MINUTES OF MEETING
The regular meeting of the Board of
Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on
Present and constituting a quorum were:
Robert D. Fennell President
William Eissler Vice President
Glen Hanks Secretary
Also present were:
Gary L. Moyer Superintendent
Dennis Lyles Attorney
John McKune Engineer
Roger Moore Engineer
Rich Hans Staff
Bill Joyce Staff
Donna Holiday Staff
Mr. Fennell called the meeting to order, and Mr. Moyer called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the November 17, 2003 Meeting
Fennell stated that each Board member had received a copy of the minutes of the
There not being any,
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Engineering Related Items
for a Surface Water Management Permit for
Mr. Moyer stated this item was on last month’s agenda, but it was tabled because the engineers did not have an opportunity to review the submittal. Enclosed in this month’s agenda package is their letter of review for a 1.10-acre site. As stated in their letter, it meets the District’s permit criteria, which is the same as South Florida Water Management District’s requirements, and it is subject to the standard items that deal with compaction. However, this project is tied into an existing stormwater system. I believe everything is in order.
Mr. Hanks stated I was the engineer of record on the system that they are tying into.
B. Work Authorization No. 24 to Assist with the Preparation and Submittal of the Wastewater Plant Operating Permitting Renewal
Mr. Moyer stated every five years, we go through a process of renewing our operating permit for the wastewater plant, and we are approaching the deadline to do this. CH2M-Hill will provide technical support. Approval of this item will allow Mr. McKune and his people to assist us. It is on a time and material basis, and the estimated fee is $17,500.
Mr. Hanks asked are these the standard hourly rates?
Mr. McKune responded they have been in effect for approximately nine months.
Mr. Eissler stated the last time we looked at this, we had a few to compare. If I recall correctly, these rates are in the middle.
Mr. Moyer stated the fee proposal is good for a couple of years.
Mr. McKune stated we will re-negotiate in March 2004.
C. Change Order No. 10 with Intrastate Construction Corporation for the Wastewater Plant Operating Permit Renewal
Mr. McKune stated the majority of Change Order No. 10 relates to the screen that we bought for installation on top of the headworks. This is the item that the Board purchased directly to avoid going through the general contractor and we saved 15%, which the contractors normally allow for overhead for the purchase of materials. The majority of this change order represents the structural, mechanical, electrical and civil work associated with modifications to the headworks and the installation of that equipment. When this job was bid, we were to leave the existing screen in place. During the course of the project, the screen was judged to be in need of such repairs, but it would have been very expensive to do so and the manufacturer of that screen is no more. Therefore, we decided to get a new screen now.
Bring your attention to items A through L listed on page one. Each item is associated with this screen, but one item will be subject to removal because I have not received sufficient documentation.
Regarding item A, we had to change the structural configuration of the walls and concrete platform on top of the press. Item B is a temporary platform to allow the installation of the equipment and to do the structural modifications themselves. This is an item that normally would have not been required for the work. The additional water stop was for some concrete services where new concrete was poured against existing concrete for two related items in this listing of tasks. A portion of concrete wall was on top of the headworks that were going to be part of the new hydraulic channel. Those walls were thought to be cast concrete, but it turns out that they were not. They were just concrete block that were reinforced with concrete in the cells and had to come down. Item D is the chemical resistant coating for the headworks channel bottoms. The original scope included the coating for the channel walls up to the top of the wall. When they finally took this headworks out of service and looked at the amount of deterioration of the concrete, it was much more extensive below the water line, which necessitated not only coming in with sandblasting to etch the concrete and removing the spoiled concrete, but also renovations to the bottom slab. We decided to add this coating to the bottom portion of the channel. This coating is approximately 1/4” thick impermeable to all the gases. Item E is the wall portion that was thought to have been concrete. I included item G because I was told that I would be getting additional justification from the contractor for this item, but I have not yet received it. Therefore, I do not recommend awarding this amount at this time, or I recommend approval subject to the proper justification being provided. Regarding item H, originally the entire headworks was to be grating. We have now added half the floor to be concrete. This is to be done for access to the new screen and washer pressed equipment and also to provided the needed explosion or resistant spacing and surfaces associated with the large electrical panel that goes on top of the headworks for that screen.
Mr. Hanks asked was there corresponding credit for the fiberglass decking?
Mr. McKune responded that is incorporated. Item I was a result of the accelerated degradation of the channel walls. Item J was contained in the bid documents originally to be just painted concrete, and we jointly decided that for aesthetic reasons, we would put a coat of stucco on it and paint it. Item K is to accommodate the discharge from the washer press associated with the new mechanical equipment. Item L is the large number for everything the contractor had to do to rig, install, put together, prep and start up the screen. Items A through L are associated with the new mechanical screen and the washer and press equipment, which include mechanical, electrical and civil work.
Mr. Fennell asked how much has been done?
Mr. McKune responded this is essentially complete, with the exception of final items.
Mr. Hanks asked if the contractor had purchased the screen, would there be any changes to this change order?
