MINUTES OF MEETING
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 Fennell President
Karl Miller Vice President
Also present were:
Gary L. Moyer Manager
Dennis Lyles Attorney
Donna Holiday Recording Secretary
John McKune Gee & Jenson
Glen Hanks Rhon Ernest-Jones
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr. Moyer called the meeting to
order and called the roll.
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the
Minutes of the April 15, 2002 Meeting
Mr. Moyer 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.
Fennell with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Final payment for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase IB Contract with
Intrastate Construction
Mr. McKune stated this is the
smaller wastewater plant improvement project that has been going on for
approximately nine months. It has rolled
into the larger project that was recently started. We consider this project to be essentially
complete at the present time. We have
the necessary final releases from the suppliers. The contractor has given us his contractors
affidavit and we have the consent of the surety to make this final payment in
the amount of $25,555.50 which is basically his retainage. We usually do not bring pay requests to the
Board but we always bring the final pay request which this is.
Mr. Miller asked was this an
additional payment above what was previously authorized?
Mr. McKune responded no.
On
MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor Payment No. 11
and final to Intrastate Construction for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase
IB Contract in the amount of $25,555.50 was approved.
FOURTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Request for Surface Water Management Permit for the
Mr. Moyer stated you have in your
agenda package a permit application and Gee & Jenson's letter of
review. There is one question the
engineer for the applicant will have to respond to which is the first item
listed in the letter that states basically, please
explain how will the 1/2" dry pretreatment be provided before discharging
into the District canal with 40% of the impervious area is exceeded in Phase II
of this project. That is a question
the engineer can respond back to us in writing.
Otherwise, the permit application is in order. The area we are talking about is at the
intersection of
Mr. Hanks stated at this time they
have no plans for Phase II. Once they
complete Phase I they will figure out what they want to do with Phase II, if
and when it comes.
Mr. Fennell asked do you have a
brief answer to the first comment?
Mr. Hanks responded my office has a
different interpretation of the 40% rule, of what triggers the 1/2" of
pretreatment. The 1/2" dry
pretreatment is required for commercial and industrial projects where there is
greater potential for contaminants running off into the waterways. In this instance you are dealing primarily
with vehicles being on the parking lot on Sunday and not dealing with a day to
day operation where you have cars dripping contaminants on a daily basis. There is no maintenance on this site or
generation of trash. In my professional
opinion for a church the 1/2" of dry pretreatment is not required,
regardless of whether there is 40% impervious or not. When you have 40% impervious and you are
within a wellfield protection zone, at that point you have to put in the dry
pretreatment. At this time the subject
site is not within a zone of influence for a well. If at such time they come through and develop
Phase II and it is found to be within a zone of influence for a wellfield, at
that point there is sufficient room to construct dry pretreatment either by
means of exfiltration trenches or dry retention areas.
Mr. Miller asked Mr. McKune do you
agree with that?
Mr. McKune responded I have not been
handling this. This is the first I have
head that he had a disagreement with our engineer.
Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like a
question of whether it applies or not.
Mr. McKune stated we will apply the
criteria to this applicant as we have with other churches in the District. As you stated, if this were to be required in
the future, you would not be foreclosed from doing that if this were approved.
Mr. Hanks responded that is correct.
Mr. Moyer stated the other thing
that I think the Board needs to be sensitive to is that we are operating under
a delegation from the South Florida Water Management District and your charge
as a Board is that we administer those policies in accordance with the
S.F.W.M.D. criteria. To the extent that
they can clarify this issue, then I think you can rely on that
clarification. If they come back and say
because it is a church it doesn't have to follow the same rules as if it were a
commercial or industrial project, then you can have some comfort in approving
the permit.
Mr. Miller asked will there be a
school associated with the church?
Mr. Hanks responded yes and that is
still considered an institutional facility and I have had some consultations
with a S.F.W.M.D. official and he concurs that the church and associated school
does not fall in the commercial category.
Mr. Moyer asked do you think you can
get something in writing from him?
Mr. Hanks responded I approached it
in initial terms, by asking him if he would put it in writing if it was
something the Board requested and I am sure that would give him more reason to
respond to my request.
Mr. Fennell asked what is
pretreatment?
