The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, January 28, 2002 at 4:00 p.m. in the District Office, 10300 N. W. 11 Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.


            Present and constituting a quorum were:


            Robert D. Fennell            President

            Karl Miller Vice President

            Clinton Churchill            Secretary


            Also present were:


            Rhonda K. Archer            Finance Director

            Dennis Lyles            District Attorney

            Donna Holiday            Recording Secretary

            John McKune            Gee & Jenson

            Roger Moore            Engineer



            Ms. Archer called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. and called the roll.


SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the December 17, 2001 Meeting

            Ms. Archer stated that each Board member had received a copy of the minutes of the December 17, 2001 meeting and requested any additions, corrections, or deletions.

            There not being any,


On MOTION by Mr. Churchill seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the minutes of the December 17, 2001 meeting were approved.


FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Resolution 2002-1 Amending the 2001 General Fund Budget

            Ms. Archer stated we are amending the General Fund Budget to balance some line items.  We authorized bringing in money that we have in our Renewal and Replacement Reserve Fund to replace the pumps at the pump stations, and this was part of the plan when we adopted this year’s budget.  This is an amendment which transfers that money out of the R&R Fund into the operating account to be used to purchase the replacement of the pump station engines.


On MOTION by Mr. Churchill seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor Resolution 2002-1 was approved.


            Ms. Archer stated we brought this item before the Board because we adopt our budgets by resolution and we are required to amend them by resolution.

          Mr. McKune stated last month, I was asked to explain one of the items that was in a change order.  There was some concern that perhaps something was done improperly or was not done during the previous construction project.  I am distributing an enlarged copy of a portion of the wastewater site plan.  I highlighted the raw sewerage lines that come into the plant, the headworks and Plants A and B, the two original treatment units.

            In 1972, Plant A was put on line and in the late ‘70’s, Plant B went on line.  After that, we built the headworks and part of the headworks project involved removing the highlighted pipe but leaving in a piece of pipe that fed Plant A because it was not in the way at the time.  Notice the isolating valves that are used to shut off flow to Plant A.  During recent construction when the contractor was excavating in that vicinity for the new job, they uncovered a piece of pipe which had a patch in the top and the patch blew off similar to what happened with the 24” pipe several months ago, and the line had to be plugged at that location.

            As I said before, I thought this line would have been removed or plugged at the previous job when, in fact, it was the adjacent line that was removed.  This line stayed in service to feed Plant A; therefore, I misspoke at the last meeting.  No one made a mistake on the previous job.  This is just an old piece of pipe which has been in the ground for approximately 25 years.

            Mr. Fennell asked are we still using that pipe for anything?

            Mr. McKune responded no.  The cost involved in that change order not only plugged it, it involved placing in some more isolating valves.  Therefore, we can now take that line out of service, and Plant A is now in service with the new pipe line that we just installed.

            Mr. Fennell asked was that pipe still currently being used?

            Mr. McKune responded yes, at that time.  When it was underground with soil on top of it, it did not leak.  As soon as we uncovered it, the patch blew off.

            Mr. Miller joined the meeting at this time.


THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Five Year Permit Renewal/Recertification Program for Surface Water Management Permits

          Ms. Archer stated in this legislative session, Broward County is putting through a bill.  They want a legislative requirement that all the Districts that are currently providing water management permits have five-year renewals and recertifications of anybody that you issue one of those permits to.  Instead of reviewing the plans and specifications for a project (like our engineers do now and recommending to the Board approval of these plans based upon the engineer’s recommendations and being done with it at that point because that is how it is going to be constructed and that is what our permit requires to be done) they want us to do an inspection of that every five years to make sure that there are no modifications or that they are maintaining the line that is draining into our canal or whatever it is that they are constructing that we are permitting to make sure everything is working properly.  This is because a few years ago, some areas in South Broward County were flooding and the drainage District determined that various permits were issued over the years and the facilities were constructed draining into the canals, but there was never any inspection or follow-up to determine that it was functioning properly or that it was not modified, etc.  As a result, one of the County Commissioners took it upon himself to spearhead this last year but it did not go through but it has now come back this year and is in Tallahassee.  None of the District Managers in Broward County feel it is necessary because everyone has already adopted this five-year renewal recertification program in the other Districts except for ours here in Broward County.  They sent me their policies, procedures, handbooks, etc., for consideration, and I felt the reason we did not have a problem here is our drainage system was installed from the first house.  We did not establish our drainage Districts after we already had development and flooding conditions.  We planned these communities in Coral Springs to drain properly.

