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
Glen Hanks Vice President
Sharon Zich Secretary
Also present were:
John Petty Manager
Dennis Lyles Attorney
John McKune Engineer
Cedo DaSilva CH2M-Hill
Jane Early CH2M-Hill
Isabelo Rodriguez CH2M-Hill
Daniel Bohorguez CH2M-Hill
Ilana Rabone
Janice Moen Larned
Brenda Schurtz
Randy Fredericks Field
Supervisor
Doug Hyche District Staff
Mark Westfall City of
Mr.
Fennell called the meeting to order and Mr. Petty called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of
the September 18, 2006 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member
received a copy of the
Mr. Hanks stated on page four in the
third line down, I was incorrectly identified.
Ms. Rabone stated I will check the
tape.
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr.
Hanks with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Resolutions
A.
Resolution
2007-1 Designating John Petty as Assistant Treasurer
Mr. Fennell asked who is Treasurer?
Mr. Petty responded Ms. Janice
Larned is Treasurer. Mr. Ed Goscicki is
currently Assistant Treasurer but is no longer involved in the District. This is a housekeeping matter.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell
with all in favor Resolution 2007-1 Designating John Petty as Assistant
Treasurer was adopted.
Mr. Hanks asked is this resolution
numbered 2007-1 due to the new fiscal year?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
B.
Resolution
2007-2 Designating Signatories
Mr. Petty stated we request deletion
of this resolution from consideration as it is redundant. We no longer need it.
FOURTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Consideration
of Chemical Bids for Aquatic Weed Control
Mr. Petty stated we will place this
item on hold as we are re-bidding due to a discrepancy in the bids.
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Consideration
of Selection of Capital Improvement Coordinator
Mr. Petty stated the Board received
the advertisement for bid and proposal from McKune & Associates. During the budget process, we mentioned
hiring a Capital Improvement Coordinator to act as our liaison in order to keep
our engineering costs in line. They
would work out of the percentage points the engineer typically gets. We believe we will obtain savings in this
regard. The Capital Improvement Coordinator
will receive the majority of their fees from this. We will also use them as an engineer for some
of the on-site jobs, in particular the SFWMD best management practices. We already budgeted for this item and utilized
Mr. Moore in this regard. In the
advertisement, we asked for an experienced engineer who had knowledge of this
District and its utility and drainage systems.
Mr. McKune responded as we hoped he would.
Mr. Fennell asked was this put out
for bid?
Mr. Petty responded yes, we did this
as recommended by counsel.
Mr. Fennell asked did anyone else
respond?
Mr. Petty responded no.
Mr. Hanks asked was this based on
the criteria in section five?
Mr. Fennell stated the first
qualification is a tricky.
Mr. Hanks stated this is an exclusive
specification
Mr. Petty stated for a capital
improvement, we thought we were being lenient.
We could have asked for 30 years experience, which Mr. McKune has.
Mr. Lyles stated usually where you
require special expertise, you indicate just what you said or put “or
equivalent” and give someone an opportunity to show an equivalent level of
experience.
Mr. Petty stated we were looking for
very specific knowledge a Capital Improvement Coordinator would have in knowing
enough about this particular system to provide us what we consider to be the
safeguard and reliability of the 2% return, which is critical to them making
the money on this project. Saving us 2%
by their specific knowledge of these facilities, is what makes this work. As any competent engineer knows, trying to
learn what is here can take years. This
is what I meant by “specific knowledge” and the way we wrote these specific
requirements.
Mr. Lyles stated this is out of the
ordinary when it comes to CCNA notices and processing an RFQ. Therefore, there is some exposure. If you want to proceed, it is up to the
Board. However, it is incumbent upon me
to at least point out it is unusual and not something I have seen where you limit
the experience to one particular capital project. However, I understand the rationale for
trying to save money.
Mr. Petty stated keep in mind this
is the Capital Improvement Coordinator and not a District Engineer. We were doing it this way in an abundance of
caution since this is a service related issue.
I think we have done a good job.
