MINUTES
OF MEETING
SUNSHINE
WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the
Board of Supervisors of the Sunshine Water Control District was held on
Present and constituting a quorum
were:
Mary Macomber President
Dave Hulett Vice President
Also present were:
Bob Nanni Manager -
Ed Goscicki Severn Trent Services
(by phone)
Bruce Cranmer Attorney
Cedo DaSilva CH2M-Hill
Peter Colussy CH2M-Hill
Daniel Bohorguez CH2M-Hill
Pamela Rower
Dan Daly CSID
Cory Selchan Field Superintendent
John McKune In-House Engineer
Doug Hyche District Staff
Rich
Michaud City of Coral Springs
Director of Public Works
Several Residents
Ms.
Macomber called the meeting to order and Mr. Nanni called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of
the April 11, 2007 Meeting
Ms. Macomber stated each Board
member received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr. Hulett stated on the list of
attendees, I noticed Mr. Cory Selchan, who is our Field Superintendent was listed
as being with Severn Trent Services. I
believe he is an employee of Sunshine.
Is this correct?
Mr. Nanni responded yes. We will make this change.
Mr. Hulett stated Mr. Daly is
identified as being with Severn Trent Services.
Is he with CSID?
Mr. Daly responded I am with CSID.
Mr. Hulett stated Mr. McKune is
identified as District Staff.
Mr. McKune responded I am the
in-house engineer.
Ms. Macomber asked how long have you
been with us?
Mr. McKune responded I have been
with the engineering company associated with the District for 35 years but with
Sunshine for a short period of time.
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett seconded by Ms. Macomber
with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Resolution 2007-1 Amending the General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007
Ms.
Macomber stated I received notification from the Property Appraisers office of
the number of taxable units. Is this
correct?
Ms.
Rower responded yes. When preparing the
budget for 2007, we received a different number. We requested verification in writing and this
is what we received. We will amend the
budget.
Mr.
Hulett stated we now have 16,564 taxable units.
Mr.
Rower stated correct.
Mr.
Hulett asked why did we not have the correct amount? Was it because they had not notified us?
Mr.
Nanni responded there is an annual notification.
Mr.
Hulett stated I noticed the letter was sent to
Ms.
Macomber stated the District has an office at
Mr.
Hulett stated this is the Severn Trent Services office.
The official address for Sunshine is 10300 NW 11th
Manor. Assuming a change was made, it
should be noted by the Broward County Property Appraiser’s office. It looks like there were three water
bills. What were they for?
Ms.
Macomber responded they should not have been included.
On
MOTION by Mr. Brewer seconded by Mr. Weissman with all in favor Resolution
2007-04 Amending the General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 was adopted.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Distribution of Proposed
Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 and Consideration of Resolution 2007-5 Approving
the Budget and Setting the Public Hearing
Ms.
Macomber stated I do not recall receiving the budget.
Ms.
Rower stated I sent it out to the Board under separate cover.
Mr.
Nanni stated you are not required to make any judgments on the budget tonight
as this is a working budget. You have
two months from tonight to make any changes or recommendations. This is the first step in the budget
process. You are not approving it
tonight; all you are doing is receiving it.
Ms.
Macomber stated I would feel more comfortable if the resolution says “Draft
budget”.
Ms.
Rower stated the resolution is only allowing you to make notice of a public
hearing.
Mr.
Cranmer stated the President makes a good point. I recommend you change the first paragraph to
reflect this is the draft budget.
Ms.
Macomber stated otherwise it appears we already approved the budget and I do
not want to be in this position.
Mr.
Hulett asked was there a reason why you were not able to include the budget in
the agenda package?
Ms.
Rower responded because of the timing of getting the financial statements and
then preparing the budget from the last set of financials. We wanted to make sure we had the most
current financials.
Mr.
Hulett stated I do not know what the practice has been in the past in regards
to the budgeting process but I have many questions about it. I wonder if the Board held budget workshops
in the past.
Ms.
Macomber stated we discussed the budget at our regular meeting. I want to place this item on the agenda for
the next meeting.
