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:
Robert
D. Fennell President
William
Eissler Vice
President
Glen
Hanks Secretary
Also
present were:
Gary
L. Moyer Superintendent
Rich
Hans Staff
Dennis
Lyles Attorney
John McKune CH2M-Hill
Ed
Flavin CH2M-Hill
Roger
Moore Engineer
Ed
Goscicki
FIRST
ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr. Fennell called the meeting to
order, and Mr. Moyer called the roll.
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the
Minutes of the August 16, 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 Public
Hearing to Co
Mr. Fennell opened the public
hearing and asked are there any questions or comments from the public?
Hearing none,
Mr. Hanks stated we are budgeting
$33,000 for chlorine gas and chlorine liquid.
Last year’s budget was slightly under $20,000. Is this because of the difference in price in
going from chlorine gas to liquid?
Mr. Moore responded yes. We based these numbers on our current
prices. In fact, last Thursday, we
started sodium hydrochloride facilities.
It is working right now, and we are doing a little tweaking on it.
Mr. Hanks stated this represents a
68% increase over last year.
Mr. Moore stated the cost for sodium
hydrochloride has not increased significantly in the last year, but we recently
received notice that the liquid chlorine gas is increasing. We are also using more chlorine in the sewer
plant operation because we have more injection points.
Mr. Fennell asked what did we budget
for odor control last year?
Mr. Hanks responded approximately
$120,000.
Mr. Moore stated we estimate that
this amount will be significantly reduced because we are only using odor
control on Plant B, which is closest to the property line by the headworks and
the surge tank. This is our projection,
and we will monitor this.
Mr. Hanks stated when you compare
CH2M-Hill’s administration and operation services to what was prediction
through July 31, last year’s numbers are co
Mr. Moyer stated we assume normal
engineering support. The engineering
number is driven by our capital projects.
Mr. Hanks stated last year’s
engineering fees in last year’s water and sewer budget was $10,000 and $19,000
was spent through July 31. There is a
similar increase in the general fund also.
Mr. Hans stated water and sewer
increased from $10,000 to $15,000.
Mr. Hanks asked are we going to
undertake fewer capital projects next year?
Mr. Moyer responded no. CH2M-Hill will bill for the work that they
put into doing the capital projects budget.
The actual capital projects come out of a renewal and replacement
account.
Mr. McKune stated that is correct.
Some of the higher numbers and the general engineering numbers relate to
on-going consulting services that are not related to a capital project. Many of them were necessitated this past year
because of problems at the plant. Most
of that work is now under control, and the plant is operating properly.
Mr. Hans stated another point is the
5-year renewal plan. A great deal of
money has been spent to get everything up on line. The new $450 permit processing fee will offset
some of this so we will not have that discrepancy.
Mr. Hanks asked are you saying that
the extra time you spent on the belt filter press may be reflected in the
overage that we are seeing year-to-date?
Mr. Hans responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated with regard to
electricity, we spent $549,000 with our amended budget for fiscal year
2003-2004, and we are looking at a $75,000 increase. I am surprised because we have our own power
supply.
Mr. Hans stated the increase was due
to bring Plant E on line.
Mr. Moore stated we are not saving
on electricity. We are saving on the
rate because we are on a special standby program with FPL. This means they can cut us off at any time
but by doing this, they give us a rate per kilowatt, which is approximately 60%
of the rate of most commercial plants.
Mr. Hanks asked we are budgeting
$50,000 for gasoline and diesel fuel. Is
any of that being used in the generating capacity when we are taken off line by
FPL?
Mr. Moore responded all of our
generators run on diesel fuel.
Mr. Hanks stated this amounts to
approximately $2 per gallon. Do you
expect to go through 23,000 gallons of diesel fuel next year?
Mr. Moore responded that was based
on last year’s usage. We run generators
approximately two hours per week, and we occasionally perform three-day tests.
Mr. Fennell asked what does the ‘B’
mean that is attached to our address under plant expenses on page 28?
Mr. Moore responded we used to have
two meters. When we went through the
modification of adding Plant B, we had to add another meter so we actually have
four meters, three of which operate the plant.
Mr. Eissler stated we are generous
to our employees. We should indicate to
them that these generous increases may not always be the case. Prices will continue to increase and our
numbers become extremely expensive.
Mr. Hanks stated one tangible thing
we are getting by providing these good benefits to the employees is we are
keeping them for a long time, and we cannot put a number on their experience in
the plant operations.
Mr. Fennell stated we have
approximately $8.9 million sitting in a bank.
We earned $90,000 interest, which amounts to 1% per year. Is this correct? What are we investing in?
