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:
Dennis
Lyles Attorney
Rich Hans Staff
John McKune Engineer
Roger Moore Engineer
Bill Joyce Staff
Donna
Holiday Staff
The Board and staff toured the plant
facilities at
Mr. Fennell called the meeting to
order, called the roll and stated we toured the plant facilities at
Mr. McKune responded it is the
contractor’s responsibility to get it done.
We can tell him that we are not going to pay him or threaten him with
liquidated damages, which are in the contract, but difficult to collect. This job, which has had many changes, clouds
the date of completion so the threat of liquidated damages is not as effective
on this job. The contractor’s lever is
financial against his suppliers and subcontractors, and he is currently
withholding money from them until they make their equipment perform.
Mr. Hanks stated you must be careful
when negotiating with your contractor as to the change orders and making sure
that you are not accelerating the schedule even though you may be keeping the
date the same.
Mr. McKune stated that is what we
intend to do as long as there is not an emergency need. We want the additional work to be covered by
the contractor’s estimated time. In this
way, we do not accelerate because he selected the time.
Mr. Fennell stated you have major is
Mr. McKune responded if it is
coordination between the general contractors, subcontractors and suppliers, then
it is the contractor’s responsibility.
Neither District staff nor the consulting engineer steps in to
coordinate the contractor’s work because that would be a violation of the
contract.
Mr. Hanks asked is
there a particular schedule identified in the contract, and are there benefits
for early completion or penalties for late completion?
Mr. McKune responded there was a
schedule at the award of contract. There
is a liquidated damages clause, but there is no benefit to the contractor for
early completion. We do not do
that. However, the schedule has been
extended numerous times as a result of change orders.
Mr. Hanks asked does each change
order contain a component specifying additional time to the construction schedule?
Mr. McKune responded not specifically. Some of them do, but not all of the small
ones.
Mr. Hanks asked is this something
you can add as the District’s consultant to the change orders?
Mr. McKune responded yes. We have two components in the change
order. One is cost and the other is the
effect on the contract time. Every time
we give them additional dollars to make changes, we do not always give them
time because much of that work can be incorporated into the remaining part of
the project.
Mr. Lyles stated we have been using
a third component of the change order for several years, which is a ‘catch-up’,
so anyone who submits and receives a change order agrees that they have been
compensated so that they cannot make any additional claims covering that period
of time.
Mr. Eissler asked when it will be operational?
Mr. McKune responded in
approximately two weeks.
Mr. Eissler asked is the filter
press operational?
Mr. McKune responded it should be
operational in 30 days.
Mr. Eissler asked what about the
valves?
Mr. McKune responded that it a small
job and should be done in a week.
Overall, we are looking to having 99.5% of the work done within 2-1/2
months. We will start operating Plant E,
then we will enter a 30-day period of operational
trials. Afterwards, we will bring the contractor
back to take care of what may be required and in the meantime, we will
accumulate data sufficient to apply for and obtain an operating permit.
Mr. Hanks stated the rainy season
begins in three months, and you are talking about a 2-1/2 month time period to
complete these items. This does not
leave much time for start up or certification.
Mr. McKune stated the time period
includes clean up and permit through the job.
You will be ahead of that with Plant E’s permit program. Once the blowers are running, we can start
putting sewerage in. This is the only
holdup.
Mr. Fennell stated let’s have
another tour on
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the
Minutes of the February 24, 2004 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated that each Board
member had received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr. Lyles stated my second comment
on page 9 should read, “...you have only knowingly
expended those funds...” and “You have unknowingly
undertaken to provide...”.
On
MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the minutes of
the
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Public
Hearing to Consider Amendments to the Existing Utility Rates, Fees &
Charges
Mr. Fennell opened the public
hearing.
Mr. Hans stated at the last meeting,
we discussed some of the late fees other Districts charge, which we feel we
should charge to eliminate late payments.
Resolution 2004-2 by title is, “A resolution of the Board of Supervisors
of the Coral Springs Improvement District adopting certain rates, fees and
charges for its water and wastewater utility system and authorizing the
preparation of amended schedule to be attached to Resolution 86-4 reflecting
such changes and providing for an effective rate”. This resolution is in order and recommended
for adoption.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor Resolution 2004-2
adopting certain rates, fees and charges for its water and wastewater utility
system was adopted subject to amendment.
The public hearing was closed.
FOURTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Award of Contracts
A. Purchase
of Triploid Grass Carp
On
MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the contract for
the purchase of 3,680 Triploid Grass Carp was awarded to Florida Fish Farms,
Inc. in the amount of $11,224.00.
