MINUTES OF MEETING
The
regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement
District was held on
Present and
constituting a quorum were:
Robert D.
Fennell President
William
Eissler Vice
President
Glen
Hanks Secretary
Also
present were:
Gary L.
Moyer Superintendent
Dennis
Lyles Attorney
Rich Hans Staff
John McKune Engineer
Roger
Moore Engineer
Bill
Joyce Staff
William
G. Benson Keefe,
McCullough & Co.
Nicholas
A. Gross Keefe,
McCullough & Co.
Mr. Fennell called the meeting to
order, and Mr. Moyer called the roll.
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the
Minutes of the May 17, 2004 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated that each Board
member had received a copy of the minutes of the
There not being any,
On
MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the minutes of
the
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Acceptance of
the Audit for Fiscal Year Ended
Mr. Benson introduced himself and
gave a presentation on the audit, which is attached hereto and made part of the
record.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the audit
prepared by Keefe, McCullough & Co. for fiscal year ended
FOURTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Co
Mr. Moyer stated the Center for the
Medical Arts has submitted a proposal to reconfigure their stormwater
management system. Enclosed in the
agenda package is a letter from CH2M-Hill indicating that the modifications do
not change their being in compliance with the rules of the South Florida Water
Management District and the District.
Mr. McKune stated this project had
been previously permitted. This is a
reshaping of an on-site lake with some modifications to the on-site drainage
structures. There is no outfall to a
District canal.
Mr. Hanks stated CH2M-Hill’s letter
specifies that the project will utilize ex-filtration trench, yet John Haley’s
calculations says they are not going to be utilizing ex-filtration trench.
Mr. McKune stated they are there and
part of the system.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the permit
modification for the Center for the Medical Arts – Parcel A and B located on
the southwest corner of
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Questions and
Comments on the Proposed Budget
Mr. Hans distributed an updated copy
of the proposed budget for fiscal year 2005.
Mr. Moyer stated the public hearing
to adopt the budget will be held next month.
The overall numbers did not change in terms of the assessment remaining
the same, but the narratives were not consistent with the numbers that were
shown in the summary.
The Board reviewed the budget and
accorded to add a travel and per diem line item in the amount of $2,000 to be
derived from the renewal and replacement reserve account.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Co
This item was tabled.
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Attorney
Mr. Lyles stated I have had a great
deal of contact with the governor’s office since our last meeting. They have many questions about the
codification bill. They want to know why
we are exempting ourselves from certain provisions of Chapter 298, and they
question if it violates the governor’s policy against allowing a special act to
violate general law. I explained to them
that we started out many years ago as a 298 drainage district but when we
passed a special act in 1970 to create this special improvement district, we
significantly broadened the scope of what it does. It was no longer a water control district so
while we agreed in this original act that certain provisions of Chapter 298
would carry over and be applicable, they also specified the ones that would not
be. It is back and forth with them. The governor has until the end of this week
to veto this bill, and it is still waiting for a thorough staff analysis. They have asked many questions some of which
were easily answered and some of which can only be answered by the fact that
this was supposed to be a codification bill.
It is supposed to combine previous amendments into one act, not create
substantive changes. They are all over
the issue of elections, and I have represented to them on the District’s behalf
that you are very much in favor of changing Chapter 189 that would allow this
Board and others like it to voluntarily convert to a popular election system
and that you proposed it and will support it.
It was not included in the codification bill because it would be a
substantive change to the bill. In fact,
the governor vetoed such a bill two years when someone else tried to put that
language into a codification bill.
Mr. Fennell asked is there anything
proactive we should do?
Mr. Lyles responded it is technical
at this point; not a political exercise.
Mr. Eissler asked if the term was
not fulfilled and we went to a general election, could someone bring suit
saying I was duly elected for four years and now we are changing this in two or
three years?
Mr. Lyles responded I supposed that
there is a potential for that, but a bill made its way through the process to
change the date of municipal elections in Broward County from March to
November. This means if cities opt in,
it is not mandatory, and certain elected city commissioners will have shorter
terms.
Mr. Hans stated with regard to the
Lake Coral Springs issue, they feel our rates are higher than what was reported
the first time they were here. I gave
them a breakdown of costs for the maintenance of Lake Coral Springs, which
includes employee expenses, time and labor, and they have opted for us to do
the minimal and they contract the additional work.
Mr. Hanks asked would we be prudent
in responding to them and specifying that their application of herbicide would
be uplands, or do we want them to apply directly into the lakes?
Mr. Lyles responded their master
declaration documents specify that if anyone is going to do aquatic herbicide
type weed control over and above CSID’s normal level, it has to be done with
prior approval of CSID. Therefore, they
are not in a position to do whatever they want to do whenever they feel like
it. However, we wanted to come before
the Board to obtain guidance on how to respond.
