MINUTES OF MEETING
CORAL SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the Board of
Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held
Present and constituting a quorum were:
Robert Fennell President
Karl Miller Vice President
Also present were:
Gary L. Moyer Manager
Dennis Lyles Attorney
Donna Holiday Recording Secretary
John McKune Gee & Jenson
Glen Hanks Rhon Ernest-Jones
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr. Moyer called the meeting to order and called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the April 15, 2002 Meeting
Mr. Moyer stated that each Board
member had received a copy of the minutes of the
There not being any,
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Final payment for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase IB Contract with Intrastate Construction
Mr. McKune stated this is the smaller wastewater plant improvement project that has been going on for approximately nine months. It has rolled into the larger project that was recently started. We consider this project to be essentially complete at the present time. We have the necessary final releases from the suppliers. The contractor has given us his contractors affidavit and we have the consent of the surety to make this final payment in the amount of $25,555.50 which is basically his retainage. We usually do not bring pay requests to the Board but we always bring the final pay request which this is.
Mr. Miller asked was this an additional payment above what was previously authorized?
Mr. McKune responded no.
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Request for Surface Water Management Permit for the
Mr. Moyer stated you have in your
agenda package a permit application and Gee & Jenson's letter of
review. There is one question the
engineer for the applicant will have to respond to which is the first item
listed in the letter that states basically, please
explain how will the 1/2" dry pretreatment be provided before discharging
into the District canal with 40% of the impervious area is exceeded in Phase II
of this project. That is a question
the engineer can respond back to us in writing.
Otherwise, the permit application is in order. The area we are talking about is at the
Mr. Hanks stated at this time they have no plans for Phase II. Once they complete Phase I they will figure out what they want to do with Phase II, if and when it comes.
Mr. Fennell asked do you have a brief answer to the first comment?
Mr. Hanks responded my office has a different interpretation of the 40% rule, of what triggers the 1/2" of pretreatment. The 1/2" dry pretreatment is required for commercial and industrial projects where there is greater potential for contaminants running off into the waterways. In this instance you are dealing primarily with vehicles being on the parking lot on Sunday and not dealing with a day to day operation where you have cars dripping contaminants on a daily basis. There is no maintenance on this site or generation of trash. In my professional opinion for a church the 1/2" of dry pretreatment is not required, regardless of whether there is 40% impervious or not. When you have 40% impervious and you are within a wellfield protection zone, at that point you have to put in the dry pretreatment. At this time the subject site is not within a zone of influence for a well. If at such time they come through and develop Phase II and it is found to be within a zone of influence for a wellfield, at that point there is sufficient room to construct dry pretreatment either by means of exfiltration trenches or dry retention areas.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. McKune do you agree with that?
Mr. McKune responded I have not been handling this. This is the first I have head that he had a disagreement with our engineer.
Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like a question of whether it applies or not.
Mr. McKune stated we will apply the criteria to this applicant as we have with other churches in the District. As you stated, if this were to be required in the future, you would not be foreclosed from doing that if this were approved.
Mr. Hanks responded that is correct.
Mr. Moyer stated the other thing that I think the Board needs to be sensitive to is that we are operating under a delegation from the South Florida Water Management District and your charge as a Board is that we administer those policies in accordance with the S.F.W.M.D. criteria. To the extent that they can clarify this issue, then I think you can rely on that clarification. If they come back and say because it is a church it doesn't have to follow the same rules as if it were a commercial or industrial project, then you can have some comfort in approving the permit.
Mr. Miller asked will there be a school associated with the church?
Mr. Hanks responded yes and that is still considered an institutional facility and I have had some consultations with a S.F.W.M.D. official and he concurs that the church and associated school does not fall in the commercial category.
Mr. Moyer asked do you think you can get something in writing from him?
Mr. Hanks responded I approached it in initial terms, by asking him if he would put it in writing if it was something the Board requested and I am sure that would give him more reason to respond to my request.
Mr. Fennell asked what is pretreatment?
