MINUTES
OF MEETING
CORAL
SPRINGS
IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the
Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on
Present and constituting a quorum
were:
Bob Fennell President
William J. Eissler Vice
President (by phone)
Glen Hanks Secretary
Also present were:
Michael Pawelczyk Attorney
Doug Hyche District
Staff
Jean Rugg
Ilana Rabone
John McKune Engineer
Ed Flavin Engineer
Cedo DaSilva Engineer
Mr.
Fennell called the meeting to order and Mr. Petty called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of
the March 20, 2006 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member
received a copy of the
Mr. Pawelczyk stated I have a
correction on page 35. In the first
line, “I need to confirm with the Board that CSID funds are”, the word “not”
should be added. In the third sentence,
the word “enequivitable” should be “unequivitable”.
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr.
Hanks with all in favor the minutes of the
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Consideration
of Change Orders
A. Change
Order No. 1 with GIC Water Systems for Pump Retrieval from Well 2 and Fill
Removal from Wells 2 & 3 for a Net Increase of $5,920
B. Change
Order No. 2 with GIC Water Systems for Cone Strainer Retrieval from Well 1 and
Replacement of 230 Volt Electric Motors with 460 Volt Electric Motors at Wells
2 & 3 for a Net Increase of $7,500
Mr. Hyche
stated these are change orders for wells 2 and 3. A screen broke loose in well 1. When well 2 was
videotaped it fell off its casing and dropped to the bottom, which had to be
retrieved.
Mr. Hanks asked is this part of our
ongoing contract which was bid through competitive bidding?
Mr. Hyche
responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated this is typical of
what you find in these wells.
Mr. Hanks asked when we put out our
budget and looking at the projects, did we put in a 10% contingency?
Mr. Petty responded for budgeting
purposes only. Normally we have a contingency
in our budgeting of 10%, usually the engineers want
15%.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor Change Order No. 1 with GIC Water
Systems for Pump Retrieval from Well 2 and Fill Removal from Wells 2 & 3
for a Net Increase of $5,920 and Change Order No. 2 with GIC Water Systems for
Cone Strainer Retrieval from Well 1 and Replacement of 230 Volt Electric Motors
with 460 Volt Electric Motors at Wells 2 & 3 for a Net Increase of $7,500
were approved.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Amendment 1 to Work Authorization No.
WA-25 for Phase 2 Wastewater Plant Improvements
Mr. McKune
stated some months ago, the Board approved the original Work Authorization No.
25 to design some sludge thickening and digestion facilities along with the
replacement of some pumps at Effluent Pump Station 1. This pump station was built 20 years
ago. We started these jobs and soon then
after had a hurricane. Since that time
we realized there were some activities, although on the capital improvement
program for subsequent work, needed to be kicked up in the schedule and
provided now. Hopefully we will get the
work completed before the next hurricane season. One example is the additional fuel
storage. These amendment items are those
we feel should be provided in the current project and simply updated and moved
up in the schedule from your original capital improvement program. Item one is to provide a new effluent pump to
Pump Station 1, identical to the existing pumps in the newer Pump Station
2. This would now allows
for 100% redundancy in the pumping operation.
Included with the new pump is the necessary rehab of the 20 year old
instruction, control and piping systems.
We will end up with a reworked and new pump station which increases greatly
our disposal reliability.
Mr. Hanks asked are these the deep
injection pumps?
Mr. McKune
responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked is
this in compliance with the Florida Code as far as the backup material?
Mr. McKune
responded yes. The second item is to replace
a hazardous metal walkway across the chlorine contact tank and install piping
interconnects for the new pump station configuration. This is a relatively minor item. When you walked on the old metal walkway, you
had to put your feet on the outside.
Mr. Hanks asked has it deteriorated?
Mr. McKune
responded somewhat. Item three is to
provide new hurricane-resistant CBS building for storage of hazardous chemicals
and spare mechanical parts for the water plant.
During the last hurricane, many of these hazardous chemicals were stored
in an old metal building that fortunately did not blow away.
Mr. Fennell asked what were these
chemicals for?
Mr. McKune
responded for the canals.
Mr. Petty stated to remove aquatic
vegetation. There is Rodeo, Cutrine and 24D.
Mr. McKune
stated some are considered hazardous.
Mr. Petty stated they are tagged
that way. They are permitted chemicals
but hazardous to get into the water stream without going through a
process. The purpose is to replace a
steal building that is 15 to 20 years old.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the cost for
the new building?
Mr. McKune
responded $75,000.
Mr. Petty stated the criteria on
these holding facilities changed over the last 15 years.
Mr. Hyche
stated since it is a wellfield, there would have to
be special containment.
Mr. Petty stated total containment
of all chemicals stored. They have to be
contained within the building.
Mr. Fennell asked where are they
currently held?
Mr. McKune
responded in a tin building at the south end of the wastewater plant.
Mr. Petty stated the building is the
size of a two car garage. It is a pre-fab metal building that is fairly sound.
Mr. Fennell asked is it in the wellfield area?
Mr. Hyche
responded yes.
Mr. Petty stated but we have wellfields onsite.
Mr. Hyche
stated our entire site is in a wellfield.
Mr. Fennell stated then we have no
other choice to put the building.
Mr. Hyche
stated we may not end up with a zone three wellfield. I already spoke to SFWMD Water Use Division.
Mr. Hanks stated we should think
about this when it comes time for our fuel storage.
Mr. Petty stated currently fuel
storage is underground. Is the next
phase going to be above ground?
