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
Glen Hanks Secretary
Also present were:
Dennis Lyles Attorney
John McKune Engineer
Doug Hyche District
Staff
Jean Rugg
Janice Moen Larned
Cedo DaSilva Ch2M-Hill
Jane Early Ch2M-Hill
Mr.
Fennell called the meeting to order and Mr. Petty called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Organizational Matters
A.
Acceptance of
Resignation of Mr. Eissler
B.
Appointment of
Supervisor to Fill the Unexpired Term of Office (6/2007)
C.
Oath of Office of Newly
Appointed Supervisor
D.
Election of Officers
Mr. Fennell asked if anyone was
present who was interested in the position.
Not hearing any, this item was tabled until after staff reports.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes
of the May 15, 2006 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member
received a copy of the
Mr. Hanks stated on the bottom of
page nine and top of page 10, I asked questions rather than made
statements. On the bottom of page 12,
the sentence “surveyors usually charge $12,000” should be deleted.
On MOTION by Mr. Eissler
seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the minutes of the
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Hurricane Debris Removal and
Canal Bank Restoration Status
Mr. Petty stated our contractor
submitted his first invoice, which we paid and submitted to NRCS. We are hopeful to see the money in a short
period of time. We will then be able to
tell you what the rest of the fee return will be and the timeliness.
Mr. McKune
stated the work is almost complete. We
are in the process of some final walkthroughs.
NRCS sent a representative last week and they are pleased with the
job. The representative called his
supervisor in
Mr. Eissler
stated I agree.
Mr. Fennell stated it actually looks
better than before the hurricane.
Mr. McKune
stated they exceeded our expectations both with their speed and quality of
work.
Mr. Fennell asked were there any
comments from the city?
Mr. Petty responded none from our
government associates. We received
positive responses from the residents and relatively few from those who wanted
to get their irrigation system repaired.
Generally speaking, the response has been powerful and positive on the
cleanup efforts. We have not received
any accolades from the city for our sister districts.
Mr. Hanks asked have you spoken to
the new commission?
Mr. Fennell responded yes, after
they were elected as I was accepting the award for the waterway cleanup. It went fairly well. I feel we are in good shape. However, I have not heard any details about a
common tree definition. I guess we will
have to make our own definition.
Mr. Hanks stated I spoke with an
Arborist who is familiar with assessing the quality of trees. He had some projects in
Mr. Fennell asked how much will he
charge us?
Mr. Hanks responded he estimated an
hourly rate not to exceed $500.
Mr. Eissler
asked hourly or total?
Mr. Hanks responded total. I have a copy of his contract.
Mr. Eissler
asked did you receive a copy of the booklet from the City of
Mr. Hanks responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated they are talking
about trees in front of the house.
Mr. Eissler
stated they are all good trees.
Mr. Fennell asked has he started
this work yet?
Mr. Hanks responded no.
Mr. Fennell asked do we need to do
anything if the contract is under $3,000?
Mr. Petty responded if it is under
$4,000 we can award based on the Board’s direction. Anything above $4,000, we should go out for
bids. If it is part of a consultant’s
contract, we will ask for it to be part of the engineer’s contract as a
subcontractor. We will also ask our
engineer to complete a study to see if this is something they can work with,
unless Mr. Lyles sees a problem.
Mr. Lyles stated no.
Mr. Petty stated for $500, we can do
this in-house with direction from the Board.
Mr. Hanks stated I did not feel
comfortable having him walk the canals and spend several hours of his
professional time without offering to reimburse him.
Mr. Fennell stated I do not have a
problem with this.
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the proposal with Sutton
Consulting Arborist, Inc. in the not to exceed amount of $500 was approved.
Mr. Hanks stated he is available for
the July meeting.
Mr. Petty stated we will make
arrangements with him to come before the Board and walk through our facilities.
Mr. Fennell asked did we pay the
Arbor Tree and Land bill?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated we do not have
$1,000,000 in our checking account.
Mr. Petty stated according to your
financial statements, you have $1,800,000 as of May 31st. This amount is now slightly higher. We are making payment to them out of our
general funds. The first bill from Arbor
Tree and Land was $1,000,000. We should
be receiving another bill for $800,000.
We feel there is enough cashflow to handle the
next payment. If we need additional
funds, we can go into the Water and Sewer account and do a transfer from this
fund to the General Fund in order to borrow the money. I will defer to Ms. Larned, if you have any
questions.
Mr. Fennell stated the bottom line
is we are spending $1,000,000 and will have to assess the residents.
Mr. Petty stated we are going to ask
you to assess the residents $800,000 to bring the account back to $1,000,000 so
we have the funds in case there is another storm.
Mr. Fennell stated I assume we are
going to be discussing the results of the hydraulic study of the systems.
Mr. McKune
stated we were going to discuss this item under item seven.
Mr. Fennell stated this ties into hurricane debris removal. We need to decide what to do next. We hardly received any rain but we had some
wind. We need to see what happens if we
receive 10 to 15 inches of rain after we remove all the trees.
Mr. Hanks stated if we had rain with
the storm, we would have had more trees come down due to the soil getting
saturated.
Mr. Petty stated as the water table
rises, the trees become unstable.
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Distribution
of Proposed General Fund and Water and Sewer Fund Budgets for Fiscal Year 2007
and Consideration of Resolution 2006-2 Approving the Budget and Setting the
Public Hearing
Mr. Petty stated the Board did not
receive the Water and Sewer Fund Budget, only the General Fund Budget. Resolution 2006-2 by title is:
“A RESOLUTION APPROVING
THE DISTRICT’S PROPOSED GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2007 AND SETTING A
PUBLIC HEARING THEREON PURSUANT TO
The public hearing will be held on
Mr. Hanks asked when is the deadline
to have the assessments into the Property Appraiser?
Mr. Petty responded the first week
in August. You probably have two weeks
to play with.
Mr. Hanks asked when do we set the
actual rates?
Mr. Petty responded you will adopt
the budget first, which will set the rate we will input into the
resolution. You will then adopt the
resolution setting the assessment to be put on the roll.
Mr. Hanks asked if we are having the
public hearing on the General Fund Budget on August 27th, how will
we be able to approve the budget setting the assessment and submit to the
Property Appraiser on August 1st?
Mr. Petty responded we will provide
them a preliminary budget to get us through the TRIM process and finalize immediately
after our meeting.
Mr. Lyles stated we have additional
flexibility because we are not bound by the Chapter 190 budget processes. Therefore, we do not have the 60 day notice
period. We have to publish the notice of
the public hearing on final adoption of the budget once a week for two
consecutive weeks. The second instance
has to be at least seven days ahead of time.
We could schedule the public hearing for July under our Special Act
rather than waiting until August. Then
you have time to deal with the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector.
Mr. Hanks asked when do we need to
adopt the Water and Sewer Budget?
Mr. Petty responded before the end
of the fiscal year.
Mr. Hanks asked when is the end of
the fiscal year?
Ms. Larned responded on September 30th.
Mr. Fennell stated we should hold
the public hearing in July.
Mr. Hanks asked is staff prepared to
proceed?
Mr. Petty responded with counsel’s
permission, we would be glad to consider July, with a date of the Board’s
choosing. We will schedule the public
hearing for the next regularly scheduled meeting in July.
Mr. Hanks stated the second week of
advertising falls within a holiday.
Mr. Lyles stated it does not affect
it. However, I am available on July 24th
if the Board wishes to move the meeting.
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr.
Hanks with all in favor moving the
Mr. Lyles stated at this time, the
Board needs to consider a resolution adopting the proposed budget and setting
the public hearing for
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Hanks
with all in favor Resolution 2006-2 Approving the General
Fund Budget and Setting the Public Hearing for
Mr. Petty stated the budget you are
being presented with is the proposed budget.
It is called the Manager’s Budget because direction typically comes from
the accounting and manager’s office. The
philosophy comes from Ms. Larned as Treasury Director. We defer to her for long term policies.
Mr. Fennell stated we are going to
get our reserves back to $850,000. To do
so, we are going to have to increase assessments.
Mr. Petty stated from $91.38 to
$158.50.
Mr. Eissler
stated I thought the assessment was always in the $80 range.
Mr. Petty stated the year before it
was $82.04 and last year it increased to $91.38.
Mr. Fennell stated for the
catastrophe we just went through, this amount is accurate.
Mr. Eissler
stated the residents will not even notice.
Mr. Fennell stated we have a good
reason to increase the assessment.
Mr. Petty stated we have had
assessments in the thousands. The
Manager’s Budget proposes this as a one year issue. There are several projects before this
District. We think it is reasonable for
you to allocate such funds for such issues.
Mr. Hanks asked would we be looking
at some point in the future if there is an absence of cash for the assessment
to decrease?
Mr. Petty responded no. There is a predominance of contracts ahead of
you. You have the healthy tree removal
issue, which we expect to be around $1,000,000 plus; re-landscape this site to
buffer us at a cost of well over $1,000,000 and refurbish your reserve account
to get it back up to $1,000,000. We feel
this is the highest priority, which is why it is in this year’s budget. However, next year or the following year
under the hydraulic profiling, we expect to bring up other projects as
well. We do not see this assessment
going down in the foreseeable future, probably for the next five years for
sure. You may have other conditions
where you may consider financing to cover other projects you bring in as a
priority. Hurricane Wilma brought many
things to our attention.
Mr. Fennell stated at the next
meeting, I would like for you to provide us with a capital spending plan. We have a budget but it does not reflect what
we are going to do for capital spending.
Let’s talk about the plans you have, time frame, money and expenditures
for the next five years. We have been
doing this mostly for water and sewer.
We are not going to approve these projects, but have an understanding
going forward of what we think it is going to be. Obviously tree removal should be on the
list. Now the question is why we had the
trees there in the first place. Part of
the reason was because we were trying to create buffers. We will see what the hydraulic study brings
us. It may either say nothing or
indicate we have more issues than we intended.
