MINUTES OF
MEETING
NORTH SPRINGS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the North Springs
Improvement District was held on
Present and constituting a quorum were:
Salvatore Mendolia
President
Steve Mendelson
Secretary
Also present were:
John Petty
Manager
Dennis Lyles
Attorney
John McKune
Engineer
Doug Hyche
District Staff
Jean Rugg
Michael Hollander
Resident
FIRST ORDER
OF BUSINESS
Roll Call
Mr. Petty
called the meeting to order and called the roll
SECOND ORDER
OF BUSINESS
Approval of the Minutes of the December 20, 2005
Meeting
Mr. Petty stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the
There not being any,
On MOTION by
Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Mendelson with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER
OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Permit Request from
Mr. Petty stated the permit request was included in the agenda package
along with the recommendation from staff.
Mr. McKune stated this is a standard drainage permit for the commercial
parcel next to Buffalos at the intersection of
Mr. Petty stated the existing drainage system does not belong to the
District as it is internal.
However, we are responsible for the infrastructure. We have to make sure this meets our
master design criteria for runoff.
On MOTION by
Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Mendelson with all in favor the permit request from
Wyndham Heights Development for
FOURTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS
Staff Reports
A.
Attorney
There being no report, the next item followed.
B.
Engineer
There being no report, the next item followed.
C.
Manager
Mr. Petty stated I have one item for the Board, which we apologize for
not having in the agenda package as this meeting was too close to our last
meeting. I provided the Board with
proposals from our existing contractor to perform hurricane cleanup in Parkland
Isles. The community asked us to
perform additional improvements, which we have done, which benefits them and
they pay for. There was money in
the budget to pay for plant replacement due to a hurricane last year, which we
had not done before Hurricane Wilma hit us. With monies available in the budget, we
will be able to pay for two already authorized cleanup orders to remove fallen
plantings. This request is to
protect the health of the existing landscaping. We have many cut limbs, which should be
cut back properly so we do not kill the trees. The trees we uprighted and tried to
save, need to be removed to stabilize the soil conditions of the berm. I provided to the Board the quote we
received from our existing contractor, Valley Crest and recommend we authorize
the amendment to the contract to allow them to do this work as we have money
available in the existing budget.
However, there are no monies in the Plant Replacement Fund and will work
with the community on the funding.
Mr. Mendolia asked what is the $43,500 for?
Mr. Petty responded to stabilize the soil and existing
plantings.
Mr. Mendolia asked do we have monies in the budget to cover this amount?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Mendolia asked do we have more than $43,500 in the budget?
Mr. Petty responded no. This
takes the budget down to the last thousand dollars.
Mr. Mendelson asked is this strictly for the removal and
pruning?
Mr. Petty responded it is for repairing the existing plant material
without having to replace any plant material. This is the last phase in the
process. We have already completed
two steps. After the storm, many of
the plants were uprooted in order to re-establish them. We have now determined some of them
cannot be saved. Broken branches
from large trees which have not been trimmed back, need
to be inspected to determine whether or not they are infested with
termites. Other plant material such
as bushes, which we hoped would come back should now be
removed. There is a considerable
amount of work to do and the money is in the budget. We will have to do a budget amendment at
the end of the year to re-classify this item as plant cleanup versus plant
removal. The recommendation from
staff is to authorize staff to do an amendment with the contract subject to
District Counsel’s review and signature by the Board’s
president.
Mr. Lyles stated you are engaging the Board to amended the current contract by Valley Crest who was the low
bidder under this bid process to increase the scope of a contract to take into
account damage caused by Hurricane Wilma.
Mr. Petty stated the reason we are strongly recommending this is for
accountability purposes. If we hire
another landscaper to do repair work for just the plant material and should
something fail in six months, the finger pointing will be very intense and we
will have to arbitrate it. I would
rather have accountability with the existing contractor if
possible.
Mr. Mendolia stated I was told
Mr. Hollander stated only for Heron Bay Commons.
Mr. Petty stated I am referring to the berm around this single family
area in Parkland Isles. The Master
Association brought the issue to the District but the District works only with
the residents. However, we take
input from the HOA. Only the
residents of Parkland Isles will pay for the hurricane cleanup.
