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
Daniel Bohorguez CH2M-Hill
Janice Moen Larned
Randy Fredericks Field
Supervisor
Doug Hyche District Staff
Mr.
Fennell called the meeting to order and Mr. Petty called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of
the October 16, 2006 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member
received a copy of the
Mr. Hanks stated I came straight
from another meeting. If I have any
corrections, I will provide them to Mr. Petty.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich
with all in favor the minutes of the
Mr. Petty stated since we have
several residents in the audience, at this time I request we discuss the item
on the trees. Mr. Brower and Mr.
Friedman are here representing the HOA of Eagle Trace. We have been working with them for three to
four months ever since the Sawgrass construction crews came onto our berm and
cut it down for the sound wall, impacting our side of the property. They also impacted the trees we spent a great
deal of time planting to address a past issue.
We discussed with the contractor about the replacement of the trees
through a meeting here with our engineers and the HOA and they said they would
take care of the trees. They gave us a
pallet of trees to approve, which we took action on 45 days ago. Now they are having difficulty with the
Turnpike Authority. Of course they have
protocol, which can take some time.
Meantime, the wall has been installed with partitions open every 1,000
feet, making planting extremely difficult.
The berm abutting the Sawgrass
Expressway had an extreme slope. When we
installed the trees originally it was tough.
We had to plant Wedelia material because grass cannot grow there. The whole idea is to make this look natural
before the wall. The HOA of Eagle Trace
has been working well with us on this matter and waited patiently for this
issue to come about. Since we are having
problems with the Turnpike Authority in processing this and since the wall is
almost complete, we wanted the Board to consider a policy from staff to fund the
replanting of the trees and then we will wait for the Turnpike Authority to
reimburse us. We feel this will address
the issue with the residents who rightfully come to the District for
resolution. In turn, we will go to the
Turnpike Authority as is our responsibility.
We think the amount will be less
than $75,000 to replant the trees. Some
of this material is also part of our application. Since part of our existing contract is with
Stiles Landscaping, we asked them to give us a price so we can consider a
modification to our contract for removal of trees to include the planting of
trees. We advised counsel who directed
us to speak to the Turnpike Authority to the best of our ability and keep the
pressure on them. This is where we currently
are at.
Mr. Brower stated prior to Mr. Petty’s
involvement in 1999 through 2002, Eagle Trace planted ficus bushes on CSID
property with the Board’s permission. In
fact, CSID contributed $5,000 towards the planting. We did the planting in the hopes of
preventing a sight line and noise abatement.
Several months ago when the Turnpike Authority came through, they cut
down all the plantings. A meeting was
conducted here on August 3rd with DOT and CH2M-Hill where they
agreed to be responsible and submitted a plan, which we were pleased with. We are concerned and upset they are not
proceeding at this juncture but hopefully it will be done and I encourage you
to put more pressure on the Turnpike Authority than we have.
Mr. Lyles stated we briefly
discussed the plan during or after the last meeting. My advice all along has been we have to keep
after the Turnpike Authority because they have the agreement with the
sub-contractor. Therefore, we have no
standing to say anything to them.
Although, there has been a meeting and acknowledgement of responsibility
on the party who caused the problem.
What I am hearing differently today is the idea of the District doing a
remediation program and looking to the Turnpike Authority to reimburse us. Unless they signed off on it, we are going to
be taking a risk of having to pay for it ourselves since we used taxpayer money
for the re-planting. I am not telling
you not to do this but you are running the risk by taking this approach as
opposed to having them tell us in advance they agreed to our approach and we
will continue looking to the sub-contractor who caused the problem to ultimately
fund it. Without the agreement in place,
before we do remedial work, we are going to be substantially more at risk than
we otherwise will be. We did not discuss
this approach and would be remiss if I did not point out you are taking a risk.
Mr. Fennell asked do we have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation for reimbursement?
Mr. Petty responded no. We do not have a contractual link to
them. We have a good working
relationship with Eagle Trace and wish to maintain it to the best of our
ability. Mr. Lyles is correct. We have not gone into any type of depth as to
whether or not we can pay for it. We
briefly stated this was one of the options we wanted to look at. I do not believe there is going to be a quick
solution with the Turnpike Authority. I
came to this realization from correspondence with our engineer who has been
sending me emails almost daily. Their
sub-contractor sent back his first response, which was “All I agreed to do was
to draw pictures of the trees, not supply them”. This was an honest response.
