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
Glen Hanks Vice President
Sharon Zich Secretary
Also present were:
John Petty Manager
Dennis Lyles Attorney
John McKune Engineer
Peter Colossy CH2M-Hill
Jane Early CH2M-Hill
Isabelo Rodriguez CH2M-Hill
Ilana Rabone
Janice Moen Larned
Dana Kaas
Randy Fredericks Field
Supervisor
Doug Hyche District Staff
Mr.
Fennell called the meeting to order and Mr. Petty called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of
the August 14, 2006 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member
received a copy of the
Mr. Hanks stated very thorough.
Ms. Zich stated very good.
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr.
Hanks with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Hearing to Consider
the Adoption of the Water and Wastewater Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2007
Mr. Fennell opened the public
hearing and requested comments.
Mr. Petty stated we have a few
changes to bring to the Board’s attention from the previous version of the
budget. Under Administrative, a line
item for Communication Expenses was added.
This item is for the public relations firm discussed at the last
meeting. Further down the page, Printing
and Binding was increased to $45,700 to reflect the cost of utility billing. The increase in Capital Outlay reflects the
cost of the new computer system.
For Plant Operations, Rentals and
Leases decreased because we allocated the vehicles to their proper places. There is currently a Ranger and a newer Ford 4150
reflecting those costs accurately. The
rest of the vehicle cost is in the field expenses. Operating Supplies decreased slightly to
$490,000. Dues and Subscriptions
decreased to actual spending levels and Capital Outlay included the cost of a
lift vehicle.
Mr. Hanks asked does it make sense
to purchase?
Mr. Petty responded yes. We had one onsite for two months now.
Mr. Hanks asked do we use it fairly regularly?
Mr. Petty responded yes. From time to time, there has
been algae and mold growing around the facility and the lift vehicle
allows you to get high enough to re-paint or spray chemicals.
Mr. Hanks asked why did Operating
Supplies decrease when there was a 25 percent increase last year? Was it due to the cost of chlorine?
Mr. Petty responded we had an
increase in chlorine usage at the time.
I can research this further.
Mr. Hanks asked did we drastically
reduce the usage of chlorine for odor control?
Mr. Petty responded we are still at
sufficient levels to stop any odors although we do not have a great abundance
of odors.
Mr. Hanks stated for a period there
was almost a constant spray.
Mr. McKune stated it reduced
somewhat.
Mr. Fennell stated we did some
pre-chlorination of liquids going into the tanks.
Mr. McKune stated for the raw
sewage.
Mr. Hanks asked were there any big
increases such as in Electric?
Mr. Petty responded Electric was
projected to be higher based on new bills.
Repairs and Maintenance decreased to $125,000 based on anticipated
in-house programs. Capital Outlay is budgeted
at $28,100, which represents our intent to purchase trucks instead of
leasing. It is easier for us to lease
but more cost effective to purchase. I
am changing the program with the Board’s approval. Those are the major changes in the budget to
date.
Mr. Fennell stated there are a
couple of areas on the revenue side such as Contract Personnel, Service Revenue
and Transfer-In from reserves. In
regards to Contract Personnel, one of the transformations we made is the shared
employees report directly to CSID.
Mr. Petty stated CSID owns all
personnel. We do not have Interlocal
Agreements with our sister districts, although they have the benefit of utilizing
our people and expertise so long as they are willing to pay. Mr. Lyles office
will be preparing Interlocal Agreements over the next year as we enter into this
program. CSID has ownership of all those
people and all the costs and personnel are in your budget.
Mr. Fennell asked do we have an
agreement with these districts?
Mr. Petty responded yes. The districts agreed in
concept and willing to go through the process.
Mr. Fennell stated then the $453,000
is not in jeopardy.
Mr. Petty responded we do not
believe so.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the amount
transferred in from reserves?
Mr. Petty responded we have more
than enough money to cover our bond requirements. We are carrying $200,000, which will cover
some of the increases including Capital Outlay.
Instead of raising rates, we are pulling excess funds out of the Renewal
and Replacement Account as required by the bondholders.
Mr. Hanks stated I am concerned about
the projected increase of $200,000 in Electric.
Is this the correct way to pull money out of reserves for operating
expenses?
Mr. Petty responded we are actually
pulling $150,000 from Capital Outlay under Administration; $30,000 from Communication
Expense and Printing and Binding.
Mr. Fennell stated your point is
well taken. Every year we had either two to three percent appreciation in electric and end
up raising rates. We are probably approaching
this point but we can probably get by one more year.
Mr. Petty stated we are currently
doing a rate sufficiency in-house study, which we will bring back to the Board.
Mr. Fennell stated we also have to
take into account our capital expenditures.
Mr. Hanks stated I am keeping an eye
on this. I always hesitate knowing we
are working with an older plant. The
wish list Mr. Roger Moore generated two years ago was substantial.
Mr. Petty stated we succeeded Mr.
Moore’s wishes.
Ms. Larned stated when this budget
was prepared, Mr. Petty asked us to take a thorough look at all the
accounts. One of philosophies we always
follow and recommend is to match recurring revenues with recurring expenditures
and non-recurring revenues with non-recurring expenditures so you do not have
an imbalance.
Mr. Hanks stated Printing and
Binding is a reoccurring expense.
Mr. Petty stated if we had money in
excess of renewal and replacement requirements of the bonds, it is structured
to bring it back from the rates.
Mr. Hanks stated this is money we
had for coverage.
Mr. Petty stated the coverage is
part of the assessment all residents pay every month.
Mr. Hanks stated it was part of the
requirements on the bond based on how much money was out there. We capture some of this money for useful
purposes. When will the rate study be
completed?
Mr. Petty responded the rate study
should be completed within the next 60 to 90 days. The capital program should be coming at the
next meeting for conceptual numbers. We
will refine it at the wishes of the Board.
There is the concept part and then you actually do the work. What is our current balance?
Ms. Larned responded the audited
fund balance is $1.4 million.
Mr. Fennell asked for the Water and
Sewer Fund?
Mr. Petty responded General
Fund. In looking at the financials you
are guessing because you do not have all your bills in before the end of the
year.
Mr. Fennell stated this is an
Operating Budget opposed to the financial statement. We used to have $6 to $8 million.
Mr. Petty stated according to our
contracts, we spent a little over $2 million.
Mr. McKune keeps them well handled.
Mr. McKune stated the money is
accounted for.
Mr. Petty stated last time I looked,
we had $4.5 million. Mr. McKune has
programs the Board approved conceptually and we have a capital program.