Mr. Mendolia stated it should be reflected on the contract this is for
Parkland Isles only.
Mr. Lyles stated some of the confusion is coming from the fact there are
different subdivisions and communities within NSID, which are very large. The
On MOTION by
Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Mendolia with all in favor the proposal from
Valley Crest to perform hurricane cleanup at Parkland Isles in the amount of
$43,500 was approved, subject to review by legal counsel and execution by the
Board President.
Mr. Petty stated we received a letter from WCI on our request to put in
writing their agreement to the termination. This does not require any action from
the Board but is for informational purposes only. They are working very well with us and I
do not think we will have any problems.
Mr. Hollander asked is this in reference to the commons building?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Hollander asked when will the audit be completed? I
have asked for an engagement letter from the auditing companies and have not
received one. Are we doing an
audit?
Mr. Mendolia responded yes.
Mr. Hollander stated I did an audit on a couple of vendors. One vendor has a five year contract for
$14,000 a year or $204,000 total.
Is the Board going to ask this vendor for the money back? We talked about this audit seven times
last year and it is still not completed.
Mr. Petty responded I have the same concerns and I am sure the Board has
expressed those same concerns. Our
agreement with WCI seemed to be an economical thing to do in the beginning and
is now turning into a problem. You
have a government owned recreational facility and there are monies being
collected at the site. The proper
checks and balances should be in place so the information being requested by
this gentleman is readily available.
However, since we contracted with a private entity and did not specify
the type of software or accounting, they were left to do what they felt was good
business practice, which is what brings us to our recommendation today.
I apologize for bringing this recommendation to you late but I recommend
you not consider a contract with another agency because of this issue. We do not have the software, computer
system, oversight and checks and balances in place to where we would ask for
information and they may not be able to supply it. Whenever you have a contract where they
are collecting your money, you want to have YOUR software, YOUR system, YOUR
accounting person and YOUR checks and balances overseeing the entire
operation. All of this is fairly
typical for this type of deal.
I recommend the Board make this a District operation. Since we are funding this at 100%,
including the management, the District will have great accountability so when
these types of questions come up, not only are they readily available but in an
understandable format for the residents.
Furthermore, the rules you adopt will be adopted by the Board and not by
a contractor on-site who may start a policy you may not know anything
about. If we can do this with our
employees, it becomes not only very open but as honest as we can possibly make
it and responsive to the residents and provide the same continuity and level of
service.
Mr. Hollander asked what does the sentence “so long as a new management
contract does not change the current relationship of the association” mean? I have a
cynical feeling for our current management as there is no accountability. It sounds like Mr. Petty is on the right
track. I would like to take a look
at the numbers because this building has been so poorly managed to the point
where if you go there now, it is a mess and the residents are paying for
it.
Mr. Petty responded I believe the Board has an active interest in making
this the best facility they can and we are looking to do the best job we can and
the recommendation before you does just that. The audit season for the District is
upon us and at the last meeting, the Board accepted the
engagement letter from the auditor.
It is currently in the signature phase, which is why you have not seen
it. I am waiting for my copy as we
speak. If we institute something
in-house, this is the greatest degree of control we can possibly
have.
Mr. Mendolia stated WCI had control over the facility before. The options are to continue the
management in-house or to have a new property management company take over. Mr. Petty is recommending taking the
management in-house with your personnel.
Mr. Petty stated not Severn Trent personnel but District personnel to
handle the money.
Mr. Mendolia asked what monies are handled?
Mr. Petty responded money collected from programs/classes being offered
on-site. This is a government
facility and you are licensing this facility to outside contractors to hold
classes with a certain amount of funds coming back to the District. The checks and balances is to determine the correct number of participants, fees and
whether the money submitted to me was correct. There are specific software programs for
these types of recreational facilities used by municipal governments and other
government agencies, which we are be very interested in
obtaining. This was not necessary
when this was a brand new subdivision with only a handful of residents. We are probably past the time where we
should have received the audit in a timely fashion but we are at the stage now
where we need to have it. Hiring
another contractor would be redundant because we would make him purchase or use
software we purchased and would then be doing double accounting. When you get into the redundancy, it is
usually best to bring it in-house and make it your own.