Mr. Lyles stated I certainly agree
with the manager this it is not the full scope of engineering services you are
looking to find a qualified person to perform and therefore, a full and
complete CCNA process in terms of the description and qualifications is called
for.
Mr. Hanks stated I have reservations
about how the advertisement was worded.
Mr. Fennell stated advertise again
and add the word “equivalent”.
Mr. Petty asked can I have a
definition or indication of what “equivalent” means?
Mr. Fennell responded you have to be
convinced they would in fact have equivalent experience to be able to do the
job.
Mr. Hanks stated we only had one
respondent and it is too restrictive.
Mr. McKune has 35 years of experience, many years here with the
District. I do not know who else is out
there. Are we missing someone else out
there who is well qualified just by the restrictive nature? I like Mr. McKune and the work he does but I
want to set an example for all districts.
I want to open this up as there are plenty of qualified and talented
people out there. I do not want to be so
selective to where we are tailoring it to one individual.
Mr. Fennell asked does Mr. McKune
currently have a position here?
Mr. Petty responded no. Mr. McKune retired from CH2M-Hill and we have
a new Project Manager here this evening who will introduce himself under the
Engineer’s Report.
Mr. Hanks asked can we hire Mr.
McKune through Severn Trent Services?
Mr. Fennell responded this not the
hiring of Mr. McKune as a person but McKune & Associates. I think we need to re-run the ad with the
words “or equivalent”. Do we need
anything else?
Mr. Lyles responded this is all you
need. This is a term you regularly see
in requests for bids. Sometimes we put
this in our request for chemicals. You
can also use it to modify the experience you are looking for.
Mr. Hanks asked in the interim, is
there a way we can retain the services of Mr. McKune so we have the coverage of
the Capital Improvement Coordinator?
Mr. Lyles responded you can appoint
him to this position on an interim basis for a fee not to exceed $25,000. This would remove any question about the CCNA
process. This is tricky because this is
a management type of service not required to be bid in this way but on the
other hand it has engineering components.
This is why staff wanted to do this in the right way and we are still
trying to. This threshold kicks in at
$25,000. Hiring Mr. McKune on an interim
basis while we continue with the notice process, is an appropriate way to
proceed. This preserves your ability to
look at other things.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell
with all in favor staff was authorized to re-advertise the request for Capital
Improvement Coordinator qualifications with the inclusion of the words “or
equivalent”.
Mr. Fennell stated I understand
there is a current need for management.
Is Mr. McKune currently working for us?
Mr. Petty responded no. At this time he is independent.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr.
Fennell with all in favor the District Manager was authorized to retain the
services of McKune & Associates on an interim basis at a cap for
professional fees not to exceed $25,000.
SIXTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Consideration
of Change Orders
A. Change Order No. 1 with Intrastate
Construction Corporation for Emergency Roof Repairs at Maintenance Building,
Roto-Guard Building and Deep Injection Well Pump Station for a Net Increase of
$78,920
Mr. Petty stated we had leaks in
these building during the rains over the summer and it was necessary for us to
do roof repairs to stabilize it since we had facilities at risk. At the deep injection well station we have expensive
equipment. If water damages any of those
motor control cabinets we are in trouble.
We had a contractor who was able to obtain roofing materials at short
notice. As you may know, roofers are
difficult to get right now. We had the
need to do an emergency change order as recommended by staff and our
engineer. They brought this item to management’s
attention and management agrees. We
recommend approval to the Board.
Mr. Fennell asked are the roof
repairs complete?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked how many square feet
of roof did we end up repairing?
Mr. Petty responded the roof on two
buildings had to be repaired. They were
patched after Hurricane Wilma but the patches did not hold. Another patch job was not recommended.
Mr. Hanks asked are we talking about
10,000 square feet of roof?
Mr. Hyche responded I do not know the
exact square footage as I did not bring the invoice with me. I can get the number for you.
Mr. Fennell asked are these new roofs?
Mr. Hyche responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked has anyone obtained
a price comparison?
