MINUTES OF MEETING
NORTH SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the North Springs Improvement District was held Thursday, January 9, 2003 at 4:05 p.m. in the District Office, 10300 N. W. 11 Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.
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
Warren Craven WCI
Patti Hitchcock WCI
Stephanie Groves Sun-Tech Engineering, Inc.
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr. Lauritzen called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. and called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the December 5, 2002 Meeting
Mr. Lauritzen stated that each Board member had received a copy of the minutes of the December 5, 2002 meeting and requested any additions, corrections or deletions.
There not being any,
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Change Orders
A. Change Order No. 1 with Astaldi Construction Corp. for University Drive Paving, Drainage, Water and Wastewater Contract for a Net Decrease of $338,698.15
Ms. Early stated Astaldi Corporation is currently under contract for University Drive from just north of Holmberg Road to just north of Trails End. Originally we were going to construct four lanes and WCI was unable to acquire the right of way. We are now down to two lanes and that is what the decrease in the contract amount represents.
B. Change Order No. 2 with Astaldi Construction Corp. for Trails End Road Contract for a Net Increase of $218,564.72
Ms. Early stated Astaldi is also constructing Trails End from where it terminates just east of the elementary school and it will go all the way to the proposed University Drive. The majority of this change order is for a bike lane. Originally we did not design a bike lane and Broward County came back and commented that they wanted a bike lane. It is a Parkland road and the original piece of Trails End does not have a bike lane. The Mayor decided that he does want a bike lane and we revised the plans which results in this change order.
Mr. Lauritzen asked is that extra road or is that a sidewalk?
Ms. Early responded it is an additional four foot of asphalt on both sides.
Ms. Archer stated we used to do bike paths as part of the sidewalk system.
Ms. Early stated that was our argument because on Trails End we have the multi-purpose trail which is part of the sidewalk and an area for horses. We were under the impression that was part of the bike lane. The County did not agree with that and they convinced Parkland that we needed a paved bike lane.
Ms. Hitchcock stated the Broward County Bicycle Facilities Coordinator said that it is safer to travel in a bike lane adjacent to vehicular traffic than it is to be removed from the vehicular traffic.
Mr. Mendolia asked do we really need this?
Ms. Archer responded according to Broward County we do.
Mr. Mendolia asked then why didn't we do it on the other roads?
Ms. Early responded that was our point because on the first piece of Trails End between Nob Hill and Pine Island we don't have a bike lane and Broward County wanted a bike lane and Parkland said they didn't want a bike lane there. They wanted their multi-purpose trail. When we designed the rest of it we didn't design a bike lane.
Mr. Craven stated when the City reviewed the plans they approved it without a bike lane.
Ms. Early stated this was all approved by the City of Parkland without the bike lane. It is not a Broward County road but they made the comment. The City changed their mind and we have to add the bike lane. If the bike lane is not built, you take the risk of the road not being accepted by the City or the County.
Ms. Archer stated we have always taken the position that when we build the roads we transfer them to the city or county because we don't want to own and maintain roadways.
Mr. Grossjung stated the change order says it is a WCI cost.
Ms. Early stated this project is split. They pay for two lanes and the District pays for two lanes and WCI pays for the curb.
Mr. Grossjung stated page two of the change order says $218,564.72 is a WCI cost.
Ms. Early stated I think that is a mistake. The underpass items are a WCI cost but the bike lane is half and half and will be split. You are looking at $40,000 or $45,000 and the remainder is a WCI cost.
Ms. Archer asked are you going to revise this change order?
Ms. Early responded I will revise that.
C. Change Order No. 3 with Astaldi Construction Corp. for Trails End Road Contract for a Net Increase of $131,249,37
Ms. Early stated this is the same project and this is all a cost of WCI because it was a change to the bridge.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Permit Requests
A. City of Coral Springs for the Construction of Steel Round Tubing Railing on the East Right of Way, Canal C-1 at Coral Ridge Drive
Ms. Early pointed out the location on the map and stated we installed a sidewalk and piece of guardrail on the other half of that canal some time ago. The sidewalk was existing and the City decided to put in a handrail there as well.
