MINUTES OF MEETING
NORTH SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the Board of
Supervisors of the North Springs Improvement District was held on
Present
and constituting a quorum were:
Salvatore Mendolia President
Steve Mendelson Secretary
Also present were:
John Petty Manager
Dennis Lyles Attorney
John McKune Engineer
Doug Hyche District Staff
Jean Rugg
Michael Hollander Resident
FIRST ORDER OF
BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr. Petty called the meeting to order and
called the roll
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of
the December 20, 2005 Meeting
Mr. Petty stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
There not being any,
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Permit
Request from
Mr. Petty stated the permit request
was included in the agenda package along with the recommendation from staff.
Mr. McKune stated this is a standard
drainage permit for the commercial parcel next to Buffalos at the intersection
of
Mr. Petty stated the existing
drainage system does not belong to the District as it is internal. However, we are responsible for the
infrastructure. We have to make sure this
meets our master design criteria for runoff.
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor the permit request from Wyndham Heights Development
for
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Attorney
There being no report, the next item
followed.
B. Engineer
There being no report, the next item
followed.
C. Manager
Mr. Petty stated I have one item for
the Board, which we apologize for not having in the agenda package as this
meeting was too close to our last meeting.
I provided the Board with proposals from our existing contractor to
perform hurricane cleanup in Parkland Isles.
The community asked us to perform additional improvements, which we have
done, which benefits them and they pay for.
There was money in the budget to pay for plant replacement due to a
hurricane last year, which we had not done before Hurricane Wilma hit us. With monies available in the budget, we will
be able to pay for two already authorized cleanup orders to remove fallen
plantings. This request is to protect
the health of the existing landscaping.
We have many cut limbs, which should be cut back properly so we do not
kill the trees. The trees we uprighted
and tried to save, need to be removed to stabilize the soil conditions of the
berm. I provided to the Board the quote
we received from our existing contractor, Valley Crest and recommend we
authorize the amendment to the contract to allow them to do this work as we
have money available in the existing budget.
However, there are no monies in the Plant Replacement Fund and will work
with the community on the funding.
Mr. Mendolia asked what is the
$43,500 for?
Mr. Petty responded to stabilize the
soil and existing plantings.
Mr. Mendolia asked do we have monies
in the budget to cover this amount?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Mendolia asked do we have more
than $43,500 in the budget?
Mr. Petty responded no. This takes the budget down to the last
thousand dollars.
Mr. Mendelson asked is this strictly
for the removal and pruning?
Mr. Petty responded it is for repairing
the existing plant material without having to replace any plant material. This is the last phase in the process. We have already completed two steps. After the storm, many of the plants were
uprooted in order to re-establish them.
We have now determined some of them cannot be saved. Broken branches from large trees which have
not been trimmed back, need to be inspected to
determine whether or not they are infested with termites. Other plant material such as bushes, which we
hoped would come back should now be removed. There is a considerable amount of work to do
and the money is in the budget. We will
have to do a budget amendment at the end of the year to re-classify this item
as plant cleanup versus plant removal.
The recommendation from staff is to authorize staff to do an amendment
with the contract subject to District Counsel’s review and signature by the
Board’s president.
Mr. Lyles stated you are engaging
the Board to amended the current contract by Valley
Crest who was the low bidder under this bid process to increase the scope of a
contract to take into account damage caused by Hurricane Wilma.
Mr. Petty stated the reason we are
strongly recommending this is for accountability purposes. If we hire another landscaper to do repair
work for just the plant material and should something fail in six months, the finger
pointing will be very intense and we will have to arbitrate it. I would rather have accountability with the
existing contractor if possible.
Mr. Mendolia stated I was told
Mr. Hollander stated only for Heron
Bay Commons.
Mr. Petty stated I am referring to
the berm around this single family area in Parkland Isles. The Master Association brought the issue to
the District but the District works only with the residents. However, we take input from the HOA. Only the residents of Parkland Isles will pay
for the hurricane cleanup.
Mr. Mendolia stated it should be
reflected on the contract this is for Parkland Isles only.
