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
Bob
Miner
Supervisor
Also present were:
Rich Hans
District Staff
Dennis Lyles
Attorney
Ronald F. Bendekovic
Billing, Cochran, Heath, Lyles & Mauro
Jane Early
Gee & Jenson
Donna Holiday
Recording Secretary
Roger Moore
District Staff
Bill Joyce
District Staff
Dan Daly
District Staff
Mr. Lauritzen called the meeting to order, and Mr. Hans called the
roll.
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Approval of the Minutes of the January 8, 2004
Meeting
Mr. Lauritzen stated that each Board member had received a copy of the
minutes of the
There not being any,
On
MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor the minutes
of the
Mr. Lyles introduced Mr. Bendekovic to the Board and stated Mr.
Bendekovic is my associate and will be assisting me with some of the Districts
going forward. I invited him to
today’s proceedings to see how things are done.
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Changer Order No. 9 with
Ms.
Early stated Change Order No. 9 was a cost of WCI. Ms. Early outlined the items contained
in the change order and recommended approval.
On
MOTION by Mr. Miner seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor Change Order No.
9 with Florida Sewer and Water, Inc. for the Heron Bay East Pod 5 Heron Run
Drive Phase II Contract for a net increase of $7,426.38 was
approved.
A. Ironstone Bank in Coral Springs Out Parcel 2 of Site Location at Intersection of Westview Drive and Coral Ridge Drive Connection to Existing Stormwater Collection System
B.
Osprey Trail Drainage Outfall into C-2 Canal
Ms. Early stated both of these permits are typical surface water permit
reviews that we do for anything that is going into the District stormwater
system.
On
MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor the permit
request for the Ironstone Bank in
Mr. Hans stated we have been reviewing our fees that we charge for
certain items to ensure we are covering our costs. Our current fee for the review of
drainage permits is $150. I have a
summary of last fiscal year’s fees and our cost to review permits. The average cost is approximately $400
for reviewing these permits. Our
proposal is to increase our rate to $350 with the provision that additional fees
and/or time will be chargeable to the applicant.
Mr. Lauritzen asked do we have to notice a public
hearing?
Mr. Lyles responded as part of our special act, we can adopt these sorts
of fees and charges but in order to do that, we have to publish a notice in a
newspaper and hold a public hearing.
I have already worked with Ms. Holiday to prepare the notice of public
hearing for the next meeting. At
that point, the Board will have a discussion and decide whether to adopt the fee
schedule as proposed, modified or vote it down. At this point, we need the Board’s
authorization to go forward with the notification. If the Board has any direction for staff
at this time, we can modify the notice and notice the proposed changes
now.
Mr. Hans stated we also looked at what we charge for late water
bills. I have a review of what we
are doing and where we are because they may need to be adjusted at the same
time. This would be the appropriate
time to take a look at this.
Mr. Lauritzen asked is this something that all of the Districts are doing
together?
Mr. Hans responded this is something that NSID is doing. Pine Tree has changed their policy
slightly. It will also be presented
to the Coral Springs improvement District as well.
Mr. Mendolia asked is this something that will be changed each year, or
will it be permanent until there is a need to change it?
Mr. Hans responded the $150 permit fee has been in place for the life of
the District. Fees have increased
since then, and we are no longer covering our costs.
This item has to do with our water billing. Out of the 9,400 bills that go out each
month, 58% of them are 15 days past due.
By the end of the month, it is down to 24%. If the bill is late three months, we
notify the resident by posting a door hanger notice that their service will be
cut off at a certain time. On
average, we usually have to turn the water off to 35 people. We do not have any late fees or
penalties in our current fee structure for delinquent payments or processing
fees for new accounts. We do not
have a fee to check for liens when there is an estoppel request. We collect a $65 deposit, which we hold
indefinitely because there is no return policy at this time. If a homeowner is disconnected because
they received a door hanger, the fee is $10. We charge an additional $10 if they pay
after
Mr. Lauritzen stated it seems
reasonable to me. You would
probably cut that 24% figure in half.
Mr. Hans stated approximately 450 people get a door hanger each
month. These are repeat people who
know the system. After they get a
$20 late fee the first time, half of them will probably pay the next
month.
Mr. Lauritzen stated that is a big expense. That is time that could be spent doing
other work.
Mr. Daly stated it takes two people two days to hang notices. We feel that we can decrease the door
hangers if we impose late charges.
In addition, checks bounce.
This is not fair to the people who pay their bills on time, which is why
we are considering returning deposits to the residents who pay on time after 18
months.
Mr. Lauritzen asked is there something we can do about the chronic
offenders? It is costing the
District money, and it is not fair to the other people.
Mr. Daly responded we trained them that nothing will happen if they do
not pay on time. The $20 late fee
will help. We will require a
cashier’s check from people who bounced three checks in a year. We also provide ACH debit free of charge
and in another few months, we should have credit card payments over the
Internet.
Mr. Miner asked can you charge the people who pay by credit card a
service fee?
Mr. Daly responded we can but that also penalizes the person who pays
his/her bill on time.
Mr. Miner asked what does it cost the District if someone uses a credit
card?
Mr. Daly responded 2.3% for Visa/MasterCard and 3% for the gateway we use
so it ends up at approximately 4% to 5%.
Mr. Miner asked can you charge them 5% above and beyond to cover our
cost?
Mr. Daly responded yes, but you will be penalizing the person paying
their bill on time. The point is
the people who pay late should be funding the people who pay on time. This is why it is a reward to the people
who pay us and use the system that we will put in place with regard to the
credit cards, but it is also paying attention to people who get away with no
penalty charges. That could fund
the costs that are involved in the credit card system.
Mr. Mendolia stated the proposal looks good except for the return
check. I think the fee should be
higher than $20.
