MINUTES OF MEETING

SUNSHINE WATER CONTROL DISTRICT

 

            The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Sunshine Water Control District was held on Wednesday, February 14, 2007 at 6:30 p.m. in the Commission Chambers at Coral Springs City Hall, 9551 West Sample Road, Coral Springs, Florida.

 

            Present and constituting a quorum were:

 

            Russell Parks                                              President

            Mary Macomber                                        Vice President

            Phillip J. Sobers                                          Secretary

 

            Also present were:

 

            John Petty                                                  Manager

            Bruce Cranmer                                           Attorney

            Cedo DaSilva                                             CH2M-Hill

            Janice Moen Larned                                   Severn Trent Services

            Several Residents

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS                         Roll Call

Mr. Petty called the meeting to order and called the roll. 

 

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS                    Approval of the Minutes of the January 10, 2007 Meeting

            Mr. Petty stated each Board member received a copy of the January 10, 2007 minutes and requested any additions, corrections or deletions.

            There not being any,

 

On MOTION by Ms. Macomber seconded by Mr. Sobers with all in favor the minutes of the January 10, 2007 meeting were approved.

 

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                         Staff Reports

C.        Superintendent

1.         Consideration of Tree Policy

            Mr. Petty stated since we have some residents here who are interested in the tree policy, at this time, I request moving this item up on the agenda. 

            Mr. Parks stated please proceed.

            Mr. Petty stated as discussed at our last meeting and with residents for several months now, to the best of our ability, we have been trying to work with the residents on a hurricane preparedness program of removing what we consider to be harmful trees to the drainage system during a storm event.  We discussed in the past about how we will disburse our first draft.  One option was to put the policy on door hangers to residents abutting the canal affected by such a tree policy.  We gave them time to read it and come to the meeting to discuss the policy.  We have done this.  The policy calls for all nuisance trees to be removed.  Nuisance trees are defined as being on the Coral Springs nuisance tree list.  Staff directed residents to look on the city’s website.  From what I understand, the website needs to be updated as Ficus trees were removed from the nuisance tree list.  They are off the list but on the website they are still shown as being on the list.  The list was updated six months ago but the website has not been updated.  A Ficus tree is not considered a nuisance tree at this time. 

            We are going after nuisance trees in the right-of-way for removal in this program.  We will do so by putting a notice on everyone’s door stating when the contractor will be in the area and directing them to remove any private property within the right-of-way, which could be damaged during construction and giving them an opportunity to view the trees our contractor tags with a yellow notice or ribbon.  If the residents have a concern or request a re-evaluation, they can call the District office.  We are not planning to go after ornamental trees or onto private property.  We will put the bid specifications out after approval.  If we are able to come to this conclusion after today’s meeting, the specifications will be written based on what is approved tonight.  They will be sent out and in 30 days, it will be returned to us.  Therefore, we will not be able to approve it at our next meeting but at the April meeting as long as everyone submitted in compliance with the specifications.  This still gets us in there working before the hurricane season.  The intent of tonight’s meeting is to speak to the resident, get their input and see how long we responded to discussions held over the last several months.

            Mr. Parks stated I welcome all our guests.  If you have any comments, please address them at this time.

            Mr. Richard Muller asked is a Pine tree considered a nuisance tree?

            Mr. Petty responded no.  An Australian Pine is considered to be a nuisance but a Florida Pine or Slash Pine is not. 

            Mr. Muller asked how can you tell?

            Mr. Petty responded the Australian Pine is distinctive.  It grows fairly tall and makes a whispering sound when the winds go through it.  The winds are fairly thin.  I believe the City’s Arborist has identification guides available if you wish to obtain a sample.

            Mr. Muller asked can I provide you with a sample of the branch?

            Mr. Petty responded it will be sufficient.  Anyone who has access to the public library should be able to obtain a picture of an Australian Pine.  When we were on-site if the tree is tagged, this gives you a good indication it is on the list.  We will have an Arborist of our own who can talk with the residents.

            Ms. Macomber stated you can call Community Relations at (954) 344-1005.