Mr. Hanks asked has the city been
involved in the damage to the trees?
Mr. Petty responded the city has not
been a part of this at all. The concept
is to bring this to your attention for consideration if we planted the trees
and take to the city to be counted against any mitigation plan approved in the
future.
Mr. Hanks asked were trees or shrubs
damaged on our property at the Eagle Trace location?
Mr. Petty responded I will defer to
Mr. McKune who went by boat and inspected them.
My view was from the Sawgrass side which was limited due to the wall.
Mr. McKune stated there were three
types of damage; one was non-vegetative, which was simply destruction of the
canal bank on our side. They also
damaged some understory bushes and removed branches off of the ficus hedge and
trees the HOA planted. The most
potential damage in one neighborhood was scraping of the soil down to grade and
replacement of the footers. They removed
40% off the top of the root ball on the wall side of the ficus’. There seems to be a difference of opinion as
to whether this will be a terminal event for the trees and is just another
indication of the amount of damage. They
did not seem to care.
Mr. Hanks asked based on our recent
discussions with the city in regards to our tree removal program; will the
trees having 40% or more root damage be classified as trees or shrubs?
Mr. McKune responded I do not know. We had a problem getting a straight answer
from the city.
Mr. Hanks asked how tall were the
trees?
Mr. McKune responded fairly small, 8’
to 10’ tall.
Mr. Brower stated 7’ tall trees were
planted in 2003.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the
maintenance plan for those trees? There
is an issue of them falling into the water.
Trees directly on the bank can impede water flow.
Mr. Brower stated there was no
issue. They were on top of the berm.
Mr. Fennell asked were they set back?
Mr. Petty responded they were set back
to a location where they were not a drainage concern. They would have to fall down and run down a
30 to 60’ embankment to reach the canal.
At the time, we were not looking as hard as we are now. The trees we recommend re-planting would meet
both the city’s approved plan and what was discussed here.
Mr. Fennell stated this canal bank
is critical to your area for drainage.
If it does not drain, the residents are in trouble. In fact, the one area in real trouble is at
the northwest corner of our drainage area.
We want to make sure it looks good and at the same time, does not set
the residents up for any drainage problems.
What are we going to do?
Mr. Petty responded the original
pallet of trees were a low canopy. I
believe they were Coffee Trees, which did not get above 20’ in height but
stayed bushy and green. The idea is to
have a green space in front of the wall.
This is what was intended before and what was damaged. It is our intention to have the existing
contract with Stiles amended to include the re-planting of these trees. We request the Board consider allowing staff
to do so, understanding it puts us in a position where we have to diligently go
after the Turnpike Authority. We want to
satisfy the residents if we can.
Mr. Fennell stated a former Board
member lived on this canal. Frankly some
of the trees were in poor condition.
They went from looking part of nature to looking scraggly. This may be a good opportunity to remove the unsightly
trees.
Mr. Brower stated there were a line
of ficus trees on top of the berm. The
problem today is the wall is up and unless you have access to get behind it,
you are not going to be able to do so. I
do not know how the re-planting is going to be done.
Mr. Fennell stated anything growing
beyond that height we better remove.
Mr. Petty stated we are looking for
approved native plants wherever practical.
Another reason why we can use Stiles is for the removal of any nuisance
trees. However, with the wall, it may be
impractical. We will have to use lifts
to go over the wall.
Mr. Fennell asked do we still have
barges?
Mr. Petty responded yes, however the
embankment is 60’ away from the water’s edge and you cannot travel up the
bank. We should be able to address many
of these issues if we proceed.
Mr. Hanks asked do we have an
outstanding mitigation obligation with the city as part of our water renewal?
Mr. Petty responded not yet.
Mr. Hanks stated I want to be
careful about the classification of the existing materials. Is this an opportunity for us to use
selective plantings to compensate or offset some of our requirements elsewhere
within the District?
Mr. Petty responded I believe
so. We could have good reception with
the city. From now on I want every tree
we plant account for something.
Mr. Fennell asked is the wall
helping the residents?
Mr. Brower responded it definitely
decreased the noise level. This was
something the residents of Eagle Trace wanted for a very long time. Are they seeing those beautiful sunsets? No, but they do not hear the diesel trucks
going up and down the expressway at all hours of the day and night
anymore. You cannot please all the
people all the time. There were some who
objected to the wall but by and large, it will be an improvement.
