MINUTES OF MEETING

NORTH SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the North Springs Improvement District was held Thursday, November 2, 2000 at 4:00 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:

Rhonda K. Archer Finance Director

Dennis Lyles Attorney

Donna Holiday Recording Secretary

Roger Moore Engineer

Chris Richard WCI

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call

Mr. Bell called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the October 11, 2000 Meeting

Mr. Bell stated that each Board member had received a copy of the minutes of the October 11, 2000 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 October 11, 2000 meeting were approved as submitted.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Award of Contract for the Purchase of Chemicals and Herbicides

Ms. Archer stated attached to the bid tabulation is a memorandum from Mr. Schooley regarding Rodeo and Reward. Monsanto had a patent on Rodeo which has expired and Nufarm is making the exact product under the name AquaNeat and the label is the same as Rodeo. Helena bid the new product at $63.98. Next year there will be other companies making the same product under their label and we can expect the price to become more competitive. Last year we paid $73.45 for Rodeo. The bids we received for Rodeo this year is Helena at $68.66, Lesco at $69.50, Pro Source One $68.20 and Van Waters at $77.75.

We have a letter from the manufacturer of Reward which says they do not allow their agents to bid the product. Two companies bid this product, Lesco bid $96.45 and Van Waters bid $98.25. We called two of their authorized agents and received identical prices of $85.00. We recommend that you award the contract to either one of the two who bid the $85.00 depending upon availability.

Mr. Bell stated we have two suppliers who quoted $85.00 over the phone. Can we consider the companies who gave us the price on the phone taking into account that we did not call Lesco or Van Waters?

Mr. Lyles stated I think your question is, can we consider these because they were supplemented by a phone call. Telephone bids are okay. These are not the kind of sealed bid such as a construction project. We can take telephone bids on this type of bid.

Mr. Lauritzen asked what is your recommendation?

Ms. Archer responded except for Rodeo and Reward, I recommend awarding the contract to the low bidder for each chemical. The low bid for Cutrine Plus is Helena at $10.40; Induce is Helena at $12.90; Polymer is Helena at $14.90; we received the same price on Sonar from Helena and Pro Source One and we recommend awarding it to both and we will purchase it based on availability; Hydrothol is Helena at $48.85; Aquathol K is Helena at $44.72; 2,4-DVL4 is Pro Source One. On the Rodeo bid we would like to use Aquaneat with Helena at $63.98. For Reward based on the two phone bids we would like to award to both and buy it based on availability.

Mr. Lyles stated going back to the memo on Reward, it seems to be a sole source and three companies are authorized to sell it.

Mr. Bell asked do we open the door to Lesco because they were the low participating bidder that met the initial deadline and Helena and Pro Source did not, based on their supplier's rules of not bidding.

Ms. Archer stated they indicate in their letter that this is a change in policy. For all we know they changed the policy after the two companies gave us a written bid. The letter says that they will no longer allow their agents to list the Reward price on a bid.

Mr. Bell asked if they don't bid how can they be granted an award on a bid?

Mr. Lyles stated it does create a problem. Does our current contract end or is it in effect until we award the new bid?

Ms. Archer stated it will be in effect until we award a new bid.

Mr. Lyles stated we can still buy Reward under the existing contract until we get this straightened out.

Ms. Archer stated we can't get a written bid on Reward because the three companies who are allowed to sell it are not allowed to list a price for Reward on a bid.

Mr. Lyles stated the total price is over the threshold for bidding.

Ms. Archer stated it is a sole source because it comes from Zeneca. Their letter says, Zeneca is selling Reward directly to your agency and Zeneca's authorized agents provide delivery, billing as well as stewardship services to you on our behalf. Zeneca is the sole supplier of this herbicide so there is no benefit to bid this product.

Mr. Lyles asked have we confirmed if Lesco is going to sell us the product at that price? They claim they can do something the others can't. If it is a sole source item, then we don't bid it, we just buy it directly from Zeneca. In terms of this bid award today I think we should leave the Reward line item out. That product has a sole source as we have been notified in writing that it can only be obtained from one source.

Mr. Bell stated Lesco and Van Waters are adding a higher profit margin as a supplier.