            Mr. Muller asked are the Australian Pines being removed?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.

            Mr. Bob Dawson stated I live in Forest Hills and lived there for 32 years.  I have a 34 year old Astrophia tree behind my house.  It is 20’ from the edge of the water.  The right-of-way is unusually wide.  My survey only says it is 10’.  I wonder if the 20’ will put it far enough away to save it from being cut down.  I have been in the chamber many times and noticed the most predominant feature in your logo is a tree.

            Ms. Macomber stated it used to be.

            Mr. Dawson stated we are talking about removing trees.

            Ms. Macomber stated I agree with you but the city has developed over time.

            Mr. Dawson stated I do not disagree.  After the hurricane, you spent a great deal of money you might not have to spend if we do not have a storm.  I am not sure how this balances out.  I probably know very little about recovery after a storm.  I hope I get to keep the tree planted 20’ from the bank.  Thank you!

            Mr. Joseph Mayeux stated I live on 29th Street.  Are you going to send a crew out to survey the area and provide notification to us?

            Mr. Petty responded you will receive a door hanger stating when we expect the contractor to be in your area.

            Mr. Mayeux asked is this when they will tag the trees?

            Mr. Petty responded all the trees will be marked before they are cut.

            Mr. Mayeux asked will they be performing this work from a barge?

            Mr. Petty responded no.  They will be working from the most applicable platform, whether this be a barge or land based.  This is outlined in the notice.

            Mr. Mayeux stated when they went out last time to clear the debris from the canal in my canal, which is Westchester; they made passes back and forth to clean out all the other canals in the area and caused erosion.  They only way they were able to propel the barge was to use a backhoe in the water to pull the barge along the bank, which created high waves.  Could they set Three Friends Park as a central location instead of going down one canal all the time or the area behind the apartments off of Sample Road where the main body of the canal comes to the street?  Using one canal to clean out everything in the neighborhood is not right.  There is a great deal of erosion, which has not been taken care of and I do not think anything is going to be done.  If they can use a 20 horsepower motor on the barge instead of the backhoe to propel, it will cut down on the erosion.

            Mr. Petty responded the contract will be written so we get maximum efficiency from the dollars.  As far as erosion control, we are going to have our engineer and field staff working beside the contractor to minimize the wake and damage to adjacent property.  A wake is going to happen.  We are going to see some erosion, which we will address separately.  Going up and down the canals doing construction projects like this is going to cause wakes.  In places where there is steep bank, a small wake can slice the sod.  We have three different programs proposed for this summer to address resident concerns regarding erosion not only for this construction practice but even when we spray for aquatics.  We are looking at different ways, which we will institute this summer.  We are looking at a Geo-sock, which stabilizes the bank and stops the small wave erosion action.  We have a trial structural fix, which our engineer initiated in our sister district, CSID.  It was effective in solving difficult problems where the canals are 20’ deep or more with a stiff cliff base underwater.  We were able to do a repair where the engineer was able to hit rock capable of holding it, put in a structural repair at an angle, backfill with large rip raff rock and rip raff concrete stacks above it, which made a nice vertical wall.  Of course there is always the standard way, which is backfilling with soil and putting some erosion control in, whether it be Wedelia or sod.  Our engineers and staff will try to minimize the effect of a barge or any other traffic.

            Mr. Mayeux stated putting an outboard type motor on this barge will cause less of a disturbance than using a backhoe in the water to propel itself. 

            Mr. Petty stated the horsepower could not push the barge once it is loaded.  A contractor in a sister district had an engine on his barge and another used the pull along method.  Our specifications are such we leave it to the contractor to get the best use of his experience but we will try to minimize erosion.

            Mr. Mayeux asked can we stop using one canal to empty out the entire area?

            Mr. Petty responded I do not know if the District wants to get into a policy where it restricts usage on any canal.  I understand we should not put at stress one neighborhood against another.  Of course, the District reserves the right to do maintenance on its canals for the best interest of the system.