Mr.
Hulett asked did you have a committee meeting strictly to discuss the budget?
Ms.
Macomber responded no. At this meeting,
we will be approving the draft for the purpose of setting the public hearing
for the July meeting. At the June meeting,
we will discuss the budget in more detail.
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett seconded by Ms. Macomber with all in
favor Resolution 2007-5 Approving the Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 and Setting
the Public Hearing for July 11, 2007 at 6:30 P.M. in the
Commission Chambers at Coral Springs City Hall, 9551 West Sample Road, Coral
Springs, Florida was
adopted as amended, changing the word “Proposed Budget” to “Draft Budget”.
Mr.
Hulett asked as a point of clarification, what is the difference between
Sunshine 1 and Sunshine 2 as referenced in the letter from the Property
Appraiser?
Mr.
Cranmer responded I wondered the same thing.
Apparently, there are 313 units in Sunshine 2.
Ms.
Rower stated I can follow-up with the Property Appraiser.
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Award of
Contracts
A. Culvert Cleaning
Ms. Macomber stated I believe we
have a recommendation letter from Mr. Doug Hyche indicating the low bidder
based on the backup was Fish Tech Inc. in the amount of $55,000. I find it interesting how wide the range of
the bids were. The highest bid was
$235,000.
Mr. Cranmer stated this relates to
the Triploid Carp bid as well.
Mr. Hulett asked can we hear more
about this item?
Mr. Selchan responded this is
something we do to maintain the pipes in the system when we drain from one
canal to another. Most of these are
culvert pipes running under the street, which need to be cleaned. On a fairly regular basis, these pipes are
cleaned to keep them free of any sediment.
We have a diver go in and inspect the culverts, provide a dive report
and then we bid it out.
Ms. Macomber stated with the low
water levels, it will probably be easier for them to clean them.
Mr. Hulett asked will this take care
of any blockages?
Mr. Selchan responded it will clean
out the culvert pipes and what is immediately in front of the culvert
pipe. It will not address anything
downstream of the culvert pipe.
Mr. Hulett asked did this bid go out
several months ago?
Mr. Selchan responded it went out a
month ago. We had a pre-bid meeting on
May 2nd to make sure everyone understood what we expected. We opened the bids this morning at
Mr. Hulett asked have we used Fish
Tech before?
Mr. Selchan responded no. He has a new process of how he removes
sediment from the pipe. He says it is
much quicker and efficient than what his competitors use.
Mr. Hulett asked did he say what he
will do?
Mr. Selchan responded he uses a
hydraulically driven vacuum system to hold the material up out of the pipe and
take it downstream of the culvert pipe he is working in.
Mr. Hulett asked are you satisfied
this is a good bid?
Mr. Selchan responded he has met the
qualifications. We are going to do some
housekeeping and check up on his references.
We did not contact all of his references today but will do so to make
sure he is capable of doing the work. If
not, he will be excluded and we will award the contract to the second bidder.
Mr. Hulett stated I hope he works
out. Are we sure this guy can do what he
says for $55,000 rather than the $108,000 from the second bidder?
Mr. Selchan responded I certainly
hope he can.
Ms. Macomber asked who was the
second bidder?
Mr. Selchan responded Industrial
Divers.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hulett seconded by Ms. Macomber with all in favor the culvert
cleaning contract was awarded to Fish Tech, Inc. in the amount of $55,000.
B. Triploid Grass Carp
Ms. Macomber stated I understand
from Mr. Selchan we do not have a recommendation letter.
Mr. Selchan stated we are going to
wait another week and open the bids on May 16th in order to give all
bidders time to submit.
Mr. Hulett asked is this the
introduction of fish into the canals?
Mr. Selchan responded it is a very
efficient way of controlling aquatic weed growth in our canal system without
having to use herbicides to control the weed growth. They do an excellent job.
Mr. Cranmer stated the city permits
this because they do not reproduce.
Ms. Macomber stated we approve this
contract every year.