Mr. Fennell stated this is a capital
funding issue.
Mr. Petty stated correct. When your rate study was adopted in 1992, a
certain percentage of the monthly bill to everyone had a portion to be used for
capital construction. It is still
funding capital construction to this day.
Mr. Hanks asked if we run short on a
portion of the revenue stream, what requirement do we have to the bond amount
of $1.1 million?
Mr. Petty responded the $1.1 million
coverage is in addition to the renewal and replacement requirement. We have dual requirements.
Mr. Hanks asked what happens if we
drop below the $1.1 million bond amount?
Mr. Petty responded this is a
concern we monitor throughout the year.
If we see a drop in rate sufficiency based on the monthly statements, we
will bring it to the Board’s attention.
It behooves the Board to consider a rate increase at that time to bring yourselves back up. However,
we do not see you in jeopardy at this time.
Mr. Fennell stated I agree. A year and a half ago we reviewed the entire
organization to see where we should be spending money and how we can become
more efficient. I have seen some of
those items decrease.
Mr. Hanks stated whether or not we
are utilizing any financial benefit, it makes a huge difference in knowing we
have the employees and they report to us.
It makes a difference for the members of the community.
Mr. Fennell stated it does but it
will be a good advantage for our sister districts. We will support them, just as they supported
us in the past and we will continue to do so.
However, the command of control is clearer, which is something we have
been trying to clear up for a year. Mr.
Petty did a great job putting this budget together. Congratulations. Interest Income increased slightly. Is Technology Sharing Revenue from renting
out our computers?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated it ties into our
system.
Mr. Hanks asked is
there payback on the computers?
Mr. Petty responded there should be
some benefit. Technology is moving
quickly in this industry. There used to
be a four to five year lifespan but now after two or three years, it is
outdated. We asked the company providing
the software to put us on their update schedule. They are providing at least two updates a
year. The computer systems today are
going through a huge change. We are
currently looking at a power to the 10 increase in speed on the system we are
looking at. In two or three years you
will see the speed triple.
Ms. Zich asked is the Electric under
the Administrative Expenses for this building?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Ms. Zich stated it has to go up more
than what is budgeted. Everyone’s bills
are increasing. The budget only
increased from $16,000 to $18,000.
Mr. Petty stated there is a timer on
some of the lights. Mr. Dan Daly makes
sure the lights go out at
Mr. Fennell stated there was
discussion before the meeting on our excess oil. When it is delivered, there will be a problem
with it sitting and getting stale. This
is an issue we need to contend with. We
also had an agreement with FP&L for auxiliary power. Take another look at the agreement and
options for using up the oil in other areas.
There may come a time where it would be smart to turn on our own power
for a week. This is an economic
decision. We can also have someone treat
it every once in awhile. If it becomes
an issue where we are spending large amounts of money to keep it fresh, it is
easier to burn it and make our own electricity.
Mr. Hanks stated you may want to
look at FP&L’s rate structure relative to the current cost of fuel.
Mr. Fennell stated we can try to cut
a deal with FP&L by having a Load Sharing Agreement.
Mr. Petty stated we can look into
it.
Mr. Kaas stated as part of your
routine maintenance of the generators, they have to be run periodically to make
sure they operate. There will be a certain
amount of consumption as a result. I have
seen situations where energy is sold back to a utility. You do not need it to run your plant. However, this requires contractual agreements
between the two entities.
Mr. Fennell stated it also requires
additional equipment because you have to synchronize the generators.
Mr. Hanks asked will the citizens in
the community be receptive to us increasing generator capacity at the plant?
Mr. Petty stated currently, there is
no concern about diesel fuel going stale.
We can power up our facilities, go off-line and not incur FP&L
charges to run the generators until we drop the tanks down to a level we feel
comfortable with. It is not an
issue. To generate power back to FP&L
requires a fairly large investment.
Currently we can operate our facilities but we do not have a generator
when we get back to being on the system.
It is certainly something we can look at in the capital plan but the
last time I looked at it, I determined it was not cost effective. Our current policy is similar to what you
suggested where we go off-line, do not incur the electrical charges and utilize
the diesel fuel we have on-site.
Mr. Fennell stated I assume we have
a preventative maintenance plan to make sure the diesel does not go bad.
Mr. Petty stated it is checked
regularly by the supplier.
Mr. Fennell closed the public
hearing.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr.
Hanks with all in favor Resolution 2006-7 Adopting the Final Waste and Sewer
Enterprise Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 was adopted.
FOURTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Status of
Negotiations with Surveyor Selected to Provide
Mr. Petty stated the negotiations
were handled by District Counsel and the engineer. The intent was to qualify two or three
surveyors so we have a pool to rotate from.
We discussed this item at the last meeting and hopefully Mr. McKune has
been in communication with Mr. Pawelczyk in Mr. Lyles
office. I will defer to Mr. McKune
regarding the status.
Mr. McKune stated negotiations are
complete with the highest ranked firm, Paul Brewer & Associates. I spoke with Mr. Lyles before the meeting as
there was some concern about the advertising.
This was straightened out as we advertised two weeks prior to receipt of
the RFP. I think we are in good shape.
Mr. Lyles stated no additional
action by the Board is required. Mr.
McKune just wanted to update the Board on the status of the negotiations. We confirmed the advertising occurred prior
to the last meeting and we are in the process of negotiating Standby Agreements
with the other two top ranked firms.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the
surveyor’s first task?
Mr. McKune responded it depends on
the capital improvement program. A great
deal of work was contemplated for the stormwater management system. We were talking about perhaps interconnecting
some of the canals. We still need to
complete the perimeter surveys, specifically with the Sunshine East Outfall
canal. In my opinion, this will be the
first major project. Other work includes
setting baselines at the plant.
Mr. Fennell stated let’s complete
this project first to take it off the table.
We need to understand whether or not this is a problem. All we know is we are missing three feet of
bank. The question is whether or not it
is a problem. If it is missing, there may
be other sections missing. How do we
know until we check?
Mr. Hanks stated in
Mr. Petty stated the Sunshine WCD is
contemplating doing something similar to our Hydraulic Study. If there is overlapping, I do not know if there
is a problem with Sunshine paying for any work CSID may have done or if there
is an issue on the CSID side of the Sunshine canal on the east outfall. There used to be a berm but now we have
filled lots. Sunshine is concerned about
the
Mr. Hanks stated on the east outfall
canal, this is an open connection. Their
pumps are located north of
Mr. Petty responded not one is missing
a berm.
