MINUTES
OF MEETING
CORAL
SPRINGS
IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the
Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on
Present and constituting a quorum
were:
Bob Fennell President
Sharon Zich Vice President
Glen Hanks Secretary
Also present were:
Dan Daly Interim Manager
Ed Goscicki Co-Manager –
Sue Delegal District Counsel
Sean Skehan CH2M-Hill
Jane Early CH2M-Hill
Daniel Bohorquez CH2M-Hill
Cedo DaSilva CH2M-Hill
Pete Colussy CH2M-Hill
Neal Janov DCES
Keith Beal Slattery &
Associates
Sandra Babey, Esq. Attorney for
Lloyd Meisels
Doug Paton Hockman Attorney
Jim Aversa CSID
John McKune District Capital
Improvement Coordinator
Doug Hyche CSID Utilities
Director
Randy Frederick CSID
Drainage Supervisor
Kay Woodward CSID Accountant
Jan Zilmer CSID Human
Resources
Mr. & Mrs. Hockman Residents
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr.
Daly called the meeting to order and called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of
the October 15, 2007 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr. Daly stated on page four, in the
middle of the page “9,200” should be “$92,000”.
Mr. Fennell stated on page 12, “$41,000”
should be “$41,000,000”.
Ms. Zich stated on page four, I
asked how many claims we had last year and Mr. Grimmel reported there were less
than 10%. Were there less than 10% of
claims?
Mr. Daly responded this is what he
reported.
Ms. Zich stated it did not sound
right.
Mr. Daly stated on page eight, every
instance of “Ms. Woodward” should be “Ms. Rower”.
Mr. Hanks stated on page 20, the
word “charger” should be “charge”.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell
with all in favor the minutes of the
Mr. Fennell stated a revised agenda
was provided to us by email. Since we
have audience here for item eight, I request we take this item at this time.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Request
for Surface Water Management Permit for
Mr.
Hanks stated everyone has called me about this request.
Mr.
Goscicki stated I think people feel you have expertise in this area.
Mr.
Hanks stated in the past I tried to team up on a project.
Mr.
Neal Janov stated I am a Professional Engineer with DCES, the Civil Engineer
for this project. With me today is Mr.
Keith Beal from the firm of Slattery & Associates who are the Architects,
Ms. Sandra Babey who is the Attorney for the
The
reason why we are here is the existing site has been in existence for close to
if not over 30 years along with the other adjacent developed commercial sites
to the south, which do not comply with the existing regulations. I am not a newcomer to
The
problem is even if we did nothing to the site, we cannot comply with CSID’s
requirements. Furthermore, not knowing
this when we first started this project, in order to add landscape islands and
make it handicap accessible by adding a ramp and parking spaces, we decided to
add only 700 sq. feet of additional pavement.
For a number of months, we tried to get through to the engineers but by
the time this meeting arrived, we found out there is nothing in your rules or
regulations dealing with a project such as this one. I do not want to be a pioneer, but it appears
we are pioneers within the District for this type of development. I had extensive conversations with Mr. Hanks
to make sure I was not missing something from a technical standpoint. He assured me I was not missing anything and
there is in fact a problem. There is not
just a problem with our site. To the south
of us, there is a Firestone Tire shop, which has been in place for a number of
years. I have copies of the original
design drawings, clearly showing the proposed grades do not comply with today’s
standards or the standards from 25 or 30 years ago.
I
am asking for relief in the same manner as a project anywhere else in
Mr.
Hanks stated the existing stage is 13.53’ for the 100-year flood and there is a
reduction of a tenth of a foot.
Mr.
Janov stated correct.
Mr.
Hanks stated there is a similar magnitude on your 10-year flood.
Mr.
Janov stated good point. It should be to
the five-year flood.
Mr.
Fennell asked does the canal belong to the Sunshine Drainage District?
Ms.
Early responded they are not outfalling to it but are going next to it.
Mr.
Hanks asked does this have any outfall?
Mr.
