MINUTES OF MEETING

NORTH SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the North Springs Improvement District was held Monday, February 8, 2001 at 4:15 P.M. in the District Office, 10300 N. W. 11 Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum were:

William Bell President

Matt Lauritzen Vice President

Also present were:

Gary L. Moyer Manager

Rhonda K. Archer Finance Director

Dennis Lyles Attorney

Donna Holiday Recording Secretary

John McKune Gee & Jenson

Roger Moore Engineer

Scott Davidson WCI Communities

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call

Mr. Bell called the meeting to order at 4:15 p.m.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the January 11, 2001 Meeting

Mr. Bell stated that each Board member had received a copy of the minutes of the January 11, 2001 meeting and requested any additions, corrections or deletions.

There not being any,

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Bell with all in favor the minutes of the January 11, 2001 meeting were approved as submitted.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Award of Contract for Heron Bay East Pod 2 and Construction Financing Agreement for Same

Mr. Moyer stated included in your agenda package is a letter from Ms. Early dated January 30, enclosing the bid tab. The base bid amount from Florida Sewer and Water was $445,824 and the engineer's estimate was $532,986. They recommend the award in the amount of the bid subject to funding being available.

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Bell with all in favor the contract was awarded to Florida Sewer & Water in the amount of their low bid of $445,824 and the Developer Funding Agreement with WCI was approved.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Change Orders

A. Change Order No. 2 for Potable Water Storage Tanks Contract with Crom Corporation for a Net Increase of $2,500.00

Mr. McKune stated since the tank site is in an outlying area, we felt the access ladders on the exterior sides of the tanks giving access to the top of the dome which is 30' above grade represented an attractive nuisance to kids who happen to go by, climb the fence and get on the property. We wanted to put some ladder guards around the tank ladders and the contractor agreed to do that for $1,250 per tank for a total of $2,500. I recommend we authorize this change order.

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Bell with all in favor Change Order No. 2 for the Potable Water Storage Tanks Contract with Crom Corporation for a net increase of $2,500 was approved.

B. Change Order No. 3 for Potable Water Storage Tanks with Crom Corporation for a Reduction in Retainage

Mr. McKune stated this is the same contractor and the same project. The tanks have been completed and all that remains for them to do is a bacteriological test and clear the tanks for service by the Health Department. Once we have the tanks cleared we have approximately 30 days to put them in service per the Health Department requirements. At this time we have no pumps at the adjacent pump station and it will be some time before the pump station is completed by our water plant contractor and prior to Florida Power & Light providing power to the pumps. Consequently, we have asked Crom to delay the bacteriological clearance of the tanks until we tell them to come back and do it once the pumps are on line. We have taken $1,000 out and held it as the retainage amount to represent the work effort to clear the tanks and recommend we reduce their retainage down to that final amount. This does not change the amount of the contract, it simply reduces the retainage down to $1,000 which is a reasonable number to do the work.

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Bell with all in favor Change Order No. 3 for the Potable Water Storage Tanks Contract with Crom Corporation for a reduction in retainage was approved.

C. Change Order No. 5 for Potable Water Supply Wells Contract with Southeast Drilling Services, Inc. for a Net Increase of $44,205.00

Mr. McKune stated this represents a change to the well drilling contract. We have successfully drilled six new water supply wells and have achieved increased yields from most of those wells over what was originally designed. These increases in dollar amount relate to that increase in yield. The first item is the additional labor, equipment and material to clear the 8" raw water main adjacent to Well No. 4 so that we could put it on line rapidly at its increased capacity to satisfy the Health Department during our period of low capacity at the water plant in the amount of $18,300. That would have been in the water plant contract which will be removed from that contract. The second item is the addition of rehabilitating existing Well No. 2 at the water plant site. That well was drilled in approximately 1978 and originally yielded about 700 gallons per minute. It is currently pumping about 200 gallons per minute. We have done things like this with these contractors before. They open the well up, redevelop it and put it back in service and it comes back to its almost original capacity. The $7,500 is the amount for the contractor to rehabilitate that well. Item 3 is the additional amount to change the quantity of gravel used in below grade construction of approximately three of the six new wells which is a result of the higher yield and the need to put in a slightly larger gravel pack around the intake screen. That resulted in a change in gravel cost of $11,151. The last item is the addition of providing a portable generator and labor to exercise four of the new wells for a period of six months until we get power to the sites.