Mr. McKune
responded there is an existing tank above ground in back of the pump within a
containment area. All of the new tanks
will be double long. There is one tank
that will be under a new generator. Item
four is to provide a new covered parking area or rain shelter for temporary
storage of the large 40 cubic yard trailers containing dewatered sludge to
prevent re-liquification, leakage and odor
generation.
Item five is to provide truck and
trailer drive-through capability at the sludge dewatering building to prevent
sludge hauling bottleneck. Currently
when these trailers are parked under the building, they fill up and have to
back up. There is no way to drive
straight through. The problem is the
hauler we have a contract with will not, cannot and does not come out to pick
these trucks up. We have been trying to
get him to come out but he refuses to do so.
This will let these trucks maneuver better to get these pull trailers
out of the way so we can put an empty trailer in and continue operations.
Mr. Fennell stated the solution is
we will move them to another spot.
Mr. McKune
stated we will put them under a range and they can remain there.
Mr. Hanks asked will another service
provider perform a better service?
Mr. McKune
responded possibly but this is hurricane related. When you are about to have a hurricane, no
one is going to come out here and haul sludge.
I would like to have a place to put these items, plus it helps normal
operations.
The sixth item is to provide a truck
loading station to discharge liquid sludge into tanker trucks. This will allow continued disposal of solids
during potential periods of mechanical failures within the digestion
system. This system is nothing more than
an extension of a piece of pipe leading to where the trailers are. It looks like an elephant truck dumped into a
tank. It is no big deal.
Mr. Hanks asked have there been
issues before?
Mr. McKune
responded not recently but there was a time when we had to go for literally
months on liquid sludge because of a breakdown in the digestive system.
Mr. Hyche
stated if the land application areas are under water, H&H is not allowed to
apply the materials until it dries out.
Mr. Petty asked if they cannot take
the sludge out, how do they take the liquid out?
Mr. Hyche
responded the liquid is put into a sewer tank.
Mr. Petty stated if the fields are
flooded, you have to go further than that for a wastewater treatment plant to
take the solid.
Mr. Hyche
stated true.
Mr. Petty stated I operated plants
myself where I had to take liquid because of some breakdown. We have the one press and thickener. All we need is for one of them to break. Unless we change how we grow the bacteria,
the only other option is to take off liquids.
This is a minimal cost and gives the operators another advantage.
Mr. McKune
stated item seven is to reconfigure the 1.0 MG lined effluent storage prone to
allow for both maintenance of storage volume in the pond and placement of the
new sludge truck drive-through access road.
It will simply reconfigure the south end of the plant.
Item eight is to improve the paving
and drainage of the wastewater plant access road and provide site drainage to
carry stormwater away from the south blower
building. Flooding has been a chronic
concern at the south end of the wastewater treatment plant. The drainage provided on-site has done well
in this vicinity as well as in front of the water plant but south of the curb
is non-existent. It was originally envisioned
to be sheet flowed down to the canal. We
now have the berm and put in at one time a small
outflow pipe so everything flows into the canal. In regards to number nine, we need to install
a new outfall pipe into the L-104 canal with an upstream baffled sediment
chamber to help reduce the pollutant discharge.
Mr. Hanks stated the likely
pollutants that occur will be oils and sediment.
Mr. McKune
stated the 10th item is to provide improved site lighting for
enhanced operational safety. This
represents half a dozen site lights to light up some of the pump areas that
right now are marginal at best. Number
11 is to provide an additional 18,000 gallons of fuel storage which brings the
total amount stored on-site to 35,000 gallons.
This should give us what we need.
We are pulling this item out of the big job. I would like to get the Board’s authority to
do this by change order to make sure we have this additional fuel on-site in
the shortest amount of time possible. This involves the purchase of tanks and erect them with no
power involved. This is gravity
drainage.
Mr. Petty stated you are talking
about keeping it in your work authorization but put it out for separate bid so
it can be expedited without the larger contract. Is this correct?
Mr. McKune
responded a separate job without the larger contract. I would like to do this with change orders as
opposed to a bid.
Mr. Petty stated I agree. I think it should be expedited.
Mr. Hanks stated if the District is
procuring these tanks, they need to be out for competitive bid.
Mr. Petty stated we bid anything
above $4,000.
Mr. Pawelczyk stated a change order
is not an amendment to the contract. It
is for unforeseen conditions. The
additional work in the contract provides for the additional work element. Often times we can do that but the contractor
needs to show competitive prices on the storage tank. I can look at it.
Mr. McKune
stated I understand. This is the
standard contract we always had on-site.
Whenever we add items by change order, we agree with the contractor on
the price and then award the change order.
Mr. Petty stated your intent is to
have this expedited. We can take action
on the work authorization. He gave us
the indications; we nodded our heads and told him we like the idea. Some specifics will have to be discussed but
we can move on.
Mr. McKune
stated item 12 is to provide a new 1,000 KW engine/generator set to replace the
20 year old high maintenance unit currently in the facility of the north lower
building. By providing this 1,000 KW
unit, we will also be able to put this building on the emergency power system.
Mr. Fennell asked what size do we
currently have?
Mr. McKune
responded 750 KW.
Mr. Hanks asked what are doing with
the high maintenance unit?
Mr. Petty responded Mr. McKune thinks we may have a buyer in
Mr. McKune
stated in
Mr. Petty stated it would be declared
surplus by the engineer and if anyone bid on it, we take the highest bid. If it was not bid upon, it would be
considered whatever you get for salvage.
Mr. Hanks asked can we utilize it
elsewhere in the plant or is it not worth it?
Mr. McKune
responded I would not recommend that.
Mr. Petty stated the issue is it has
gotten so hard to service this unit and it has become unreliable.
Mr. Hyche
stated parts are no longer manufactured for this unit.
