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
Cedo DaSilva CH2M-Hill
Jane Early CH2M-Hill
Isabelo Rodriguez CH2M-Hill
Daniel Bohorguez CH2M-Hill
Ilana Rabone
Janice Moen Larned
Brenda Schurtz
Randy Fredericks Field
Supervisor
Doug Hyche District Staff
Mark Westfall City of
Mr.
Fennell called the meeting to order and Mr. Petty called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of
the September 18, 2006 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member
received a copy of the
Mr. Hanks stated on page four in the
third line down, I was incorrectly identified.
Ms. Rabone stated I will check the
tape.
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr.
Hanks with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Resolutions
A.
Resolution
2007-1 Designating John Petty as Assistant Treasurer
Mr. Fennell asked who is Treasurer?
Mr. Petty responded Ms. Janice
Larned is Treasurer. Mr. Ed Goscicki is
currently Assistant Treasurer but is no longer involved in the District. This is a housekeeping matter.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell
with all in favor Resolution 2007-1 Designating John Petty as Assistant
Treasurer was adopted.
Mr. Hanks asked is this resolution
numbered 2007-1 due to the new fiscal year?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
B.
Resolution
2007-2 Designating Signatories
Mr. Petty stated we request deletion
of this resolution from consideration as it is redundant. We no longer need it.
FOURTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Consideration
of Chemical Bids for Aquatic Weed Control
Mr. Petty stated we will place this
item on hold as we are re-bidding due to a discrepancy in the bids.
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Consideration
of Selection of Capital Improvement Coordinator
Mr. Petty stated the Board received
the advertisement for bid and proposal from McKune & Associates. During the budget process, we mentioned
hiring a Capital Improvement Coordinator to act as our liaison in order to keep
our engineering costs in line. They
would work out of the percentage points the engineer typically gets. We believe we will obtain savings in this
regard. The Capital Improvement Coordinator
will receive the majority of their fees from this. We will also use them as an engineer for some
of the on-site jobs, in particular the SFWMD best management practices. We already budgeted for this item and utilized
Mr. Moore in this regard. In the
advertisement, we asked for an experienced engineer who had knowledge of this
District and its utility and drainage systems.
Mr. McKune responded as we hoped he would.
Mr. Fennell asked was this put out
for bid?
Mr. Petty responded yes, we did this
as recommended by counsel.
Mr. Fennell asked did anyone else
respond?
Mr. Petty responded no.
Mr. Hanks asked was this based on
the criteria in section five?
Mr. Fennell stated the first
qualification is a tricky.
Mr. Hanks stated this is an exclusive
specification
Mr. Petty stated for a capital
improvement, we thought we were being lenient.
We could have asked for 30 years experience, which Mr. McKune has.
Mr. Lyles stated usually where you
require special expertise, you indicate just what you said or put “or
equivalent” and give someone an opportunity to show an equivalent level of
experience.
Mr. Petty stated we were looking for
very specific knowledge a Capital Improvement Coordinator would have in knowing
enough about this particular system to provide us what we consider to be the
safeguard and reliability of the 2% return, which is critical to them making
the money on this project. Saving us 2%
by their specific knowledge of these facilities, is what makes this work. As any competent engineer knows, trying to
learn what is here can take years. This
is what I meant by “specific knowledge” and the way we wrote these specific
requirements.
Mr. Lyles stated this is out of the
ordinary when it comes to CCNA notices and processing an RFQ. Therefore, there is some exposure. If you want to proceed, it is up to the
Board. However, it is incumbent upon me
to at least point out it is unusual and not something I have seen where you limit
the experience to one particular capital project. However, I understand the rationale for
trying to save money.
Mr. Petty stated keep in mind this
is the Capital Improvement Coordinator and not a District Engineer. We were doing it this way in an abundance of
caution since this is a service related issue.
I think we have done a good job.
Mr. Lyles stated I certainly agree
with the manager this it is not the full scope of engineering services you are
looking to find a qualified person to perform and therefore, a full and
complete CCNA process in terms of the description and qualifications is called
for.
Mr. Hanks stated I have reservations
about how the advertisement was worded.
Mr. Fennell stated advertise again
and add the word “equivalent”.
Mr. Petty asked can I have a
definition or indication of what “equivalent” means?
Mr. Fennell responded you have to be
convinced they would in fact have equivalent experience to be able to do the
job.
Mr. Hanks stated we only had one
respondent and it is too restrictive.
Mr. McKune has 35 years of experience, many years here with the
District. I do not know who else is out
there. Are we missing someone else out
there who is well qualified just by the restrictive nature? I like Mr. McKune and the work he does but I
want to set an example for all districts.
I want to open this up as there are plenty of qualified and talented
people out there. I do not want to be so
selective to where we are tailoring it to one individual.
Mr. Fennell asked does Mr. McKune
currently have a position here?
Mr. Petty responded no. Mr. McKune retired from CH2M-Hill and we have
a new Project Manager here this evening who will introduce himself under the
Engineer’s Report.
Mr. Hanks asked can we hire Mr.
McKune through Severn Trent Services?
Mr. Fennell responded this not the
hiring of Mr. McKune as a person but McKune & Associates. I think we need to re-run the ad with the
words “or equivalent”. Do we need
anything else?
Mr. Lyles responded this is all you
need. This is a term you regularly see
in requests for bids. Sometimes we put
this in our request for chemicals. You
can also use it to modify the experience you are looking for.
Mr. Hanks asked in the interim, is
there a way we can retain the services of Mr. McKune so we have the coverage of
the Capital Improvement Coordinator?
Mr. Lyles responded you can appoint
him to this position on an interim basis for a fee not to exceed $25,000. This would remove any question about the CCNA
process. This is tricky because this is
a management type of service not required to be bid in this way but on the
other hand it has engineering components.
This is why staff wanted to do this in the right way and we are still
trying to. This threshold kicks in at
$25,000. Hiring Mr. McKune on an interim
basis while we continue with the notice process, is an appropriate way to
proceed. This preserves your ability to
look at other things.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell
with all in favor staff was authorized to re-advertise the request for Capital
Improvement Coordinator qualifications with the inclusion of the words “or
equivalent”.
Mr. Fennell stated I understand
there is a current need for management.
Is Mr. McKune currently working for us?
Mr. Petty responded no. At this time he is independent.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr.
Fennell with all in favor the District Manager was authorized to retain the
services of McKune & Associates on an interim basis at a cap for
professional fees not to exceed $25,000.
SIXTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Consideration
of Change Orders
A. Change Order No. 1 with Intrastate
Construction Corporation for Emergency Roof Repairs at Maintenance Building,
Roto-Guard Building and Deep Injection Well Pump Station for a Net Increase of
$78,920
Mr. Petty stated we had leaks in
these building during the rains over the summer and it was necessary for us to
do roof repairs to stabilize it since we had facilities at risk. At the deep injection well station we have expensive
equipment. If water damages any of those
motor control cabinets we are in trouble.
We had a contractor who was able to obtain roofing materials at short
notice. As you may know, roofers are
difficult to get right now. We had the
need to do an emergency change order as recommended by staff and our
engineer. They brought this item to management’s
attention and management agrees. We
recommend approval to the Board.
Mr. Fennell asked are the roof
repairs complete?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked how many square feet
of roof did we end up repairing?
Mr. Petty responded the roof on two
buildings had to be repaired. They were
patched after Hurricane Wilma but the patches did not hold. Another patch job was not recommended.
Mr. Hanks asked are we talking about
10,000 square feet of roof?
Mr. Hyche responded I do not know the
exact square footage as I did not bring the invoice with me. I can get the number for you.