Commensurate with the July meeting, we need to have a Capital
Improvement Budget. I am looking for a
Gant Chart, which is a simple line mechanics chart with a time frame.
Mr. Petty stated we can do one.
Mr. Fennell stated page three shows an
Adjusted Fund Balance of $1,400,000 but we actually have $1,800,000. Correct?
Mr. Petty responded as of May 31st.
Mr. Fennell stated we spent
$1,000,000 and we are now down to $800,000.
Mr. Petty stated you committed
$1,000,000.
Ms. Larned stated the bill has not
yet been presented.
Mr. Petty stated Mr. Fennell is
referring to the first draw on the contract.
Keep in mind, this is a working paper.
We are trying to project out for budget purposes what carry forward we
can use as a revenue source for your consideration in next year’s proposed
budget. In this calculation you are not
seeing $1,000,000. What you are seeing
is $300,000 less, which is our share after we get reimbursed by NRCS. This is a presentation of what we think is a
reliable expectation of the funds in the bank we can carry forward to use as
revenues to offset any projects we have in next year’s budget. Ms. Larned and I spent at least an hour and a
half going over the same item with the Accounting Department. It is subject to some interpretation. We feel this presents a fairly reliable
presentation to the Board for consideration.
Mr. Fennell stated I see a line item
for pump station replacement engines.
Mr. Petty stated we will be
discussing this item later in the meeting but I can tell you we are not
satisfied with our pump station situation.
We will ask the Board to authorize the engineer to do an evaluation. The reason why we are not happy is because
there was a contract a year and a half ago to re-do five pumps and motors at a
cost of $440,000. The money has been
held, although the contract was awarded because the contractor provided one
motor in the past year and a half. We
spoke with Mr. Lyles office about our
dissatisfaction. From our experience, it
is best to give the contract to the attorney and direct him to remit the letter
to the contractor stating we find them in default of the contract. In our opinion, the contract is not
responsive and we are asking the attorney for advice. Our engineer was not a party to the issue as
it was performed by on-site staff, mainly Mr. Roger Moore. I prefer to have CH2M-Hill involved since
they built the first units in
Mr. Fennell stated we replaced the
pumps four or five years ago. This
contract is for replacing the engines.
In fact we put an extra pump and engine into each one. Then we heard the motors were going bad and
we had to replace them.
Mr. Petty stated the motors were old
and getting to the point where the cost for repair and maintenance was getting
so high you wanted to consider replacing them.
A contract was awarded but the contractor has not been responsive after
a year and a half. One motor was
delivered but has not been installed. We
will have the engineers evaluate the current condition and maintainability of
the pumps. You may be able to save
$400,000 or continue the contract with a modified motor before the next year
and a half elapses. I would like the
Board to have the ability to say with confidence the pump station is 110% ready
for hurricane season. In case we keep
the contract, there is $452,045 set aside which is the contract amount. The reserve for the first quarter option is
standard operating procedure since all of our revenue comes from the Property
Appraiser. However, this money does not
start coming in until January.
Therefore, we have a Reserve Fund for the first three months. Available reserves to be
applied is $122,977.
Mr. Fennell asked what are available
reserves?
Mr. Petty responded these are
projected amounts off of the $1,400,000.
This is a cost from your reserves.
Ms. Larned stated it is what we
think was leftover from last year. We
have not completed the audit, even though we are working off of
$1,400,000. According to the financial
statements, it appears we are getting less revenues
than expenditures. The accountant is
estimating it out for the rest of the year.
If all goes well, this is the number we plug in to true-up at the end of
the year to close the books and have $250,000 leftover.
Mr. Fennell asked are we spending
this money this year?
Ms. Larned responded yes. It is tied into next year’s budget
planning. We bring this number forward
to be used during this current fiscal year.
Mr. Hanks stated this is hopefully a
low estimate of our carry forward.
Ms. Larned stated correct.
Mr. Petty stated $251,000 is a
revenue source in this year’s budget.
The number could change dramatically if we initiate programs before the
end of the year. We have time. The bottom line is you will have more
projects done this year and less carry forward for projects next year. The total should be the same. I would not carry forward the projects to
next year. We may be able to get to some
of these projects before the end of the fiscal year.
Mr. Hanks stated we have to be
careful with the cashflow. I would like to have more in reserves.
Mr. Fennell stated we had $1,400,000
as of last September. The report last
month indicated $1,800,000 in excess revenues.
Ms. Larned stated this amount is in
the monthly financial statement for the projected through
Mr. Fennell stated some of this is
committed money.
Ms. Larned stated correct.
Mr. Fennell stated even though we did
not terminate the contract, the $450,000 is part of the committed money.
Mr. Petty stated we currently stand
in a good financial state. We do not
expect to run into problems, even after paying all the monies due under this
current contract for cleanup.
Ms. Larned stated what you are
seeing are just the revenues and expenditures.
You do not see the activity for the reserves. You are basically asking what is going in and
out of your reserves. There is an extra
schedule in your budget for planning purposes to show what has been designated
for certain items.
Mr. Fennell stated the piece we are
missing is the cashflow sheet.
Mr. Petty stated the items on page
one as well as some other control and oversight functions will be brought to
you on October 1st on the transaction overlay. The transaction overlay gives us some protection
since we have a single accountant in case an accident, illness or move by the
employee occurs; the District is not affected.
This document gives you daily cashflow
reports. Whenever there is a posting, it
becomes available and internet based.
Mr. Fennell stated we have not
needed this up until now. However, we
need it now with the expenditures we have for capital expenses.
Mr. Eissler
stated I agree.
Mr. Hanks asked are the assessments
calculated on a per lot basis for the commercial properties?
Mr. Petty responded per unit, with
$11,000 units calculated. The commercial
properties are converted on a per acre basis.
Mr. Hanks asked what about the
assessment for
Mr. Petty responded it is on a per
unit type basis based on the call rates of single family. For purposes of figuring out what it is going
to cost for the number of units, we use 11,113 homes to show what the bill will
go up by. Some will pay less and others
will pay more.
Mr. Fennell asked will you have a cashflow sheet for us at the next meeting?
Mr. Petty responded no. This will be implemented on October 1st. At the end of the first month, you will have
some preliminary numbers. By the third
month of the new fiscal year you will have indications of your spending levels
and program efficiencies.
Mr. Fennell asked who is generating
this document?
Mr. Petty responded Severn Trent.
Mr. Fennell asked where will it be
paid from?
Mr. Petty responded in a line item,
we allocated $5,000 under the General Fund.
Ms. Larned stated the transaction
overlay is half way down through the expenditure listing for
administration. There is a check and
balance system to have a three way match between the Purchase Order, receipt of
the goods and the invoice. It is
internally controlled. When the field
location receives the goods, they will enter it onto the internet and submit to
the Accounting Department. The
information from the internet is posted to the General Ledger.
Mr. Fennell asked is our current
system capable of doing this?
Ms. Larned responded we have to do
some work on it. We will get to this
item later in the budget.
Mr. Petty stated generally speaking,
this is a double entry system, which does not have to be compatible with other
software. It can be independent. There are two checks. Let’s say for management purposes, I wrote a
Purchase Order for $25,000. The
accountant is not going to book it until the vendor sends an invoice and they
are satisfied with the contract conditions.
However, for purposes of planning and management, as soon as you get
approval to spend the money, you need to know the money is gone for your next
consideration of a project. This is cashflow management.
If you want to see what your cashflow is, you
look up the transaction overlay on the website to see what its condition
is. If you are trying to find out your
accounting status, you look on the financial monthly reports supplied with the
agendas. There are two different
systems, one for management purposes, which we refer to as the cashflow, which will be accomplished by the transaction
overlay and the other is the financial accounting, which satisfies the Auditor
General for the State of
Mr. Fennell asked what does the
electronic document system do?
Mr. Petty responded it scans all our
blueprint plans through a large format scanner, which is on-site and
functioning. It will be located in the
operations building. We will start
loading all our as-built drawings and have them on a server, which Mr. Daly will
maintain. The database is yours but Severn
Trent will supply the optical character recognition and large scale scanner.
Mr. Fennell asked what type of
machine?
Mr. Petty responded an AS400 or its
successor. Later in this budget, we are
going to ask you consider a successor.
Mr. Fennell asked why is our
computer time down to zero?
Mr. Petty responded because later on
we are going to talk to you about a successor to the AS400. We feel you should own it rather than
renting. The intent is to make you as
independent as possible. As a leader among
your sister districts, we feel this puts you in a better position to handle
your business.
Ms. Larned stated this is supported
by the internal audit report presented at the last meeting.
Mr. Fennell asked does this have to
do with the $50,000 spent for capital purchases?
Mr. Petty responded yes. We believe $50,000 is the General Fund’s fair
share of purchase of a new breed of AS400, which is eight times faster than the
existing machine. We are looking for at
least a terabyte of storage. It turns
out we can get approximately seven terabytes.
The reason why we are considering a fairly large one is because of the
blueprints and drawings.
Mr. Hanks asked is this system
compatible with what the city has for their information?
Mr. Petty responded it is
non-proprietary. The document management
system stores the documents in a number of different formats, the most standard
which is PDF. It should be standard with
99.9% of any program out there.
Mr. Hanks asked do we have documents
to scan?
Mr. Petty responded you have
warehouses all over the city full of documents to scan. Ms. Rugg has been a genius to be able to
retain the information about where these files are located. However, she has been running three different
document management systems and has come up with what we think is the best program
we can run on-site. You know it by the
name it was saved by but it uses artificial intelligence to find the document by
search criteria similar to Google.
Mr. Fennell asked will this also
apply to the Water and Sewer Fund?
Mr. Petty responded the transaction
overlay is done on a transaction estimate.
For some of these items, we try to do a 50/50 split between utility
billing and normal accounting functions.
The next item is under Field
Operations on page two. As discussed
during the audit, we thought it was in the District’s best interest for all
shared employees to be owned by CSID.
The slight increase in your General Fund is complete ownership of Mr.
Randy Frederick who has been handling your water management facilities for
almost 30 years, along with Mr. Nick Schooley, his
predecessor. Mr. Hyche
is now bound to CSID solely.
