MINUTES
OF MEETING
NORTH
SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the North Springs
Improvement District was held
Present and constituting a quorum were:
Matt Lauritzen
President
Salvatore J. Mendolia
Secretary
Thomas L. Grossjung
Vice President
Also present were:
Rhonda K. Archer
Finance Director
Dennis Lyles
Attorney
Donna Holiday
Recording Secretary
Jane Early
Gee & Jenson
John McKune
Gee & Jenson
Roger Moore
Engineer
Bill Joyce
District Staff
Don Hall
Attorney
Paul Gold
Accurate Tennis
Brian DeGirolmo
DeGirolmo & Associates
Valerie Verge
Heron Bay Commons
Dorothea Lantz
Legislative Aide
FIRST
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Roll Call
Mr. Lauritzen called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and Ms. Archer
called the roll.
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Approval of the Minutes of the January 9, 2003
Meeting
Mr. Lauritzen stated that each Board member had received a copy of the
minutes of the January 9, 2003 meeting and requested any additions, corrections
or deletions.
There not being any,
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the minutes
of the January 9, 2003 meeting were approved as
submitted.
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Hoechoka Hammock Replat
Ms. Early stated we reviewed the replat and we have provided a letter
indicating that the plans meet all of our criteria.
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the Hoechoka
Hammock Replat was approved.
FOURTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Change Orders
A. Change Order
No. 4 with Florida Sewer & Water for Heron Bay East Pod 4 for a Reduction in
Retainage from 10% to 2%
Ms. Early stated this change order is to reduce the retainage we are
holding. The subdivision is paved
and everything is installed and they are doing punch list
items.
Mr. Grossjung asked is that 2% of $2.7 million sufficient to complete the
job?
Ms. Early responded yes.
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Change Order
No. 4 with Florida Sewer & Water for Heron Bay East Pod 4 for a Reduction in
Retainage from 10% to 2% was approved.
B. Change Order
No. 2 with Florida Sewer & Water for Heron Bay Boulevard Phase VI a Net
Increase of $54,194.25
Ms. Early stated this change order is in addition to the original
scope. WCI increased the size of
the traffic circle therefore, it increases the amount of paver bricks and
asphalt required for this job. This
is a cost of WCI only. The reason
you have to approve it is because it is a three party
contract.
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Change Order
No. 2 with Florida Sewer & Water for Heron Bay Boulevard Phase VI a Net
Increase of $54,194.2 was approved.
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Permit Requests
A. WCI for
Parkland Golf and Country Club Pod 1, Drainage Outfall into S2-4
Canal
B. WCI for
Parkland Golf and Country Club Pod 5, Drainage Outfall into S2-4
Canal
C. WCI for
Parkland Golf and Country Club Pod 7, Drainage Outfall into S2-4
Canal
D. WCI for
Parkland Golf and Country Club Pod 8 Drainage Outfall into S2-4
Canal
E. WCI for 80’ at
Heron Bay Central Drainage Outfall into C-4N Canal
F. WCI for Heron
Cove at Heron Bay Central Drainage Outfall into C4-N
Canal
G. WCI for the
Greens at Heron Bay Central Drainage Outfall into C-4N
Canal
H. Heron Bay
commercial - Residential Portion
Ms. Early stated I would like to add one permit request and that is for
Heron Bay Commercial which is by Publix on Coral Ridge Drive. It is the same type of permit
review. We are missing one letter
on the Heron Bay Commercial piece regarding 11.4% surface water area that we
need and we will get that from WCI within a week if you want to approve that
subject to receipt of that letter.
Ms. Early pointed out on the map the location of each permit request and
indicated that they had all been reviewed by the engineer and were in
order.
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the permit
requests listed above were approved subject to the conditions listed in the
Engineer’s review letters.
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the permit
request for Heron Bay Commercial was approved subject to the conditions listed
in the Engineer’s review letter and subject to receipt of the letter from WCI
for the 11.4% surface water area.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Staff Reports
A.
Attorney
There not being any, the next item followed.
B.
Engineer
Ms. Early stated we went out for bid for additional tennis courts for
Heron Bay Commons. The low bid was
submitted by Accurate Tennis for $255,800.
The bidders are supposed to submit a bid bond in the amount of 5% and
they did not do that but they did bring in a cashiers check the next day. I spoke to Mr. Lyles regarding this and
the contract also states that the District can waive any informalities and minor
discrepancies. We felt that was
covered. In the meantime I received
a phone call from the second low bidder stating that he had some concern that
they didn't submit their bid bond but I told him that they brought in a cashiers
check and that I talked to the District's attorney. I received a letter that I faxed to Mr.
Lyles from Welch Tennis Courts. The
original architect that did Heron Bay Commons, did the spec for the tennis
courts and he spec'd a hydro-grid tennis court surface on which Welch Tennis
holds the patent. They wrote a
letter that said none of the bidders were qualified or authorized to put in the
hydro-grid surface. I spoke to
Accurate about that and he has a letter indicating that he has contracted with
Welch and they will be the sub who will install this surface.
Mr. Gold stated we have a close working relationship with Welch and have
done jobs with them in the past.
Ms. Early stated the second low bidder called again and said he had
concerns that Accurate Tennis didn't have a license to work in Broward County
and Mr. Gold faxed that to me and he does have a license. One of his references was Delray Tennis
Center and they gave him a good reference.
Mr. Gold stated we just finished a job for Plantation and I'm sure they
will give us a good reference.
Mr. Lauritzen asked how can your bid be so much lower than the next
lowest bid?