Ms. Archer stated according to the letter from Zeneca they are not even able to supply it.

Mr. Lyles stated I don't want to get the District into a situation of buying from an unauthorized supplier after we have been notified in writing that they are not authorized. I would rather back them out of this tabulation and deal with it separately.

Ms. Archer stated we have a fax from Pro Source and from Helena with the $85.00 price for Reward. They can't put it on a bid but the fax says their current price is $85.00. A bid fixes the price for that period of time that the contract is let versus a price quote is subject to change and that is what the letter from Zeneca says, that their price is subject to change and it is not fixed.

Mr. Lyles stated you are right because they put the word "current" in their proposal. We are not locking in a price. It could be $110 by next year this time.

Mr. Bell stated the two who bid are locking in a price for the same product.

Ms. Archer responded yes but we don't know if they are going to be able to supply it because the letter from Zeneca does not list them as authorized agents. We can consider Reward a sole source herbicide and you can authorize staff to purchase it from one of the three suppliers listed in Zeneca's letter and at whatever the low price is at the time we need the product.

Mr. Lyles stated you can do that as a proprietary purchase as opposed to competitive bid which the manufacturer says it won't allow.

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Bell with all in favor Zeneca was determined to be a sole source supplier of Reward and staff was authorized to purchase it from one of the three authorized agents listed in Zeneca's letter at the lowest price at the time we need to purchase the product.

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Bell with all in favor the contract for the purchase of chemicals is awarded to the low bidder in each category as follows:

Aqua Neat - Helena Chemical Company

Cutrine Plus - Helena Chemical Company

Induce - Helena Chemical Company

Polymer - Helena Chemical Company

Sonar SRP - Pro Source One

Sonar AS - Helena Chemical Company and Pro Source One dependingon availability

Hydrothol 191 - Helena Chemical Company

Aquathol K - Helena Chemical Company

2,4-D L.V.4 - Pro Source One

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Work Authorization No. 61 for Contract Administration and construction Observation for the Trails End Extension Contract

Ms. Archer stated we awarded the contract for Trails End Extension and this work authorization covers the engineering services during construction. The fee is based on their hourly rates and they estimate it to be approximately $2,000 per month during the construction period.

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Bell with all in favor Work Authorization No. 61 was approved.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports

A. Attorney

There not being any, the next item followed.

B. Engineer

There not being any, the next item followed.

C. Superintendent - Report on Insurance Bids

Ms. Archer stated Mr. Lyles and I attended a meeting yesterday with representatives of WCI which was a preliminary meeting where they talked about the legislation that was added to the District's Act several years ago allowing us to construct schools. WCI is interested in working with the District and Broward County School Board to come up with a plan for the District to build some schools in North Springs to alleviate some of the crowding problems. They talked about the ability in our Act and that they would like us to make ourselves available to sit in on some meetings with WCI and the School Board to put together a plan in that direction. We indicated that we can do that but we wanted to take it to the Board first and get your authorization to participate in these discussions and to put something together to bring back to you in the future for your consideration.

Mr. Lauritzen asked why would we want to get involved in that?

Ms. Archer responded from what I understand the way the School Board decides what schools they are going to build is they put together a list of needs and the schools on the top of the list are the ones that get built and you have to wait until your name comes to the top of the list to get it done because they have limited funds. One of the things that the City of Pembroke Pines did a couple of years ago which I am familiar with because I administer the program for the City, is they issued bonds for the construction of some schools and they brought a group of developers in the City together and got them to voluntarily commit to the bond program where they agreed to pay special assessments to the City to defease these bonds instead of paying impact fees to the County. The assessments are higher than the impact fees because these assessments are actually building the school whereas the impact fees are not ever enough money to build a school. They issued the bonds but the difference in that situation is that they gave the money to the County to build the schools. Because they gave them the money, they got the schools built.

Mr. Lauritzen asked did that make them liable for the three that were in queue to get the money from the County?

Mr. Lyles responded no. It was a voluntary policy decision that the School Board makes. It is not like a competitive bid. They can make policy decisions from year to year. That is not what is being proposed here.