            Mr. Mayeux stated when they cleaned out the area on 29th street; they must have made at least 1,000 trips.  I do not think it is right for one group to put up with it.  The best place is a park.

            Mr. Petty stated I agree.  No neighborhood should be put at risk because of someone else’s benefit down the road.  We will try to be as even handed as possible in the construction.

            Mr. Gary Runge stated I live on 31st Street.  All the talk has been about trees.  It is time to talk about shrubs, in regards to Bamboos and Gingers on your right-of-way.  My neighbor and I run a certified natural wildlife site.  There is a link on the Coral Springs website to attract people.  To strip out all of this is counterproductive.  What are you going to do with Bamboos and Gingers along the canal?

            Mr. Petty responded we have no intention of going after any non-nuisance species, bushes, shrubs or trees.  We are not going to be on the lake bank in your area.  We will have to go by barge because your lake banks are too steep.  The only way a shrub is going to be in the way is if it is in an area where I need large equipment.  In your particular case, there will be no land base equipment. 

            Mr. Runge stated if I had nuisance trees, you could not guarantee anything.

            Mr. Petty stated correct.  If it is not on the list, I am not going after it.  I do not know of a nuisance shrub list and I am not interested.  I am only concerned about hurricane preparedness and shrubs do not cause us any concern.

            Mr. Runge stated nor does the set back from the water.  This was discussed in October.  You said you needed some room next to the water.  My Bamboos are planted next to the water.

            Mr. Petty stated this contract did not include clearing of shrubs or Bamboo.  It is for the clearing of nuisance species and trees, which may fall into the water in a storm event.  The rest is not material.

            Mr. Rung stated this is what I want to hear.  You have people out on these canals.  I want to see them remove boats sunk in the water out of those canals.  I saw two sunken boats within two blocks of my house or closer.  These boats should be removed as they are an eyesore and a hazard as well.

            Mr. Petty stated I will mention it to our staff.

            Mr. David Hume stated I live in the Dells.  Many residents are concerned about structures close to the right-of-way such as decks and fences.  As long as your crews have access to the nuisance species in a reasonable way, my understanding is they are going to be left alone.  However, you have the right to remove anything, even if it is a foot into the right-of-way.  The issue is to remove the trees posing a concern for future hurricanes.  I want to get some clarification on this particular issue.

            Mr. Petty stated what we have told the residents calling with this issue is if you have private property within the right-of-way, it is in your best interest to move it back.  This includes structures and fences.  It is not our intention to clear any fences but if the fence is in the way, it will be removed.  I do not wish to modify the District’s position of no structures being allowed in the right-of-way of the Sunshine WCD but we are not going out specifically for this reason. 

            Mr. Hume stated most of the nuisance trees on my property are Florida Holly.  I intend to remove them myself so when the crews come by they will see there are no nuisance trees and will move to the next house.  I offer this as a suggestion for the gentleman who had the Bamboo.  If you have nuisance species in the middle of your Bamboo or other things you are trying to preserve, remove it yourself and when the crews come, if you have nothing, this will take care of the situation in a reasonable way.

            Ms. Macomber stated good idea.

            Mr. Petty stated Mr. Rubinov from the Westchester area sent a letter saying they did not wish to have the trees removed from their area.  They understood and respected the need to keep the ROW’s clear and free of non-indigenous trees, which I assume they mean the nuisance trees.  They wanted to make sure we understood their landscape trees are to be maintained to the water’s edge and they wish to continue to do so.  We will put this letter into the public records.  We want to thank all the residents who maintain their property to the water’s edge.

            Mr. Paul Carpenter stated I live in Westchester.  When you remove a nuisance tree, will you also remove the root ball and restore it or cut the tree off level?

            Mr. Petty responded the contract is to cut it off flush with the ground or near flush.  We treat the stump so it will not grow back.  We use an effective treatment.  Our concern is if we go after the root balls, not only will we incur additional costs but we will destabilize the bank.  Our intention is to cut it flush and treat it so it does not grow back.