            Another reason is we work closely with the City and they are responsible for the drainage through all the catch basins in the roads.  We are responsible for the water, once it gets to the canal, to make sure it gets out to the appropriate canal that it is going to outfall through.  The City is responsible for getting it to the canal which works well on the catch basins leaving the public roads but there may be some private roads that the City is not working on that need to be looked at.  For example, there are some private gated communities with private roads and I do not think the City cleans out the catch basins in those areas.  Anything behind a guard gate is considered a private road and may not be falling under the maintenance program or there may be some isolated, localized flooding problems from time to time although we have not had any in Coral Springs that we know of.  It might be a good idea to look at those private facilities.  If Gee & Jenson inspects all the drainage permits that we issued, it may cost approximately $1,000 per permit.

            Mr. Miller asked how many permits are there?

            Mr. McKune responded approximately a couple hundred.

            Ms. Archer stated I think that the main reason we do not have drainage problems in Coral Springs is the system has been in place from the beginning and the City cleans out the catch basins.  What other types of structures are we going to be inspecting that would not fall under the City’s responsibility or ours but would actually fall onto the private property owner?

            Mr. McKune responded my understanding was that we would review the conditions of all the existing permits which includes all the outfalls to make sure that the areas served are as originally permitted; if there are any retention/detention areas required, that they are still there and functioning.  It could get very involved.

            Ms. Archer stated we probably will not be issuing many permits in the future because construction is coming to a completion, but we will be reviewing the old permits and implementing a system for reinspection.

            Mr. Miller asked did the Broward delegation approved this?

            Ms. Archer responded yes.  They did not even ask for any comments.

            Mr. Miller asked is this unstoppable at this point?

            Ms. Archer responded they are proposing an amendment in Tallahassee where this would sunset after a couple of years if all the Water Control Districts in the area had complied and adopted these five-year recertification programs.  The other drainage District Managers are fighting it because they already adopted a five-year recertification program, and they think the law requiring them to do it is not good legislation.

            Mr. Fennell asked why is the County doing it and not S.F.W.M.D.?

            Ms. Archer responded they are not working with S.F.W.M.D.  S.F.W.M.D. regulates us and delegates to us the authority to issue these water management permits under 40 acres.  For anything over 40 acres, we require them to additionally to go to S.F.W.M.D. for a permit; therefore, S.F.W.M.D. should be the ones doing this.  S.F.W.M.D. is implementing a five-year renewal recertification for the ones they are issuing.  I think the ones that are over 40 acres that we are sending up there are required to renew every five years.

            Mr. Churchill asked for the Districts that do not have recertification programs, will they have to do a blanket certification?

            Ms. Archer responded we issued the permit which is the original certification, but we do not reinspect every five years to make sure that nothing has changed with the structure.

            Mr. Fennell asked does an individual household have an individual permit?

            Mr. McKune responded no.

            Mr. Fennell asked how would the individual homeowners be affected?

            Mr. McKune responded the homeowner would not; however, the multi-family homeowners would be.  There are permits for those large outfalls.

            Mr. Fennell asked what exactly are we trying to achieve?

            Ms. Archer responded we are trying to make sure that there has not been a modification or a lack of maintenance on their part where they are required to maintain the outfall so that the water gets from the property to the canal such that it is going to cause a flooding situation.

            Mr. McKune stated not only flooding, but water quality, too.  Two things need to be looked at: quantity discharge rate and the quality of the water that is discharged.

            Ms. Archer stated sometimes they are required to install some type of structure that has to do with water quality.