Mr. Fennell asked are these new roofs?
Mr. Hyche responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked has anyone obtained
a price comparison?
Mr. Petty responded I am doing a
tile job for NSID on the clubhouse which is not anywhere as near as the square
footage here. They are being charged
$140,000. By single family roof size, we
have a job big enough to cover four single family homes. The warehouse is a large building while the
deep well station is only 1,000 square feet.
The roto-guard building is probably close to 4,000 square feet.
Mr. Hanks asked in order of
magnitude, how much of a premium did we pay for the quick turnaround?
Mr. Petty responded I think he gave
us a good price.
Mr. Hanks stated as long as it stays
in good condition. It is not a good
price if we have to repair it next year.
Do we have a warranty?
Mr. Petty responded the contractor
is on-site for at least the next year.
We have a warranty.
Mr. Hanks asked in writing?
Mr. Petty responded the membranes
and the paper have various warranties associated with them. The warranty on workmanship and quality is
one year.
Mr. Hanks asked are there other
buildings on the site with roofs in need of repair in the near future where it
may be beneficial to the District to go out and put on a bid list?
Mr. Petty responded the reason the
roto-guard building was added was because water was leaking near the
roto-guards. The maintenance building
had some damage. The deep well building
holds the high service pumps.
Mr. Hanks asked do you understand my
concern of an emergency or immediate corrective action versus planning?
Mr. Petty responded yes. The water plant roof was re-roofed four
months after Wilma. We now have new
roofs on 80% of our buildings.
Mr. Hanks asked how old is the roof
on this building?
Mr. Petty responded three years old.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Hanks
with all in favor Change Order No. 1 with Intrastate Construction Corporation
for Emergency Roof Repairs at
B. Change Order No. 8 with Intrastate
Construction Corporation for Water Treatment Plant Improvements to Well 5 for a
Net Increase of $32,466.90
Mr. McKune stated Well 5 is south of
Mr. Hanks asked is Well 4 the one we
received calls from the neighbor on?
Mr. McKune responded yes. Well 5 is around the corner from the small
neighborhood park. It was allowed to
deteriorate simply because of being, “Out of sight, out of mind”. We made some mechanical changes to it but
this is largely an upgrade change of the control system and electrical
panel. We still need to do some
re-grading around the site. The raising
of the slab was due to the potential flooding to get the heads above the 100
year flood elevation, which is now a requirement. This well for all intents and purposes is
new.
Mr. Hanks asked what about the interior
casing?
Mr. McKune responded the casing is
not deteriorating. However, we installed
a new motor because it broke down.
Mr. Hanks stated so we should not
have any surprises.
Mr. McKune stated it will work well
with the proper maintenance.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell
with all in favor Change Order No. 8 with Intrastate Construction Corporation
for Water Treatment Plant Improvements to Well 5 for a Net Increase of
$32,466.90 was approved.
SEVENTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS Hurricane Debris
Removal and Canal Bank Restoration Status
Mr. Petty stated this has become a
standard item on our agendas. I will
defer to Mr. McKune on the status of the Phase 2 contracts for removal of
nuisance trees from within the ROW.
Mr. McKune stated Phase 1 is now
complete. This was for the removal of
the hurricane damaged trees. We received
money from NRCS. Phase 2 was designed
and bid to remove the remaining trees. Applications
submitted to the city were scaled back to only removing the nuisance trees. We then found out that ficus trees were no
longer a nuisance and are now considered ornamentals. All trees must now be removed by obtaining a
permit from the city. We contacted Stiles
Corporation who applied to the City of
Mr. Hanks stated Section 31 is
behind
Mr. McKune stated there are also ficus
and plum trees.
Mr. Hanks stated those were not
exotic evasive and were not listed on the recent species list.
Mr. Fennell asked have you seen the
reason for the rejection?
Mr. McKune responded no.
Mr. Fennell asked have you spoke to
anyone about it? Is there any rationale
other than they decided these will not contribute to the flooding?
Mr. Petty responded a representative
from the City of
Mr. Mark Westfall stated I am the
individual who rejected the permits. The
rationale is aside from the fact there was mis-identification of some tree
species, one of the trees could be covered under the nuisance tree permit. The biggest problem hinged on the mitigation
question. City code requires mitigation
or removal of non nuisance trees. There
was no mitigation.
Mr. Hanks asked has it been decided
whether the trees are treated inch-for-inch for utilities? Has this issue been resolved?
Mr. Westfall responded no. Currently trees are treated inch-for-inch. If we have documentation CSID is considered
to be a utility, I will be happy to revisit the matter.
Mr. Hanks asked is this something we
need our counsel to talk to your counsel on?
Mr. Westfall responded probably.
Mr. Lyles stated we are sitting in
the middle of a utility plant. I spoke
to their counsel before and was under the impression we will be classified in
that fashion. I tried to keep the lines
of communication open. If we need to do
more homework, we will do so as soon as possible. Any other minor problems with the permit
request, the contractor can clarify.
Mr. Fennell stated the trees are on the
CSID right-of-way.
Mr. Lyles stated CSID property.
Mr. Fennell asked are they in the
canal right-of-way where water flows?
Mr. Hanks responded CSID property
refers to the CSID right-of-way. This
means we have title to the property and it is our property.
Mr. Westfall stated it is difficult
for me to identify exactly where the right-of-way is. Obviously some of the trees are on the edge
of the canal bank. Others were 10’ to
12’ from the root. I am assuming the
trees are in the right-of-way. We need
to answer this question.
Mr. Fennell asked do you know how
the trees got there?
Mr. Westfall responded some of them
were ornamentals.
Mr. Fennell asked does the city have
a policy preventing people from planting into canal banks?
Mr. Westfall responded we certainly
do not encourage them. The homeowners do
not come to us every time they plant a tree on their property. In past years when dealing with commercial
property or residential, we most definitely point out they should not be
planting in the right-of-way.
Mr. Fennell stated we are not sure
who is in control of the trees. If
someone is giving permission to people to the homeowners to plant trees on CSID
property, we want to see it strongly discouraged. We also want the city to say, “Do not plant
trees in the canal right-of-way”. Do you
think this is possible?
Mr. Westfall responded I will take your
comments back to the city. When we
receive a request from a developer, we make certain the trees are not planted
in the right-of-way. This may or may not
have been the case in the past.
Mr. Fennell stated this is something
we want to encourage because we do not want to see those trees there. As you probably know, the trees in there are
weak because as the water level rises it kills the roots and these trees do not
stand a chance. Are you familiar with
Mr. Sutton’s presentation to us?
Mr. Westfall responded I am familiar
with it but have some reservations.
Mr. Fennell asked has the city done
a hydrologic study of the area?
Mr. Westfall responded no.
Mr. Fennell asked do they have any rationale
on what will happen if in fact the canals get blocked? Has the city taken into account the drainage
issues either for the canals or the streets in these decisions?
Mr. Westfall stated we met with Mr.
Petty on several occasions and we understand the concerns of the Board. We are not disputing your right. Our ordinance clearly gives the Drainage
District the right to maintain the canal right-of-way. However, this is not the issue here. The issue is the question of mitigation. We are not saying we are going to stop you
from removing the trees.
Mr. Fennell stated if the permit is
rejected, that is what is going on.
Mr. Hanks stated it was rejected
without mitigation.
Mr. Westfall stated it was rejected
because the requirements of the ordinance have not been fulfilled. It was rejected with comments and you will
receive the comment sheet along with the rejected permit. It is not unusual for permits to be rejected
several times in order for corrections to be made.
Mr. Fennell asked does the city
understand they are partially responsible for the drainage?
Mr. Westfall responded I cannot
speak for the city.
