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 D.
Fennell President
Karl Miller Vice
President
Bill
Eissler Secretary
Also
present were:
Gary L.
Moyer Superintendent
Rhonda K.
Archer Finance
Director
Donna
Holiday Recording
Secretary
Dennis
Lyles Attorney
Roger Moore Engineer
John McKune Engineer
Bill Joyce District Staff
Mr.
Fennell called the meeting to order and Mr. Moyer called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the September 16, 2002 Meeting
Mr.
Fennell stated that each Board member had received a copy of the minutes of the
There
not being any,
On MOTION by Mr.
Miller seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the minutes of the
Mr.
Moyer stated under the rules of the Auditor General our auditing relationship
is governed by the terms of a contract.
We have reached the end of the contract term and are required to go
through a selection process of who is the most qualified based on their
credentials and the price for that service.
We received responses from five firms, most of which are qualified. Four of the five currently do work for
Districts we are associated with and are very familiar with our accounting
practices. The firm the District has
utilized in the past is Hoch, Frey & Zugman. I believe they have done the audits since the
District was established in 1970. They
are a well qualified firm and have done a very good job of auditing the
District’s books and records. The fees
are very much in line, the low fee being $12,500 and the highest fee being
$20,000. It is a process we have to go
through and we propose this contract to be for a term of three years. Staff’s recommendation given the minor
difference in price is to stay with our current auditor that is Hoch, Frey.
Mr.
Eissler stated Hoch Frey’s proposal says the GASB is a fee that will be 90% of
the standard fee. What do you anticipate
that to be?
Mr.
Moyer responded GASB 34 is a requirement that all governments properly account
for their assets and come up with realistic renewal and replacement estimates
for the capital plant. We have to
implement that as pointed out by the end of 2004. We will work on that in this coming fiscal
year. I don’t think in any of these
cases that the auditing fees that were submitted anticipate doing anything to
help us come up with a GASB 34 compliant accounting system. There are computer programs that are
available for that. Ms. Archer went to a
seminar on what is going to be required to be compliant with GASB 34. Initially that is something staff will work
through and to the extent that we need the auditor to help us, we will use the
auditor for that purpose and that will be true of whatever auditor you
select. Whatever time we use them on the
GASB 34 compliance, will be above the audit fee.
Mr.
Miller stated I would go with either of the two low bids. They are all qualified and they have all done
work with special districts. We have
used Hoch Frey for so long that I believe it is a good idea to have a second set
of eyes look at the books.
Mr.
Eissler asked are you happy with Hoch Frey?
Ms.
Archer responded I am torn because whenever you change auditors you go through
a learning curve period that makes our job harder because we are educating them
and bringing them up to speed but you do get another set of eyes looking at the
books.
Mr.
Eissler stated Keefe McCullough has an anticipated fee of $12,500, they don’t
quote it as firm fee but anticipated.
Ms.
Archer stated in the past on other audits they have done for us, they have come
in close to their estimate. Also since
we have paid a lot of our bonds off, the audits should be easier each year
rather then getting more complicated.
Mr.
Fennell stated given what we have seen in the stock market of the accounting
firms that have been doing the same thing for the same people over and over
again, I’m inclined to change not because I am dissatisfied with Hoch Frey but
for a separate set of eyes and the two low bids look good to me.
On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Miller with all in favor the auditors were ranked and the three year contract with Keefe McCullough was approved subject to the proposed amount of $12,500 being a firm number.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Request for Drainage Outfall for
Mr.
Moyer stated we received from Gee & Jenson, the engineer’s review
letter of the request for a modular site
adaptation plan. The applicant is
proposing the construction of a .13 acre building on an existing elementary
school site. The project will utilize
exfiltration trenches for storm water treatment for both quantity and quality
with no direct outfall connection. Based
upon our review we are of the opinion that the project meets the District’s
criteria and will not adversely impact the District’s facilities. Should the Board approve this application, we
recommend the following special conditions.
On MOTION by Mr.
Miller seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the permit for the drainage
outfall for
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Continuation of Discussion of Water Management Permit Renewal Policy
Mr.
Moyer stated you started this discussion last month and it was brought up
because
Ms.
Archer stated we are one of the few water control districts in the county that
have not adopted a five year renewal and recertification program. The other
water control districts believe it is good because things can get modified over
time when property transitions from one owner to another. The structure may not be as efficient as it
was when originally permitted.
Mr.
Miller stated we talked about putting the burden on the people who hold the
permits.
Ms.
Archer stated we can write letters to the permittee but they may not be the
owners of the property anymore and in most cases won’t be. It will be the obligation of the new property
owner that we identify through records.
We can start this process by all future permits that we issue having a
five year expiration as well as if the permit is transferred to another owner
they have to notify us of an assignment of that permit so that we can start
building a data base going forward and start working on the old permits.
Mr.
Moyer stated you have two issues to consider.
One, is what do we do going forward.
As part of the permitting process we can put people on notice that there
will be a recurring expense to them by asking for this permit which they are
required to ask for anyway but people are going to have to pay money every five
years to have an engineer certify and to the extent that these are multi-family
projects which in most cases is the case, we will be dealing with homeowners
associations and condominium associations. I can see the need for monitoring
these things if there is currently a problem.
