MINUTES
OF MEETING
PINE
TREE WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
The
regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Pine Tree Water Control District
was held on
Present and constituting a quorum were:
David Rosenof President
Margaret Bertolami Vice
President
Paul Brewer Secretary
Donna Benckenstein Assistant
Secretary
Mark Weissman Supervisor
Also present were:
John Petty Manager
Julie Carr Attorney
Warren Craven Engineer
Randy Frederick Field Superintendent
Rich Michaud City of Coral Springs
Director of Public Works
John McKune District Staff
Several Residents
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr. Rosenof called the meeting to order and Mr. Petty called
the roll.
Ms.
Carr stated Mr. Doody prepared a resolution to ratify the actions of the last
meeting.
Mr.
Petty stated Resolution 2007-2 by title is:
“A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
OF THE PINE TREE WATER CONTROL DISTRICT RATIFYING THE BOARD APPOINTMENT OF TWO
(2) MEMBERS TO THE PINE TREE WATER CONTROL BOARD OF SUPERVISORS; PROVIDING FOR
THE TERM OF BOTH APPOINTMENTS TO COMMENCE ON FEBRUARY 1, 2007; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE”
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with
all in favor Resolution 2007-2 as stated above was adopted.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Audience Comments
There
not being any, the next item followed.
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the February 1, 2007 Workshop and Regular Meeting
Mr.
Rosenof stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the
There
not being any,
On MOTION by Ms. Bertolami seconded by Ms. Benckenstein with
all in favor the minutes of the
FOURTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Discussion of
Tree Repair at Winner’s Circle/Country Acres
Mr. Petty stated as the Board may recall, at the last
meeting the Board authorized Mr. Rosenof and District staff to negotiate with
Stiles regarding Country Acres and two different options. The Board authorized was Option A for repair
of the existing damage with 300’ of Areca Palms, erosion control and patching
of the existing berm. Option B was for
removal of the remaining Australian Pines, root ball and other berm-like
material, sodding and planting Areca Palms the entire length, planting two headlight
berms and installing cuts for drainage.
Mr.
Rosenof stated please explain the price of each option.
Mr.
Petty stated in Option A, Stiles pays for all repair costs and our existing
contract does not change. In Option B,
there will be a change in our contract authorizing $70,000 more to Stiles for
removal of the Australian Pines. We will
receive approximately 75% of the funds from NRCS while they still have funds
and our permit is active. There is a
$20,000 difference between what Stiles feels they are obligated to do and
completion of the work.
Mr.
Rosenof asked does Stiles feel under Option A they have $58,000 worth of
culpability? In Option B, do they feel
they have $98,000 worth of culpability but they are going to be reimbursed
$70,000?
Mr.
Petty responded yes.
Mr.
Weissman stated neither of these options includes replacing the removed berm.
Mr.
Petty stated correct.
Mr.
Weissman stated this is what was approved two months ago. The District was going to pick up the cost of
replacing the berm. It was not part of
the Stiles negotiation. Correct?
Mr.
Petty responded I know of no approval to rebuild the berm.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I was not aware of money coming out of our pocket to rebuild the
berm.
Mr.
Weissman stated I thought we voted on it.
Ms.
Bertolami stated we talked about it but did not vote.
Mr.
Petty stated if I recall, at the last meeting we spoke about the berm.
Mr.
Weissman stated if we remove the remaining trees, we will be removing the
berm. The only people attending these
meetings are from the side where there is a concern about headlights.
Mr.
Rosenof stated this is for berm removal and replacement where there has been
damage.
Mr.
Petty stated Option B has small berms being installed to buffer headlights but
there will not be any berm on the entire 900’ because this raises our
engineer’s estimates by $80,000.
Mr.
Rosenof stated the berm was never high to begin with.
Mr.
Weissman stated it is a 4’ to 5’ berm.
Mr.
Petty stated it is wrong calling it a berm as it is a mound where the trees
grew on top of each other. If you
removed the trees and root balls, I do not know what would be left.
Mr.
Weissman asked will we be putting a berm in the areas the residents were
concerned about?
Mr.