Mr. Hanks stated there is no
continuation of the outfall canal. It
runs towards Woodside and up to
Mr. Petty stated the only area they
are concerned about is the berm. The
residents on the eastern border are concerned about additional water going into
their outfall. The canal can only take
so much.
Mr. Fennell stated the problem
besides missing the berm is the canal banks are not even. The far bank in
Mr. Petty stated the overflow will
go in our direction.
Mr. Hanks stated the bank for the
house on the C-14 Canal is right up to the 100 year storm.
Mr. Fennell stated you cannot tell
whether it is the same height as the C-14 Canal or lower.
Mr. Hanks stated we will find out.
Mr. Fennell stated maybe it needs to
be higher because you expect the water in the C-14 Canal to be down.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to take a
look at it?
What are our authorities with SFWMD to make these changes?
Mr. McKune responded it is low but
level. If it is on the
Mr. Hanks asked do you want to look
at it?
Mr. McKune responded I would not go
any further than casual conversation with their staff.
Mr. Fennell asked do you think there
is a problem?
Mr. Hanks responded no. However, we need to effectively exercise a
solution if there was a problem. The
question is whether we need to look for a problem having no solution.
Mr. Fennell stated you are assuming
SFWMD will do something.
Mr. McKune stated the original
drawing was based on the C-14 Canal and their banks.
Mr. Fennell stated the C-14 Canal
has the highest point.
Mr. McKune stated we are pumping uphill
into the C-14 Canal.
Mr. Fennell stated the only people
who know what happens in our area is us. SFWMD does not have a clue. In fact, they depend on us to tell them. If something is wrong, we need to tell them.
Mr. McKune stated within their own modeling
as part of their water management plan, SFWMD may change their modeling to
impact us. We do not always know what
they are doing.
Mr. Fennell stated we probably need
more cooperation from SFWMD. They have an
$800 million year budget and can do many things if they decide there is a
need. They also have immense power. All their positions are political ones. There are people we can talk to who actually
make the decisions. We have a
relationship with a member of their Board and there are members of staff the
engineer kept relationships with over the last 30 or so years. We have a good relationship with them. One of the difficulties is their
determination of policy can change drastically.
As you have seen in their operation of the retention areas and discharge
into the everglades, they are now looking at $9 billion and counting on
corrective matters. Their politics can
change with those issues.
Mr. Fennell stated you can not look
at a problem because you think it might not get solved. If it is a political issue and something we
have to fight, then this is what this Board will do.
Mr. Hanks stated let’s discuss this with
Sunshine first. As part of their
everglades restoration, SFWMD implemented additional water quality measures for
NSID, City of
Mr. Petty stated I believe they
looked at it from a time entry position of when we came into the system with
our permit. CSID and Sunshine were
grandfathered in because it had been so long ago. NSID received permission to pump into the
conservation area westward. Only one
other district was allowed to do so, which was Weston.
Mr. Fennell stated I attended the
Mr. Petty stated there is going to
be a push in the next year in the State of
Mr. Fennell stated I thought the
Federal Government was coming up with the money.
Mr. Petty stated they will come in with
some money and the state will have to come up with some. It will have to come from the residents in
one form or another. The Drainage
Districts are going to be hit with a surcharge.
Mr. Fennell stated there is a
political question which will affect the residents in this area. It can go one way or the other.
Mr. McKune stated the pollution and
stormwater is reminiscent of the early 1970’s when the Section 208 funding
program was initiated. Billions of
dollars were spent trying to resolve the program. They finally acknowledged no matter how much
money was spent, they could not make it go away or restrict pollution coming
into everyone’s front yard. NSID is
looking into a management program for removal of bulrushes and weeds from
stormwater management areas. There are
areas in NSID where we can do this removal because they are in the western
areas and not in developments. You will
hear a lot about this problem. Is it
practical? Probably
not.
Mr. Petty stated some of the ideas
are using chemicals to help the bacteria break down organic material. We will be maintaining our canals in similar
fashion to our wastewater treatment facilities where you try to optimize
conditions for the uptake. If you do not
have room for plants, you may want to do it with bacteria.
Mr. Fennell stated we will discuss
this matter at a future meeting.
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Acceptance
of the Audit for Fiscal Year Ended
Mr. Petty stated these are your
basic financial statements. I am happy
to say this is a clean audit, meaning we are in compliance. If you turn to page 28 under internal
controls, the auditors noted no matters involving the internal control over
financial reporting and its operations they consider to be material
weaknesses. They also checked for
compliance in other matters and the results of their tests disclosed no
instances of non-compliance or other matters required to be reported under
government auditing standards. On page
30 is the Management Letter. The first
item they reported on is if anything was leftover from last year’s audit needing
to be addressed. There were no
recommendations, meaning two years in a row we have been doing well. We are also in compliance with the Auditor
General under Section 218.415. Under
findings or recommendations, they noted no matters requiring disclosure in the
report to District management on the audited financial statements. If you recall, we had a special audit of our
accounting system earlier in the year where they gave us specific suggestions
on how we can improve. Due to this
reason, they did not include them in the audit report. We asked them specifically if they were any new
systems they were aware of and could recommend on checks and balances.
Mr. Fennell stated we were going to set
aside some money for emergencies. Do we
have this in place?
Mr. Petty responded yes. We have $15,000 sitting in a bank account.
Mr. Fennell stated there were other
changes for hurricane preparation. The
biggest issue we have is the small accounting staff; i.e. half a person.
Mr. Hanks stated it is a full person
now.
Mr. Petty stated Severn Trent
provided additional personnel. We also
made sure the backups to the accounting system provided a trail in case we need
to re-build the accounting stream.
Mr. Fennell asked are you satisfied,
Ms. Larned?
Ms. Larned responded absolutely.
Mr. Petty stated in the middle of
page 31, this is the one time you do not want to be in conformance with the
statute calling for a financial emergency.
This is a clean audit and one we are happy to receive.
Mr. Fennell asked have we
implemented the tracking of hours for personnel?
Mr. Petty stated it is not tracking
so much as the timing. There will be
blocks of time sold to the other districts.
In other words, they will be assigned 20 hours a week and if they work
16 hours, the district still pays for 20 hours because we are making 20 hours
available to them. Because we made this
individual available to them, they have to pay.
Ms. Larned stated there are other measurements
we can use to allocate the work. We can
do this by the number of checks written and how the contracts are being
managed. On the other side, it can cost
you more than what is reasonable. To
keep it in line with the cost, there are measurements we already had in place.
Mr. Hanks asked do they apply to the
field employees?