We have been monitoring water quality in these Districts for 30 years
and to my knowledge there is not a problem from these permitted storm water
systems. I question going backward and
implementing this as a retroactive policy just because someone in
Mr.
Fennell asked is the permit perpetual?
Mr.
Moyer responded all of our permits are perpetual with the proviso that they can
be canceled by the District. Can we even
go back and do this?
Mr.
Lyles stated I believe you can. We know
it will cost something to have an engineer review and certify that the control
structure or outfall or whatever it is functions within the parameters by which
it was permitted. It continues to
function properly and serve the public.
Mr.
Eissler asked if we do 150 of these permits, what are we talking about in terms
of manpower and expense.
Mr.
Moyer stated we will have to research who the current owners are and send them
a letter that says we have adopted this as a requirement that they recertify
and we are going to require it on a five year annual basis. We will have the engineers give us
information on the certification should address. They would have to hire and pay an engineer
and send to us the certification that says that he has gone through the testing
protocol as determined by the criteria and that the system that was constructed
is in compliance. We would rely on that
and probably reissue the permit. We
certainly don’t have anything currently in place to enforce or review. As you will see a lot of the systems deal
with exfiltration trenches and things of that nature and commercial property
and there is no way we would know whether an exfiltration trench is working
properly or not and I’m not sure how an engineer would make that determination
either.
Mr.
Miller stated if we had a case where they were unable to show compliance would
we revoke their permit and would that be the stick that we have to use?
Mr.
Lyles responded they will have to come in every five years to get the permit
renewed and they wouldn’t get renewed if it were not in compliance.
Mr.
McKune stated as an engineer I don’t think I would be able to certify the
function. I could certify facilities and
I think that is what this is driving towards, to make sure that the pipes and
structures are still there and are in good physical shape. It is the function that will be almost
impossible to ascertain. You can’t
really test a french drain, there is no criteria.
Mr.
Moyer stated we will implement the policy you adopt but there will be people in
the audience who will want to know why we are making them spend money on
something that has been working fine for 15 or 20 years.
Ms.
Archer stated the legislation they proposed last year said that if there is a
District that does not adopt a policy, Broward County will do it and charge
$2,000 each and we thought we could do that without someone paying $2,000. We are going to require the permittee to
certify to us. The way Broward County
proposed it was they would require that it be certified to them and then charge
$2,000 to read it. I believe South
Florida Water Management District adopted this five year renewal on the permits
they issue. Not all of the districts in
Coral Springs issue surface water management permits, it is North Springs and
Coral Springs. The other Districts have
deferred to South Florida and they automatically require the five year
renewal. I obtained information from two
Districts that have already implemented this program which outlines the
criteria for the things the engineers are supposed to inspect. We can use that as a basis of putting
together a policy.
Mr.
Miller stated I think we should move forward with it.
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Miller with all in favor staff was directed to draft a permit renewal policy to be placed on the next agenda for consideration.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Attorney
Mr. Lyles stated I have filed with
the Legislative Delegation in accordance with all of their rules and
procedures, a proposed bill to codify the special act that created this
District and the amendments to that act.
As we go forward I will attend the local hearing on the bill and hope we
have better success in getting it on the agenda so it can be heard by the
Legislative Delegation. I believe we
have one more year to do this and still remain in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 189, F.S. that require all special districts to codify
their bills in this fashion. We notified
the Department of Community Affairs last year and they are aware of the problem
we encountered in getting on the agenda.
We have covered our bases in that regard. We complied with the law again this
year.
B. Engineer
1. Monthly Water & Sewer Charts
2. Update on Construction
3. Capital Improvement Program
Mr. McKune stated the current
construction projects are moving along.
We are still experiencing some problems getting building permits from
the City of Coral Springs.
Mr. Eissler asked does this cost us
money?
Mr. McKune responded yes, it
will. So far we haven’t received any
requests for additional compensation from the contractor but he will ask for a
time extension and may ask for an increase in his general overhead. It will not be a huge amount but there will
be an impact. We have no recourse.
Mr. Moyer stated on new
construction, recognizing the inefficiencies of the permitting process, why can
we not put that in the specifications, that the contractor bears those risks of
permitting delays?
Mr. McKune responded we did that one
time and gave the responsibility for acquiring and paying for all permits to
the contractor. It is not something they
can bid on. It has gotten up to about
$20,000 in permit fees and it would be difficult to put that in the bid
documents. We could put in an allowance
for permits of $20,000 that the contractor works against.
Mr. Moyer stated it is not so much
who pays the permit fees, as it is delay damages that he may claim as a result
of the permitting scheme. If you are a
licensed general contractor doing work in Coral Springs you should know the
permitting process and the time that it takes so that you build that into your
time frames rather than come back to the District and say, we are looking for
delay damages because we can’t get the permits.
Mr. McKune stated intellectually I
agree but the City is applying residential and commercial building approval
criteria to these industrial plants.
That is the problem and there aren’t that many for the City to do. I don’t think they are going to ask for delay
damages. They are looking for payment of
direct costs.