Mr. Fennell stated this is a good
thing.
Mr. Petty stated Net Pension Expense
increased because our labor costs increased with full allocation to CSID but
also because we are recommending the Florida State Pension Plan for our
employees. It is competitive with
everyone else out there since we are competing with a labor market dwindling
faster than I care to speak to at this meeting.
All our competitors offer this to their employees. We investigated it but the increase was not
dramatic at this time.
Mr. Fennell stated we revised our
pension plan five or six years ago.
Mr. Eissler
stated it is a big jump.
Mr. Petty stated Mr. Bill Joyce took
with him $90,000 when he retired. This
is what he has for his lifetime award. The money market issue has gone up and
down. My pension program was similar in fashion
and I lost capital for a couple of years.
You have people who put in a lifetime to this District. We are seeing quite a few of them cycling
through the system. They are leaving
with less than what you know they need. However,
to maintain a lifestyle here, they have to move.
Mr. Fennell asked is this like a
401K?
Mr. Petty responded it is a self
directed 401K.
Mr. Eissler
stated it is probably hard to get everyone to join.
Mr. Petty stated the young guys want
the cash because they are trying to pay for their lifestyle. We are going to increasingly be hit with this
as we are what is considered to be an upscale
community in
Mr. Eissler
stated I agree.
Ms. Larned stated part of what the
Florida State Program offers is a health subsidy, once they reach retirement
age. This is a very large attraction of
the program because in most cases this becomes your biggest expense. Consequently this is a subsidy program
underwritten by the state through the funding they achieved over the last few
years so it is fully vested and is a nice benefit for the employees.
Mr. Fennell stated I assume this
requires a vote of the Board.
Mr. Petty stated through the budget
process. When the application comes in
the first month we will ask you to approve it.
However, you can approve it through the budget process.
Mr. Eissler
stated to recruit, hire and maintain good employees you have to be
competitive.
Mr. Petty stated we do. Our pay is not bad. We like to think our quality of life is
exceptional and we are different. We let
someone work in any area that he/she can excel in and we have diversity. In some city programs you will work at the
same job from the day you walk in to the day you die. We have this to help us compete so our pay is
typically close but our benefit program is where we flounder. We lost personnel, mainly qualified operators
at the water and wastewater plant over the last year due to this issue. Once they get their licenses, they feel they can
do better on benefits with other companies.
Mr. Hanks asked do we pay to train them?
Mr. Petty responded yes, however this
is a minimal investment for us. We do
this hoping they stay. We cannot get
commitment for a year or two worth of service because the dollars are not
there.
Ms. Larned stated it is not just a
recruitment tool; it is also a retention tool.
Mr. Hanks stated good point. I am looking for a sheet with current
benefits.
Mr. Petty stated we have an example
we can bring to the next meeting. We
obtained information from the Florida State Pension on their current program.
Mr. Fennell asked is this a defined
benefit?
Ms. Larned responded it is a defined
contribution.
Mr. Petty stated it took us a long
time to admit openly this was considered civil service work. We had several lawsuits filed over our 25
plus years from the labor pool. We tried
to keep the mentality of business, not bureaucracy. We find most of the staff is willing to do
so. In a practical conversation, it is
getting difficult to motivate people when they say, “I do not mind treating
this as a business, giving it my full effort, giving 110%, coming in when the
storms hit and making sure everything functions, but I have to make at least as
much as the guy who is working at 70%”, which is the typical bureaucrat. We have people with motivation but we want to
be able to keep them here and hire their replacements when it is time for them
to go. We can certainly show this
example and bring it to the next meeting.
Mr. Hanks stated just because it is
in the budget does not mean we have to adopt or accept
it later.
Mr. Petty stated it is only for
consideration right now. As you are
owners of the personnel and will be paying the costs, you will be seeing the
revenue generated from your ability to take employees and work them in other
Districts. They will also be paying
their fair share.
Mr. Fennell asked why did health
insurance decrease?
Mr. Petty responded due to the age
of our personnel.
Mr. Eissler
asked because they are younger?
Mr. Petty responded yes. We are going through a cycle where the oldest
employee is Mr. George Guck. We used to
have four employees who were here 30 years and longer. Mr. Jan Zilmer keeps track of this
constantly.
Mr. Eissler
stated he is doing a good job.
Mr. Fennell stated workers
compensation insurance is increasing.
Another large increase was in Repairs and Maintenance.
Mr. Petty stated Field Operation
Services went to zero because you are getting this service with existing staff
and we see no reason to add to this line item.
This line item was for Mr. Moore or his assistant. As an ex-operator, I have operational
experience so there is no reason to hire anyone. We told you this time you will know exactly
what you received from Severn Trent and what we were going to do for you. For Repairs and Maintenance, some items were
incorrectly allocated to Capital Outlay, which should be under Repairs and
Maintenance. We removed some of Mr.
Moore’s items because we do not believe they made sense. There were some items with life spans of 75
years but we will not get 1.75% of their value today. We are bringing back the divers.
Culvert Inspection and Cleaning was
budgeted at $100,000, which is high. We
used to spend $35,000 a year, but when we went out for bids we obtained a bid
for $80,000. It turns out the issue is
OSHA started watching what these companies were doing and they now are required
to have three divers in the water.
Mr. Hanks stated Shenandoah had a
big problem this past year with some divers.
Is there a company who provides cameras?
Mr. Petty responded yes. We can use the cameras to find the silt, but
the divers are there to clean them.
Mr. Hanks asked do we own these
culverts or are they owned by
Mr. Petty responded they are owned
by us because we paid for them out of bond funds. We are not inspecting culverts installed by
other entities. This does not include
the cost of inspecting secondary culverts.
Mr. Hanks stated you have a
right-of-way for
Mr. Petty responded the
District. Typically we install
culverts. If the county expanded them
due to four lanes, they have to come to us before we allow it.
Mr. Hanks stated we have a license
from them for this right-of-way for our stormwater
crossing.
Mr. Petty stated we have a primary
license since we were there first.
Mr. Lyles stated those are right-of-way
and utility easements. We are the permittee by SFWMD.
It is our system.
Mr. Hanks asked has anyone checked
with
Mr. Petty responded yes. We are ahead of everyone else when it comes
to inspecting these pipes. Other
entities use our format. We are first
and foremost the best drainage entity in
Mr. Fennell asked are you proposing
we delete this item from the budget?
Mr. Petty responded we recommend you
set aside monies for budget purposes if we are doing culvert inspections and
cleanouts. This is a reasonable amount
of money to spend, with all the pipes we have.
We spoke to our engineers about this and they are recommending it as
well.
Mr. Fennell stated there is a line
item for roof replacement.
Mr. Petty responded you have seen
this roof item before but we have not done it yet.
Mr. Fennell asked did we approve it?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Ms. Larned stated you have been
building up reserves. I started looking
at a number of these items in the budget and it did not make sense to me. You had Capital Outlay, Repairs and
Maintenance and a Reserve. We looked at
the useful life of some of these assets and asked ourselves whether it was an
annual expense that needed to be in the O&M portion of the reserves. When it becomes time to do the work, we will
have the funds. The reserves can be used
for hurricane expenditures or at the Board’s pleasure. We tried to clean up these items and simplify
it. We had lengthy discussions about it.
Mr. Petty stated Contingencies
increased based on what I feel is an accurate projection of 95% but this is
only a projection. As a conservative
Budget Manager we will ask you to hold 5% in Contingencies. We already discussed Reserves, which is the
next big number. We have time to work on
this budget and make changes and amendments as you see fit. We expect to distribute the Water and Sewer
Budget at the next meeting.
Mr. Fennell stated the difference is
in Budget Reserves.
Ms. Larned stated we deleted some
items. We put adequate funds into
Culvert Cleaning. There were other items
for $1,500 and $3,400, which we felt were small items and could come out of
Repairs and Maintenance.
Mr. Fennell stated this is an
operating budget; not a Capital Expense Budget.
Mr. Petty stated there is no debt at
this time but there are capital expenses.
We were able to handle this with our current budgeting program. We do not have to go outside for financing at
this time. We do not see it unless the
time frame for some of the five year capital program items we bring you in the
next version gets accelerated. We think
you have time to handle one priority per year, with the first one to bring back
up the reserves. There is one exception,
which is the healthy tree removal situation.
As we know from Hurricane Wilma, there is a direct threat that trees
within our right-of-way are a concern.
Whether we do it this year or next year is up to the Board’s
discretion. However, if we did this in
an accelerated program, we would probably talk to the Board about financing
options so you can complete this project quickly with short-term financing
without hurting the assessment pattern.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell
with all in favor Resolution 2006-2 Approving the Proposed
General Fund for Fiscal Year 2007 and Setting a Public Hearing for
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Change
Order No. 5 to Intrastate Construction Corporation for Rehabilitation of
Wastewater Plants C & D
Mr. McKune
stated in the past several months, we have been talking about adding to the
diesel fuel storage. This Change Order
incorporates furnishing labor, equipment and materials for the installation of
one 8,000 gallon and one 4,000 gallon diesel double wall fuel tanks, to include
the containment fuel piping, valves, leak detection systems, manual fuel pumps
and hoses, with related appurtenances necessary to incorporate the new tanks as
functional components into the utility site emergency fuel storage system. The 8,000 gallon tank will be installed next
to the existing one at the injection well system to be piped into the system
and made a functional component of the system.
The other tank will be installed at the east end of the water plant, next
to the pump building. The fuel piping
will go into the building where the generator is.
Mr. Fennell stated this seems to be
a great deal of money.
Mr. McKune
stated it is. Approximately half of this
amount was used to purchase the tanks and the rest to install them. These are large expensive tanks.
Mr. Eissler
asked what are they made of?
Mr. McKune
responded steel with concrete inside.
Mr. Petty stated these are not the
same steel tanks you envision going under ground. Does this price include monitoring of the
wells?
Mr. McKune
responded they do not require monitoring.