Mr. Fennell stated I do not know how
we are going to get money back from DOT but we need to make sure the canal is
well taken care of and drained so it will not have any flooding problems. At the same time, we want to make sure it is
aesthetically pleasing. Can we combine
the two?
Mr. Petty responded I believe we
already went through this with the removal.
There are a couple of trees left at the top of the bank that were out of
reach. If we go up there with a crew and
remove the trees with a chainsaw, I see no reason why we could not take them
down to where they can be hidden by the ground cover.
Mr. Fennell asked where does the
city boundary end in this area?
Mr. Petty responded good
question. Mr. McKune, do you know what
side of the Sawgrass Expressway it is on?
Mr. McKune responded not with any
degree of confidence.
Mr. Brower stated when we were in
litigation several years back, we performed surveys and this bank was within
the city limits of
Mr. Petty stated most cities abutting
the Sawgrass Expressway have tried to do annexations of property between us and
the conservation areas in order to have control. I do not know if CSID has done this.
Mr. Hanks stated I consulted the
history of the Sawgrass Expressway and in 1987 or 1988 when the eminent domain
action went through, in places like Sunrise and Tamarac, there were some
situations were remnants remained on the west side of the Sawgrass
Expressway. I would not count of us
obtaining a release if there was an unincorporated
Ms. Zich asked how easy is it going
to be to get the money back?
Mr. Fennell responded I do not think
we are going to get any money back but it would be nice if we did. On the other hand, this gives us an
opportunity to get the canal in good shape, which is a benefit to the
homeowners.
Mr. Hanks stated I do not think we
should do anything until we establish and quantify mitigation requirements
elsewhere under the assumption we are not going to get any money from FDOT or
the contractors. We should make some
beneficial use of having it for potential mitigation for tree and canopy loses
elsewhere within the District. We need
to make a deal with the city as far as what compensation we need to provide
elsewhere and then come back and identify those mitigation areas.
Mr. Fennell stated it makes sense.
Mr. Hanks stated I think we should re-plant
first.
Mr. Brower stated keep in mind time
is of the essence and the wall will be closed and you will not have access.
Mr. Hanks stated we may not currently
have access because if we were to have Stiles use state turnpike facilities for
their access, they need to obtain a permit from DOT. This is also an active construction area and
falls under the contractor’s control.
There is no way you are even guaranteed to have access of the area for
planting. It is a limited access
highway. If we were to pursue it, Stiles
could be stuck permitting at the turnpike for a month to two months. I am thinking of the legal aspects of
permitting this through DOT.
Mr. Brower stated you have a
contractor coming onto your property and removing trees, shrubs and bushes
planted at great expense both by yourself and this HOA. This guy probably thinks he is going to get
away with this. You have to take some
steps to go after the contracting party who was the Florida Turnpike. Before you go to the city, the Turnpike
Authority has to be notified. They were
here once before and agreed to do this.
Mr. Petty stated Mr. McKune has been
in contract with the sub-contractor, contractor and the Turnpike Authority. Maybe he can give some insight on the chances
of obtaining access.
Mr. Hanks asked have we taken this
to Mr. Bruce Styler at the Turnpike Authority?
Mr. McKune responded no. We have been told we would get more
definitive answers from those we contracted, however we have yet to receive any
answers.
Mr. Hanks stated DOT collects a
retainer of 10%. For a project of this
size, this covers certain areas. What
steps do we currently need to take, not necessarily with the contractor but
with DOT who is writing the check?
Mr. Lyles responded you are properly
recognizing we have no stand in dealing with the contractors. We have to deal directly with DOT. If this were being presented to me today for
the first time I would accumulate all evidence we can, photographic and
otherwise; get estimates for the cost of repairing the damage and replacing the
missing material and put into a claim.
We are a government and DOT is as well and we have some statutory
processes we have to follow which are more cumbersome than a private individual
who suffers damage. We need to submit
numbers and our evidence to DOT telling them unless they take care of it; they
are going to be telling a judge about it.
This is a start to make sure you maximize your chances of recovery in
the shortest amount of time. For better
or worse, we had one or two meetings where there has been discussion. An attempt has been made, which I do not
disagree with to sit down at the table and get this matter resolved. DOT said they want to resolve this without
the necessity of this process. Not having
been part of those discussions, I do not know whether we are acting in bad
faith to slap a claim letter on them and start the litigation path or tell them
they have until some period of time to make this happen.