Mr. Fennell stated if they stop us
from doing our job, they are responsible.
They are responsible for a series of permits for the street drainage and
for insuring the drain areas are cleared and maintained. If there is any flooding, it is the city’s
responsibility.
Mr. Westfall stated I cannot comment
because I am a forester.
Mr. Fennell stated trees were
intentially planted there and were not supposed to be. By an act of God or nature, they were planted
in the wrong spot. What is the rationale
for mitigating?
Mr. Westfall responded I discussed
this with numerous developers who feel they are being punished because they did
not plant the trees and now have to mitigate them. They current policy does not spell out every
detail as to rationale behind it. The
fact is there are trees on the property and we are requesting removal of them. We are against the removal of the trees if
the requirements of the code are met.
Mr. Fennell stated there is a
mitigation issue. We feel in many cases
we do not have the right specification or approach for trees taking as much of
the wind force as we expect our houses to.
Has the city done something about that?
What we need is a tree policy to beautify the city but also provide the
same security we expect our trees to.
Mr. Westfall stated the city’s tree
subsidy program limits the number of trees eligible for subsidies in other
cities as well as
Mr. Fennell asked has the city
revised their tree trimming policy?
Mr. Westfall responded our tree
trimming policy is out of
Mr. Fennell asked has there been a
study done saying what we can expect in one class of trees in a category one
storm?
Mr. Westfall responded I did not
know any such study was possible because there are too many factors
involved. It is not just the
species. This is a common
misconception. Everyone wants a list of
the hurricane resistant trees. There is
far more involved such as the proper tree structure in a good quality tree as
opposed to a poor quality tree. We need
to consider the quality of the tree, quality of the care over the lifetime of
the tree as well as improper planting.
If you plant the tree too deep, it can fail.
Mr. Fennell stated there must be
some type of statistical result. You do
not need to have a particular tree but you can take an average.
Mr. Hanks stated I have seen this
list, which is a good list of trees well resistant to windstorms.
Mr. Westfall stated the
Mr. Fennell stated we lost a
considerable amount of trees with the hurricane. Our solution was not an engineering or arborist
one but to spend some money and clean it up quicker next time. This was a financial decision. My house got hit two years by a row by
trees. I propose some type of study discussing
types of plantings and hurricane resistant trees.
Mr. Westfall stated we changed our Landscape
Ordinance to allow developers when building commercial properties to have
cluster trees. It has been shown time
and again clustering trees can buffer each other and do better than individual
trees. We are currently reviewing a
project where the parking island does not have to be every 10 parking spaces
with one tree standing in the wind.
Instead the parking islands can be aggregated to allow for cluster
plantings. We have been making
adjustments to the code. When you have as
many trees as we do, the likelihood of losing trees during hurricanes is going
to be greater.
Mr. Hanks stated there are going to
be situations we not going to be able to control in
Mr. Fennell stated I was looking not
so much at the canal but at my house. As
I look at the damage done in
Mr. Westfall stated in many ways,
the District and the city are similar because we did not have any plans to look
at this until Hurricanes Jeanne and Wilma.
We had no experience with how two different tree species performed. My frustration is we sent out a tree
information booklet to 20,000 households and the percentage of people who
appear to be reading it is minimal. I
can only do so much in terms of trying to educate the public.
Mr. Fennell stated we are going to
try to insure the residents of CSID are better informed about what is needed by
doubling our efforts. We hope to
cooperate with the city to make sure we have a uniform policy, not only for
trees in the yard but trees along the canal.
Mr. Hanks stated you are not going
to change the residents perception.
Occasionally we are going to see in the future where people hire
companies to plant trees and they end up planting them in our right-of-way. Is there a way, if we catch them within a
certain period of time, to go back to the resident and say, “Get rid of the
tree because it is in our right-of-way and
you are encroaching”?
Mr. Westfall responded this is a
legal question and something we want to see happen. However, what the enforcement mechanism is
and whether it is enforcement on the side of the District, Code Enforcement or
the police, I do not know and is something we need to look into. When I deal with the residents and I deal
with many residents regarding the trees all over the city, this is something I
point out to them. I can say it but it
does not mean they are going to listen to me.
Mr. Fennell asked are you here to
help negotiate the mitigation issue?
Mr. Westfall responded no. The reasoning behind the rejection needs to
be looked at.
Mr. Fennell stated the city has a
policy for planting trees. Are they
giving residents money to help plant trees?
Mr. Westfall responded yes. We are subsidizing street trees along public right-of-way. I inspect every tree planted for quality,
proper planting and species. We are not
just taking their word for it.
Mr. Hanks stated we need to review
the city code. Representation here told
us we have to provide mitigation. Do we
need to provide the city with a proposal for mitigation?
Mr. Fennell responded yes.
Mr. Hanks stated if we remove 175
trees by the Auto Mall, there is going to be an impact to the residents
adjacent to the canal in terms of a visual buffer. We need to take a close look at this.
Mr. Fennell stated the buffer should
not have been there in the first place.
Any mitigation will have to go behind it. The owner of the property bears some
responsibility because he planted the trees in the wrong spot.
Mr. Hanks stated in the end, we are
all responsible because as members of this District, we have to assume the cost
one way or another for mitigation and tree removal. In some ways the Board is responsible because
of inaction over the course of 20 years in terms of effectively exercising the right-of-way.
Mr. Fennell stated when the trees
were only 15’ high and three inches in diameter, we were not anywhere near the
seriousness of the problem it is today.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to
provide direction to management?
Mr. Fennell responded we need to
instruct staff to start negotiating a mitigation policy with the city as a
utility. We cannot put those trees back
in the same places.
Mr. Hanks stated let’s provide them
some guidance as to where we want to prioritize the mitigation of these trees.
Mr. Fennell stated there is an issue
of money as there is only so much we can afford. As a utility, is there a difference in
mitigation responsibilities?
Mr. Lyles responded it is
substantially different. The permitting
as it relates to utilities authorizes tree for tree replacement. A private landowner or developer does it on
an inch per inch basis. If you are
removing a 10” caliper tree as a developer or private landowner, you have to
replace a 10” tree. As a utility, if you
remove one tree, you have to replace it with one tree. This is a loose standard in some ways, which
is why city staff and your staff have to come to terms on the plan. I am absolutely convinced we are entitled to
be considered as a utility under this tree ordinance and we will proceed in
this fashion every step of the way.
Mr. Hanks asked is Comcast
considered to be a utility?
Mr. Westfall responded I do not
know. FDOT is not a utility but they are
on an inch per inch replacement.
Mr. Fennell stated we want to work
with the city. I request the city help
donate some money to this issue. We
still need to do something different as far as the design of our own property
for shielding. We were talking about
bringing in a Landscape Architect. Have
we done so?
Mr. Petty responded yes. CH2M-Hill is standing by.
Mr. Hanks stated with the proper
tree placement, you can also shield damage from your house. The house can be damaged by dropped branches
but prevents other types of damage from occurring.
Mr. Fennell stated we need to do
this and are asking the city to help us out financially. We consider ourselves to be a utility. Does staff need further direction?
Mr. Petty responded no. We can start talking to the City Manager’s
office.
Mr. Hanks stated I think we are
wasting our time. I wish to investigate
whether or not the pumps will move a tree once it is hanging off the bank. The whole concern has been the trees in the
canal were moved when all the pumps were turned on.
Mr. Fennell stated we were concerned
about blockages.
Mr. Hanks stated if it moves a
fallen tree, you can have it moved to the culvert. We should find a location where we can test
to see whether or not the pumps will pull a tree off the bank.