Mr. Gold responded we do a large volume. We don't need to make all of our money
on a single project. We have a very
good project manager who knows how to sub things out very well and we can keep
our costs low and pass the savings onto our customers and still do the job
profitably.
Ms. Archer stated I will ask for a motion to waive the minor technicality
of the lateness of the bid bond as a non-material deviation from the bid
specifications.
Mr. Lyles stated the lateness of the bid bond did not give any
competitive advantage to other bidders, because it didn't allow anyone to change
their price. You have the ability
as the authority granting this request, to declare it to be non material and if
you pass that motion, you can award it to the apparent low
bidder.
Mr. Grossjung asked can you explain the difference between the cashiers
check versus the bid bond?
Ms. Archer responded it is the same thing but came in a day
late.
Mr. Grossjung stated it is not a performance bond, what does it
cover?
Mr. Lyles responded it is a bid bond that covers in essence them
submitting a bid, having staff go through time, effort, and expense and then
walking away from it and not signing the contract.
Ms. Early stated he would have brought it in that day and I told him to
wait until I spoke with Mr. Lyles.
Ms. Archer stated that is also something that we typically don't
cash. As soon as they execute the
contract, we give them back the bid bond.
Mr. Early stated I checked every avenue possible. I wanted you to know what has transpired
but I don't have anyone telling me of a concrete reason not to award it to
them. I spoke to him about the low
price and he is comfortable with it.
Sometimes you get someone who might back off when they realize they may
have missed something but that is not the case in this
situation.
Mr. Grossjung asked will there be a payment and performance
bond?
Ms. Early responded I believe there is one in the contract. I will check.
Mr. Mendolia asked who inspects the job? Does the City of Parkland
inspect?
Ms. Early responded yes and the architect who designed it and wrote the
specs will also inspect.
Mr. Grossjung asked how will this be paid?
Ms. Archer responded it will come from the bond that we previously
issued. There is money left for
this expansion.
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the non
material, minor technicality of the lateness of the bid bond was
waived.
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the contact
for the Heron Bay Tennis Court expansion was awarded to Accurate Tennis in the
amount of their low bid of $255,800.
Mr. McKune stated Felix Equities started to slow down about a year
ago. About the first week of July
they filed for bankruptcy so we had about a six month hiatus. We finally have the job out of the
bankruptcy court. The bankruptcy
court has turned the job over to the bonding company. The bonding company has elected to
continue the job with Felix. Over
the past month Felix has managed to acquire some working capital, not much but
they do have an account and they can get people paid. The bonding company has been paying the
outstanding accounts receivable that Felix had run up. They have 95% of their subs coming back
to finish the job. There are a
couple who won't come back because Felix has the same problem on other
jobs.
Mr. Grossjung asked are we getting releases as part of the
payments?
Mr. McKune responded we get releases for what we pay. The bonding company has been paying
everything else. If we make
additional payments, the payment goes directly to the bonding company, not to
Felix. During this hiatus, the past
six or seven months, we have had some things come up that required the work to
be done to keep the plant operating; to address pressure problems in the
District. We had Felix do this work
through their subs and most of that work was electrical. They have a good electrical
subcontractor who even though he was owed almost $300,000 by Felix, continued to
the do the work we needed to have done.
It is a good thing that we had him on the job. He has since been paid by the bonding
company. We hope to get them out of
here in about four months. That is
their latest estimated time to complete.
About a year ago this Board agreed to execute a change order for all the
additional work they had been authorized to do up to that time and they would
then ask for a date certain, a new time to substantial completion to coincide
with the completion of the work we had agreed that they could do. That is when it all fell apart. They gave us a preliminary version of
that change order but it was never approved. We can't use it but they will prepare
another one. In the meantime, to
account for the additional work that was done they now want to get paid for
it. Obviously, they need to get
paid because this is work in additional to the original scope of the job and
that is what this proposed change order no. 3 represents.
Mr. McKune detailed the items contained in the change order. The total amount of this change order is
$64,658.85 and I recommend approval.
Mr. Grossjung asked is the work under this change order,
completed?
Mr. McKune responded it is in the process of being done.
Mr. Grossjung stated at the next meeting you will have a final balancing
change order for Felix to pay him out to leave the job. Is there any reason this shouldn't be
included in that final change order and hold the funds until we get the
agreement to complete the work?
Mr. McKune responded that can be done but I would rather not do it
because the majority of these dollars go to the electrical subcontractor I spoke
of earlier.
Mr. Grossjung asked how do we know the money will get to
him?
Mr. McKune responded we will pay the bonding company and the bonding
company will disburse all the funds.
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Change Order
No. 3 for the water treatment plant contract with Felix Equities in the amount
of $64,658.85 was approved.
C. Superintendent
- Status Report on Permit Renewal Policy
Ms. Archer stated I finished drafting a permit renewal policy and I will
provide it to you before you leave today so you can read it and we will put it
on the agenda next month.
Let's talk about our joint meeting and where we are with our
lobbyist. The Board at the joint
meeting asked for a memorandum of law on the process of converting this District
to a 190 District which was something that was an option that we saw for
handling not only Representative Ritter's desire that we convert our District
from a landowners election to a one person one vote process but it would also
replace an antiquated act, our special act that we operate under that is now
more than 30 years old that has a lot of limitations that makes it difficult for
us to operate. Limitations such as
anything that costs over $4,000 must be put out for competitive bid. When you operate a water plant there
isn't anything out there that breaks down that costs less than $50,000. Under Chapter 190, the new community
development law that was created in 1980 and became the general law under which
all new special districts are being created, would solve a lot of those problems
and we would get rid of our old act and all of the problems contained in
it. We thought that would be
logical and it was the board's desire that we look into that and think about
doing that and follow through on the pluses and minuses of converting to a 190
District.