We have six new wells, two of them are on line. Three of the new wells are along the District's dike south of the Sawgrass Expressway. We are in the process of constructing a generator station for those three sites. When that is done FP&L will provide power to the generator site, we then have approximately one mile of cabling to feed each of the three well sites. As yet we don't have power to the wells and we need to exercise them about every two months to keep them in good shape and to keep the equipment from deteriorating. The fourth well is at the dead end of 87th Avenue just east of the fish farm. We have been waiting for FP&L to extend power down 87th Avenue to the well. They told us late last year that we would have to wait until this current fiscal year for them to work it into their budget. We found out by accident about two weeks ago that they decided to remove this project from their budget. The Florida Power & Light representative that I have not yet been able to talk to recommended that we find out if anyone has "clout" with FP&L to see if they could do something about providing power to the well. I think we will be able to get power but it will take a little bit longer than it would have originally. I need to exercise the equipment that is in that well also. This change order amount of $7,254 will provide for our well drilling contractor to bring in his portable generator and run all four of these wells for a period of six months.

In addition to the items listed on this version of the change order, the contractor also sent me a request to reduce his retainage and for us to hold back an amount equivalent to him clearing these four wells because they have to go through the same bacteriological clearance as do the tanks with the Health Department. That will not increase the amount of the contract, it simply reduces the retainage. I have a modification to the change order that was provided in your agenda package.

Ms. Archer asked did FP&L take this job out of their budget?

Mr. McKune responded they were going to extend some power lines to feed some residential areas and as part of that project they were going to extend power down 87th Avenue. They have eliminated that entire project. I don't know if it has been deferred for a period of time or what. We are trying to get the details. They were going to write us a letter but we don't have it yet.

Ms. Archer asked what is the cost for running that line to us?

Mr. McKune responded they were going to charge us $21,000 to run the power. In order for us to get the power now, they will have to run it further. We don't know how far or how much.

The total amount of the change order is $44,205.00 and I recommend it be approved.

Mr. Lyles asked what is the retainage presently?

Mr. McKune responded it is 10% of the total contract amount which is approximately $50,000 retainage.

Mr. Lyles stated the request is to reduce it to a dollar amount of $4,000. The reason they want it reduced is there is an unforeseen delay. Everything is done except for this delay with the FP&L issue.

Mr. McKune stated they have completed construction. If we had power to all of the wells, we could use them all once they have been bacteriologically cleared.

Mr. Lyles stated without FP&L's problem, we would be at the end of the project and they could get all of their retainage back. We are taking that into account and reducing the retainage from the normal 10%. In return for that, are we getting a sign off from them that all claims for delay, owner interference or any other kinds of claims that they can make through and including this time, they are waiving?

Mr. McKune responded I believe that is the standard language in the modified change order.

Mr. Lyles stated that language limits itself to the changes in this change order. We need to also cover any claims they have made or could have made from the beginning of this project up until the date of the change order. It needs to be broader than this because we are giving up our retainage. If we get into a dispute we are going to have no leverage and since they want their retainage early, assuming the Board is willing to cooperate with them, we need a commitment from them that they won't come after us for any kind of claims that could have been made, that have arisen out of anything in this job up until now. Sometimes you get to the end of a project, you make the full payment, you release the retainage and then you get the claim letter saying they were held up on this job because of our problems and they have had increased costs and lost the ability to do other work and they sue for delay damages. We have given them 399 days and we are giving the retainage early and you need to have that additional commitment from them in order to release the retainage.

Mr. McKune responded I can get that.

Mr. Lyles stated we want everything they could have maintained as a claim from the beginning of the project up until the date of the change order.

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Bell with all in favor Change Order No. 5 for the Potable Water Supply Wells Contract with Southeast Drilling Services, Inc. for a net increase of $44,205.00 was approved subject to the language outlined by Mr. Lyles being inserted into the change order..

Mr. Moyer stated we just went through a discussion of the contracts for the water plant expansion, can you give us an overview of where we are and how close we are to finalizing that construction.

Mr. McKune responded we are looking at probably August to finalize the water plant itself. The wells are ready except for the power. The treatment unit at the plant is 50% complete. The concrete filters are perhaps 75% complete. The on-site drainage is complete. The piping is about 80% complete. The underground is done. There is a pond to build, a lot of the above ground, electrical controls, wiring and above grade piping is yet to be done.

Mr. Moyer stated a year ago when we were in the crises we found ourselves in I thought we would have a plant operational in February.

Mr. Moore responded that was the initial target date.

Mr. McKune responded I don't recall the date.

Mr. Lauritzen asked were we not having building permit problems?