Mr. Petty responded I am doing a
tile job for NSID on the clubhouse which is not anywhere as near as the square
footage here. They are being charged
$140,000. By single family roof size, we
have a job big enough to cover four single family homes. The warehouse is a large building while the
deep well station is only 1,000 square feet.
The roto-guard building is probably close to 4,000 square feet.
Mr. Hanks asked in order of
magnitude, how much of a premium did we pay for the quick turnaround?
Mr. Petty responded I think he gave
us a good price.
Mr. Hanks stated as long as it stays
in good condition. It is not a good
price if we have to repair it next year.
Do we have a warranty?
Mr. Petty responded the contractor
is on-site for at least the next year.
We have a warranty.
Mr. Hanks asked in writing?
Mr. Petty responded the membranes
and the paper have various warranties associated with them. The warranty on workmanship and quality is
one year.
Mr. Hanks asked are there other
buildings on the site with roofs in need of repair in the near future where it
may be beneficial to the District to go out and put on a bid list?
Mr. Petty responded the reason the
roto-guard building was added was because water was leaking near the
roto-guards. The maintenance building
had some damage. The deep well building
holds the high service pumps.
Mr. Hanks asked do you understand my
concern of an emergency or immediate corrective action versus planning?
Mr. Petty responded yes. The water plant roof was re-roofed four
months after Wilma. We now have new
roofs on 80% of our buildings.
Mr. Hanks asked how old is the roof
on this building?
Mr. Petty responded three years old.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Hanks
with all in favor Change Order No. 1 with Intrastate Construction Corporation
for Emergency Roof Repairs at
B. Change Order No. 8 with Intrastate
Construction Corporation for Water Treatment Plant Improvements to Well 5 for a
Net Increase of $32,466.90
Mr. McKune stated Well 5 is south of
Mr. Hanks asked is Well 4 the one we
received calls from the neighbor on?
Mr. McKune responded yes. Well 5 is around the corner from the small
neighborhood park. It was allowed to
deteriorate simply because of being, “Out of sight, out of mind”. We made some mechanical changes to it but
this is largely an upgrade change of the control system and electrical
panel. We still need to do some
re-grading around the site. The raising
of the slab was due to the potential flooding to get the heads above the 100
year flood elevation, which is now a requirement. This well for all intents and purposes is
new.
Mr. Hanks asked what about the interior
casing?
Mr. McKune responded the casing is
not deteriorating. However, we installed
a new motor because it broke down.
Mr. Hanks stated so we should not
have any surprises.
Mr. McKune stated it will work well
with the proper maintenance.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell
with all in favor Change Order No. 8 with Intrastate Construction Corporation
for Water Treatment Plant Improvements to Well 5 for a Net Increase of
$32,466.90 was approved.
SEVENTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS Hurricane Debris
Removal and Canal Bank Restoration Status
Mr. Petty stated this has become a
standard item on our agendas. I will
defer to Mr. McKune on the status of the Phase 2 contracts for removal of
nuisance trees from within the ROW.
Mr. McKune stated Phase 1 is now
complete. This was for the removal of
the hurricane damaged trees. We received
money from NRCS. Phase 2 was designed
and bid to remove the remaining trees. Applications
submitted to the city were scaled back to only removing the nuisance trees. We then found out that ficus trees were no
longer a nuisance and are now considered ornamentals. All trees must now be removed by obtaining a
permit from the city. We contacted Stiles
Corporation who applied to the City of
Mr. Hanks stated Section 31 is
behind
Mr. McKune stated there are also ficus
and plum trees.
Mr. Hanks stated those were not
exotic evasive and were not listed on the recent species list.
Mr. Fennell asked have you seen the
reason for the rejection?
Mr. McKune responded no.
Mr. Fennell asked have you spoke to
anyone about it? Is there any rationale
other than they decided these will not contribute to the flooding?