Ms. Larned responded yes. This is why we are getting more heavily
involved in the concept management effort.
Mr. Fennell stated just make sure
the other districts are in agreement.
Mr. Petty stated the sister
districts are fairly confident in their relationships with CSID.
Ms. Larned stated one page 15, there
is a statement of cashflows depicting how well the District performs on the
utility function. In the upper right hand
corner, there is a column of numbers, telling you whether or not your utility
is operating in the red or black. There
is $3.1 million in cash produced by the operations of the facility. You have debt service, which uses up some of
the cash. The District adopted a policy
of, “Pay as you go” of your capital program for renewal and replacement. You can continue to do so and $2 million is
being set aside for the cash operations.
The District Manager and engineer will come back to you with some
recommendations. It is important for me
as the Financial Officer to point out you have cash
operations but also obligations on your debt as well as a renewal and
replacement program, which can become a full term, long term capital plan. In the plan, this has been presented as a
“cash cow” but it is not. There has been
overall discussion by the Board regarding the rates and what you want to do
about it over time.
In regards to the fund balance, the
General Fund has fund balances.
Enterprise Funds do not have fund balances. They only have net assets or equity. Those are businesslike activities. We have $4.5 million in the capital plan,
which has been increasing over a period of years as you have been spending
methodically over a number of years.
However, you are now at the point where the District Manager along with
the engineer has said “If we stop this program, this is what we might be able
to do on a longer term basis”. This is the
information we provide in order for you to make decisions. I will work with the District Manager and the
engineer.
Mr. Fennell stated page 13 shows we
have net assets of $44,000,000 and total liability of $44,286,000. The difference between us and a corporation
is we never appreciate our assets.
Ms. Zich stated we do not depreciate
them but you have to replace.
Mr. Petty stated we are a government
and do not depreciate. Replacement is
part of your capital improvement program.
You have a line item for Renewal and Replacement adding to the lifespan
of these facilities. I am supposed to
keep the equipment in as new working condition.
This is why your pumps seem to last so long. GASB-34 takes depreciation based on fallout
in all businesses in this country and accountability and spreads it into the
government sector. Government entities
started to dilute their funds. When you
are fund based as governments are, you are supposed to keep the money you
generated for a specific reason in this fund and not move it over to something
else. For example, if we needed to spend
money for parks and recreation, I should not be taking money from the
utilities. Cities and counties were
doing this. You need to understand after
a time certain you will be replacing things.
We have a capital program to handle these items and in this District, a
financial model. As we build facilities,
those benefiting from it, pay for it.
This is how plants currently exist.
Everyone who is getting water and sewer are paying for it in their
rates. When parts go bad and we have to
re-build, the people who benefit from the new facility will pay. You can have a financial plan or as some municipalities
have done, double charge the residents for a worst case scenario. However, I may not be here in 30 years and
may not ever see the fruition of those payments. This is why we have a financial plan, which I
highly recommend. When you need it,
build it. Do not charge the residents
before you do. Otherwise, you may be
charging them double.
Ms. Larned stated GASB-34 is saying,
“We did not depreciate assets over time and therefore there was not a way for
you to know whether or not you needed to replace them”. GASB-34 brings this to management’s attention
so they can build around what should be considered by the Board in the way of
long term capital replacement through cash or long term financing. Some jurisdictions chose to go over their
elected official heads. I lived in one
area where people felt strongly about it because the elected officials put
their money into other kinds of programs instead of paying attention to
bridges, roads or water system.
Consequently they are facing billions of dollars of improvements. This is not true here. GASB-34 brings it to your attention. It is a testament to this District that you
have people staying on top of your capital plan; however, it is in a piecemeal
fashion and not necessarily for the long term.
Mr. Fennell stated this is an
interesting philosophy but it does affect us.
A classic case is using social security funds. Nevertheless, we still have an obligation of
maintaining facilities into the future.
We want the facilities we buy to last 15 to 30 years because that is the
best economical value. Therefore we have
to buy ahead. I do not think you want to
replace everything after 30 years.
Mr. Hanks stated it depends on
whether we want to look at it from the standpoint of taking on more debt and
paying interest on it or being fiscally responsible. We may not be here to take advantage of the
money we put away but by the same token, we are taking advantage of monies put
away by other people.
Mr. Petty stated we are not taking
advantage of money put away by other people.
We are utilizing a rate study envisioning a capital expense every year,
not for building new facilities 20 to 30 years in the future. We were building new facilities as they were
planned. It was piecemeal but at the
time, this was all we could do.
Mr. Fennell stated for at least
seven to eight years, we have had five, ten and fifteen year capital
plans. They get revised all the
time. The question is whether we could
forecast the demise of our own resources.
The errors in our capital planning is when determining when something
needs to be replaced. The depreciation
gave us a clue and we had people look at how they should decrease over time.
Mr. Petty stated it does work. This is why we have renewal and
replacement. If a pump station has parts
wearing out, I have a fund to go to. I
can rebuild them and they are going to be like new. It is better than repairs and
maintenance. You get to a point where
you have a perfectly good looking 1957 Chevy but it is costing me a great deal
of money to maintain it. This is what we
are currently looking at. It is going to
be a major leap in your current treatment practices.
Mr. Lyles stated I suggest the Board
make a motion to accept the audit rather than approve it since it was prepared
by an outside CPA firm.
Ms. Zich stated I was impressed with
the audit.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich
with all in favor the Audit for Fiscal Year Ended
SIXTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Hurricane
Debris Removal
Mr. Fennell asked are there any
comments from the public? Not hearing
any,
Mr. Petty stated the hurricane
debris removal and bank rebuilding is complete and we are well into the second
phase. I watched one contractor removing
some Australian Pine Trees. We asked our
contractor to remove existing trees not affected by the hurricane in our right-of-way
that were a potential threat. We hope to
remove the remaining 50 percent of the trees, which remained standing after
Hurricane Wilma. We went after the
majority of the species referred by the City of
Mr. McKune stated the contractor
removed 50 percent of the nuisance trees.
A permit we submitted was rejected by the City of
Mr. Petty stated based on
discussions from the city, we called District Counsel. Our discussions with the
city caused the following question to be asked:
“If in the middle of a
storm event I had a concern about flooding along my canal due to blockage by
four Palm Orchids, would I need a permit from the city to remove those trees?”
The answer was undeniably yes. We asked them for the proper procedure. They said you may want to request the city to
change their current ordinance because their tree ordinance did not have
specific exemptions for a Drainage District.