            Mr. McKune stated also, to retain the first 1/2” of rainfall before it goes out.

            Ms. Archer responded I am not trying to get this stopped in Tallahassee.  I am saying if you like the idea of implementing this type of program that all the other Districts in the County have already implemented besides the Coral Springs Districts, if the Board authorizes us to proceed, we will put together the list of the permits that would fall under this and provide you with a marked up “how-to” type of manual that has been adopted somewhere else and continue along these lines if in concept the Board likes this idea and feels it is worthwhile.  We do not have a flooding problem today, but there are some areas that have the potential to cause problems if there is no inspection along the way.

            Mr. Miller stated this sounds like a good quality control idea.

            Mr. Fennell stated I am not so sure because I am not sure what is trying to be controlled, how something is going to be changed and what the results are going to be.   For instance, most of the flooding in this area are in the streets.  It happens on my street occasionally.  Who is responsible for this?  Right now, we would say the City is.  If I find out that somebody is not cleaning the catch basin, should I then take away the permit from the City?

            Ms. Archer responded no, that is not what we are talking about.  If you, as a homeowner, witness flooding in your street every time it rains, then you need to tell the City because they schedule the cleaning of the catch basins and if you are not on their schedule this year, it will not get looked at.

            Mr. McKune stated this just means that someone will have to certify that the originally installed system is still there.

            Mr. Fennell stated I think the flooding problems should be looked at first and fixed.

            Mr. McKune stated this simply means that someone has to make sure the pipe is still there, if the catch basin is still there and if there is a pollution retardant structure in the basin.  If these originally permitted items are still there, they pass inspection.

            Ms. Archer asked why would it not work if they are still there?

            Mr. McKune responded they should.  I am just saying that it will not address function.

            Mr. Fennell stated someone made the implication that by solving this, they will solve the problem of flooding.

            Mr. McKune stated if there was a sufficient number that had been materially changed, it may affect function sufficiently to cause flooding.

            Mr. Churchill stated this is a moot discussion.  If the legislature says we are going to do it, we have to.

            Mr. Fennell stated it is not a moot point because the County is the one pushing for this, and they are trying to pass laws in the County.

            Ms. Archer stated the District Managers are concerned that the County will do the job themselves if we do not.  Nobody wants the County telling them what to do.  Each Special District wants to be able to continue to operate their Special Districts independent of the County’s oversight.

            Mr. Churchill asked what are we being asked to do?

            Ms. Archer responded we are asking the Board to consider whether or not requiring this renewal and recertification every five years is, in the Board’s opinion, worth investigating.

            Mr. Fennell stated you are saying whether we like it or not, we may have to do it anyway.

            Ms. Archer stated that is correct.  The amendment that was proposed last week is that it will sunset after so many years if all the Districts implemented a five-year program.

            Mr. Fennell stated they are trying to force us to do something they want us to do.  Regardless, is it a good idea?

            Mr. Miller responded it is not the best thing.  You make the point that it is not directly addressing flooding in the City streets.

            Mr. Fennell asked who, if anybody, do we report to?  The State, S.F.W.M.D., the County or do we just report to our voters?

            Mr. Lyles responded S.F.W.M.D. because our power to issue permits is controlled by their overall power for the whole regional system.  We are a subportion of their much larger system.  They are regional, and we are local.  They are our boss in a technical, engineering, water quality and storm water sense.  Broward County has some power over what we do and how we do it.  This has not been exercised but arguably could be exercised either by the County or through this piece of legislation we are discussing.  I believe one of the issues that we need to be cognitive of is we are probably in the minority at this moment in terms of a five-year recertification program.  Districts to the south have such a program in place, and they are arguing that they do not need new County power exercised over them.  They do not want County employees billing the District for something the District can do themselves.  In other words, if they do the recertification because we are not, we will get a bill from the County.  I think we are better off deciding how to proceed and funding it the way we think it is appropriate, either through consultants, employees or both.  We should bring ourselves into line with the other substantial Districts in Broward County in saying we also have examined and voluntarily adopted a five-year recertification program and we do not need to have people passing laws, either at the County level or the legislative delegation level, to tell us how to do what we know how to do.  If we do nothing, the legitimate fear of staff is that they are going to do something to us.  If we voluntarily embark upon the program in a way that is substantially similar to Central Broward and South Broward, we can present a picture of responsible administration of these Districts.  We know what we need to do.  Let us go to the next step.

