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
Roger Moore
Engineer
Bill Joyce
District Staff
Rich
Hans
District Staff
Patti Hitchcock
WCI Communities
Warren Craven
WCI Communities
FIRST
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Roll Call
Mr. Lauritzen called the meeting to order at
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Approval of the Minutes of the January 30, and
Mr. Lauritzen stated that each Board member had received a copy of the
minutes of the January 30, and
There not being any,
On
MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor the minutes
of the January 30, and
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Award of Contract for the Purchase of a
Backhoe
Ms. Archer stated we need to replace our backhoe. We recently bid this same item in
C.S.I.D. and received a good price and are asking that you award the purchase of
a similar backhoe to the second low bidder on the C.S.I.D. bid tabulation. The low bidder did not meet the bid
specification. Nortrax Equipment
Co., Inc. is the second low bidder at $49,316.
Mr. Mendolia asked what will we do with the old one?
Mr. Joyce responded the old one will be repaired and used at the plant
site. The new one will be used for
water breaks, field installations, and repairs.
On
MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Grossjung with all in favor the contract
for the purchase of a backhoe was awarded to Nortrax Equipment Co., Inc. in the
amount of $49,316.
FOURTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Resolution 2003-1 Declaring Surplus
Property
Ms. Archer stated in order for the District to dispose of its property we
need to declare it as surplus property and put it out for bid. We have on site a Ford Motrim Tractor
that was purchased in 1975 and originally valued at
$22,000.
Mr. Joyce stated the tractor hasn’t been used in the last 6 or 7
years. It has a lot of damage and
the actual mower does not work. We
had an estimate to repair it that came in between $12,000 and $15,000. It is not worth it.
Mr. Mendolia asked are we going to replace it?
Mr. Joyce stated we will put the replacement in next year’s
budget.
Ms. Archer stated we believe the value to be less than $5,000 and we will
try to receive three bids and award it to the highest
bidder.
Mr. Grossjung asked if it has not been used in over five years, why are
we doing something now?
Mr. Joyce responded it came to my attention less than two months ago and
we have some people interested in it and that is why we asked that it be placed
on the agenda.
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Resolution
2003-1 declaring the Ford Motrim Tractor as surplus was approved.
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Request for an Increase in Engineering
Fees
Ms. Archer stated included in your agenda package is a letter dated
Mr. Grossjung asked if 2001 was the last time the rates were reviewed,
how often do we review these? It looks like this will go out to
2006.
Ms. Early responded I was trying to extend it so that I wouldn’t have to
do this in two years.
On
MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Grossjung with all in favor the hourly
rate increase requested by Gee & Jenson, was approved.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of
Ms. Archer stated included in your agenda package is a letter from Gee
& Jenson indicating that they have reviewed the plat submitted by the
applicant which is WCI. They
recommend approval of the plat acknowledging acceptance of the drainage from the
land contained within the plat.
Ms. Early stated it is a boundary plat and will be subject to right of
way issuance in addition to the 11.4% surface water area that must be provided
as it is developed.
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the Heron Bay
North Plat 1 was approved.
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Modification to Existing Stormwater Management Permit
98-1 for the City of
Ms. Early stated there were two phases to the City’s first submission for
a permit and the first phase was the city hall complex and now they are building
a public safety building. They
submitted their plans and we reviewed their plans and have a couple of
stipulations in the review letter.
The Board should approve the modification to the permit subject to the
special conditions listed in our letter.
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the
modification to the permit for the City of
EIGHTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Work Authorizations and Funding Agreements
A. Work
Authorization
This item removed from the agenda
B. Work
Authorization No. 100 for Parkland Country Club Pod 1 Water and Sewer
Engineering Services During Construction and Funding Agreement with
WCI
C. Work
Authorization No. 101 for Parkland Country Club Pod 7 Water and Sewer
Engineering Services During Construction and Funding Agreement with
WCI
D. Work
Authorization No. 102 for Parkland Country Club Pod 8 Water and Sewer
Engineering Services During Construction and Funding Agreement with
WCI
E. Work
Authorization
Ms. Early stated items B through E are for engineering services during
construction for the water and sewer inspection.