Mr. Moyer responded even then, I thought we sat down and the question I asked was how long can we keep it stuck together and get through the drought and are we going to face this same situation a year from now and this was the discussion that went on a year ago.

Mr. McKune responded that is when we up-rated the plant.

Mr. Moyer stated we up-rated the plant, we put the wells on line but I was under the impression that we were going to have filters and an acelator on line by February.

Mr. McKune stated we currently have a 4.8 MGD plant which is more than sufficient to meet the demands for another year.

Mr. Lauritzen asked did we sign some kind of contract with Coral Springs?

Ms. Archer stated we asked for one but they said no. They said they would give us emergency water if it is related to an emergency and not bad planning on our part but they said they would not sell us bulk water.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports

A. Attorney

Mr. Lyles stated we had the final hearing on local bills for the Legislative Delegation in Broward County and one of the bills pertained to this District. It was modified after your last meeting and literally during the day and during the evening of the hearing it was still being modified by its sponsor Representative Ritter who is a resident of the District. The bill that was somewhat reduced in scope and had a vote locally in Broward County, and now goes to Tallahassee, provides for an increase in the number of members of the Board of Supervisors from three to five, it provides for electoral votes, regular District-wide elections, run by the Supervisor of Elections with all of the attendant requirements such as opening a campaign account, having a qualifying period, all registered electors will be qualified to vote, and qualified to run and it would start in the case of the present members in November of the year in which your terms expire which I believe is the year 2004. In the year 2001 there will be additions to the Board, a member from the Coral Springs City Commission and a member from the Parkland City Commission. We had other proposals leading up to the final hearing, one of which was two members from Coral Springs and no one from Parkland. Parkland requested that it be four members from Parkland and one from Coral Springs. We had a membership going up and down and there was a lot of talk about how the final bill would look and how it would work. In any event, it ends up being a five member Board, three of whom are elected by the voters, two of whom would be City Commissioners or designees of City Commissioners.

Mr. Lauritzen asked who would appoint the City Commissioners?

Mr. Lyles responded the two City Commissions or in the alternative they could appoint another citizen who is not a City Commissioner. They can appoint anyone to sit on the Board.

Ms. Archer stated it doesn't even have to be a resident. The way the bill is written now, they can appoint anybody.

Mr. Lyles stated that is on the surface what happened at the meeting. I think we have told you in the past that our best read of all of this is that this is the initial shot at this and it was discussed at the meeting that Representative Ritter wanted to eliminate all of these Districts a year ago and she announced she received a lot of feedback saying, start with the Districts in your own legislative district as opposed to county-wide and see how that goes. This is an incremental step. We have taken the direction from this Board and from the C.S.I.D. Board as well and have opposed these bills. With your approval we have obtained a lobbyist who opposed these bills and now the whole matter shifts up to Tallahassee. The thing that has become very apparent especially at the hearing is that Coral Springs is very involved in this effort. Their Mayor came and spoke against the District. The Mayor and City Manager and City Attorney were all there. They prepared the bill for Representative Ritter. They had two or three attorneys there. They were still making changes to the bill as the legislative hearing was going on. It is clear they are very supportive and working with Representative Ritter very closely. One end result could be that the whole matter gets transferred to one of the local government entities within the District and the City of Parkland with its very limited staff has indicated that there is no way they will be able to run this District if they were asked to or if it were offered to them. At the same time they are adamant that they don't want it run by the City of Coral Springs and have terms dictated to the City of Parkland by another City that doesn't have a majority of the District's area or residents. The way this District will ultimately evolve it will be mostly Parkland. That is not the case right now. We have had the bill come out of the local hearing process, it will go to Tallahassee. There will be committee hearings, there are other steps in the process and we have had some reassuring feedback from our lobbyist and based on our knowledge of his track record that this is far from over in terms of actually passing.

Ms. Archer stated the City of Parkland gave us a resolution opposing the bill. I talked to Terry Lewis who is the attorney who represents the Association of Special Districts and he will follow this in Tallahassee and work with us on opposing the bill because it doesn't follow Chapter 189, F.S. There is a mechanism within 189 that dictates how you will convert a landowners elected board to an elector elected board and that was the word of the Legislature on how they wanted these districts to transition on their elections, because there are literally hundreds of these districts all over the State and they are trying to provide for more continuity in the way these districts are organized and managed. He felt that we had a good argument in Tallahassee on that basis because 189 is preemptive and should be followed rather than having all of these districts all over the State custom design how they are going to elect their board members.