            Mr. Carpenter asked when you tag the tree; will there will be enough time for the homeowner to remove the tree themselves?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.  Our intention is to give them a week’s notice but I cannot guarantee it.  I will have to get the residents to sign a form saying they saw the tags.  Within this week notice period, they can contact the District office to request a special exemption.  One gentleman talked about a large tree 20’ from the water’s edge.  There are a few trees far enough away out of the water management facility to not pose a problem and we were able to give them an exemption.

            Mr. Carpenter asked once this clearing is done, if in the future these non-nuisance trees falls into the canal will the homeowner be charged for the clean up or will the District?

            Mr. Petty responded good question.  In the past, the wording on the ordinance and the intent of the District was such if you had something planted in the District’s right-of-way, which caused harm and the District had to expend money, the homeowner was at risk for being charged.  After Hurricane Wilma, we had to come up with distinctive policies or a plan of action, which is what we are doing now.  The remaining trees represent less than 15% of the total trees we had before Wilma.  Half of the trees were taken down by the storm and the nuisance trees constitute the remaining 35%.  We do not believe the ornamentals pose a serious threat to the drainage system at this time.  Therefore, I do not believe any such action is appropriate to be discussed at this time but I cannot say what the future holds.

            Mr. Mark Scofield stated I have been a Coral Springs resident for 27 years.  I do not know if a Royal Palm is considered to be a nuisance tree.

            Mr. Petty stated it is not a nuisance tree but it is costly tree to plant.  At past meetings we spoke about how Palm trees do not pose a threat.  Most Palm trees have a fine structure holding them in the ground fairly well with a few exceptions, the Queen Palm being one of them.  Unless there is a cluster of Queen Palm trees, it does not pose a threat to a drainage system.

            Mr. Scofield stated the tree pictured on the door hanger was a Pine tree.  This is what my concern was about.

            Mr. Petty stated it was intended to show what could happen with a Pine tree.

            Mr. Parks asked did you plant them by seed?

            Mr. Scofield responded they were blades of ground.

            Ms. Macomber stated they are gorgeous.  How old are they?

            Mr. Scofield responded almost 15 years old.

            Mr. Petty stated Mr. Scofield provided us pictures of six Royal Palm trees treated within 10’ of the water.

            Mr. Scofield stated it is within 10.4’.  There is steep ground.  I believe the root ball holds everything.

            Mr. Petty stated it is well maintained, which is keeping the lake bank slope fairly stable.  His lake bank does not have any signs of erosion, probably because of good maintenance.

            Mr. Scofield stated during the storm when I lost my screen enclosure and sliding glass doors, those trees were like concrete pillers.  We heard an independent Arborist say certain Palm trees have good root structure but not all Palm trees.  There are several thousand varieties and a few who does not have such a structure.  We are not planning to go after any Palm trees.

            Mr. Sobers stated I wish to revisit the question by Mr. Carpenter who was concerned about the tag time.  I believe you were told the tag time will be seven days.  What do the residents consider to be a reasonable tag time?  Is the tag time seven consecutive days or seven business days?  Seven consecutive only includes five business days.  If it is tagged on Monday, will the tree be removed the following Monday?

            Mr. Petty responded staff is open to suggestions.

            Mr. Mitch Chapman stated I live on 27th Court.  It depends on the dispute resolution process and how long it will take to receive a response.  I have a feeling you are going to get inundated.  If you are calling people back within a couple of days, seven days is fine.  However, it is going to take a week to two weeks to call people back, I do not feel this is reasonable.  As far as my issue, I am in the gray zone.  I have a Schefflera tree 14’ from the embankment and a third in the right-of-way.  What will you do there?

            Mr. Petty responded when we go out and do the survey, our engineers will tell us where our right-of-way begins.  They are going to be measuring from the center of the road backwards.  This will give us our right-of-way lane.  The policy as recommended by your manager is if there is a tree on our property, we cannot remove the tree without damaging private property.  We do not need to remove all the trees.  We are only trying to minimize the hurricane damage and make it a reasonable response.