Mr. Selchan stated we have not done this
in the last few years as we do not want them to take all of the aquatic weed
material from the waterways. We manage
how we bring them in. When we feel we
are having problems in areas, we bring them into those areas and let them eat
their way out.
Mr. Hulett asked what number are you
looking for in terms of the cost?
Mr. Selchan responded we are going
to purchase 5,000 fish. I hope we come
in under what we budgeted, which was $17,500.
Mr. Hulett stated this is $3.00 per
fish.
Ms. Macomber stated they grow fairly
big.
Mr. Selchan stated they grow to 30
lbs.
Mr. Cranmer stated one year we paid
$3.38 per fish.
Mr. Selchan stated when we first started;
the price was $5.00 per fish. The price
has decreased due to the number of people providing the fish. We will have a bid tabulation at the next
meeting.
SIXTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Consideration
of Permit Requests
A. T&K
Nezwek, LLC - Bluewater Office Warehouse for Discharge into Existing Drainage
System
Mr. DaSilva stated at this time, I
recommend approval of this permit based on our approval letter.
Ms. Macomber asked are we basing our
approval on the special conditions as stated in the letter?
Mr. Colussy responded yes. These are our standard conditions.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hulett seconded by Ms. Macomber with all in favor the request from
T&K Nezwek, LLC. for a Right-of-Way permit for discharge
into existing drainage system for construction of a Bluewater office warehouse
was approved.
B. School
Board of
Mr. DaSilva stated I recommend
approval of this permit based on our approval letter with our standard
conditions.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hulett seconded by Ms. Macomber with all in favor the request
from the School Board of Broward County for a surface water management permit for discharge
into the L17-9 Canal for
C. Amerimax
Sample Realty, LLC. – Dunkin Donuts for Discharge into SWCD Canal U
Mr. DaSilva stated I recommend
approval of this permit based on our approval letter with our standard
conditions.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hulett seconded by Ms. Macomber with all in favor the request
from Amerimax Sample Realty, LLC. for a surface water management permit for discharge
into the U Canal for Dunkin Donuts was approved.
SEVENTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Attorney
Ms. Macomber asked were you going to
draft the RFP for management services?
Mr. Cranmer responded I already
did. I faxed a draft on April 18th
to Mr. Nanni who made some revisions.
Mr. Nanni stated I added some
generic language. We can re-format it
and provide to the Board.
Mr. Hulett stated I was hoping it
would be ready tonight for approval.
Mr. Cranmer stated on May 1st,
I received the amendments from Mr. Nanni. I suggest Mr. Nanni add his comments to my
draft. He had a sample scope of services
from one of his CDD’s.
Mr. Hulett stated I think we are off
track. I hoped our attorney drafted it
and shared it with the supervisors and not with Severn Trent Services, who is
obviously going to be one of the applicants.
I am looking for the advertisement for the position with the duties and
the place to send resumes; not a bid.
Mr. Cranmer stated we never had this
happen before so I had confidence in Mr. Nanni to come up with some additions
and he did. I emailed a revised RFP back
to him on May 1st.
Mr. Nanni stated I do not recall the
specific email. There were many emails
going back and forth to make sure we had the right RFP. Since the Board has taken action and
recommended the RFP, the RFP document is nothing more than a format.
Mr. Cranmer stated correct.
Mr. Nanni asked is it possible to
email a copy to the Board members in between meetings and if they are okay with
it, send it to the newspaper?
Mr. Cranmer responded yes.
Ms. Macomber stated I do not want to
wait until the next meeting.
Mr. Cranmer stated you have done a
request for bids without Board approval before.
Mr. Hulett stated I want to get away
from the word “bid”. This is not a bid. This is the receipt of resumes from
interested parties.
Mr. Cranmer stated we have a great
deal of flexibility and do not have to do a formal bid.
Mr. Hulett stated I provided Mr.