Mr. Mendolia asked do you think any of these property management
companies will accept tying their auditing with the District’s rather than their
own operation?
Mr. Petty responded almost all entities bidding on this project will be
agreeable. We can do this by
contract with a slight overlap and checks and balances to the best of our
ability. However, without having
people on-site we may have areas we cannot address.
Mr. Mendolia asked will it have to be a dual operation?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Mendolia stated it will have to be controlled.
Mr. Mendelson stated you can get the same information from the
District.
Mr. Petty stated we will not have the same checks and balances because we
will not be there collecting the money.
With the software, there are additional checks and balances but without
being on-site cash transactions will be difficult to track and there may be
questions we may not be able to answer.
Mr. Mendolia stated in the RFP, we will have to add the District being
involved in the management.
Mr. Petty stated we always have to be involved. In the existing RFQ, the District has
oversight responsibilities.
Mr. Lyles stated obviously the manager and I speak in between meetings
and I am not hearing about this for the first time. I knew we had been working on these
recommendations. In fact, because
you indicated this was one of your top issues, we knew we had to have this
meeting today even though the agenda was light. One alternative you were talking about
was instead of having a property management company run Heron Bay Commons, we
hire direct employees of the District so the person in charge is a District
employee to be responsible for the money, take complaints from the residents and
set policy. We already notified WCI
of the District’s intent to terminate their Management Agreement and they have
agreed to its termination. However,
instead of going through the RFP process and negotiating a contract with a
property management company, Mr. Petty is proposing the District hire personnel
using existing personnel and adding other personnel to run the Heron Bay Commons
facility. You have direct control
because they will be in-house employees.
I assume this does not result in an added expense to the District and
hopefully this will reduce expenses to the District and to the residents in
Mr. Mendolia stated I recommend bringing this in-house. There should be good checks and balances
so we do not fall into the same problems we have with WCI.
Mr. Petty stated this is an option we wanted to bring to your attention
and not for a decision today. This
is why we have not issued the RFP.
Mr. Hollander stated every week there is a different plan. It says in the agreement, “the funds due
from the previous contract must be paid”, regardless of the fact the residents
pay a $60,000 a year bill. I do not
want these same people in there, particularly because they are a major part of
the problem. Mr. Petty has only
been here for two weeks.
Mr. Petty stated I have been here since 1992.
Mr. Hollander stated this is the first time I have seen you
involved. Every time I come here
there is a different manager and nothing is getting done. If the Board decides to hold off,
another year will go by. Let’s get
a management company in who will work for the residents. The residents who live there are the
only ones who pay for it. Give the
residents an opportunity to get into the management because some day they are
going to own it.
Mr. Mendelson stated I think the residents have input. If they are going to be living there,
they should have an idea of what is taking place. The residents are the only ones who paid
for this building. The biggest
problem is guests and non-residents can come and go freely. You have a facility serving 1,500 now
servicing 2,700 homes and allowing guests at no additional fee. What qualifications does a resident need
to have in order to run their own management company?
Mr. Petty responded this is not an HOA facility. This is a District/government facility
and you cannot restrict public access to it. You can restrict their use or make sure
the fees are across the board to everyone and there is fair and equal
treatment. This is why
non-residents are allowed to come and go.
Mr. Hollander stated I was told by the management company, this was sold
as a private facility. They even
have the paperwork.
Mr. Petty stated there was an assignment of work to a contractor who
happened to be the HOA. This does
not mean some of the issues and concerns being brought up are not the same ones
I have. You cannot stop the public
from entering this facility.
Mr. Hollander stated but you can charge them a fee.
Mr. Petty stated correct.
Mr. Mendolia stated you can also have strict rules.
Mr. Petty stated fees should be applied equally.
Mr. Hollander stated if I pay $750 a year, a guest should pay
$750.
Mr. Petty stated this is not the way it works here or any place in this
county. There are people who pay
more taxes than you do, who do not receive any more benefit than you do. This is why public facilities are
different from private facilities.