Mr. Moyer responded most of it is in
the State Board of Administration (SBA).
Mr. Eissler asked can we invest it
in anything else?
Mr. Moyer responded we can invest it
in certificate of deposits, money markets, the SBA, and other securities backed
by the federal government. The SBA
usually earns the highest interest rates because they are investing billions of
dollars in a portfolio for state and local government, and the idea is to
maximize our return. However, we are not
making as much as we would like to.
Mr. Fennell stated if they are
investing a great deal of money, they should be getting more than 1%.
Mr. Eissler responded I agree.
Mr. Fennell stated we should be
getting at least 3.5%, which would be 5-year T-Bills.
Mr. Hanks asked for purposes of the
budget, shouldn’t we be anticipating a low rate of return.
Mr. Fennell responded I would not
mind that if we were not invested at 1%.
I am asking staff to look into this and come back with those four
options.
Mr. Moyer stated we have $7.6
million with the SBA. We will look at
this.
Mr. Eissler stated the more I speak
to members of law enforcement, the more I believe we should cease the armed
guard service. The next time their
contract comes up, we should co
Mr. Fennell stated we will look to
management to provide us with a cost reduction plan containing concrete
terms. You should strive for 10%. I am looking for good types of cost reductions
such as with the guard issue. We are not
adverse to spending capital as long as there is a pay back.
Mr. Hanks stated when there is a
capital improvement, we as a Board should ask to see what is expected in terms
of operating costs.
Mr. Fennell stated we have
concentrated on capital expenses for a long time, and it is time to look at
operating expenses and what we can do to decrease them in a smart manner. I would like to set a goal of $600,000, and
staff can come back with a plan.
Mr. Moyer stated we will come back
with an analysis. There may be cost
savings depending on the element of the capital projects plan that we put into
place but if we build another accelator for example, you are increasing operating
costs because it will require more electricity.
We will at least answer the question.
Mr. Fennell stated the $600,000 is
aimed at operating expenses.
Mr. Moyer stated many of the
operating costs are fixed because it is unit cost-driven. If we treat 5.5 million gallons of wastewater
per day, the blowers will run a certain period of the day, and there is a cost
for this. To the degree we can have cost
savings, we will. If not, we will give
you an explanation as to why we do not have the ability to come to a cost
savings.
Mr. Hanks stated we will need to
take into co
Mr. Fennell stated we need to do
this in a thoughtful, well thought-out plan going forward. We would like to see a $600,000 goal of
reduced operating expenses or a plan on how to do so, and we hope to see the
analysis in two months. The Board would
like a well thought out, well managed, budgeted operating expense plan so that
we can become a more efficient plant and more efficient in what we are doing.
Mr. Fennell closed the public
hearing.
Mr. Moyer stated the blanks of
Resolution 2004-8 will be filled in as follows: revenues will be $8,048,212;
debt service will be $2,030,816; operation and maintenance will be $5,670,423;
and surplus is $346,974.
On
MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor Resolution 2004-8
adopting the water and sewer fund budget for fiscal year 2005 was adopted.
FOURTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Co
A. Irrigation Permit
B. Surface Water Management Permit
Mr. McKune stated Mr. Flavin is here
today to answer questions that were raised at last month’s meeting. Mr. Hanks had some questions regarding the
technical issues.
Mr. Hanks stated mainly, the concern
was the method of bleeding down to our retention areas. What is the approved configuration?
Mr. Flavin responded you have a .5”
pre-treatment, and you have to store that and then you can bleed down to that
elevation.
Mr. Hanks asked what elevation is
the bleeder invert at?
Mr. Flavin responded 8’5”.
Mr. Hanks asked what are your
thoughts about how well the dry detention area is going to bleed down during
the summer months when you have 1’5” of water below the invert of the
bleeder? Do you think we will have mosquito
problems?
Mr. Flavin responded it is supposed
to be a dry retention area. The water
control elevation is 6’5”. The bottom of
the retention area is 7’5”. We expect
the water control elevation to increase .5’ in the summer. That would be the most that it would
increase, but there may be cases where it may increase 1’.
Mr. McKune stated for example, the
bottom of the ponds at the wastewater plant site is approximately 7’5” and
during the summer, they do not hold water.
The ground water table is sufficiently low to allow them to dry out, but
I do not foresee a mosquito problem.
Mr. Hanks stated I am a professional
engineer, and I take a different approach.
I have worked on projects where we have had to go in and pull out the
sod and put in wetland plants because sod could not be established if it was
saturated with standing water.
Mr. Flavin asked what was the
elevation of the pump?