Cranmer with the following:
“Sunshine Water Control
District, Coral Springs, Florida seeks individuals to assume the position of
District Manager. Duties include providing
oversight and coordination of the actions of the Field Superintendent, District
Engineer and District Attorney to ensure the master plan for the operation of
the District’s infrastructure is in place and functional at all times; ability
to work in a cooperative effort with two other Districts located within the
Coral Springs city limits; preparation of meeting materials and backup package
for the monthly Board meetings; recording and transcribing monthly Board
meetings; preparing the annual budget; preparing monthly financial reports for
the Board of Supervisors; continued evaluation of the District’s financial
needs; monitoring the cashflow and financial projections and scheduling an
annual audit with outside accounting firms.
Applicants should have experience
with the operation of a government entity; budgeting and cashflow analysis;
ability to provide recording and transcription services; management experience
in dealing with employees, professional staff members and elected officials and
the ability to interact with District customers and landowners on a very
favorable basis. The compensation and
contract will be negotiated with the successful applicant who will be a 1099
contractor.
Resumes from interested
parties should be sent to the Sunshine WCD, Board of Supervisors attention, to
be opened and distributed to the President and other supervisors directly for
their review. They will choose the top
three/five firms to make presentations to the Board”.
Mr. Cranmer stated at the last
meeting, I recall it was the direction of the Board to go through the
complicated statutory procedure of a request for bid.
Mr. Hulett stated I do not believe
so.
Mr. Cranmer stated a request for bid
is a statutory procedure.
Mr. Hulett stated it was a request
for proposals, according to the minutes.
Ms. Macomber stated we want to
follow the statutes.
Mr. Cranmer stated the term used was
RFP or request for proposals.
Mr. Goscicki stated I think what Mr.
Hulett outlined very openly is normally done by the attorney. You laid out the scope of services you are
looking for in terms of background skills, experience and qualifications
through qualified firms. The Board will
go through the process of reviewing those proposals and invite a certain number
to give presentations. On what has been
generated between the District Manager and attorney, we go into more detail on
the scope based on our experience. You
may want to go into more detail on the qualifications in regards to the systems
you have in place and the financial report.
We carry professional and general liability insurance and have an
emergency response plan in place. I
think you have a good document. We will
email the RFP out to you. If you have
any changes, we will get them made and get it out on the street.
Mr. Cranmer stated my April 18th
draft was faxed to both the local office and the Orlando office. I received Mr. Nanni’s suggestions, which Mr.
Goscicki just outlined. It just needs to
be merged together. The Board will have
three different proposals to review.
Mr. Hulett stated we asked at the
last meeting for this RFP to be prepared and ready for us tonight. There has been no communication. I had to call and ask for something, which
was not at all what we asked for. I am
at a loss to understand why the RFP was not ready tonight.
Mr. Goscicki stated I am not sure
either. The document is done. I have seen it.
Mr. Nanni stated Mr. Hulett’s
document refers to items already in the existing draft. We can see what may be missing and incorporate
it. By Friday, we can email the
completed document to the Board. If we
do not receive any comments, we will get it on the street.
Ms. Macomber stated my only problem
is I have a Board meeting in Orlando tomorrow and Friday. Please email a copy to Mr. Sobers.
Mr. Cranmer stated you can pass a
resolution tonight authorizing us to prepare the RFP.
Mr. Hulett stated I want to have
assurances if we are using the terminology “Bidding procedure” we are not
accepting a low bid. This is no
different than when the city goes out to hire a new City Manager. They entertain resumes, review them, choose
the top four or five candidates, interview them and make their final selection.
Mr. Cranmer stated there is a clause
in all of these invitations to bid saying we are not obligated to accept the
lowest bid.
Mr. Hulett stated this is not a bid.
Mr. Nanni stated you are correct and
the final documents will reflect this is an RFP. I will email a copy of the RFP to the Board
on Friday and go out on the street on Monday.
Mr. Hulett stated I accept this
draft only because this is a rough idea.
I certainly do not mean this to be the final product. I want to see the final project very
quickly. Do we have to meet to approve
the document or can it be done legally by contacting the three of us by phone
or email?
Mr. Cranmer responded you can
authorize staff tonight to prepare the RFP, within the parameters stipulated.
Ms. Macomber stated we want to see
it before you send to the newspaper.
