The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, March 15, 2004 at 4:00 p.m. in the District Office, 10300 N. W. 11 Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.


            Present and constituting a quorum were:


            Robert D. Fennell                                 President

            William Eissler                                      Vice President

            Glen Hanks                                            Secretary


            Also present were:


            Dennis Lyles                                          Attorney

            Rich Hans                                               Staff

            John McKune                                        Engineer

            Roger Moore                                           Engineer

            Bill Joyce                                                Staff

            Donna Holiday                                      Staff


            The Board and staff toured the plant facilities at 3:00 p.m.  No policies were discussed at this time, and all discussions were reserved until the business portion of the meeting convened at 4:00 p.m.


FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS             Roll Call

            Mr. Fennell called the meeting to order, called the roll and stated we toured the plant facilities at 3:00 p.m. today.  We should tour the facilities every three or four months.  The completion of the headworks, blower fans, purification system and belt press must happen before we get anything going.  Who takes the lead in making sure these items are completed?

            Mr. McKune responded it is the contractor’s responsibility to get it done.  We can tell him that we are not going to pay him or threaten him with liquidated damages, which are in the contract, but difficult to collect.  This job, which has had many changes, clouds the date of completion so the threat of liquidated damages is not as effective on this job.  The contractor’s lever is financial against his suppliers and subcontractors, and he is currently withholding money from them until they make their equipment perform.

            Mr. Hanks stated you must be careful when negotiating with your contractor as to the change orders and making sure that you are not accelerating the schedule even though you may be keeping the date the same.

            Mr. McKune stated that is what we intend to do as long as there is not an emergency need.  We want the additional work to be covered by the contractor’s estimated time.  In this way, we do not accelerate because he selected the time.

            Mr. Fennell stated you have major issues that need to be coordinated.  Who does that?

            Mr. McKune responded if it is coordination between the general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers, then it is the contractor’s responsibility.  Neither District staff nor the consulting engineer steps in to coordinate the contractor’s work because that would be a violation of the contract.

            Mr. Hanks asked is there a particular schedule identified in the contract, and are there benefits for early completion or penalties for late completion?

            Mr. McKune responded there was a schedule at the award of contract.  There is a liquidated damages clause, but there is no benefit to the contractor for early completion.  We do not do that.  However, the schedule has been extended numerous times as a result of change orders.

            Mr. Hanks asked does each change order contain a component specifying additional time to the construction schedule?

            Mr. McKune responded not specifically.  Some of them do, but not all of the small ones.

            Mr. Hanks asked is this something you can add as the District’s consultant to the change orders?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.  We have two components in the change order.  One is cost and the other is the effect on the contract time.  Every time we give them additional dollars to make changes, we do not always give them time because much of that work can be incorporated into the remaining part of the project.

            Mr. Lyles stated we have been using a third component of the change order for several years, which is a ‘catch-up’, so anyone who submits and receives a change order agrees that they have been compensated so that they cannot make any additional claims covering that period of time.

            Mr. Eissler asked when it will be operational?

            Mr. McKune responded in approximately two weeks.

            Mr. Eissler asked is the filter press operational?

            Mr. McKune responded it should be operational in 30 days.

            Mr. Eissler asked what about the valves?

            Mr. McKune responded that it a small job and should be done in a week.  Overall, we are looking to having 99.5% of the work done within 2-1/2 months.  We will start operating Plant E, then we will enter a 30-day period of operational trials.  Afterwards, we will bring the contractor back to take care of what may be required and in the meantime, we will accumulate data sufficient to apply for and obtain an operating permit.

            Mr. Hanks stated the rainy season begins in three months, and you are talking about a 2-1/2 month time period to complete these items.  This does not leave much time for start up or certification.

            Mr. McKune stated the time period includes clean up and permit through the job.  You will be ahead of that with Plant E’s permit program.  Once the blowers are running, we can start putting sewerage in.  This is the only holdup.

            Mr. Fennell stated let’s have another tour on May 15, 2004 at 3:00 p.m.


SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS         Approval of the Minutes of the February 24, 2004 Meeting

            Mr. Fennell stated that each Board member had received a copy of the minutes of the February 24, 2004 meeting and requested any additions, corrections or deletions.

            Mr. Lyles stated my second comment on page 9 should read, “...you have only knowingly expended those funds...” and “You have unknowingly undertaken to provide...”.


On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the minutes of the February 24, 2004 meeting were approved as amended.


THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS            Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Existing Utility Rates, Fees & Charges

            Mr. Fennell opened the public hearing.

            Mr. Hans stated at the last meeting, we discussed some of the late fees other Districts charge, which we feel we should charge to eliminate late payments.  Resolution 2004-2 by title is, “A resolution of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District adopting certain rates, fees and charges for its water and wastewater utility system and authorizing the preparation of amended schedule to be attached to Resolution 86-4 reflecting such changes and providing for an effective rate”.  This resolution is in order and recommended for adoption.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor Resolution 2004-2 adopting certain rates, fees and charges for its water and wastewater utility system was adopted subject to amendment.


            The public hearing was closed.


FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS        Consideration of Award of Contracts

                     A.         Purchase of Triploid Grass Carp


On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the contract for the purchase of 3,680 Triploid Grass Carp was awarded to Florida Fish Farms, Inc. in the amount of $11,224.00.


                 B.         Wells 4 & 5 Modification

            Mr. McKune cited his letter dated February 27, 2004, which is attached hereto and made part of the record, and stated I spoke to the two low bidders and asked them why their prices are so high.  They said it is because of the electrical instrumentation and controls system.  Our electrical team estimated it at $40,000, and they came in from the suppliers at $85,000 so there is a difference.

            Mr. Hanks stated please provide us with a sketch or map outlining the wells and their dates of refurbishment.


Mr. Eissler moved to award the contract for the modification of Wells No. 4 & 5 to C.R.E.W.S. Construction Service, Inc. in the amount of $200,903.00 and Mr. Hanks seconded the motion.


            Mr. Hanks asked is there a target completion date for this work?

            Mr. McKune responded yes; 120 days.


On VOICE Vote with all in favor the motion was approved.


FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS            Consideration of Permit Request for Wendy’s at 1475 North University Drive

          Mr. McKune stated the area of interest is known as the University Drive subdivision.  It was platted before the District existed.  Wendy’s will be located on the east side of University Drive north of Shadow Wood Boulevard.  There was a large plat whose drainage permit was approved by the City of Coral Springs many years ago.  Wendy’s wants to lease a portion of that property from the property owner.  The drainage system has already been installed for the entire large parcel.  Wendy’s will simply tie into an existing drainage system that already has the permitted capacity of its exfiltration trench based upon the overall initially permitted area.  In fact, the new Wendy’s will have more pervious area than the original permit contemplated.  Edward Flavin’s letter dated February 19, 2004 recommends approval with the standard proviso.

            Mr. Hanks asked can we include a condition that the engineer certifies that the exfiltration trench is functional?  It could have been subject to a number of years of neglect and perhaps the trench is not functioning as intended?

            Mr. McKune responded that is possible, but that trench has been functioning.  The remainder of the area is fully developed.  Wendy’s will be less of an imposition on that drainage system than the original design allowed.  However, we do have in the permits the condition that someone certifies this every five years, which was not included in the initial certification.  We can check with the applicant’s engineer to see what, if anything, he has done to ascertain that.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the permit for Wendy’s at 1475 North University Drive was approved subject to the conditions listed in the engineer’s review letter.


SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS            Staff Reports

            A.      Attorney – Status Report on Lake Coral Springs Agreement

            Mr. Lyles stated I do not have any additional information to provide the Board.  At the last meeting, it was agreed that they would submit documentation to the District and that we would work up an outline of an agreement to put before the Board.  However, I do not have any submissions from Lake Coral Springs.  I contacted their attorney’s office and left a message reminding him that we are having a Board meeting today and that we need something from them.  When I heard nothing, I thought perhaps they would be here today.  Since they have not come forth with anything since the last meeting, I will follow-up again and tell them that the bills are still running because the on-going maintenance that the Board authorized is pending ultimate resolution through an agreement and report back at the next meeting.