Mr. Petty responded a representative
from the City of
Mr. Mark Westfall stated I am the
individual who rejected the permits. The
rationale is aside from the fact there was mis-identification of some tree
species, one of the trees could be covered under the nuisance tree permit. The biggest problem hinged on the mitigation
question. City code requires mitigation
or removal of non nuisance trees. There
was no mitigation.
Mr. Hanks asked has it been decided
whether the trees are treated inch-for-inch for utilities? Has this issue been resolved?
Mr. Westfall responded no. Currently trees are treated inch-for-inch. If we have documentation CSID is considered
to be a utility, I will be happy to revisit the matter.
Mr. Hanks asked is this something we
need our counsel to talk to your counsel on?
Mr. Westfall responded probably.
Mr. Lyles stated we are sitting in
the middle of a utility plant. I spoke
to their counsel before and was under the impression we will be classified in
that fashion. I tried to keep the lines
of communication open. If we need to do
more homework, we will do so as soon as possible. Any other minor problems with the permit
request, the contractor can clarify.
Mr. Fennell stated the trees are on the
CSID right-of-way.
Mr. Lyles stated CSID property.
Mr. Fennell asked are they in the
canal right-of-way where water flows?
Mr. Hanks responded CSID property
refers to the CSID right-of-way. This
means we have title to the property and it is our property.
Mr. Westfall stated it is difficult
for me to identify exactly where the right-of-way is. Obviously some of the trees are on the edge
of the canal bank. Others were 10’ to
12’ from the root. I am assuming the
trees are in the right-of-way. We need
to answer this question.
Mr. Fennell asked do you know how
the trees got there?
Mr. Westfall responded some of them
were ornamentals.
Mr. Fennell asked does the city have
a policy preventing people from planting into canal banks?
Mr. Westfall responded we certainly
do not encourage them. The homeowners do
not come to us every time they plant a tree on their property. In past years when dealing with commercial
property or residential, we most definitely point out they should not be
planting in the right-of-way.
Mr. Fennell stated we are not sure
who is in control of the trees. If
someone is giving permission to people to the homeowners to plant trees on CSID
property, we want to see it strongly discouraged. We also want the city to say, “Do not plant
trees in the canal right-of-way”. Do you
think this is possible?
Mr. Westfall responded I will take your
comments back to the city. When we
receive a request from a developer, we make certain the trees are not planted
in the right-of-way. This may or may not
have been the case in the past.
Mr. Fennell stated this is something
we want to encourage because we do not want to see those trees there. As you probably know, the trees in there are
weak because as the water level rises it kills the roots and these trees do not
stand a chance. Are you familiar with
Mr. Sutton’s presentation to us?
Mr. Westfall responded I am familiar
with it but have some reservations.
Mr. Fennell asked has the city done
a hydrologic study of the area?
Mr. Westfall responded no.
Mr. Fennell asked do they have any rationale
on what will happen if in fact the canals get blocked? Has the city taken into account the drainage
issues either for the canals or the streets in these decisions?
Mr. Westfall stated we met with Mr.
Petty on several occasions and we understand the concerns of the Board. We are not disputing your right. Our ordinance clearly gives the Drainage
District the right to maintain the canal right-of-way. However, this is not the issue here. The issue is the question of mitigation. We are not saying we are going to stop you
from removing the trees.
Mr. Fennell stated if the permit is
rejected, that is what is going on.
Mr. Hanks stated it was rejected
without mitigation.
Mr. Westfall stated it was rejected
because the requirements of the ordinance have not been fulfilled. It was rejected with comments and you will
receive the comment sheet along with the rejected permit. It is not unusual for permits to be rejected
several times in order for corrections to be made.
Mr. Fennell asked does the city
understand they are partially responsible for the drainage?
Mr. Westfall responded I cannot
speak for the city.
Mr. Fennell stated if they stop us
from doing our job, they are responsible.
They are responsible for a series of permits for the street drainage and
for insuring the drain areas are cleared and maintained. If there is any flooding, it is the city’s
responsibility.
Mr. Westfall stated I cannot comment
because I am a forester.