Petty responded no. We will not be
matching the existing land base.
Mr.
Weissman stated you called them headlight berms because of the residents
concern with headlights shining into their homes.
Mr.
Petty stated there are two turn points where headlights shine into the Hidden
Hammocks area. To put a berm the entire
length entails higher costs.
Mr.
Weissman asked will we be covering the headlight issue?
Mr.
Petty responded yes.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we only have a certain amount of culpability. I do not want to make this area better than
before but this is not a case where we can indemnify them piece for piece. It is impossible. This is why Option B was the best compromise
as we are not pushing Stiles to the point where they are going to say, “No way
but come and sue us”. We were counting
on some of the $20,000 in discretionary funds.
Mr.
Weissman stated I believe Commissioner Lieberman has some discretionary funds
but Commission Ritter has none as her predecessor used them all up. I do not know how much of the $20,000 is
actually there.
Mr.
Rosenof stated I did not feel comfortable negotiating on your behalf to a final
offer. What I want to say to Stiles is “We
will seek as many of those discretionary funds as we can but whatever we cannot
get, Stiles will have to cover.” This is
the basis of what I want Mr. Petty to go to Stiles with.
Mr.
Weissman stated I want to authorize Mr. Petty to proceed rather than delaying
this again by having to come back to the Board for authorization.
Mr.
Petty stated the Board can authorize staff to negotiate a not to exceed amount with
Stiles.
Mr.
Rosenof stated last month we discussed hiring customer service personnel to
answer the phones and provide cost recovery.
I want this included in the negotiation.
If Stiles wants to provide the personnel, I do not think this is a bad
idea.
Mr.
Weissman stated the City of
Mr.
Rosenof stated my understanding is the work inside of
Mr.
Petty stated at Winner’s Circle. They
consider this to be a complete package.
Ms.
Bertolami asked will this suggestion result in a zero expenditure?
Mr.
Rosenof responded we have some exposure to make sure we have NRCS funding,
which I am told is a 95% certainty and for Stiles to agree they will cover
$20,000 if there were no discretionary funds to offset it. In theory, it is at no cost to us.
Ms.
Bertolami stated thank you for the clarification. I am concerned about setting a precedent. If there are 10 homes on the south side and
it costs $20,000, the District will be expending $2,000 per homeowner to make
these reformations. I feel this is a bad
precedent to set.
Mr.
Rosenof stated they sustained more damange than anyone else. This is a tough decision to make. I came to the conclusion a couple of months
ago there is no perfect solution and we have to do the best we can.
Ms.
Bertolami stated you have a similar situation at Winner’s Circle. To restore the area they will have to enter
into an agreement with this District to be separately taxed.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we talked about this before and do not want to get into it.
Ms.
Bertolami stated this was before Mr. Weissman joined the Board. I wanted to make sure he knew we had already
been trying to make disclosure to the Board.
Mr.
Petty stated this is a one time repair and not a precedent.
Mr.
Rich Michaud stated I am the Public Works Director for the
City of
Mr. Rosenof stated I cannot create
trees overnight.
Mr. Michaud stated I just wanted to
read this into the record.
Ms.
Bertolami asked are you omitting the berm?
I thought we discussed putting it back to where it was to block the
headlights.
Mr.
Michaud stated the residents of Hidden Hammocks felt they
had privacy with this berm. If you
remove it, you are lowering the privacy buffer by 4’ to 5’.
Ms. Benckenstein stated Areca Palms
grow fast but certainly not overnight.
Mr. Petty stated I appreciate the
comments and understand the difference but if we were in there doing water
management work and had to get a drag line or dredge into this area and remove
this section, this is what we will put back.
Mr. Rosenof asked who is going to be
unhappy about this?
Mr. Petty responded when the
District does work like this in the right-of-way or easement for drainage purposes;
we do the best we can by putting it back to an acceptable grade. Trying to make everyone happy is sometimes
difficult. I appreciate the comments.
Mr. Rosenof stated the residents
across from Winner’s Circle are going to be upset because they are losing their
privacy. Correct?
Mr. Petty responded it will take
awhile for this material to grow in and provide the screening the wild material
previously had.