Mr. Petty stated your engineer
already did a calculation on the traveling speed of a tree and how many feet
per second the canal water will be running.
It will be impossible for us to do a test of various trees with flotation
capabilities. You can take the velocity
of the canal into consideration and consider it to be a threat versus a study
of dropping a couple of trees into the canal.
Mr. Hanks asked how are you going to
model a tree?
Mr. Petty responded I would fail
modeling the tree because wood has different densities depending on the
species.
Mr. Hanks asked if the tree stays on
the bank and does not travel to a culvert and does not block the culvert, does
the tree pose a risk to flooding or increase our risk for flooding? We can be spending millions of dollars to
determine this.
Mr. Fennell responded I do not think
there is any question that branches come off the trees. One branch came off my tree and flew 50 feet
through the air. Whether it is whole or single
branches, there is no question we are going to have branches in the water
floating down the canal.
Mr. Hanks stated I am talking about
a tree partially in the water and partially on the bank. You are dealing with a full canopy, which you
will not have in a hurricane. The leaves
are going to start to strip off early on before you start breaking branches.
Mr. Fennell stated we paid an
engineering group to study this. What is
the status of this study?
Mr. Petty responded the engineer
will be giving a presentation under his report.
EIGHTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Attorney
ii. Special Act Codification
Mr. Lyles stated I distributed to
the Board and manager earlier in the meeting the proposed amendment to the
Special Act authorizing the District to serve in the function discussed at
previous meetings pertaining to elections and amending bidding thresholds to be
consistent with Florida Law as it relates to other government type agencies and
adjusting the level of the compensation of the Board members to $400. Staff requested considering one additional
item, updating the short term borrowing provision to make it clear, although it
is implicit in the 34 year old document we are operating under like other
government entities you have the ability to go to commercial institutions,
banks, underwriters and other lenders to take advantage of what may be a short
term borrowing, short of a five year bond issue. If you have any questions on what this will
involve you can ask Ms. Larned. We will
be filing this proposed bill with the Legislative Delegation this week. The most significant issue is going to be the
Board’s ability to convert from a landowner election to an electoral (one
person/one vote) system run by the Supervisor of Elections at your discretion. However, this will only happen in connection
with a General Election every other November.
Mr. Fennell asked will we have two
members serving for four years and one member for two years?
Mr. Lyles responded just for the
first year in order to get a staggered election system. You have people serving four year terms but
not the entire Board being replaced in one election cycle.
Mr. Fennell asked does it state when
the elections will be held?
Mr. Lyles responded the elections
will be held the next succeeding even number year in November on Election Day
after you make the decision to convert to this system. It does not dictate when you will make this
decision but that they will only be held in connection with the General
Election in this county.
Mr. Fennell stated running elections
are a big expense.
Ms. Zich stated now we are going to
be elected by all residents in the District.
Mr. Fennell stated we can only do this
if we get the state to change our rules.
Mr. Hanks stated all three Board
members will vote in the General Election during non-presidential terms.
Mr. Fennell stated it has been this
way for a long time. We said this was a
good thing to do.
Mr. Hanks asked do you have the
contract amounts for bids?
Mr. Lyles responded we will follow
the state’s cap on its agencies and local government districts like CDD’s and
cities. Typically a construction project
is going to remain at $200,000 like every government as opposed to $4,000 but
more importantly, the maintenance services going along with it for the water plants
this District operates are heavy dollar contracts in some cases. But in other cases, it may be a $10,000 or
$15,000 contract. We currently have to
publish in the newspaper a notice to bidders and go through the preparation of
bid specifications involving staff and engineering time. This is an expensive and cumbersome
process. The state and all other local
governments and CDD’s in the state only have to do this if the cost hits
$150,000.
Mr. Hanks stated for the roof
repairs we authorized with the change order, now we have to go out for a public
bid if it was not done by a change order.
Mr. Lyles stated unfortunately given
the way this was written in the early 1970’s, if we have roof damage exceeding
$4,000, we have to go through a bidding process. This way we will be able to do it, with
whatever authority levels the Board establishes for the management staff to get
the work completed and bring it back to the Board for ratification.
Mr. Hanks asked do we you need a
resolution?
Mr. Lyles responded we just need a
motion to authorize staff to file the proposed bill amending Chapter 2004-469
Laws of Florida, which is your Special Act.
Mr. Petty stated I received comments
on the Economic Impact Statement but I do not have the current draft. One item was about the bank being specified
even though it is implicit. However,
this is for short term notes and we are not looking to qualify for a short term
note. In the past we had the issue of
bidding anything over $4,000. We also
had a problem with attaching to other government contracts. You said since we did not have this in our
enabling legislation, we cannot participate in state contracts. Will these areas be covered with the changes
you made?
Mr. Lyles responded we did not
specifically authorize it because we were increasing the statutory limit. However, if you want to participate in a
state contract or something bid by another local government, we can certainly
add this language.
Mr. Petty stated if we have time.
Mr. Lyles stated we have time.
Mr. Fennell asked do we want to add
the provision to attach and participate in state contracts?
Mr. Petty responded yes. Counsel understands these two issues. The issue allowing us to go to the bank is in
order for us to do notes and bonds, which has always been in there. However, in an abundance of caution, we want
to make sure commercial resources were not withheld for us, whether we were
looking for long term or short term notes.
Mr. Lyles stated what we currently
have is the ability to issue bonds.
Although it is not part of this act, Florida Law requires any financing
we do having a term in excess of five years be treated like a bond and
therefore have it validated in Circuit Court.
Whether or not we change the language in the Special Act, the five year
cap applies to us. For anything less
than five years, you have a restriction for short-term borrowing. We want to get rid of this so we can take full
advantage of the ability to borrow more cheaply from a commercial bank or
lender.
Mr. Hanks stated we currently have a
gap of three years.
Mr. Lyles stated we need to be able
to have more flexibility to save the District money to do the right borrowing
in the right situation when it is appropriate.
It could never be anything not brought to and pre-authorized by the
Board under any circumstances. The Board
has to authorize it.
Mr. Petty stated whether the
validation is a requirement because it is a capital improvement or a long term
maintenance assessment, I do not have an issue with the validation proceeding
and I am not trying to get out of noticing anyone or validating any amounts of
money but we have rooftops. Since we
have rooftops, we can take advantage of commercial paper, which is the cheapest
part of financing available to us, if we so word it in our Special Act. I am not looking for additional short-term
notes from two years to five years, although I do not mind having it. I am more interested in looking at the
commercial paper for the long term since I can obtain much better rates, in
particular for your capital improvement program.
Mr. Hanks stated in other words like
a mortgage.
Mr. Petty stated long term debt is
long term debt. I do not want to compare
it to a homeowner’s mortgage. It is more
complicated than a mortgage. We are
trying to make sure we can use commercial paper because we have the
rooftops. When we were a landowner
District and they were looking to get bonds for the “dirt” deals, there is a
very small source of revenue for it.
However, now you have rooftops and your credit rating is much higher and
stable, which we can take advantage of and take those savings to the
residents.
Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like a
cap. Does everything longer than five
years have to be a bond?
Mr. Lyles responded whether it is a
city, county or a special district, they run into the same issues. There are ways they do things like Lease
Purchase Agreements and other types of creative financing. The bottom line is in
Mr. Hanks stated it is a time
threshold, not so much an instrument threshold.
Mr. Petty stated it is an instrument
threshold. If we need to validate, let’s
validate. If we need a referendum, let’s
go through a referendum. If I need to
have a special meeting to notice the landowners or homeowners by certified
letter, let’s do so. The current
language in the legislation says, “By bonds or note”. Notes are poorly defined. All I request is we change the language to,
“Bonds, notes and commercial paper as applicable.” We are looking at an established community,
not a new one.
