MINUTES OF MEETING

CORAL SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

 

            The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, April 19, 2004 at 4:05 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

            Peg McPherson                                     South Florida Water Mgt. District

            David Lee                                               Broward County Dept. of Planning & Environmental Protection

 

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS             Roll Call

            Mr. Fennell called the meeting to order, and Mr. Hans called the roll.

 

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS         Approval of the Minutes of the March 15, 2004 Meeting

            Mr. Fennell stated that each Board member had received a copy of the minutes of the March 15, 2004 meeting and requested any additions, corrections or deletions.

            There not being any,

 

On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the minutes of the March 15, 2004 meeting were approved as submitted.

 

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS            Consideration of Permit Requests

          A.    New Modular Classroom Addition to the Ramblewood Elementary School

            B.    New Modular Classroom Addition to the Maplewood Elementary School

          Mr. McKune stated both items are small structural additions at each site, and both properties involve additional drainage that goes into ex-filtration trenches on site.  Neither project involves additional drainage off the property into the District canal system.  Therefore, we recommend approval of both additions with the standard conditions.

 

On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the permits for the classroom addition to the Ramblewood Elementary School and to the Maplewood Elementary School were approved as subject to the conditions listed in the engineer’s review letter.

 

          C.    Request for an Encroachment in the District’s Maintenance Easement

            Mr. McKune stated this item represents a 1’ 6” encroachment onto a District canal right-of-way.  In 1994, the original encroachment was approved by the Board, which allowed for the extension of a patio.  It appears Neal Bisnath is now asking the District to vacate the easement for 1’ 6” so there is no longer an easement for that portion.  It seems Mr. Bisnath wants to erect a screen enclosure on that slab.  If he is asking us to vacate the easement, then I recommend against it.  It is unclear what he wants and staff agreed informally before the meeting that he come in to explain exactly what he wants and why.

            Mr. Lyles stated in 1994, Mr. Bisnath sought an encroachment into our easement, which provides specifically through the permit that if we ever needed or wanted for any District purpose to go in, he has to remove the encroachment at his expense.  This is standard.  However, it is not clear if he is asking to put a screen enclosure over what was previously allowed or if he is seeking an additional 1’ 6” release.  We are not sure what he means by ‘release’.

            Mr. Fennell stated let’s table this item until we receive further explanation from Mr. Bisnath.

 

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS        Consideration of Award of Contracts

            A.     Rehabilitation of Wastewater Plants C & D

            Mr. McKune distributed the bid tabulation for the total rehabilitation for Plants C and D and stated we took bids on this project between the issuance of the agenda packages and today.  Plants C and D are located on the northwest corner of the property.  Plant E has been running well, and the mechanical bar screen is doing a great job.

            Mr. Hanks asked has Plant E been certified?

            Mr. McKune responded we will perform its trial, and we have six months to go through that.  Once Plant E is on line, we will take down Plants C and D sequentially, make modifications and get them back on line.  Afterwards, we will do something with Plants A and B.

            We received two bids for this project.  Our estimate for the work was $1,150,000.  The low bidder, Intrastate Construction, came in at $1,283,638.65.  This may seem like a great deal of money but in essence, we are getting a new $1.5 million - $2 million plant for $600,000.  Normally, two new plants would cost approximately $4 million.

            Mr. Fennell asked how much did Plant E cost?

            Mr. McKune responded approximately $1.75 million - $2 million.  However, Plant E included air supply, yard piping and other ancillary work that Plants C and D do not have.

            Mr. Eissler asked have we done business with either contractor?

            Mr. McKune responded the low bidder is the contractor we currently have on site.

            Mr. Eissler asked have we done business with Florida Design Contractors?

            Mr. McKune responded not on this project site, but I have worked with them in the past.

            Mr. Hanks asked how many bids were solicited?

            Mr. McKune responded we had 11 sets of plans some of which went to subcontractors.  There were five general contractors.  We had a mandatory pre-bid meeting, and only two showed up.  The meeting was necessary to show them what the job entailed.