Ms. Archer stated the District isn’t bidding this work. The Developer will do that. Typically we enter into an advance
funding agreement and the District will bid the work and award the contract and
the Developer will advance the funds to pay for it and we will reimburse them
out of future bond issues or surplus funds from connection fees. The Developer is in the process of
contracting for this work and not going through the District and they will come
back to the Board at a future date to ask you to enter into an acquisition
agreement to acquire these improvements from them. It is not a lot different from what we
are doing now. I wanted to make
perfectly clear to everyone that our engineer continues to work for us
regardless of who lets the contract.
I want to make sure that our engineer is looking out for our best
interests. This will become a part
of the cost of the project when we acquire the improvements from the
Developer. We will incorporate that
language in the funding agreements.
The funding agreement is the same agreement that you have entered into
with the Developer in the past. The
only difference is that they are bidding it rather than the District bidding
it. We have not yet received the
acquisition agreement from the Developer but they have to get that to us,
otherwise, there is no obligation on our part to acquire the improvements.
Mr. Grossjung asked why is there a change in direction?
Mr. Craven responded it is a matter of timing. Over the last three to five years the
same bidders have been low on every contract you have bid. We can shorten the time frame of bidding
by probably two months by not bidding it through the District. In this case we had to get started and
we bid it to the same group of contractors who always bid your jobs and the same
contractor was low again. I don’t
think there will be an issue at the end that the value is not proper.
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor Work
Authorizations 100, 101, 102, and 103 were approved along with the funding
agreements for each.
Ms. Early stated I have Work Authorization 104 for engineering services
during construction for the water main extension to the ground storage site to
loop that system. This one does not
require a funding agreement and can be paid out of the 1998 water and sewer bond
issue.
On
MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Grossjung with all in favor Work
Authorization 104 was approved.
NINTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Continuation of Discussion on Conversion to a Chapter 190 District and
Other Options
Mr. Lyles stated the C.S.I.D. Board has had a meeting since your joint
meeting and taken this matter up again and they have decided to pursue a
different direction than conversion to a Chapter 190 District and we may want to
talk about that at least as an option.
Ms. Archer stated we talked to the C.S.I.D. Board of other options and
enclosed in your agenda package is the bill submitted by Representative Ritter
requiring all multi purpose special districts to have an elected board in
counties greater than1.5 million which only relates to these two districts in
the County. We talked to the
C.S.I.D. Board about an amendment to Chapter 189 to allow a Board to voluntarily
convert to an elected Board without going through the referendum process which
is different from what Representative Ritter is proposing. We suggested proposing an amendment to
Chapter 189 that allows the currently seated board of any district anywhere in
the state to decide if it wanted to change to an elected board.
Mr. Lyles stated we are pursuing that avenue as well as exploring the
advisability and desirability of converting to a Chapter 190 C.D.D. and we
talked about that at some length at the last meeting and now that we have seen
the actual bill at least in its initial form, we need to decide whether or not
to just let that bill run its course and see if it passes and stays in the same
form that has been provided to us or if it is modified by its sponsor or others
in Tallahassee, reminding ourselves always that we have no real control over
that other than to keep it under close observation through our lobbyist to try
to react quickly if something starts to happen differently than the commitments
that have been made verbally at the joint meeting you had. Ms. Archer has described the new
consideration in terms of a general amendment to Chapter 189 that will apply to
all districts. The only difference
for this district would be that unlike C.S.I.D. you still have a fairly large
tract of undeveloped land and you would pursuant to 189 have a board made of
several popularly elected Board members and one or two elected by landowners
that will phase out over the next couple of elections as percentages of
urbanization increase to 100%.
Ms. Archer stated I did a very quick calculation on how many developed
acres versus undeveloped acres and we are about 80% developed. That means you would have four elected
board members and one member elected by landowners if you followed the way 189
is drafted.
Mr. Grossjung stated under our current charter we have been elected by
landowners. What percentage of those votes were cast by the single largest
landowner?
Ms. Archer responded the single major landowner in this District hasn’t
cast a vote at a landowners election in about twelve
years.