Mr. Rosenof stated some people are
happy we are getting rid of the exotics.
Mr. Rosenof stated I wanted to
understand the basis of the decision.
Ms. Bertolami stated it is an
imperfect solution to an imperfect world.
Mr. Rosenof stated we struggled with
this for several months to try to come up with a perfect solution and there is
none.
Ms. Bertolami stated in the case of
Country Acres on the
Mr. Brewer stated I do not think we
are removing the berm. We are going to
remove the trees.
Mr. Rosenof stated we are going to
take the berm along with it.
Mr. Brewer stated whatever damage
occurs is going to happen. We are not
intentionally removing the berm. We will
find out 95% of the berm is made up of pine needles. Hopefully it is decayed in the dirt. There is nothing there to begin with.
Mr. Rosenof asked how is the website
project proceeding? Is this a site we
can start posting notices on?
Mr. Petty responded we can post items
on the existing website as soon as we make a decision.
Mr. Rosenof asked can we have
someone from the City of
Mr. Petty responded we will be happy
to report to both cities.
Mr. Rosenof stated there can be
something simple as a one page statement stating to check back for
updates.
Mr. Weissman stated I request the
supervisors be notified on the projected start date.
Mr.
Weissman moved to approve the proposal for removal of the remaining Australian
Pines, root ball and other berm-like material; sodding; planting Areca Palms
the entire length; planting two headlight berms and installing cuts for
drainage, subject to staff negotiating with Stiles with the District exposure
not exceeding $20,000 plus a percentage of the NRCS monies and Mr. Brewer
seconded the motion.
Ms. Bertolami asked did you say the
District exposure was limited to $20,000?
Mr. Petty responded not to exceed
$20,000.
Mr. Rosenof stated let’s be careful
about how we word the motion. My
impression was if we do not have any discretionary funds, Stiles pays $20,000.
Mr. Weissman stated then the
District’s exposure is zero.
Mr. Petty stated this is our
position.
Mr. Weissman stated I am trying not
to delay this project.
Mr. Petty stated there is an issue
with NRCS percentages. If you say this
is a not to exceed number, I feel confident we can negotiate and close the deal
fairly quickly with Stiles for virtually no impact to the District. This was the proposal we approved and had
ready two months ago.
Mr. Rosenof stated the spirit of the
deal is the $20,000. Whatever
discretionary funds cannot be covered, Stiles will pick up the rest. We are in favor of this as long as the spirit
of the negotiation remains intact.
On VOICE VOTE with all in favor the prior motion was amended
to reflect Stiles will be responsible for $20,000 if there are no discretionary
funds and so long as the spirit of the negotiation remains intact.
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Permit Request Modification for Friendly’s Restaurant
Mr.
Craven stated this request is for an outparcel in Waterway Estates near
Mr.
Rosenof stated I thought you were here as a private consultant for Craven,
Thompson.
Mr.
Craven stated you will have to discuss this with your attorney.
Mr.
Petty stated Mr. Craven worked on permits from the creation of the District for
processing in-house issues. However, for
construction projects, we contract with CH2M-Hill.
Mr.
Rosenof asked am I covered by Craven, Thompson’s general and professional liability
insurance because his recommendation is on their letterhead?
Mr.
Petty responded yes, but I do not believe there is any real exposure.
Mr.
Weissman responded do we have any cost recovery?
Mr.
Craven stated there should be.
Mr.
Weissman stated in other words, Friendly’s Restaurant should be covering our
costs.
Mr.
Craven stated I bill for my time.
Mr.
Petty stated we do not receive a bill.
He bills directly to the applicant.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it is part of the permit fee.
Mr.
Weissman stated I want to make sure the applicant is paying.
Mr.
Rosenof stated when Mr. Craven is acting as a private consultant; the Board is
not covered by general or professional liability insurance. He is not an employee of Craven, Thompson.
Mr.
Petty stated nor is he an employee or officer of the District.
Mr.
Rosenof asked how is Craven, Thompson covering us in the general liability
sense when someone who is not even an employee is acting on their behalf?
Mr.
