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