            Mr. Churchill stated I live in a multi-homeowner situation.  It bothers me that there is going to be a $1,000 fee that the single-family homeowners will not have to pay and I will.  Currently, I pay $1,000 per year for the fire department to drive through once a year and look at the place.  Only multi-home properties are required to do this and we are homeowners; we do not rent.  The implication is that only single-family homes are homeowners.

            Ms. Archer stated I think it is a valid complaint and this is one issue I emailed to one of the attorneys today.  In Pine Tree, because they do not have a sophisticated drainage system, every time a plat comes in for a one-lot house, we are reviewing their drainage and issuing a permit.  For those people to pay $1,000 each is onerous and we will not be able to collect it once we charge it.  His response to me was the whole idea is bad legislation.  This is why they want to get it defeated in Tallahassee.  In that District, they would be required to do that if the legislation passed.  At least in this District, we are not permitting individual houses.  You would not have to pay $1,000 per unit; it would cost $1,000 for the whole project.  If we adopt our plan, it would be the actual cost of doing the inspection.

            Mr. Churchill stated I think the implication is clear that if we are only talking about six Districts here that are exceptions to the rule, then I do not want to be an exception.

            Ms. Archer stated the Board can authorize us to put together a list of the permits so that we can get an idea of the size of the project.

            Mr. Lyles stated we need to do a little more than that; not vote to implement the program today but authorize staff to prepare a more detailed analysis.  For instance, the cost; some of the costs may cost $1,000 and some could cost almost nothing.  It will depend on the efforts required;  how it will work and how it has worked in a more detailed in another District in Broward County.  Let us give the Board a more detailed assessment of the situation and go to the next step.

            Mr. Churchill stated keep in mind that we are not going to pay this money; we are going to receive it because the homeowners are going to pay it.  Our engineers will inspect it and we are going to get the recertification.  The money will come to us, right?

            Ms. Archer stated that is correct.  There will be a recertification fee. 

            Mr. Fennell asked how would you recertify Shadowood?

            Ms. Archer responded we would not.  We are not talking about neighborhoods.  We are talking about large construction projects such as the mall that had to get a water management permit from us.  We are not talking about the subdivision of Shadowood; that would not be included in this program.

            Mr. Fennell stated we need to know the costs and the extent of it.

            Ms. Archer stated if we put together the list of the permits, then we will know the structure that was permitted under that permit.  From that, Mr. McKune should be able to estimate the reinspection cost for that structure.

            Mr. Fennell stated we do not think we have flooding problems, but there are street flooding problems within our District.  I want to know what they are and under what conditions.

            Ms. Archer stated some of the roads were designed to hold water during a storm.  You might call it flooding but the idea is for the street to hold the water before it floods your house.  Mr. McKune can get back to you on how this works.  For example, parking lots in shopping centers; you always see them fill with water because they are designed to do that.  Others may see it as a flood, but it is supposed to do that.

            Mr. Fennell stated I want a motion to look at the cost, the manpower and the extent of the program to review permits in addition to directing staff to look at the expected results and the necessity for that from a flooding standpoint.  The question is: If we do this, how will this improve our District?  Are there real concrete benefits that will result from this?  This may be a good thing for another District to do, but it may be smarter for us to do something else.

            Mr. McKune stated if we verified that all permitted facilities are still in place, it will mean that the systems should function as it was originally conceived and designed.

            Mr. Fennell stated actual data is more important than 25-year old flood plans.  I am interested in other things that we might want to do along with the five-year permitting plan such as a plan to review the flood plan.

            Mr. McKune stated it might be a better option to do the numerical analysis first to see if it predicts problem areas and target those areas to see if facilities are there as initially required by permit.  If so, we need to know if there are additional facilities that could be put in reasonably to improve the flooding.