Mr. Fennell stated trees were
intentially planted there and were not supposed to be. By an act of God or nature, they were planted
in the wrong spot. What is the rationale
for mitigating?
Mr. Westfall responded I discussed
this with numerous developers who feel they are being punished because they did
not plant the trees and now have to mitigate them. They current policy does not spell out every
detail as to rationale behind it. The
fact is there are trees on the property and we are requesting removal of them. We are against the removal of the trees if
the requirements of the code are met.
Mr. Fennell stated there is a
mitigation issue. We feel in many cases
we do not have the right specification or approach for trees taking as much of
the wind force as we expect our houses to.
Has the city done something about that?
What we need is a tree policy to beautify the city but also provide the
same security we expect our trees to.
Mr. Westfall stated the city’s tree
subsidy program limits the number of trees eligible for subsidies in other
cities as well as
Mr. Fennell asked has the city
revised their tree trimming policy?
Mr. Westfall responded our tree
trimming policy is out of
Mr. Fennell asked has there been a
study done saying what we can expect in one class of trees in a category one
storm?
Mr. Westfall responded I did not
know any such study was possible because there are too many factors
involved. It is not just the
species. This is a common
misconception. Everyone wants a list of
the hurricane resistant trees. There is
far more involved such as the proper tree structure in a good quality tree as
opposed to a poor quality tree. We need
to consider the quality of the tree, quality of the care over the lifetime of
the tree as well as improper planting.
If you plant the tree too deep, it can fail.
Mr. Fennell stated there must be
some type of statistical result. You do
not need to have a particular tree but you can take an average.
Mr. Hanks stated I have seen this
list, which is a good list of trees well resistant to windstorms.
Mr. Westfall stated the
Mr. Fennell stated we lost a
considerable amount of trees with the hurricane. Our solution was not an engineering or arborist
one but to spend some money and clean it up quicker next time. This was a financial decision. My house got hit two years by a row by
trees. I propose some type of study discussing
types of plantings and hurricane resistant trees.
Mr. Westfall stated we changed our Landscape
Ordinance to allow developers when building commercial properties to have
cluster trees. It has been shown time
and again clustering trees can buffer each other and do better than individual
trees. We are currently reviewing a
project where the parking island does not have to be every 10 parking spaces
with one tree standing in the wind.
Instead the parking islands can be aggregated to allow for cluster
plantings. We have been making
adjustments to the code. When you have as
many trees as we do, the likelihood of losing trees during hurricanes is going
to be greater.
Mr. Hanks stated there are going to
be situations we not going to be able to control in
Mr. Fennell stated I was looking not
so much at the canal but at my house. As
I look at the damage done in
Mr. Westfall stated in many ways,
the District and the city are similar because we did not have any plans to look
at this until Hurricanes Jeanne and Wilma.
We had no experience with how two different tree species performed. My frustration is we sent out a tree
information booklet to 20,000 households and the percentage of people who
appear to be reading it is minimal. I
can only do so much in terms of trying to educate the public.
Mr. Fennell stated we are going to
try to insure the residents of CSID are better informed about what is needed by
doubling our efforts. We hope to
cooperate with the city to make sure we have a uniform policy, not only for
trees in the yard but trees along the canal.
Mr. Hanks stated you are not going
to change the residents perception.
Occasionally we are going to see in the future where people hire
companies to plant trees and they end up planting them in our right-of-way. Is there a way, if we catch them within a
certain period of time, to go back to the resident and say, “Get rid of the
tree because it is in our right-of-way and
you are encroaching”?
Mr. Westfall responded this is a
legal question and something we want to see happen. However, what the enforcement mechanism is
and whether it is enforcement on the side of the District, Code Enforcement or
the police, I do not know and is something we need to look into. When I deal with the residents and I deal
with many residents regarding the trees all over the city, this is something I
point out to them. I can say it but it
does not mean they are going to listen to me.
Mr. Fennell asked are you here to
help negotiate the mitigation issue?