Mr. Hanks responded in some
instances, they were 1’ water control elevation above and in other instances
they were 18” above water control elevation.
Mr. Flavin asked how long did they
stay wet?
Mr. Hanks responded for a good
portion of the summer, and I am talking about Western Broward County. What about lowering it down to a 3” diameter
bleeder at the bottom of the retention area?
Mr. Flavin responded you are
supposed to retain .5” pre-treatment on site.
Mr. Hanks stated yes, but you are
allowed to bleed down.
Mr. Flavin stated you need to
pre-treat that first whether it is a trench or retention area.
Mr. Hanks stated I believe you are
allowed a bleeder.
Mr. Flavin asked at the water
control elevation?
Mr. Hanks responded yes, or at the
bottom of your retention area. What
about any sort of infiltration trench or under drain in those retention
areas? Was my request to Cedo Da Silva
passed along to the applicant?
Mr. Flavin responded he said you had
some questions. I am here to find out
what you want changed in the plans.
Mr. Hanks stated this is working to
draw down infiltration. We have used
bleeders in a number of cases in Weston, which has a standard detail, where
basically it is a 4’ wide trench with a slider perforated pipe going underneath
part of the retention area and that allows the water to perforate through the
soil and make its way out.
Mr. Flavin asked is that in lieu of
changing the bleeder elevation?
Mr. Hanks responded in some
instances, yes.
Mr. Flavin asked do you want to
change the bleeder down to 7’5” and put in the underdrain?
Mr. Hanks responded either/or. I am not designing this project, but I am
expressing a concern and am offering some suggestions as to how to alleviate
what could be a problem down the road.
Mr. Flavin stated I think changing
the bleeder elevations is probably the best thing to do. We can bleed it down to 7’5”, which is the
bottom of our retention. Does this make
more sense?
Mr. Hanks responded yes.
Mr. Fennell asked does it make sense
to you?
Mr. Flavin responded I do not see a
problem if the bottom of our retention area is at 6’5”, but Mr. Hanks does.
Mr. Hanks stated I am also looking
out for the developer of this project.
He is looking to have a quality project.
Mr. Flavin stated I will convey this
information to Mr. Da Silva.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the request for a
surface water management permit was approved subject to the bleeder being
lowered to invert 7’5”.
Mr. Hanks asked what does PME stand
for?
Mr. Flavin responded project manager
engineer.
Mr. Hanks asked do you have a
license with the State of Florida?
Mr. Flavin responded no.
Mr. Hanks asked did Mr. Da Silva
review this before being submitted to the Board?
Mr. Flavin responded yes, and I
reviewed it, too.
Mr. Hanks asked did a professional
engineer review this before being submitted to the Board?
Mr. Flavin responded I reviewed it,
and Ms. Early, a professional engineer, reviewed my letter and the plans.
Mr. Fennell stated let us now look
at the right-of-way permit request.
Mr. Hanks asked is this the
irrigation and the outfall?
Mr. Flavin responded the pump cannot
be in the District right-of-way.
Mr. Hanks asked who is responsible
for maintaining the outfall? Is that a
private facility?
Mr. Flavin responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked is that falling
underneath the right-of-way occupancy?
Do they have facilities in the right-of-way?
Mr. Flavin responded no.
Mr. Hanks asked is that approved in
the storm water management permit?
Mr. Flavin responded the irrigation
permit is separate from the storm water management permit.
Mr. Moyer stated anything within our
right-of-way that is not dedicated to the District is the responsibility of the
permittee.
Mr. Hanks asked is the approval of
the outfall covered in the approval of the Storm Water Management?
Mr. Moyer responded yes.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the request for
an irrigation permit was approved.
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Continuing
Discussion Regarding Permit Criteria for District Projects
Mr. Fennell stated I do not like the
combination of the Districts as listed on the cover page.
Mr. Hans stated the manual will be
specific and state Coral Springs, and
there will be a separate one for North Springs.
However, they have the same criteria.
Mr. Hanks stated speaking as a
consultant, it is handier to have it all in one manual. The professional engineers who will be
reviewing this will know the difference between the Districts.
Mr. Fennell stated I understand, but
I am looking at it from a different standpoint.
It bothers me because we are not all one.
Mr. Moyer stated CSID and NSID have
the same authority under the rules of the South Florida Water Management
District giving us the right to issue surface water management permits for
projects under 40 acres. This is
unusual. Plantation Water Control might
be the only other one in Broward County that has the rights to issue those
types of permits. Sunshine Water Control
does not. Throughout the manual, they
try to bifurcate what the Districts can issue permits for. I agree with Mr. Hanks that it is convenient,
but if the Board is not comfortable, we can customize this for each District to
have their own manual.