Mr. McKune responded the same amount of work would have been done, plus we would have added 15%. Item 2 was done to reinforce the existing plant service line that goes around the perimeter of the water and wastewater plant. The pricing includes the necessary backflow prevention and the piping extensions. Item 3 is for a small structure that is attached to the side of one of the wastewater tanks. It is not a habitable structure. It was there for equipment storage. The original plan included re-roofing, but the City decided that the roofing was not to their satisfaction. In order to get this job certified, we did what the City wanted.
Mr. Fennell asked how much did it cost to redo the entire headworks?
Mr. McKune responded approximately $80,000 for the contractor plus the equipment, which is approximately $130,000.
Mr. Moyer stated when we first started to look at the headworks, one of your proposals was to build a new headworks structure.
Mr. McKune stated that was a few years ago.
Mr. Moyer stated we saved a lot of money doing what we did.
Mr. McKune stated if we had done a new headworks, it would have cost $2.5 million. Instead, we spent $750,000 to renovate and improve the existing headworks. We did not include a new screen in this bid project because we were trying to defer that cost. It could have been done a year or two from now, but it would not have lasted that long.
Mr. Moyer stated you said you had to do coating work below the waterline because of the quality and deterioration of the concrete. Is this not unusual?
Mr. McKune responded this deterioration is usually caused by hydrogen sulfide combining with moisture, which causes sulfuric acid.
of Award of Bid for Lightning and Surge Protection for Wastewater Treatment
Plant Site and
McKune distributed a packet dated
Mr. Eissler asked what were the new things I was seeing last month on the water treatment side?
Mr. McKune responded that was part of the water plant project and is not included in this.
Mr. Eissler asked what did that cost on the water treatment side?
Mr. McKune responded I do not know because it was part of a lump sum of that project.
Mr. Fennell stated we need to get somebody in here to explain what we are getting out of this and what it will do for us. $175,000 is a lot of money, and I would like to understand what we have now and what we are going to have when it is done.
Mr. Eissler asked have you ever added anything?
Mr. McKune responded never anything other than hoping that the power strips would take the strike. The problem is not so much lightning striking the structure; it is lightning striking nearby, which gives us a surge potential in the ground. The problem is the difference in potential between the control panels in the two buildings. A strike to the power lines can also affect the phone and computer system. The proposed improvements are designed to minimize the effects of lightning and surges, but there are no guarantees.
Mr. Hanks asked when was the last time this plant had damage due to lightening?
Ms. Holiday responded two years ago. Some computers, a fax machine and the telephone systems were damaged.
Mr. McKune stated we can bring in three experts, but each one will have their own system.
Mr. Fennell stated since we have a low bidder, (Benson Electric) let him come in and give us $175,000 worth of justification, and we will delay this another month. We are looking for benefits.
The Board unanimously agreed.
Mr. Fennell stated we will defer this item until the next meeting.
Dennis Lyles joined the meeting at this time.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
Mr. Lyles stated regarding the Lake Coral Springs Homeowners Association (HOA) and the continuing issue of District staff maintaining that lake, which we have confirmed we do not own and are not legally responsible for maintaining, we have not heard from the HOA, nor have we received a proposal from them or a counter proposal to the idea that we would be willing to continue to do this if they will make the District whole financially. Mr. Weinberg, attorney for the HOA, addressed the Board two meetings ago and indicated he would get something from the HOA Board in the way of an approval and meet with District staff to try to come up with a proposal that would satisfy everyone. However, we have not been able to do that. I left another message today saying we were having a meeting and that we need to hear something from them. At this point, we have two options. One option is to give them a deadline by which they must come before the Board with a proposal to reimburse the District for the cost of that maintenance; otherwise, there will be no more maintenance by District personnel. Another option is to get a commitment from them that whatever they ultimately come up with will be retroactive to the beginning of fiscal year 2004, which started October 1, 2003. This was on the table before, and we made this clear every step of the way. My concern is that we are three months into the new fiscal year, and we do not have anything from them. I am not getting any response.
Mr. Fennell asked who are you contacting?
Mr. Lyles responded Mr. Weinberg. Some contact by the next meeting is essential.
Mr. Eissler stated I agree.
The meeting recessed for five minutes after which the Board reconvened.
Mr. Lyles stated I will convey to the representative of the Lake Coral Springs HOA the need for someone to be at the next meeting and the fact that the Board can only let this go for another 30 days or so before the Board pulls the plug on this operation and send them a bill. I will let them know that they have to be here and that we need an agreement to cover the public funds that we are handling for this maintenance purpose.
Our codification bill was submitted at the last meeting, and the legislative delegation hearing was held on December 4, and it was approved unanimously. I thank the President for meeting with Representative Ritter and letting her know the Board’s position and this Board’s willingness to be involved in a voluntary conversion from a landowner’s election system to an electoral system.