Mr. Petty stated the facility is
working fine currently. How long it will
last depends on the part. When it
breaks, it is busted.
Mr. Fennell asked what are you requesting?
Mr. McKune
responded approval of this amendment so we can finish preparing the plans and
specifications to make these additions part of the bid construction package.
Mr. Fennell stated the only one you
want to expedite through is the diesel fuel.
Mr. Petty stated this is for a work authorization
for the engineer to do the specifications.
We are not at the point of doing the bid.
Mr. Eissler
asked awhile back, did we approve the diesel fuel storage tanks?
Mr. Petty responded in concept the
Board directed staff to do this but it has not come before you formally to
approve any costs. The engineering cost is
the first step. It was the Board’s idea.
Mr. Fennell stated it says the costs
will not exceed $160,000. Whose costs?
Mr. McKune
responded your expense to be paid to us to do this work.
Mr. Eissler
stated all 12 items. Correct?
Mr. McKune
responded yes.
Mr. Petty stated typically when we
pay these lump sum numbers, we like to stay in a certain percentage range that
is acceptable in the industry, which is 7.5%.
We are looking for Mr. McKune to provide an
update so the Board knows they are on the plus or minus side of that
figure.
Mr. Fennell stated he charges us his
rates anyway.
Mr. McKune
stated we charge our contract hourly rates.
Mr. Fennell asked what is your
estimated construction cost?
Mr. McKune
responded $5,000,000.
Mr. Hanks asked how long do you
think it will take to wrap these items up?
Mr. McKune
responded another month at the most. It
is a big job and it will be out for bid for two months. It will take another month to get the
contractor lined up and give him the Notice to Proceed.
Mr. Hanks asked does the $160,000
include contract administration?
Mr. McKune
responded no.
Mr. Petty stated the $160,000 is the
upfront cost. The engineers put in a
great deal of hours to date.
Mr. Fennell asked do you agree with
what they are doing?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked is the scope
consistent with the fee being charged?
Mr. Petty responded this is what I
want to make sure we are all comfortable with.
I asked Mr. McKune to tell me it is below 7.5%
because that is my maximum. Anything
above that is above the industry standard.
I am comfortable it is within scope.
This is above the scope of a capital improvement program. Almost everything on this list is due to the
impact we felt after Hurricane Wilma, either directly related to the storm and
the concerns we had during the storm and the perception of the public
afterwards and response of our vendors.
This is why we want to have places to hide the sludge underneath tarps
so they do not get wet. We may have
multiple trailers sitting back there for periods of time. That is why we want diesel and the
reliability so our residents know they can count on us.
Mr. Hanks stated you have gone back
and revisited the capital improvement projects in light of recent developments
and reprioritized items.
Mr. Petty stated that is why I said
it is outside the norm. I will be
working with Mr. McKune on the capital improvement
program.
Mr. Fennell stated it makes sense to
me.
On MOTION by
Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor
Work Authorization No. WA-25 Amendment 1 for Phase 2 Wastewater Plant
Improvements in an amount not to exceed $160,000 was approved.
SEVENTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Consideration of
Permit Requests
A.
Right-of-Way
& Surface Water Management Permit for Expansion of Sawgrass
Expressway to Six Lanes from
Mr. Fennell asked I thought we
approved this request at a prior meeting.
Mr. Hyche
responded NSID, CSID and Sunshine are involved with the Sawgrass
Expressway widening.
Mr. Petty stated we mentioned this
item may come before the Board. I do not
think the Board actually saw the permit but we knew it was coming. I will defer to the engineer for
recommendations. We discussed this
matter on the staff level this afternoon.
It appears this was already anticipated in the first permit approved
conceptually. This is an as-built or
intended design coming to you. Some
concerns have been raised and staff will be looking at the items discussed this
afternoon. I believe it is the
engineer’s recommendation for approval for this permit at this time.
Mr. Hanks stated at one point in
time it was questioned whether the Sawgrass
Expressway was even falling in our District boundary. Is it within the District boundary?
Mr. DaSilva
responded I think it is just outside of the District boundary but there are two
control structures, one of which discharges into CSID that existed in the
original construction of the expressway in 1985. The original construction was very
interesting.
Mr. Fennell asked who has the canal
next to the dyke on the west side of the pump station?
Mr. Petty responded SFWMD.
Mr. Fennell stated this is the canal
Mr. Eissler lives off of.
Mr. Eissler
responded that is the on the east side of the Sawgrass
Expressway.
Mr. Hanks asked do they discharge to
the east?
Mr. Eissler
responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked are there control
structures above their predicted 100 year flood? I am hypothesizing they would not be
providing 100 year storage.
Mr. DaSilva
responded they show storage and swale areas right off of the roadway. The storage goes up to elevation 12.
Mr. Fennell stated they are going to
widen the roadway with guardrails and installation of noise barrier walls. Where will the walls go?
Mr. DaSilva
responded along the right-of-way on the east side of the road, just west of the
canal.
Mr. Hanks asked will this impact our
maintenance ability?
Mr. Fennell responded yes.
Mr. Eissler
stated it should not impact our maintenance.
The wall will go on the west side of the ficus
hedge where the berm is. The surveyors are out putting the stakes up.
Mr. Fennell asked is it going to go
on the berm or before it?
Mr. Hyche
responded five feet from the right-of-way line.
Mr. Eissler
stated it should not affect anything as far as getting on the berm.
Mr. Flavin
stated the berm elevation is shown in cross sections.
Mr. Hanks stated my concern is if
this was not accounted for in the original permit and if they are not providing
storage for the 100 year storm, they are pushing water onto the rest of us.
Mr. Flavin
stated there is a 15 foot high wall.