Mr. Grossjung asked who would draft the amendment to 189?
Ms. Archer responded the C.S.I.D. Board authorized me to talk to Terry
Lewis who is the attorney for the Association of Special Districts and
represents special districts all over the state, about drafting the amendment
and what his thoughts were on that.
I talked to someone in his office in this regard and he is working with
Mr. Lewis on it and they are supposed to get back to me and let me know what
they think. There may be other
districts that may want to voluntarily convert to an elected board because they
are completely built out and feel an elected board might be more representative
of the residents than a landowner elected board.
Mr. Lyles stated I don’t believe we have a response to the letter that
was transmitted to Representative Ritter by the C.S.I.D. Board indicating that
they want to consider this as well.
It was reduced to writing and sent to her office a few days ago. She may say, this is a great idea or she
may say this doesn’t accomplish what she set out to accomplish. We just don’t know at this point. Now they are in session and things are
going to get hectic in
Ms. Archer stated we copied Mr. Book on that letter to let him know where
the C.S.I.D. Board was and what they were thinking. We need some thoughts from you if you
are leaning towards the same direction the C.S.I.D. Board did where you don’t
want to put your utility at risk by converting to a 190 District and maybe want
to pursue some other options such as this amendment that will get what
Representative Ritter wants and that is an elected Board. Once we have an elected Board she may
let us propose amendments to the legislature to update our act so that it would
be operating more like a 190 District such as the purchasing provisions and
other things that are out of date in our act that have been updated in Chapter
190.
Mr. Lauritzen stated an amendment to 189 sounds preferable to taking a
chance that the city could take over our utility,
Ms. Archer stated another risk that you take is if the City of Coral
Springs came in and took it over they could charge a higher rate to all of the
areas outside the City of Coral Springs because they are outside users versus
inside users and cities typically tack on a premium to service they provide to
people outside their boundaries.
That means the people living in
Mr. Grossjung asked wouldn’t
Ms. Archer stated that gives us a little safety because our facilities
are in two areas. Our plant is in
Mr. Lauritzen asked under this new scenario, do we still need the
lobbyist?
Ms. Archer responded I think we need to know if the Board has any
problems with the bill submitted by Representative Ritter. My concern about this bill is that it
wipes out your whole board at once and seats a whole new board. It doesn’t provide for a transition for
each of you to become elected one year after the next. A better way to do it is to put two new
board members on and perhaps have one term come up the first year and one term
the second year and one term the third year so that we have some history and
expertise left on the Board instead of five new members.
Mr. Mendolia asked can we do that?
Ms. Archer responded it is still a bill that requires the District to do
this rather than what would be good for the whole state that would allow a
currently seated board to do this.
Mr. Lauritzen stated we don’t want to shoot ourselves in the foot. What chance does this have of
passing?
Mr. Grossjung stated that is a good question because the Governor vetoed
last year’s bill.
Mr. Lauritzen stated if this doesn’t pass we are
just wasting our time talking about this anyway.
Ms. Archer stated they will probably call as they did in prior years and
ask if you are supportive of this bill or not. I have to represent the Board when I
tell them what you think. I don’t
know if you agree that it makes no sense to wipe out the whole board at once and
things like that. If I can tell
them that you are not supportive of this bill, I think that will go a long way
like it has in the past for getting it vetoed. If they call and we say we are
supportive, who knows what they will do.
Mr. Grossjung asked compared to last year’s bill what is more palatable
to the Governor about this one?
Ms. Archer responded it still circumvents the already existing
process.
Mr. Lyles stated we have been told that meetings have been held and
understandings have been reached between the Governor’s office and
Representative Ritter’s office that their objections from before aren’t there
anymore. I can’t confirm that but
that is what I have heard. I have
to presume that more homework has been done and it is different from the other
bill in terms of scope and it is not just directed at two districts, it is
directed at counties of a population of 1.5 million or more and districts that
perform more than one function. It
is essentially these two districts.