Mr. Lyles stated the legislature
currently says, “The District at any time may obtain loans in such amount and
on such terms and conditions as the Board may approve for the purpose of paying
any of the expenses of the District or any costs incurred or in connection with
any project”. We currently have this
authority.
Mr. Fennell asked is loans a more
general term?
Mr. Petty responded there is other
language. This is why we want to be
specific by mentioning the banks and commercial paper. Because the financing can be construed in a
negative light, in an abundance of caution, we want the language to specifically
say we have this option.
Mr. Fennell asked is it an issue?
Mr. Lyles responded not really as it
is not part of the draft we have been working on or the discussion. There was a recommendation from staff to
broaden what I characterize as short term borrowing, meaning anything under the
five year threshold. I will be happy to
add this language. We were provided with
some language they would like to see in there.
I want everyone to understand, no matter what we put in the Special Act
or any amendments is not going to amend the General Law in
Mr. Hanks asked does this need to
come back before us?
Mr. Lyles responded there is no time
for it to come back to the Board.
Mr. Fennell asked which section are
we looking at?
Mr. Lyles responded we are looking
to add the language suggested by the manager and Ms. Larned in Section 20 of
your Special Act.
Mr. Hanks asked is this a good idea
or a bad idea?
Mr. Lyles responded it is a good
idea.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr.
Fennell with all in favor staff was authorized to proceed with the filing of a
proposed bill amending Chapter 2004-469 Laws of Florida as discussed.
Mr. Fennell asked what do you think
our chances are?
Mr. Lyles responded very good. Everything we are proposing to do falls under
the category of modernizing some terms and conditions thought to be necessary
in 1970 for providing the flexibility for the Board to authorize elections on a
one person/one vote basis rather than a landowner basis. This was something thought advisable in 1970,
which right now can only be done through an expensive petition and referendum
process. The legislative delegation
should see this as a positive step.
i. Update on
Mr. Lyles stated there is no update.
Ms. Rabone stated we will remove
this item from the agenda.
Mr. Lyles stated we will request it
to be on the agenda when we have final agreement and signatures.
B. Engineer
Mr. Bohorguez stated I am with
CH2M-Hill. Mr. DaSilva and I prepared a
report on the hydrologic model. This
report shows what is occurring in the canals and points out the areas of
concern in regards to eventual flooding.
Mr. DaSilva stated this has not changed
since this report was presented some time back.
There are several scenarios we can run.
The east basin is of concern at this point but there is no concern for
the 10 year storm. However, there is
concern for the 100 year storm as the minimum finish floor for the east basin
is 12”. We checked some of our data and
every place we checked was above 12’.
When we ran the 100 year storm, we reached flood stages of 12.4”, which
is six inches above the required 12”.
However, I do not think there is any house reaching 12.5” or lower.
Ms. Early asked what year did it
flood?
Ms. Zich responded April of 1979.
Ms. Early stated Mr. Schooley told
me in 1978 there was a 16” rainfall in six hours and no homes reported
flooding. Was the water only in the garage
or did it get into the house?
Ms. Zich responded the water was in
the garage only.
Ms. Early stated this is expected
under a 100 year flood.
Ms. Zich asked why did it flood?
Ms. Early responded when you get
past a 10 year event and into the 100 year event, the water starts to get
stored. The roads are at the 10 year
event. What is the elevation of your
house?
Ms. Zich responded 12’. I live off of
Mr. Petty stated in 1979 there was
15” to 16” of rainfall in a 24 hour period.
This exceeded the 100 year storm event, which is calculated over 72
hours and not 24 hours.
Ms. Zich stated we thought at the
time the water levels would be lowered.
Mr. Petty stated our system cannot
keep up with this type of a rain event.
We can pre-pump for a hurricane but if we are not ahead of the water, we
cannot keep up. This is from the
operational side. We will drop the level
down 1’ and then go out and figure out the best estimate of rainfall expected
with the event, monitor it fairly closely as the storm approaches and continue
to adjust the level. The rain event in
1979 came without warning.
Ms. Zich stated my husband had to
park on
Mr. Fennell stated I contacted the
Weather Bureau and obtained data from them.
This was not a 100 year event. A
100 year event is over 18” of rain. Ms.
Early’s data is not from the Weather Bureau.
Mr. Hanks stated Ms. Early and her crew
have been designing to the rainfall contours as published by the SFWMD.
Mr. Fennell stated this is what they
like to see but is not what the Weather Bureau said.
Ms. Early stated this is what the
permit is based on.
Mr. Fennell stated this may be true
but it is not at the 100 year mark.
Mr. Petty stated we are arguing
apples and oranges. The Weather Bureau
has a 100 year storm event that does not calculate to the SFWMD 100 year storm
event. One is for drainage and one is
for a weather pattern.
Mr. Fennell stated this is what they
think they can handle.
Mr. Petty stated this is what our
permit is based on.
Mr. Fennell stated the Weather
Bureau measures the water every day. I
think the 72 hour constraint is fictional.
It is not from the Weather Bureau and not the initial condition. This is like saying, “I do not want gravity
to be quite as strong so I am going to have a three day limit on how far you
can drive.” The correct amount is 18”. What we saw in 1978/1979 was not at the 100
year mark. It was more like a 40 to 50
year mark at best. The point is we can
get more rain than expected. I do not
doubt it was 18” but it was over a three day period.
Mr. DaSilva stated the most we
received in one day was 14”.
Mr. Petty stated when you are doing
the drainage design, you have to take into account the peak hour, peak day and
peak period. The peak period is a 72
hour event, which they identify as the 100 year event. If you want to consider the peak hour of our
drainage system, it is going to be fairly low.
We can handle peak day somewhat better at 9.5”, which gets you into your
10 year storm event. We exceeded 9.5”
many times.
Mr. Fennell stated according to the
statistics, a 9.5” rain event happens once every 10 years.
Mr. Petty stated our permit requires
us to meet these three levels. You are
correct by saying this does not meet with what the Weather Bureau says. What we are trying to say is you are going to
live through a 100 year storm event in 24 hours.
Mr. Fennell stated what you are
calling a 100 year point is a misnomer.
It is not the probability of this event.
It is much less. Call it
something else like an 18” rainfall phenomenon.
Mr. Petty stated we will call it the
72 hour event.
Mr. Hanks asked are there any
recommendations in this report for changing our Permit Criteria Manual?
Mr. DaSilva responded not at this
point. We need to have consensus and
talk about what we can do to remediate this.
Mr. Hanks asked what do we need to
remediate?
Mr. DaSilva responded unfortunately
the city is built out to where we can no longer expand lakes. We can look into re-routing the canals.
Mr. Hanks stated I agree the city is
built out and there is insignificant room for expansion of our lake system. However, the city can change their zoning
code without consulting us and allow for increased intensity of
development. Currently where we may have
30% lot coverage, they can say, “Fine, for certain districts, we will allow 50%
lot coverage”. I want to make sure we
have this covered in our Permit Criteria Manual.
Mr. DaSilva stated our Permit
Criteria Manual covers certain elevations by their storage capacity.
Mr. Hanks stated it is based on
acres of open space. This language needs
to be removed from the Permit Criteria Manual, especially in the east basin.
Mr. DaSilva stated if you have a
site that is 100% impervious, it is not going to meet the requirements.
Mr. Hanks stated a site can have 80%
impervious area made up of 30% building and 50% parking lot. You can construct a parking garage, increase
your building coverage so you are still within the 80% but now all the 80% is
structure. According to our Permit
Criteria Manual, the amount of storage the site has to provide has now
decreased because now 80% of the site is covered.