You knew this existed when you moved in. We are a government agency and are not
exempt from any other requirement of any other government
agency.
Mr. Hollander stated the fact is it was sold by
realtors.
Mr. Petty stated being sold by realtors was not my
responsibility.
Mr. Hollander stated the management company sold this building with the
help of realtors.
Mr. Petty stated no one gave the building away.
Mr. Hollander stated in 1997, Ms. Archer told this Board they would have
to micromanage this building. This
Board said they were not going to micromanage. It sounds like you want to micromanage
this building, which is a good idea, but what was done with the residents and
how the property was sold and delivered to the residents, was as a private
facility.
Mr. Petty stated these are statements, which cannot be validated and are
not District business. This is not
the time to allow position statements to be made. It should be done under audience
comments. We spoke to you about
certain options. If you would like
to give us time to consider them, this is what staff
recommends.
Mr. Mendolia stated we will give you some time. In the meantime, we should get this
organized. The reason why we had a
management company take over the management of the old company was to avoid
having these close ties. This way
it is a separate entity. We need to
have these checks and balances.
This group has a responsibility and the District has a
responsibility. There is no
in-between.
Mr. Petty stated I can have them go through the checks and balances but
there are going to be some areas I will not be able to put checks and balances
in because I am not on-site collecting the money.
Mr. Mendolia stated I wish we could have more discussion on this matter
and get it resolved because this is January and before we know it, it will be
February and March and this issue will never be resolved. It will not be perfect no matter what we
come up with.
Mr. Lyles stated the letter we presented and sent to WCI terminating the
contract with an effective date of March 15th has been
finalized. The letter from WCI
acknowledges they received the letter.
We need to notify them their oversight of the Heron’s Bay commons
facility is no longer going to be in effect as of March 15th as Mr.
Petty wanted more time to get some hard numbers together to present to the Board
at the next meeting. However, we
are going to be moving forward with the RFP process so we have a company in line
and ready to go.
Mr. Petty stated we asked for time to evaluate this matter and put the
RFP on hold. If the Board wants us
to put out the RFP at the same time and withhold the wording, we can do so as
well.
Mr. Lyles stated having this go on two simultaneous tracts is what gives
you the greatest level of option.
If having full time District employees is better and less expensive and
you go in this direction and it turns out not to be the best way to go about it,
you have the RFP out there.
Mr. Mendolia stated I agree we should put the RFP out for bid and obtain
bids for the February meeting.
Mr. Petty stated in order to have the results back by February, we will
give them 20 days to respond and get the ad out
immediately to have them in place by mid-March.
Mr. Lyles stated if there are any problems getting the publication in the
newspaper and getting responses, you only have two Board members to ask to delay
the meeting for a week.
Mr. Petty stated if we miss publishing this by a few days, this is what
we will do.
FIFTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS
Supervisor’s Requests and Audience Comments
Mr. Hollander asked are we getting the audit for this building in the
next 30 days?
Mr. Petty responded the District has its normal audit process and
obtained an on-site audit for the Commons.
Mr. Hollander stated we have been waiting a year and a half. What is the normal
process?
Mr. Lyles responded Mr. Petty can meet with you after the meeting and
describe the audit process.
Mr. Petty stated I would be happy to speak with Mr. Hollander regarding
this matter.
Mr. Hollander stated I heard in October the audit was ordered and
coming.
Mr. Lyles stated this is correct.
Mr. Petty stated I am new to this Board but know of no special audit due
for this particular area, which has not been reviewed by the Board.
Mr. Hollander stated there has to be accountability somewhere. There is no accountability at the
Commons.
Mr. Petty stated I will talk to you after the
meeting.
A resident stated I submitted my resume to serve on the
Board.
Mr. Petty stated we received a couple of applications. At the last meeting, the Board decided
to continue this matter for further discussion and come back to staff when they
feel they have the proper applicant.
SIXTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS
Adjournment
On MOTION by
Mr. Mendolia seconded by Mr. Mendelson with all in favor the meeting was
adjourned at
Steve
Mendelson
Salvatore J. Mendolia
Secretary
President