The odds of its passing have been increased. In response to the question of do we
still need a lobbyist, the problem I have had all along with this is making sure
that what makes its way through the process in Tallahassee is what has been
represented to this Board and that can change in a minute. They are not required to give
notice. They are not required to
meet in the sunshine. This can
happen quickly and with no knowledge on our part. The reason to have a lobbyist is to make
sure that what you have directed to happen, actually
happens.
Mr. Grossjung stated if we made a decision to go with a 190 conversion
and do all the steps outlined in your memorandum and the bill continues on its
course, what happens if the time elements are such that we are pending a hearing
and the bill has been acted upon?
How does this play out in a time element?
Mr. Lyles responded there are a couple of answers. One, is the bill as presently worded
passes while we are in the process of having our petition heard and three or
four months later the petition goes before the Governor and Cabinet and is
granted and we have a rule issued recreating this district as a 190 district,
then that bill will not apply because it does not apply to 190 districts. The problem is that you have incurred
expense and time and effort to go through that process and you could withdraw
your petition if you decided that a bill has passed and you don’t have a big
problem with it. Going into that
significant process with the idea of marking a place for yourselves, is not a good idea.
Mr. Grossjung asked what are the costs associated with the 190 conversion
and the amendment to 189?
Ms. Archer responded the proposal we received from Ken van Assenderp to
go through the 190 conversion process for each district is $35,000 but if it
were only one district it would be $60,000. That is the immediate expense for the
190. If we have Mr. Lewis draft the
amendment to 189, and he believes it would be good legislation for the
Association, I believe the Association would pay that fee. If not, I don’t think it would be a huge
fee for a small amendment if we wanted to go on our own. It is a lot different from the petition
process.
Mr. Lyles stated it would be a negligible expense to the
District.
Ms. Archer stated Mr. Book said he would represent whatever we had in
Mr. Grossjung asked have we had any feedback from the large landowner who
may be impacted by these actions?
Ms. Hitchcock responded we have some concerns about the Chapter 190
conversion and the possibility of
Ms. Archer stated if it came to be a fight between the two cities trying
to take over your utility, in the end it would be decided that
Mr. Grossjung asked was the objective of the District when it was first
formed to create a body that could more effectively manage the affairs of water
management than the city government? Has there been a change of thought, that
city government could better run and manage this activity?
Ms. Archer responded all these districts are a mechanism for financing,
constructing and maintaining public infrastructure improvements in an area where
there isn’t already an entity in place to do that. When these districts were created, the
city was very young at the time too and they didn’t have the financing ability
that they have today or the construction ability and expertise and personnel and
things like that. We were all brand
new back then when the districts were created. The purpose of breaking it up into
different pieces was so that growth could pay for growth. The original residents in
Mr. Grossjung asked how many 190 districts have been taken over by city
government?
Ms. Archer responded Indian Trace Community Development District is now
the City of
Mr. Grossjung stated our objective is to serve the best interest of the
property owners of this district.
Without some of that information we would be making decisions in the
dark. How can we say it is in our
best interest to keep this district if we found every scenario such as sell or
merger or acquisition by the city or county had the net effect of reducing the
associated fees? How could we not
vote in favor of Representative Ritter’s bill?
Ms. Archer responded her bill does not address the takeover of the
utility by the city. That is
something that could happen if you became a 190 district. The city in the past has said that they
wanted to take over the utilities because our rates are lower than theirs and
they want to bring everybody’s rates up to the city’s rates and generate revenue
that can go to their general fund.
They haven’t been shy about that.
They are not going to bring the city rates down to our level, they will raise everyone else’s rates up to their
level. Because they are general
purpose government, they do take revenues from their utility to fund their
general fund and overhead. We have
very little overhead.
Ms. Hitchcock stated we have no objection to the board being popularly
elected. We haven’t exercised our
landowner votes for twelve years.
It should not be something that is forced on you. It should be staggered so that you can
maintain some experience on the Board.
We feel the amendment to 189 to allow the board to voluntarily convert
and a phase in schedule as part of that option is the way to go.
Mr. Mendolia stated I like that.
Mr. Lauritzen stated it seems reasonable. I don’t see how Representative Ritter
can have a problem with that.