Mr. DaSilva stated I think it is
relative. The more impervious you are,
the less storage you will have.
Mr. Fennell stated there may be
other things we can do. The conclusion
says, “On the other hand, the east basin has a deficit when compared to the
west basin requirements”. Are we below a
minimum of 11.4% surface area for the east basin?
Mr. DaSilva responded yes. For comparison purposes, by permit we require
11.4” of water for the west basin area versus 6% for the east basin.
Mr. Hanks asked what is required by
our SFWMD permit?
Mr. DaSilva responded there is no
requirement on the east basin. Back in
1977 when the permit was issued, a large percentage of the city was already
built-out.
Mr. Petty stated there was no
requirement for retention in the first phase.
Mr. DaSilva stated when you go back
and look at the ratios, the ones for the east basin are higher than the west
basin for storage. In order to provide
more onsite storage, they must have certain mechanisms. It is relative how much you can build because
the more you build, the less storage you have.
Mr. Hanks stated either change the
Permit Criteria Manual to get it based on a per acre basis, not for open space
but for site acreage and total gross acreage of the site or I will develop my
own criteria and provide it to the Board.
I feel strongly we need to tie it down.
Mr. DaSilva stated we can tie it
down any way you wish.
Mr. Petty stated I agree with Mr.
Hanks. As the landowner or homeowner goes
back to the city and ask for a modification to his house, the city is going to
look at it and say, “If you have a setback that is fine”. We just lost some square footage and I need
to know so I can monitor it. If our
Permit Criteria Manual allows it to happen, fine but the Permit Criteria Manual
should say, “I will not allow this to happen.”
We do not have enforcement powers but they should be able to obtain a
permit. If we have to work on a bank in
another area benefiting us, then the homeowners can have their garage if they
give me a plot of land somewhere else. I
do not want to find out in 10 years we are half of what we should be because
everyone wanted to have a four car garage.
It is in our manual; let’s make it work for us.
Mr. DaSilva stated the east basin is
higher than the west basin, which is how you can move water from the north to
the south through two canals and one large culvert.
Mr. Fennell stated I want to
understand the extent and severity of the problem.
Mr. DaSilva stated in reality, it is
not a big problem. Under the 10 year
event, the model works fine but under the 100 year event, we can see some
problem areas.
Mr. Fennell stated it looks like the
west basin is in better shape.
Mr. DaSilva stated the water can
only travel two ways in the west basin; through a canal or a pipe.
Mr. Fennell stated this brought up
the discussion about what happens if you partially block the canal.
Mr. DaSilva stated the 100 year in
the west basin is 11.93” but in some of these culverts, it jumps to 12.4”.
Mr. Fennell stated someone can flood
out.
Mr. DaSilva stated in some areas,
most of the houses are higher than 12”.
Mr. Fennell stated you have results
for the big rain event if the pumps are working perfectly and none of our pumps
fail and have no blockages.
Mr. DaSilva stated correct.
Ms. Zich stated I did not realize
the culvert goes under the mall.
Mr. Petty stated we have divers who
do inspections.
Mr. DaSilva stated there are
inspection boxes where someone can look down into a portion of the culvert.
Mr. Fennell asked what happens if a
category two hurricane hits?
Mr. DaSilva responded we can run
scenarios.
Mr. Petty stated I think the point
is made since we have limited outfall and we have seen Hurricane Wilma drop
material into the canals. You have a
real need to look at what we discussed in the past which is adding any outfall
lines to increase your options. They may
be able to show you partial blockage will provide flooding to 100 new homes
versus the 50 we are now considering but I do not think the 50 homes are
acceptable. We need to have a way to
increase the outfall number so we can have better drainage or slow drainage
from here. We discussed in the past
about having interconnect pipes in a loop drainage system. I think you have enough information to make a
decision with a clear mind that will be of benefit to the District and the
residents.
Mr. Hanks asked can we re-allocate
one of our pumps and our pumping capacity from the west basin to the east
basin?
Mr. DaSilva responded I think we
could because the permit includes the entire west basin.
Mr. Fennell asked how serious are
the problems? For the east basin, the 10
year design elevation of 10.8” is adequate.
You are saying with the 10 year flooding, you expect some flooding in
the east basin.
Mr. DaSilva stated minimal flooding
of less than an inch.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the extent
of the flooding for the 10 year event?
Mr. DaSilva responded it is a one
day storm event.
Mr. Hanks asked will there be flooding
in parking lots or streets?
Mr. DaSilva responded streets and
parks. Anything below elevation 10.8”
Mr. Hanks stated some parks will get
flooded and you will have water in your front yard. Major thoroughfares such as University Drive will
still remain open.
Mr. DaSilva stated some roads are
less than 10.8”.
Mr. Hanks stated some roads higher
than others will remain open. If FDOT
ever repairs the drainage on University Drive, the road will be fine.
Mr. DaSilva stated the elevation of
University Drive is 13.5”.
Mr. Hanks stated you should drive
down University Drive after it rains.
Mr. DaSilva responded we just issued
a permit to redo the drainage system in some of the problem areas on University
Drive.
Ms. Zich asked including the
intersection of Riverside Drive and University Drive?
Mr. Hanks responded yes.
Ms. Zich stated this is the worst
place in the city.
Mr. Fennell asked does your model
take into account local street flooding?
Mr. DaSilva responded throughout the
basin. Anything throughout the basin
less than 10.8” is going to be flooded.
Mr. Fennell stated according to the
map, the elevation of sub-basin 2701 is 12.49”.
This is the area by Royal Palm Boulevard, which is an older area.
Mr. DaSilva stated it is at the tail
end of the system.
Mr. Fennell stated there have been a
couple of houses built on my street in the last five to ten years. They changed the elevation for the new houses
to a higher elevation.
Mr. Hanks stated the older houses
are 12” above the road crown as opposed to 18”.
Mr. DaSilva stated there is a new
regulation with the city.
Mr. Hanks asked is 18” above the
road crown an unusual regulation?
Mr. Fennell responded this was an
issue for some of our neighbors.
Mr. DaSilva stated anything 12.3” or
lower will flood.
Mr. Fennell stated with everything
working perfectly.
Mr. DaSilva stated we ran some
scenarios but have not brought them to the Board as we are unsure of them. We can run many scenarios. We know we do not have a perfect 100%
projection on the 100 year storm.
Mr. Fennell stated it is important
for us to run these scenarios in order to understand the severity of the
problem. Are we talking about a problem
not that severe, never really happened or is likely to happen? We had cases where pumps failed before in our
pump stations. The last time we replaced
our pumps was seven years ago. We had a
situation where two pumps were down, one was pumping and we had to bring out a
portable pump. This is a real issue
because it tells us we were at 50% of our capacity.
Mr. Petty stated you may have an
issue. For the 10 year storm, the design
calculated 10.8” and you found four basins exceeding it, with the greatest
margin being 5/100 of a foot. I consider
this to be a good design. Does this
represent a flood condition as far as you can say? The topping out stage in the 100 year storm
was 12” and the highest elevation was 12.5”.
Is this a major deviation from the design we should correct or is it
well within the design parameters.
Mr. DaSilva stated this is a
deviation from the original design parameters.
It has to do with how the canals flow.
Mr. Petty stated if it is not a
deviation from design and we still see fit to add improvements, that is one
thing but the report is showing we have a deviation from design. This sets off an alarm bell all by itself.
Mr. DaSilva stated there could be
several issues.
Mr. Petty stated if it is a material
deviation in the design, then this is a problem all by itself and we have other
considerations such as if there is any blockage at any one point.