They were willing to accept such an application but their ordinance
model, the Broward County Ordinance requires an application. Therefore, we may wish to do an application
to both entities at the same time. We
asked District Counsel to research the issue of jurisdiction on the Tree
Ordinance issue.
Mr. Lyles stated our opinion is the
same as it has been for some time. We
are subject to the city’s Tree Ordinance.
There is no exemption from its overall applicability. There are some provisions we can take advantage
of to put us in a different position than a typical private homeowner. With respect to actions during an emergency
like a hurricane, they have a provision allowing for the City Manager to
suspend the permit requirement during an emergency. I assume in one sense they are saying, “We
have something that is supposed to come into play during an emergency event”,
but as far as saying the Tree Ordinance does not conform to this District
because it is a special improvement district as opposed to some other kind of
entity within the city of Coral Springs, there is nothing like this currently.
Mr. Hanks asked is this based on
city code or a court case?
Mr. Lyles responded it is based on
review of the current tree ordinances in effect and the history behind them. We are not aware of any cases saying an
entity such as this one is not subject to a local general purpose government
like a city or
Mr. Hanks stated DOT has to file for
a tree permit when they do their work.
Mr. Lyles stated DOT is a state
level entity and in most respects is superior to the governmental pecking
order. We do not have a way out of this
unless the city wants to amend its tree ordinance to somehow exempt us. I doubt very seriously this would be favorably
received and I do not see it going anywhere.
We need to work with them.
Mr. Fennell asked what happens if we
find we have a case where the trees will affect the health and welfare of the residents? Who is
responsible for making the decision?
Mr. Lyles responded if we are facing
a hurricane, the city is going to do what is appropriate, which is to suspend
the permit requirement. If it does not
get communicated or people are dealing with an emergency in front of them, our
crews are going to clear a situation likely to cause flooding and property
damage and potentially even harm to individuals and will deal with the city
after the emergency passes.
Mr. Fennell asked what if we do not
have enough time?
We only have three to four days to prepare for a hurricane, which is not
sufficient time to clear out 1,000 trees.
Mr. Lyles responded I am talking
about getting into a situation where trees are down in a culvert causing
flooding.
Mr. Fennell stated we will not be
able to do this within 48 hours. No one
can. The only way this can happen is if
you have sufficient time.
Mr. Hanks stated a situation where
this might come into play is a tornado.
Mr. Lyles stated you are looking to
me because of the legal issues involved.
I cannot tell you what is occurring at these city staff meetings but at
a meeting held here, we had some homeowners interested in this matter. The Arborist’s recommendation was to remove
the nuisance trees and then do a survey to find out if there are non-nuisance
trees posing a problem. I am not aware
we did this nor taken it to the city.
Mr. Fennell stated we did both. The Arborist recommended removing any trees
within the canal banks. This was the
recommendation from the engineer as well.
Mr.
Hanks asked were we proposing removal of trees or replacement and mitigation?
Mr.
Petty responded in our discussion we asked for a policy from the city removing
trees from the top of bank for the health, safety and welfare of the residents. This would not fall under mitigation since it
should not cost the District any money to ensure the safety of the residents of
Mr.
Fennell stated the issue is we have two different government bodies, one
charged with the responsibility of keeping the residents safe and doing due
diligence. Yet we have another
government body blocking it. Who is
responsible for doing the due diligence if flooding occurs? Is it the city because they blocked it?
Mr.
Hanks responded we need to negotiate with the city to mitigate on a one tree
down to one replaced basis.
Mr.
Fennell stated we have someone making a decision on a question of safety,
health and possibly death.
Mr.
Lyles stated these are fairly esoteric issues.
When you talk about who is responsible, you mean who is doing the right
thing but also who has liability if there is a problem and property is
damaged. These are the types of
activities government undertakes whether it is this government or the city,
which are subject to sovereign immunity.
These are legislative type decisions.
If you or the city or both make a decision for reasons of aesthetics or
ordinance compliance to not remove the trees, we are going to be immune from
suits and so is the city on any claims.
It is not like we are looking at a situation where people are beating
our door down with lawsuits because their homes flooded and somehow they will
make a case that we could have done more to prevent it. This city is responsible for making sure
those things do not happen, just like the District is. When you say the city is blocking the
District’s efforts to do what it would like to do and what has been
recommended, I think the city’s position is “We are not blocking, we are
regulating and we are subject to their regulations, end of discussion”.
Mr.
Fennell stated I am not so sure. The
fact is it is a moral responsibility from the city.
Mr.
Lyles stated the first consideration is determining who is responsible for
doing the right thing.
Mr.
Fennell stated I am not so sure they feel responsible. They see it as someone else’s responsibility
and they do not have to make it a consideration in their decision.
Mr.
Hanks stated we are adding case on top of case on top of case. What we are not considering is what happens
if we have the 200 year storm. We have
absolutely no control over what happens.
Mr.
Fennell stated this is a degree of risk they are willing to endure.
Mr.
Hanks asked is the 200 year rainfall event the same risk as having a hurricane
blowing down the trees and causing flooding?
Mr.
Fennell responded this is why we asked the engineer for recommendations.
Mr.
Hanks asked what storm are we designing to?
Mr.
Fennell responded somewhere between a 10 and 50 year storm.
Mr.
Petty stated there is a reasonableness factor in all of this. The one occurring in the
Mr.
Hanks stated nor do you want to.
Mr.
Petty stated if there is an issue where we are not supposed to remove these
trees, we better come up with some other way of maintaining this structure
because we are not going to be able to do it in our normal way or by the existing
method we have. We may even want to look
at having some barges of our own.
Government oversight, right or wrong is there. Pressing the issue may take awhile to
answer. We may have to look at other
methods.
Mr.
Fennell stated we need to write a letter to the city from the Board stating,
“We believe this should be done, the Tree Ordinance should do this, there
should be no trees planted in the right-of-way and the city should have an
ordinance stating this”. They should
also have a separate ordinance for using trees as barriers along canals. We have not said, “We propose you put this up
through legislation by the city”. Maybe
we should do this. I am looking for
staff to recommend to the city what should be in the ordinance to protectively
plan for what we consider to be their responsibility. I would also like to know if we approached
the city about this.
The
other problem is the Vice Mayor has been the only one who has shown from a
political standpoint what the consequences are of the action. Most people do not understand the drainage in
this area and what the consequences are.
From a political standpoint, we need to move this forward. I was surprised when we had our town hall
meeting that our engineering study was not discussed. We mostly spoke about the Arborist. Someone was there from Broward County
Emergency Response who said, “No one mentioned anything about flooding”. As far as severe weather, it is the flooding
that kills people more than anything else.