            Mr. Joyce stated Lake Coral Springs is due to get an aquatic treatment, but I instructed staff not to schedule it until we resolve this.  I seek the Board’s direction on what to do.

            Mr. Fennell stated since it is their lake and in their documents to maintain the lake, they will have to come to us with a proposal.  It is on them.  We will do what we need to do to maintain the general waterway.

            Mr. Hanks stated I have reservations about letting them make the application.

            Mr. Fennell stated that is a good point, but I feel it is on them to come to us and since it is one waterway and they are part of the CSID, we should do something.  However, it is clear that they are responsible for maintaining that area.

            Mr. Eissler asked can we legally spend money from CSID to treat their lake?  If we cannot, we are not going to do so.  Otherwise, I am for us treating the lake with herbicides because of safety and environmental concerns.  Ideally, it would be nice if they agree to pay us a reasonable amount to maintain their lake.

            Mr. Lyles stated what we are legally required to do is one thing versus what we are legally able to do.  What they can legally do is also something to consider.  There is some overlap in the obligations in this series of documents with regard to their own declarations and covenants that mandate the HOA to do maintenance on that body of water.  Additionally, there is an easement from 1990 that was in favor of this District.  The language in the easement indicated that on common property, including the lake area, application of herbicides for aquatic weed control on the lake and canals shall be performed by or through the CSID.  This instrument legally empowers us to spend money for aquatic weed control by or through CSID.

            Mr. Eissler stated if that is the case, I would be in favor of treating their lake.

            Mr. Lyles stated a subsection of the easement document addresses the increment of spraying and maintenance over and above what is required for our normal CSID purposes, which is flowage.  “The cost and expense of applications of herbicides for aquatic weed control in excess of the normal CSID application as determined by CSID for canals in the lake shall be an operating expense”, which is a defined term meaning it is an operating expense of the property owners association.  However, all of this is supposed to be in accordance with this easement document.  “The declarance or the corporation “Successor” (HOA) shall enter into an agreement with CSID regarding the matters set forth in this article (4.7)”, which is canal and lake maintenance, and there is no such agreement that any of us are aware of.  We are in between clear guidance from the documents that are in place.  It would be incumbent upon both parties to fulfill this requirement for a written agreement.  Absent a written agreement, it calls into question all the obligations.  Technically, we need their permission to go on their lake to do this sort potentially environmentally hazardous activity.  There needs to be an agreement.  They need to respond to us, and they haven’t.

            Mr. Eissler stated I think sending a letter to their attorney indicating that we need their permission to treat their lake is a good idea.

            Mr. Hanks stated the letter should state that we need to enter into an agreement.

            Mr. Eissler stated the letter should also state that we would be willing to bear the cost of treating the weeds.  However, we are no longer willing to rescue boats, remove coconuts, etc.

            Mr. Hanks asked what impact would it have if we were to not spray this time around?

            Mr. Joyce responded currently, it is not critical.  On a normal schedule, we would have treated the lake this past month.

            Mr. Hanks asked is it a quarterly application?

            Mr. Joyce responded normally, they do it three or four times a year but if there is a problem, they will treat it more often.

            Mr. Lyles asked does the Board want me to indicate in the letter that they are presently scheduled for an aquatic weed control application, however, we cannot go forward until we have the agreement that is mandated in the easement document?

            The Board unanimously responded yes.

            Mr. Hanks stated if they come to us with an agreement that is acceptable to the Board, we can get this back on schedule next month without much impact to the rest of the schedule.

            Mr. Joyce stated we can schedule it in less than a week.  It is not in a critical stage at this time.

            Mr. Fennell stated I would like management to let us know how many dollars we are spending solely for weed control.

