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
Peg McPherson South Florida Water Mgt.
District
David Lee
Mr. Fennell called the meeting to
order, and Mr. Hans called the roll.
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the
Minutes of the March 15, 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
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Permit Requests
A. New
Modular Classroom Addition to the
B. New
Modular Classroom Addition to the
Mr.
McKune stated both items are small structural additions at each site, and both
properties involve additional drainage that goes into ex-filtration trenches on
site. Neither project involves
additional drainage off the property into the District canal system. Therefore, we recommend approval of both
additions with the standard conditions.
On
MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the permits for the
classroom addition to the
C. Request
for an Encroachment in the District’s Maintenance Easement
Mr. McKune stated this item
represents a 1’ 6” encroachment onto a District canal right-of-way. In 1994, the original encroachment was
approved by the Board, which allowed for the extension of a patio. It appears Neal Bisnath is now asking the
District to vacate the easement for 1’ 6” so there is no longer an easement for
that portion. It seems Mr. Bisnath wants
to erect a screen enclosure on that slab.
If he is asking us to vacate the easement, then I recommend against
it. It is unclear what he wants and
staff agreed informally before the meeting that he come in to explain exactly
what he wants and why.
Mr. Lyles stated in 1994, Mr.
Bisnath sought an encroachment into our easement, which provides specifically
through the permit that if we ever needed or wanted for any District purpose to
go in, he has to remove the encroachment at his expense. This is standard. However, it is not clear if he is asking to
put a screen enclosure over what was previously allowed or if he is seeking an
additional 1’ 6” release. We are not
sure what he means by ‘release’.
Mr. Fennell stated let’s table this
item until we receive further explanation from Mr. Bisnath.
FOURTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Award of Contracts
A. Rehabilitation of Wastewater Plants C &
D
Mr. McKune distributed the bid
tabulation for the total rehabilitation for Plants C and D and stated we took
bids on this project between the issuance of the agenda packages and
today. Plants C and D are located on the
northwest corner of the property. Plant
E has been running well, and the mechanical bar screen is doing a great job.
Mr. Hanks asked has Plant E been
certified?
Mr. McKune responded we will perform
its trial, and we have six months to go through that. Once Plant E is on line, we will take down
Plants C and D sequentially, make modifications and get them back on line. Afterwards, we will do something with Plants
A and B.
We received two bids for this
project. Our estimate for the work was
$1,150,000. The low bidder, Intrastate
Construction, came in at $1,283,638.65.
This may seem like a great deal of money but in essence, we are getting
a new $1.5 million - $2 million plant for $600,000. Normally, two new plants would cost
approximately $4 million.
Mr. Fennell asked how much did Plant
E cost?
Mr. McKune responded approximately
$1.75 million - $2 million. However,
Plant E included air supply, yard piping and other ancillary work that Plants C
and D do not have.
Mr. Eissler asked have we done
business with either contractor?
Mr. McKune responded the low bidder
is the contractor we currently have on site.
Mr. Eissler asked have we done
business with Florida Design Contractors?
Mr. McKune responded not on this
project site, but I have worked with them in the past.
Mr. Hanks asked how many bids were
solicited?
Mr. McKune responded we had 11 sets
of plans some of which went to subcontractors.
There were five general contractors.
We had a mandatory pre-bid meeting, and only two showed up. The meeting was necessary to show them what the
job entailed.
Mr. Fennell asked what is our bank
balance?
Mr. McKune responded we have
approximately $8.3 million in uncommitted funds.
Mr. Eissler asked what is the time
frame?
Mr. McKune responded since we are
now doing the total rehabilitation understanding that each plant is done
sequentially, it will take approximately eight to nine months for both plants
in total. Our plan is to do
something. One option is to rebuild them
either at its current configuration and capacity or bring in a new process. By the time we choose, the membrane
technology will have advanced and will cost less and perhaps be more reliable
than it is today.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the contract for
the rehabilitation of Wastewater Plants C and D was awarded to Intrastate
Construction in the amount of $1,283,638.65.
B. Injection
Well Mechanical Integrity Testing
Mr. McKune distributed the bid
tabulation for the injection well mechanical integrity testing and stated bids
were received after the issuance of the agenda packages. Testing must be done every five years. We received four bids for this project. Our estimate for the work was $115,000. The low bidder, Youngquist Brothers, came in
at $118,400, and they are the best contractor in the state for doing this kind
of work. They installed the well and
have successfully bought the equipment and manpower from every other driller
available in the last five years.
On
MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the contract for
the mechanical integrity testing of Municipal Injection Wells IW-1 and IW-2 and
rehabilitation of wellhead for Monitor Well MW-2 was awarded to Youngquist
Brothers in the amount of $118,400.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Change Order No. 11 with Intrastate Construction Corp. for Wastewater Plant
Improvements Phase I for a Net Increase of $93,594.73
Mr. McKune distributed a revised
change order reflecting a net increase of $125,982.74 and stated we received
additional costs for installation and start up of the equipment between the
issuance of the agenda packages and today.