Janov responded we found no evidence of the old exfiltration trench. What you currently have in the parking lot is
what appears to be a positive drainage system, which collects water off of the
front parking lot, conveys it to the south through the 18” CMP and travels
through every other property to the south.
The size of this pipe increases going south.
Mr.
Hanks stated the water hydraulically heads from north to south.
Mr.
Janov stated correct. From what I
understand, the water goes into a canal south of
Mr.
Fennell asked is the problem it does not have enough drainage?
Mr.
Janov responded no. We do not have the
mechanism in place for your engineers to approve us for a permit.
Mr.
Goscicki asked Ms. Early, can you explain what the permit conditions are
preventing you from approving the permit?
Mr.
DaSilva responded we could not locate the original permit as the building was
built before 1977.
Mr.
Hanks stated I did some research and found a Notice of Commencement from March
of 1979.
Mr.
DaSilva stated I do not think the permit was enforced as far as the storage and
volumes. They are only doing a small
modification. It is not like they are
tearing down the building and adding substantial impervious area.
Mr.
Fennell asked was it ever permitted before?
Ms.
Early responded there was no Permit Criteria Manual until 1985. As of today, it does not meet CSID’s current
criteria.
Mr.
Fennell asked what is in jeopardy?
Mr.
DaSilva responded as we stated in our recommendation letter, the issue is pre
versus post. Have the owners experienced
any flooding within the last 30 years?
Mr.
Meisels responded I have no idea.
Mr.
Fennell asked are you the new owner?
Mr.
Meisels responded yes, as of last February.
Ms.
Early stated we ended up contacting SFWMD and asking them how they handle a
situation like this. This is an existing
project, which is now changing hands and they are adding 700 sq. feet of
pavement. SFWMD said they look at the
pre versus post, which is what Mr. Janov provided. Our letter says:
“The
project does not meet the District’s criteria; however the applicant would like
to speak to the Board for permit consideration under a Pre vs. Post development
analysis, providing that they are making improvements to the site.”
Mr.
Hanks stated we have a specific issue for
Mr.
Janov responded it is isolated.
Mr.
Hanks stated the improvements will address the water quality of the area and
help produce the overall stage for the site.
Mr.
Janov stated correct.
Mr.
Hanks asked are you adding any additional buildings?
Mr.
Janov responded no.
Mr.
Hanks stated so the four walls are still standing the same way.
Mr.
Janov stated correct.
Mr.
Hanks stated the issue is whether or not adding an exfiltration trench is
sufficient.
Mr.
Fennell asked did they do a study to see whether we have a big problem?
Mr.
Janov responded no, because of how the site is draining. As the water moves south, the flow increases.
Mr.
Hanks stated what we are dealing with is the master plan for CSID was permitted
in the 1970’s. Portions of the plan were
already built. Within the past year, we
asked our engineers to model the entire District in an attempt to establish
whether or not the system is in compliance with what we originally
planned. What was originally assumed is
not there now, especially over the course of 30 years. In the vicinity of the
The
Board recognizes these are not fully compatible with what we originally assumed. We noted some grades in the area at 13’. You are protected from the 100-year flood but
not everyone is at the same level. What
the Board is struggling with is protecting the residents from the 100-year
flood with the proportional amount of improvements. Everyone within the District is a
taxpayer. The Board has not come up with
a policy as to what level of improvement triggers full blown compliance within
the regulations. I do not question
anyone will argue with me if you tear down a building, you are going to have to
comply with new regulations. You are not
doing this. You are looking at a
situation where you are adding some parking and improving the drainage. The Board is going to have to establish
limits on how much improvement triggers bringing it into full compliance with
the criteria of the District.
Mr.
Fennell stated we went back and looked at what happened to the District now
versus 35 years ago. We find some areas
could have some flood problems during the 100-year flood. You happen to be in an area like this. We are not only trying to protect you. A big part of our approach is to not only
bring the site under the drainage canal standards but also protect the drainage
of the land. We expect some of the water
to percolate down to the ground. The
more we cover up the ground, the more percolation, which causes an immediate
flooding problem. This is not so much a
permitting issue but whether or not this will impact your neighbors and
everyone else around you.