Mr. Lyles stated we prepared in draft form that memorandum discussed at
the joint meeting. We haven't
finalized it and sent it out yet because the draft was only put into relatively
final form yesterday. Essentially,
there is a petition process that is called for that would be initiated by this
Board authorizing its representatives to file the necessary petition. After that, the matter becomes the
subject of up to three public hearings.
The local government agencies that have jurisdiction over parts of this
District, the City of Coral Springs and the City of Parkland have the option of
conducting a public hearing as to their cities and their part of the
District. It is not mandatory and
they may or may not do that. Once
that has been done and whatever comment they have is made to Tallahassee, then
the State has a hearing officer come to somewhere in Broward County, not
necessarily within the district and a hearing is conducted with a state hearing
officer who creates a record, makes findings of fact and law, accumulates the
petition and different pieces of evidence that go into the record and it all
gets sent back up to Tallahassee and ultimately a decision is made whether to
grant or deny the petition to convert an existing special district such as
N.S.I.D. to a Chapter 190 community development district by the Governor and
Cabinet. Ms. Archer has spoken with
an attorney who has specialized in doing this kind of work in other Districts
and she has a proposal from him.
This is something that is very specialized and highly detailed work that
is not normally done by everybody who happens to work with special
districts. Both of us are going to
recommend to you if you want to go forward with this process, that we use an
expert in this petition and hearing process, who will carry the ball and carry
through in Tallahassee, and represent the District and the Board in all phases
of this process. It is not required
to be filed or heard at any particular time during the year. It will be a matter of the State
scheduling us more than anything else.
There are formal requisites that are part of the petition process but it
is what you would expect; a formal legal description of the boundaries of the
District; documents relating to what impact the proposal would have on land
development within the district. We
would have to give the future land use element of the two cities involved in the
district and make that part of the record as well. Essentially go through this process in
Tallahassee where the decision will be made after the local hearings are held
here. There is not a lot of
detailed technical information other than that that gets put into the process
and it is a matter of whether it makes sense and is a good idea and do they want
to approve it. They are confined to
the record that is made. It should
be on the basis of whether or not the District services are properly being
proposed for the residents and property owners within the district that can be
delivered by a District such as this one.
It is more technical than legislative or discretionary. It should be a technical type of
analysis that results in a decision being made yes or no. Since the district is already doing
exactly what it is that Chapter 190 community development districts do; water,
sewer, streets, drainage, all the things the District does under its current
special act, it would be difficult for me to see a state agency reviewing this
and making a recommendation other than to approve the conversion to a Chapter
190 district. It updates and
modernizes the methods by which the District is operated and run. It brings the bidding in line directly
with state agencies and other districts around the state and as those laws get
amended which they do from time to time, they automatically apply to the
district. Not only would you become
a Chapter 190 district currently but as things are changed and rules are updated
and refined at the state level, we would automatically be controlled by
that. I think it would make for a
more uniform method of operating this district. It would be in line with well over 100
such districts around the State of Florida.
Mr. Lauritzen stated with all due respect to Representative Ritter and
her sudden interest in our district, would this be something that the District
would do on its own? Is this the
best thing for the District in the natural evolution of the way things
go?
Mr. Lyles responded I think you can make that argument. In the interest of modernizing the
requirements that the state imposes; the reporting, filing, auditing
requirements, oversight by the Department of Community Affairs, to have all
those things consistent with other districts in the State of Florida would not
be a negative development. It would
give the public confidence that the most modern and sophisticated method of
oversight over districts will be employed in the case of this district like it
is for others. You do have to go
through a hearing process. You are
potentially going to have negative comments. Staff people from the cities are going
to look at things and they will comment pro or con. We can't control that once it goes into
that process. I think the
operations are sufficiently sophisticated and in compliance with every legal
requirement. I don't think there is
any reason the District should fear the process of analysis by an objective
review.
Mr. Grossjung asked why would we not have addressed that at our January
meeting, before the joint meeting with C.S.I.D.? That was the first I heard about
it. C.S.I.D. seemed to be very well
informed of the provisions of Chapter 190 and seemed to be in favor yet, at our
January 9, meeting we voted to retain a lobbyist to represent us to protect our
current status. Why would we not
have addressed the 190 issue at our January meeting?
Mr. Lyles responded you are probably going to need a lobbyist's
assistance in shepherding this through the process in any event and I believe
that is something that Mr. Book is capable and qualified to do. The timing was such that you had your
meeting early in the month and by the time that C.S.I.D. had their meeting, all
of this was going on and we started looking at options including Chapter 190 and
when they had their meeting, we discussed that with them shortly before the
joint meeting that you had together.
It hadn't come to the fore when we had your meeting in early
January.
Mr. Grossjung stated 190 has been in effect since 1980, could this have
been proposed last year when the bill was presented by Representative
Ritter? Why now is this surfacing
as a solution to the differences of opinion between the special act districts
and the 190 districts? Why hasn't
this surfaced as a viable alternative, if in fact it is?
Mr. Lyles responded I don't know that I have a good answer for that
question. Obviously, we have had
three years of debate back and forth and in prior years when this issue has
arisen primarily as a result of filing codification bills, it just didn't really
come up. We have legal authority to
operate, we continue to have that.