Mr. Fennell stated there is a
growing issue with water contamination so they simply cannot put anything
there.
Mr. Eissler stated I recommend that
we be the ones to apply any and all chemical treatments to Lake Coral Springs
because our people are trained and licensed.
Mr. Lyles stated it seems they want
the District to pay for everything that is done and if something needs to be
done to control weeds over and above your normal application, they will do it
with their own contractor to save money.
It is my understanding that the Board is directing staff to notify them
that pursuant to their master declaration and HOA documents, they are not
authorized to apply any chemicals and herbicides to waters of the District
including but not limited to Lake Coral Springs. We will take the next step on the District’s
behalf.
B. Engineer
·
Monthly
Water & Sewer Charts
There
being no further report, the next item followed.
·
Update
on Construction
Mr. Moore stated approximately six
months ago, we bid the refurbishing of water softners one and two. We completed unit two, and it is up and
running. It will probably have a 25-year
life span if it is properly maintained.
We need to do this to the other two units. Unit one is approximately the same size as
unit two, but unit three is three times the size. We are in the planning and design stage of
unit four. We hoped to put the
refurbishing of units one and three in with unit four, but unit one is down so
we recommend bidding the refurbishing of unit one.
Mr. Moore distributed a handout,
reviewed the projects listed and stated we request authorization to bid this
particular project.
Mr. Hanks asked what will this bring
us in terms of new life on that plant?
Mr. Moore responded if properly
maintained, it should last another 25 years with the exception of general maintenance.
Mr. Hanks asked do you think they
are decent structures to refurbish versus replacement?
Mr. Moore responded yes.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor staff was
authorized to advertise for bids to rehabilitate unit number one.
Mr. Moore stated the integrity tests
for the deep wells were successfully completed with a couple of
exceptions. Most of the valves that
operate flows to the deep wells were not operating efficiently, and they are going
to request that they be replaced. At
this time, they asked us to give them a schedule of replacement. I feel comfortable that they will live with a
schedule of bidding. However, I am going
to meet with them next week regarding another problem and if they say they want
it done in the next 30 days followed by a letter of warning, I will ask the
Board for two directions. I need five
valves for deep well number one and four valves for deep well number two
totaling approximately $42,000. I will
ask the Board for authorization to change order this into a current contract to
avoid violations. However, I believe
they will work with us when we give them the written schedule and advise them
that we were authorized to bid it.
Mr. Lyles stated staff is seeking
authorization to prepare the change order, but it will come back for
ratification. This is typical for a
change order process. I do not see a
legal impediment.
On
MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor a change order
in the amount of $54,000 to replace current valves with a magmeter was
authorized.
Mr. McKune stated we will have to
ask the well contractor to do something to the well to keep it from flowing out
onto the ground, which will cost approximately $4,000.
Mr. Moyer announced Mr. Joyce’s retirement,
and the Board expressed their thanks for his time and dedication.
EIGHTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor's
Requests and Audience Comments
Mr. Fennell stated I attended a
meeting last month for the Broward Everglades working group. They are trying to gather support for their
efforts. It is mainly aimed at trying to
purify the waters, and the everglades are their main focus. They are looking for ten parts per billion of
phosphates. Their goal is to restore the
water to the same purity it used to be.
However, rainwater plays a significant role, and phosphates occur
naturally. Some areas of Broward back
pump into the everglades, and they are trying to figure out how to purify those
waters. They want the water flowing into
the everglades to be as pure as the water that is in the middle of the
everglades. It does not affect us
directly. It is a single solution for a
single problem. I mentioned that we have
other concerns pertaining to availability and wastewater. None of these problems are being addressed.
Mr. Moore stated they are seeking
support for best management practices.
Mr. Fennell stated if we decide to
support this, we should establish our own policy on what we want our own local
water quality levels to be and mesh with their policy. They called and asked me if we put forward a
resolution of support. They are spending
a lot of money, and there will be pressure on us to do something.
Mr. Moore distributed a letter dated
June 8, 2004 from Jerry Graulich regarding Well No. 4 and stated I spoke to Mr.
Graulich and he is happy as long as we complete our well by November.
Mr. Moore distributed a letter dated
June 16, 2004 addressed to Andrew Ponnock regarding 10163 Vestal Court and
stated Mr. Ponnock came to me with a bill in the amount of $24,000. His sewer backed up, and he is requesting
reimbursement. After investigating the
problem, I responded with my letter concluding that his wife indicated there
was previous damage prior to moving into the home. It is our policy for a plumber to determine
where the problem is, and we usually fix the situation. We normally do not have any damage. We sometimes reimburse them for the plumber’s
cost. Mr. Ponnock waited until the third
event after he had a major sewer back up.
He also has an unconventional floor drain in his laundry room, which
supposedly flooded his house. We do not
feel we have any liability.
Finally, we received a noise
complaint about people working different times.