We still have one buried fuel tank on-site. It was refurbished five years ago and is
still in good shape.
Mr. Hanks asked what was your
estimate initially of the cost?
Mr. McKune
responded $10,000. Mr. Fennell is
correct. This is a large amount of money
but it is a large job. We acquired this
contractor by obtaining competitive bids for the equipment.
Mr. McKune
asked how long will this fuel last us?
Mr. McKune
responded an extra week.
Mr. Eissler
asked will it give us 20,000 gallons?
Mr. McKune
responded it will give us an additional 12,000 gallons.
Mr. Petty stated the capital
improvement program for water and sewer has been troubling management for
several months. We discussed this matter
with the engineer and at the next meeting when we give you the Water and Sewer Budget, we hope to give you a comprehensive idea of the
capital program for the water and sewer plant so these items can be
monitored. As items come up for
consideration, sometimes they have the effect of being out of place but when
you put it into the entire picture, they look good. All the money has been for expansions and remodeling
of facilities necessary and independent of the options available to us to
handle the future. We reached the point
where this may be one of the last projects we do before we have to evaluate our
capital projects program. Otherwise we
get into an area where we may be putting away money on projects we cannot get
back. As far as the facilities, we may
not be able to get the entire full life from them because they are associated
with another product that has five years already on it. We have been doing the capital program on a
piece by piece basis. They have been
independent, which has been working but now they are getting into an
interrelated part where I will not get the full lifetime of the brand new
piece.
Mr. Hanks stated at a certain point,
you are going to have to replace them.
Mr. Petty stated at next month’s
meeting, in the budget we will give you a strong recommendation on the capital
improvement program so it can be monitored as an entire entity versus a
component based system.
Mr. Hanks stated this is an extra
week of fuel supply for the plant. I am
not sure we have a need for it.
Mr. Fennell stated a week did not
last us long since we have new equipment.
From what I saw, we were hurting from day one.
Mr. Petty stated your impression is
correct. This is why we started looking
for storage for extra fuel. From a staff
perspective, they are anxiously supporting this expansion as well as
management. The dollars are a surprise
to everyone involved.
Mr. Fennell stated I was thinking
more around $50,000 to $100,000 but the total amount is $262,000. I am surprised by this amount.
Mr. Petty stated our engineer is the
one we look to for evaluation of market prices because we do not know if it is
due to OSHA.
Mr. Fennell asked when will we
receive the tanks?
Mr. McKune
responded in 10 to 12 weeks.
Mr. Fennell stated that is when we
receive it from the manufacturer. When
will it be installed and filled with diesel?
Mr. McKune
responded probably one month after it gets here. We have to do all the slab work and piping
prior to delivery.
Mr. Petty stated the question is
whether we will have it before our peak part of the hurricane season.
Mr. Eissler
asked does this amount include the installation and equipment?
Mr. McKune
responded half of the total amount represents the equipment, metering and
panels.
Mr. Eissler
stated the proposal says the furnishing and installation of field instruments
and integration of tank monitoring panel are not
included.
Mr. McKune
stated those are labor items. A good
portion of the cost is site work.
Mr. Hanks stated this translates
into $26 per household.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor Change Order No. 5 with
Intrastate Construction Corporation for Wastewater Plants C and D Rehab in the
amount of $262,375 was approved.
Mr. Fennell stated if you do not
think we are going to make it, figure out how to have a semi sitting here full
of diesel.
Mr. Petty stated I understand.
SEVENTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Consideration of
Right-of-Way & Surface Water Management Permit for Expansion of Sawgrass Expressway to Six Lanes from Atlantic Boulevard to
Coral Ridge Drive
Mr. Petty stated this item was
carried over from the last meeting. I
think the topic of interest at that time was whether it was within the District
or outside.
Mr. Fennell stated they are going to
dump water into the District. How much
water can they dump?
Mr. DaSilva responded in looking at
the present conditions, there is nothing we can do. The fact is before the allowable discharge
they had into the District, they reduced it within this phase. They raised the weirs and created deeper and
wider storage areas. They have been able
to store water to minimize impact on the District size.
Mr. Fennell asked did they do this
on their own or was it a requirement?
Mr. DaSilva responded it was part of
the modification. I think they had a
weir to store water from elevation 7.6 to 9.
The street basin affecting our District is the
Mr. Fennell asked where are you in
your study?
Mr. DaSilva responded I have a
summary of our findings. CSID is divided
into two independent basins, the
If you start at the pump station,
which is the lowest point in the system, as the storm event occurs you will
connect into another basin with a canal so the loses are minimal. The 10 year model is exactly the same but the
100 year model has a slight increase. As
you move west, those numbers increase.
As water goes through pipes, the numbers jump significantly due to the
fact it is a pipe and not an open channel.
Overall, the
Mr. Fennell asked what is the amount
of rainfall for the 10 year and 100 year models?
Mr. Petty responded the rainfall has
to be over 24 hours. We hit this mark in
recent memory.
Mr. DaSilva stated the
Mr. Hanks stated which is why the
Mr. DaSilva stated on the
Mr. Hanks asked are you permitted to
pump 150,000 gallons per minute?
Mr. DaSilva responded the permit
requires us to pump 334 cfs.
Mr. Petty stated this is just the
beginning. This is your base
document. Now you start going through
the “What if” scenarios.
Mr. DaSilva stated if this is a
threat to the District, you may want to add another pipe.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the finished criteria?
The finished floor criteria in the permit manual is
not the same as the 100 year flood.
Mr. DaSilva responded it was
permitted for 100 years on the
Mr. Petty stated there have been
many factors over the years. There have
been vacant properties which helped the system.
We are at build-out now and we are at a 25 year or higher age. Expectations after Hurricane Wilma are higher
as far as performance. We would like to
keep our number one status. For example,
say we hear a hurricane is coming in five days and it this is going to be a wet
one, how long will it take the engineer to run the model as a form of our
hurricane preparedness if we have this type of notice?
Mr. DaSilva responded the hard work
is done, it is now a matter of including different
scenarios and changing models.
Mr. Petty stated I like this,
particularly if there is construction or a particular problem. Some pipes are one-third blocked and I will
not have time to clean them out before the storm. What is this going to do to the system?
Mr. Hanks responded we need to allow
for some contingencies.
Mr. Petty stated Mr. Hyche and I have been discussing this. The key question is how available the
engineers will be.
Mr. Lyles stated keep in mind, you need time for them to implement this. You need to start thinking “What ifs” ahead
of time and work through these scenarios.
We are never going to have everything covered and some contingencies
available.
Mr. Petty stated this is what we
would like to do starting this year. As
each new threat comes along, we would like to work with the engineers. Funding is something we will have to talk to
you about, but we would like to start with our current funds and see how it
goes.
Mr. Fennell stated putting
operational control with a computer program is a great idea.
Mr. Petty stated I thought this is
what you wanted us to do.
Mr. Fennell stated the reason for
the study was to see whether or not we had problems. We are taking operations down to a point where
on a daily basis they can figure out if they are pumping out the right
water. I do not know if anyone had this situation
before. Why is the
Mr. Eissler
responded
Mr. DaSilva stated we actually have
12% percent lake area within the District at the
Mr. Fennell stated we are talking
about a foot and a quarter of water difference in height in the 100 year flood.
Mr. DaSilva stated if you look at
the East Basin for the 10 year flood, throughout the District we are going to
have anywhere from four to nine inches of water on the road.
Mr. Hanks stated this is assuming
your road elevations are at the 10 year elevation.
Mr. DaSilva stated some of the roads
like
Mr. Hanks stated the finished floor
is at elevation 12. The difference
between finished floor and road crown may not be much, maybe a foot to 18
inches in some locations. Your local
roads may indeed be higher and what we are seeing is the 10 year elevation is
being exceed.
However, your conditions for local roads may be higher and you may not
exhibit any flooding in those locations.
Mr. DaSilva stated where Mr. Fennell
lives, the 10 year flood elevation is 10.54. We investigated this area and the minimum
road elevation is 9.5. Therefore, in a
10 year event, you may get a foot of water on this road.
Mr. Fennell stated this is the case
if everything is draining the way it should be.
Mr. DaSilva stated exactly. It depends on whether all the pipes are
clean.
Mr. Petty stated it makes for an inconvenience
under this scenario if everything is working perfectly. You have the inconvenience of a time line
waiting for the water to drain, if you have blockages.
Mr. Fennell stated there is only one
pipe coming out of my subdivision.
Mr. Petty stated now it is not an
inconvenience.
Mr. Fennell stated in Shadow Wood,
there is only one drainage pipe.
Mr. Petty stated only one pipe goes
under the mall.
Mr. Fennell stated no one at the
city has information like this. I called
them and they did not know.
Mr. Petty stated they are looking at
the bigger picture.
Mr. Hanks stated they are not
concerned about what happens with individual lots. They are concerned about what happens along
the C-14 canal. If we increase our
pumping capacity by even a quarter, what does this do to the downstream
communities such as
Mr. Fennell responded I hope they
have their models working.
Ms. Early stated it is not going to
change their minds because they have the maximum allowable discharge and that
is all they have.
Mr. DaSilva stated you would have to
analyze the C-14 canal.
Ms. Early stated it depends on
whether no one else shuts down and if someone else is low and they agree to
shut down for so many hours. It all has
to work together.
Mr. Hanks stated the easier solution
is to identify parcels within the
Mr. Fennell stated the whole area will
fill up, unless we get rid of the mall.
Ms. Early stated or we can look at
adding additional culverts. Some of
these areas only have one culvert.
Mr. Fennell stated there are
obviously things we need to change. It
looks to me like the
Mr. DaSilva stated you can replace
pipes with canals and bridges.
Mr. Fennell asked what happens if a
tree falls and blocks 30%?
Ms. Early responded the water will
still get out but you will have to wait longer.
Mr. Petty stated it will back up and
reconnect.
Mr. DaSilva stated it will flow
through the mall.