Mr. Eissler
stated the wall is going to be 12 feet to 15 feet. The homeowners just received a letter in the
mail.
Mr. Fennell stated you are probably
our number one representative out of that area.
What is the feeling of your constituency?
Mr. Eissler
responded they look forward to the wall.
They want the wall. Right now
thanks to Wilma, we have no trees. It is
like living on the expressway.
Mr. Hanks asked do the standards
comply with the storage requirements for the 100 year storm?
Mr. DaSilva
responded yes. I can show you the cross
sections. The weir elevations are 10
feet. They only do 10 year analyses’.
Mr. Hanks stated if this was a
development project, they would have to demonstrate they were providing
sufficient storage to meet the criteria listed in our Permit Criteria Manual at
certain elevations based on the acres of open space.
Mr. DaSilva
stated they would provide that. As a
matter of fact, they hold storage offsite for 10 years and do not discharge
onto the property.
Mr. Flavin
stated the inlet and swale is at elevation 10.80.
Mr. Hanks asked did they model the
100 year flood?
Mr. Flavin
responded no.
Mr. Hanks stated so we do not know
in the 100 year flood how much water they are putting into our canals.
Mr. Petty asked how can an entity outside of our District drain into us?
Mr. DaSilva
responded I do not know whether the right-of-way was given to them in the
original construction. There may be an
agreement with the original permit.
Mr. Petty stated in the past this
District has always been very strong about supporting the legislature that said
District boundaries cannot be violated by Statue. An agreement would not cut it. Boundaries are boundaries. Mr. Gary Moyer, my predecessor, this Board
and his predecessors have been very strong about protecting those District
functions. I was surprised the Sawgrass Expressway was able to come in if it is outside of
our boundaries. If it is inside of our
boundaries, of course it should. Are we
sure it is outside of our boundaries?
Mr. DaSilva
responded yes.
Mr. Fennell asked why didn’t they go
in the canal on the opposite side?
Mr. DaSilva
responded they do but they go into the canal in two locations through two control
structures.
Mr. Petty stated I am going to pull
back what I said earlier when I said staff was supporting approval. We would like to pull any approval at this
time. I have been in other District
bodies where state roads drained into them and caused flooding. I do not wish to be part of that again.
Mr. Fennell stated the goal of most
state roads is for them to stay afloat.
I can understand the goal but not when the water is flowing in my
direction.
Mr. Petty stated it sounds like the
Board needs more time on this.
Mr. DaSilva
stated we can go back and have the consultant analyze the 100 year flood. We only analyze the 10 year flood at
roads. The question is how much flow
they will be discharging on the 100 year flood that can affect the District’s
ability to protect our residents.
Mr. Hanks asked if we approve a
connection from this state highway located outside of our District boundaries
into our District for stormwater purposes, what will
the impacts be?
Mr. Petty responded there is possibly
a legal issue but there are rules of various agencies like SFWMD. We may want to give Mr. Pawelczyk time to
investigate. Our permit is with SFWMD
and those boundaries are defined by that agency. By us breaching those boundaries going
outside and letting others come in, we may be in violation of the permit.
Mr. Hanks stated it may be a
condition whereby allowing other parties to come in and expend the boundaries, we have to be forced into a modification to SFWMD
as a District.
Mr. Petty stated statutorily we may
run into some issues, which Mr. Pawelczyk may need to look at.
Mr. Pawelczyk stated they went
through SFWMD for modification of their original permit.
Mr. DaSilva
stated where the control structures are is on jurisdictional lines of SFWMD.
Mr. Hanks asked do you mean wetlands
jurisdictional?
Mr. DaSilva
responded in the area where the control structure is.
Mr. Hanks stated it is not our
jurisdictional area or SFWMD, but it is referencing jurisdictional wetlands.
Mr. DaSilva
stated as a storage area as well. Maybe
they have storage there and discharging on a 10 flood stage.
Mr. Fennell stated 10 years is
nothing. If we are using 10 year
criteria, that is a low criteria for us.
Mr. DaSilva
stated when you designed the roads, you designed them
for 10 years.
Mr. Hanks asked if I was putting in
a roadway in
Mr. DaSilva
responded the purpose of the road is for 10 year storage. You do not have any buildings there.
Mr. Flavin
stated we can call our consultant to find out.
Mr. DaSilva
stated we do not have any encroachment.
Mr. Hanks stated if I was building a
parking lot, I could say, “I am providing for 10 year storage” and forget about
doing anything as far as 100 year.
Mr. DaSilva
stated I am not saying to forget about the 100 year, but for this purpose, we should
because it is in our best interest for the 100 year to not exceed an allowable
discharge. A certain discharge might
affect the District’s ability to function.
For 110 year flood, they do not discharge anything. There is zero discharge in front of facilities
under 10 year and under, but you have control discharge from the 10 year to 100
year.
Mr. Hanks stated based on their
application, we are talking about 286 acres of land.
Mr. DaSilva
stated that is the entire project. Our
section is only a third of the total acreage.
Mr. Petty asked if the Board does
not take any action on this permit tonight, are we going to cause substantial
harm to the expansion of the Sawgrass Expressway so
we have time to consider this matter? If
not, I suggest we do so and direct staff the analysis you are asking for.
Mr. Fennell asked what do you call
10 year rainfall?
Mr. DaSilva
responded 9.5 inches.
Mr. Fennell stated every 10 years we
are going to get up to 10 inches of rain.
Mr. DaSilva
stated there is a 10% chance every give year.
Mr. Fennell stated 15 inches was
recorded over Pompano. We can get 15
inches in my lifetime and we have. If we
get 15 inches of rain, how much additional rain will this area need to reach
the 100 year flood and can we handle it?