Mr. Mendolia asked who is paying for this?
Ms. Early responded the City of Coral Springs.
B. Ross Matz Investments, Inc. for the Cambridge School Drainage Outfall at 6100 Coral Ridge Drive
C. McDonald’s Corporation for Drainage Outfall Wyndham Heights Parcel 7
Ms. Early stated items B and C are typical stormwater permits that we review. I recommend approval of both requests subject to one additional piece of information that the engineer will provide to us. The Cambridge School is at the Sawgrass Center and they needed the overall permit and we have it but it is in storage and I sent someone to get it today and once they get that piece of information they will do some quick calculations for us. It is nothing out of the norm. On McDonald's we requested additional drainage calculations on that and we haven't finalized it yet. Rather than making them wait a month, you can approve it subject to our final review and approval of those calculations.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
Mr. Lyles stated we have a request to accept a modification of a deed that we originally received some years ago from WCI that was restricted to dike purposes. You are all familiar with the fact that going forward we are going to build an extension to University Drive and a portion of that extension is within some right of way that is in our possession but was originally dedicated to the District for dike purposes. WCI has gone back through the records and submitted a proposed modification to allow us to not only use the property for dike purposes but also for road construction purposes. The first item is to authorize the execution of the modification to the two deeds that are necessary to be utilized for University Drive.
Mr. Lyles stated we also have two additional road right of way deeds. One from WCI and one from the D.S. Beaty Trust. We have been taking these up in recent months as a routine matter as we go forward with the expansion in the northern part of the District of the road system. In this instance we are talking about Countyline Road and these deeds are being conveyed to the District subject to your approval for purposes of the construction of Countyline Road.
Mr. Lyles stated we have a public hearing on the 27th of this month before the Legislative Delegation on our codification bill again. We have seen some newspaper coverage indicating that yet another bill will probably be filed this year by Representative Ritter with respect to the make-up of this Board and the duties of the Board and the manner in which elections are held and things of that nature. You may want to discuss today how we want to handle that or if we want to do more or less what we have done in the past which involved the use of a lobbyist that the Board previously authorized. It looks like we are going to have to contend with it again this year.
Mr. Lauritzen asked do you suggest doing the same as we did last year?
Mr. Lyles responded with the absence of anything in writing telling us what it is that is or is not proposed, it can be everything from something minor to something very major and I think as a precaution and in order to make sure that we are adequately heard in Tallahassee and that we are kept abreast of all the developments that are relevant to this situation, that we use Mr. Book, whom you had previously authorized, this legislative session. Hopefully, we can get that under the same terms and conditions that we have had with him before. I think if it turns out that it is not necessary, we can terminate the duties early and stop any other expenses but I think it is going to be necessary this year based on what I am seeing and hearing.
Ms. Archer stated I talked to Mr. Book yesterday and he said he was familiar with the article, and had already had conversations with Representative Ritter about what she wants to do. She claims she is working with the Governors office to cut some kind of deal. Last year the Governor vetoed her bill because she wasn't following the already existing laws in the statute that calls for a procedure for converting our District from a one acre one vote concept to a general election concept. There is already a process to do that. She doesn't want to go through that process. The process is a referendum. She wants to do a legislative amendment to our act instead. Last year the Governor's office said no, we have Chapter 19 for that purpose. He vetoed the bills the last two years. The problem is that she doesn't come to our Boards first to let us know what she is planning to do. We have to find out after the fact once the bill has been presented to Tallahassee. Last year she didn't even present it to the local delegation. She presented it to Tallahassee. There is no way to find out what is happening unless you hire someone to monitor what is being proposed in Tallahassee during the session.
Mr. Lauritzen stated she is a public representative so any type of work she does I assume is in the public.
Ms. Archer stated it is supposed to go to the delegation first but she didn't do that.
Mr. Lyles responded the legislature, the body that passed the Sunshine Law exempted itself from the Sunshine Law. They can do lots of things that an elected body such as this one cannot do.