Mr. Petty stated I think you hit on
the key component. The east side seems
to have fewer options than the west. You
are correct in saying it is more prone to back up because it has single
discharge or singular flow pattern in its design where the west may have
multiple flow patterns. It is very much
like your water and sewer where you loop versus dead end lines. I think the “What if” scenario is going to
tell us where those spots are and give us an indication of where we should
start thinking about dropping another culvert pipe to make the redundancy. In your capital program for water and sewer,
redundancy issues are going to be key in our presentation and I think this is
what you are going to start looking at on your drainage.
Mr. Fennell stated one of the things
we are trying to get out of this is a tree policy and whether we need to cut back
trees from the canal at all and whether there is any danger of these trees
causing blockages. Should we take
preventative action and remove trees?
Mr. Petty responded you have a
recommendation from staff to remove the trees.
The question before the Board is whether we should do wholesale or
selective clearing. You gave staff
direction to work with the tree consultant to bring back some preliminary
information to help in this decision making process. We would definitely like to do that this
summer, preferably before peak hurricane season.
Mr. Fennell asked should we remove
all the trees within a certain area? There were options to remove all of them or
leave them.
Mr. Hyche
responded we recommended you remove all of them.
Mr. Fennell asked what is CH2M-Hill recommending?
Ms. Early responded I agree with Mr.
Petty.
Mr. Eissler
asked will you be removing the trees 15 feet from the back.
Mr. McKune
responded no, from right-of-way to right-of-way.
Mr. Petty stated in some cases this
is over 100 feet of bank on major canals but in other cases, it is as small as
five feet on both sides.
Ms. Early stated some are off
center.
Mr. Petty stated this is going to
have impacts. Management staff modified
its position. We had been telling you we
wanted selective removal. This was in an
effort to try to not alienate the residents because of the issues facing us
over the spring. However, the Sunshine
Water Control District, in order to fulfill their responsibilities, decided to
remove trees right-of-way to right-of-way.
It is a moot point. Whether you
do a wholesale clearing or selective clearing, you are going to get the blame
because you are part of the Drainage District system. Management staff is no longer giving you a
viewpoint. We will follow the direction
of the engineer.
Mr. Fennell asked do you agree with them?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated we now have
evidence.
Mr. Hanks stated if a tree is in the
canal in the vicinity of one of these culverts, it does not quantify it.
Mr. McKune
stated when you get something in the canal, it blocks the culvert.
Ms. Early stated say we block P30
and run the model to see whether or not the water will run north,
you will have to take the culvert out in order to run the model.
Mr. Fennell stated if you blocked it
and nothing happens, it would tell you one thing.
Ms. Early stated one option is to
take it out and see what happens.
Mr. Petty stated keep in mind a tree
limb is a collector and the debris coming from a hurricane is going to come in. Plastic bags are going to get caught.
Mr. DaSilva stated we can do a 50%
flow model.
Ms. Early stated just do a worst
case scenario.
Mr. Fennell asked what happens if it
never happens?
Mr. Petty responded then you have
redundancy and you do not have to be worried.
Mr. Fennell stated you can assume it
only gets blocked at one point.
Mr. Hanks stated with clearing from right-of-way
to right-of-way, you may be clearing perfectly good trees representing minimal
threat to the system and having complete inability to effectively control other
trees, which represent a threat to the system.
Mr. Fennell stated the only thing
connecting me to a canal and my street is a pipe going under several houses and
dumping into the canal. By the way, they
did find a pipe. The city actually came
out and tried to clean it, which I was impressed with.
Mr. DaSilva asked did you look inside?
Mr. Fennell responded I could not
tell. They tried to push a pipeline down
there. I asked them if they normally
clean these and he said they normally go into the corners and clean out what is
there. What is not happening, which is a
real issue, is for local flooding on the street. Those pipes going back into the canal are not
being cleaned.
Ms. Early stated I thought this was
what the HOA was supposed to do.
Mr. Fennell asked what makes you
think there is an HOA?
I lived in this area for 30 years and we do not have a HOA.
Ms. Early responded then you need to
call the city.
Mr. Fennell stated I do not think
the city is cleaning them or that they know to do them.
Mr. Petty stated they do not have
this model or our experience of 30 plus years.
They use a vacuum truck to clean out their catch basin.
Mr. Fennell stated I do not think
they have any direction on where to go, how to do it or what they are supposed
to do. They responded within a couple of
days. They will be responsive to them
but as a drainage group, we need to say, “Here are all the different
locations”.
Mr. McKune
stated they have the equipment but not a proactive policy.
Mr. DaSilva asked would you like a
copy of the drawings?
Mr. Hanks responded yes.
Mr. Petty stated we would like one
for the public record.
Mr. DaSilva stated I can include a
CD with the electronic files.
Mr. McKune
stated you have to look at the logic of what happens if one tree falls or one
culvert blocks up. If there were no
issues, then when you have culverts with water flowing through them, it will
not cause a backup. If we wanted to go
back and test a culvert to see what the affect would be, I can tell you what
the affect is; it is going to flow. We
are going to come back here a month from now and verify this. We will be 30 days behind in removing
trees. I am a firm believer in removing
trees.
Mr. Hanks stated you taking the trees
out is not going to resolve the debris issue. The pipe in question in Mr. Fennell’s
neighborhood is 48 inches in diameter.
Many things can end up getting lodged in a 48 inch pipe. If a shopping cart or trash can gets stuck,
you are shut down.
Mr. Petty stated we are talking
about what we do with our own property, not everyone else’s property. We have this responsibility. Let’s focus on what we can do.
Mr. Hanks stated even under the best
scenario, which is for these systems to function, there
are areas in this District which have predicted stages in excess of the minimum
finished floor. Correct?
Ms. Early responded yes.
Mr. Hanks stated even if we were to
remove all the trees from within the District right-of-way, we will still have
an issue with flooding during the 100 year storm. Do we need to look someplace else and say,
“What do we need to do to correct this issue to prevent flooding during the 100
year storm?” This is the first priority.
Mr. McKune
stated this is the second issue. There
are two issues.
Mr. Hanks stated we can remove the
trees but if we get a 100 year flood, we are still going to have wet
people.
Mr. Fennell stated I agree with what
has to be done. You can make some
conditions but if you still have trees, you still have a problem. I think the problem is there with the trees
no matter what. You are correct. There are additional things we can do to
alleviate the problem and get the system working correctly. Get rid of the trees as much as you can and
install additional drains or culverts.
However, we can attack the tree removal right now, quicker than anything
else.
Mr. Hanks stated if you have a tree
where the canopy is completely outside of the edge of water,
your root system is going to be confined to where the canopy of the tree
is. If it is not overhanging in one
manner or in the canal system, it will not tip over. There are certain reasons resulting in a tip
hazard or debris collection. You are
looking at braches flying out. How far
back are you going to go? We have areas
within this District, namely
Mr. Petty responded in your sister
District, where they are considering this tree removal program, there are
exceptions, one would be wetland areas abutting; however they are few and far
between in the Sunshine Water Control District.
I can think of only one place where there is a pocket of Cypress Trees. The other exception is the buffer trees planted
next to commercial and multi-family areas.
In many instances, in the early days the trees were planted in our right-of-way. If we removed those trees, you would see some
very nasty parts of commercial buildings like the back of Publix and Home Depot. The Sunshine Water Control District made an
exception for those buffer trees for commercial and multi-family to be
considered on a case by case basis and left if at all possible. Of course the pocket of protected areas is
something we have to live with. We are
in the drainage business and have to live with it. CSID is similar where you have more specific
conditions like
Mr. Eissler
stated it is going to be a nightmare.
People are going to be upset.
Mr. Hanks stated you have scenarios
where you have trees on private property five feet outside of the ditch. We are not going to be able to touch
them. We are going to implement a policy
to clear trees 20 feet on another side where the tree represents a small risk
to the District.
Mr. Fennell stated in the C1 area,
we already removed 50 to 100 trees.
Mr. Hanks asked is this the area
where the apartments and the Coral Springs Auto Mall are located?
Mr. Fennell responded yes. There are tall Australian Pine
trees along this area.
Mr. Hanks stated I would love to
remove the Australian Pines as well as any Melaleucas.
Let’s be proactive and smart about which
trees we want to remove.
Mr. Fennell stated we have to make
some decisions now. The hurricane season
is upon us and we do not have much time left.
We need to have a policy. Our
current policy is all trees are okay.
Mr. Eissler
stated you are talking about spending another $1,000,000 in addition to
everything you are spending money on now.
We need a tree expert.
Mr. Fennell stated he is not going
to have an answer for us.
Mr. Hanks stated if there are trees
within close proximity to the bank, remove them. If their canopy overhangs the bank or root
structure is into the bank, remove them.
Mr. Fennell asked how close to the
bank?
Mr. Eissler
responded 15 feet.
Mr. Fennell stated they have to be
definable.
Mr. Petty stated administratively
friendly.
Mr. DaSilva stated right-of-way to right-of-way. If you look at the C-14 Canal, there are
trees all over it.
Mr. Petty asked have you seen the
Mr. Fennell stated neither does the
C-14 Canal.
Mr. Petty stated but the
Mr. Hanks stated you need a
definable specification. Cypress Trees
are not going to go over the canal.
Mr. Fennell stated I had Cypress
Trees in my yard and it is not true.
Mr. Petty stated we have upland
Cypress Trees here. I have seen them in
the preserves down the street and they tend to be hollow.
Mr. Hanks stated there are certain
trees you are going to be okay with.
Mr. Fennell stated our current specification
is to clear from right-of-way to right-of-way.
This is definable. If you have
something better we can define, let’s hear it.
We need to do it now as we are running out of time. Our contractor is here. We received a bid that is only good for a
certain amount of time. We need to make
a decision to either live with these trees so they will not cause a problem or believe
the trees will not cause us a problem and we do not need to clear trees.
Mr. Hanks stated my screen enclosure
ended up in my front yard. If the wind
was blowing towards the south, my screen enclosure would have ended up in the
C-14 Canal.