Mr. Hanks stated we need to send a
letter to DOT notifying them there has been damage and are attempting to work
it out.
Mr. Lyles stated we will be seeking
relief from DOT. We should let them know
they should hang onto the retainage at the end of the job while this claim is
pending.
Mr. Hanks stated we should not state
it exactly in those words. The people at
DOT who are writing the checks may not be aware of what is going on in this
room or other meetings.
Mr. Brower stated DOT contracts have
safety clauses regarding withholding money for damages their vendors might do.
Mr. Hanks stated exactly.
Mr. Brower stated I am more
optimistic about you being able to collect but you are correct about going on
record. If you expend the funds, you
have not lost anything because you do not have a claim.
Mr. Lyles stated we have a claim and
not only photograph and testimonial evidence but also an estimate with a cost
for replacing missing or damaged materials.
Mr. Brower stated I think you are
stonewalling us.
Mr. Lyles stated I think we are trying
to do this in the right way.
Mr. Brower stated for ground cover
and shrubs, we need to look at the expense for options 1 and 2.
Mr. Petty stated DOT acknowledged
their responsibilities and submitted the pallet of tree cover. The trees you will see from the homes will be
the full Coffee Trees as well as some low lying material. We simply said we want Wedelia re-planted in
areas made bare by the contractor. Now
their sub-contractor is saying his coloring book makes up for his
commitment. The issue in my mind is
something within the Board’s ability to do now.
Counsel has a legitimate issue to bring forth, which is if we spend the
money, there are no guarantees we will get it back. I do not know if there are guarantees of
getting the money either way and my concern is whether to leave the berm in its
existing condition while we address this issue, to the best of our
ability.
Mr. Fennell asked how do you know
how much this will cost? We have a legal
process for spending more than $4,000 with our bid specifications for anything other
than an emergency situation. I do not
know if I can classify this as an emergency situation, without having a good
understanding of what this is going to cost and what we are getting.
Mr. Hanks stated it is my understanding
trees were originally planted to help provide some screening and noise
abatement.
Mr. Fennell stated we need to
determine how much we are actually spending.
There is an issue of us legally going after something like this without
at least having some understanding.
Mr. Hanks asked if we do not go
after it, is anything going to happen?
We can either do the work or advise DOT we want to get reimbursed for
the damage. We can pursue requesting
compensation from DOT for the damage and let them know we are serious about
it. It may just be we are being
stonewalled because they have not sent a letter.
Mr. Brower asked if you do not make
the repairs, are you running a risk because you have a collapsing drain?
Mr. Hanks responded this is a
separate issue from the landscaping.
They have a permit with us for discharge for working within our right-of-way. Correct?
Mr. Lyles responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked do any of our
permits cover this situation?
Mr. Lyles responded yes. There is standard language in all permits I
have seen from CSID providing they have to pay for any damage done to CDD
property.
Mr. McKune stated if DOT damages
District property, they are responsible to make the repairs.
Mr. Hanks stated if we have seen
this damage to District property, meaning the landscaping and other physical
components, we should document to the appropriate people at DOT this has
occurred and it is our expectation the repairs will be made.
Mr. Petty stated we have done this.
Ms. Zich asked in writing?
Mr. Petty responded I have seen
emails. I do not know if a letter was
sent by certified mail.
Mr. Hanks asked what format do we
need to have this in?
Mr. Lyles responded we need to
express it in terms of a notice of claim.
I think it should be written and certified so we have a receipt and can
demonstrate they received the notice.
The emails and meetings could potentially resolve the situation but they
have not as of yet.
Mr. Hanks stated I do not want to
lose the opportunity we have here. When
we have these discussions with DOT, let them know we want to make sure the
appropriate people within DOT are notified and we want to keep things moving
along.
Mr. Lyles asked do we have any
reliable estimate someone can stand behind for the amount of money we are talking
about to replace the damaged material and restore the banks?
Mr. Petty responded we have a
landscape plan submitted by the Turnpike Authority to us for approval. We approved it and gave it to Stiles for an
estimate. The Coffee Trees were not
something he could obtain economically but he has similar trees so we can
formalize this.
Mr. Lyles asked are those in the
nature of an upgrade or a lifetime replacement for what was damaged in this
construction activity? You do not want
to get caught asking them to pay for an upgrade. You want them to be presented with a fair
substantiated estimate to replace what was damaged and removed. Then we get into a big contest over us trying
to take advantage of the situation. We
do not want to be in this position?