If they have not been thinking about what happens if we have flooding
and they are only thinking about sea water surge along the coast, they are not
considering our actions. I am starting
to understand why no one has discussed it.
Frankly no one has ever done a study.
Mr.
Hanks stated you are never going to see a situation of
Mr.
Fennell stated there is one called the C-14 Canal.
Mr.
Hanks stated even then, you are talking a matter of six inches or a foot of
water. You are not talking about 10 feet
of water.
Mr.
Fennell asked what is the amount of water needed in order to crash a house?
Mr.
Hanks responded you are probably not going to have people dying as a result of
one of our floods unless they drive into a canal.
Mr.
Fennell stated this is exactly what is going to happen.
Mr.
Hanks stated during a 100 year storm, you are not going to get your car far
enough out of your garage to get to the canals.
Mr.
Fennell stated we did in the 60 year storm because I was here.
Ms.
Zich stated I live off of
Mr.
Hanks stated anyone can drive their vehicle in a reckless manner. We cannot protect the residents against this
from happening. However, we can take
into consideration the homeowners desires and needs to buffer the commercial
property and remove the trees within our right-of-way. We submitted a permit to the City of
Mr.
Fennell stated I think we need to submit something to the city.
Mr.
Petty stated we did submit something to them in compliance with the tree ordinance. They come back and tell you what the
mitigation is after they measure the trees.
Mr.
Hanks stated I read the city code for utilities. There is one-for-one mitigation, meaning if
you have 10 trees, whether it is a 24 inch oak or a four inch ficus, it is one
tree.
Mr.
Petty stated then we need to go there with counsel because city staff is
telling us something entirely different.
Mr.
Lyles asked are they measuring inch for inch?
Mr.
Petty responded no, they are adding a multiplier.
Mr.
Hanks stated if we want to cut down 40 Ficus Trees, obtain a permit for 40 Ficus
Ttrees. Let them reject it at that
point.
Mr.
Petty stated they are rejecting it because they want a complete inventory with
height and measurements.
Mr.
McKune stated we volunteered to do this to let them know the magnitude. We are talking about thousands of trees. You cannot put 1,000 trees on the site.
Mr.
Hanks stated at the town hall meeting, there were many comments about the buffering
of commercial properties. We need to cut
down the trees without any offsetting mitigation, whether to be compliant with
the city or to help the homeowners beautify their property. If we do not do this, we are going to have a
lot of people angry at us. We are not
going to get support from the citizens until the city takes care of this
problem. I have a feeling after our town
hall meeting; many citizens understood there was a flood control issue. Let’s talk with the owners of the Auto Mall
to see what we can do along this property as far as mitigation. We should send a permit application to the
city compliant with the code.
Mr.
Petty stated we discussed this issue with them in regards to specific
commercial areas along the buffer. However,
some of these trees are so close to the property line we cannot remove them as
half the tree root may be on someone else’s property. The property behind the Auto Mall is a huge
issue since they are now building a four story auto garage. The residents do not want to stare at those
cars. We offered them a compromise to
work with the city in certain areas.
They like the compromise to leave the trees at the height of the car
garage. Maintenance rights would be
given to the District to make sure those trees never extend out towards the
water and are properly maintained. They
said this would be okay for this case but they only way they will address the
top of bank issue is through an ordinance change. Instead of coming up with a special project
for the area behind the Auto Mall, the city had to turn us down.
Mr.
Hanks asked how many Ficus Trees need to be removed?
Mr.
McKune responded 175 trees behind the Auto Mall.
Mr.
Fennell asked are they on our property?
Mr.
McKune responded partially. A survey is
currently being done.
Mr.
Fennell stated we need to send a letter to the city saying, “There needs to be
an ordinance against planting in the right-of-way”. Can we pass such a law?
Mr.
Petty responded no.
Mr.
Lyles stated we cannot pass a law prohibiting anyone from doing anything
because we are not allowed to exercise police powers. This is reserved for cities and
counties. However, we own the property
fee simple and we are not required to let people plant anything there or leave
it there. We are not going to prohibit
it but we are going to take a zero tolerance approach with it. As soon as something shows up and we are
doing periodic inspections to see what people are doing with our right-of-way,
we will present it back to the adjoining property owner.
Mr.
Fennell stated we cannot do so without a permit from the city.
Mr.
Lyles stated they are talking about cutting trees down. We are talking about someone planting a new
tree. That is not cutting a tree
down. That is relocating it onto the
property of a person who owns a tree.
Mr.
Petty stated we have two issues; relocation costs more than cutting and
relocation requires us to go on private property, which requires the signing of
a document.
Mr.
Lyles stated we are not helpless. I
sense high frustration by the Board.
Mr.
Fennell stated I am feeling like someone is only thinking about one particular
aspect of the city and making decisions for life and property. You are thinking someone else will take care
of it for you. This is a foolish way to
make a decision. You are not taking into
account the full aspect of what is taking place.
Mr.
Petty stated once we get all the nuisance species removed during this phase, we
will have addressed 70 to 75 percent of all trees in the District. Staff would very much like to go forward with
a presentation to the city of the health, safety and welfare issues remaining with
the 10 to 25 percent of trees. It does
not take 5,000 trees to block our system.
It may only take a handful of trees.
The fact we have 75 percent of them down makes me feel better but it
does not alleviate my concern.
Mr.
Hanks asked did you run this presentation by the Arborist?
Mr.
Petty responded yes, because this is what the city’s Arborist intended.
Mr.
Fennell stated we have not seen the final hydraulic study. It has been a couple of months.
Mr.
Hanks responded I met with Ms. Early and Mr. McKune a couple of times.
Mr.
McKune stated we could use more options and water scenarios. We are waiting for the perimeter survey.
Mr.
Fennell asked are there more things to do?
Mr.
Hanks responded the engineer can put his conclusions down on paper.
Mr.
McKune stated we need to put the model on paper and compare it to the Drainage
Criteria Manual to see if changes are required.
Mr.
Fennell stated you were going to come back with some recommendations on whether
we need to put in another canal.
Mr.
Hanks stated they were talking about the elevations of the finished floors
relative to the flood elevation. You
seem to be of the opinion in many, if not in all of the areas, the finished
floors for those locations were above the predicted model result.
Mr.
Fennell stated we need a letter from the engineer outlining the issues. I am looking for something final. I might even go along with the elevation
issue. I want to make sure the canal is
not a real issue.