Mr. Hanks responded pretreatment is
designed to cleanse your first flush of run-off before it enters the master
water system. It is used in areas with
potential of high contaminant levels such as the parking lot at the Coral
Square Mall. In residential communities
you do not have to provide pretreatment, you only have to provide basic water
quality.
When you look at this site, 80% of
the parking is grass. The majority of
the run-off from this site will go straight down and filtered by the same means
you would have for an exfiltration trench which is filtered through the grass
and soil. Prior to discharge to the
off-site system, we have pollution retardant baffles. Any layer of oils will float on top of the
catch basins and could be removed if that becomes a problem.
Mr. Fennell stated this is a
condition prescribed by S.F.W.M.D.
Mr. McKune stated we do not set
those conditions.
Mr. Moyer stated it is a good idea
to get clarification but if the engineer will give us a letter that addresses
the concern and that is that there is sufficient area to meet the most stringent
requirement currently in existence, if we treated this as a commercial site,
then at least you have addressed the issue that our engineer brought up and if
that is not satisfactory when you do Phase II you can come back and make your
case at that time.
Mr. Hanks stated we have to come
back to this Board for any Phase II development.
Mr. McKune stated we have
definitional issues with regulatory agencies all of the time. The best way to straighten this out is for
our engineer to get with Mr. Hanks and talk to
Mr. Miller stated if it is just a
matter of that being resolved by someone at
Mr. McKune stated we can clarify
that but I have no problem approving the permit since we do have the land
available to do the most stringent interpretation. That does not foreclose approving the
permit.
Mr. Miller stated we can approve it
subject to the definition being confirmed.
Mr. Fennell asked what if it is not
confirmed?
Mr. Miller stated the approval is
contingent upon having that status. If
they don't have the status, then the permit is not issued.
Mr. Lyles stated Board action today
will authorize issuance of the permit subject to confirmation with S.F.W.M.D.
that this installation does comport with their criteria and standards under
"other" and absent that confirmation from S.F.W.M.D. the permit does
not get issued and they come back to the Board with a modified
application.
Mr. Hanks stated that sort of letter
from the Governing Board will trigger more responsiveness from S.F.W.M.D.
Mr. Moyer stated that is not a
problem.
Mr. Lyles stated it is true that
church construction typically has to follow all requirements of the
On
MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the permit
application for a surface water management permit for the
Mr. Fennell stated this site is
adjacent to the canal next to the Sawgrass Expressway. Are we going to run into any issues with
landscaping?
Mr. Hanks stated we will look at the
District's access requirements for that site.
Our landscaping department did the landscaping for this site.
Mr. Moyer stated we want you to
acknowledge that there exists a situation adjacent to the Sawgrass Expressway
in which it is to be left as a natural area not to be maintained on the west
side.
Mr. Hanks stated the west side is
not within our property and that is fine.
The only thing we need to take care of is to remove the Brazilian Pepper
and Australian Pines along the east bank of the canal.
Mr. Fennell stated you as the
engineer, do understand that the far side of the bank will be kept in its
natural state.
Mr. Hanks responded yes.
Mr. Moyer stated we can add to the
permit that the applicant acknowledges that the bank on the west side of the
canal will be left as a natural area, not maintained by the District.
Mr. Lyles stated there will be no
landscaping installed or maintained by the District. The only maintenance activity of the District
will be directed toward assuring that the surface water drainage system works
properly and efficiently.
Mr. Fennell stated I want to amend
the motion to include that language.
Mr. Lyles asked Mr. Hanks, on behalf
of the applicant, do you accept that addition to the permit?
Mr. Hanks responded yes.
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Attorney
Mr.
Lyles stated on the subject of maintenance of canal banks along the Sawgrass
Expressway, we have no progress on the part of anyone in terms of resolving the
questions that have been the subject of some previous reports to this Board
regarding Eagle Trace. I believe the
Eagle Trace representatives are going to request the opportunity to be on the
agenda and come before the Board. I have
told them how to do that and they will be on the next agenda to address the
Board directly. We have continued to
have polite but non-committal discussions as staff. It is not solved at this time and it hasn't
gone away. I believe they will discuss
some kind of compromise and try to satisfy the Board that it makes sense. As staff we have been unable to reach an
agreement with them. At this point I
don't believe they have any proposal other than what they had before which is
to identify the District's normal level of expense for normal maintenance
activities in this particular circumstance would be and then to allow them to
perhaps add some money to that budget on behalf of Eagle Trace to do a different
kind of landscape and maintenance in that area than the District would do on
its own. Working out the numbers and the
plant material and whether or not the District even has access from the D.O.T.
off of the Sawgrass Expressway which we do not have at the present time. None of those issues have been put to
bed. We have had further discussions but
we have not solved the problem.
