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
Bob Miner Supervisor
Also
present were:
Rich Hans District
Staff
Dennis
Lyles Attorney
Ronald F.
Bendekovic Billing,
Cochran, Heath, Lyles & Mauro
Jane
Early Gee
& Jenson
Donna
Holiday Recording
Secretary
Roger Moore District
Staff
Bill Joyce District
Staff
Dan Daly District
Staff
Mr. Lauritzen called the meeting to
order, and Mr. Hans called the roll.
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the
Minutes of the January 8, 2004 Meeting
Mr. Lauritzen stated that each Board
member had received a copy of the minutes of the
There not being any,
On
MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor the minutes
of the
Mr. Lyles introduced Mr. Bendekovic
to the Board and stated Mr. Bendekovic is my associate and will be assisting me
with some of the Districts going forward.
I invited him to today’s proceedings to see how things are done.
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Changer Order No. 9 with
Ms.
Early stated Change Order No. 9 was a cost of WCI. Ms. Early outlined the items contained in the
change order and recommended approval.
On
MOTION by Mr. Miner seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor Change Order
No. 9 with Florida Sewer and Water, Inc. for the Heron Bay East Pod 5 Heron Run
Drive Phase II Contract for a net increase of $7,426.38 was approved.
A. Ironstone Bank in Coral Springs Out Parcel 2 of Site Location at Intersection of Westview Drive and Coral Ridge Drive Connection to Existing Stormwater Collection System
B. Osprey Trail Drainage Outfall into C-2
Canal
Ms. Early stated both of these
permits are typical surface water permit reviews that we do for anything that
is going into the District stormwater system.
On
MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor the permit
request for the Ironstone Bank in
Mr. Hans stated we have been
reviewing our fees that we charge for certain items to ensure we are covering
our costs. Our current fee for the review
of drainage permits is $150. I have a
summary of last fiscal year’s fees and our cost to review permits. The average cost is approximately $400 for
reviewing these permits. Our proposal is
to increase our rate to $350 with the provision that additional fees and/or
time will be chargeable to the applicant.
Mr. Lauritzen asked do we have to
notice a public hearing?
Mr. Lyles responded as part of our
special act, we can adopt these sorts of fees and charges but in order to do
that, we have to publish a notice in a newspaper and hold a public
hearing. I have already worked with Ms.
Holiday to prepare the notice of public hearing for the next meeting. At that point, the Board will have a
discussion and decide whether to adopt the fee schedule as proposed, modified
or vote it down. At this point, we need
the Board’s authorization to go forward with the notification. If the Board has any direction for staff at
this time, we can modify the notice and notice the proposed changes now.
Mr. Hans stated we also looked at
what we charge for late water bills. I
have a review of what we are doing and where we are because they may need to be
adjusted at the same time. This would be
the appropriate time to take a look at this.
Mr. Lauritzen asked is this something
that all of the Districts are doing together?
Mr. Hans responded this is something
that NSID is doing. Pine Tree has
changed their policy slightly. It will
also be presented to the Coral Springs improvement District as well.
Mr. Mendolia asked is this something
that will be changed each year, or will it be permanent until there is a need
to change it?
Mr. Hans responded the $150 permit
fee has been in place for the life of the District. Fees have increased since then, and we are no
longer covering our costs.
This item has to do with our water
billing. Out of the 9,400 bills that go
out each month, 58% of them are 15 days past due. By the end of the month, it is down to 24%. If the bill is late three months, we notify
the resident by posting a door hanger notice that their service will be cut off
at a certain time. On average, we
usually have to turn the water off to 35 people. We do not have any late fees or penalties in
our current fee structure for delinquent payments or processing fees for new
accounts. We do not have a fee to check
for liens when there is an estoppel request.
We collect a $65 deposit, which we hold indefinitely because there is no
return policy at this time. If a
homeowner is disconnected because they received a door hanger, the fee is
$10. We charge an additional $10 if they
pay after
Mr. Lauritzen stated it seems reasonable to me.
You would probably cut that 24% figure in half.
Mr. Hans stated approximately 450
people get a door hanger each month.
These are repeat people who know the system. After they get a $20 late fee the first time,
half of them will probably pay the next month.
Mr. Lauritzen stated that is a big
expense. That is time that could be
spent doing other work.
Mr. Daly stated it takes two people
two days to hang notices. We feel that
we can decrease the door hangers if we impose late charges. In addition, checks bounce. This is not fair to the people who pay their
bills on time, which is why we are considering returning deposits to the
residents who pay on time after 18 months.
Mr. Lauritzen asked is there
something we can do about the chronic offenders? It is costing the District money, and it is
not fair to the other people.
Mr. Daly responded we trained them
that nothing will happen if they do not pay on time. The $20 late fee will help. We will require a cashier’s check from people
who bounced three checks in a year. We
also provide ACH debit free of charge and in another few months, we should have
credit card payments over the Internet.
Mr. Miner asked can you charge the
people who pay by credit card a service fee?
Mr. Daly responded we can but that
also penalizes the person who pays his/her bill on time.
Mr. Miner asked what does it cost
the District if someone uses a credit card?
Mr. Daly responded 2.3% for
Visa/MasterCard and 3% for the gateway we use so it ends up at approximately 4%
to 5%.
Mr. Miner asked can you charge them
5% above and beyond to cover our cost?
Mr. Daly responded yes, but you will
be penalizing the person paying their bill on time. The point is the people who pay late should
be funding the people who pay on time.
This is why it is a reward to the people who pay us and use the system
that we will put in place with regard to the credit cards, but it is also
paying attention to people who get away with no penalty charges. That could fund the costs that are involved
in the credit card system.
Mr. Mendolia stated the proposal
looks good except for the return check.