Mr.
Hanks stated the other issue we are faced with going forward is if we continue
having water shortages, we need to find other areas where we can increase our
storage so we do not pump our freshwater into to the ocean. The Architect has done a good job trying to
make a good situation better. He is not
proposing many improvements and this is temporary until such time as we have a
Permit Criteria Manual reflecting what levels we have to comply with.
Mr.
Fennell stated the Permit Criteria Manual should be compliant with our
permit. Obviously there is a historical
reason for this. Nevertheless, we need
to see what they would have to do in order to meet the permit criteria.
Mr.
Hanks asked how far out of compliance are you?
Mr.
Janov responded we have to rip out the entire parking lot, re-grade it and
lower everything around the site to comply with the criteria in the east basin.
Mr.
Hanks asked is your finished floor below
Mr.
Janov responded no. Our finished floor
elevations are 13.75’.
Mr.
Fennell stated I do not want to see us build a new building and suddenly get a
five-year flood.
Mr.
Hanks stated
Mr.
Fennell asked is the parking lot going to drain?
Mr.
Hanks responded yes. Your projected
elevation is 12.24’.
Mr.
Janov stated we are going to install more drainage in the parking lot.
Mr.
Hanks stated as long as it can handle a 10-year storm, which is 8” of rain in
24 hours.
Mr.
Janov stated this amount of rain in 24 hours will be a foot below the finished
floor elevation.
Mr.
Hanks stated some of the parking lot will be submerged. This is not an unusual situation for sites in
Mr.
Fennell stated the applicant needs to have a good understanding of what the problems
are and whether or not they want to take this further. You have to protect your property and your
parking lot. What does the applicant
have to do in order to get into compliance?
Mr.
DaSilva responded we can include language in the permit whereby flooding will
occur in the parking lot in the 10 year flood.
Then the owners will realize this problem is their responsibility to
deal with.
Ms.
Early stated they are signing off knowing that this could be a reality.
Mr.
Hanks stated if the owner currently does not do anything to the site; flooding
is going to occur. As far as the overall
basin, this is a small component. It is
not going to be noticeable elsewhere.
Mr.
Fennell stated only as precedence. Two
cases may not make a difference but if we had 100 cases, there could be an
issue.
Mr.
Hanks stated we should take this as a wake up call for the engineers to
establish criteria for re-development reflecting what scenarios trigger partial
compliance with the Stormwater Criteria Manual and under what situations we
require full compliance. I recommend we
approve this request from
Mr.
Fennell responded yes. Is the engineer
agreeable?
Ms.
Early responded yes.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich
with all in favor the
request for a stormwater management permit from
Mr.
Janov stated thank you for your time.
Mr.
Fennell stated going forward we are going to have to look at a percentage
improvement for drainage. It looks like
we have some improvement here but I feel this is the best we are going to get
because they improved the parking lot.
We are not here to make life hard for them.
Mr.
Hanks stated this is not going to be the last request we are going to
receive. I want to give direction to our
engineers to develop suggested criteria for progressive clients for
re-development for the next meeting.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Request of Mr. & Mrs.
Hockman for an Easement Variance at 433 NW 115th Terrace,
Mr.
Hockman stated my name is Mr. Don Andrew Hockman.
Ms.
Early stated apparently there is a 32’ easement along
Mr.
Hochman stated we are fine with keeping the drainage easement intact. The utility easement was planned at one time
to run power in back of the homes but they ended up going around the front.
Mr.
Hanks stated for whatever reason, this was contemplated to be a platted utility
easement and is part of the plat for the
Mr.
Hockman responded we are planning to install a pool and deck up to the 8’
drainage easement. We only want the
District to abandon a portion of it.
Mr.
Hanks asked are you aware
Mr.
Hockman responded I thought if it was abandoned and allowed a permit before, it
should have been recorded to begin with.
Ms.
Early stated I do not think it was abandoned.
I think it was permitted.
Mr.