Mr. Westfall responded no. The reasoning behind the rejection needs to
be looked at.
Mr. Fennell stated the city has a
policy for planting trees. Are they
giving residents money to help plant trees?
Mr. Westfall responded yes. We are subsidizing street trees along public right-of-way. I inspect every tree planted for quality,
proper planting and species. We are not
just taking their word for it.
Mr. Hanks stated we need to review
the city code. Representation here told
us we have to provide mitigation. Do we
need to provide the city with a proposal for mitigation?
Mr. Fennell responded yes.
Mr. Hanks stated if we remove 175
trees by the Auto Mall, there is going to be an impact to the residents
adjacent to the canal in terms of a visual buffer. We need to take a close look at this.
Mr. Fennell stated the buffer should
not have been there in the first place.
Any mitigation will have to go behind it. The owner of the property bears some
responsibility because he planted the trees in the wrong spot.
Mr. Hanks stated in the end, we are
all responsible because as members of this District, we have to assume the cost
one way or another for mitigation and tree removal. In some ways the Board is responsible because
of inaction over the course of 20 years in terms of effectively exercising the right-of-way.
Mr. Fennell stated when the trees
were only 15’ high and three inches in diameter, we were not anywhere near the
seriousness of the problem it is today.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to
provide direction to management?
Mr. Fennell responded we need to
instruct staff to start negotiating a mitigation policy with the city as a
utility. We cannot put those trees back
in the same places.
Mr. Hanks stated let’s provide them
some guidance as to where we want to prioritize the mitigation of these trees.
Mr. Fennell stated there is an issue
of money as there is only so much we can afford. As a utility, is there a difference in
mitigation responsibilities?
Mr. Lyles responded it is
substantially different. The permitting
as it relates to utilities authorizes tree for tree replacement. A private landowner or developer does it on
an inch per inch basis. If you are
removing a 10” caliper tree as a developer or private landowner, you have to
replace a 10” tree. As a utility, if you
remove one tree, you have to replace it with one tree. This is a loose standard in some ways, which
is why city staff and your staff have to come to terms on the plan. I am absolutely convinced we are entitled to
be considered as a utility under this tree ordinance and we will proceed in
this fashion every step of the way.
Mr. Hanks asked is Comcast
considered to be a utility?
Mr. Westfall responded I do not
know. FDOT is not a utility but they are
on an inch per inch replacement.
Mr. Fennell stated we want to work
with the city. I request the city help
donate some money to this issue. We
still need to do something different as far as the design of our own property
for shielding. We were talking about
bringing in a Landscape Architect. Have
we done so?
Mr. Petty responded yes. CH2M-Hill is standing by.
Mr. Hanks stated with the proper
tree placement, you can also shield damage from your house. The house can be damaged by dropped branches
but prevents other types of damage from occurring.
Mr. Fennell stated we need to do
this and are asking the city to help us out financially. We consider ourselves to be a utility. Does staff need further direction?
Mr. Petty responded no. We can start talking to the City Manager’s
office.
Mr. Hanks stated I think we are
wasting our time. I wish to investigate
whether or not the pumps will move a tree once it is hanging off the bank. The whole concern has been the trees in the
canal were moved when all the pumps were turned on.
Mr. Fennell stated we were concerned
about blockages.
Mr. Hanks stated if it moves a
fallen tree, you can have it moved to the culvert. We should find a location where we can test
to see whether or not the pumps will pull a tree off the bank.
Mr. Petty stated your engineer
already did a calculation on the traveling speed of a tree and how many feet
per second the canal water will be running.
It will be impossible for us to do a test of various trees with flotation
capabilities. You can take the velocity
of the canal into consideration and consider it to be a threat versus a study
of dropping a couple of trees into the canal.
Mr. Hanks asked how are you going to
model a tree?
Mr. Petty responded I would fail
modeling the tree because wood has different densities depending on the
species.
Mr. Hanks asked if the tree stays on
the bank and does not travel to a culvert and does not block the culvert, does
the tree pose a risk to flooding or increase our risk for flooding? We can be spending millions of dollars to
determine this.