We are going to get those 15 inches.
Mr. Hanks responded this leads into
a meeting I had immediately prior to this where I met with representatives of
CH2M-Hill and Mr. Petty to discuss the stormwater
management issues and get more into the technical aspects. We identified the criteria we are permitting
is 30 years old.
Mr. Fennell stated 32 years old.
Mr. Petty stated certainly not
as-built conditions.
Mr. Hanks stated I feel it is time
to request the District Engineer revisit the stormwater
management system for the District, estimate the build-out condition and model
the District to see how well we are complying with the permit criteria. We also need to see if there are any changes
we need to make to accommodate redevelopment.
Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like a
good idea.
Mr. Hanks stated if we are looking
at bringing in additional runoff onto our site, we need to determine whether
this additional area will create a hardship and whether we have the capacity to
handle it.
Mr. Fennell stated I understand
where you are going and we will continue this discussion.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the right-of-way and surface
water management permit request for expansion of the Sawgrass
Expressway to six lanes from
B. Surface Water Management Permit for
Wal-Mart Store at
Mr. Petty stated I recommend
approval of this permit. My
understanding is this is the Wal-Mart Grocery Store they intend to open in
Mr. Fennell asked where is this located?
Mr. Petty responded
Mr. Flavin
stated they are doing some minor modifications to the building to bring it up
to Wal-Mart standards, but they are keeping all of the existing drainage
systems. I asked under the special
conditions they have it cleaned and tested as part of the permit.
Mr. Fennell stated they are taking
up any additional parking.
Mr. Petty stated every inch of the
parking lot is paved.
Mr. Hanks asked are they maintaining
the storage they currently have?
Mr. Flavin
responded yes. Everything is the same.
Mr. Petty stated you are asking them
to inspect and clean all existing systems.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the stormwater
management permit request for the Wal-Mart Store at
EIGHTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Award of Contract for the Purchase of a
Mr. Fennell asked is the equipment
different?
Mr. Hyche
responded no.
Mr. Hanks asked have you used either
of these companies before?
Mr. Petty responded I am familiar
with Express Radio but I am not familiar with Industrial Communications.
Mr. Hyche
stated Industrial offers a three year warranty.
Mr. Fennell asked on the equipment?
Mr. Hyche
responded yes, on the equipment and installation.
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Hanks
with all in favor the contract for the mobile radio system was awarded to
Industrial Communications in the amount of $16,597.64.
Mr. Hanks asked what about the
satellite phones?
Mr. Hyche
responded we purchased three.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Hurricane Debris Removal
and Canal Bank Restoration Status
Mr. Fennell asked what is the status
of the tree removal project?
Mr. McKune
responded we should have complete vegetation removal in three weeks.
Mr. Fennell stated one area I was
impressed by was the canal going under the mall on
Mr. Petty responded no. Mr. Dan Daly has been handling all of the
calls. There were quite a few calls but
most of them were from people who are very happy to have the trees down. We have a few people testing our abilities
who want free irrigation systems. One
caller wanted compensation because they took the tree out themselves before we
got there. As a rule, it has been very
positive. We had some small issues with
notification so we can stay ahead of them with our door hangers. However, all of the calls have been
workable. Only less than 10 calls had to
come to me since we started construction.
I consider this to be a very good program.
Mr. Fennell stated that is pretty
good considering what we thought might happen.
They are almost complete with the east block and they are starting the
west block. Did you ever receive a copy
of their schedule?
Mr. McKune
responded the latest completion schedule is four weeks out. We have weekly meetings so we know where they
are going to be that week and the next week.
Mr. Fennell asked does it look like
we will be substantially completed by mid-May?
Mr. McKune
responded the end of May. All of the
vegetation is gone. The remaining work
is the bank restoration and sod replacement.
Mr. Fennell stated I attended
another meeting at City Hall a couple of weeks ago. We received an award for the waterway
cleanup. I accepted the award on the
Board’s behalf. There is a new mayor and
staff at City Hall. Although many people
changed positions, the fact we had people out and you can see movement was very
positive to them. I volunteered a couple
of times to serve on a Common Tree Committee.
Mr. Petty stated good.
Mr. Fennell stated my parting note
was “I am here and want to serve with you so we can plant the types of trees we
want”. They know we are interested and we
are receptive at this point. We need to
define what trees we will plant and where.
I think our current relationship with them is good. I do not know if they have been receiving any
complaints. I suspect the letter took
care of that with the right phone number for them to call. Have you knowledge about any residents
calling the city?
Mr. Petty responded a couple of
weeks ago we received a call from the city about an issue and directed them to
bring the call straight to us. For all
we know, all the calls are coming straight to us. I do not think the city is receiving any
phone calls.
Mr. Fennell stated it looks like we
are making good progress. From looking
at the canals around my house, it looks much better. The canals look better than they have in
years from a waterflow issue.
Mr. Hanks stated I am happy with how
things are going.
Mr. Fennell stated at this time, we
should discuss what we want to do regarding an operable policy for trees along
the banks. We discussed this matter at
the last meeting and we received documentation from Mr. Petty on two
alternatives; no bushes or trees around the banks or ornamental trees around
the banks. We have not yet defined what
“ornamental” means.
Mr. Petty stated this is part of
what you discussed on getting together with the city and coming up with a tree
policy. I am trying to get some comments
from the city. I am pleased to find out
you are on the committee.
Mr. Fennell stated I
volunteered.
Mr. Petty stated as you know, they have a canopy program where they want the front
yard to be planted and we are saying, “you have to be careful about the back
yard”.