Hanks stated there was a Hold Harmless or Quit Claim Agreement assigned to it.
Ms.
Delegal stated we recommend the Board direct us to define the necessary area
within the easement where the construction is to occur and grant an
Encroachment Agreement. We will attach
the legal description to the Encroachment Agreement.
Mr.
Hockman stated I am not opposed to going through the necessary channels.
Mr.
Hanks stated if we need to maintain the easement in the future and install a
well elsewhere in the District, will our utility easement serve this
purpose. Will we be able to install
additional potable water wells?
Ms.
Early responded if it is a CSID utility, you can.
Mr.
Hanks stated it is. We have wells
scattered throughout the city. In some
instances, there are monitoring wells in the general area tracking the progress
of contaminations from dry cleaning establishments and gas stations. At some point, it is possible if we need to
close down one of those wells, to find another location for it. This is a philosophical argument. I am not comfortable about this as we have
the easement and there is no reason to abandon it. However, perhaps we can come to some
agreement for us having access to it.
Mr.
Fennell stated there is going to be an agreement for its use but for what use,
I do not know. There may come a day
where we are going to have to bury portable gas tanks. This occurs in other places in
Mr.
Hockman stated I looked into this matter somewhat and I am reasonable in this
respect. I can understand you want to
have some facilities in order to run a pipe but some lots are not much further
back than 8’ from the wall.
Mr.
Hanks stated your observations are accurate to what I have seen on the plat.
Mr.
Hockman stated all we need is the 8’ drainage easement to build our pool and
deck.
Mr.
Goscicki asked do you have a proposed plan for what you want to place on this
easement?
Mr.
Hockman responded yes. The pool will be up
to the 8’ drainage easement. The deck
will be towards the house and covered with landscaping.
Mr.
Hanks asked what happens if DOT installs facilities in the DOT right-of-way
during a roadway project?
Ms.
Early responded we have to relocate it.
Mr.
Hanks asked does the county have a similar requirement?
Ms.
Early responded yes.
Mr.
Hanks asked will it have to be relocated at our cost or paid for by
Mr.
Goscicki responded it will be our cost.
Mr.
Hockman stated there is also a 4’ barrier wall along the property line. The houses on the south end of the property
are close to the barrier wall. If the
road needs to be widened and they will have to tear down those houses, the wall
will not come out.
The record will reflect there was
discussion in the background, which the transcriber could not understand.
Mr.
Fennell asked is this something we need to resolve tonight?
Mr.
Hanks responded no. There needs to be
more discussion as we see discrepancies between what was platted and approved
and what is identified on the survey.
Whether you are requesting 8’ or 17’, there is a question about how much
of the easement will be left over. You
need to come back with sketches of exactly what you are proposing so we can get
ideas of how much of the easement will be remaining.
Mr.
Hockman stated I can tell you now there will be 8’ of drainage.
Mr.
Hanks stated I am not interested in knowing this. I request we table this matter until the
dimensions of the property and easements can be determined.
Mr.
Hockman asked who determines the dimensions?
Mr.
Hanks responded Ms. Early.
Ms.
Early stated we have to work with the surveyor.
Mr.
Hockman stated we provided the survey.
This matter has been ongoing for three months. We are here today to get final
resolution.
Mr.
Hanks stated the subdivision was platted in 1994 by WCI or Florida National
Properties. Right now, I am not clear on
what your request is.
Mr. Hanks moved to table the request by Mr. & Mrs. Hockman for
an easement variance at 433 NW 115th Terrace,
Ms.
Early asked do I need to obtain an updated survey of the property?
Mr.
Hanks responded yes, reflecting where the easement is located. The survey you provided to me is unclear. Depending on the extent of the request to
utilize the easement, we are leaning towards entering into a Use Agreement or
Removal Easement.
Mr.
Fennell stated thank you for coming.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Authorization for
Execution of a Contract for
Mr.
Fennell stated I reviewed the agreement.
What are we agreeing to do?
Mr.