Mr. Lyles stated it is essentially a referendum of the voters in the district which is fine, which provides if you are going to have a five member board they all get elected within the district by all of the voters, not City Commissioners or designees from some other city being placed on the board and having equal authority as a board member who is a resident and taxpayer and elector of the district. We think there is still flaws in the process by which it is being done and in the substance of the bill that has been passed by the Broward Legislative Delegation and at this point I think the Manager's office and I recommend that we be allowed to continue to oppose the bill and ultimately let there be a conversion if there is going to be one, in accordance with general law which is Chapter 189, or in accordance with or in cooperation with the members of this Board.

Mr. Lauritzen asked does any of this have to do with the potential powers of the Board with regard to building schools in the District?

Ms. Archer responded we already have that power in our legislation. They are not changing that as far as this bill.

Mr. Lyles stated the C.S.I.D. act does not have that power and they are just as adamant about C.S.I.D. and Sunshine.

Ms. Archer stated the way 189 allows the election to transition is that it is over time based upon the percentage of the lands that are developed versus undeveloped. It requires you first to have a referendum vote on whether you want to transition and once the electors decide if they want it to transition, you determine how much land is developed, how much is undeveloped and that determines how many members will be elected by registered voters and how many will continue to be elected by landowners. As more land becomes developed you add another member elected by the electors and decrease it by a member elected by landowners so by the time it is all developed it is all an electoral board. The purpose of that is so that the property owners of the undeveloped property continue to be able to exercise their votes as taxpayers in this District on how their land will be developed and taxed. The Delegation doesn't care if the property owner has any vote at all on this Board.

Mr. Lyles stated it was stronger than Ms. Archer expressed. They said they don't want them voting.

Mr. Lauritzen stated meanwhile they offer up no experience in managing districts. Do they have a blueprint on how they are supposed to take over all of this? Is this a fantasy of theirs that they want to segue into?

Mr. Lyles responded I think their response would be, they are making sure we have a representative board because at this point they are not changing the management structure or requiring us to turn our authority over to a city or some other agency. It seems clear where it is all headed.

Mr. Lauritzen asked do we need to get more aggressive as a District in our lobbying efforts in Tallahassee?

Mr. Lyles responded since we haven't had lobbying efforts in Tallahassee in the past, the short answer is yes. We need to carry this fight to Tallahassee with our lobbyist and we will ask the C.S.I.D. Board for the same authority. We need to do that if we want to continue to have an independent Board that is operated pursuant to the general law of Florida that applies to all other districts as opposed to one special set of custom made rules that one Representative came up with and that no one else has to comply with.

At this point we need to continue to resist this bill being passed and authorize the lobbyist to take appropriate steps in Tallahassee to complete that effort.

Mr. Bell asked do we need a motion to that effect or is that an assumption in the motion we made and supported before?

Mr. Lyles stated a motion to authorize continued lobbying efforts through Ronald Book through the conclusion of the hearings in Tallahassee on this bill is appropriate.

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Bell with all in favor the lobbyist was authorized to continue the lobbying efforts in Tallahassee to opposed the proposed bill through the conclusion of the hearings.

B. Engineer

Mr. McKune stated earlier in the meeting we awarded a construction contract for Heron Bay East Pod 2 and I have Work Authorization 65 to do the contract administration for that project. It is our standard scope of services during construction and the payment amount is approximately $2,000 per month for a period of five months.

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Bell with all in favor Work Authorization No. 65 was approved.

C. Superintendent

Ms. Archer stated I met this month with the new Manager at Heron Bay Commons and she asked if we would like to meet there again for your March meeting.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor's Requests and Audience Comments

Mr. Lauritzen stated Parkland is building their park starting Monday. Is the District involved in that?

Mr. Moyer responded we were requested to provide water service within the park, run the line into the park, waive our normal fees and we responded that the Board did not have the right to give free service.

Ms. Archer stated normally the District provides service to the parcel line and the owner of the property does the internal water and sewer lines. It would be contrary to our adopted policy to provide it to the water line and under our bond documents we covenant that we won't provide free service to anyone.

Mr. Moyer stated although we would like to help we have never exempted connection fees to other governments. We would waive the permit fees but the water and sewer system is an enterprise fund, we have never waived fees.

Ms. Archer stated under State law schools don't pay connection fees but we still charge meter fees and things like that.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Requisitions and Invoices

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Bell with all in favor the invoices and requisitions were approved.

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Bell with all in favor the meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.

Matt Lauritzen William Bell

Vice President President