With or without codification bills being approved, we are still going to
be an agency created and authorized by the Florida Legislature, whether we have
one act or nine which is the difference for N.S.I.D. This year when the discussions started
to evolve and issues were raised as to how to resolve a number of issues, not
the least of which is the voting issue that the method of elections seems to be
the very narrow focus of the bill that Representative Ritter described to you in
your joint meeting, if you will remember in the past had been broader. We had different issues of who would be
on the Board, whether we would have elected officials serving on the Board in a
non-voting capacity, things like that.
It was various and sundry things that we were looking at before. Now, it apparently is down to the only
issue she has that she brought to you in your joint meeting which is the first
time where you had a direct dialogue with Representative Ritter, is this issue
of voting. What do we do about that
and how do we accomplish that. There is the petition procedure that you
are familiar with in Chapter 189 that requires 10% of the registered electors to
sign a petition. In the absence of
that the Governor vetoed a previous bill that made it through the legislature
and landed on his desk because he felt that an existing statutory procedure
needed to be followed. Now, in
looking at the whole problem again we looked at another statutory procedure
that can be followed, Chapter 190,
and fortunately it looks like it not only will work, but it seems to satisfy
Representative Ritter's concerns and is a logical way to convert this District
which has been functioning fine to another kind of district. It doesn't impair the functioning of the
district. It increases the
membership of your Board from three to five members which his fine with you and
is apparently fine with the C.S.I.D. Board. I guess we worked our way to this
possible solution this year. We
have a different set of issues in front of us a different challenge and we have
a different response. Maybe we
finally found the best response.
Mr. Grossjung stated you will provide us with a memorandum explaining the
190 process.
Mr. Lyles responded yes.
Mr. Grossjung stated then there is no action required of us at this
point.
Ms. Archer stated I have one item I will ask you to take action on and
before I get to that, I did talk to Ken van Assenderp who is the special counsel
I recommend the board consider taking us through this process once we get to the
point where we decide that is what we want to do. He is one of the original authors of
Chapter 190. The state often
confers with him and his office on different procedures under 190 and processes
and things like that. He is by far,
the expert in the state on 190 and that is why I thought it would be prudent to
talk to him about doing the conversion for us. He gave me a letter to give to you in
draft form and doesn't have any numbers in it. He indicated to me on the phone before
the meeting that we would talk and negotiate the numbers. He is really interested in doing this
work for us. He has created a lot
of 190 Districts from the ground up for developers. He has been involved in converting
special act districts to 190 districts.
He and I talked briefly about the fees and he indicated if we have both
districts going forward at the same time the fee would be a lower fee per
district than if one of them did it this year and one decided not to, then that
district would bear the entire fee.
We are in touch with his office and he has given us good advice and we
are working with him on this process.
I'm not asking you to approve a contract with him today. I'm still working out the numbers and
maybe by the time you get your memorandum of law and talk about this on your
next agenda we will have all of those blanks filled in so you can decide what
you want to do.
The one item I need you to take action on is that at the January meeting
I talked to you about rehiring Ron Book to represent us in Tallahassee. He was at the joint meeting. He indicated that anything else we
decided to do this year would be covered under his fee. Anything he does for this District that
he does in Tallahassee if it is trying to convert to a 190, or representing us
on home front security or whatever is going on. Last month I asked you to approve a fee
of $20,000 based on last year's fee, thinking that was half the fee. After that meeting we received his fee
schedule which is at total of $60,000 to be split between the two
Districts. We took it to the
C.S.I.D. Board and they went back and forth on the increase in the fee but
because of what he might be doing for them with 190 and other things, they
agreed to pay $30,000. I am asking
you to consider if you are willing to pay an additional $10,000 that you have
not authorized.
Mr. Grossjung asked have we authorized the full $20,000 irrespective of
C.S.I.D. going along with us on the fee?
Ms. Archer responded you authorized not to exceed $20,000 in January,
regardless of what C.S.I.D. did, you were not going to pay more than $20,000.
Mr. Grossjung asked did they share in the last 30 days expenses of Mr.
Book?
Ms. Archer stated there have been no last 30 days expenses.
Mr. Grossjung stated it was my understanding that the $20,000 would be
for fees for the thirty day period from last month until now but you were going
to check to see if C.S.I.D. did agree to split those fees as a joint effort
which we did the prior year. Since
C.S.I.D. had not met at that time, we said in the event they don't it would be
our expenditure not to exceed $20,000.
Did they or did they not agree to pay half?
Ms. Archer responded they agreed to pay $30,000.
Mr. Grossjung stated are the last month's expenditures under the $20,000
that we originally approved, part of the $60,000 that is being proposed or does
the $60,000 clock start now?
Ms. Archer stated there is one fee for this whole session of
$60,000.
Mr. Lauritzen asked do these fees seem to be in
line?
Mr. Lyles responded I am not a lobbyist and Mr. Book is a lobbyist. He represented the two districts before
for a combined fee of $40,000 and when we had our meeting a month ago it was our
estimate that it would probably be the same which is why we presented that
proposal to you of $20,000 for this Board and $20,000 for the C.S.I.D.
Board. He went to work on this
without a commitment that he would get anything other than just our good faith
relationship that we have with him.
He did incur a good bit of time and expense already, prior to this letter
reaching you. The other Board
hearing about the whole process and what was likely to be involved authorized
$30,000 on the assumption that this Board when it took it up at this meeting
would probably split the fee. Mr.