            Mr. Chapman stated the last time you cleared the waterways they treated the sprinkler system irrigation like it was a pinball machine.  I understand this is still my property but they hit 30 to 40 sprinklers on this canal bank.

            Mr. Petty stated we hit hundreds of sprinklers.  This is a real issue.  We are a flood control District and do not give permits for irrigation systems.  We know you need to water your yards and it is a good use, however this is why the door hanger says, “If you have private property in the right-of-way call us.”  When you have a pipe going out there, cut the pipe.

            Mr. Chapman stated my pipe goes straight down into the water.

            Mr. Petty stated there is very little I can do.  Staff is trying to find an engineering standard so we can minimize this in future construction projects.

            Mr. Chapman stated my wife and I have lived in Coral Springs for 10 years.  Coral Springs had many more trees before the hurricane.  We are a young couple who are starting a family here.  We do not want to see the trees getting cut.  University Drive just south of Wiles Road is surrounded by nuisance trees.  You are saying you are going to make Coral Springs look ugly.  It should be called a plantation.

            Ms. Macomber stated you should have been here 25 years ago when we moved here with our kids to start a family.

            Mr. Chapman stated I lived in Cooper City for 25 years.

            Mr. Petty stated good point.  We discussed it and the Board members and staff share your sentiments.  We are not trying to ruin the area.  Our first reaction was a knee jerk reaction after Hurricane Wilma and our first policy was to clear the trees.  However, after the residents came out and spoke to us, we have been able to calm down and this reasonableness seems to serve our purpose.  We are not planning to remove all the trees.

            If there are any questions from the supervisors, it will be appropriate to take them at this time.  I believe you have a standing issue concerning notification of the tagged trees.  I believe this is a valid point.  Seven days is completely arbitrary.  However, a 10 or 14 day time frame is certainly reasonable.

            Ms. Macomber stated I agree.

            Mr. Sobers asked 10 consecutive days or 10 business days?

            Mr. Petty responded 10 days minimum with a maximum of 14 days.

            A resident asked will you have an emergency injunction procedure?

            Mr. Petty responded there is a procedure in place, which we discussed in the past.  The trees are tagged and we are talking about 10 days notice by design.  We have customer service available to us five days a week with the exception of holidays to get further information.  They can contact my office if they are looking for an exception to this issue.  I go out into the field to see if it is reasonable to leave the tree.  If it is reasonable, it is my intent to allow it.  If it is not reasonable to leave the tree as it is too close to the water or a possible threat to drainage, I will explain it to the resident.  This is our intended policy.

            Ms. Macomber stated we appreciate the residents who came out here today to assist with us with this matter.  Thanks for coming.

            Mr. Petty stated at this time, it will be appropriate to consider adoption of the specifications for the hurricane preparation and tree removal program subject to the changes mentioned, involving the intent to have 10 consecutive days notice between the tagging of the trees and construction crew removal.

 

On MOTION by Mr. Parks seconded by Mr. Sobers with all in favor the specifications for hurricane preparation and tree removal program involving 10 consecutive days notice between tagging of the nuisance trees and construction crew removal was approved, subject to the above changes.

 

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS                       Consideration of Contract for Purchase of Light Trucks

            Mr. Petty stated staff bid out the trucks we use for water management maintenance.  The Ford service response has been such that the other two contractors stopped responding.  The current bid is less than the approved statement.  We are not asking for approval on the Explorer, just on the F150.

 

On MOTION by Ms. Macomber seconded by Mr. Sobers with all in favor the contract for the purchase of a 2000 Ford F150 4x4 was awarded to Plantation Ford in the amount of $19,368.15.

 

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                    Consideration of Permit Requests

A.        ASE Telecom for Canal Permit for Broward County Library

            Mr. Petty asked has the engineer reviewed this permit and recommends approval?

            Mr. DaSilva responded yes.

 

On MOTION by Ms. Macomber seconded by Mr. Sobers with all in favor the permit request from ASE Telecom for Canal Permit for Broward County Library was approved, subject to the stipulations provided by the engineer.