Mr.
Hanks stated I suggest spelling out the assumptions with the city using the
report. We show pumping from the start
of the storm and not having any blockages.
Mr.
Fennell stated I am sure the city never did a study like this on their own.
Mr.
Hanks stated they should have a better understanding of the flood protection
issues.
Mr.
McKune stated we will produce the report and provide copies to everyone.
Mr.
Fennell stated you gave us a recommendation and should back it up with this
report to present to the city. Vice
Mayor Gold reviewed part of the report and discovered what the real issue
was.
Mr.
Hanks asked if the city removes trees, do they have to mitigate?
Mr.
Petty responded I cannot answer to their policy.
Mr.
Hanks stated we cannot force the issue with the city for mitigation. There are some parks we can approach.
Mr.
Petty stated we discussed this on a staff level and met some resistance. It was preferred any trees taken from
anyone’s backyard area, even though it is on our property, be planted as close
to the backyard as possible. This is the
first option. The second option is to
replant on CDD property and the third option is to replant the tree totally
within the District. I am afraid
anything below top of bank, even though it is a health, safety and welfare
issue, we will have to get involved in the mitigation requiring us to do a
complete inventory.
Mr.
Fennell stated we need a recommendation from staff on what we want in the tree
policy regarding trees around the community, how they should handle trees in
the canal and buffering around the banks.
They need a change in policy because the policy did not take this into
account.
I
agree with Mr. Hanks that we need a mitigation policy above and beyond the
current policy. The city has to change
their policy because it is fostering this problem and is not done the correct
way. We need a report in clear terms on
the dangers. If you have to get the PR
firm to help you, then do so. They may
be able to help us prepare the report.
We need to tell all the residents in the District what this report says.
Mr.
Petty stated we will bring a report back to the Board for approval telling you
what the PR firm recommends and what is available to us.
Mr.
Hanks asked do we need to meet with the City Commissioners?
Mr.
Fennell responded I think we well have to eventually. Let’s approach them with our recommendations,
what we see for mitigation and what we think the consequences are for not doing
so. Morally we have to do this as a
Board. I do not want to sit on this
Board and take responsibility for not doing anything and people’s property gets
damaged. If I am going to get stopped
for doing the right thing, it is not going to be for some nebulous issue I did
not want to face. We will take it as far
as we need to. There is an opportunity
for something to be done and we need to change the ways in which we are using
trees such as for decoration. Our
property should look better than it currently does. We need to bring in a Landscape Architect to
look at our property to tell us what needs to be done.
Mr.
Hanks stated a Landscape Architect is going to cost more than $4,000 and we
need to go out for an RFP.
Mr.
Fennell stated I think we should. We
need some new ways to beautify the city, our own property and yet have trees
safe for flow.
Ms.
Zich stated I think this is a good idea.
Mr.
Hanks stated I have a relationship with a Landscape Architect. Would it hurt to have any discussions with
them?
Mr.
Petty responded we are 50 to 60 percent complete on removing the nuisance
trees. They should be complete by the
next meeting. We are still on track.
Mr.
Fennell stated we can end up doing something different than other areas. We can have a friendly tree policy not only
to the canals but actually looks good.
The city needs to think seriously about a tree policy to keep trees from
crashing down on our houses. If a 100
foot high tree is sitting next to a house, we have a problem.
Mr.
Hanks stated it is the homeowner’s problem.
Mr.
Fennell stated they city has rules and regulations about how much you can trim
a tree. For some reason there is a
belief trees will not fall down because they are natural.
Mr.
Hanks asked Mr. Petty, are you going to issue the RFP for Landscape Architects?
Mr.
Petty responded we have someone in the engineering firm we can use. We will work with CH2M-Hill.
Mr.
Hanks stated the reason we are in this situation with all the trees in our right-of-way
is because we have not had an active maintenance program for the canals. We need to look into where we are having
difficulties, how we are going to mow the banks and investigate what type of
technology is out there. We should have
a bi-annual maintenance program. If
someone planted a little tree, this program will keep it from growing into a
problem.
Mr.
Petty stated we discussed this internally and staff is trying to prepare an
estimate of how to address this.
Currently we have two bushhogs owned by Pine Tree WCD shared out to
us. However, under this type of
criteria, we have to do periodic inspections.
You might as well do that while you are mowing or other type of
clearing. This is something we are
working with staff on and hope to bring it to the next Board meeting.
Mr.
Fennell stated I agree we need to take a more proactive role in bank
maintenance. There is too much at stake
not to.
Mr.
Hanks stated if you want me to attend any of the city meetings with the
Arborist, I would be happy to do so.
Mr.
Lyles stated I think the approach of going to the city and pushing our position
as hard as it can be pushed, demanding permits and demanding they act
responsibly is the right thing to do. I
would not want the Board to think there is any lack of enthusiasm for this approach
on the part of District Counsel. For
now, they have the jurisdictional upper hand over us. We either need them to issue permits or get
them to change their ordinance but we cannot ignore it.
Mr.
Hanks stated we need to remind them there are issues with developers where
private developers removed native species such as
Mr.
Petty stated in previous discussions, this has been received well by Vice Mayor
Gold. We would like staff to talk more
with him.
Mr.
Fennell stated Vice Mayor Gold is interested in making sure the issue is addressed. As a Board, we need to push this as far as we
can. We need to make sure the city
understands what the issues are. We
should not be negligent in explaining to the city what the consequences are.
Mr.
Hanks stated if we need to, we will approach the City Commission.
SEVENTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Attorney – Update on
Mr. Lyles stated there is nothing
new with
1. Bidding
Threshold of $4,000 will be deleted and the District will follow the bidding
thresholds for other local governments in the State of
2. Compensation
of Board members will be increased from $200 to $400 with an annual cap of
$4,800.
3. Propose
mechanism for electing Board members to a straight electoral vote of registered
voters within the District without the necessity of having a referendum,
special election and vote of the residents.
These items were previously approved
by the prior Board when they were involved in codification bills and dealing
with the legislative delegation. We are
not going to file anything until after your next meeting. We will put this together into one bill.
There is a great deal of interest in the election issue and having a method of
converting to an electoral vote rather than a landowner vote. With this District being built-out and
urbanized, it makes sense to do this. There
was no reluctance on the part of the previous Board in converting to this type
of election system. The problem was with
going through the process of having a petition, verifying signatures and having
a referendum to implement it.
