replaced. Ms. McCahan asked if there were some kind of insurance policy available that might cover the pumps longer than the company warranty to help with replacement. Mr. Hunt responded the deductibles are so high the District would end up paying for them anyway. Mr. Carillion asked if a manufacturers’ retainer might be feasible. Mr. Hunt replied that kind of arrangement might have to go to bid. One pump is $8,705 and one is about $6,000. Mr. Bailey made a motion to spend approximately $15,000 to replace the golf course pumps. Second Mr. Keegan. Motion carried unanimously.
Approval of language for the Charter revisions: Mr. Hunt commented the most recent copy of the Charter revisions contains Item #7 split into two items. One deals with the $125,000 cap, and the other dealing with the Charter officers. Mr. Torpy suggested the amendments need one more “workover”. Mr. Torpy read the “duties of the chair” and the duties and responsibilities of the Vice-Chair, including the duty to serve as Chair in times of the Chair’s absence. [You] are asking your voters to make it a requirement to have those descriptions in the Charter, but [you’re ] not telling them what those descriptions are going to be. Mr. Torpy requested a workshop before the amendments go to the voters. Mr. Bailey asked Mr. Torpy why the language had to be in the Charter at all. Mr. Torpy responded the amendments are the result of a committee the Board created. Mr. Torpy said for this reason he is unsure why any of the language is in the document. This is a new Board, which is why Mr. Torpy feels a workshop is necessary. Ms. Weglein pointed out Mr. Bolon headed up the committee and Jim Malotis and Mr. Hunt were members.
Mr. Bailey read Item #5, misfeasance and malfeasance. He commented that provision was already in place [Rules and Regulations], and did not need to be in the Charter. Mr. Bailey objected that Item 6, the way it is written in the amendment, gives the Chairperson ultimate power over the other Board members. Ms. Weglein commented the document was approved in October 2005. Ms. McCahan asked Mr. Torpy if duties included “being the head of the District for various purposes”, doesn’t that refer to signing documents and being in authority? Mr. Torpy commented he didn’t know what that language meant, which is why he wants a workshop. If the document is to be on the ballot this year, it needs to be finished this month. Mr. Smith said under Article IV of the Rules and Regulations for the Board of Trustees, it’s very clear what the duties and responsibilities are.
The 21 day special meeting requirement could not be met. Mr. Torpy suggested the Trustees devote the first hour of the regular meeting on September 8th to the Charter amendments and make the rest of the agenda lighter. Mr. Torpy commented when he sat in the meeting with the Trustees and heard what was desired, he could draft language everyone understands and agrees with. Ms. McCahan asked if the September 14th meeting could be made into a special meeting. Mr. Torpy said he’d rather not. The workshop was to hash out any legal issues that might be raised regarding the employee handbook.
Fire Services Assessment Rates: Tres Holton, Commissioner Voltz’ aide, congratulated Ms. Richards and acknowledged Mr. Farris for “throwing his hat in the ring”. Mr. Holton commented that disturbing a meeting with profanity and assault is not protected speech. He suggested the Trustees adopt formal rules of decorum and have a Sergeant-at-Arms present in the future. The City of Palm Bay wants to do EMS transport. The certificate of need is in the hands of the County by state statute. Therefore, the County Commissioners must be the entity that grants authority to the City of Palm Bay. They chose not to do so, whereupon the City of Palm Bay instituted a lawsuit to alter the method the County uses to collect those fees. The result looks like additional fees imposed on residents. Ms. Voltz is concerned with how the methodology affects individuals. Where the rate was based on millage, it is now based on square footage. The tier starts at 2,099 square feet and below at $212. Three thousand square feet and above is $276. Mr. Holton said Ms. McCahan paid $119 last year for fire and EMS. Under the new method, because her taxable value is low, she will see a substantial increase from $119 to $246.15 under the new flat fee. The million dollar home that paid $1200 last year, will actually see a reduction in their fees, for a savings of almost $300. Ms. McCahan pointed out it takes more fire trucks for a big fire in a big home than fewer fire trucks for a little mobile home. Mr. Holton said some of the rationale is level of service: the mansion paid disproportionately more than the mobile home for the same level of service. Mr. Holton commented Ms. Voltz’ concern was that many Barefoot Bay residents were on fixed incomes and the increase would present undue hardship. Mr. Holton called this a regressive tax: the poor pay more, and the rich pay less. Unincorporated areas are included under interlocal agreements.
Ms. Weglein commented that some residents are upset because EMS will transport only to Sebastian Medical Center. As a Health First policy holder, Ms. Weglein prefers to be transported to Palm Bay Hospital. Ms. Weglein commented Ms. Voltz should become aware that relations with the County are becoming more unwieldy. A 911 call should not produce Indian River.
Mr. Keegan asked Mr. Holton if Commissioner Voltz was planning to vote against “this”. Mr. Holton responded if staff could not come up with a situation to address the inequity of the regressive tax nature in which ‘this’ is being implemented, Ms. Voltz has vocalized that this is something she cannot support. Mr. Holton explained the wildfires were not a significant impact on Palm Bay’s decision to implement their own EMS services.