            Mr. Fennell asked what is our bank balance?

            Mr. McKune responded we have approximately $8.3 million in uncommitted funds.

            Mr. Eissler asked what is the time frame?

            Mr. McKune responded since we are now doing the total rehabilitation understanding that each plant is done sequentially, it will take approximately eight to nine months for both plants in total.  Our plan is to do something.  One option is to rebuild them either at its current configuration and capacity or bring in a new process.  By the time we choose, the membrane technology will have advanced and will cost less and perhaps be more reliable than it is today.

 

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the contract for the rehabilitation of Wastewater Plants C and D was awarded to Intrastate Construction in the amount of $1,283,638.65.

 

            B.    Injection Well Mechanical Integrity Testing

            Mr. McKune distributed the bid tabulation for the injection well mechanical integrity testing and stated bids were received after the issuance of the agenda packages.  Testing must be done every five years.  We received four bids for this project.  Our estimate for the work was $115,000.  The low bidder, Youngquist Brothers, came in at $118,400, and they are the best contractor in the state for doing this kind of work.  They installed the well and have successfully bought the equipment and manpower from every other driller available in the last five years.

 

On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the contract for the mechanical integrity testing of Municipal Injection Wells IW-1 and IW-2 and rehabilitation of wellhead for Monitor Well MW-2 was awarded to Youngquist Brothers in the amount of $118,400.

 

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS            Consideration of Change Order No. 11 with Intrastate Construction Corp. for Wastewater Plant Improvements Phase I for a Net Increase of $93,594.73

            Mr. McKune distributed a revised change order reflecting a net increase of $125,982.74 and stated we received additional costs for installation and start up of the equipment between the issuance of the agenda packages and today.  The two major items in this change order are the mechanical bar screen and the belt filter press.  The mechanical screen is working, and a representative will be here next Monday to start up the belt filter press.  The items relating to these pieces are not all grouped together.  Therefore, we will have to discuss them as we go through the list.

            Mr. McKune reviewed each item listed in the change order.

            Mr. Hanks asked would this have been covered under the contractor’s base bid, and are our savings evaporating?

            Mr. McKune responded both of these were purchased directly by the District and were outside the original scope of the contract.  We made an arrangement with the contractor to assume ownership and control of the equipment as it arrived.  It still belongs to him until we totally accept it.  You saved 6% on the sales tax because you purchased it directly.  Also, you did not pay him 15% for overhead and profit.  Therefore, you saved 21%.  If you consider the cost involved with the change order items compared to the cost paid for the equipment, the premium represented by the change order dollars represents approximately 25% - 30% of the cost of the equipment.  Normally, you would have paid 40% of the cost of the equipment.

 

On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor Change Order No. 11 with Intrastate Construction for Wastewater Plant Improvements in Phase I for a net increase of $125,982.74 was approved.

 

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS            Approval of Invoices

 

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

 

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS            Presentation by South Florida Water Management District Regarding the Everglades Task Force

            Ms. McPherson stated we are here to talk about Broward’s Everglades Task Force. Broward County is trying to get everyone together (local governments, water control boards, independent water districts) to identify some of the things we can voluntarily do to decrease phosphorus levels to ten parts per billion, as required by the Everglades Forever Act. We have gone before the City Commission and asked them to participate.  We have proposed goals and objectives, but they may change due to different goals and objections of others.  We would like a consortium of leaders to come together to help identify the different things we can do.  For example, we can eliminate a great deal of polluted stormwater by using fertilizer with low levels of phosphorus.  We do not plan to have many meetings, and the first meeting will be on May 21.  It will be an introduction/information sharing type of meeting.  We will present our ideas and ask for suggestions.  It will be a great opportunity for everyone to learn more about each other.  We hope a representative of the CSID will attend.