            Mr. Lyles distributed a breakdown of the costs incurred from January through August 2003 and stated we are not sure which portion of this figure is for normal CSID application and which portion is for aesthetics over and above the normal CSID application.  Pursuant to this easement document, the only obligation arguably that the CSID aquatic program has is what it would take to maintain the flowage; not the overall lakes or the aesthetics.  There is an increment of the chemicals in the aquatic weed control that is supposed to be an expense of the property owner’s association; not the District’s.  We will submit the letter drafted by me but signed by the manager to their manager or president and copy their attorney.

            Last week, we received the final version from the legislative bill drafting team of our codification bill.  They modified it in accordance with our additional draft that they previously requested, and it is in its final form and making its way through the process in Tallahassee.  We continue to move without any roadblocks.


          B.      Engineer

                   1.       Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

                   2.       Update on Construction

            There being no further report, the next item followed.


          C.      Superintendent - Review Staffing Chart

Mr. Hans distributed a staffing chart.

Mr. Fennell asked is everyone certified for the positions they are holding?

Mr. Joyce responded yes.  With regard to the water plant and the wastewater plant, everyone in their current positions are certified.  We are not required for the field crews in distribution and collection for certification at this time, but we have already started the process of sending all of our people to certification classes because the state will eventually require everyone to be certified.  Currently, the majority of them already have their Class C license and half of them have either applied for or have taken the test for their Class B license.

            Mr. Hans stated there has been a request to put out to bid the security, but it has not yet gone out to bid.  We are working on some specifications to put it out to ensure we are not overpaying.

            The Board and staff discussed security plans for the District.


          D.      Complaints

            Mr. Hanks stated I received a complaint about the noisy vacuum trucks.

            Mr. Joyce stated we received several calls.  We explained what they were doing.  One person called the police, and they came to question us.  I told them we would be done in three more days, and they said that is all they wanted to know, and we did get it finished.

            Mr. Hans stated we received a complaint from Mr. Kaplan who owns property adjacent to the District’s.  We have ficus trees, which are distant from his property, but he is complaining that the roots of the tree are causing damage to his driveway.  We cut the roots that crossed the property line.  I asked Mr. Lyles for his advice and asked if we are responsible for the damage.

            Mr. Lyles stated the District is not responsible because trees are a naturally occurring element.  If they protrude through either the branches or roots across a property line and do damage to an adjoining property owner’s structure, that is not something for which a private or public entity could be held legally responsible.  The private property owner has the right to trim the branches or roots, and the right to that self-help is all the law gives an adjoining property owner in the case of a tree and its roots or its branches.  Since we are not legally responsible for tree roots, we are not required to repair his driveway.  He has been advised by staff that he can remove any trees he wants to from District property at his expense.

            Mr. Fennell asked how many trees would have to be removed for this to become a non-issue?

            Mr. Joyce responded the tree in question is approximately 35’ from the edge of his driveway.  The next tree is perhaps 10’ away.  Mr. Moore and I examined the property and took pictures.  It is hard to determine.  He does have damage, but I cannot say if it is from our tree or not.

            Mr. Hanks stated I will speak to the landscape architect in my office.  A tree removal permit might be necessary.

            Mr. Lyles asked does the Board want me to postpone my response until Mr. Hanks speaks to the architect?

            Mr. Eissler responded send him a letter explaining the law and that it is not our problem but that we are looking into it.  Also explain that we have cut roots and removed trees and that he is welcome to remove additional trees with the proper permits.

            Mr. Moore stated this property was dedicated to us, but we do not need it.  It is an open place for the public, which we are liable for.  I suggest trying to get rid of it by giving it to the homeowners or the City.  It is more of a liability than an asset.  I have some ideas, which I would like to bring back to the Board.


SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS      Supervisor's Requests and Audience Comments

            There not being any, the next item followed.


EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS         Approval of Invoices


On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the invoices were approved.


            There being nothing further,


On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the meeting was adjourned at 5:35 p.m.










Glen Hanks                                                              Robert D. Fennell

Secretary                                                                  President