Goscicki responded maintaining the flow through those lakes. The only maintenance you are providing is
aquatic weed control. The necessity for
the District is we have a flowage easement through these lakes and we need to
keep the flowage going through them. They
are permitted to provide additional maintenance if they want to, provided they
do it with appropriate licensed people and with our knowledge. They can ask us to do additional maintenance,
which we will give them a proposal for.
Mr.
Frederick stated I agree with what Mr. Goscicki said we are going to do but in
the past, this is not exactly what we were doing. We were doing all of the maintenance
including the clean up. Then we found
out this was a private lake we never had a contract with to do any work and
stopped doing maintenance. This goes
back to when Mr. Gary Moyer was here.
Now they want us to go back and do the regular maintenance, to the
extent of what we were doing before.
Ms.
Zich asked how many private lakes do we have?
Mr.
Frederick responded a couple.
Mr.
Fennell stated like
Mr.
Hanks stated some plats had water bodies over platted parcels. Where do you draw the line?
Mr.
Goscicki responded there is some history here.
A couple of years ago we were out there regularly removing coconuts and
debris.
Mr.
Frederick stated we spent three days picking up coconuts because the homeowners
kicked them into the canal.
Mr.
Goscicki stated this level of maintenance prompted the Board to question
whether or not we owned this lake. The
answer was we do not own it but we have a flowage easement through it. Therefore, it is to our benefit to make sure
the lakes are maintained so there is flowage through them. Our concern was not to have the lake
cluttered with Hydrilla and other exotics.
Mr.
Frederick stated it is my understanding if there are some concerns of this
nature, we will notify them and either they will take care of the problem or we
will treat it and charge them, if they do not take care of it within 30 days.
Ms.
Delegal asked do we have the legal description for the lake property, which is
the subject of the agreement?
Mr.
Frederick responded yes.
Mr.
Goscicki stated especially for the canals within the highlighted area.
Mr.
Frederick stated we only have the main north and south one.
Mr.
Fennell stated in certain cases there are docks. The real concern gets to be “Who decides
whether or not a dock gets built there?”
We normally do not allow residents to build docks. The issue is not whether or not there is a
dock but whether or not there is material floating down the lake blocking our
canals.
Mr.
Frederick stated this issue started the original controversy.
Mr.
Fennell asked was the attorney involved in this matter?
Ms.
Delegal responded our office is involved and based on our discussions, we
recommend the agreement.
Mr.
Hanks asked does this provide protection?
One of the concerns we expressed earlier was the double application of
herbicides.
Mr.
Goscicki stated they are prohibited from making applications of any herbicide
without going through a licensed Aquatic Weed Control Specialist who will need
to coordinate with us.
Mr.
Hanks asked where is this referenced in the agreement?
Mr.
Goscicki responded in the scope and in the beginning of the agreement.
Mr.
Fennell asked does Mr. Frederick agree with this?
Mr.
Frederick responded yes.
Mr.
Fennell stated I get the feeling there is some reluctance.
Mr.
Hanks asked do you have the personnel?
Mr.
Frederick responded it is a big area, which will take a great deal of work and a
large amount of chemicals for just the normal maintenance.
Mr.
Fennell stated these residents pay into our District.
Mr.
Frederick stated to perform a treatment is not a one day job.
Mr.
Hanks asked should we be waiting for Mr. Lyles to review this agreement since
he has a long history dealing with this matter?
Mr.
Goscicki responded his office reviewed it and you were provided with a legal
opinion. This is only a policy issue for
the Board at this point. We used to do everything
and then once we found out we did not own these lakes, we did not do
anything. Then we saw we have flowage
easements through these lakes and felt it was important to make sure those were
maintained. As a result, we negotiated
this agreement and will perform aquatic weed control.
Mr.
Frederick stated hopefully we will not have homeowners calling us this
time. Every day I received a call from
another homeowner complaining about something.
I am not going to spend every day fielding these calls.
Mr.
Fennell stated on the other hand, this puts us firmly in charge of disbursing
the chemicals. We have the right to do
so and want to make sure this is done properly.