Mr. Petty stated we have the
obligation to do the best job we can in protecting the drainage of the
District.
Mr. Fennell stated we have to do the
responsible, reasonable thing.
Mr. Petty stated if the trees are
considered to be a threat and your engineers give an opinion, you must respect
their opinion even through we have an alternative. I would like to have an option but I do not
know if there is one that is timely. I
do not know if there is one to mitigate any of the blame or anger of the
residents and us going in our area on our property and making it 100% drainage
friendly. This is something we should
have done in retrospect a long time ago.
We are going to get the blame now, regardless of whatever policy you establish. I cannot come up with an alternative that
puts you in a better position. I think
you are still going to get yelled at, even if it was right-of-way to right-of-way
and I do not know whether you could have done anything else to help the
residents accept this better. Certainly
we could not have done a better job protecting our drainage system.
Mr. Eissler
stated I do not know how far right-of-way to right-of-way is.
Mr. Petty stated it all
depends. Sometimes the canals are
centered and sometimes they are offset. This
is why in our current contract, we had the engineer following the contractor,
going from the center line of road back and setting markers every 500
feet. Most residents who have seen us
work in their canals, which is almost everyone in the
District, has seen this definition. They
have a survey of their homes, which they have to rely upon. We cannot be doing surveys for private
properties.
Mr. Hanks stated no, but we have
access to the plats.
Mr. DaSilva stated usually right-of-ways
are 80 feet. On the
Mr. Petty asked how wide is the flowway going through
Mr. DaSilva responded 100 feet.
Mr. Lyles stated in previous
discussions, we indicated we believe tree removal even within our right-of-way is
regulated by the City of
Mr. Petty stated we discussed this
matter with staff. We have not received
a solid opinion and this is in discussions with the city manager staff. We were informed the Drainage District is not
within the ordinance’s concept and we have to do whatever we need to in order
to prevent flooding. I am sure you want
to get this in some form other than verbal.
Mr. Lyles stated city staff
changes. We have laws prohibiting
this. This is a consideration we are
going to need to resolve on an operational level. I am not suggesting this impairs your ability
to adopt a policy. I just want the
discussion to include a cautionary note to implement if we have this hurdle to
clear. The manager indicated they had some
meetings and we had some positive feedback.
However, we will want to make absolutely sure we have this tied down.
Mr. Hanks asked what did the
estimates come in at for tree removal?
Mr. McKune
responded $937,000.
Mr. Fennell stated the questions are
what should the policy be and who is going to pay for it. Frankly I do not live on a canal and I
sometimes wonder why I am paying. As far
as I know, the canal owners are responsible for maintaining the property down
to the water line.
Mr. Eissler
stated tree canopy is vital for oxygen.
We had 75% damage or loss of tree canopy in
Mr. Fennell asked is it in the right-of-way?
Mr. Eissler
responded I do not know. I will go to
the city and they will tell me tree canopy is more important than your tree in
my canal.
Mr. Fennell asked who is going to be
responsible for the canals flooding?
Mr. Eissler
responded you need to use common sense.
You do not have a blanket rule.
Mr. Fennell stated the current
policy is for the area to be free of trees to the water’s edge.
Mr. Eissler
asked if you have a 15 foot tree 20 feet from the canal and I am in the right-of-way,
why would you take my tree? There has to be exceptions.
Mr. Hanks responded there is a 1%
chance in any given year we are spending $1,000,000. Is there a way we can make better use of our
finite resources to improve flood protection resulting in a tangible result
with a quantifiable benefit?
Mr. Fennell responded your argument
would be trees falling into the canal were in trouble.
Mr. Hanks asked how many trees fell
into the canal?
Mr. Eissler
responded thousands.
Mr. Hanks asked did we turn on the pumps?
Mr. Petty responded no.
Mr. Hanks asked did the pumps go on
at all during Hurricane Wilma?
Mr. Petty responded no. They did not have to go on because the water
level was able to flow naturally and did not reach the control point. We did not have any localized flooding in any
location even though we had five or six inches of rain over a 24 hour
period.
Mr. Hanks stated we still have trees
in the water.
Mr. Petty stated there was no flow
going down the canal so there was nothing to draw the trees into the pipe. If we get a storm event where we have to turn
on the pumps, the flow of those canals is now real. This is what we are concerned about as you
are going to start pulling in like a vacuum everything in the canal.
Mr. Hanks stated on this model, you
can figure out what velocities you are looking at in those canals.
Mr. Eissler
stated before you make any motion, you should find out from the City of
Mr. Fennell stated we have the right
to make a policy. If we can in fact take
down those trees is a secondary question.
It may be the city’s responsibility to enforce the code. They are not going to be happy about it. Frankly it is the homeowner’s responsibility
to remove the trees but the rest of us are stepping up and helping to pay the
bill.
Mr. Petty stated we had a suggestion
for an Arborist to give counsel to this body on trees we should be
removing. We have an issue with the city
we would like to resolve. I think we can
move forward with the idea we are going to be removing trees. If you go past the next meeting before making
a decision, then you have fewer options.
Mr. Fennell stated this decision is
not one you can hold in abeyance. Do also
believe the trees will not affect flooding if we do not do anything?
Mr. Petty responded we may have 30
days to get the work done before the major part of the hurricane season but we
are already pressing our luck because we are in the hurricane season. Therefore, we have limited time to look at
options but you have the option to go a couple of more weeks at the maximum.
Mr. Hanks stated we did a nice job
of trimming the trees and removing the weak ones. Are we in better shape now that Hurricane Wilma
has come through than we were before the storm?
Mr. Petty responded no, because it
did not have a rain event. When the water table goes up, the number of trees capable of coming
down increases. Any Arborist in
Mr. Hanks stated the issue is the
tree may go over and be dragged into the canal.
Mr. Petty stated in the conversation
areas where you still have old
Mr. Fennell stated the number of
trees down in the C1 area was tremendous.
Half the trees were down in the water and the other half were
leaning. We have been able to remove
most of those trees. There are still a
few left on the other bank.
Mr. Petty stated we could not even
see the bank damage.
Mr. Fennell stated it tore up the
bank. This was without any water.
Mr. Hanks stated we need to have a
better policy of maintaining what is out there, restricting what trees go in
and how close they are to the canal.
Mr. Fennell stated I would like an
operable policy where someone can go out without a great deal of interpretation
to decide which trees stay and which ones go.
We need to have something because right now all we are saying is we do not remove any trees.
Mr. Hanks stated we do not have a
policy where we can remove trees at the edge of water or top of bank so we can
help the city identify we have trees on private property which are a problem
and represent a potential risk to our drainage system.
Mr. Hanks responded do you want to
remove trees from the edge of the water?
Mr. Petty responded this is an
option you cannot opine on. There are
two issues; one is the possible blockage of the canal and any tree growing
within a certain distance of the canal.
Any tree growing to a certain height should be removed. Therefore, you have a height factor and
distance factor. The other issue is needing these rights-of-way to mobilize equipment. I need 25 feet to bring the trucks in. I do not care if the tree is only 12 feet tall, it has to come out because I have to get a truck
through there. If you look at the height
of the tree, distance from the water and making sure every right-of-way has the
deliverability of equipment, it covers you and
anything outside is subject to your policy.
However, anything within your zone you cannot justify, even though trees
are a definitive benefit to our city. We
have to look at the drainage possibility.
Our engineer told us it is a danger and we have seen it. I think you are on the right track and I
would look to the engineer to define the area we need to deliver the large
equipment on the right-of-way and then come up with a formula for the tree
(height from distance) so the tree cannot fall in the canal. We just went through a construction program.
Mr. Hanks asked if it falls in, is
it a risk?
Mr. Petty responded I think it
is. If the tree or any part of it lands
in the water, you have to say yes because we perceived it when we saw the
fallen trees with Hurricane Wilma. You
do not know until it blocks up the canal.
However, if it is on your property and it fell in your canal and blocks
your canal, and you could have trimmed the tree on
your property, that is an issue.
Mr. McKune
stated if it falls and does not reach the canal, it still blocks your access.
Mr. Petty stated you have to respond
within 16 hours of the event to mitigate the damages of the storm. Our reaction time is critical. After the last storm, our staff was clearing
the roads within two hours of the winds getting down below 70 mph. It is critical for us to get access under
certain conditions.
Mr. Fennell stated the issue is
whether we should clear the right-of-way.
Mr. Hanks stated let’s clear it
within 25 feet of top of bank to give Mr. McKune
access. I am willing to agree to this.
Mr. McKune
asked can a tree beyond 25 feet stay regardless of height?
Mr. Hanks responded yes.
Mr. Petty stated except any tree by
ordinance which needs to be removed, which includes what they refer to as
nuisance peppers.
Mr. Hanks stated pines and peppers.
Mr. Petty stated correct. I cannot spend money for the removal of
nuisance species but I can spend money for public relations with government
agencies.
Mr. Fennell asked what if the right-of-way
is less than 25 feet?
Mr. DaSilva responded it would be up
to the District.
Mr. McKune
stated I can live with this. It is
better than what we have now.
Mr. Eissler
stated I will not be here so I will not vote.
Mr. Petty stated counsel may tell
you if you do not vote, they will consider it to be a
yes vote.
Mr. Lyles stated if you are present
at this meeting, you are required to vote unless you have a conflict recognized
under Florida Law as a financial interest.
Mr. Fennell stated at this point we
are talking about 25 feet from right-of-way.
Mr. McKune
stated 25 feet from top of bank.
Mr. Eissler
stated you are precluding anyone from planting a tree in their yard.
Mr. McKune
stated it would not preclude anyone from planting trees on their property, even
if it is closer than 25 feet.
Ms. Early stated they are not
supposed to plant trees in the right-of-way.
Mr. Eissler
stated I would not vote for this. You
are telling people they cannot plant trees on their private property.
Mr. Fennell stated we are saying 25
feet maximum.
Mr. Petty stated we are going from
design top of bank, which means the water level is going to be 10 feet.