Mr. Fennell stated they had an
Arborist who attended the last City Hall meeting. He made recommendations on the type of trees
they want to plant. However, I do not
know whether he looked at this from the standpoint of canals. I think he looked at it from the standpoint
of restoring the trees, giving back our canopy, etc.
Mr. Petty stated the City Manager
offered this gentleman’s services.
Mr. Fennell stated from an
engineering standpoint, we need to say, “here is what
we need”.
Mr. Hanks stated we need
understanding from the tree company on how different trees perform during
storms. Do we need to monitor certain
trees?
Mr. Fennell asked why do we need to
cut down these trees and what happens if we do not cut them down? The engineer is going to look at this
again. What are the consequences? Did you have a meeting today?
Mr. Hanks responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated I have data
showing 10 inches of rain is the 10 year flood and 15 inches for the 50 year
flood and 17 inches or more for the 100 year flood. This is a standard fluid dynamic report.
Mr. McKune
stated it is a very scientific analysis.
Mr. Hanks stated the analysis was
done 30 years ago and did not benefit from computer models. The criteria used for some
of the districts was the best projection on what the city was going to
look like in 30 years. It may not be
completely accurate as to what actually took place.
Mr. Fennell stated there was a city
plan for each area. Mr. McKune did a comparison at one time. The only real change is a large part of the
plan actually turned out to be true, especially for the east basin. For the west basin, they forecasted the
higher density of housing than was there.
Mr. Hanks stated that may be the
case. They had several different
categories. We agreed there are enough
questions as to what the initial design assumptions were. Some of the calculations were based on a
water table or canal elevation that is not seen in our District, typically a
couple of feet higher than we maintain them.
Just by looking at it, you cannot quantify the ongoing affects. We should consider authorizing CH2M-Hill to
model CSID based on what we know how development has proceeded so far to try to
come up with an answer some of our questions, which is how much do we need to
pull the trees out of our right-of-way.
Once they have the model set up, they can create artificial blockages at
different points so we can see what the affects are. We can see what the affects are of bringing
runoff from a roadway.
Mr. Fennell asked do you have the
capability of making that kind of model?
Mr. McKune
responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated then I
agree. We can model the blockage issue
which will tell us from a scientific standpoint what kind of trees we can
afford to have down.
Mr. Petty stated this is a fairly
standard engineering process today. Our
system was built 30 years ago before these systems were available. If they were doing our systems today, they would
have built a computer model so they can look at the “what if” scenarios.
Mr. Fennell stated I think we should
do this because where I live, I have a fairly hefty flood insurance policy,
which I now understand is due to the flood charts originally prepared by
CH2M-Hill. I did some research trying to
figure out who has this information. As
far as I can see, SFWMD relies upon flood plain data originally prepared from
Gee & Jenson, which is now CH2M-Hill.
Mr. Hanks stated we can implement
any necessary measures to reduce the risk rather than going out blindly. I also think we should take a look at the
perimeter elevations for the 100 year flood.
We are relying on our capacity to pump into the C-14 canal. What does not appear to be included in those
calculations is if we receive in-flow from other districts.
Mr. Fennell stated this is a concern
I had. If I look at what happened in
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to take a
look at the C-14 canal?
Mr. Fennell responded if we are
doing a theoretical study we should test the integrity of all of the canals
around us to make sure they are working.
Our goal is to protect these two basins.
Mr. Petty stated we had great
success for over 30 years. The system
has done well under heavy duty circumstances.
We had those 15 inches plus rain within the last 10 years when a
Tropical Storm hit us in the 1990’s. We
were one of the few Districts in this area that did not flood, other than the
road flooding from the catch basins. We
have a great past. This District has
done a great job in maintaining that system.
The Board has done well in supervising it. It is time to update it and do exactly what
you said. Let’s get the computer models
done so we can do the “what if” scenario and the perimeter checks to see if any
of our outside berms have been cut down over 30
years. We should also check some of
these canal as-builts because the hydraulic analysis
map they have is 30 years old and does not match the as-built drawings. The first step is the engineer will come back
at the next meeting with a work authorization so you can get started.
Mr. Fennell stated SFWMD does not
have any data as they use our data.
Mr. McKune
stated it is up to us to convince them.
Mr. Hanks stated we are headed in
the right direction, seeing that we have new development in downtown
Mr. Petty stated people put in
patios which are more impervious.
Mr. Hanks stated we need to see what
happens with extra additions to houses such as extra bedrooms and converting a
two car garage into a three car garage.
Mr. Fennell stated you have a good
point. In a couple of months because of
the build-out around here, people will actually take the smaller houses, knock
them down and put in bigger houses because the land will be more valuable.
Mr. Eissler
stated absolutely. It is already
happening.
Mr. Fennell stated we will probably
get denser as we move forward. This is a
good time to look at the study. In my
neighborhood, there are people who are modifying their houses. There are two actions we need to take; first
is authorize the engineer to do the model.
We want to get this started as soon as possible because we were going to
take out more vegetation but we need the criteria to do so.
Mr. Petty stated if you would like
to consider this quicker, you can approve it with a number not to exceed. What is the estimate?
Mr. McKune
responded it depends on the extent of the survey data and the complexity of the
model.
Mr. Hanks stated we can get a price
from a surveyor.
Mr. Petty stated the survey company is
a separate company they will hire in-house.
Mr. Pawelczyk stated under their
contract, they can retain a subcontractor.
Mr. Hanks stated going out for an
RFP would not be the quickest way of procuring that information. As far as analyzing the coverage, we
discussed a couple of methodologies where you break it down and take some
samples off of the aerials.