Send us a copy by email and we will agree for each of us to respond back
with our comments.
Mr. Nanni stated you cannot talk to
each other by phone or email but you can talk to me individually.
Mr. Cranmer stated because this is a
management contract, we have flexibility on the procedures.
Mr. Hulett asked when should we
expect to see a draft?
Mr. Nanni responded by Noon on
Friday.
B. Engineer – Work Authorization #WA-4 Amended
for Stormwater Pump Stations 1 & 2
Mr. Colussy stated the Board
approved Work Authorization No. 4 at the last meeting. However, after the meeting we met with Mr.
Selchan and directed our team to perform the inspection on both pump
stations. Mr. Selchan thought it was a
good idea to do an investigation to see if there were any advantages to
switching out the diesel engines to an all electric system. The City of Tamarac is going to electric
engines. Easel engines seem to be easier
to obtain. There may be some additional
tool back up to the electric system.
Ms. Macomber asked what do we
currently have?
Mr. Colussy responded we currently
have LP engines.
Ms. Macomber asked do they use
propane gas?
Mr. Colussy responded yes. We wanted to do a comparison to see if there are
any savings, efficiency as well as safety and pumping capacities from those
engines. This is the purpose of amending
the work authorization, which is in the amount of $25,000. The additional study will be $5,000 for a
total amount of $30,000.
Ms. Macomber asked are we doing this
in the hopes we will be able to save money in the long run and have more
dependability?
Mr. Colussy responded ultimately
this is what our goal is. However,
whether it is going to be practical to do this now, in five years or later on,
we do not know. This is what we want to
determine from this study. Ultimately
the goal is to save money and be more efficient.
Mr. Hulett asked is this what we
passed last month for the inspections of the pump stations?
Mr. Colussy responded yes. The Board approved the work authorization for
the pump stations; however, it did not include the line item to do the study to
compare the difference between diesel and electric engines.
Mr. Hulett asked is $25,000 the
amount approved last month?
Mr. Colussy responded yes, plus
$5,000 for the cost and efficiency study.
Mr. Hulett stated according to the work
authorization, they will perform a visual inspection only to evaluate the
condition and performance of each pump engine, the ancillary systems and
prepare a preliminary report. How many
hours will it take to inspect each section?
Mr. Colussy responded our
mechanical, structural and electrical engineers will perform a site survey
first and then research what is going to be repaired, make recommendations and
prepare the report of what each station needs, what needs to be maintained and
what needs to be replaced and upgraded. The
stations are 30 years old and nothing has been done to them. We are going to do an in-depth structural
analysis to make sure the station is structurally sound to continue operations. We will make sure the pumps were not
incapacitated during storm situations, the motors are working, the electrical
is there and there is enough security at the site. We are looking at the entire site.
Mr. Hulett asked do you anticipate
this costing more than $30,000?
Mr. Colussy responded no. The only item not on the work authorization
is the $3,600 dive report.
Mr. Hulett stated I think this has
been done.
Mr. Colussy stated correct. I received a copy of it this morning but have
not had a chance to review it.
Mr. Hulett stated I had an
opportunity to visit the new pump stations with Mr. Selchan. One of my observations was the security is
definitely an issue. The fences need to
be replaced. Anyone can climb over them
and access the building. I certainly want
to hear a recommendation for the security fences for both pump stations. We do not want to make it easy for people to
have access.
Mr. Colussy stated security is
definitely a problem. On some of the
stations the doors were rusted and it was easy for someone to break in.
Mr. Hulett asked do these engines
turn on once a month or every other month?
Mr. Hyche responded every other
month.
Mr. Hulett asked is everything
currently working?
Mr. Colussy responded on Pump
Station 1 there was a problem with the controller and we could not get the
engine started. I think this has since
been repaired.
Mr. Hulett asked as part of your
report, will you bring back a cost comparison of going to an electrical type of
system versus what we currently have?
Mr. Colussy responded yes. This is what the additional $5,000 is for.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hulett seconded by Ms. Macomber with all in favor Work
Authorization #WA-4 Amended for Stormwater Pump Stations 1 & 2 with
CH2M-Hill in the amount of $30,000 was approved.