Mr. Petty responded the trees they
submitted for consideration are what they submitted to us. We showed them to the HOA for their
consideration. The height was not the
issue. They were glad to give up some of
the height as long as they still had the bushiness.
Mr. Hanks asked is it fair to say to
them, “You damaged our property and what do you propose to do about it?” Their response would be in the form of a plan
provided to our contractor for estimates.
Mr. Petty responded I will go so far
as to say, “We will take the landscape plan”.
We can get more than one price on it from different contractors.
Mr. Hanks asked is this really an
upgrade?
Mr. Lyles responded it was their
proposal to use this type of plant material to rectify the situation. From my point of view, I am more interested
in the cost to replace and repair. If
you want to take care of it, you can do so but if you want to give this money
to CSID and have us do it through our contractors, we will but it needs to be
done.
Mr. Hanks stated if there was harm
done to the canal system or bank due to construction activity, it should be
included.
Mr. McKune stated the bank will heal
itself with the Wedelia. The remaining
damage is not extensive. What little
tree debris there is can be easily removed.
Mr. Hanks asked do we have an area
where the cross section of a canal has been compromised by the amount of
debris?
Mr. McKune responded not yet.
Mr. Fennell stated you apparently
have an estimation on your part that DOT will not do anything.
Mr. Brower stated this is an
inference I drew because we were talking about a situation I needed work on in
August. It was available and there was
no law at the time to do our planting before the rainy season. Nothing was done and then the wall went
up. Now there are a few openings left
and nothing has been done. We are
assuming they are not going to be doing it.
Mr. Fennell asked did someone tell
you they were not going to?
Mr. Petty responded we have
indications from them this is not something they can complete quickly. It is starting to feel like a stall tactic
and an intended stall. Our calls to them
are not being answered. They are
basically copying us on the response from the sub-contractor and we do not want
to talk to them.
Mr. Hanks asked is “them” DOT’s
prime contractor?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like
there was damage done to the property and we need to be compensated. You have the meetings scheduled but it sounds
like we are in a hurry or afraid it might not happen. We need to take tougher action such as
writing them a letter and obtaining estimates.
If they are inferring we are stalling, we need to proceed. It looks like there is a two step process;
one to be compensated for those damages and do whatever it takes to fix it and
two putting this into a better look than just repairing it.
Mr. Hanks stated the other item
contemplated at this time is the change in price to install the plantings
should the wall be closed.
Mr. Fennell stated the important
thing to do is to support this effort but we need to obtain some estimates and
we can do so fairly quickly. However, I
do not think we can tack this on legally to work being done within the
$75,000. I am not sure whether it is
going to be $75,000 or $150,000. As an
organization, we cannot write checks without knowing what we are doing.
Mr. Hanks asked do you think we
should take care of the administrative aspects of this?
Mr. Fennell responded I think we
should officially submit a claim and get estimates. At least we will know how much it will cost,
which we will know anyway if we are going to spend the money. It also makes it official we want this done
but we do not have to be hostile about it.
Mr. Brower stated we applaud you for
taking this stance and being proactive.
I suggest you do some additional consultations with the Project Engineer
and PR people who were at this meeting.
It would not hurt. You have to go
after them from a legal standpoint.
Mr. Petty stated we waited three
months for this action to be taken and were copied on an email where the
sub-contractor said his only commitment was to draw the pictures.
Mr. Fennell stated Mr. Lyles is
correct. Let’s make a claim saying our
property has been damaged and what needs to be done to it and provide estimates
of the cost. We want to be
compensated. Anything we do above and
beyond is our responsibility.
Mr. Hanks stated which is something
we should look into if we are faced with mitigation.
Mr. Fennell stated let’s find out
how much they are going to do. We need
to show them we are serious.
Ms. Zich stated I agree. We need to know exactly how much and tell DOT
exactly what we are expecting.
There was Board consensus to proceed
in a compliant fashion with DOT informing them of the damage and costs.
THIRD ORDER OF
BUSINESS Consideration
of Selection of Capital Improvement Coordinator
Mr. Petty stated as you may recall,
we had this item on last month’s agenda.
The Board asked us to change the ad to read “Or equal” which we have
done. We received two submittals; one
from IBI Group and the other from McKune & Associates. Both firms met the requirements and have
direct experience meeting the criteria for CSID. IBI has in its employ an engineer who worked
with Gee & Jenson in the early days of CSID. We provided a ranking sheet to the Board based
on our review of the proposals along with our recommendation. It is only a suggestion and is subject to the
Board’s evaluation.