Mr. Lyles stated what you would be
looking at for clearing is right-of-way to right-of-way. This allows us to go in if we need to do any
bank maintenance. Traditionally nothing
has been done.
Mr. Eissler
stated you can always get access by the canal.
Mr. Fennell stated on some of these
main canals things were done.
Mr. Petty stated the outfall canals
were sized with a much greater right-of-way than 25 feet because the design
included you coming back with a drag line to rebuild these canals over a period
of time as they silt up. Drag lines are
going to take more than 25 feet to operate.
However, you can do this with a dredge.
We will do the best we can in being a good neighbor and the 25 feet is
what we consider to be a reasonable expectation of your neighbor allowing for
landscape usages. Anything within the 25
feet has to be considered a blockage of equipment.
Mr. Hanks stated you have to keep in
mind if we have excess right-of-way and stage issues, we may need to consider
expansion of our canal system to allow for more storage. This is why I want to keep the $1,000,000 in
our pocket as opposed to sending it out to remove these trees.
Mr. Fennell stated we will probably have
to go out for a bond issue.
Mr. Hanks stated I do not look at
this issue as being a major concern. We
could have a rain event without the wind and vice versa. It is the combination of those two being the
root of the problem.
Mr. Petty asked what are the odds?
Mr. Hanks responded we are playing
the odds. We can establish we needed to
have finished floors in this District at 15 feet, roads at elevation 12 and 20%
lake area. Our roads would be protected
for the 100 year storm. We could identify
a particular level of service for our facilities. Are we eliminating all of this? No. My
question to the engineer is whether we have been prudent in watching what we
have approved to comply with the desired level of service for the various
components.
Mr. Fennell stated I suggest
establishing a policy ensuring maintenance access and ameliorate canal
blockage, all trees are to be cleared within 25 feet on the top of the bank or right-of-way,
whichever is less.
Ms. Early stated for a maximum of 25
feet.
Mr. Hanks stated or to the right-of-way,
whichever is less.
Mr. Petty stated administratively we
can ask the engineer to define the word “cleared”.
Mr. Fennell stated my proposal is on
the floor which can be modified or changed.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the opinion
of the attorney?
Mr. Lyles responded you are going to
have a firestorm of protests. I think
you are in a stronger position than the vast majority of other Districts
because you own the right-of-way in fee simple. You own the property and what grows
there. Most Districts have a lake or
canal maintenance easement. The property
is privately owned and part of someone’s backyard and they pay taxes on it, but
the District has a right of ingress and egress for maintenance activities. Therefore, those Districts are in a less
secure position than this one in this activity.
However, this would have such a profound effect on so many people,
probably not just people who live adjacent to a waterway, but those who drive
on the streets. I question doing this
with no notice, even if it is just a courtesy notice. I am not suggesting you have a public
hearing.
Mr. Hanks asked do you think we
should accept public comment?
Mr. Petty responded you do not need
to have input to adopt the policy as you have people with technical expertise
advising you. All I am saying is if you
are going to implement this policy, let people know it
is coming before you start cutting. It
is not a legal requirement but it may help the relationship you have with your
taxpayers.
Mr. Fennell stated the issue is we
are not maintaining our own land correctly.
Shame on us.
Mr. Eissler
stated life is not without risk.
Mr. Fennell stated I have an issue
with this.
Mr. Eissler
stated all the water has to come out of
Mr. Fennell stated this is our land
and we are making a policy of what we are going to do with our land.
Mr. Eissler
stated somehow I do not think you can do what you want even thought we own it.
Ms. Early stated we planned the
entire Sunshine East Outfall canal and believe we received approval from the
city with no problems. However, we had a
great deal of resistance from the homeowners.
I spoke to Mr. Nick Schooley after Hurricane
Wilma and he wanted to ask the residents what their opinion was after those
trees were removed because many trees fell on their homes.
Mr. Fennell stated we have to decide
on a policy.
Mr. Petty stated let me give you an
example of what Drainage Districts are currently requiring on the west coast in
new subdivisions. They are requiring a
20 foot maintenance easement from top of bank.
This is what they need for the equipment. Anything else you need to do around this
water management facility is something you better be able to do with specialized
equipment. All your new projects are
typically 20 feet from top of bank. You
would like to have 25 feet to make turn arounds but
20 feet is typical. I cannot give you
any examples of any new systems going in with less than 20 feet of maintenance
around the facility. Anything else is
older than we are.
Mr. McKune
stated you also do not have 20 foot lots.
Mr. Petty stated on the west coast
we do since there is quite a bit of preserve area. Typically we clear the water management back
to the preserve.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to
establish a policy within our right-of-way?
Mr. Lyles responded you are not
required to establish a policy, especially the formal policy we are talking
about adopting. However, staff would
like some direction. They do not want to
do something administratively and find out it is not consistent with the
Board’s thinking. The Board needs to
come to consensus on the direction staff needs to pursue.
Mr. Fennell asked can Mr. McKune clear with our current policy?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated what we are
talking about is probably more restrictive than the policy we currently have.
Mr. Eissler
stated you are going to have the highest form of protest from the residents.
Mr. Fennell stated some will protest. However, in my area, people were glad we came
in and removed the trees. They actually
wanted us to remove more trees. We did
not take out everything. We removed what
we thought were the problem trees.
Mr. Petty stated there is nothing
saying you cannot change this policy in six months, a year or 10 years.
Mr. Fennell stated our current
policy is not actionable from the direction of the Board or it is so open it
cannot be interpreted anyway.
Mr. Eissler
stated you are giving the approval to spend up to $1,000,000.
Mr. Fennell stated no, we are just
setting a policy. The next question is
what we want to do about it.
Mr. Eissler
stated the policy you are going to approve will be to spend $1,000,000.
Mr. Fennell stated I think we should
have done this years ago.
Mr. Eissler
asked have you walked the canals?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Eissler
stated the fallen trees are removed and the canals are clean.
Mr. Petty stated we can see the
light through many areas of concern for us for many years. We were also looking at areas, such as behind
Arbys, where we thought problem areas were where two
thirds of the trees came down. All
around the athletic center we have top cut Banyan Trees.
Mr. Eissler
stated you have to use common sense.
Behind Home Depot, there were a group of Australian Pines. This was a nightmare. They should have come down years ago. When you look at other residential areas,
they do not look like ours.
Mr. Fennell stated this is why I do
not think we are going to have as firm of a policy as you think. Frankly the biggest abusers are the
commercial properties. Most people’s
houses are not that bad. However, one
particular corner was bad as there were Australian Pines all around the corner
and down the canal.
The meeting was recessed at
The meeting was reconvened at
Mr. Fennell asked are there any
amendments to the policy we placed on the table?
Mr. Eissler
responded I suggest you postpone this matter for 30 days.
Mr. Petty stated I recommend you implement
the policy. In authorizing the contract,
you indicate a contract start date, which would be the day after the next
meeting. This gives the Board time to do
evaluations of options. We can get the
contract started and the contractor on-site to proceed the day after the next
meeting. He would have a firm policy and
decision at that time.
Mr. Eissler
stated I concur.
Mr. Fennell stated we will have a
policy statement and implementation of the policy. We are ready to maintain the areas we own and
areas requiring maintenance. We need to
clear the trees so we can get our equipment in there.
Mr. Hanks stated the question is the
need.
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr.
Hanks with Mr. Fennell voting aye and Mr. Hanks and Mr. Eissler
voting nay establishment of a general policy removing all trees within 25 feet
of the top of the bank or in the right-of-way, whichever is less, in order to
ensure maintenance access and ameliorate canal blockage was denied.
Mr. Petty stated there is still the
issue of the contract as we discussed with the 31 day time to activate. The contract is for tree removal of any
standing trees unharmed by Hurricane Wilma within our right-of-way. Staff is asking you to award of contract and
authorize the contractor to start one day after our next Board meeting.
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Eissler with Mr. Fennell and Mr. Eissler
voting aye and Mr. Hanks voting nay, Pay Estimate #1 with Arbor Tree and Land,
Inc. for tree removal in the amount of $1,079,747.90 was approved, subject to
the contract commending one day after the next meeting.
Mr. Lyles stated we will work with
the manager to ensure we do not execute a contract with a start date creating
the right of the contractor to sue us for awarding the contract and rescinding
it after he has mobilized his staff, if for some reason the Board adopts a
policy more restrictive than the contract as it currently sits.
Mr. Petty stated we have options in
the contract.
Mr. Lyles stated I want to make sure
we have a two step process. We are
awarding the contract subject to a delayed start date and a Notice to Proceed
by the Board to do the work. I do not
think you want them mobilizing or cutting trees the day after the next Board
meeting when there is every possibility the Board may not want them to cut
anything. They are going to be incurring
some costs we do not want them to incur.
Mr. Petty stated I do want them out there
the day after the Board meeting cutting down trees and incurring costs we have
to pay for. There is no doubt there are
trees that have to come down. However,
the issue is to what degree. We are
getting later and later in the hurricane season.
Mr. Lyles asked is this what the
Board’s understanding is with respect to implementing some “to be determined”
policy?
Mr. Fennell responded the current
policy now stands. We did not modify
it.
Mr. Eissler
stated we have just approved the contract.
Ms. Early
asked is the contract for a fee or for a lump sum?
Mr. Petty responded lump sum.
Ms. Early stated if we approve this
contract and decided we are only going to remove half of the trees, the
contract states if there is a 25% reduction or increase, the contractor has a
right to come back and request an increase.
Mr. Petty stated this better not be
the case because the engineer was told this contract could entail trees except
for ornamentals and we needed those options.
The specifications were supposed to be written for this. This is not NRCS. This is to be taken out of the District
funds. If it is lump sum and limits us,
this is not how the engineer was directed by staff or the Board.
Mr. McKune
stated we have the right to issue a change order.
Mr. Eissler
asked if it is decided only 50% of the trees have to come out, can we go back
and say the contract is now $500,000?
Mr. McKune
responded yes. We can negotiate it.