The commitment from this Board and the NSID Board is to support an amendment to our codification bill in Tallahassee to provide for voluntary elections as determined by the Board of Supervisors. The Supervisors will be elected by popular vote as opposed to a landowner’s vote. This will become necessary only if Representative Ritter is unsuccessful in finding a way to sponsor effectively an amendment to Chapter 189, which affects all Districts in the State of Florida, which will provide for the same thing; a voluntary conversion once a decision is made by a Board of Supervisors for a Special District covered by Chapter 189 from a landowners system to an electoral system for electing Supervisors.
In summary, this commitment has been made, and we have agreed to help prepare the language for the bill. If it is a bill for the amendment to the special act, that is the route she chooses, and it will only apply to the NSID and CSID. We also made a commitment to send a letter of support for the language change in the bill when/if that becomes appropriate. At long last, the codification bill is on its way to being approved by the legislature at very little cost or with little difficulty for the District going forward.
1. Monthly Water & Sewer Charts
2. Update on Construction
Mr. Hanks asked how is the relining of the gravity sewers coming along in reducing infiltration?
Mr. Moore responded we are finished with the first phase. We lined 35% of the first five out of 15 lift station systems that have clay pipe. I do not have the numbers with me today, but I can give the Board a report at the next meeting.
Mr. Moyer stated I believe you did a report on that already. My recollection of it was that even though we cut down the infiltration, you ran some numbers on what that meant in terms of the dollars that we saved because of lower pumping costs at the lift stations and lower treatment costs at the plant. When you break it down to dollars versus how much we expended.
Mr. Moore stated over the next 25 years, most of the clay pipes will need to be repaired.
Mr. Fennell stated I noticed we peaked at 15 million gallons.
Mr. McKune responded it fluctuates with the rain. Mr. Moore has already eliminated infiltration flows to the plant.
Mr. Fennell asked is 15 million gallons a record amount?
Mr. McKune responded it was high, and it represents a change in the meter record. We have had sketchy meter reading results in the past because of the old system. Our new meters give us better accuracy.
Mr. Fennell asked how close are we to overcapacity?
Mr. McKune responded the original prediction for ultimate capacity was 5.5 million gallons per day. We are now at build out with the exception of a few vacant lots. We do not need more than the 5.5 million gallons per day average annual daily flow as long as the rainfall is normal. If it is heavy because of the infiltration and flow, the flows increase. The plant can handle it; however, the treatment effectiveness may be degraded because of the excess water flowing through the plants. This does not hurt anything for the short term, but if the results that you give to the state show that you are not meeting treatment standards, then you will have a bureaucratic problem.
Mr. Eissler stated I read that they were having problems with deep wells in the State of Florida. Is anyone familiar with this?
Mr. McKune responded the philosophy in the operation of injection wells has been suspect for the last 20 years. It depends on your point of view. Strictly on paper they work very well. It pumps the water down; it does not leak back up into the drinking water; and the area where it is discharged flows slowly to the ocean. However, some wells, were constructed such that they leaked upward, which received press attention, and some wells had to be put out of service. With regard to the other wells, the agencies redefined things, so the problem went away. Some people are of the opinion that some of the water is now coming into the ocean and is the cause for the algae blooms covering the reefs. There are statewide organizations that think it is a waste of resource and that we should provide a higher degree of treatment for all the wastewater and go through some reuse. It would be financially prohibiting to put in another water system throughout the District so people could irrigate their lawns with recycled wastewater. So yes, they have been in the paper for 20 years, and they will continue to be in the papers. They are still being built. Dade County is putting in 19 new wells.
Mr. Moyer stated looking at what those canals do and the water that does go into the canal compared to the wastewater you could put into the canals with our technology today, the waste water would be of a higher quality than the water that is already in the canals.
Mr. Fennell asked do we need to look at the option of another well?
Mr. McKune responded I think it is a good idea if you have the funds with which to do it.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the cost?
Mr. McKune responded approximately $5 million.
Mr. Hanks asked how many companies do these wells?
Mr. McKune responded two or three. There is one firm that does 90% of the work.
Mr. Fennel asked would this still be our lowest cost option?
Mr. McKune responded yes.
Mr. Fennell asked how long would the permitting procedure take?
Mr. McKune responded approximately six months. From an insurance perspective, it is good to have redundant disposal systems. It is required for your operating permit. Our redundant system is the combination of the small well plus the bonds.
Mr. Moyer stated in the small well, we got approval to inject at a higher pressure and velocity.
Mr. Fennell stated this is something for us to think about. This is our weak point. There is some more work to be done there as far as more water processing. We will be in good shape with regard to the processing with the additional tank. The issue is how long the wells will last. It is prudent to take a look at our alternatives and costs.
Mr. Fennell asked when was the last time you redid our capital expansion budget?
Mr. McKune responded we look at it continuously, but it has been nine months since it has been presented.
Mr. Fennell stated let’s plan on doing that again in three months, but add an additional page explaining the alternatives if our well fails.
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 distributed a report on the cost of the deodorizing system.
Mr. Moyer stated once the new plant comes on line, we all feel that we can cut back substantially.
There being nothing further,
Glen Hanks Robert D. Fennell