Grossjung wanted to do it a month at a time in essence and when he referenced
the change in the motion that was so that we would not find ourselves without a
quorum not being able to meet and being able to extend the activities of that
next month. You authorized what we
then thought was the whole $20,000 for the session with the idea that if
anything changed we could stop it sooner rather than later. At this point that doesn't look like
that is happening. He has increased
his fee to us. He has also
increased the scope of what he is going to do and he will carry it through if
necessary to the end of the year, not just the legislative session. If you initiate the 190 conversion
process it will take much longer than the period of time the legislature will be
in session.
Ms. Archer stated Ken van Assenderp predicted nine months from beginning
to end.
Mr. Grossjung asked can we estimate the cost of converting to a 190
District and thereby the benefits associated with that cost? Short of a voting issue that is on the
table, if 190 represents no more than what we currently have other than the
membership and the means by which the members are elected to office, then is it
a prudent decision to approach 190 at certain costs in terms of using taxpayers
money for the purpose of converting solely to satisfy an election
issue.
Ms. Archer responded I think it solves more problems for this District
than just the election issue. There
are benefits that we will outline over the next month, one of which is
purchasing powers of the District.
That solves a big problem we have in operating the plants.
Mr. Grossjung stated I'm not sure that I understand the codification
process. We started it last year
and it never made it on the agenda of the legislature.
Mr. Lyles stated we started that two years ago. The Florida Legislature passed an
amendment to Chapter 189 which covers all Districts including Chapter 190
Districts and special act districts such as this one. Chapter 189 has a lot of rules that are
applicable to special districts around the state irrespective of how they were
formed in the first place. This
amendment required that special districts that had been formed by special act of
the legislature, that have had amendments to their special act over the years,
prepare an updated and codified or combined into one bill that takes it start to
finish in one act for ease of reference and to incorporate any changes so that
instead of having to look (in our case) at nine separate acts, to make sure that
you look everywhere to make sure that our powers and authorities and
restrictions are contained, you only have to pick up one bill that theoretically
would be passed by the legislature.
It updates everything and modernizes it and gets rid of some of the
antiquated things that are in the old act but the main purpose is to take all
the different amendments and put it in one act so that everybody can pick up one
bill and know all the features of this District.
Mr. Grossjung stated I still question if the costs associated with
conversion to a 190 represents a legitimate cost that we should entertain until
we know more about it.
Ms. Archer stated we will include that in the memo. There is no filing fee for this
petition. Most likely you will
incur the fees of Ken van Assenderp and he indicated as a point of reference
that it would be about $45,000 per District if they were both done at the same
time and if not it would be about $70,000 for a single District. I imagine he will work closely with our
counsel on this so there will be additional time incurred by Mr. Lyles on this
special project at his hourly rate.
That gives you a ballpark feel of the costs we have identified that we
think the Board will incur going through this process. If you don't convert you have to decide
if you are still going to have the lobbyist in Tallahassee every year and how
that is going to benefit you or not.
That might go away and you won't incur those costs again.
Mr. Lauritzen stated the Board relies on your judgment and
expertise. We want to do the best
thing for the District.
Mr. Grossjung stated the question is if we want to authorize the proposed
cost of Mr. Book. Until we decide
if we are going to pursue the same course of action as C.S.I.D., it wouldn't be
equitable to share 50/50 the cost if Mr. Book is representing us in different
matters than he would be representing C.S.I.D.
Ms. Archer stated keep in mind that he gave this proposal to us before
there was any talk of a conversion to a 190. This proposal was to represent us in
Tallahassee this year, keep us in the loop for any general bills being filed
that are going to affect us and there is no increase in his fee to add the 190
conversion process. I think you
should look at this as, do you want him to represent you in Tallahassee or not
because if you don't tell us today and he will stop representing us. I will have to tell him to send a
proposal to the C.S.I.D. Board that doesn't exceed $30,000 because North Springs
is opting out.
Mr. Grossjung asked how do these fees compare to last
year?
Ms. Archer responded last year we pad $40,000 total for both
Districts. We paid $20,000 and
C.S.I.D. paid $20,000. This year it
is $30,000 for each District.
Mr. Grossjung asked is it because of additional work that the fee has
increased?
Ms. Archer responded I believe he based his fee this year on how much
time he put in last year going into it without knowing how much of his time was
going to be spent on our behalf.
Mr. Grossjung asked was last year the first time we retained
him?
Ms. Archer responded we had him the year before but last year he was a
lot more involved.
Mr. Grossjung asked what services did we receive last year relative to
the fee?
Ms. Archer responded I believe he is the one who went to the Governor's
Office on our behalf and made sure the bill, passed by the legislature that
negatively effected this District, was vetoed.
Mr. Grossjung stated then we in fact had a purpose. Until we have resolved whether we have a
purpose this year, would we need a lobbyist if we don't have the same
purpose? If we chose not to pursue
190 and continue to let the current act stay in place subject to anyone's
passage of a bill, would Mr. Book represent us for any other
purpose?
Ms. Archer stated she is filing a general bill again this year. If you don't hire Mr. Book, he is not
going to represent you to try to get that general bill vetoed again.
Mr. Grossjung stated the solution to the general bill is proposed to be
the 190 conversion. If we can get
educated on 190 then we will feel comfortable that we have a solution to that
proposed legislation.
Ms. Archer stated he will be representing you in the Governor's Office to
fight the general bill that is being presented this year or he will be
representing you in the Governor's Office to approve the 190 conversion or both
at the same time.
