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 sess