Mr. Lyles stated some of the
confusion is coming from the fact there are different subdivisions and
communities within NSID, which are very large.
The
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by
Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the proposal from Valley Crest to perform
hurricane cleanup at Parkland Isles in the amount of $43,500 was approved,
subject to review by legal counsel and execution by the Board President.
Mr. Petty stated we received a
letter from WCI on our request to put in writing their agreement to the
termination. This does not require any
action from the Board but is for informational purposes only. They are working very well with us and I do
not think we will have any problems.
Mr. Hollander asked is this in
reference to the commons building?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Hollander asked when will the
audit be completed?
I have asked for an engagement letter from the auditing companies and
have not received one. Are we doing an
audit?
Mr. Mendolia responded yes.
Mr. Hollander stated I did an audit
on a couple of vendors. One vendor has a
five year contract for $14,000 a year or $204,000 total. Is the Board going to ask this vendor for the
money back? We talked about this audit
seven times last year and it is still not completed.
Mr. Petty responded I have the same
concerns and I am sure the Board has expressed those same concerns. Our agreement with WCI seemed to be an
economical thing to do in the beginning and is now turning into a problem. You have a government owned recreational
facility and there are monies being collected at the site. The proper checks and balances should be in
place so the information being requested by this gentleman is readily
available. However, since we contracted
with a private entity and did not specify the type of software or accounting,
they were left to do what they felt was good business practice, which is what
brings us to our recommendation today.
I apologize for bringing this
recommendation to you late but I recommend you not consider a contract with
another agency because of this issue. We
do not have the software, computer system, oversight and checks and balances in
place to where we would ask for information and they may not be able to supply
it. Whenever you have a contract where
they are collecting your money, you want to have YOUR software, YOUR system,
YOUR accounting person and YOUR checks and balances overseeing the entire
operation. All of this is fairly typical
for this type of deal.
I recommend the Board make this a
District operation. Since we are funding
this at 100%, including the management, the District will have great
accountability so when these types of questions come up, not only are they
readily available but in an understandable format for the residents. Furthermore, the rules you adopt will be
adopted by the Board and not by a contractor on-site who may start a policy you
may not know anything about. If we can
do this with our employees, it becomes not only very open but as honest as we
can possibly make it and responsive to the residents and provide the same continuity
and level of service.
Mr. Hollander asked what does the
sentence “so long as a new management contract does not change the current
relationship of the association” mean? I have a cynical feeling for our current
management as there is no accountability.
It sounds like Mr. Petty is on the right track. I would like to take a look at the numbers
because this building has been so poorly managed to the point where if you go
there now, it is a mess and the residents are paying for it.
Mr. Petty responded I believe the
Board has an active interest in making this the best facility they can and we
are looking to do the best job we can and the recommendation before you does
just that. The audit season for the
District is upon us and at the last meeting, the Board
accepted the engagement letter from the auditor. It is currently in the signature phase, which
is why you have not seen it. I am
waiting for my copy as we speak. If we
institute something in-house, this is the greatest degree of control we can
possibly have.
Mr. Mendolia stated WCI had control
over the facility before. The options
are to continue the management in-house or to have a new property management
company take over. Mr. Petty is
recommending taking the management in-house with your personnel.
Mr. Petty stated not Severn Trent
personnel but District personnel to handle the money.
Mr. Mendolia asked what monies are handled?
Mr. Petty responded money collected
from programs/classes being offered on-site.
This is a government facility and you are licensing this facility to outside
contractors to hold classes with a certain amount of funds coming back to the
District. The checks and balances is to determine the correct number of participants, fees and
whether the money submitted to me was correct.
There are specific software programs for these types of recreational
facilities used by municipal governments and other government agencies, which
we are be very interested in obtaining. This was not necessary when this was a brand
new subdivision with only a handful of residents. We are probably past the time where we should
have received the audit in a timely fashion but we are at the stage now where
we need to have it. Hiring another
contractor would be redundant because we would make him purchase or use
software we purchased and would then be doing double accounting. When you get into the redundancy, it is
usually best to bring it in-house and make it your own.