Mr. Holton attended the meeting with the fire chief and one of the questions involved implementing a different tier system. Increments that would be legally defensible and that would also address some of the inequities in the 0-3000 and 3000 square feet and above.
Mr. Keegan said he could understand rising insurance rates because of payout, but EMS is serving the same number of houses over the same area for an additional $23 million. Mr. Holton responded the County is actually going to lose $3 million overall. Barefoot Bay fell victim to the search for a “threshold of equilibrium” that would be fair to most residents in Brevard County. Mr. Carillion asked if the volunteer aspect of the fire department in the Micco-Barefoot Bay- Snug Harbor area should mitigate some of the County’s decision. Mr. Holton responded he could not comment on Chief Farmer’s and Ms. Voltz formulation of policy. He invited Mr. Carillion to speak with Commissioner Voltz and the fire chief as that kind of input is what is needed. Ms. Weglein feels calls should be treated on “level of emergency”: in Barefoot Bay assistance is sometimes needed but three fire trucks are excessive. Ms. Howard asked if there were some way to mitigate the EMS situation. Mr. Holton responded that since the residents know where Ms. Voltz stands on the issue, it might be expedient to visit the offices of the other commissioners. Ms. Weglein commented the residents can email each of the Commissioners, and be in Viera at 1:30 September 22nd. Ms. Weglein announced the carpool will leave Building A at 12:30 p.m.
Mr. Keegan made a motion to confer authority on Ms. Weglein as the Chair to represent Barefoot Bay at the Commissioners’ meeting on September 22nd in Viera. Second Ms. Donahue. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Holton said the County Commission on Tuesday [September 5] made a motion to approve construction of a new reverse osmosis water treatment facility at the 40 acres over near the reservation [Barefoot Bay’s “Indian Section”] Currently there are bonds that expire in 2014 that are part of the rate system and structure. The $22 million construction cost will not begin to be charged until 2015. The benefit to the Bay is that there will be continuity of service and cost from now until then. When paying off the new bond takes effect, the level of rate will be approximately the same as currently.
Ms. McCahan commented that a new water plant might have served the Logan parcel better than having Mr. Logan turn to Palm Bay for water and sewer. Mr. Holton responded [we] diligently worked to find a way to provide water and sewer to Mr. Logan so he did not have to annex into the City of Palm Bay. The new water treatment plant will provide higher quality water and allow for development in Snug Harbor and Crystal Bay. Groundbreaking is scheduled for 2007, and the plant would become operational in 2008. Mr. Keegan commented there is a “cut in” to the water line at Bird. Ms. Weglein explained that water line supplies the Paladin property which is going to be developed at 80 homes and is also across Micco Road. Mr. Holton commented Commissioner Voltz worked very hard and spent some political capital to negotiate an annexation boundary with the City of Palm Bay.
Lounge Awning: Mr. Hunt said the awning will cost approximately $5,300 for a 30x8x3 ft projection awning for the Lounge. The bid is good for 30 days from July 24th. Mr. Geer explained the new awning design would allow taking down the fabric covering for storm events. FEMA and insurance specifications have been met in the interest of reimbursement.
Mr. Carillion made a motion to expend $5,300 to install the awning. Second Ms. Howard. Motion carried unanimously.
Five Requests for Code Enforcement Fine Mitigation: Mr. Torpy explained Mr. Austin has provided residents’ requests for Code Enforcement fine mitigations, a brief statement of facts around each case, and then a staff recommendation. The Board has total discretion to decide as it sees fit. This is a “paper exercise” and the Board will not be exposed to a hearing process.
Case #412-03-06 640 Barefoot Boulevard Staff recommendation: no reduction in fine
Ms. McCahan made a motion to accept staff recommendation. Second Mr. Carillion. Motion carried unanimously.
Case #416-03-06 829 Thrush Circle Staff recommendation: no reduction in fine
Ms. McCahan made a motion to accept staff recommendation. Second Mr. Carillion. Motion carried unanimously.
Case #441-05-06 1151 Barefoot Circle Staff recommendation: reduce fines to actual costs in the amount of $77.98
Ms. McCahan made a motion to accept staff recommendation. Second Mr. Bailey. Motion carried. Mr. Carillion was opposed. Mr. Torpy commented the basis of staff recommendation is that the owner became deceased and the family rectified the violation as soon as they discovered the notices.
Case #456-05-06 637 Hyacinth Circle Staff recommendation: no reduction in fine
Ms. McCahan made a motion to accept staff recommendation. Second Mr. Keegan. Motion carried. Ms. Donahue was opposed.
Mr. Torpy recommended for future agendas the Code Enforcement cases be placed on a consent agenda. This places all the cases under one item. The Board can approve the entire item including the staff recommendations as made. If a Board member opposes, the individual case is “pulled” for separate discussion. This method shortens the time spent if Board members agree with staff recommendations.
Safe Deposit Box – Signature Changes:
Mr. Hunt commented the District needs to update the safety deposit box. The names Daniel Morgan and Bruce Bolon will be removed and replaced with the signatures of Wilma Weglein, Board Chairman, and Mara Marsocci, Finance Officer.