Mr. Eissler
asked can we go to the contractor and say “We gave you a $1,000,000 contract
and a month later we are going to change it to $400,000.” He is going to incur costs and come back and
say, “I am ready to go”.
Mr. McKune
responded they have enough people to do either size job.
Mr. Petty asked what did Arbor Tree
charge for remobilization in the last contract?
Mr. McKune
responded $13,000 to come back with the barge.
In this contract they are not anticipating using a barge.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the rush to
go forward with the decision to have them start on July 28th? It seems to me we could be incurring greater
increases in cost than the $15,000 mobilization, which I do not think we will
be faced with because we are not talking about as much equipment.
Mr. Petty responded I agree. It is not a cost issue. The issue is whether we have done the best
job we can to prevent flooding in our Drainage District. We are tempting fate by saying we are working
on trying to remove a threat to drainage during the hurricane season. September, October and November are the peak
of the hurricane season. If we are going
to do anything, let’s give it due diligence.
This is why I would like to move by the next Board meeting. If I started a contract at the next Board
meeting in late July, I have about four to six weeks to clear the trees before
I am in the peak of the season. I know
what the public reaction is going to be if the system backs up due to a tree on
our property.
Mr. Fennell stated I would like to
approve the Surface Water Management Permit for the Sawgrass
Expressway.
Mr. Hanks asked was it included in
the District boundaries?
Mr. McKune
responded yes.
Ms. Early stated it is subject to a
few stipulations.
Mr. Petty stated approval will be
subject to the engineer’s evaluation.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the Right-of-Way & Surface
Water Management Permit for expansion of the Sawgrass
Expressway to six lanes from
EIGHTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Consideration
of Award of Contract for Landscape Maintenance
Mr. Petty stated we would like to pull
this item from the agenda as we did not receive enough responses. This is for the utility site maintenance.
Mr. Fennell stated we need to move
forward with the trees. We have not changed
our policy.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell
with all in favor establishment of a general policy removing all trees within
25 feet of the top of the bank or in the right-of-way, whichever is less, in
order to ensure maintenance access and ameliorate canal blockage was approved.
Mr. Lyles stated we will issue the
Notice to Proceed to have the contractor mobilize to
work within the confines of the policy established by the Board. This will be a reduction in the contract
price of a fairly noticeable nature. The
contractor is going to have to agree before he starts to do the work with a 25
foot or less zone and the price will be reduced
accordingly.
Mr. McKune
stated we can straighten this out in a day to two.
Mr. Lyles stated we have enough
contractors if we need to re-bid.
Ms. Early asked is the contractor supposed
to remove the trees on the drawing or all of the trees?
Mr. McKune
responded we gave him the drawings for the first job. The scope for this job is to remove the
remaining trees.
Mr. Hanks asked have you prioritized
any areas?
Mr. McKune
responded no, there is no need to.
Mr. Hanks stated I think we should
prioritize this.
Mr. Petty asked do you have a
suggestion for prioritizing?
Mr. McKune
responded we can do the prioritizing.
Mr. Fennell stated I believe our
manager should be able to make exceptions to this policy as he sees fit. There may be a tree in the right-of-way. If there is a tree in obvious danger, it
should go.
Mr. Petty stated without a
doubt.
Mr. Lyles stated you want the
manager to have the ability to come to the Board if a situation arises where
there was a tree within the 25 foot zone that should remain.
Mr. Petty stated I suggest you allow
me to tell the contractor to move around a tree removal site which may incur
some costs so I can bring such matters to the Board’s attention as I deem fit
under these general guidelines. This way
I am not giving a pardon to a group of trees.
I am just telling the contractor to go around them until I get word from
the Board.
Mr. Fennell stated I do not know
that the Board should be involved to decide which trees should be removed or
remain.
Mr. Petty stated I do not mind
giving the order the trees are to be removed in. There are some cases where the Sunshine Water
Control District is involved such as where these trees are the buffer to
commercial areas. I want to have
authority as a manager to administer this general policy. I know you are going to judge me on how well
I administer this and I do not suspect coming back to you because of the
singular tree issue. There is new data
you need to look at.
NINTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Attorney
Mr. Lyles stated I was contacted by
the attorney for the Lake Coral Springs Property Owners Association since the
last meeting. They apparently went
through some changes on the Board and in philosophy. He requested we sit down with him and the new
President of the Association. We
tentatively scheduled a meeting to resolve this agreement for July 12th. I just wanted to let you know that something
finally happened.
Mr. Eissler
stated he called me.
Mr. Lyles stated there is new
leadership in the HOA.
B. Engineer
There not being any, the next item
followed.
C. Manager
1. Monthly
Water & Sewer Charts
2. Utility
Billing Work Orders
3. Complaints
Received/Resolved
Mr. Petty stated we included the
monthly water and sewer charts. We
already spoke to you about our stormwater pumps. The Board received a Work Authorization for
the engineer to evaluate the Water Management System as we described earlier and
give us status of the existing equipment and whether or not they feel it is
justified to go forward with the contract to change out of the motors. We recommend you authorize Work Authorization
#31 for evaluations and recommendations for stormwater
pump stations 1 & 2.
Mr. Eissler
asked is this the contract where the contractor has not done the work?
Mr. Petty responded this is the one
we were working on in-house for the last year and a half. I would very much like our engineer to give
me a strong evaluation.
Mr. Hanks asked is it $25,000 to
look at the pumps?
Mr. Petty responded yes. This is their standard fee.
Mr. Hanks asked how many contracts
do we currently have with Ch2M-Hill?
Mr. Petty responded good
question. I have been working with Mr. McKune and Ms. Early with CH2M-Hill who I consider to be
invaluable to the District. The number
of bills coming in and the amounts prompted me to take a look at them. I have a couple of different ways of looking
at it such as how much I have under construction versus how much I am paying
the engineer. I feel that Ch2M-Hill is
pricy. We are reviewing their bills and
will come back to the Board at a later date.
I believe what you have before you is a realistic proposal. It will be done by Mr. McKune
and Ms. Early and I am sure they will give us the same quality work they have
given us in the past and not overcharge us.
On MOTION by Mr. Eissler
seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor CH2M-Hill Work Authorization #31 for
Ch2M-Hill for Evaluations and Recommendations for Stormwater
Pump Stations 1 & 2 in an amount not to exceed $25,000 was approved.
Mr. Petty stated we have nothing
further to bring before the Board.
Mr. Fennell stated a year and a half
ago we spent some money to get an engine.
We should have received something by now.
Mr. Eissler
stated it is not even installed.
Mr. Petty stated correct. Staff has to take this hit. Our in-house program should have saved us but
all it did was give us a black eye. We should have spent the money before.
Mr. Hanks stated I have two
requests. The first item is the request
for qualifications for general surveying services. We discussed this item briefly at the last
meeting.
Mr. Petty stated we talked about
pre-qualifying for a couple of different items.
Mr. Hanks stated also for value
engineering.
Mr. Petty stated I looked into the
value engineering but I would like to discuss it further during consideration
of the Water and Sewer Budget. This
refers to the evaluation of CH2M-Hill and their bills.
Mr. Hanks stated we need to start
moving on this, especially because we are contemplating in the next year some stormwater improvements.
Mr. Petty stated since this item
came before the Board and we have direction and since our engineers went
through different steps of obtaining a survey group, I will be happy to work
with Mr. McKune and look at the specifications. We will see if we can have something for you
by the next meeting.
Mr. Hanks stated we were looking at
the rest of the study regarding the CSID boundaries. We authorized additional fees for surveying
of $60,000. Where do we stand?
Mr. McKune
responded we combined the surveying for this item with the selection of the
surveyor for the District.
Mr. Petty stated all they have left are
parts of the permitted boundary. We
wanted to tie it in.
Mr. Hanks stated I want to see how
we compare with Sunshine Water Control District as we are adjacent to them and
have two of their canals running adjacent to our facilities. If they have stages higher than they predicted
and we have elevations lower than we predicted, all of our wonderful modeling
is wasted.
Mr. McKune
stated we have not run models for Sunshine Water Control District. We can only assume.
Mr. Petty stated Sunshine Water
Control District is going to be asked to develop a hydraulic model as well.
Mr. Fennell stated we know the top
of the canal is lopped off. If the canal
gets high enough, the water will come over the bank and into us. I do not think there is a real understanding
of how high the C-14 Canal actually is.
The issue is the fact we can pump more water into the C-14 Canal. Unfortunately, the water will come right back
up this canal and into our area. Our
modeling is good except it will be just like
I do not think SFWMD has done
anything for our area and I am anxious to know if they have a hydraulic program
predicting the height of the C-14 Canal.
Mr. McKune
stated yes they do. We are currently
obtaining this information.
Mr. Hanks stated I would like to
meet with Mr. McKune and Ms. Early before the next
meeting.
Mr. Fennell stated we have had pump
failures going off on a regular basis.
Mr. Hanks stated we need to take a
look at other scenarios where we have three pumps off to see whether rainfall
results in a problem.
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor Requests and
Audience Comments
There not being any, the next item
followed.
ELEVENTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Approval of
February Financials and Check Registers
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the financials and General Fund
invoices for
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Organizational Matters
(Continued)
A.
Acceptance of
Resignation of Mr. Eissler
B.
Appointment of
Supervisor to Fill the Unexpired Term of Office (6/2007)
C.
Oath of Office of Newly
Appointed Supervisor
D.
Election of Officers
Mr. Petty stated we received a
resignation from Mr. Eissler.
Mr. Eissler
stated I enjoyed my tenure.
Mr. Petty asked do you have anyone
in mind to serve Mr. Eissler’s unexpired term?
Mr. Fennell responded no, we are
looking for someone who not only has an interest but a financial background.
Mr. Eissler
stated you need someone with a business and financial background.
Mr. Fennell stated I would like to
present to Mr. Eissler a plaque in recognition of his
loyal and dedication service to the CSID.
He served from
Mr. Eissler
stated my pleasure.
TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There being no further business,
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the meeting was adjourned at
Glen Hanks Robert
Fennell
Secretary President