Ms. Archer stated last year she went to the delegation and said the reason she has to do this is because we are so unresponsive to the public. She claimed to the delegation that she made several public records requests of us that we didn't respond to. She told the delegation that she received several complaints that had gone unresolved. After the session, we made a public records request asking her what are the complaints, who are they, we need to know so that we can solve the problem and she didn't answer the request.
Mr. Grossjung stated last year we shared the cost of the lobbyist with other Districts.
Ms. Archer responded last year we shared it with Coral Springs Improvement District, a similar district with a similar act and she was trying to do similar changes to both acts at the same time. We won't know if they will be willing to share the cost again this year until we go to them later in the month. Because they are built out, they are a little bit different than the North Springs Improvement District. If they went from a landowners election to a popular election, it probably would not affect them one way. They don't really see a problem converting to a general election if that is what the public wants. They don't want to see it happen during a year when there is not going to be a regular election in the city anyway because we don't want to hold an election every two years on a day when there is nothing else to vote for because we would have to pay for the Supervisor of Elections to man the polls and print the forms and everything. If they do it on an election day where you vote for city commissioners or referendums of one type or another, then you share the cost with other cities and the county. That is what she tried to do in one act was hold the election on a day when we don't normally have elections.
Mr. Grossjung asked of all the Districts that you represent are we the only District opposed to this legislation?
Ms. Archer responded there are districts in South Broward that are sending people to Tallahassee to monitor on their behalf. We don't manage those districts.
Mr. Grossjung asked she is not attacking the concept of the district and why it is formed and how it is formed. Are they not all formed the same way?
Ms. Archer stated in early years districts were created by special act of the legislature. Because so many were getting created they wanted to come up with a uniform act for creating districts and they came up with Chapter 190 community development district. She can't amend anything with regard to a 190 community development district because that in and of itself is a certain section of the Florida Statutes. All 190 districts operate under that charter. Each one of our special districts that are old districts created before 190 have their own act of the legislature and she can attach things to that act to amend them. Although the legislature attempted at one time to make all the old special districts uniform in the way they are going to do things so they created Chapter 189 that tells you if you want to covert from landowners election to a general election for example, this is the process you go through and they want all of the special districts to go through the same process. She didn't follow that, she wants to attach an amendment to our act that makes us different from the other districts that the state is trying to make uniform.
Mr. Mendolia asked what is your recommendation?
Ms. Archer responded I think we need to monitor it in Tallahassee because we have no way of knowing what will happen to our district if she is not willing to work with us. We are going to ask the Coral Springs Board if they want to participate in that as well. That way we can split the cost because he is monitoring for both at the same time.
Mr. Lyles stated because of timing issues and because all of this will happen very quickly, our recommendation is that if you want to be protected by the use of a representative both locally and in Tallahassee, that you authorize staff to hire the lobbying effort and if for some reason C.S.I.D. doesn't see fit to join in sharing the expenses, then it is going to be up to this District to fund its own activities.
Mr. Grossjung asked what were the expenses last year?
Ms. Archer responded I believe the total contract was $40,000 and it was split between the two Districts. I talked to Mr. Book yesterday and he said to let you know that he is focused, he knows the issues and he will monitor in Tallahassee on your behalf and as soon as something is presented he will make sure we get a copy of it. That is what he did last year and the year before. If for some reason C.S.I.D. doesn't want to participate then I will try to negotiate for half the fee. If he is not willing to do that, we can try to figure out something else. We will come back to you in thirty days and let you know.
Mr. Grossjung stated I will recommend that we retain him for at least this 30 day period and we will have more information at the end of the thirty days and see then what the circumstances are.
Mr. Lyles stated you may want to express it a different way. If for some reason we only had thirty days authority and didn't have a quorum next month we couldn't have a meeting, technically we might have to stop even though it wouldn't be in the interest of the Board or District to do so.
There not being any, the next item followed.
C. Superintendent - Status Report on Permit Renewal Policy
Ms. Archer stated I am to give you a status report on the permit renewal policy. I'm still working on it and I will keep it on the agenda until it is completed.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor's Requests and Audience Comments
There not being any, the next item followed.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Requisitions and Invoices
Salvatore J. Mendolia Matt Lauritzen