I think the fee should be higher than $20.
Mr. Lauritzen stated I agree.
Mr. Hans stated the city charges $25
for checks up to $50; $30 for checks in the amount of $50 to $300; $40 for checks in the amount of
$300 to $500; and $50 for checks over $500.
Does the Board want to use this structure?
The Board voiced their agreement.
Mr. Lyles stated we are going to
have a public hearing on this.
On
MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor staff was
authorized to notice a public hearing to consider the imposition of certain
fees for the review of permits and plats and the utility system.
Mr. Lyles stated I have been
contacted by the governor’s office in the past week. They are reviewing the manner in which
Supervisors are elected. Obviously,
something is going on in
Mr. Hans stated another District in
Mr. Lyles stated that means this is
an amendment to Chapter 189; not a specific amendment to our special act that
would solely cover NSID or CSID.
B. Engineer
Ms. Early stated we currently have a
few projects going on in Heron Bay North.
We are under construction on Osprey Trail. WCI has had under design Creekside and
Meadowbrook. Due to time constraints
because of the time it took the design as well as there were some environmental
issues, WCI wants to change order these two projects into the Florida Sewer and
Water Contract for Osprey Trail. Florida
Sewer and Water has done most of the work since they were the low bidder on
every bid that we have done. We’ve only
had a few bidders recently because many people are complaining about the
constraints that they have working in
The other project is the earthwork
project for all of this. We bid the
north half and Triple R was the low bid.
Triple R is doing all of the
Mr. Lauritzen asked are you sure you
do not want to rebid this project? Is
this allowed?
Ms. Early responded the problem with
rebidding is it takes 30 days. We did
the same thing in Heron Bay East. We
change ordered Heron Cove and the Greens because of the permitting issues and
the time constraints that came up.
Mr. Lauritzen asked is it your
opinion that there are no other active bidders that want to get in the bidding
process?
Ms. Early responded the only other
person that is working out here is Astaldi Construction, and they cannot keep
up with the three projects that they have.
We meet with them weekly.
University Drive has been going on for months and should have been done
in September.
Mr. Lyles stated an acquisition
agreement is an agreement between the District and WCI whereby they will fund
the construction and get it done on their basis. We have not issued bonds yet for any of this
work. We do not have money to pay for it
right now.
Ms. Early stated I do not think all
of this is paid from bonds; just the earthwork.
The water and sewer is paid back on connection charges going
forward. In the funding agreements, they
have to wait up to ten years to get their part back. The acquisition agreement is the same thing,
which is why he questioned the difference.
Mr. Lyles stated they would do it
all through their contracts with these or other contractors, and they would
convey it to the District when it is complete and ready to accept, and we would
agree through this acquisition agreement to pay a price to the developer for
the improvements that would be certified by the engineer as the lesser of fair
market or what it actually cost them to do it essentially. This is one option that we have that would
save WCI time and everybody money. Our
problem is we have competitive bidding requirements that are imposed on us by
state law and by our own act, and we want to make sure that we comply with
those things before we go forward. We
will either bring back to you a change order or an acquisition agreement. If we decide we have to bid it, we will put
the notice in and get the bid process going and we might have to postpone the
meeting.
Ms. Early stated they want to get
moving on this project.
Mr. Lyles stated I understand that,
but we may not have an option.
Ms. Early asked what is the
difference between an acquisition agreement and a funding agreement? They are both being funded by WCI currently. They are both paid up front by WCI either
way; funding agreement or acquisition agreement.
Mr. Lyles responded the difference
is with an acquisition agreement, we will not be a party to the agreement with
the contractor. What we currently have is
a contract we are a party to that we would be entering into a change order
on. If WCI wants to do it with the
acquisition route, they will sign a contract; the District won’t, and it will
not be a change order. It will be a new
contract, and we will acquire a completed improvement at a later date. That may the quickest, easiest, cheapest way
for all the parties to get this problem solved.
Mr. Lauritzen stated the District
wants to work with WCI, but we have to do it right.
Mr. Lyles stated I want to look at
the documents that are in place to see what was in the original bid package to
see what potential is there for a change order.
It is somewhat dependent upon what language was used, and I do not have
that to look at yet, but I will get together with Ms. Early, and we will figure
it out and do it the quickest way that it can be done.
Mr. Mendolia stated most likely no
one will give a lower bid.
Mr. Lyles stated the risk that you
run is you put it out for bid and not only do we not have a lot of bidders, but
the current contractor raises his price because now he knows he is the only
game in town.
Ms. Early stated they asked me if
they can raise their price on an existing item but I said no because it is
stated in the contract. However, they
can extend out a unit cost up to 25%.
They understand that in order to do a change order, they have to keep
that price. However, prices are
increasing.
Mr. Lyles stated it is in the
District’s financial interest to do it through a change order because they are
holding the unit prices to the original project. We will have something for the Board at the
next meeting, and I will do the best I can.
Ms. Early stated I have Work
Authorization No. 118, which is for a design of a 4-acre lake. It will require a funding agreement, which
Ms. Holiday has prepared.
On
MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor Work
Authorization No. 118 for the preparation of construction drawings for the
excavation of four acres of lakes, drainage ways and temporary connection and
the funding agreement were approved.
There not being any, the next item
followed.
There not being any, the next item
followed.
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors
Requests and Audience Comments
Mr. Joyce stated we finally got the
Certificate of Occupancy for NSID plant site, and the furniture was delivered
today. The only thing left to get the
Certificate of Occupancy is the booster station. The generator building, wells, administrative
building and plant are done.
On
MOTION by Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor the invoices
were approved.
There being nothing further,
On
MOTION by Mr. Miner seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor the meeting was
adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
Salvatore
J. Mendolia Matt
Lauritzen
Secretary President