            Ms. Archer stated anytime anybody ever called me after a storm to tell me that their street took a long time to bleed down, I always called the City and gave them the location and they have always been good about cleaning out the catch basin even if that basin was not scheduled to be cleaned.

            Mr. Lyles stated staff has a sense of what the Board is looking for and we will bring that back to the next meeting.


FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Interlocal Agreement with Broward County

          Mr. Moore stated approximately 18 months ago, the County evaluated the drinking water and storm water from the utilities to how the storm water is disposed of into the everglades or through the C-14 Canal.  The consultant prepared a final report which included 24 recommendations that the municipalities or Districts could do to work together to move potable water or storm water between each other.  In order to look into these items, each of the municipalities in that area had an opportunity to apply for a grant to go to a further study as long as it was matching funds.  Only two agencies applied; Coconut Creek and ourselves.  The manager here applied for three Districts and CSID only had one item.  It was for an additional interconnect with the City of Coral Springs to go on the western side of our District.  We have an eastern connection on University Drive so that in an emergency, we can open that interconnect.  We also have an interconnect to the south with Tamarac, and the study recommended that we look into a third interconnect on the west side.  We estimate $5,000 to do the study of that nature, and the County agreed to fund half of it.  I think this is a good idea.

            Mr. Fennell asked what does this commit us to do?

            Mr. Moore responded to do a preliminary study.

            Mr. Miller asked what is the estimated cost?

            Mr. Moore responded approximately $50,000.

            Ms. Archer stated if we decide to construct it, we will come back to the Board with a proposal to split the costs with the City because it is to their benefit as well.  They use the interconnect as often as we do during emergencies.

            Mr. Moore stated North Springs has the same recommendation for an interconnect to the west and the City is very interested in paying for half of it.  The results of this study will be to identify a location to put a second 8” to 16” interconnect with the City of Coral Springs Utilities for potable water.

            Mr. Fennell asked will the City of Coral Springs be part of this study?

            Mr. Moore responded no, they will be part of the construction cost if they are involved.  They did not apply for the grant.

            Mr. Fennell asked have we touched base with the City of Springs saying that we would like to do the study?

            Ms. Archer responded I have had conversations with the manager’s office from time to time about an additional interconnect, but it has not gone to the City Commission.

            Mr. Fennell stated we should touch base with somebody there because it will be senseless for them to not know about it and not buy into this study.  It sounds like we and the City will be doing this, but I think we have to have their input so that if a decision is made, they will not have any objections.

            Ms. Archer stated before we finalize the last section of the report, we would get the City’s input.


On MOTION by Mr. Churchill seconded by Mr. Miller with all in favor the Interlocal Agreement between the District and Broward County was approved subject to obtaining a letter of support from the City of Coral Springs.


            Ms. Archer stated I will get the City’s support for us to proceed with the study.  Similarly, the City is doing a beautification program at the intersection of Route 441 and Sample Road.  It is a three-city agreement and they called me for a letter of support from the Turtle Run District that is located at that intersection.  They need three letters of support to get DOT’s approval to do that.  We do this with each other all the time.  I will get you a letter of support of the study.


On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Churchill with all in favor the previously approved motion to accept the Interlocal Agreement between the District and Broward County was amended subject to receipt of a Letter of Support from the City of Coral Springs.


SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS          Staff Reports

          A.          Attorney

            There not being any, the next item followed.


          B.          Engineer

                 1.                 Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

                 2.                 Update on Construction

            There being no additional report, the next item followed.




          C.          Superintendent - Report on Website Use

            Ms. Archer stated that a print out of the website activity was enclosed in the agenda package.


          D.          Complaints

            There not being any, the next item followed.


SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor's Requests and Audience Comments

            There not being any, the next item followed.


EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS          Approval of Invoices


On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Churchill with all in favor the invoices were approved.


NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS          Adjournment


On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Churchill with all in favor the meting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.








Clinton Churchill                        Robert D. Fennell

Secretary                        President