            Mr. Lee stated special districts play an important role in this.  One of the issues we worked out with the special district a few years ago is the issue of the five-year renewal.  The county has been doing five-year renewals since 1989.  One of the things we are considering, under the Everglades Forever Act, a tenth of a mill is taxed on our properties, which goes into a fund, which represents hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of ten years.  We are considering putting together proposals for Districts to get some assistance in putting together the necessary resources to do an aggressive type of five-year renewal program.  Additionally, we have been looking at the water quality data, and our surface water management systems do a good job of keeping the phosphorus levels down.  Although ten parts per billion is an incredibly small number, it is a critical number, which we are not far from reaching.  If everyone takes the extra effort, it is possible to make a significant improvement in the water quality.

            Mr. Eissler asked what is the level of phosphorus in the everglades?

            Ms. McPherson responded in portions of the historic everglades that affect the park and sensitive natural areas, we are either at or near our goal.  The issue is going to become closer to the urban and point source pollution (agricultural or manufacturing) areas.  It varies.  A rainstorm will produce higher levels versus water moving across pavement and lawns during the dry season.  The goal is to get it ten parts per billion in all of the places all of the time.  Many of us believe it is financially and feasibly possible if we work together.

            Mr. Eissler stated I like the idea of a low phosphorus fertilizer.  We do not need phosphorus, nor do we need six applications per year.

            Mr. Fennell asked why phosphorus?

            Mr. Lee responded because the everglades are sensitive to phosphorus.  You manage the canals.  If you lower the amount of nutrients going into the canal, you will lower the amount of herbicides.  There is an immediate benefit to the District to embrace some of these ideas from cost and labor savings standpoint.

            Ms. McPherson stated the everglades are known as a nutrient-poor system, which is why there aren’t any striking colors.  While there are other pollutants hurting the system, canals and our water supply, they are not at the levels that require regulation from the state and federal governments.  However, it is practical to look at all types of water pollution.

            Mr. Fennell asked is this a particular task force by the county?

            Ms. McPherson responded it is in cooperation with the District.  Our proposal is identified in our plan for long-term water quality.  Under the Everglades Forever Act, we have a 2006 deadline to demonstrate that we have been working on this to the federal government.

            Mr. Lee stated many programs are in place, and we are already doing what they would want us to do.  The more we can do this in an incremental fashion and absorb the costs over time, the more effective we can make our argument to the state that other Districts are proactively taking care of these things.  At the end of the day, they regulate the consumptive use permit.  They have an entrance point through their permitting process and if we can demonstrate to the District that the water we need is available through recharge or through other means, then they have to respond.

            Ms. McPherson stated our goal is to look out for the environmental system.  If the system is working and the everglades are functioning properly, you will have ground water.  If the system is not working correctly, you will be limited in what will be available in this urban corridor.  By degrading the natural system, we are degrading the potential water supply.  It is a balancing act to make sure we have enough water for everyone’s needs.  The loss of the natural system’s health will greatly affect the ability of the urban corridor.

            Mr. Lee stated the final result is that there will need to be a balance.  There is a clause in the Water Resources Development Act passed by Congress in 2000, also known as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, which governs what they do to prevent negative impacts on the urban area.  They cannot degrade our current water supply issue without replacing it with something else.  However, they are not required to meet our future water demands.  That is up to us.

            Mr. Fennell stated I would like to attend the meeting.  We are willing to cooperate, and we would like to become more active in the overall water concept for the county and South Florida.  We want to maintain the quality of the water as well as the environment.

            Ms. McPherson stated the first meeting will be held on May 21.  I will send you a follow-up letter.

 

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS      Staff Reports

            A.    Attorney

            Mr. Lyles stated I have spoken and written to Mr. Kaplan and gave him copies of cases that apply to this situation.  I explained that while we technically and legally do not have a duty to do anything in particular on his property, we will look into it.  I am told that we can expect a request with a cost that he has incurred to have a company grind and remove the roots that start at the property line and extend towards his driveway.  I have not seen anything like this, but I think it was a good idea to communicate with him.  He understands the technical and legal position we are entitled to, and I conveyed the idea that the Board will look at this with no particular resolution in mind.  Additionally, we have not heard from Lake Coral Springs.  Telephone calls have been made and a letter was written, but we are not sure where they stand.