Mr. Fennell asked what are your
thoughts?
Mr. Lyles responded if we ever had a
dispute with an applicant for a project or an engineer for an applicant for a
project, and if our permit criteria rules came in to play and we are challenged
in one respect or another, our position might be stronger if we had a tailored
manual that applies solely to CSID.
However, this is a remote and highly technical response. This is the only thing I can think of in
terms of a negative.
Mr. Hanks stated in that instance,
99% of this is built out under the old manual.
Changing it now is not going to change our potential liability on
any of those past projects. We are looking at perhaps two sites in the
south part of Coral Springs.
Mr. Lyles stated we would have a
record of adoption by a Board sitting at the time for those old permit criteria
manuals and for this one as well.
Mr. Eissler asked can you rewrite
the title page under one manual and note each exception under each District?
Mr. Hanks responded the criteria has
already been set forth in the South Florida operating permit.
Mr. Lyles stated this is largely a
codification of many existing criteria and permit requirements. It is for ease of reference for people who
are going to utilize it as well as a few things that we are updating. I do not have a problem with it either way.
Mr. Fennell stated I would like to
see something indicating when the manual was updated, when it was approved, and
that it was approved by the CSID Board.
Mr. Lyles stated the cover page
indicates that it was prepared for CSID and discussed and adopted by this Board
at a hearing and that it is applicable to these projects within all three of
these Districts.
Mr. Fennell stated with regard to
permitting costs, please bring an analysis to next month’s public hearing of
what you think the expected workload is so that we can have a rational analysis
for what we are going to charge.
Mr. Hanks asked shouldn’t these
records be available to the public, and does the public need to pay to review
the District’s records?
Ms. Holiday responded the plans,
application, and original permit are being digitized by another company, and
CH2M-Hill, Mr. Moore and I will have a copy on a CD.
Mr. Hanks stated we should be
careful as to identifying it with records search and have it be more of a
processing fee. I do not want to see how
much time it will take to pull records and put them on disk.
Mr. Fennell stated we have already
laid the foundation, which is indicated on page 6. I am looking to see that it is fair and
reasonable. It is not unusual to have a
fee if we are going to do some work.
Mr. Hanks stated if I were to
request a copy of the Coral Springs Honda plans in five years, would I be faced
with having to pay $250?
Mr. Lyles responded no. The way the public records law is you would
pay the standard copying charge that is already adopted by the District. However, if it is going to be a job that is
more than just routine normal copying and requires staff to be dedicated to
compiling, locating, collating, and producing this document, the person making
the request is entitled to have an estimate of what the hourly charge is going
to be and what the total is going to be for the staff time to do the extra
work.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Attorney
Mr. Hans stated approximately two
weeks ago, I sent a certified letter to the president of Lake Coral Springs
instructing him not to apply any herbicides per their documents unless they
enter into a contract with us for any type of services. I have not yet received the return
receipt. Messrs. Weinberg and Lyles were
copied on the letter.
B. Engineer
·
Monthly
Water & Sewer Charts
There being no further report, the
next item followed.
·
Co
Mr. McKune stated last June, I
requested Board authorization to reduce the retainage to 1% for the Intrastate
Construction project, but it was tabled because we had not yet put the sodium
hydrochloride system into operation.
Since then, the system has been running.
Reducing the retainage to 1% will leave approximately $51,000 as the
retained amount. This contract is in
excess of $5 million. The work has been
done for almost a year. A large majority
of the work that currently remains outstanding is $70,000; most of that being
in recent change orders that were authorized.
In this instance, the general contractor and his suppliers are insisting
on the release of their retention. Just
about all of his suppliers and subcontractors have been complete with their
work, and we have accepted it, but the contractor has not yet been able to
pay. In my opinion, they are justified
in asking for their money. This is why I
am resurrecting change order no. 12, which was originally presented in June,
and am asking for reco
Mr. Fennell asked what is the final
amount?
Mr. McKune responded there is no
change in the contract amount. It simply
takes the amount retained down to 1%, which is $51,000.
Mr. Eissler asked will this conclude
everything?
Mr. McKune responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked have we paid him the
$70,000 yet?
Mr. McKune responded no.
Mr. Hanks stated this means we have
$120,000 that will be due to Intrastate upon completion of the change orders.
Mr. Eissler asked are you
comfortable with this?
Mr. McKune responded I am
comfortable with this. The retention is
there to guarantee that there will be sufficient monies to complete the job.
Mr. Hanks asked in your view, has
the work that was being guaranteed by the present retainage been completed
satisfactorily?