Ms. Archer stated it is probably going to be somewhat similar but different. The District will actually build the school and give it to the County or we will do a one for one exchange on impact fees.

Mr. Lauritzen asked when you say build a school, do you mean we will sell bonds and hire someone to build the school?

Ms. Archer responded we don't know. We are saying that we will sit down and talk with them about what the School Board wants. if they want us to do the bond issue and hand them the money and let them build the schools or if they want us to build the school and give them the school when it is done. We are going to ask them what kind of program they willing to enter into.

Mr. Lyles stated it is such a significant undertaking that we thought it would be appropriate to have the Board authorize the staff to go forward with exploring it and determining the feasibility and the potential cost and what the impact will be. Of course, it all comes back to the Board once the initial exploratory phase is done. We thought before we spent time and effort on it, we would like the Board to give us authorization to explore it.

Mr. Bell stated remember it was a feel good thing 18 months ago when the District was a vehicle for the financing of Heron Bay and although there were only two issues that I recall which was the sub-contractor and the phone call to Mr. Grossjung and those were minimal, the magnitude of a school in comparison to the Heron Bay project is much greater. We are a funding vehicle to secure additional tax dollars earlier to build schools. We know that even five years out there are significant needs not met with the growth that exists in the District. We have a management company that manages the Heron Bay recreation facility. The fees come in, the payments are made and in theory we are totally out of it other than satisfying the bonds. What is our responsibility today with Heron Bay?

Mr. Lyles responded your primary responsibility for the Heron Bay Commons project at this point is on an annual basis make sure that the funds we raised with the bond issue are spent appropriately. We still haven't finished all of the payments to all of the contractors. There are a few things left to do. You are the owner of the facility and we have a contract with a management company. You see their expenses and see how they get paid and it is on your financial report. You are looking at that as it goes through but it is all covered by contract. Now that it has been financed and it is essentially finished, you really don't have any responsibility.

Mr. Bell asked what would happen if for some reason there is a major down turn of the economy and the bonds couldn't be met?

Ms. Archer stated all of the assessments are on the tax bill. Our responsibility is to levy the taxes to pay for the bonds and people pay the tax bills. Most of them get paid by the mortgage companies which is escrowed every month out of their payments. Even when the economy is very bad, people still pay their tax bills and still pay their mortgages.

Mr. Lyles stated remember it is just the area of the special assessment project which is covered by the bonded indebtedness. It is not District-wide. This is what we have said in the past as growth paying for growth, meaning people who already have their houses, already have their parks and facilities throughout Parkland and unincorporated Broward County do not pay for Heron Bay Commons.

Mr. Bell stated it is the developer inquiring if there is any interest on our part because that is a major selling point for the remainder of their development.

Mr. Lyles stated there is that and also when the Act that created this District was amended to authorize schools as a proper District purpose, the development and construction of schools is within your Act as a delineated power for this Board to exercise. The findings there are that it is not just appropriate public purpose but growth paying for growth. You are going to have demands for schools made by new housing and those individuals if they want to build into their payment schedule and their budgets on these homes they purchase, an additional assessment that will help them get schools sooner than they otherwise would, instead of letting them pay for the impact on the whole education system that is normally paid on a county-wide basis.

Mr. Lauritzen stated we are obligated to look into this to see if we can do it.

Ms. Archer stated just because you have the power to do it, you are not obligated to do it.

Mr. Lauritzen stated in the sense of good community and property values and building a good community because the opportunity is there we would be foolish not to look into it, at least what you are proposing now, to sit down and discuss it. It sounds like a great opportunity.

Ms. Archer stated the other thing I want to point out on Heron Bay Commons is that the District didn't guarantee any of those bonds. The guarantee on the Heron Bay Commons Bonds is the property those assessments are on. Even if the economy took a down turn and all of a sudden people quit paying their tax bills and we defaulted on the bonds, the remedy to the bondholders is to foreclose on the property the lien is on and not come against this District for any funds at all.

Mr. Lyles stated they can't come against the District and the property values there are far in excess of what would ever be required for non payment of taxes.

Mr. Lauritzen asked did you bring that up because you are trying to make a comparison of how it would be if we got involved with this?