 

B.        RPS Properties, LLC – Royal Palm Square Office Building for Discharge into SWCD Canal L

            Ms. Macomber stated I noticed the engineer had exceptions to this permit.

            Mr. DaSilva stated the contractor was using headwalls on the driveway, which we do not allow.  They are making the corrections and we will re-issue the letter without the exceptions.  In the meantime, the Board can approve the permit without the exceptions.

 

On MOTION by Ms. Macomber seconded by Mr. Sobers with all in favor the permit request from RPS Properties, LLC – Royal Palm Square Office Building for Discharge into SWCD Canal L was approved, subject to the stipulations provided by the engineer.

 

C.        Sun-Tech Engineering – Sawgrass Central for Surface Water Management System Discharging to Existing Canal

            Ms. Macomber asked is there also an exception on this permit?

            Mr. DaSilva responded we received the corrected plans and re-issued the letter.  The revised letter did not make the agenda package. 

            Mr. Petty stated we are asking for approval subject to the engineer’s review and comment.

 

On MOTION by Ms. Macomber seconded by Mr. Sobers with all in favor the permit request from Sun-Tech Engineering – Sawgrass Central for Surface Water Management System Discharging to Existing Canal was approved, subject to the stipulations provided by the engineer.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                         Staff Reports

A.        Attorney

            Mr. Cranmer stated I received a letter from Mr. Jared Mathias, at the Property Appraiser’s Office.  March 1st is the deadline for us to confirm our folios in order to maintain our exemptions since governments are non-profits. 

            The City of Margate has a public hearing scheduled for February 21, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. in their municipal building regarding a sign waiver.  The sign is on Sample Road at the shopping center on 83rd.  They have a non-conforming sign deviating from the sign plat.  They assume we may have an interest in it. 

            Ms. Brenda Schurz called and asked me about the abandonments.  You can abandon by a Quit Claim.  If it is a continuous run, typically you are abandoning in favor of all adjoining parcels.  We have many situations in this town where alleys were abandoned, which became part of someone’s backyard.  They did not know and still do not know until someone surveys it.  There were many abandonment’s on 94th Avenue, east of University Drive.  When they prepared the plan for the city, they did not know what they were going to need and reserved all those streets.  Then when they abandoned them, they made it a continuous run.  It automatically accrues to these adjoining ones.

            Mr. Petty stated the commercial piece has an alley on both sides.  I believe the commercial element was expected to go deeper.  They probably reserved to the next lot and block section. 

            Mr. Cranmer stated if you have an easement in a homeowner’s yard, they have fee simple to it.  We can do a Quit Claim Deed, attaching the legal description of what we are abandoning, stating we are quit claiming or releasing and abandoning the following described easement.  We describe where the easement was found.  If it is too complicated, we attach a sketch or survey showing where the property is located.

            Ms. Macomber asked why would you want to do this?

            Mr. Petty responded we normally would not.  I have seen old easements where we abandoned two parcels because they are not part of our system.  Anything existing we are utilizing we will not abandon.  These came to us because we were the drainage District.

            Mr. Cranmer stated in the 1990’s we abandoned some easements in and around Broken Woods Country Club.  At the time, the owner was preparing for the future re-zoning.  I did not receive the attachments to the email from Ms. Schurz. 

            Mr. Petty sent me information on the Florida Pension Plan.  Special Districts are included and membership is required.  I have no problem with your resolution.  I simply request you provide everyone who is eligible a copy of the summary.  The critical item is to get the folios to the county by March 1st.

            Mr. Petty stated we already submitted the folios to the county.  We provided a copy to you in case you had any comments.  The county was interested in whether we were leasing any of this land for profit. 

            Mr. Cranmer stated they wanted to know whether the cell phone towers were owned or leased.

            Mr. Petty stated we do not have any leases.

            Mr. Cranmer stated they attached a list of folios and requested we sign the bottom.  I think this is something we do every year.

            Mr. Petty stated it just started this year.  They make it appear this is something occurring all the time.  Property Appraisers around the state are starting to create work for government agencies.  The issue driving this is Port Everglades had a case where they were leasing warehouse space to a private enterprise and still claiming tax exempt status.  Because of this they are checking all folio numbers.