Mr. McKune responded yes. The items that have already come up as being
deficient are co
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor change order no.
12 with Intrastate Construction Corp. for a reduction in retainage to 1% was
approved.
Mr. Lyles stated the document you
distributed is a copy of the change order request from the June meeting. Three months have passed. I suggest that we show an effective date of
approval upon execution. This will give
us the benefit of an additional three months.
It can only have an effective date of today since it was only authorized
today.
Mr. Moyer asked in light of our
discussion earlier as to how we are going to save money and evaluate the
overall security, do we want to talk about it today?
Mr. Moore responded the Board asked
us to bring back three plans for the guardhouse last month but because of
delays, we brought them with us today.
As you may recall, we were given a citation for our guardhouse, and we
were given 30 days to remove it.
However, I met with the City, and they allowed us to leave it up
indefinitely as long as we are showing some forward motion on doing something
permanent; whether we remove it or replace it with a permanent structure. We were not cited in our sister District,
NSID, because we have plans in the City right now showing a permanent
guardhouse.
Mr. Moyer asked can we apply for a
variance to leave our guardhouse where it is?
Mr. Moore responded no, because the
guardhouse does not meet standards. In
addition, it must have handicap access and a restroom.
Mr. Fennell stated the real question
is if we need guards or not. We probably
do. We have had them since before the
9/11 attacks. We must figure out the
most effective way to do it.
Mr. Moore stated sometimes, simply
having a structure there can be inhibiting.
Mr. Moyer asked are you telling me
that every structure has to have a handicap restroom; that a person cannot use
another restroom 30’ away?
Mr. Moore responded that is what
they tell me on this particular structure.
I tried to point out the operator’s restroom to them.
Mr. Hanks stated the City is not
unusual in their demand for handicap accessibility and restrooms in a
guardhouse.
Mr. Moyer stated I understand, but
there is a bathroom 30’ away.
Mr. Moore stated I explained this to
the City, but they simply do not want to hear it because it is an ADA
requirement. There is a similar
situation in Coconut Creek, which I have taken pictures of and showed the City,
but the City of Coral Springs does not allow it.
Mr. Moyer stated I think you should
present it to the City Commission and ask for a variance first.
Mr. Fennell stated let us review the
remaining proposals.
Mr. McKune stated they are
straightforward. We have to co
Mr. Hanks asked did the City provide
right-of-way for a cul-de-sac?
Mr. Moore responded no, which is why
we do not have legal access to our second gate.
Mr. McKune stated the second
alternative is to put a turnaround in front of the gates, which is open to the
public. The turnaround eliminates truck
traffic conflict, and can be operated by the guards. Also, the drop off can be on the driver’s
side under a canopy.
Mr. Fennell asked how many people
drop off?
Mr. Hans responded approximately 20
people per day.
Mr. Fennell stated I suggest that we
have someone from security look at this.
Mr. Hanks stated you can approach
the City with a variance and introduce a hardship because the City did not
provide a right-of-way for an approved turnaround at the end of the public
right-of-way, and we are providing the driveway. It was not designed to address terrorist
threats.
Mr. McKune stated the City was not
involved with the right-of-way determination at that time. This was a product of WCI.
Mr. Moyer stated your proposal is to
put the gatehouse in front of the well instead of where it is currently.
Mr. Hanks stated I do not like the
idea of putting a well outside the security perimeter.
Mr. Moore stated it is a secondary
containment.
Mr. McKune stated we have seven
other wells that are like that.
Mr. Fennell stated I would like to
have Navarro Security review our security and give their recommendation on the
guard station and/or what to do.
Mr. McKune stated now that we have
had this discussion, Mr. Moore can report back to the City that we are making
some progress.
Mr. Hanks asked why is the
guardhouse on the north side of the road versus the south side?
Mr. McKune responded we looked at
both sides. We have two issues. One is the piping and the other is the main
power feed from FPL, plus you are on the driver’s side, which would make it
advantageous. I agree that we should
pursue a variance.
Mr. Fennell stated we need to
consolidate those roads anyway, because we keep having contractors come in this
great big open door. We need to
determine exactly what the security is for and the best way to get it, and we
need to determine how this structure fits in.
·
Update
on Construction
Mr. McKune stated we have the replacement valves for the injection well, but they have not been installed yet. The State is requiring modifications to our mechanical integrity testing permit to allow the valves to be replaced, and they have requested that we send them a permit modification. We sent them the specifications on the valve; proof that they are equal to or better than the valves that are in place, but this was after the DEP said they would give us a 24-hour turnaround.