Mr. Hanks stated I believe Mr. Ben
Parker used to have his own engineering firm in Coral Springs. I had conversations previously with Mr.
Parker on providing construction observation services for my firm for a project
in Ft. Pierce. However, this will not
affect my decision.
Mr. Lyles asked do you currently have
a relationship with this firm?
Mr. Hanks responded there is
presently no contract.
Mr. Lyles stated then this does not
qualify as a conflict.
Mr. Fennell asked is anyone here
from IBI?
Mr. Petty responded we were
contacted by Mr. Peter Dessert. I spoke
to him briefly about the project and his experience with CSID. He is the engineer who worked with Gee &
Jenson.
Mr. Fennell asked what are you
asking for?
Mr. Petty responded for the Board to
rank these firms. Staff ranked McKune
& Associates as number one and IBI as number two and asks for approval to
negotiate with the number one ranked firm.
If successful, we will bring a contract back to the Board for
execution. If not, we will move to the
number two ranked firm.
Mr. Lyles stated the categories
staff is suggesting should be used as a basis for your ranking. There is a weighted average of 65 points for
water and wastewater facility experience and knowledge. The Board can agree with the categories,
modify it or come up with your own. However,
there is a formal allocation of the different categories of experience and
qualifications, which staff proposed to you in the materials before you.
Mr. Fennell stated Mr. McKune has a
Masters Degree in Industrial Management.
Can you elaborate further on this type of degree?
Mr. McKune responded I received my
Masters Degree in 1970 from GIT. This
was a technical MBA.
Mr. Fennell asked did it involve
project management?
Mr. McKune responded yes. It involves the same things as an MBA plus a
lot of math and statistics.
Mr. Fennell stated this is
interesting from the standpoint Mr. McKune has a civil engineering background
giving him technical project training.
Was there an Industrial Engineering Department?
Mr. McKune responded at the time Georgia
Tech had a separate Industrial Engineering Department.
Mr. Hanks stated we have three
categories; water and wastewater experience and knowledge, contract management
and roads and landscaping design. What
is it we are actually looking for?
Mr. Petty responded we are looking
to save money. We have a relationship
with CH2M-Hill. The people who work
there used to be with Gee & Jenson, who we have a great deal of faith in. We are looking for value as we embark on a
capital improvement program and someone who can act as our liaison to look at
those design criteria coming from an international corporate entity to make
sure they are applicable for us. We want
the CIC to review those criteria. They
would get paid if we can save money by going to a Florida style design rather
than something from Saudi Arabia. The CIC
also gets paid by doing cost efficiencies, better design work, better oversight
and administration. This is why we came
up with this position. I have 25 years
experience doing utility inspections and contract administration and want
someone who has more experience than me to watch our interest. This is why we asked for 10 plus years in
CSID experience. If we embark on the
capital improvement program discussed at last month’s meeting, I want a CIC
here.
Mr. Fennell stated Mr. Hanks made
this suggestion at one time.
Mr. Hanks stated I think it is
valuable to have someone who is accountable directly to us. What percentage are we looking at compared to
the overall capital budget? Are we talking
about a $20,000,000 capital improvement budget?
Mr. Petty responded as far as the
proposal we will negotiate, we will have CH2M-Hill submit a plan for
$10,000,000 for the portion of the plant we want to build. The CIC will not get paid unless they can go
below $10,000,000. They also will not
receive any of those savings if the amount exceeded 2% of the total. The CIC’s job is to save us money on the
design through proper application, proper specification and helping to
negotiate the design and administration costs.
We want to stay in this market. Our
engineering costs year to date are all over the board.
Mr. Hanks stated in terms of the
entire CIP, we are not talking about 10%.
Mr. Petty stated it would be in the
1% range. We do not expect them to save
you much more. We also put into our
budget approximately $100,000 we were paying to in-house engineers such as Mr.
Moore to complete projects such as best management practices and getting
permits from local government entities where you need an engineer on-site. We also wanted this person be a licensed
engineer in Broward County who could perform these functions for us.
Mr. Hanks asked if we are looking
for someone with an active engineering license, what type of professional
liability insurance requirements are we going to need from these respective
firms?