Mr. Lauritzen stated I agree.
Mr. Hans stated the city charges $25 for checks up to $50; $30 for checks
in the amount of $50 to $300; $40
for checks in the amount of $300 to $500; and $50 for checks over $500. Does the Board want to use this
structure?
The Board voiced their agreement.
Mr. Lyles stated we are going to have a public hearing on
this.
On
MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor staff was
authorized to notice a public hearing to consider the imposition of certain fees
for the review of permits and plats and the utility
system.
Mr. Lyles stated I have been contacted by the governor’s office in the
past week. They are reviewing the
manner in which Supervisors are elected.
Obviously, something is going on in
Mr. Hans stated another District in
Mr. Lyles stated that means this is an amendment to Chapter 189; not a
specific amendment to our special act that would solely cover NSID or
CSID.
B.
Engineer
Ms. Early stated we currently have a few projects going on in Heron Bay
North. We are under construction on
Osprey Trail. WCI has had under
design Creekside and Meadowbrook.
Due to time constraints because of the time it took the design as well as
there were some environmental issues, WCI wants to change order these two
projects into the Florida Sewer and Water Contract for Osprey Trail. Florida Sewer and Water has done most of
the work since they were the low bidder on every bid that we have done. We’ve only had a few bidders recently
because many people are complaining about the constraints that they have working
in
The other project is the earthwork project for all of this. We bid the north half and Triple R was
the low bid. Triple R is doing all
of the
Mr. Lauritzen asked are you sure you do not want to rebid this
project? Is this
allowed?
Ms. Early responded the problem with rebidding is it takes 30 days. We did the same thing in Heron Bay
East. We change ordered Heron Cove
and the Greens because of the permitting issues and the time constraints that
came up.
Mr. Lauritzen asked is it your opinion that there are no other active
bidders that want to get in the bidding process?
Ms. Early responded the only other person that is working out here is
Astaldi Construction, and they cannot keep up with the three projects that they
have. We meet with them
weekly. University Drive has been
going on for months and should have been done in September.
Mr. Lyles stated an acquisition agreement is an agreement between the
District and WCI whereby they will fund the construction and get it done on
their basis. We have not issued
bonds yet for any of this work. We
do not have money to pay for it right now.
Ms. Early stated I do not think all of this is paid from bonds; just the
earthwork. The water and sewer is
paid back on connection charges going forward. In the funding agreements, they have to
wait up to ten years to get their part back. The acquisition agreement is the same
thing, which is why he questioned the difference.
Mr. Lyles stated they would do it all through their contracts with these
or other contractors, and they would convey it to the District when it is
complete and ready to accept, and we would agree through this acquisition
agreement to pay a price to the developer for the improvements that would be
certified by the engineer as the lesser of fair market or what it actually cost
them to do it essentially. This is
one option that we have that would save WCI time and everybody money. Our problem is we have competitive
bidding requirements that are imposed on us by state law and by our own act, and
we want to make sure that we comply with those things before we go forward. We will either bring back to you a
change order or an acquisition agreement.
If we decide we have to bid it, we will put the notice in and get the bid
process going and we might have to postpone the meeting.
Ms. Early stated they want to get moving on this
project.
Mr. Lyles stated I understand that, but we may not have an
option.
Ms. Early asked what is the difference between an acquisition agreement
and a funding agreement? They are
both being funded by WCI currently.
They are both paid up front by WCI either way; funding agreement or
acquisition agreement.
Mr. Lyles responded the difference is with an acquisition agreement, we
will not be a party to the agreement with the contractor. What we currently have is a contract we
are a party to that we would be entering into a change order on. If WCI wants to do it with the
acquisition route, they will sign a contract; the District won’t, and it will
not be a change order. It will be a
new contract, and we will acquire a completed improvement at a later date. That may the quickest, easiest, cheapest
way for all the parties to get this problem solved.
Mr. Lauritzen stated the District wants to work with WCI, but we have to
do it right.
Mr. Lyles stated I want to look at the documents that are in place to see
what was in the original bid package to see what potential is there for a change
order. It is somewhat dependent
upon what language was used, and I do not have that to look at yet, but I will
get together with Ms. Early, and we will figure it out and do it the quickest
way that it can be done.
Mr. Mendolia stated most likely no one will give a lower
bid.
Mr. Lyles stated the risk that you run is you put it out for bid and not
only do we not have a lot of bidders, but the current contractor raises his
price because now he knows he is the only game in town.
Ms. Early stated they asked me if they can raise their price on an
existing item but I said no because it is stated in the contract. However, they can extend out a unit cost
up to 25%. They understand that in
order to do a change order, they have to keep that price. However, prices are
increasing.
Mr. Lyles stated it is in the District’s financial interest to do it
through a change order because they are holding the unit prices to the original
project. We will have something for
the Board at the next meeting, and I will do the best I
can.
Ms. Early stated I have Work Authorization No. 118, which is for a design
of a 4-acre lake. It will require a
funding agreement, which Ms. Holiday has prepared.
On
MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor Work
Authorization No. 118 for the preparation of construction drawings for the
excavation of four acres of lakes, drainage ways and temporary connection and
the funding agreement were approved.
There not being any, the next item followed.
There not being any, the next item followed.
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Supervisors Requests and Audience Comments
Mr. Joyce stated we finally got the Certificate of Occupancy for NSID
plant site, and the furniture was delivered today. The only thing left to get the
Certificate of Occupancy is the booster station. The generator building, wells,
administrative building and plant are done.
On
MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor the invoices
were approved.
There being nothing further,
On
MOTION by Mr. Miner seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor the meeting was
adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Salvatore
J. Mendolia
Matt Lauritzen
Secretary
President