Ms. Archer stated we can provide this information to Mr. Book and tell
him that we want him to meet with Representative Ritter and tell her this is
what the N.S.I.D. Board is willing to support and see if you can get her to
amend her bill along those lines.
Then if the Governor’s office calls to see if we are behind it, we can
tell him we are if it is the bill we like.
The way the present bill is written I believe would be a detriment to the
residents to possibly lose all Board members at once.
Mr. Lauritzen asked can we continue this to the next Board meeting?
Ms. Archer asked do you want me to talk to Mr. Book about a different
kind of amendment to 189?
Mr. Grossjung stated I would be curious to see what they do and what
reaction Representative Ritter would have to this.
Mr. Lyles stated what might work well and be efficient is if this Board
were to indicate today that it would like to pursue the exploration of this
additional potential bill along with the C.S.I.D. Board. That you are both looking at the
amendment to Chapter 189 that we discussed today and want to consider that along
with 190 as a potential. I believe
I can also say to you that there is a similar sentiment at the South Broward
Drainage District. Their board has
indicated that they want to voluntarily convert to a popularly elected board
from a landowner elected board.
They are looking at how to do it and are meeting with the Representative
whose district they are in and they are looking at something like this as
well. What may come out of this
process we have been going through for a couple of months now is a consensus
among some legislators and some boards that the amendment to 189 that allows you
to voluntarily convert to a popularly elected board with some protection like
phasing in the board and staggered terms would be a good thing all the way
around. Right now I wouldn’t
eliminate any potential resolution to the problem and I think it would be good
to indicate that we as is the C.S.I.D. board are going to look at this
resolution and see what reaction we get.
We haven’t cut anything off, we haven’t incurred
any expense to go forward with 190.
If the amendment to 189 works, it will be very little expense and might
be shared among other districts. I
don’t think we should eliminate any potential solutions now and expand the group
by one and see what reaction we get.
The communication with Representative Ritter from the C.S.I.D. Board was
a letter drafted by staff and signed by the President and that is probably the
right way to do it here too if you want a letter sent indicating that this Board
has authorized staff and is interested in looking at these additional remedies
to the problem.
Mr. Lauritzen asked do you need a motion to that effect?
Mr. Lyles responded if that is the consensus of the Board and you all
seem agreeable, we can operate on that.
We are not making a decision at this meeting, we are to continue to look
at this additional potential solution as well as the others and refine the costs
and what needs to be done in particular.
Mr. Grossjung stated I agree that all options should be explored.
Mr. Lyles stated the bottom line that I perceive from the Board is that
you don’t object to popular elections for the members of this Board. It is the means by which it is
accomplished that you want to explore.
Ms. Archer stated I will draft a letter similar to the one I did for
C.S.I.D. for the President’s signature and I will copy everyone on it when it
goes out.
TENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Staff Reports
A.
Attorney
Mr. Lyles stated we have been asked by WCI to consider acceptance of two
warranty deeds for rights of ways for
Ms. Hitchcock stated previously you have accepted Trails End and
University and
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the warranty
deeds for
B.
Engineer
There not being any, the next item followed.
C. Superintendent
– Status Report on Permit Renewal Policy
Ms. Archer stated we distributed this at a prior meeting and if the Board
is in agreement we will advertise your next meeting as a public hearing to adopt
this policy and rate for processing the permit renewals.
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor staff was
authorized to notice a public hearing to consider the adoption of the permit
renewal policy.
Ms. Archer stated at the last Board meeting we talked about Mr. Book’s
fees and how they had gone up and the C.S.I.D. Board had the same problem. I called him after the meeting and
talked to him about both Boards being concerned that the fee went from $40,000
to $60,000 in one year and we were concerned what he would come back with next
year and the year after. He
suggested that you pay what you did last year which is $20,000 for each District
and if there is a big fight then it will be an extra $10,000. I told him that would be okay and I
would process his agreement.
ELEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Supervisor’s Requests and Audience Comments
There not being any, the next item followed.
TWELFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Approval of Requisitions and Invoices
On
MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the
requisitions and invoices 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