I explained to the resident what was happening and he was
understanding. I assured him things were
moving forward.
Mr. Fennell asked what happened with
tree root situation?
Mr. Moore responded we have not
heard back from them since our attorney sent him a letter.
Mr. Fennell asked where was the
blockage?
Mr. Moore responded in a
manhole. We had a blockage in the same
area. The trees are owned by the
HOA. We spoke with the City regarding this
particular subdivision and they told someone else that they are probably
removing the trees because they are causing trouble in their own utility
area. We cleaned out the roots, which
were in the manhole.
Mr. Joyce stated the manhole is in
the planting area in the center of the cul-de-sac and there happens to be large
tree in that area. The roots from that
tree grew into the main line where the connection is made and continued up the
lateral towards the house. This is where
the blockage was. When Roto Rooter went out there the first time to clear it,
they managed to remove just enough for it to drain. As it continued, because of the floor drain
in the house, it backed up again and the water flowed throughout the
house. However, her statement to our
staff was that when they moved into the house in February, there had been
previous damage to the floor; obviously from a back up. Yet, they are claiming damages in the amount
of $24,000.
Mr. Eissler asked should their
homeowner’s policy cover this?
Mr. Joyce responded according to
him, they will not cover it because it was not his property; it was on city
property. However the HOA owns the
streets; they are private. I suggested
to him that he may have a better chance of getting their money back from the
HOA.
Mr. Lyles stated my advice would
have been not to send this letter. I
would like to review his original letter.
What standard policy do we have that issues a check in the amount of
$228.29? I am not aware of it.
Mr. Moore responded it is our
policy.
Mr. Lyles stated your letter
indicates that we are accepting responsibility for something, but I do not know
that we are responsible for anything. I
cannot give you good advice on this at this point, but we will follow up with
the appropriate letter. If we do send
them a check, we will send a release to cover any damage that he received,
which should be standard operating procedure.
Mr. Fennell asked do we have
insurance that covers us in these cases?
Mr. Lyles responded if we were
negligent.
Mr. Eissler stated if any complaint
comes in with regard to money, do not acknowledge anything until we obtain
legal advice.
Mr. Moyer stated if the tree is
owned by the HOA, send them a letter to remove the tree.
Mr. Hanks stated it compromises the
utility service for everyone.
Mr. Fennell asked have we looked at
the lines?
Mr. Joyce responded we got it
completely cleaned out and TV’d it. The
lines are clear now, but I cannot tell how long it will stay that way because
eventually the roots will grow back.
Mr. Hanks asked do we have an
easement or some other grant allowing us to be in that area?
Mr. Moore responded I will have to
look at the plat.
Mr. Eissler asked isn’t it standard
procedure to run anything that can be detrimental to the District before
counsel?
Mr. Moyer responded we have never
dealt with such an absurd request. Typically,
if the problem is identified and we confirm that the problem is on our side of
the connection and someone spent money that they shouldn’t have, we reimburse
them for their plumber’s fees. However,
we have never taken care of damages and if it is a tree problem with roots, it
is our position that they own the tree and it is their responsibility to solve
the problem. Since we have the
equipment, we will offer to solve the problem but if they do not get rid of the
tree and it the roots return, it is their problem.
Mr. Eissler stated if you do it
once, they will want you to do it twice.
Mr. Fennell stated the tree is not
on their property.
Mr. Eissler stated as Coral Springs
matures, it will happen repeatedly.
Mr. Fennell stated we will have to
think about a policy.
Mr. Moyer stated it is a private
road owned by the HOA, and it is my opinion that it is an HOA problem. When they are on public streets, the City, by
code, requires you to put trees within the public right-of-way and those are
the trees in most cases that end up causing the utility system’s fits.
Mr. Fennell asked who is responsible
for that?
Mr. Moyer responded I would argue
that under the landscaping code in the City, the City passes the obligation of
maintenance on to the homeowner. The
homeowner has to maintain to the curb line, and that maintenance, in my
opinion, would include grass, trees and damage caused by roots.
Mr. Fennell stated we need to
research what our insurance covers. We
may have to be more aggressive going forward in inspecting some of our older
lines.
Mr. Moyer stated we will keep you
posted.
Mr. Fennell stated we need to solve
this problem and do what is legally responsible for liability. I do not want to spend a lot of time
defending ourselves.
Mr. Lyles stated let’s take a look
at our easements. I assume there is an
easement for utility purposes and depending on how that was prepared, it may
give us the right to do what we need to do to maintain the area and preserve
the integrity of our lines.
Mr. Moyer stated that is an
expensive route because we have many thousands of trees.
NINTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of
Invoices
After review of the financials,
On
MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the invoices were
approved.
There being nothing further,
On
MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the meeting was
adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
Glen
Hanks Robert
D. Fennell
Secretary President