Mr. McKune cited his letter dated
Mr. Hanks stated please provide us
with a sketch or map outlining the wells and their dates of refurbishment.
Mr.
Eissler moved to award the contract for the modification of Wells No. 4 & 5
to C.R.E.W.S. Construction Service, Inc. in the amount of $200,903.00 and Mr.
Hanks seconded the motion.
Mr. Hanks asked is
there a target completion date for this work?
Mr. McKune responded yes; 120 days.
On
VOICE Vote with all in favor the motion was approved.
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Permit Request for Wendy’s at
Mr.
McKune stated the area of interest is known as the
Mr. Hanks asked can we include a
condition that the engineer certifies that the exfiltration trench is
functional? It could have been subject
to a number of years of neglect and perhaps the trench is not functioning as
intended?
Mr. McKune responded that is
possible, but that trench has been functioning.
The remainder of the area is fully developed. Wendy’s will be less of an imposition on that
drainage system than the original design allowed. However, we do have in the permits the
condition that someone certifies this every five years, which was not included
in the initial certification. We can
check with the applicant’s engineer to see what, if anything, he has done to
ascertain that.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the permit for
Wendy’s at 1475 North University Drive was approved subject to the conditions
listed in the engineer’s review letter.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Attorney
– Status Report on
Mr. Lyles stated I do not have any
additional information to provide the Board.
At the last meeting, it was agreed that they would submit documentation
to the District and that we would work up an outline of an agreement to put
before the Board. However, I do not have
any submissions from
Mr. Joyce stated
Mr. Fennell stated since it is their
lake and in their documents to maintain the lake, they will have to come to us
with a proposal. It is on them. We will do what we need to do to maintain the
general waterway.
Mr. Hanks stated I have reservations
about letting them make the application.
Mr. Fennell stated that is a good
point, but I feel it is on them to come to us and since it is one waterway and
they are part of the CSID, we should do something. However, it is clear that they are
responsible for maintaining that area.
Mr. Eissler asked can we legally
spend money from CSID to treat their lake? If we cannot, we are not going to do so. Otherwise, I am for us treating the lake with
herbicides because of safety and environmental concerns. Ideally, it would be nice if they agree to
pay us a reasonable amount to maintain their lake.
Mr. Lyles stated what we are legally
required to do is one thing versus what we are legally able to do. What they can legally do is also something to
consider. There is some overlap in the
obligations in this series of documents with regard to their own declarations
and covenants that mandate the HOA to do maintenance on that body of
water. Additionally, there is an
easement from 1990 that was in favor of this District. The language in the easement indicated that on
common property, including the lake area, application of herbicides for aquatic
weed control on the lake and canals shall be performed by or through the
CSID. This instrument legally empowers
us to spend money for aquatic weed control by or through CSID.
Mr. Eissler stated if that is the
case, I would be in favor of treating their lake.
Mr. Lyles stated a subsection of the
easement document addresses the increment of spraying and maintenance over and
above what is required for our normal CSID purposes, which is flowage. “The cost and expense of applications of
herbicides for aquatic weed control in excess of the normal CSID application as
determined by CSID for canals in the lake shall be an operating expense”, which
is a defined term meaning it is an operating expense of the property owners
association. However, all of this is
supposed to be in accordance with this easement document. “The declarance or the corporation
“Successor” (HOA) shall enter into an agreement with CSID regarding the matters
set forth in this article (4.7)”, which is canal and lake maintenance, and
there is no such agreement that any of us are aware of. We are in between clear guidance from the
documents that are in place. It would be
incumbent upon both parties to fulfill this requirement for a written
agreement. Absent a written agreement,
it calls into question all the obligations.
Technically, we need their permission to go on their lake to do this
sort potentially environmentally hazardous activity. There needs to be an agreement. They need to respond to us, and they haven’t.
Mr. Eissler stated I think sending a
letter to their attorney indicating that we need their permission to treat
their lake is a good idea.
Mr. Hanks stated the letter should
state that we need to enter into an agreement.
Mr. Eissler stated the letter should
also state that we would be willing to bear the cost of treating the
weeds. However, we are no longer willing
to rescue boats, remove coconuts, etc.
Mr. Hanks asked what impact would it
have if we were to not spray this time around?
Mr. Joyce responded currently, it is
not critical. On a normal schedule, we
would have treated the lake this past month.
Mr. Hanks asked is it a quarterly
application?