Mr. Petty responded we should not
need any, but if counsel thinks we do, we will make it part of the
negotiations. However, since he is not
going to be our engineer for other than things like best management practices,
we have not required anything in the past as they acted as an employee of the
District. It is not like they are
building anything where a professional engineering license is to be held. They are processing permits.
Mr. Fennell asked will he be a
Program Manager?
Mr. Petty responded he will not be a
Program Manager because his work is supposed to happen before this Board
decides on a project.
Mr. Fennell stated there are two
ways to save significant money; one is to negotiate the costs beforehand and
the other is to make sure the project runs on time and solving issues when they
happen. He will probably save us money
by making things happen correctly and at the right time. In the past we had issues with delays in the
start up schedule. What can we do about
it?
Mr. Petty responded we have to be
able to hold the contractor responsible.
There is a fine line where you do not want our people to take over
responsibility for the contractor.
Mr. Hanks stated you have to be
careful if you have an accelerated schedule because the District can be
responsible for the additional cost incurred.
We have an aging plant. We need
to determine what we are designing, who is designing it, how it is going to be
designed and how it is going to be bid out as well as who comes up with the
overall program. We need someone to look
down at this plant from 30,000 feet and determine which items to proceed
with. Are these responsibilities of the
CIC?
Mr. Petty responded first it is
discussed here. We started this process
last month when we came to you with a general outline, which is supposed to get
more definitive as we move along. Then
there is a time and place where this body makes a decision with the money it
has available on what it can, will do and for what period of time. With those general parameters, CH2M-Hill will
submit a capital program in compliance with these objectives, which is then
reviewed by the CIC. Then it comes back
to this body for approval.
Mr. Hanks stated the CIC has responsibility
or accountability for developing the capital improvement program.
Mr. Fennell stated they will provide
what you will get from any other customer, which is good service and
reliability. You probably will not get
more than that. What we need is someone
with the vision to put this together, given what our desires are for the plant.
Mr. Petty stated this will be staff
with the CIC playing a significant role.
Once we get this big outside picture approved by this Board, we will go
to our Design Engineer who will do all the specifics.
Mr. Fennell stated I am hoping you
and Mr. McKune will work closely together to form the initial plan. Mr. Hanks has a good point. Mr. Petty has been with us for over a year
and he may be promoted and suddenly we have someone new coming in. We want to make sure we have the technical
expertise.
Mr. Petty stated I have no intention
of being promoted.
Mr. Fennell stated not everyone has
the same technical background you have.
Mr. McKune stated over the last few
years we developed a good idea of what needs to be done and when. I intend to get together with CH2M-Hill who
is the Consulting Engineer for the District as they will be held ultimately
responsible for everything they do. Even
though I come up with something I think is 100% correct, I will have to get
them to buy into it. If they do not buy
into it, it will come back to us. We
will come to you with any changes.
Sooner or later we will all agree.
Mr. Hanks stated this is very much
like the independent mode Mr. Roger Moore acted in some situations where
CH2M-Hill came forward to the Board with their recommendations.
Mr. McKune stated there are various
delivery methods. What has been used in
the past is the old standard; design, bid and build. There is a good opportunity to save money
overall, not only on engineering but also saving time with construction.
Mr. Fennell stated I do not know if
I am looking for innovation as much as presence. In my own experiences, I found the best
results are usually for someone out there looking at what is going on.
Mr. Hanks asked how many people are
working at McKune & Associates?
Mr. McKune responded only myself.
Mr. Hanks stated I am happy to see
this other response.
Mr. Fennell stated we may need them
at some point in time.
Mr. Hanks asked how do we deal with
succession? With a larger firm, you have
problems with succession within the firm as people move around.
Mr. Petty responded we have an
expanded bank to draw upon because the employees of CH2M-Hill who are still the
District Engineer are still here.
Mr. Hanks asked does the attorney
have any concerns over how the RFP was put out or presented?
Mr. Lyles responded no. We had a bump in the road a month ago but
staff heard the comments, noticed it correctly and came up with a set of
criteria the Board is comfortable with.
I think you are ready to proceed.
I noticed you had a question about insurance, which never got answered. Does Mr. McKune carry a certain level of
professional liability insurance?
Mr. McKune responded not liability
insurance.
Mr. Lyles stated the core of this is
finding cost savings through value engineering.
My concern is there may be instances where the design changed because
the representative of the owner insists upon the change for a cost
savings. If something goes wrong later on
it is going to give the design and project engineers a healthy out. I think this is something we should think
about as we go into this and make sure at the end of this process, the District
is properly protected.