Petty responded it is my understanding when Craven, Thompson signs off; we get
to hold them liable through their insurance.
When Mr. Craven opines, we are taking his opinion as a personal
consultant to the Board. If he is acting
as a contractor to Craven, Thompson, it is within their business process but
since we are getting their opinion, I will hold the company responsible. I feel comfortable with this.
Mr.
Rosenof asked do we have insurance certificates for professional and general
liability from Craven, Thompson?
Mr.
Petty responded I have not received any in the last 10 years.
Mr.
Rosenof stated so you are not covered.
Mr.
Petty stated typically you ask for proof of insurance; not for updates on a
semi-annual or annual basis.
Mr.
Rosenof stated this is what an insurance certificate is.
Mr.
Weissman asked do you want to be an additional insurer on the policy?
Mr.
Rosenof responded this is another layer of protection.
Mr.
Craven stated it is not normally done.
Mr.
Petty stated the only thing you have to go after is their liability
coverage. There is no performance bond
or performance guarantee. This can
almost be done in-house.
Mr.
Rosenof stated the question was not related to this specific project. I was inquiring because I have to deal with
engineers who do this type of work. I
never saw anything on Craven, Thompson letterhead before. This is what made me ask questions.
Mr.
Craven stated this is a repeat of what we did a year ago when we started this
tree business. At that time, Mr. Doody
was in contact with Craven, Thompson and was going to work something out. They never did.
Mr.
Brewer asked do you bill us directly?
Mr.
Craven responded yes.
Mr.
Rosenof asked personally?
Mr.
Craven responded no, the company does.
Mr.
Brewer asked do you work for us directly?
Mr.
Craven responded I work as a consultant on retainer to Craven, Thompson.
Mr.
Brewer stated this was one of the issues we tackled a year ago. If we took you on as a direct consultant to
the District, we lose that umbrella.
This was why we did not do it.
Mr.
Rosenof stated if I am not mistaken, I asked Mr. Petty to obtain copies of the
certificates to prove they had professional and general liability insurance.
Mr.
Craven stated it went back even further to whether or not there was a
contract.
Ms.
Bertolami stated the third paragraph says, “The plan provides for complete
containment of all surface water…” Is
this within the 1.1 acres?
Mr.
Craven responded no, within the 17.55 acres.
Ms.
Bertolami asked what about the banking facility?
Mr.
Craven responded it should have been deleted from the letter.
Mr.
Petty stated I apologize for not fulfilling the request on insurance. I have no problem coordinating with Craven,
Thompson and re-verifying our relationship.
If they have any problems, I will bring this matter back to the Board as
an agenda item and speak with counsel about the appropriateness of going out
for an RFQ.
Mr.
Rosenof stated it does not necessarily have to be an RFQ but we want Mr. Doody
to formalize our relationship with Craven, Thompson in a one page letter. We should probably do the same with
CH2M-Hill. Technically, the insurance
certificate is useless without an agreement.
Mr.
Brewer asked do we have a contract with Mr. Doody?
Ms.
Carr responded we probably gave you a retainer agreement. When we formalize our relationships with
clients, we provide retainer agreements, which are in effect until they change.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we discussed one or two years ago about having agreements for
everything. We have to formalize them for
our own good and for our constituents’ sake.
Mr.
Brewer stated I do not need a copy of the drainage calculations.
On
MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Mr. Brewer with all in favor the permit
request modification for Friendly’s Restaurant was approved.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s
Report
There
not being any, the next item followed.
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney’s
Report
There
not being any, the next item followed.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer’s Report
Mr. Craven stated Mr. Doody’s office received notification
from the assessor’s office regarding an annual review of government owned
properties. I met with Mr. Doody and we
went to their website, which showed the ID numbers and where the properties
were located. These sites are owned by
the District. I advised Mr. Doody this
was the case and apparently he submitted something to the assessor’s
office.
The
30” pipe on the Sawgrass Expressway was repaired, however, I take exception to
the way it was repaired. The letter I
received from the contractor states, “The repairs comply with Index 280, outlining
the requirement for a concrete jacket.