Mr. Mendolia stated I am hearing that we have no choice. We either do it with Mr. Book or we do
nothing.
Mr. Grossjung stated there are other lobbyists or is this the one we feel
the most comfortable with?
Mr. Mendolia stated maybe someone else could do the same job for
less.
Ms. Lantz stated as a point of reference it was the year before last that
Representative Ritter filed the bill that changed the make-up of the Board. Last year she was the Chair of the
Delegation but she didn't file any special district bill.
Mr. Grossjung asked what was Mr. Book's representation for us last
year?
Mr. Lyles responded the first time we hired him was two years ago when we
had that veto process. Last
year we were gearing up for the same sort of exercise and that was when
Representative Ritter was the Chair of the Delegation and would not even put the
District's codification bill on the agenda so that it could be the subject of a
public hearing locally so that it could make it into Tallahassee. Going in we don't know what is going to
happen. A codification bill is one
thing. Bills to change the make-up
of this District are another thing.
We were concerned in getting a codification bill approved because state
law says we have to submit one and we did that. On a secondary level and maybe even more
importantly we were concerned about legislation being filed from a number of
different sources that would effect the District, its powers, the way the Board
is elected, all the things you were concerned about two years ago. It wasn't just in connection with the
codification that didn't get heard locally, it was also to ensure that no
legislation came forward that adversely affected the District and its interests
as determined by this Board and in fact none did last year. We had our presence in Tallahassee and
here locally at the delegation proceedings and I think it was everybody's hope
that maybe now this is all resolved and it is going to go away and people can
get back to what they have been doing.
As we know this year, it didn't work out that way. With a lobbyist you hire them at least
partly as an insurance policy. If
the bad thing that you are concerned about doesn't come about, they don't have
as much work to do and if it does come about they have a lot of work to do and
the fee doesn't really go up. They
don't get hired on an hourly basis typically like lawyers do, they get hired on
a session basis. His task for that
session was to monitor all the legislation, confront it if it was something that
we had a problem with, keep the board through the staff informed constantly of
developments in Tallahassee so that we could take necessary action if we need to
so that you can be aware of what is going on and he did
that.
Mr. Grossjung asked do you think the fact of this letter with his current
pricing comes three days after his attendance at our joint meeting that his
pricing is impacted by his perception or at least his thoughts that there will
be significantly more work for this district than there were in prior
years?
Mr. Lyles responded given what has happened in the last thirty days and
his involvement in it, and he has been in the middle of it, I have been on the
phone with him many times this past month, I think he sees that there is more
that will have to be done and not just more time spent but the degree of
difficulty may have something to do with his pricing this year. It is an art. It is not scientific. He sits down and decides what is a fair
bill that is going to be a good fee as a lobbyist but at the same time not so
exorbitant that people won't want to use his services and feel like they got
their moneys worth. They will feel
like it cost a lot of money but it was worth it. I think that is probably where they try
to hit the price point. I'm
speaking for him and I shouldn't but I imagine those types of intangible things
go into that.
Mr. Grossjung stated you said earlier that the attorney that we would
look to as possibly representing us in a 190 conversion is the guru in this
business and then made a comment that even with his representation, and what
sounded like a very positive affinity on the part of the legislature to put us
out of the special act and into a 190 district, we would still need Mr. Book's
assistance to get a 190 proposal passed.
Mr. Lyles stated what I think I was trying to say was there is a very
heavy technical content and legal content to the petition, the paperwork that
you prepare to create the record and the process you go through to convert an
existing special act district to a 190 district. Over and above that, it is still a
political process. It is still
going to get decided ultimately by some elected officials in Tallahassee. If we want to maximize our chances of
having the process go smoothly and culminating in achieving the goal that the
district is setting out for the staff and your consultants, then every local
government here in Broward County has realized they need lobbying assistance
when you are in Tallahassee and I don't think this is any different. I think the only bright spot you might
want to identify is if this happens and everything works out the way it is
projected to work out, you won’t have any of these sorts of expenses in coming
years, not just next year but five years from now. It will be resolved once and for
all.
Mr. Mendolia asked do we have enough funds to cover an additional
$10,000?
Ms. Archer responded we have enough funds that we can appropriate towards
that.
Mr. Lauritzen asked what action are we being asked to take
today/
Ms. Archer responded I would like you to authorize the Ron Book increase
in fee so that we know his contract is covered to represent both Districts. We will bring an update to you next
month on what we uncover regarding conversion to a 190 district and give you
more details than we have today.
Mr. Grossjung asked can we ask Mr. Book to give us a fee independent and
see if that is different than the $60,000 he proposes for a joint
fee.
Ms. Archer stated I can ask him.
I think the answer may be similar the Ken van Assenderp fee. If he is representing one District, he
wants $70,000 from that District but if he does them jointly he will take
$45,000 from each. I'm sure they
both look at the fact that it is the same work effort to talk to the Governor
about C.S.I.D. as it is for North Springs at the same time at the same meeting
but they still have to cover their costs to represent one
District.
Mr. Grossjung stated that may be the case.
Ms. Archer stated I will proceed however you instruct me.
Mr. Mendolia asked is there anyone else we can talk to in regards to
being a lobbyist? Maybe they can do
it for $20,000.
Ms. Archer responded there is a list of lobbyists registered in the State
of Florida. I don't personally know
any of them. I didn't know Mr. Book
until we had a need for services two years ago.
Mr. Lauritzen stated if we don't approve this today, will it cripple them
going forward until our next meeting?