Mr. Fennell stated we need 10
percent or more signatures of owners within our area in order to do this. I think this should have been done a long
time ago. Periodically there has been
criticism on this basis you do not fairly represent the people in your
constituency. It is not representative
of everyone in the group and not everyone votes. Most of the time, most people do not even
know when the voting is occurring. The
original criticism was set up because it was a landowners meeting. These districts were originally set up for
landowners and to pay the rate of the builders.
If someone owned a huge amount of land, they could control it and take
on the responsibility. Frankly, the
counties and cities never stepped forward with the money to put down seed money
so they relied on private enterprise.
There is a mechanism for newer districts where when they reached a
certain size or build-out characteristic they go from a developer Board to a
resident Board. Our District was not set
up in this manner.
Mr. Lyles stated the newer districts
post 1980 are generally CDD’s under Chapter 190 of the
Florida Statutes. They have an automatic
provision in the sixth year of operation and once they reach at least 250
registered voters. It happens
automatically and in this time frame.
The Board is mainly populated by residents and registered voters of the
District. In this case, we propose
adopting this procedure. Unless I am
told differently, my understanding is this Board is comfortable with a three
member Board. The election process will only
be to put Board members in office.
Mr. Fennell stated there was
interest to go to a five member Board.
Mr. Hanks stated I question how much
interest we would have.
Mr. Fennell stated I think this
Board needs to put itself in the position of making this decision but we can
discuss this further. This Board is
normally more like a Board for a corporation as opposed to a political
Board. I feel the election method we
have could be improved. It would take
care of some of the criticism we received from Ms. Stacy Ritter and others and ensure
the group survives.
Mr. Lyles stated I outlined the same
type of bill for the NSID Board last week and they signed off on the filing. I will be doing this on behalf of both
districts simultaneously.
Mr. Petty stated if the election
process is not accepted by the state, I request the other two items
proceed. You can either do this through
separation or through the bill process.
Mr. Lyles stated this will only be
an amendment so it should be fine.
C. Manager
i. Ratification
of Agreement with Ron Sachs Communications, Inc. for Public Relations
Mr. Fennell asked has everyone had a
chance to review this agreement?
Mr. Lyles responded yes. I do not have any problem with it.
Mr. Fennell stated the only issue I
had was most of our contracts have a 60 day termination clause instead of a 12
month termination.
Mr. Petty stated we can amend the
contract to have this specified.
Mr. Lyles stated it says, “The
agreement may be terminated without cause by either party, however agency is
paid in full for the month services are terminated”. This is in the last part of subsection four
in the middle of the second page. This
meets the substance of the concern you are raising.
Mr. Fennell stated I was wondering
why we were doing this.
Ms. Zich stated I was concerned
about whether we needed to spend this amount of money for PR. I feel like everyone knows us but many people
do not know what is involved.
Mr. Fennell asked did NRCS make the
video presentation?
Mr. Petty responded yes, but it was
disenchanting. We were shown a special
video of an assessable drainage cleanup program by NRCS. It turned out we were the seventh applicant
in
Mr. Fennell stated there is a need
for us to communicate with several different groups. One is our customers who are also our
bosses. There are other groups we work
with such as the city and other Drainage Districts, not to mention the
state. It is important we show who we
are, what we are doing and why. There
has been criticism we are not putting out our identity enough. It was insufficient for us to sit back and do
our jobs. We need to report on what our
job functions are and effectively communicate.
This is the purpose of the PR agreement.
Sometimes this comes natural to some of us and sometimes we need a
professional. I think this is the case
where we need a professional. They
should not only prepare statements for us but be there intimes where we will
have crises. There should be a plan for
how they will handle it, how they will handle the PR and how they will contact
people.
Mr. Lyles stated if there is
consensus from the Board, there should be a motion to ratify execution of the
agreement by the District Manager on your behalf.
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr.
Hanks with all in favor the District Manager’s execution of the Agreement with
Ron Sachs Communications, Inc. for public relations was ratified.
B. Engineer
Mr. McKune stated I am leaving
CH2M-Hill at the end of this month. I
would like to introduce two gentlemen who are representing the continuity of
the program; Mr. Peter Colossy, Senior Planner will be handling the day to day
operations of the tree process. Mr.
Isabello Rodriguez is going to be Project Manager for most of the water and
sewer projects.
Mr. Fennell stated welcome. I expect continued great support.
ii. Monthly Water & Sewer Charts
iii. Utility Billing Work Orders
Mr. Petty stated all items are
within normal parameters. There is
nothing of interest to bring to the Board’s attention at this time.
iv. Complaints Received/Resolved
Mr. Fennell asked what complaints
did we receive after the town hall meeting?
Mr. Petty responded there was a huge
decrease in phone calls. I have not
received one phone call since the meeting for CSID. However, we made three exemptions for trees
in the entire District. There are no
issues with trees in CSID.
Mr. Fennell asked were there any
complaints on water or odors?
Mr. Petty responded we always have
complaints about water bills and our meters reading too high. Those are all within standard numbers for
us. It was surprising the town hall meeting,
which 100 people attended, evidently addressed many of their concerns. The three exemptions we had were real
exceptions. One was a request from a
resident to keep a Norfolk Island Pine he had grown
from a sprig. The tree was 75 years old,
at the top of the bank and within a foot of the lawn. The second exemption was for a resident who
had Beshovias, which are the tall trees with the broad leaves. A third of the tree was on the land. The other three trees were within five feet
of the water and were not an issue. One
Australian Pine was exempted. It was on a lake and even if it fell, I do
not know if anyone would even notice it.
There is no issue with blockage on a lake since it is 300 feet
long. This was the individual who came
to our meeting with beautiful pictures of wildlife utilizing the tree.
Mr. Fennell stated Mr. Petty did an
excellent job of standing up and taking all the flack. He handled questions from residents who were
emotionally charged. We took a lot of
heat from the city. He did a good job.
Mr. Petty stated thank you.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor Requests and
Audience Comments
There not being any, the next item
followed.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of August
Financials and Check Registers
Ms. Zich asked do we receive a
financial statement or just a check register?
Mr. Fennell responded I did not see
any financial statements.
Mr. Petty stated all we had were the
check registers.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Fennell
with all in favor the check registers for the General Fund dated
Mr. Fennell asked did we receive any
money from the state?
Mr. Petty responded no. However, we received money from NRCS.
Mr. Fennell asked are they still
planning to give us 10 to 15 percent?
Mr. Petty responded we are still
hanging on. We are telling them they owe
us money. The good news is we received
money from a storm that is over three years old.
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There being no further business,
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Fennell
with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.
Secretary President