Mr. Bell responded my next question to Mr. Lyles is to speculate on what could be the downside if any. Is there any downside to this?

Mr. Lyles responded I don't think there is an economic downside to the District because it is going to be growth paying for growth. I think as to the Board members themselves and their concerns you are going to have longer agendas and additional issues to deal with that you haven't dealt with in the past. This is cutting edge and it has not been done in the past. It may be done more frequently in the future which is why we want you to at least authorize us to explore it.

Mr. Lauritzen stated we are going to need schools.

Mr. Bell stated as an educator I am all too well aware of the needs of facilities. With the multiple options that are becoming available i.e. charter schools and the explosion of private schools and home schooling, apparently those options still didn't diminish an additional 9,000 to 10,000 new students coming into the District and even though we opened schools, shortages are on the rise again. I am very supportive of doing something. If it is simply authorization to explore and be open to discussions and secure more information, you certainly have my support. I would be interested to hear about this on a monthly basis.

Ms. Archer stated we need you to tell us when we bring some of this back to you, based on your experience with the schools, if it makes sense.

Mr. Bell stated be aware that there was an article three days ago that I followed up with a phone call because it was not totally accurate that talked about the legislation that starts in the year 2003 for the sizes of schools throughout the State of Florida and very specific numbers at the elementary, middle and high school level and that schools would not be approved if they exceeded the ideal number. I want to say it was 500 for elementary, 900 for middle and 1,400 at the high school level or even smaller than that and the article said a school like that doesn't exist in the public sector and that is not true. I called to tell them about Pompano Beach High School. A part of the discussion and a part of planning is going to be that there will be some incentive dollars available from the State to ensure that Districts are building schools that are far more reasonable in size than the huge schools we have throughout the entire District. Depending on what they are talking about, there will never be another Riverglades capacity of over 900 and sitting there with 1,300 students, they will be in the 500 student range.

Ms. Archer asked instead of building huge schools, they are going to build more and smaller?

Mr. Bell responded the reason they got so huge is you add a little more square footage to the cafeteria, a little more to the media center and you can stuff more kids in there. What research has clearly told us and common sense tells you too is that you have diminishing returns. You may save a few bucks but you have diminishing returns. Thinking they saved a little bit of money because they didn't have to have two media centers and two cafeterias but the student achievement component is diminished because it is not individualized enough. That is what the State is saying, they are tired of these huge schools.

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Bell with all in favor staff was authorized to proceed under Section 26 and 27 of the special Act creating the North Springs Improvement District to meet with the appropriate officials from the City, the County, the School Board and owners of land within the District regarding the feasibility of constructing a school or schools within the District through an assessment program.

Mr. Lyles stated as a supplement to that, our authority is limited to a program within the School District and not another type of school such as a charter school or private school. This is strictly an effort on behalf of and in support of the public education system in Broward County. Of necessity we will be working with the School Board along those lines. When we meet with them we need a motion from the Board as you just passed indicating that we have the authority to speak for the District and to explore this and to see how best it can be done.

Report on Insurance

Ms. Archer stated at the last meeting I told you that we extended the insurance for a month because the insurer we were using lost their rating and was no longer insuring this type of business and it is hard to find someone who insures municipalities. Everyone who looked at it declined to quote except Travelers.

Mr. Lauritzen asked why did they decline?

Ms. Archer responded they no longer want to insure municipalities because they look at us as being easy targets. North Springs is the only one where the premium went down.

Mr. Lauritzen asked is that because our claims are lower than the rest?

Ms. Archer responded that could be. We have claims pending in the other two Districts. The total is $94,457. There has been a change in Florida Windstorm where in a lot of cases the deductible is increasing and the coverage is decreasing but they didn't indicate that they are deleting anything from our property coverage on the Florida Windstorm. Travelers is rated A+15 and that is a good rating. I bound this because I didn't want us to be without insurance and it seemed logical since the premium went down and Travelers is a good company.

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Bell with all in favor staff's actions in binding the insurance coverage as outlined above were ratified.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor's Requests and Audience Comments

There not being any, the next item followed.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Invoices and Requisitions

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 5:05 p.m.

Matt Lauritzen William Bell

Vice President President