The two major items in this change order are the mechanical bar screen
and the belt filter press. The
mechanical screen is working, and a representative will be here next Monday to
start up the belt filter press. The
items relating to these pieces are not all grouped together. Therefore, we will have to discuss them as we
go through the list.
Mr. McKune reviewed each item listed
in the change order.
Mr. Hanks asked would this have been
covered under the contractor’s base bid, and are our savings evaporating?
Mr. McKune responded both of these
were purchased directly by the District and were outside the original scope of
the contract. We made an arrangement with
the contractor to assume ownership and control of the equipment as it
arrived. It still belongs to him until
we totally accept it. You saved 6% on
the sales tax because you purchased it directly. Also, you did not pay him 15% for overhead
and profit. Therefore, you saved
21%. If you consider the cost involved
with the change order items compared to the cost paid for the equipment, the
premium represented by the change order dollars represents approximately 25% -
30% of the cost of the equipment. Normally,
you would have paid 40% of the cost of the equipment.
On
MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor Change Order No.
11 with Intrastate Construction for Wastewater Plant Improvements in Phase I
for a net increase of $125,982.74 was approved.
On
MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the invoices were
approved.
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Presentation
by South Florida Water Management District Regarding the
Ms. McPherson stated we are here to
talk about Broward’s Everglades Task Force. Broward County is trying to get
everyone together (local governments, water control boards, independent water
districts) to identify some of the things we can voluntarily do to decrease
phosphorus levels to ten parts per billion, as required by the Everglades
Forever Act. We have gone before the City Commission and asked them to
participate. We have proposed goals and
objectives, but they may change due to different goals and objections of
others. We would like a consortium of
leaders to come together to help identify the different things we can do. For example, we can eliminate a great deal of
polluted stormwater by using fertilizer with low levels of phosphorus. We do not plan to have many meetings, and the
first meeting will be on May 21. It will
be an introduction/information sharing type of meeting. We will present our ideas and ask for
suggestions. It will be a great
opportunity for everyone to learn more about each other. We hope a representative of the CSID will
attend.
Mr. Lee stated special districts
play an important role in this. One of
the issues we worked out with the special district a few years ago is the issue
of the five-year renewal. The county has
been doing five-year renewals since 1989.
One of the things we are considering, under the Everglades Forever Act,
a tenth of a mill is taxed on our properties, which goes into a fund, which
represents hundreds of millions of dollars over the course of ten years. We are considering putting together proposals
for Districts to get some assistance in putting together the necessary
resources to do an aggressive type of five-year renewal program. Additionally, we have been looking at the
water quality data, and our surface water management systems do a good job of
keeping the phosphorus levels down.
Although ten parts per billion is an incredibly small number, it is a
critical number, which we are not far from reaching. If everyone takes the extra effort, it is
possible to make a significant improvement in the water quality.
Mr. Eissler asked what is the level
of phosphorus in the everglades?
Ms. McPherson responded in portions
of the historic everglades that affect the park and sensitive natural areas, we
are either at or near our goal. The
issue is going to become closer to the urban and point source pollution
(agricultural or manufacturing) areas.
It varies. A rainstorm will
produce higher levels versus water moving across pavement and lawns during the
dry season. The goal is to get it ten
parts per billion in all of the places all of the time. Many of us believe it is financially and
feasibly possible if we work together.
Mr. Eissler stated I like the idea
of a low phosphorus fertilizer. We do
not need phosphorus, nor do we need six applications per year.
Mr. Fennell asked why phosphorus?
Mr. Lee responded because the
everglades are sensitive to phosphorus.
You manage the canals. If you
lower the amount of nutrients going into the canal, you will lower the amount
of herbicides. There is an immediate
benefit to the District to embrace some of these ideas from cost and labor
savings standpoint.
Ms. McPherson stated the everglades
are known as a nutrient-poor system, which is why there aren’t any striking
colors. While there are other pollutants
hurting the system, canals and our water supply, they are not at the levels
that require regulation from the state and federal governments. However, it is practical to look at all types
of water pollution.
Mr. Fennell asked is this a
particular task force by the county?
Ms. McPherson responded it is in
cooperation with the District. Our
proposal is identified in our plan for long-term water quality. Under the Everglades Forever Act, we have a
2006 deadline to demonstrate that we have been working on this to the federal
government.
Mr. Lee stated many programs are in
place, and we are already doing what they would want us to do. The more we can do this in an incremental
fashion and absorb the costs over time, the more effective we can make our
argument to the state that other Districts are proactively taking care of these
things. At the end of the day, they
regulate the consumptive use permit.
They have an entrance point through their permitting process and if we
can demonstrate to the District that the water we need is available through
recharge or through other means, then they have to respond.
Ms. McPherson stated our goal is to
look out for the environmental system.
If the system is working and the everglades are functioning properly,
you will have ground water. If the
system is not working correctly, you will be limited in what will be available
in this urban corridor. By degrading the
natural system, we are degrading the potential water supply. It is a balancing act to make sure we have
enough water for everyone’s needs. The
loss of the natural system’s health will greatly affect the ability of the urban
corridor.