Mr. Petty stated you may want to
have a not to exceed number for Phase 1 for the next 60 days. That way we know the engineer and surveyors
will be covered by that amount. They can
always come back and do the remainder.
Mr. McKune
stated for the first 60 days, the cost should be $25,000. If it is more, we will come back next month.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor CH2M-Hill was authorized to
implement the drainage study in an amount not to exceed $30,000 for the next 60
days.
Mr. Fennell stated this could have a
lot of implications.
Mr. Hanks stated it will help us
reach a decision based on the performance of that model.
Mr. Fennell stated at one time we
were talking about preventative maintenance.
Do we still perceive a rush to do this?
Mr. Petty responded to help the
trees?
Mr. Fennell responded yes, the ones
still there.
Mr. Petty stated financially speaking;
I cannot give you a reason to go because the cost of going in there quickly is
so high. We asked the engineer to put
out a bid. We had to persuade him
because he wanted to wait to get a better number. We wanted to give this Board a number for
what it would cost to enter into a contract arrangement to remove all of the trees still standing within the
right-of-way. That should be ready on
Friday. If the Board wants to consider
action, we can continue this meeting or you can wait and we will be happy to
transmit the information to you for your consideration at the next meeting.
Mr. Fennell asked do we need to
quickly make a decision?
Mr. Petty responded I do not have a
reason to tell you to hurry.
Mr. Hanks stated I do not think we
need to hurry.
Mr. Eissler
stated neither do I.
Mr. Fennell stated after seeing what
happened in another District, 75% of the removed trees were Australian Pines. The problems were the trees that fell
down. The Australian Trees behind the
shopping mall or the apartment buildings were dangerous. In looking at the trees behind the houses,
most of them are not that bad. The
problem was with the commercial interests who put up trees as screens and
forgot about them. We could have
probably pressured them to take them out.
Mr. Petty stated I agree because I
do not want to start a fight with these people.
Mr. Hanks asked for the Wal-Mart
permit, should we be imposing a condition on permits adjacent to canals
regarding the maintenance of trees?
Mr. Fennell responded yes.
Mr. Petty stated in this particular
case, the canal was cleared by us. It
runs north and south behind the outparcel
to the east of the supermarket. That is the
main Sunshine canal and those trees have been removed as a District program
four years ago.
Mr. Fennell stated we received calls
on that.
Mr. Petty stated the first time we
tried to remove them, the residents stood in front of their trees.
Mr. Hanks asked can you let Mr.
Lyles know we are interested in adding a condition of approval to development
permits relating to the maintenance of landscaping within our easement.
Mr. Petty stated it is totally
appropriate.
Mr. Fennell stated we are going to
have more criteria to the quality of water.
Mr. Petty stated the trees are not
part of the permit.
Mr. Hanks stated if we are removing
trees, we need to establish limits as to what we can and cannot request.
Mr. Flavin
stated we have special conditions on the permit.
Mr. Hanks stated we need a tree
protection ordinance. The question is
whether we have the authority to remove healthy trees without obtaining a
permit.
Mr. Pawelczyk stated Mr. Lyles can
go into this more but my understanding is you are interfering with the
operation by those trees.
Mr. Fennell asked when can we have
an answer?
Mr. Petty responded at our next
meeting, we will be considering the permit for the Sawgrass
Expressway. You will have to do a mini
study for it.
Mr. Fennell asked did anyone have a
chance to see whether or not my street is connected to the C-14 canal?
Mr. McKune
responded yes. There is no connection.
Mr. Fennell stated there used to be
a pipe.
Mr. DaSilva
stated it is the irrigation pipe.
Mr. Petty stated it is a subdivision
drain.
Mr. Fennell stated I recall seeing
one on the canal.
Mr. Petty asked does Taravella have a connection?
Mr. Fennell responded the school has
one but I think there is one on my street.
Mr. DaSilva
responded we looked into it and there is no connection.
Mr. Petty asked were
you able to do a site inspection or did you look at the plans?
Mr. DaSilva
responded I spoke to the engineer.
Mr. Fennell stated this is important
because if the C-14 gets too high, the water will come into the street.
Mr. DaSilva
asked which development?
Mr. Fennell responded Shadowood.
Mr. DaSilva
stated we can pull the original permit to look at it.
Mr. Fennell stated we just approved
a permit for Taravella. The real issue I have is if the water gets to
the height of the C-14, the water may backflow into Taravella.
Mr. Petty stated that is the “what
if” scenario.
Mr. McKune
asked when will you be done with the model?
Mr. DaSilva
responded next month we can give a better update. We will start right away.
Mr. McKune
stated we cannot do much until we receive the survey results.
Mr. Hanks stated we can model it
assuming we need the water elevations.
We can proceed independently of the Surveyor.
Mr. DaSilva
stated I can start by having someone take aerials and analyze sub-basins.
Mr. Hanks asked how will you check
the elevations?
We assumed the finished elevation was 11.5.
Mr. DaSilva
responded usually we have permits. We
can take the proposed plans.
Mr. Flavin
stated data collection is going to be the most time consuming.
Mr. Petty stated the engineers just
heard about this for the first time today and realize speed is of the
essence. As we are walking the field and
know a dyke is supposed to be elevation 11 and instead see a dip to elevation 8
we give this information to them and they will come back to us and we will
start construction. We will not wait
until the report is done four months later and highlight it. Let’s take it as we see it.
Mr. Fennell stated I want to make
sure it is high on the priority list.
Mr. Hanks is correct that this is a parallel type of system. Frankly, it is going to take some time to
complete the model. You need what is
there already and then you will come back with the data and modify the
model.
Mr. DaSilva
stated I will check with the city on the zoning criteria to see if it changed.