Mr. DaSilva stated on the east basin
by permit, each parcel is supposed to hold up to the first inch of runoff. It will be almost impossible for us to go out
there and find every control structure or berm.
Mr. Hanks asked where are the
retention ponds in Ramblewood East providing this water quality?
Mr. DaSilva responded some of them
do not have it because they were too old.
Mr. Fennell asked what did you find
out about the elevation along the east outfall?
Mr. DaSilva responded we recently
went through a process of acquiring survey services. We met with the surveyor within the last two
weeks and as soon as I receive the information from them, I will bring to the
Board. We are asking them for a
perimeter elevation around the entire District as well as cross sections where
we see problem areas, including canal bottoms.
Mr. Fennell asked what is taking so
long? We approved this item last month.
Mr. DaSilva responded it took longer
than we expected.
Mr. McKune stated it has been a long
process. The surveyor walked the entire site
and knows what he needs to do. The
entire scope of work is 12 miles. We are
giving him a couple of weeks to get the data, especially along the east outfall
and putting the data into a model.
Mr. Fennell stated I would like to
know whether or not there is a problem.
Someone knocked off three feet of the canal top.
Mr. DaSilva stated keep in mind;
these berms were set at certain elevations in the past. At one time we were a city with nothing
surrounding it. In order to prevent
flooding and sheet flow, it may not be necessary to keep the berm at elevation
16”. The floor elevation in this area is
12”. I am sure in Margate, it is not
much higher. In NSID, it is even lower.
Mr. Fennell stated the problem with
the east outfall canal is it is at the same water level as the C-14. We can back pressure into the C-14 and make
it the highest level of ground.
Mr. DaSilva stated the worst
scenario is if the C-14 flows into other canals.
Mr. Fennell stated that is what I am
worried about.
Mr. Petty stated SFWMD having
control over the C-14 is a big problem.
Mr. Fennell stated you said you ran
some scenarios but you do not wish to share them with me.
Mr. DaSilva stated I would like to
show you the scenarios with blockages.
Mr. Fennell asked what was the
result?
Mr. Bohorguez responded Mr. McKune
and I were working on potential blockages.
What will happen is the level of the water and velocity of the flow will
increase. In the worst case, the water
will go over elevation 12.80”.
Mr. Fennell stated we have an
inventory of the trees, now that we have gone through our second phase and have
an issue with having ornamental trees in this area. We know where the heavy population of trees are
and can put it on a map. In those areas
we can consider running blockage scenarios.
In this way, as we negotiate with the City of Coral Springs, we can tell
them, “According to the hydrologic model, this is the area I am concerned about
because there are 500 trees but I am not concerned about this area because there
are no trees”.
Mr. Hanks stated we are concerned
with the potential for flooding in the northeast section. If there is a blockage as we get further
south, does the blockage affect the north section?
Mr. Petty responded if we do not
have any trees there, the blockage is an act of God. I can only control what we have in our right-of-way,
not outside of it.
Mr. Fennell stated any type of
blockage will cause flooding, which will get worse.
Mr. Bohorguez stated we can increase
the pipes leading to the pump station or add more pipes. We can also discharge to the west basin.
Mr. Hanks stated the culvert going
underneath the mall is 11”. The amount
of area they have at 11”, according to CH2M-Hill’s report is zero. The amount of water they are storing at 11”
is zero acre feet. The amount they are
storing at 12”, which is the predicted 100 year flood elevation, is 14 acre
feet. This translates to .10 acre feet
at the 100 year elevation.
Mr. DaSilva stated I do not recall
the number or how old the mall is or how it was permitted. Is it more than 40 acres?
Mr. Hanks responded the mall has 138
acres.
Mr. DaSilva stated it could have
been permitted through the SFWMD. I know
for a fact there are some outparcels with retention areas and control
structures.
Mr. Hanks stated Washington Mutual
has a deep pit for stormwater retention.
Mr. DaSilva stated I think the mall
itself has some control structures or greenbelt.
Mr. Hanks stated based on your
report, they are not contributing.
Mr. DaSilva stated those are very
conservative assumptions. We did not go
into very much detail.
Mr. Hanks stated investigate whether
the mall has a permit from the SFWMD. If
so, see what are the calculations are and if they providing the storage. Considering we are in a situation where we
have potential flooding in these areas, we need to take a look and say, “The
mall is not providing any storage and they should not be building anything else
out there.”
Mr. Petty stated there is probably
something in our minutes. I do not doubt
Westinghouse, the main developer at the time, wanting to get this type of
facility built for their developments, offered storage to some other
place. We will get you those details.
Mr. Hanks stated what concerns me is
this is the only sub-basin in the east basin not having any storage below
11”. Everyone else has storage down to
6.5”. It sounds like we are subsidizing
them. Is there a restriction some place
else? Was it followed through to do the
excavation or was it an outstanding commitment for Westinghouse? If they have not followed through, we should
be approaching them.
Mr. DaSilva stated the next step is
for me to bring to the Board a shading area of what the area will look like
with 50% or 100% blockages.
Mr. Fennell stated the other concern
is Sherwood Forrest, which is the oldest area of the Drainage District having
the most mature trees. They are the ones
most likely to have issues. My
conclusions are:
1.
There are flood issues in the
east basin with a significant storm. Is
there significant damage to property?
2.
What would it take for 10%
blockage, 20% blockage, 30% blockage…, particularly in the northeast corridor
(Ramblewood South- B-33 Pipe)?
3.
Give recommendations!
4.
Should the District be
purchasing land and installing interconnects?
5.
What does it take for us to get
this area down to a point where we can withstand the 100 year flood with
confidence?
Mr. DaSilva responded better
conveyance and storage.
Mr. Fennell stated we could pump out
more water or try to change the mind of SFWMD.
Mr. Hanks stated we may have to find
appropriate locations under our ownership and provide additional storage.
Mr. Fennell stated by Maplewood
Elementary School, the east outfall canal is at the same level as the
C-14. I do not understand why we could
not pump into the C-14 and put in a pump station.
Mr. DaSilva stated we are limited as
to how much water we can pump out.
Mr. Fennell stated maybe we should
change the mind of the SFWMD. I am
willing to fight this political battle if I have the information.
Mr. Hanks asked if we go for a
permit modification for the east basin, what is the potential for SFWMD to
impose additional water quality requirements on the District?
Mr. DaSilva responded we are already
maxed out.
Mr. Hanks asked if we install a
secondary pump station going into the Sunshine east canal, even though we are
not requesting additional capacity, do we need to file for a change in our
operating permit?
Mr. DaSilva responded yes, but what
would you accomplish by doing so?
Mr. Hanks responded getting down
your drainage cap from three miles to a mile.
Mr. DaSilva stated this is another
possibility but at this time you have to weigh your dollars to see whether or
not it makes sense.
Mr. Hanks asked what does a pump
station cost?
Mr. DaSilva responded $1 million.
Mr. Petty stated we just refurbished
all of our pumps. This is a 150’ wide right-of-way
with a lot of dirt. We can build the
structure and then break out the dirt in between the structure and the canal.
Mr. DaSilva stated it can be done
but it is costly.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the damage
if we flood out 100 homes?
Mr. Hanks responded at some point
there is always going to be a storm providing the rainfall we cannot keep up
with. Nowadays, if we had 16” of
rainfall within 24 hours, the pumps cannot keep up and you will have flooding. If our pumps do not keep up with 10” of rain
in the matter of an hour, you will have flooding. It may not have been the 100 year storm event
but the problem is the rain was exceeded.
We can design for most things but it will be costly.
Mr. Fennell stated I do not think we
designed for this case. The data coming
back to us tells us for some reason or another whether we are not up to where we
should be. We should be able to take a
100 year flood.