Do you want authorization to work up until the time he can provide a
breakdown that Mr. Grossjung is looking for?
Mr. Grossjung stated we approved $20,000. I would like to know what work has been
done and how far we are into the $20,000.
Ms. Archer responded this is a flat fee.
Mr. Grossjung stated we approved a fee up to $20,000. If we deny this addition and get an
invoice, when does that invoice come?
Two days from now or is there more representation to be had under the
$20,000 that has already been approved?
How do you determine that?
He gave us a fee last month of $20,000 and there doesn't seem to be a
clock on that fee.
Ms. Archer stated he didn't give us a fee to represent us.
Mr. Lyles stated he gives you a fee and that is his flat fee regardless
of how much time and effort it takes for a particular legislative session. That is how he works with his other
clients as well. He
represents a number of governmental agencies other than this one and he
represents private clients as well.
My fear is that if we say we just can't come to terms then he could say
we have no contract because he is not working on a time and cost basis, he works
on a flat fee basis, whatever it takes for the year. We really would have no agreement with
him. The $20,000 was an estimate on
the part of the manager and myself based on what he charged in the past that we
thought would get things going and hopefully, cover this year. We hadn't at that point received a firm
letter proposing a fee or an engagement letter from him. That was our estimate and that is what
we came to you with because time was of the essence. By the time it got to the C.S.I.D. board
meeting, we had an actual proposal from him and that is what they
authorized. I need to point out
they authorized $30,000 on a match basis with this Board. If you don't agree to go above $20,000,
they don't either. He doesn't have
the arrangement that he proposed to us with either Board at that point.
Mr. Grossjung stated in your opinion if we deferred action on this for
another month, would that become problematic in terms of the time line of this
representation between now and next month?
Mr. Lyles responded I can't tell you that. I can't speak for
him.
Mr. Lauritzen stated it is clear to me that we need representation during
this legislative session. It is
clear to me that Mr. Lyles and Ms. Archer have confidence in Mr. Book and he has
worked for us in the past. There is
always the intangible of trust. I
can only speak for myself and I don't know if those fees are fair but we have to
trust to the judgment of Mr. Lyles and Ms. Archer. Let's move
forward.
Mr. Grossjung stated it is not as clear to me. If we decide with some knowledge which
we don't currently have, that 190 is the proper course of action, I was trying
to ascertain with the proper representation of counsel to file the 190 as
quickly as possible, the reality is that we might not need representation going
forward in future years. If 190 is
right for us and we move with alacrity into that filing mode, I would think we
could contact Representative Ritter and find out that she is satisfied with that
activity and perhaps the bill that has not yet been produced but has been
threatened, won't even happen.
Therefore, representation becomes not as critical.
Mr. Lauritzen stated on the other hand we assume Representative Ritter is
on the same page with the 190 conversion and the session gets going and she
changes her mind and something else happens and we don't have
representation. Is that a scenario
that is possible?
Mr. Lyles responded yes.
Mr. Grossjung stated it has been possible for every year this District
has been in existence and we never had a lobbyist before the last few
years. It has existed and will
exist for every year hereafter. You
don't know what the legislature is going to do in any legislative action. Up until two years ago we didn't have a
representative in terms of a lobbyist now we have and I have to believe there is
a cause and effect and that is we retain a lobbyist solely for the protection to
keep our charter in tact not to monitor legislation that we had no idea was
pending or coming forth. I don't
necessarily agree that a lobbyist is necessary for that on a year by year
basis. If it is necessary to get us
from step A to step B which is what we did last year, in an effort to retain our
special act district but if we have found a solution to that I'm not so sure
that this isn't good money going after bad. I don't know if we have a solution but
that is my position.
Mr. Mendolia asked do we have a one year contract with Mr. Book or going
to have one?
Ms. Archer responded it would be a fee for the legislative session which
is a less than one year period.
Mr. Mendolia stated next year another contract possibly more money as
everything goes up.
Mr. Lyles stated the goal is not to have a need for a lobbyist next
year.
Mr. Grossjung asked is it reasonable for us to notice and have another
meeting before next month given sufficient time to read the information you are
going to provide us so we can educate ourselves as best as possible on a 190
conversion and try to take action on that in a more timely fashion? Is there a need to move that quickly on
this matter?
Mr. Lyles stated as a general proposition I think there is a need to move
with some speed because the session starts next month. The whole thing goes into play and that
is when we are not sure what is in store for us and other districts in Broward
County. The fact of the matter is
it is N.S.I.D. that is the residents of Representative Ritter. It is N.S.I.D. that she has focused on
with the problems that she perceives especially in terms of the elections and
governance and responsiveness of these districts. This started three years ago and that is
why we ended up needing a lobbyist.
There is a cause and effect going back in that period of time and we had
bills threatened and bills filed and an attempt to change things that we thought
were not for the better but for the worse.
That is how this got started.
We hadn't had those bills before and hadn't had a need for a lobbyist
before. We have had it for the last
couple of years and it has been effective on behalf of the district.
Mr. Grossjung stated the scope of those bills was dramatically different
as you pointed out earlier, much more in contradiction to what we believe was
the proper focus of this board. It
seems like we are on much more common ground than we have ever been and now that
we potentially have found a common solution, the need for the additional expense
if the solution is imminent by virtue of simply educating ourselves, it seems
that that time should be spent in that process rather than just saying we need
representation for the sake of representation.
Mr. Lauritzen stated we also have the issue of the Coral Springs Board
who made an assumption that we would go along with this
proposal.