Mr. Joyce responded normally, they
do it three or four times a year but if there is a problem, they will treat it
more often.
Mr. Lyles asked does the Board want
me to indicate in the letter that they are presently scheduled for an aquatic
weed control application, however, we cannot go
forward until we have the agreement that is mandated in the easement document?
The Board unanimously responded yes.
Mr. Hanks stated if they come to us
with an agreement that is acceptable to the Board, we can get this back on
schedule next month without much impact to the rest of the schedule.
Mr. Joyce stated we can schedule it
in less than a week. It is not in a
critical stage at this time.
Mr. Fennell stated I would like
management to let us know how many dollars we are spending solely for weed
control.
Mr. Lyles distributed a breakdown of
the costs incurred from January through August 2003 and stated we are not sure
which portion of this figure is for normal CSID application and which portion
is for aesthetics over and above the normal CSID application. Pursuant to this easement document, the only
obligation arguably that the CSID aquatic program has is what it would take to
maintain the flowage; not the overall lakes or the aesthetics. There is an increment of the chemicals in the
aquatic weed control that is supposed to be an expense of the property owner’s
association; not the District’s. We will
submit the letter drafted by me but signed by the manager to their manager or
president and copy their attorney.
Last
week, we received the final version from the legislative bill drafting team of
our codification bill. They modified it
in accordance with our additional draft that they previously requested, and it
is in its final form and making its way through the process in
B. Engineer
1. Monthly Water & Sewer Charts
2. Update on Construction
There being no further report, the
next item followed.
Mr.
Hans distributed a staffing chart.
Mr.
Fennell asked is everyone certified for the positions they are holding?
Mr.
Joyce responded yes. With regard to the
water plant and the wastewater plant, everyone in their current positions are certified. We are
not required for the field crews in distribution and collection for
certification at this time, but we have already started the process of sending
all of our people to certification classes because the state will eventually
require everyone to be certified.
Currently, the majority of them already have their Class C license and
half of them have either applied for or have taken the test for their Class B
license.
Mr. Hans stated there has been a
request to put out to bid the security, but it has not yet gone out to
bid. We are working on some
specifications to put it out to ensure we are not overpaying.
The Board and staff discussed security
plans for the District.
Mr. Hanks stated I received a
complaint about the noisy vacuum trucks.
Mr. Joyce stated we received several
calls. We explained what they were
doing. One person called the police, and
they came to question us. I told them we
would be done in three more days, and they said that is all they wanted to
know, and we did get it finished.
Mr. Hans stated we received a
complaint from Mr. Kaplan who owns property adjacent to the District’s. We have ficus trees, which are distant from
his property, but he is complaining that the roots of the tree are causing
damage to his driveway. We cut the roots
that crossed the property line. I asked
Mr. Lyles for his advice and asked if we are responsible for the damage.
Mr. Lyles stated the District is not
responsible because trees are a naturally occurring element. If they protrude through either the branches
or roots across a property line and do damage to an adjoining property owner’s structure, that is not something for which a private or
public entity could be held legally responsible. The private property owner has the right to
trim the branches or roots, and the right to that self-help is all the law
gives an adjoining property owner in the case of a tree and its roots or its
branches. Since we are not legally
responsible for tree roots, we are not required to repair his driveway. He has been advised by staff that he can
remove any trees he wants to from District property at his expense.
Mr. Fennell asked how many trees
would have to be removed for this to become a non-is
Mr. Joyce responded the tree in
question is approximately 35’ from the edge of his driveway. The next tree is perhaps 10’ away. Mr. Moore and I examined the property and
took pictures. It is hard to
determine. He does have damage, but I
cannot say if it is from our tree or not.
Mr. Hanks stated I will speak to the
landscape architect in my office. A tree
removal permit might be necessary.
Mr. Lyles asked does the Board want
me to postpone my response until Mr. Hanks speaks to the architect?
Mr. Eissler responded send him a
letter explaining the law and that it is not our problem but that we are
looking into it. Also explain that we
have cut roots and removed trees and that he is welcome to remove additional
trees with the proper permits.
Mr. Moore stated this property was
dedicated to us, but we do not need it.
It is an open place for the public, which we are liable for. I suggest trying to get rid of it by giving
it to the homeowners or the City. It is
more of a liability than an asset. I
have some ideas, which I would like to bring back to the Board.
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor's
Requests and Audience Comments
There not being any, the next item
followed.
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
Glen
Hanks Robert
D. Fennell
Secretary President