Mr. Hanks stated if I understand
this correctly, CH2M-Hill is and will remain the engineer of record on these
projects. As the engineer of record,
when you take on those responsibilities, you are taking on and have to
understand and certify the design as if it were your own from beginning to end.
Mr. Fennell stated they should be.
Mr. Petty stated I think counsel is capable
of negotiating a contract by asking for reasonable liability coverage.
Mr. Hanks stated I carry $1,000,000
in professional liability insurance.
Mr. Petty stated we can make this
part of the negotiated contract.
Mr. Lyles stated my first comment to
Mr. Petty was for them to carry some coverage, but certainly not at the level
CH2M-Hill covers itself. When we had Mr.
Moore, we did not have this kind of insurance as he was an employee of Severn
Trent Services. An employee of a
governmental entity does not have any exposure.
Mr. Hanks stated I suggest
$1,000,000.
Mr. Petty stated this is fairly
standard in the contracts we sign.
Mr. Fennell stated I rank them one
and two as it stands.
Mr. Hanks stated I rank McKune &
Associates number one and IBI Group number two.
Ms. Zich stated I agree.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich
with all in favor McKune & Associates was ranked number one to perform Capital
Improvement Coordinator and IBI Group was ranked number two and staff was
directed to negotiate a contract with McKune & Associates and bring to the
Board for execution at the next meeting, subject to the firm carrying
$1,000,000 in liability insurance.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Resolution
2007-2 Amending the General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2006
Mr. Petty stated this is a
housekeeping matter brought to you by staff having to do with the monies
received and expenditures thereof for the hurricane cleanup. We are doing this is in conformance with our
requirements for accounting.
Mr. Fennell asked what does this
resolution say?
Mr. Petty responded we are amending
our revenue to correctly reflect monies brought in for handling hurricane
issues and repairs and maintenance going out.
The budget was for $115,000 for repair and maintenance and we spent
close to $2,000,000. This properly
reflects what we did in the budget. We
do this when you change the categories above what you approved in the budget.
Mr. Fennell asked is this looking
forwards or backwards?
Ms. Larned responded it has already been
done. We are closing the books and in
order to make sure we captured everything recorded throughout the year, we have
to amend the budget.
Mr. Lyles stated you need to conform
your final budget for the past fiscal year to the reality of the receipts and
expenditures.
Ms. Larned stated your budget is a
plan and as you go through the year, you have actuals. As long as it within a certain range, you do
not have to make any changes but at the end of the year, you have to go back
and account for everything. If it was
not in accordance to the budget, you have to go back and amend the budget to
what actually happened.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the normal
percentage range we are supposed to be within?
Ms. Larned responded this is a large
expense due to the hurricane.
Ms. Zich asked did we receive any of
this money back?
Ms. Larned responded these are the
revenues and expenditures. You can never
finish a year in a deficit position.
Therefore, we need to make an amendment to take into consideration any
actions to bring the budget to zero or have a modest surplus. During your budget process, anything with a
large surplus is carried over into next fiscal year and treated
accordingly. If you have a deficit, we need
to have a plan of action to file with the state stating this is how we are
going to manage the resources for next year.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich
with all in favor Resolution 2007-2 Amending the General Fund Budget for Fiscal
Year 2006 was adopted.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the
percentage difference we are supposed to adhere to?
Ms. Larned responded zero or a
surplus. There is usually a tolerance
range of 3% to 5%. It is not as critical
as if you were 10% or greater.
Mr. Petty stated if you exceed a
line item by a few percentage points, I am not going to bring it back to
you. However, if you exceed your totals
in the fund by any amount, you must do an amendment. As manager, we have the ability to move funds
around. If it is material, we still like
to bring it to your attention.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Award of Contract for
the Purchase of Light Trucks
Mr. Petty stated we are happy to
bring this item to you for consideration.
In the past we have been leasing our vehicles. Every year the leasing costs seem to
increase. This year by purchasing them
we expect to save close to 20%.
Mr. Hanks asked how often will we need
to purchase vehicles?
Mr. Petty responded the lease period
is three years or more.
Mr. Hanks asked are we going to see this
every two years?
Mr. Petty responded we will get
prices on an annual basis. As long as
the prices do not change we will stick with this contract for purchasing
trucks. However, as the leases expire,
the vehicles are turned in and we will purchase trucks based on this bid.
Mr. Hanks asked is this going to
save us money overall?