Mr. Mendolia asked do you think any
of these property management companies will accept tying their auditing with
the District’s rather than their own operation?
Mr. Petty responded almost all
entities bidding on this project will be agreeable. We can do this by contract with a slight
overlap and checks and balances to the best of our ability. However, without having people on-site we may
have areas we cannot address.
Mr. Mendolia asked will it have to
be a dual operation?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Mendolia stated it will have to
be controlled.
Mr. Mendelson stated you can get the
same information from the District.
Mr. Petty stated we will not have the
same checks and balances because we will not be there collecting the
money. With the software, there are
additional checks and balances but without being on-site cash transactions will
be difficult to track and there may be questions we may not be able to
answer.
Mr. Mendolia stated in the RFP, we
will have to add the District being involved in the management.
Mr. Petty stated we always have to
be involved. In the existing RFQ, the
District has oversight responsibilities.
Mr. Lyles stated obviously the
manager and I speak in between meetings and I am not hearing about this for the
first time. I knew we had been working
on these recommendations. In fact,
because you indicated this was one of your top issues, we knew we had to have
this meeting today even though the agenda was light. One alternative you were talking about was
instead of having a property management company run Heron Bay Commons, we hire
direct employees of the District so the person in charge is a District employee
to be responsible for the money, take complaints from the residents and set
policy. We already notified WCI of the
District’s intent to terminate their Management Agreement and they have agreed
to its termination. However, instead of
going through the RFP process and negotiating a contract with a property
management company, Mr. Petty is proposing the District hire personnel using
existing personnel and adding other personnel to run the Heron Bay Commons
facility. You have direct control
because they will be in-house employees.
I assume this does not result in an
added expense to the District and hopefully this will reduce expenses to the
District and to the residents in
Mr. Mendolia stated I recommend
bringing this in-house. There should be
good checks and balances so we do not fall into the same problems we have with
WCI.
Mr. Petty stated this is an option
we wanted to bring to your attention and not for a decision today. This is why we have not issued the RFP.
Mr. Hollander stated every week
there is a different plan. It says in
the agreement, “the funds due from the previous contract must be paid”,
regardless of the fact the residents pay a $60,000 a year bill. I do not want these same people in there,
particularly because they are a major part of the problem. Mr. Petty has only been here for two weeks.
Mr. Petty stated I have been here
since 1992.
Mr. Hollander stated this is the
first time I have seen you involved.
Every time I come here there is a different manager and nothing is
getting done. If the Board decides to
hold off, another year will go by. Let’s
get a management company in who will work for the residents. The residents who live there are the only
ones who pay for it. Give the residents
an opportunity to get into the management because some day they are going to
own it.
Mr. Mendelson stated I think the residents
have input. If they are going to be
living there, they should have an idea of what is taking place. The residents are the only ones who paid for
this building. The biggest problem is
guests and non-residents can come and go freely. You have a facility serving 1,500 now
servicing 2,700 homes and allowing guests at no additional fee. What qualifications does a resident need to
have in order to run their own management company?
Mr. Petty responded this is not an
HOA facility. This is a District/government
facility and you cannot restrict public access to it. You can restrict their use or make sure the
fees are across the board to everyone and there is fair and equal
treatment. This is why non-residents are
allowed to come and go.
Mr. Hollander stated I was told by
the management company, this was sold as a private facility. They even have the paperwork.
Mr. Petty stated there was an
assignment of work to a contractor who happened to be the HOA. This does not mean some of the issues and
concerns being brought up are not the same ones I have. You cannot stop the public from entering this
facility.
Mr. Hollander stated but you can
charge them a fee.
Mr. Petty stated correct.
Mr. Mendolia stated you can also have
strict rules.
Mr. Petty stated fees should be
applied equally.
Mr. Hollander stated if I pay $750 a
year, a guest should pay $750.
Mr. Petty stated this is not the way
it works here or any place in this county.