Mr. Colussy stated in regards to the
tree removal project, I have a map of the District as of this date. We meet every Monday morning with the
contractor, Mr. Selchan, staff and our field monitors. The map identifies in green the following
areas completed to date:
• Northeast
corner of Sunshine (Riverside Drive)
• East
outfall canal
• Sawgrass
Canal from Sample south
In orange are areas being worked on
this week. Hopefully they will make good
progress. We will see next Monday how
much work is completed. Everything in
blue is not in the contract. The work
has been proceeding. There were some
complaints but to some degree, everything has been amicably resolved with the
residents. For the most part, the
contractor is doing a good job and following exactly what we are asking him to
do.
Ms. Selchan asked are the residents
happy with what we are doing?
Mr. Selchan responded we only
received a couple of minor complaints about the path the workers were taking
and a couple of incidents with the tree removal. In one instance, they actually cut the wrong
tree but it was resolved. Everyone seems
to be satisfied with the way the incidents were resolved. I had more people calling about one specific
tree.
Ms. Macomber stated how interesting.
Mr. Colussy stated I have some
before and after pictures of the east outfall canal and the canal along the
Sawgrass Expressway going north. The removal
of the Australian Pines makes a big difference.
Mr. Hulett asked Mr. Selchan, are
you happy with what is occurring with this project?
Mr. Selchan responded yes. They are doing a good job.
Mr. DaSilva stated at this time, Mr.
Bohorguez is going to present the Hydrologic model to the Board.
Mr. Hulett asked is this part of the
work authorization?
Mr. DaSilva responded the previous
work authorization.
Mr. Bohorguez stated a couple of
months ago I presented a report to the Board on the District 30 years ago and
we were authorized to prepare a drainage study.
The entire District was divided into two different basins; the east and
west basin. Each basin works
individually with Pump Stations 1 and 2, which pumps water two miles down to
the C-14 Canal. We had a different land
use for 2007 but it was necessary for us to see the new land use for the residential
business parts. The entire District is
fully developed. We are also taking into
consideration the pumps installed eight years ago. It was necessary for us to consider all the
pumps in the District and in the drainage system.
To develop a good model, we contacted
local authorities like the National Weather Service and SFWMD to obtain all
historical data for the drainage. We
divided the District into 57 sub-basins to take into consideration a closer
distribution of the houses, streets and canals.
We discovered we have 35 acres of water surface, 281 acres of roadway
and 461 acres of residential area within the west basin. Once we included all of this information into
the model, we considered all types of running water out of the District to the
pump stations. After running the model
we found the elevation in the east basins for the road was exceeded by an inch to
an inch and a half for the 10 year storm.
We also ran a model for the 100 year storm and found some problems.
In order to prevent flooding, we
concluded there were some areas where the lakes and canals were too shallow and
needed to be dredged to have a better flow system. Based on the outcome of the computer model,
the original calculations were correct but they were done 30 years ago. Even though we have a couple of problems on
the west basin, we have to take into consideration each subdivision has excess
storage, which we are not considering in this model. This will assist us in the event we have flooding
problems. In addition, we are recommending
yearly inspections of the culverts to ensure they are clear of debris and
silt. This is what Mr. Selchan referred
to earlier. We strongly recommend
District personnel help identify areas of concern. We considered the possibility of installing interconnects
between the east and west basins but after speaking with Mr. Selchan, it is not
beneficial at this time.
Mr. Hulett asked are you saying in
the 100 year/72 hour storm, the canal water will go over the banks with the
current flow system?
Mr. DaSilva responded the guideline
is 11.9”. This area had tested at
11.68”, which is an inch higher than the allowable. This means under the 100 year event, you may
get an extra inch of water. In other
words, if you have a house with a finished floor of 11.5”, they will get an
inch of water in their house. Then
again, you have to consider each development has their own storage for
drainage, which has not been accounted for on the model because we have to
survey the entire District to get an accurate measurement. Part of the recommendation is to keep all the
culverts clear and dredge all canals. We
found debris in some of the canals. As
long as we keep these canals clear and in service, we should be able to
minimize any impact. By adding an extra
pipe or larger pipe on the connection, you can minimize the impact.