As you well know, we have the state and everyone else looking at the
water. We cannot afford to have someone
else dumping chemicals into our lake.
Mr.
Frederick stated exactly. If someone is
dumping into our lake and something happens, we want to know who to blame. This gives us the right of access.
Mr.
Fennell stated I think we need to do this.
Ms.
Delegal stated in regards to the provision prohibiting the association from
introducing any chemicals into the system, I want to insert this provision if
it is not already reflected in the agreement.
Mr.
Goscicki stated Section 3.6 covers this provision somewhat by saying “services
shall be performed at levels which meet or exceed the aquatics maintenance
standards administered by and throughout the District.” This means they cannot do anything
interfering with our maintenance. If
they double our chemicals, they will interfere with our maintenance.
Ms.
Delegal stated we can state this to them in our cover letter when we deliver
the agreement to them for execution.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Resolution
2008-1 Amending the General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2007
Mr. Fennell stated we received
additional money in the General Fund.
Mr. Daly stated correct. We also received some invoices after the
books were closed out for the 2007 fiscal year.
Mr. Fennell stated so we received
money and expended money before the budget year was completed.
Mr. Daly stated correct. We have 60 days to amend the budget after the
close of the fiscal year as we are not permitted to overspend.
Mr. Goscicki stated this is
routinely performed every year. In this
year’s budget you have significant numbers, mostly due to hurricane related
repairs paid for from reserve funds.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Fennell
with all in favor Resolution 2008-2 Amending the General Fund Budget for Fiscal
Year 2007 was adopted.
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Consideration
of Award of Contract for the Purchase of Chemicals
Mr.
Fennell asked do we need more chemicals since we are now maintaining
Mr.
Frederick responded these are good prices.
It does not have anything to do with the quantity.
Mr.
Hanks stated I spoke with Mr. Dave Hulett today who informed me they are
proposing to redo their pump stations in the Sunshine WCD. I mentioned to him we are looking at bigger
issues as far as the east basin versus the west basin and inquired whether or
not he had any interest in relocating any of their pump stations. This would help us in cross-connecting our
two Districts and provide an additional source to the east basin.
Mr.
Fennell stated this is a matter for discussion at another time. I see there were some substations on
chemicals you had not tried yet.
Mr.
Frederick stated correct. In regards to
the Cutrine Plus, we used the generic, F-30 last year and did a comparison
treatment between the Cutrine Plus and the F-30. We felt the Cutrine Plus worked better than the
F-30. Therefore, we might use the
Cutrine Plus this year. There were other
chemicals we had not used before but they do not compare to the Cutrine Plus,
which we have used for years. It has a
more active ingredient in it and seems to work better as an algaecide than the
other ones do.
Mr.
Fennell asked what did you specify in the bid?
Mr.
Frederick responded we said “Cutrine Plus or equivalent”.
Mr.
Goscicki stated I believe there was language in the bid requiring the bidders
to provide documentation or samples.
Mr.
Frederick stated we spoke to a representative after we did our comparison test
between the Cutrine Plus and the F-30 and she said it works better if you buy a
special enzyme, which costs $50 per gallon. I told her “you did not specify in your bid we
had to use this additive with the chemical and if I spend $50 per gallon for
the enzyme along with the chemical, it is not cheaper than the Cutrine Plus and
will not give the desired effect I want.”
Mr.
Hanks asked would you say it is not up to 90% effective as the Cutrine Plus.
Mr.
Frederick responded it is 75% effective.
Mr.
Hanks stated fair enough. Are there any
legal issues if we go with the Cutrine Plus?
Ms.
Delegal responded no. Mr. Frederick proved
the F-30 is not sufficient enough as an equivalent.
Mr.
Goscicki stated this was a cooperative bid, which CSID took the lead on with
NSID, Pine Tree and Sunshine. All of
these districts are going through a separate award but the bidding was done
cooperatively.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich
with all in favor the contract
for the purchase of chemicals was awarded to the lowest responsive bidders as
indicated on the bid tabulation sheet, unless otherwise recommended by Mr.
Frederick.