            Mr. Eissler asked have we treated the lake?

            Mr. Joyce stated according to the Board’s direction at the last meeting, we provided for the aquatic treatment.  We did nothing else.

            Mr. Lyles stated you need an agreement to do basic aquatic service per the master declaration documents and easement in favor of the District that says there shall be an agreement addressing the aquatics treatment.

            Mr. Fennell asked what if we write up an agreement that favors us and submit it to them?

            Mr. Lyles responded we have to get them to do or say something first before we waste our time and money preparing an agreement they may not acknowledge.  The only thing that will work is us not treating their water.

            Mr. Fennell asked have you talked to their president?

            Mr. Hans responded no.  We sent him a letter, but I did not call.

            Mr. Eissler stated we should send him a letter and cease to do anything until we come up with an agreement.  We are amenable to treat their lake provided we get what we need.

            Mr. Fennell stated let’s draw up our points.

            Mr. Lyles asked is the proposal that we will enter into an agreement that would call for the District to do the basic aquatics maintenance at the District’s expense as long as we have an agreement covering that situation and not to submit to them an invoice for that basic level of aquatics?  If we submit this to them in writing, they will become responsive because they think we want them to pay for that basic level of aquatic maintenance.

            Mr. Eissler stated it behooves us to keep the lake treated.  I would rather have our people treat it for safety reasons.

            Mr. Hanks stated I agree.

            Mr. Lyles stated let us work on this for you.  With regard to the codification bill, I had another contact at the end of last week from the governor’s office.  We are getting attention from the state at staff level; both the legislative and executive branches.  However, we have not heard anything from Representative Ritter’s office.  I do not know what is going on in terms of any attempts to amend the codification bill or some other bill to include changes to Chapter 189 regarding election of members of the Board of Supervisors.  However, we will continue to be as responsive as possible.

 

          B.      Engineer

                   1.       Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

            Mr. Moore stated I will update the charts so that they will be more diversified and provide more information.

            Mr. Fennell asked do we test the canal waters?

            Mr. Moore responded yes.

            Mr. Fennell stated I would like to see something that tells us the state of our canals.

            Mr. Eissler asked what do you check for?

            Mr. Moore responded phosphorus and organics.

            Mr. Eissler stated I would like to see what you test for.

            Mr. Moore stated we test quarterly, which is not required by our permits.

            Mr. Fennell asked how often do you test the pumps?

            Mr. Moore responded our pumps are regularly maintained.

            Mr. Fennell stated I would like to see something indicating this.

            Mr. Moore stated they are always on standby.  They are tested every two to three weeks.  We are in the process of getting new engines.  We recently went through a testing program to get more efficient and economical engines to replace the engines that are in the pump stations right now.  We hope to have the bid package at the June meeting.

            Mr. Fennell stated I would like to see the status of the pump stations.  I want to know that someone has tested them once a month and know what the results are.

 

                   2.       Update on Construction

            The Board scheduled a tour of the plant at 3:00 p.m. on May 17, 2004.

 

          C.      Superintendent

            Mr. Hans stated Mr. Moyer apologizes for not being here today, but he had a last minute conflict but promises to be here next month.  Also, we received a thank you letter from Marine Industries as well as tee shirts for the Board and staff for last month’s waterway clean up donation.

          D.      Complaints

            There not being any, the next item followed.

 

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS         Supervisor's Requests and Audience Comments

            There not being any,

 

On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the meeting was adjourned at 5:45 p.m.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                      

Glen Hanks                                                              Robert D. Fennell

Secretary                                                                  President


RECORDING SECRETARY

Send letter to Neal Bisnath

 

MAY AGENDA ITEMS

3 P.M. tour

Budget

 

POSSIBLE FUTURE AGENDA ITEM

Request for an Encroachment in the District’s Maintenance Easement (tabled until receipt of further explanation from Neal Bisnath)