Mr. Hulett asked did you come up
with these projections by looking at the culverts?
Mr. DaSilva responded we had
as-builts for the entire District identifying sizes of pipes, canal areas, the location
of the pipes and all pervious and impervious areas within the District. This will create a flow of discharge through
the pipes to discharge through the pump stations. At the same time you are pulling this water, you
can see where your low point is going to be because this is where your pump
station is. It starts building up as you
go further into the system.
Mr. Hulett stated for the benefit of
the audience, Pump Station 1 is at the corner of Royal Palm Boulevard in back
of the Presbyterian Church. Pump Station
2 is behind Taravella High School along the C-14 Canal. We actually pump through CSID to get to Pump Station
2.
Mr. DaSilva stated you will have
head losses but this can be minimized by adding an extra pipe. The readings of 11.8” and 11.5” show a head
loss connection.
Mr. Hulett stated not being a
professional engineer, this does not sound bad.
Mr. DaSilva stated we do not have
the finished floor elevation for each house.
If they are higher than 11.5” and we are at 12”, this means 90% of the
houses are at 12”.
Mr. Hulett stated the biggest rain
event I can recall in almost 30 years was in March of 1979 when we had 16” of
rain in 24 hours. I was in the process
of purchasing my house and looked to see what condition the canals behind my
house were in. The water was not even
close to overflowing. I do not think we
have had anything like that since but it would be good to know this information
if we ever had a 100 year rain event.
Ms. Macomber asked what is the next
step in the process? Is it up to the
engineers to figure out which canals need to be dredged?
Mr. Selchan responded yes. We want to make sure there are no high spots
on any of the pipe elevations from the water.
We know they exist but this does not mean we cannot pump water. We can pump water but we want to make it more
efficient. We want to find and eliminate
high spots in the system so we have a nice efficient flow when we start the
pumps. If we had a rain storm, it will sheet
flow out and go to an area where it is flowing maximum so we do not have any
problems. In a worst case scenario, we
will have the best efficient system we can provide.
Mrs. Macomber asked has this report
been helpful to you?
Mr. Selchan responded
absolutely. I am glad we are doing this
as the information needs to be presented to the Board so they can act on
it. Believe it or not, we have taken the
first step by removing the trees growing around the waterway as a lot of debris
and liter from the trees piles up in the waterways and generates siltration and
plant matter. Once we clear those out,
we are going to redo the study. If we
dredge to the bottom of the pipe elevations to the best we can, then we have
made it as efficient as the way it was designed. If there is a design flaw, Mr. DaSilva and
his staff will find it for us.
Mr. Hulett asked why are we now just
getting around to cleaning out culverts and taking down high spots? Were we in a position to do this over the
past five to ten years?
Mr. Selchan responded cleaning
culverts has been something we have always done. We checked them on an annual basis to see
what needs to be done and cleaned them out.
I have not been employed long enough in my position to answer why they
have not been dug out. When I started
here, some areas were dug up, annually but they have much different access now. Thirty years ago, most of these areas were
not developed and there was easy access for equipment. Since then, access has become fairly
limited. It has been a difficult
process. I think money may have been a
problem.
Mr. DaSilva stated all of these
large storms created these problems.
Mr. Selchan stated big storms pick
up a lot of material and move it into the waterway. Due to the drought, you are seeing many of
the debris you may not normally see.
Mr. Hulett stated regardless of what
did or did not happen in the past, moving water is critically important to the
proper functioning of this infrastructure should we have a 100 year event.
Mr. Selchan stated correct.
Mr. Michaud asked can I get an
explanation on why it is beneficial to connect the east and west basin?
Mr. DaSilva responded after talking with Mr. Selchan, this was only a suggestion. The seepage in each basin is tremendous and there is no differential in the water elevations. I do not think the District will get a benefit out of it. This may be something the city may want to add