Mr. Carillion made the motion to effect the change. Second Mr. Bailey. Motion carried unanimously.
257 Dolphin Circle – Injunction Request to the Attorney: Mr. Hunt explained the owner and/or occupant of 257 Dolphin Circle appears to be running a mini flea market and continuously brings unapproved material on the property for sale. This practice also violates County code. Staff is requesting legal intervention to shut down the operation. Mr. Carillion commented the people in this house were granted permission to stay “a couple of days” by neighbors who had a key to the owner’s house. The owner and his daughter must now come to Florida to evict the squatters. Mr. Torpy commented the issue will involve County zoning ordinances. Barefoot Bay’s DOR limits residents to 2 garage sales a year. The County may be able to intervene without a court case. Mr. Torpy requested the Board to designate Mr. Carillion his contact in this matter so it could be pursued more diligently. Mr. Torpy suggested there be more contact with the owners.
Mr. Carillion made a motion that the District should engage in litigation or any other procedures which would halt the violation at 257 Dolphin Circle as quickly as possible. Second Mr. Smith. Motion carried unanimously.
Anne Lowry has resigned from her position as Chairperson of the Violations Committee, but she would like to remain as an Alternate member. Mr. Carillion made a motion to accept Ms. Lowry’s resignation and allow her to remain as an alternate to the Violations Committee, and to send her a letter of appreciation for her service. Second Ms. Howard (and simultaneously by Mr. Bailey, Mr. Keegan, and Ms. Richards). Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Carillion made a motion to advance Mr. Cabral from Alternate status to full member status to complete the Violations Committee. Second Ms. McCahan. Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Weglein commented the Violations Committee is seeking to fill an Alternate position on the Violations Committee and invited letters of interest from residents who wish to apply.
Mr. Torpy commented on the Bay’s strong manager form of government. In this form of government, the theory is the manager handles everything on a day to day basis, while the Board sets policy. In Barefoot Bay this is not the reality. Mr. Torpy is concerned that the single manager form of government may not be appropriate for Barefoot Bay. Mr. Torpy suggested a workshop to address this issue. He said in the time he has been the District’s attorney, there have been 3 separate managers. In each instance, for one reason or another, there has been criticism regarding how the manger got the job done, whether it’s work in the field (projects), in-house finance, or administrative. Mr. Torpy suggested a committee: someone from administration, someone from the Board, a citizen who has never been on the Board, Mr. Torpy, and perhaps someone who has been on the Board previously who can contribute history. Usually managers do not have to be hands on; they delegate. Barefoot Bay’s staff is small enough so the manager has to be hands on. Mr. Torpy observed the most productive time the District experienced was directly after the hurricanes of 2004. Mr. Torpy commented that with 10 years of experience in the government business, it’s time Barefoot Bay took time out to evaluate the good and the bad and possibly make a different decision.
Mr. Carillion presented the ARCC report. [Exhibit B]
Ms. Howard reported staff is cleaning and replacing air conditioning at 931 Barefoot Boulevard, the former Peddler unit. Painting is scheduled for next week.
Ms. Donahue requested permission from the Board to get together with Mr. Torpy, Mr. Hunt, Ms. Marsocci, and Ms. Claiborne to discuss the IT situation regarding issues, requirements, and how to obtain this person. Ms. McCahan made the motion to authorize Ms. Donahue’s request for a round table discussion. Second Mr. Carillion. Motion carried unanimously.
Joseph Savalli commented he feels there is a double standard in the way Code Enforcement applies violations. Mr. Savalli brought a petition with him signed by the residents of Lychee Circle. Mr. Hunt suggested it be given to Mr. Austin at the Code Enforcement office.
Nancy Eisele objected to the ‘million dollar raise” for EMS and fire services in addition to having to pay for each time she might have to take a ride with “the rescue squad”.
Bill Sandt requested an apology for the treatment his wife had to endure when she voiced her concerns regarding the Veterans’ building. She was roundly boo-d, and when she returned to her seat, she was told to “go home”. For the record, when Mr. Sandt put his hand up to serve in the Armed Forces, he swore to uphold the Constitution. He commented the Veterans in Florida seem to have forgotten about the first 14 parts of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is about freedom of assembly and speech. Mr. Sandt said his address is in the Barefoot Bay directory, and he will be expecting a letter of apology on the Veterans letterhead in the near future.
Elizabeth Showers wants the canopy leading into Building A put up immediately. Mr. Hunt responded it was taken down for the last hurricane, and will now be put up again. Ms. McCahan clarified the situation: each time the awning is put up and taken down there is a great deal of wear and tear on it, and this just happens to be the storm season here. There is a product that preserves canvas, much like sailboat sails, and perhaps the District needs to look into that to preserve the life of the awning.
Ms. Weglein entertained a motion to adjourn. Mr. Carillion made the motion. Second Ms. Donahue. The meeting adjourned at 4:30 p.m.
PHONE: (772) 664-3141
FAX: (772) 664-1928