Mr. Fennell responded I do not think
there is any question that branches come off the trees. One branch came off my tree and flew 50 feet
through the air. Whether it is whole or single
branches, there is no question we are going to have branches in the water
floating down the canal.
Mr. Hanks stated I am talking about
a tree partially in the water and partially on the bank. You are dealing with a full canopy, which you
will not have in a hurricane. The leaves
are going to start to strip off early on before you start breaking branches.
Mr. Fennell stated we paid an
engineering group to study this. What is
the status of this study?
Mr. Petty responded the engineer
will be giving a presentation under his report.
EIGHTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Attorney
ii. Special Act Codification
Mr. Lyles stated I distributed to
the Board and manager earlier in the meeting the proposed amendment to the
Special Act authorizing the District to serve in the function discussed at
previous meetings pertaining to elections and amending bidding thresholds to be
consistent with Florida Law as it relates to other government type agencies and
adjusting the level of the compensation of the Board members to $400. Staff requested considering one additional
item, updating the short term borrowing provision to make it clear, although it
is implicit in the 34 year old document we are operating under like other
government entities you have the ability to go to commercial institutions,
banks, underwriters and other lenders to take advantage of what may be a short
term borrowing, short of a five year bond issue. If you have any questions on what this will
involve you can ask Ms. Larned. We will
be filing this proposed bill with the Legislative Delegation this week. The most significant issue is going to be the
Board’s ability to convert from a landowner election to an electoral (one
person/one vote) system run by the Supervisor of Elections at your discretion. However, this will only happen in connection
with a General Election every other November.
Mr. Fennell asked will we have two
members serving for four years and one member for two years?
Mr. Lyles responded just for the
first year in order to get a staggered election system. You have people serving four year terms but
not the entire Board being replaced in one election cycle.
Mr. Fennell asked does it state when
the elections will be held?
Mr. Lyles responded the elections
will be held the next succeeding even number year in November on Election Day
after you make the decision to convert to this system. It does not dictate when you will make this
decision but that they will only be held in connection with the General
Election in this county.
Mr. Fennell stated running elections
are a big expense.
Ms. Zich stated now we are going to
be elected by all residents in the District.
Mr. Fennell stated we can only do this
if we get the state to change our rules.
Mr. Hanks stated all three Board
members will vote in the General Election during non-presidential terms.
Mr. Fennell stated it has been this
way for a long time. We said this was a
good thing to do.
Mr. Hanks asked do you have the
contract amounts for bids?
Mr. Lyles responded we will follow
the state’s cap on its agencies and local government districts like CDD’s and
cities. Typically a construction project
is going to remain at $200,000 like every government as opposed to $4,000 but
more importantly, the maintenance services going along with it for the water plants
this District operates are heavy dollar contracts in some cases. But in other cases, it may be a $10,000 or
$15,000 contract. We currently have to
publish in the newspaper a notice to bidders and go through the preparation of
bid specifications involving staff and engineering time. This is an expensive and cumbersome
process. The state and all other local
governments and CDD’s in the state only have to do this if the cost hits
$150,000.
Mr. Hanks stated for the roof
repairs we authorized with the change order, now we have to go out for a public
bid if it was not done by a change order.
Mr. Lyles stated unfortunately given
the way this was written in the early 1970’s, if we have roof damage exceeding
$4,000, we have to go through a bidding process. This way we will be able to do it, with
whatever authority levels the Board establishes for the management staff to get
the work completed and bring it back to the Board for ratification.
Mr. Hanks asked do we you need a
resolution?
Mr. Lyles responded we just need a
motion to authorize staff to file the proposed bill amending Chapter 2004-469
Laws of Florida, which is your Special Act.
Mr. Petty stated I received comments on the Economic Impact Statement but I do not have the current draft. One item was about the bank being specified even though it is implicit. However, this is for short term notes and we are not looking to qualify for a short term note. In the past we had the issue of bidding anything over $4,000.