Mr. Hanks responded pretreatment is designed to cleanse your first flush of run-off before it enters the master water system. It is used in areas with potential of high contaminant levels such as the parking lot at the Coral Square Mall. In residential communities you do not have to provide pretreatment, you only have to provide basic water quality.
When you look at this site, 80% of the parking is grass. The majority of the run-off from this site will go straight down and filtered by the same means you would have for an exfiltration trench which is filtered through the grass and soil. Prior to discharge to the off-site system, we have pollution retardant baffles. Any layer of oils will float on top of the catch basins and could be removed if that becomes a problem.
Mr. Fennell stated this is a condition prescribed by S.F.W.M.D.
Mr. McKune stated we do not set those conditions.
Mr. Moyer stated it is a good idea to get clarification but if the engineer will give us a letter that addresses the concern and that is that there is sufficient area to meet the most stringent requirement currently in existence, if we treated this as a commercial site, then at least you have addressed the issue that our engineer brought up and if that is not satisfactory when you do Phase II you can come back and make your case at that time.
Mr. Hanks stated we have to come back to this Board for any Phase II development.
Mr. McKune stated we have
definitional issues with regulatory agencies all of the time. The best way to straighten this out is for
our engineer to get with Mr. Hanks and talk to
Mr. Miller stated if it is just a
matter of that being resolved by someone at
Mr. McKune stated we can clarify that but I have no problem approving the permit since we do have the land available to do the most stringent interpretation. That does not foreclose approving the permit.
Mr. Miller stated we can approve it subject to the definition being confirmed.
Mr. Fennell asked what if it is not confirmed?
Mr. Miller stated the approval is contingent upon having that status. If they don't have the status, then the permit is not issued.
Mr. Lyles stated Board action today will authorize issuance of the permit subject to confirmation with S.F.W.M.D. that this installation does comport with their criteria and standards under "other" and absent that confirmation from S.F.W.M.D. the permit does not get issued and they come back to the Board with a modified application.
Mr. Hanks stated that sort of letter from the Governing Board will trigger more responsiveness from S.F.W.M.D.
Mr. Moyer stated that is not a problem.
Mr. Lyles stated it is true that
church construction typically has to follow all requirements of the
Mr. Fennell stated this site is adjacent to the canal next to the Sawgrass Expressway. Are we going to run into any issues with landscaping?
Mr. Hanks stated we will look at the District's access requirements for that site. Our landscaping department did the landscaping for this site.
Mr. Moyer stated we want you to acknowledge that there exists a situation adjacent to the Sawgrass Expressway in which it is to be left as a natural area not to be maintained on the west side.
Mr. Hanks stated the west side is not within our property and that is fine. The only thing we need to take care of is to remove the Brazilian Pepper and Australian Pines along the east bank of the canal.
Mr. Fennell stated you as the engineer, do understand that the far side of the bank will be kept in its natural state.
Mr. Hanks responded yes.
Mr. Moyer stated we can add to the permit that the applicant acknowledges that the bank on the west side of the canal will be left as a natural area, not maintained by the District.
Mr. Lyles stated there will be no landscaping installed or maintained by the District. The only maintenance activity of the District will be directed toward assuring that the surface water drainage system works properly and efficiently.
Mr. Fennell stated I want to amend the motion to include that language.
Mr. Lyles asked Mr. Hanks, on behalf of the applicant, do you accept that addition to the permit?