B.        Engineer

            Mr. Petty stated it is our intent to have the specifications drawn up around what we discussed tonight within seven to ten days.  The bid will be ready for the Board’s approval at the April meeting.  CH2M-Hill has been utilized for doing this work and Mr. McKune is working with CH2M-Hill.  I just wanted to make sure CH2M-Hill knew it was committed to doing a bid specification.

            Mr. McKune stated they know.

C.        Superintendent

1.         Consideration of Tree Policy

            This item was discussed earlier in the meeting.

 

2.         Drainage System Study Update

            Mr. Petty stated our sister district, CSID completed their hydrologic drainage system study.  The found some low spots associated with the Sunshine east outfall canal.  At one time, there was a berm traveling the entire length and as homes were built, the berm was removed.  Now you are built out.  The elevation is there but it moved.  They found a couple of low spots in the streets and are evaluating what this will mean to them if Sunshine water flowed into CSID.  Sunshine is concerned about the berm on the Margate side of the canal.  It is supposed to stop their water from coming into our system because they are higher than us.  We recommended this as one of the projects we want to do this year.  We put money into the budget for doing such projects and asked the engineer to draft a proposal.  The engineers told us they are ready to proceed with this program.  We were unable to bring the presentation back at this meeting but we want the Board to consider the hydrologic model.  The computer program is considered to be less than $25,000.  The real costs come in when you report on the condition of your drainage system.  To get this information you have to do a considerable amount of survey work because you are computing elevations in your canal and at your headwall.  Therein lies most of your cost.  Even though the hydrologic study is well within our capital budget, the survey work currently for CSID is estimated between $50,000 to $60,000.  For your consideration, the cost for the entire program is $75,000, which we feel is economical extremely beneficial. 

            Ms. Macomber asked do we have money in the budget?

            Mr. Petty responded yes, for capital programs.  Staff is recommending the Board consider it.  The Board can consider it tonight at a not to exceed number to get the engineer started rather than waiting another month.  We want to see the hydrologic model before the next hurricane season.  We expect to have a facilitation issue in a 35 year old drainage District.  It has come to a point where we may need to do an accelerated program.  Currently we budget a small dollar amount for cleaning up siltation.  We know from our field experience, we have quite a few issues.  When they do the survey, we suspect they will find issues we will have to address.  

 

On MOTION by Ms. Macomber seconded by Mr. Sobers with all in favor the engineer was authorized to prepare a Hydrologic Drainage Study in an amount not to exceed $25,000.

 

            Mr. Petty stated for the Board’s benefit, the survey work will be performed by a subcontractor hired by the engineer.  Otherwise, there will have to be a separate contract. 

            As we get into these matters and start handling customer service at a higher level as we take on more projects, the District becomes more complicated.  Currently you are using the resources of the paternal district, CSID for many of these issues.  It is appropriate for you to consider additional staff to provide administrative assistance for Sunshine as we proceed with our projects.  I do not have anything to bring before you for approval.  Conceptually as the work gets bigger, we need to hire more staff.  Currently our policy is to share our staff through CSID and their employees.  As we need them, we pay for their use.  It is cost recovery only.  They also act as the District office and customer service.  In our budget preparation for this year, if we see this will be needed, we bring it before you.

 

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                        Supervisor Requests and Audience Comments

            There not being any, the next item followed.

 

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                  Approval of Financials and Warrants

 

On MOTION by Ms. Macomber seconded by Mr. Parks with all in favor the financials and warrants 8939-8958 dated February 14, 2007 in the amount of $64,452.66 were approved.

 

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                     Adjournment

            Mr. Macomber stated staff is doing a great job.  Thank you for helping us through the tree issue.

            There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                                      

John Petty                                                                 Russell Parks

Assistant Secretary                                                    President


Sunshine Notes for 2/14/07 Meeting

 

Agenda Item for Next Meeting

 

1.      Presentation of Hydrologic Drainage System Study