Mr. Grossjung stated we did the reverse last month. We approved $20,000 on the hope and
assumption that Coral Springs would agree.
Mr. Lauritzen stated if we decide to not become a part of this then
C.S.I.D. has a problem because it falls apart for them.
Ms. Archer stated yes, but that should not be your concern.
Mr. Lauritzen stated it is another variable to the
situation.
Mr. Grossjung asked was it subject to our agreement to go
along?
Mr. Lyles responded their action was to match on a dollar for dollar
basis what this Board authorized, not to exceed $30,000. In essence if you stay at $20,000, their
payment that they authorized, unless they meet again and change their mind is
$20,000 and not $30,000. Right now
they have a $30,000 figure out there.
Mr. Grossjung stated in that event there is no representation because his
fee is $60,000.
Mr. Lyles stated one outcome is there is no deal. He gave us his proposal. We analyzed it and chose not to go along
with it. We just don't
know.
Mr. Lauritzen stated we need a solution. Do you want to table
this?
Mr. Grossjung stated that is what I proposed. I don't know if it is appropriate to
have another meeting of this Board.
We have to give public notice and have a period of time in which to
review the information and try to move with more speed toward the 190 conversion
to determine if that is an appropriate cause for action. Clearly, if we said there is a provision
in 190 that didn't settle with this Board and we choose not to join in that
activity, then the need for representation from a lobbying standpoint seem
significantly greater if we are going to try to retain our current charter basis
than it is to move to a charter that is not only acceptable and apparently
amenable to Representative Ritter but sounds like is the current law of the
land. We are one of the few not in
the current activities. I don't
know if this board can have a quorum in ten days.
Mr. Mendolia asked can we afford to wait? If we can't afford to wait, then we have
to make a decision.
Mr. McKune stated from a technical perspective, in the consulting
business we face these kinds of issues all the time. To me it is a matter of vulnerability
because until you accomplish the conversion to a 190 which seems beneficial, you
are vulnerable.
Mr. Lauritzen stated I agree with you.
Mr. McKune stated it is one year during the conversion process and in my
opinion I would want my bet to be covered.
I think it would be a good idea to have both going forward at the same
time.
Mr. Lauritzen stated I have been blind sided before and I feel we need to
hedge our bet.
Mr. Grossjung stated Mr. Mendolia's question was can we wait and going to
Mr. McKune's point he feels that we shouldn't or can't, that there is risk. I'm not sure when the session
starts.
Ms. Lantz stated the session starts on March 4. We have a bill drafting deadline of
tomorrow at 5:00 p.m. The bill has
been drafted. It is ready to be
filed. Representative Ritter is
holding off on it right now.
Technically it doesn't have to be filed until noon on the first day of
session which is March 4.
Ms. Archer stated his retainer is due in advance of the session so if he
is not paid prior to going into the session then I perceive he is not
representing us when he walks into the session. That is the
timing.
Mr. Grossjung stated I feel like we are behind the curve in terms of
receiving the information that we need to receive relative to this legislation
versus with our ability to act with some knowledge. I was chagrined to learn that C.S.I.D.
at our joint meeting seemed to have more information than any of us. I have reviewed the minutes for the
entire year and there was nothing in the minutes that has to do with most of
this. There is information about
homeland security and websites that I was never informed about. I feel that we need to be better
informed than we have been on these things prior to taking votes and prior to
spending money.
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the proposal
from Mr. Book in the amount of $60,000 was approved with North Springs sharing
the cost with C.S.I.D.
Mr. Lauritzen stated I appreciate the work that staff has done. This is a whole new mix for this
Board. There are a lot of variables
coming at us that we are not used to and we don't understand. We do rely on your judgment and I feel
this is the best thing for the District.
There are a lot of things we have to look at. This District has run well for a long
time. We need a lot of
information.
Mr. Mendolia stated I feel pressured by Mr. Book.
Mr. Hans stated if Representative Ritter would give you a letter saying
she wasn't going to file the bill, you could easily save your expenditure. It is not just Mr. Book but also
Representative Ritter.
Ms. Lantz stated this was discussed at the workshop and it was
Representative Ritter's decision at that time that until there was some sort of
surety that they were going forward with a 190 conversion, she was going to file
her bill.
Mr. Grossjung stated it is not the fear or intimidation of Representative
Ritter's bill that would make me move toward a 190. If 190 is good for this board and good
for our community this board needs to act and I don't care what Representative
Ritter's bill says. We defended
ourselves two years ago against Representative Ritter's bill and I spoke to the
Governor's Office directly because I didn't believe her bill in that state was
the right representation of this community and I still feel that way. There has been a major change as I
understand at the joint meeting. I
still don't feel that the bill as she suggested would necessarily be the right
representation and if 190 represents a means by which we can solve that issue,
and in fact provides this community with the right type of ability to do our
work effectively, then I am for updating our special act district to more
current legislation. I'm concerned
that we act as if this is a rubber stamp when we as a Board owe ourselves the
obligation to get current on what 190 represents. All I have asked for is the time to get
current on something I head about less then two weeks ago. I have served on this district for 15
years and for those 15 years I did feel like we were getting the type of
information and we were informed in a timely fashion to make informed
decisions.
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Supervisor's Requests and Audience Comments
There not being any, the next item followed.
EIGHTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Approval of Requisitions and Invoices
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the invoices
and requisitions were approved.
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the meeting
adjourned at
Salvatore
J. Mendolia
Matt Lauritzen
Secretary
President