Mr.
Fennell stated if we allow people onto that property and they fall, are we
liable?
Mr.
Lyles responded that is one of the problems.
In this particular instance, rather than just having an easement for
maintenance purposes it is my understanding that many years ago the area
adjacent to the Sawgrass was deeded to the District so the District owns it and
is theoretically responsible for it and if it is maintained in a dangerous
condition for people who go on the property, theoretically we might be
responsible, however, it is fenced off, there is no walkway, no one has any
business being in there and if anyone does go in there they are going to be
considered trespassers and the only obligation we would have to trespassers if
we know they are there is to let them know if there are concealed perils, not
just that it is a dangerous area to walk because of the slope, the lack of maintenance,
the undergrowth, all the things that exist there. It is not a place where anybody should be
walking other than our crews and they should be there only for maintenance
purposes and have the right equipment and take the right safety precautions. We would vigorously defend a claim like that
if something happened.
Mr.
Fennell stated I was thinking in the context if they were given permission to
go on the property.
Mr.
Lyles stated they would have to have a permit issued by this Board and there is
indemnification language in all of our permits, where the applicant is taking
the risk themselves and if anyone is injured, it is their responsibility, not
ours. Typically that kind of maintenance
is done by a contractor and they carry workers compensation insurance. I can't imagine anyone allowing someone to do
that type of maintenance activity without workers comp insurance. We would require if anyone goes in there
pursuant to a permit that we issue, have that kind of coverage.
The
Charter Revision Board has completed its work for this decade and the proposed
creation of a county-wide water authority to control the activities of all of
the special districts such as this one has not made the cut and will not appear
on the ballot.
There
is ongoing discussion and regional plans where the districts that do have
responsibility and understand their responsibilities are developing a way to
coordinate their activities across District boundaries and to provide for
emergency mechanisms and to have a plan that everybody buys into in the north,
central and south county that is acceptable and does the job. That will continue to take place. That was one of the reasons people saw the
legitimacy of the position that the district's themselves were taking, because
there is a way for this to be done through the umbrella of regulatory power of
the S.F.W.M.D. correctly. Correct from a
preservation standpoint and a water quality standpoint and a governing
standpoint.
B. Engineer
1. Monthly Water & Sewer Charts
2. Update on Construction
3. Discussion of MOMS Program
Mr. McKune stated construction is
proceeding and we will be pouring a very large slab for the new treatment unit
on Saturday, May 25. We finally received
the building permit from the City of
Item three is discussion of the MOMS
Program. I had hoped to have not only
Mr. Moore here today with the results of the seminar he attended last week on
this topic and someone from CH2M Hill who is knowledgeable in the
system but she could not make it today.
I would like to postpone this discussion until next month. We are trying to get this together on a staff
basis and present that to you.
C. Superintendent
Mr.
Moyer stated it is the beginning of budget time. As you will recall we bifurcate our budgets,
the first one we ask the Board to review is the general fund budget and in this
case it covers the operating costs of the District's water management
system. This is supported by the levy of
a non ad valorem assessment that appears on our tax bills. Based upon the same number of units that we
certified last year which is 11,344 which in all likelihood will go up because
as condominiums and other projects are constructed within the District, it adds
to that number, but if we use the same number you can see that we are proposing
a reduction of roughly $3.50 or 4%. We
are not asking the Board to adopt this at this meeting. We will bring this back at a scheduled public
hearing in all likelihood in July and at that time we will make a more detailed
presentation.
D. Complaints
There
not being any, the next item followed.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor's
Requests and Audience Comments
There not being any, the next item
followed.
SEVENTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Approval of Invoices
On
MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the invoices
were approved.
On
MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Miller with all in favor the meeting
adjourned at 4:50 p.m.
Karl Miller Robert
Fennell
Vice President President