Mr. Lyles stated I will have to
review the contract but I am not sure it will entitle them to additional
compensation if they get held up at the building department explaining things
over and over. That is part of what a
general contractor is expected to handle for the owner. I’m not sure we owe them that. I believe in the past if it was something
that was equitable, the District engineer has brought it forward with a recommendation
because it was fair but I don’t think it is mandated by the contract
language.
Mr. McKune responded it is not. I’m just saying that something may come
up. We have on some issues been back to
the City three or four times on the same item.
We think they have an understanding and a submittal is made and then we
have to do it again. It is
frustrating.
The wells are under
construction. As yet we have not
received any problems from the City. We
do have the permit for the overall project.
Mr. Fennell stated I want to see
this chart every month in the agenda package with the addition of a bar chart
with time frames. We will be able to see
the current projects and if we are on schedule.
Mr. McKune responded I will do that.
A brief discussion took place on
some of the line items listed on the capital projects list.
Mr. Miller stated I was looking for
a list of every asset that we have over a figure such as $100,000.
Ms. Archer stated that is actually
what GASB 34 is requiring of all utilities to put together. We envision that will be a big spreadsheet
that shows the value of every asset in the plant facility, the life expectancy
and its value today, and replacement cost.
When we put that information together
to be compliant I think that will give you the answers you are looking
for. We have to do that by 2004. We are identifying software and we will go
through every nut and bolt in the system and put that information together.
Mr. Fennell stated the problem will
be what we have outside the plant site.
Mr.
McKune stated we have as-built drawings of the system but we do not have a
summary of the pipe sizes and age of each pipe.
In the list of existing projects, there
is an item “add capacity for existing softners”. The item above that is “refurbish softners”
that is the $147,000 that was recently awarded to fix the three existing water
treatment units and is underway. As part
of doing that and in looking at the condition of the units and in trying to go
ahead with uprating the treatment capacity of the softners is a way that will
give us a system that will last forever, it basically means changing steel to
stainless steel for the items of the system above water that tend to corrode,
plus other things. We can do those kinds
of things for $420,000 that will basically get us another 2.8 million gallons
per day of water plant capacity which is about 20 cents per gallon which is
cheap. I recommend that this be done as
soon as possible because the contractor is in there now and taking it
apart. If you agree in concept, the
issue is, do we have to bid this or should we do it by change order to the
existing contract. It is difficult if
not impossible to have two contractors working on the same project.
Ms. Archer asked is it something the
District can buy direct?
Mr. McKune responded no, it needs to
be fabricated and then installed in the guts of the existing plant.
Mr. Moyer stated what we are doing
now will have to be done in three or four years again anyway. Would that not be an opportune time to get
our dollars worth out of the $147,000 put that on your list to be done in 2005
and the other question I have is if we can get them uprated to the magnitude
that you indicated, one of your suggestions is that we build another
accelator. Is that in lieu of building
another accelator?
Mr. McKune responded no. If I had to choose between the two I would
rather have the fourth accelator so that we can take the large unit out of
service. That is something we should
proceed with.
Mr. Moyer stated I am not too
concerned about the capacity issue.
Mr. McKune stated we can go half way
on the capacity upgrade with the new plant.
I will bring to the next meeting a site plan and show you where I would
like to build the new unit that will address all of our concerns.
C. Superintendent
There not being any, the next item
followed.
D. Complaints
Mr. Fennell stated I received an
email in regards to paying the utility bills on line.
Ms. Archer stated that requires
software that we don’t currently have but we are looking at what it will
cost. As to paying on line, there is
usually a fee to do that. At this time
we don’t accept credit card payments at all and there is a 3% to 4% fee that
the credit card company charges. We have
automatic debit in place. Those are the
things we are considering and we will bring back to you in a rates, fees and
charges change. We can provide all of
that but the software costs more money.
Mr. Fennell asked have you decided
if that is a good idea or not such a good idea?
Ms. Archer responded I think the
more service you provide is good especially since we don’t allow people to walk
in anymore.
Mr. Eissler asked can we charge a
fee for paying on line, because it will cost us?
Ms. Archer responded yes, and the
rest of the customers in the District should not have to pay for that. You can charge $2.00 for the transaction and
that should cover our costs then it would be up to the customer if they want to
pay the $2.00 or write a check.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s Requests and Audience Comments
Mr.
Fennell asked when are we going to get a report on our preventive maintenance
program?
Ms.
Archer responded we bought the software and are loading all of that into a
computer right now and scheduling the maintenance.
Mr.
Moore stated I believe we are about 80% along with the data and we are training
people to use it and generate reports.
Ms.
Archer stated we are hoping to be able to print out daily, weekly, monthly,
quarterly, annual schedules of maintenance that need to be done based on the
original data that is entered and then who is responsible for completing it and
a sign-off when it is done, it goes back into the system so that we can report
back to you the last time a particular piece of equipment was maintained.
EIGHTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of
Invoices and Requisitions
Requisition
118
On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the invoices and requisitions were approved.
Meeting
adjourned at 5:25 p.m.
William
Eissler Robert
D. Fennell
Secretary President