Mr. Hanks responded yes.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
Mr. Lyles stated on the subject of maintenance of canal banks along the Sawgrass Expressway, we have no progress on the part of anyone in terms of resolving the questions that have been the subject of some previous reports to this Board regarding Eagle Trace. I believe the Eagle Trace representatives are going to request the opportunity to be on the agenda and come before the Board. I have told them how to do that and they will be on the next agenda to address the Board directly. We have continued to have polite but non-committal discussions as staff. It is not solved at this time and it hasn't gone away. I believe they will discuss some kind of compromise and try to satisfy the Board that it makes sense. As staff we have been unable to reach an agreement with them. At this point I don't believe they have any proposal other than what they had before which is to identify the District's normal level of expense for normal maintenance activities in this particular circumstance would be and then to allow them to perhaps add some money to that budget on behalf of Eagle Trace to do a different kind of landscape and maintenance in that area than the District would do on its own. Working out the numbers and the plant material and whether or not the District even has access from the D.O.T. off of the Sawgrass Expressway which we do not have at the present time. None of those issues have been put to bed. We have had further discussions but we have not solved the problem.
Mr. Fennell stated if we allow people onto that property and they fall, are we liable?
Mr. Lyles responded that is one of the problems. In this particular instance, rather than just having an easement for maintenance purposes it is my understanding that many years ago the area adjacent to the Sawgrass was deeded to the District so the District owns it and is theoretically responsible for it and if it is maintained in a dangerous condition for people who go on the property, theoretically we might be responsible, however, it is fenced off, there is no walkway, no one has any business being in there and if anyone does go in there they are going to be considered trespassers and the only obligation we would have to trespassers if we know they are there is to let them know if there are concealed perils, not just that it is a dangerous area to walk because of the slope, the lack of maintenance, the undergrowth, all the things that exist there. It is not a place where anybody should be walking other than our crews and they should be there only for maintenance purposes and have the right equipment and take the right safety precautions. We would vigorously defend a claim like that if something happened.
Mr. Fennell stated I was thinking in the context if they were given permission to go on the property.
Mr. Lyles stated they would have to have a permit issued by this Board and there is indemnification language in all of our permits, where the applicant is taking the risk themselves and if anyone is injured, it is their responsibility, not ours. Typically that kind of maintenance is done by a contractor and they carry workers compensation insurance. I can't imagine anyone allowing someone to do that type of maintenance activity without workers comp insurance. We would require if anyone goes in there pursuant to a permit that we issue, have that kind of coverage.
The Charter Revision Board has completed its work for this decade and the proposed creation of a county-wide water authority to control the activities of all of the special districts such as this one has not made the cut and will not appear on the ballot.
There is ongoing discussion and regional plans where the districts that do have responsibility and understand their responsibilities are developing a way to coordinate their activities across District boundaries and to provide for emergency mechanisms and to have a plan that everybody buys into in the north, central and south county that is acceptable and does the job. That will continue to take place. That was one of the reasons people saw the legitimacy of the position that the district's themselves were taking, because there is a way for this to be done through the umbrella of regulatory power of the S.F.W.M.D. correctly. Correct from a preservation standpoint and a water quality standpoint and a governing standpoint.
1. Monthly Water & Sewer Charts
2. Update on Construction
3. Discussion of MOMS Program
Mr. McKune stated construction is
proceeding and we will be pouring a very large slab for the new treatment unit
on Saturday, May 25. We finally received
the building permit from the City of
Item three is discussion of the MOMS Program. I had hoped to have not only Mr. Moore here today with the results of the seminar he attended last week on this topic and someone from CH2M Hill who is knowledgeable in the system but she could not make it today. I would like to postpone this discussion until next month. We are trying to get this together on a staff basis and present that to you.
Mr. Moyer stated it is the beginning of budget time. As you will recall we bifurcate our budgets, the first one we ask the Board to review is the general fund budget and in this case it covers the operating costs of the District's water management system. This is supported by the levy of a non ad valorem assessment that appears on our tax bills. Based upon the same number of units that we certified last year which is 11,344 which in all likelihood will go up because as condominiums and other projects are constructed within the District, it adds to that number, but if we use the same number you can see that we are proposing a reduction of roughly $3.50 or 4%. We are not asking the Board to adopt this at this meeting. We will bring this back at a scheduled public hearing in all likelihood in July and at that time we will make a more detailed presentation.
There not being any, the next item followed.
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
Karl Miller Robert Fennell
Vice President President