Mr. Hanks stated I do not think we
should get the city involved. Zoning
criteria can be changed by the City Commission.
Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like a
good plan. We will hold our decision and
what to do for the next meeting. We hope
to have some substantial input next month.
There is a time frame involved.
If we are going to do this type of criteria and work with the city, we
need to be putting this criteria forward now as
opposed from a year from now. The best
time to do this is now.
EIGHTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Attorney
There not being any, the next item
followed.
B. Engineer
There not being any, the next item
followed.
C. Manager
1. Monthly
Water & Sewer Charts
Mr. Eissler
stated the month water and sewer charts look very good.
Mr. Fennell stated water line loss
is down five percent. Do you know why?
Mr. Petty responded it is a good
mark not only on your utility field workers but also on your utility meter
readers and utility billing service people to be that close.
Mr. Fennell stated we are using
Sodium Hypochlorite as opposed Chlorine.
Mr. Petty stated liquid Chlorine
versus gas.
Mr. Fennell asked have there been
any comments since we changed over our water quality?
Mr. Petty responded no. The change was mostly for our safety issues
and DEP requirement.
2. Utility
Billing Work Orders
3. Complaints
Received/Resolved
There not being any, the next item
followed.
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor Requests and
Audience Comments
Mr. Fennell asked what is the status
of our audit?
Mr. Petty responded we spoke to our
auditors, specifically since they sent us a bill. They have been bombarded with work. They have given us some highlights on the
emergency management, which you are seeing now in the Work Authorizations. We asked the audit to come up with emergency
response capabilities. He met with the
engineer and staff and reviewed those capabilities.
Mr. Fennell stated I would like to
sit down with the auditor. Can you
schedule a meeting?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
ELEVENTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Approval of
February Financials and Check Registers
Mr. Hanks stated on the Water and
Sewer Fund, there are legal fees of $24,762 to Law Collins under “Under Current
Charges”.
Mr. Petty stated I will have to
check on that and bring it back to you.
It could be a personnel issue. We
hire outside counsel. Did we have an
issue with an operator where we used a separate attorney?
Mr. Hyche
responded one of our Field Operator’s hurt his knee. I do not know whether he sued the District. I know he was trying to get disability.
Mr. Fennell stated I noticed under
the Water and Sewer Fund, the prorated budget shows we are $400,000 less in
revenues than the expected. Do we know
why this is? Most of it is for the Water
Revenue.
Mr. Petty responded we are behind a
month to 45 days on the billing cycle. I
will check on that. This is what you are
going to see all year until the end of the year when you catch up. When the budget is approved, you cannot bill
for October until it is done, which makes us one month behind.
Mr. Fennell stated check to see
whether that is the case. What are we
going to do about the trees?
Mr. Petty responded we will be
asking the Board to approve a Budget Amendment at either the next meeting or
the one after. We will be taking funds
from our capital program in the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund and
transferring it to the General Fund to pay off these bills with interest. We will make the General Fund pay every dime
back the Enterprise Fund.
Mr. Fennell asked have we received
any money yet from FEMA?
Mr. Petty responded no.
Mr. Fennell asked what about the
NRCS?
Mr. Petty responded the engineer was
able to put together a contract. NRCS
approved the entire contract amount, which is highly unusual. We have $1.88 Million approved by NRCS. We should get 75 cents on the dollar for the
$1.88 Million, possibly 12.5% from the state.
The exposure to CSID for this entire issue, because of the extra care
that went into it, could be extremely small.
Mr. Fennell asked what do we need to
show them?
Mr. McKune
responded the contractors pay request.
Mr. Fennell asked did we pay them?
Mr. McKune
responded this contractor prefers to get the job done and provide one bill,
which is fine with me.
Mr. Fennell stated so we do not have
any money yet.
Mr. Petty stated not yet, which
means we do not need any action of the Board at this time. We do not expect to have to finance any
monies other than intrafund transfers for this
issue. When we look at removal of trees,
we will talk about.
Mr. Fennell stated if everything
comes out to be true, it looks to me like we are talking about a $1.25 Million
gift, if all of those different funds come in.
We already have $1,000,000 in reserve.
Mr. Hanks stated we should take a
look at how much we need to set aside in the event of an emergency.
Mr. Fennell asked do you think it is
enough?
Mr. Hanks responded no.
Mr. Fennell stated we need to find
some place to put the money we are getting in.
Maybe the contingencies.
Mr. Petty stated we will be talking
about these items in the next month as we start having our budget
discussion. You will be receiving a
preliminary budget so we can talk to the public about the items and have discussion. Reserve is very much part of the budget
process.
Mr. Hanks stated I see old checks
that should have been paid. Accounts payable
should be paying them every two weeks.
Mr. Petty stated it depends on
whether the vendors invoice them correctly.
The manager brought staff in to provide extra help. However, for the last two weeks, she has not
had that extra help because we have been backed up. We hope to bring her back within the next
week or two.
Mr. Hanks stated I want to make sure
we are not getting hit with fees and we are not jeopardizing the performance of
our plant by not having the required chemicals because we have not paid for the
chemicals. I also want to make sure we
are not compromising employee benefits.
Mr. Petty stated absolutely. I do not know of any late fees. I will take care of those issues.
Mr. Fennell stated this is a big
concern and one we should deal with next month to make
sure we are sufficiently staffed for accounting functions. We basically have half of a person working on
our accounting system due to sickness, death in the family, etc.
Mr. Hanks stated take care of the
invoices in two weeks.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the financials and General Fund
invoices for
TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There being no further business,
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr.
Hanks with all in favor the meeting was adjourned at
Glen Hanks Robert
Fennell
Secretary President