The material was used to fix a number of other pipes in NSID”. I told them when I looked at the repair, they
should have replaced the entire pipe.
Mr.
Rosenof asked did they just put a jacket inside of it?
Mr.
Craven responded on the outside. I spoke
to Mr. Craig Deans who is representing DOT on this project. He said they have a permit from Pine Tree and
the Board can either reject it or tell them to fix it. This is where we are. The pipe is of limited value to the District
due to the fact the lane south of there, which is supposed to flow north, slopes
in the other direction. Do we get any
flow from the south to the north?
Mr.
Fredericks responded probably very little.
As a matter of fact, at the time this pipe was damaged it was dry.
Mr.
Rosenof stated they make the assertion it was repaired in line with the State
of
Mr.
Craven responded probably.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is this the permitting agency?
Mr.
Craven responded no, we are the permitting agency.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we do not have our own standards.
Mr.
Craven stated not for pipes.
Mr.
Rosenof stated we cannot make them do anything more than what they are already
doing. I am not sure what legal basis we
have for doing so.
Mr.
Petty stated you have every right to talk to anyone who damages your facilities
to make sure the facilities are repaired in as good or better condition. In many cases, you will not allow anyone to
do the repair except the contractor or staff.
This is at your option. No one
has the right to come back on your property after they damaged it and do a
repair; not in this case. Legal counsel
probably has some options of where this occurs but typically in the operation
and management of a District, you take this stand. The standard they used on the jacket was used
in your sister districts but they had much smaller cuts. For this particular section, not only did Mr.
Craven recommend replacement of the pipe but CH2M-Hill and Mr. McKune said the
same thing.
Mr.
Craven stated they removed a nick out of a 30” pipe of approximately half the
diameter. This is substantial. The saving grace is the pipe is located at
the extreme shoulder of an overpass and does not have much of a load.
Mr.
Petty stated you can take this comment from your engineer and allow us to
continue to work on this matter to the best of our ability with the Turnpike
Authority.
Mr.
Rosenof asked can we make the definitive statement, we want it replaced?
Mr.
Petty responded you have this option.
Mr.
Rosenof stated there is no sense in negotiating it if you feel we have the
legal right to have the pipe replaced.
Let’s have it replaced.
Mr.
Brewer stated if I am not mistaken, before the Sawgrass Expressway construction
ever started, we had a meeting with DOT.
They knew about our pipes.
Mr.
Craven stated they paved over every one.
Mr.
Brewer stated they said they would make the repairs on any damaged pipes. They were represented by a lady from FDOT who
said if we had any problems with our crossings, they will take care of the
repairs.
Mr.
Petty stated this is what we recall from our pre-construction meetings when we
pointed out where all our crossings were located. Mr. McKune, Mr. Colussy and Mr. Frederick
have been out there several times. The
only reason I ask you to allow us to go out there, is to do the best we can in
terms of determining ownership.
Mr.
Rosenof asked is there a question of ownership?
Mr.
Petty responded not yet.
Mr.
Rosenof stated there will be when they read these minutes. I think you need to push for them to replace
the pipe.
Mr.
Craven stated I just received this letter in the mail and wanted to bring it to
the Board before I start getting nasty with them. I will prepare a letter and send to
FDOT. We feel the entire pipe should be
replaced.
Mr.
Rosenof stated there is consensus from the Board.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor’s Requests
There
not being any, the next item followed.
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Financials
and Invoices
Ms. Bertolami asked why is there information regarding
outstanding trash bonds?
Mr.
Petty responded we have to clear several off of the books because many times contractors
are not reporting back to us when they complete with their construction. We hold their money until final
inspection. We just changed the policy
to where staff will do the inspections and send out letters once it appears
their construction is completed and they are ready for final inspection. We will continue doing this until we have
resolution so we do not have to carry it on the books.
On MOTION by Ms. Bertolami seconded by Mr. Weissman with all
in favor the financials and check registers for March 1, 2007 were approved.
ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There
being no further business,
On MOTION by Ms. Bertolami seconded by Mr. Weissman with all
in favor the meeting was adjourned.
Paul
Brewer David
Rosenof
Secretary President