There are people who pay more taxes than you do, who do not receive any
more benefit than you do. This is why
public facilities are different from private facilities. You knew this existed when you moved in. We are a government agency and are not exempt
from any other requirement of any other government agency.
Mr. Hollander stated the fact is it
was sold by realtors.
Mr. Petty stated being sold by
realtors was not my responsibility.
Mr. Hollander stated the management
company sold this building with the help of realtors.
Mr. Petty stated no one gave the
building away.
Mr. Hollander stated in 1997, Ms.
Archer told this Board they would have to micromanage this building. This Board said they were not going to
micromanage. It sounds like you want to
micromanage this building, which is a good idea, but what was done with the
residents and how the property was sold and delivered to the residents, was as
a private facility.
Mr. Petty stated these are
statements, which cannot be validated and are not District business. This is not the time to allow position
statements to be made. It should be done
under audience comments. We spoke to you
about certain options. If you would like
to give us time to consider them, this is what staff recommends.
Mr. Mendolia stated we will give you
some time. In the meantime, we should get
this organized. The reason why we had a
management company take over the management of the old company was to avoid
having these close ties. This way it is
a separate entity. We need to have these
checks and balances. This group has a
responsibility and the District has a responsibility. There is no in-between.
Mr. Petty stated I can have them go
through the checks and balances but there are going to be some areas I will not
be able to put checks and balances in because I am not on-site collecting the
money.
Mr. Mendolia stated I wish we could
have more discussion on this matter and get it resolved because this is January
and before we know it, it will be February and March and this issue will never
be resolved. It will not be perfect no
matter what we come up with.
Mr. Lyles stated the letter we
presented and sent to WCI terminating the contract with an effective date of
March 15th has been finalized.
The letter from WCI acknowledges they received the letter. We need to notify them their oversight of the
Heron’s Bay commons facility is no longer going to be in effect as of March 15th
as Mr. Petty wanted more time to get some hard numbers together to present to
the Board at the next meeting. However,
we are going to be moving forward with the RFP process so we have a company in
line and ready to go.
Mr. Petty stated we asked for time
to evaluate this matter and put the RFP on hold. If the Board wants us to put out the RFP at
the same time and withhold the wording, we can do so as well.
Mr. Lyles stated having this go on
two simultaneous tracts is what gives you the greatest level of option. If having full time District employees is
better and less expensive and you go in this direction and it turns out not to
be the best way to go about it, you have the RFP out there.
Mr. Mendolia stated I agree we
should put the RFP out for bid and obtain bids for the February meeting.
Mr. Petty stated in order to have
the results back by February, we will give them 20
days to respond and get the ad out immediately to have them in place by
mid-March.
Mr. Lyles stated if there are any
problems getting the publication in the newspaper and getting responses, you
only have two Board members to ask to delay the meeting for a week.
Mr. Petty stated if we miss publishing
this by a few days, this is what we will do.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s Requests
and Audience Comments
Mr. Hollander asked are we getting
the audit for this building in the next 30 days?
Mr. Petty responded the District has
its normal audit process and obtained an on-site audit for the Commons.
Mr. Hollander stated we have been
waiting a year and a half. What is the
normal process?
Mr. Lyles responded Mr. Petty can
meet with you after the meeting and describe the audit process.
Mr. Petty stated I would be happy to
speak with Mr. Hollander regarding this matter.
Mr. Hollander stated I heard in
October the audit was ordered and coming.
Mr. Lyles stated this is correct.
Mr. Petty stated I am new to this
Board but know of no special audit due for this particular area, which has not
been reviewed by the Board.
Mr. Hollander stated there has to be
accountability somewhere. There is no
accountability at the Commons.
Mr. Petty stated I will talk to you
after the meeting.
A resident stated I submitted my
resume to serve on the Board.
Mr. Petty stated we received a
couple of applications. At the last
meeting, the Board decided to continue this matter for further discussion and
come back to staff when they feel they have the proper applicant.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
On MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr.
Mendelson with all in favor the meeting was adjourned at
Steve Mendelson Salvatore
J. Mendolia
Secretary President