Mr. Lee stated the final result is
that there will need to be a balance.
There is a clause in the Water Resources Development Act passed by
Congress in 2000, also known as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan,
which governs what they do to prevent negative impacts on the urban area. They cannot degrade our current water supply
issue without replacing it with something else.
However, they are not required to meet our future water demands. That is up to us.
Mr. Fennell stated I would like to
attend the meeting. We are willing to
cooperate, and we would like to become more active in the overall water concept
for the county and South Florida. We
want to maintain the quality of the water as well as the environment.
Ms. McPherson stated the first
meeting will be held on May 21. I will
send you a follow-up letter.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Attorney
Mr. Lyles stated I have spoken and
written to Mr. Kaplan and gave him copies of cases that apply to this
situation. I explained that while we
technically and legally do not have a duty to do anything in particular on his
property, we will look into it. I am
told that we can expect a request with a cost that he has incurred to have a
company grind and remove the roots that start at the property line and extend
towards his driveway. I have not seen
anything like this, but I think it was a good idea to communicate with
him. He understands the technical and
legal position we are entitled to, and I conveyed the idea that the Board will
look at this with no particular resolution in mind. Additionally, we have not heard from Lake
Coral Springs. Telephone calls have been
made and a letter was written, but we are not sure where they stand.
Mr. Eissler asked have we treated
the lake?
Mr. Joyce stated according to the
Board’s direction at the last meeting, we provided for the aquatic
treatment. We did nothing else.
Mr. Lyles stated you need an
agreement to do basic aquatic service per the master declaration documents and
easement in favor of the District that says there shall be an agreement
addressing the aquatics treatment.
Mr. Fennell asked what if we write
up an agreement that favors us and submit it to them?
Mr. Lyles responded we have to get
them to do or say something first before we waste our time and money preparing
an agreement they may not acknowledge.
The only thing that will work is us not treating their water.
Mr. Fennell asked have you talked to
their president?
Mr. Hans responded no. We sent him a letter, but I did not call.
Mr. Eissler stated we should send
him a letter and cease to do anything until we come up with an agreement. We are amenable to treat their lake provided
we get what we need.
Mr. Fennell stated let’s draw up our
points.
Mr. Lyles asked is the proposal that
we will enter into an agreement that would call for the District to do the
basic aquatics maintenance at the District’s expense as long as we have an
agreement covering that situation and not to submit to them an invoice for that
basic level of aquatics? If we submit this
to them in writing, they will become responsive because they think we want them
to pay for that basic level of aquatic maintenance.
Mr. Eissler stated it behooves us to
keep the lake treated. I would rather
have our people treat it for safety reasons.
Mr. Hanks stated I agree.
Mr. Lyles stated let us work on this
for you. With regard to the codification
bill, I had another contact at the end of last week from the governor’s
office. We are getting attention from
the state at staff level; both the legislative and executive branches. However, we have not heard anything from
Representative Ritter’s office. I do not
know what is going on in terms of any attempts to amend the codification bill
or some other bill to include changes to Chapter 189 regarding election of
members of the Board of Supervisors.
However, we will continue to be as responsive as possible.
B. Engineer
1. Monthly Water & Sewer Charts
Mr. Moore stated I will update the
charts so that they will be more diversified and provide more information.
Mr. Fennell asked do we test the
canal waters?
Mr. Moore responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated I would like to
see something that tells us the state of our canals.
Mr. Eissler asked what do you check
for?
Mr. Moore responded phosphorus and
organics.
Mr. Eissler stated I would like to
see what you test for.
Mr. Moore stated we test quarterly,
which is not required by our permits.
Mr. Fennell asked how often do you
test the pumps?
Mr. Moore responded our pumps are
regularly maintained.
Mr. Fennell stated I would like to
see something indicating this.
Mr. Moore stated they are always on
standby. They are tested every two to
three weeks. We are in the process of
getting new engines. We recently went
through a testing program to get more efficient and economical engines to replace
the engines that are in the pump stations right now. We hope to have the bid package at the June
meeting.
Mr. Fennell stated I would like to
see the status of the pump stations. I
want to know that someone has tested them once a month and know what the
results are.
2. Update on Construction
The Board scheduled a tour of the
plant at 3:00 p.m. on May 17, 2004.
Mr. Hans stated Mr. Moyer apologizes
for not being here today, but he had a last minute conflict but promises to be
here next month. Also, we received a
thank you letter from Marine Industries as well as tee shirts for the Board and
staff for last month’s waterway clean up donation.
There not being any, the next item
followed.
EIGHTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor's
Requests and Audience Comments
There not being any,
On
MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the meeting was
adjourned at 5:45 p.m.
Glen
Hanks Robert
D. Fennell
Secretary President
RECORDING SECRETARY
Send
letter to Neal Bisnath
MAY AGENDA ITEMS
3
P.M. tour
Budget
POSSIBLE FUTURE AGENDA ITEM
Request
for an Encroachment in the District’s Maintenance Easement (tabled until
receipt of further explanation from Neal Bisnath)