Mr. Hanks stated that is what we
committed to doing.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the bottom
line?
Mr. DaSilva responded to present
information to the Board for better understanding and pinpoint what we want to
do. I can come back with some
recommendations.
Mr. Fennell stated come back with
some scenarios so we can see how bad the flooding actually is and how you can
reduce the flooding by whatever means necessary.
Mr. Hanks stated run a scenario
splitting our pumping capacity.
Mr. Petty stated this will require
an Interlocal Agreement with Sunshine WCD.
Mr. Hanks stated run the
numbers. We do not need to bother other
districts at this stage. Let's see what
those numbers show for half the pumping capacity on the C-14 and half on
Sunshine. Another scenario is to
maximize the canals right-of-way to right-of-way. This will be a major dredge excavation.
Mr. Bohorguez stated we will check
the right-of-way again.
Mr. Hanks stated see how much
storage we need to provide. If we need
to provide 350 acre feet of storage, figure out where to provide it. Let's come up with a number of what we need
to provide and then we can look at some scenarios on how we are going to
provide it.
Mr. Fennell stated we want to
proceed with this. We saw the same study
three to four months ago and you have not assuaged any of my fears. In fact, if anything, you made them
worse. When will you have the new
information?
Mr. DaSilva responded we can run the
scenarios and present the data at the next meeting.
Mr. Fennell stated I am looking for
the top 10 things you should change given the current situation to get us back
to the 100 year flood level.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need magnitude
of costs at the next meeting?
Mr. Fennell responded yes. The problem is we have outfall canals on
three sides of us; the C-14, east outfall canal and the west outfall
canal.
Mr. DaSilva stated it is easy to
install a pump station if we have to.
Mr. Fennell stated maybe this is the
smart thing to do.
Mr. DaSilva stated it will not help
much.
Mr. Fennell asked are you familiar
with the probability of failures or survival theory?
Mr. DaSilva responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated the reason you do
this is you have more than one area for outflow. Even if we decide we are never going to pump
out more water than we should, this alone might save us because if one pump
station goes down, we can just transfer the amount of water we were going to
pump out to some other pump station.
Mr. Hanks stated Pompano Beach is
higher than we are and they are in the east outfall.
Mr. Fennell stated thank you for
coming. Obviously we are
interested. Please run these
scenarios. We are the only District
within the City of Coral Springs running these studies in the last 30
years. You are breaking some ground
here. I understand you are going to do
this for some of the other districts.
Mr. Petty stated we will be doing
this for Sunshine W.C.D.
Mr. Fennell stated we need this
information in order to make a good decision.
C. Manager
i. Award of Software Contract
Mr. Petty stated staff is asking for
approval of an AS/400 upgrade and software for running utility billing and
District accounting. The price came in
well under what we anticipated.
Mr. Hanks asked were we thinking
$250,000?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Hanks stated our turn on our
investment is going to be shorter. Are
they providing the actual equipment?
Mr. Petty responded yes. They are an IBM supplier.
Mr. Hanks asked how many responses
did we receive?
Mr. Petty responded this was the
only response.
Mr. Hanks asked do we know if IBM is
going to stop servicing this machine next year?
Mr. Petty responded the AS/400 has
been a long lived model, which they have stuck with and supported with
upgrades.
Mr. Hanks asked are they providing
the backup support for the software?
Mr. Petty responded for maintenance
of both the hardware and software.
Mr. Hanks asked are they out of
North Carolina?
Mr. Petty responded South Carolina.
Mr. Fennell asked what happens to
the old contract for the software?
Mr. Petty responded the software is
updated to match the new configuration.
Mr. Hanks asked will we have any
downtime during the transition?
Mr. Petty responded no. We will run dual programs.
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr.
Hanks with all in favor staff was authorized to purchase an IBM AS/400 and
related software system
The meeting was recessed at 6:20
P.M.
The meeting was reconvened at 6:30
P.M.
ii. Discussion of Capital Improvement
Program
Mr. Petty stated the Board asked us
to create a capital improvement program.
Mr. McKune who we brought on board for a short period of time is helping
us in this regard. He started the
process in what we are referring to as the water/wastewater capital improvement
vision. He is not doing the engineering
work. He is basing this off of his 30
plus years experience and taking comments from Mr. Hyche, the Utility Director
and management to come up with what we believe is a good start on the capital
projects vision. The objections are:
1.
Each item filling a 10 to 20
year window.
2.
Meet future regulations. The state regulations can change in 10 to 20
years.
3.
Capability of adaptation.
4.
Reliability (Class 1
reliability, which is the highest rating available from DEP).
The capital improvement program is
broken out into separate items and costs:
1.
Solids Handling - $8.6 Million
2.
Replacement of Plants A & B
- $3.3 Million
3.
Monitor Well No. 3 - $920,000
4.
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Membrane - $12,995,000
5.
Major Main Upgrades - $2.3
Million
6.
Reclaimed Water - $10,350,000
7.
Miscellaneous - $2.3 Million
Mr. Petty stated these prices are
estimates. We need to prioritize these
facilities.
Mr. Fennell asked have you added
these items?
Mr. Petty responded no, because this
is not a take it or leave it proposition.
Some of these items are less priority.
For example, reclaimed water is estimated to cost $10,350,000 to make
irrigation water out of the wastewater effluent, which SFWMD has been asking us
to do for a long time. We think we found
a way to do this economically. In doing
so, we do not have to take our entire wastewater stream and turn it into
irrigation. We can just take a part of
it and still make them happy. The amount
of $10,350,000 will decrease.
Solid handling is misunderstood
while wastewater treatment is a biological process. We are raising bacteria each and every
day. All the raw material in the tank is
what we raise. The wastewater is fed to
these bacteria. These bacteria are the
same bacteria growing in the lake adjacent to the building. We just make their living conditions ideal
and their colonies turn the water brown. Every day we waste a certain percentage of the
bacteria in our water plants. There is a
digester in most water plants except for plants C and D. The wastewater goes there and stabilizes in
mass. It then goes to a central digester
where it is thickened further. It gets
more stable by being oxidized.
From the central digester, the solid
goes to a centrifuge. We only have a
single centrifuge as part of our solids handling project, we will be installing
a centrifuge so we have redundancy.
These require maintenance.
Currently when it goes down, we go down.
The centrifuge removes the solid from the water but it is still
sludge. It gets pumped from there to the
belt press. In the belt press, a huge
amount of pressure is exerted. We squeeze
enough water out to make a manageable cake that can be shipped out and put on
an approved landfill. This is what we do
with the bacteria. We currently have two
solid handling machines but one is 18 years old. Putting money into it is not worthwhile at
all. Of course, we want to have
redundancy because belts and motors need to be replaced. We need to have two machines for
reliability. We have money in solids
handling for digesters, belt pressers, centrifuges and piping.
Water treatment plants A and B have
been here for over 30 years. However, they
have a lifespan between 15 and 20 years.
I do not think we can get another nickel out of these water plants. The structural integrity is such we do not
think we can lower the water levels without the walls pushing in. We have already been using handmade devices
to get them to work. In the vision, we
are seeing the replacement of those two 30 year old steel tanks. Similar treatment processes, whether steel or
concrete will likely be determined during the engineering phase.
We currently have two deep
wells. Each deep well has a monitor well
next to it where you test to see if there is upflow from your deep well. These wells go down 3,500 feet and there are
various zones. The casing on monitor
number two failed and we are currently in non-compliance with DEP. This well needs to be replaced with what we
are referring to as monitor well number three.
Water treatment plant three failed
eight or nine days ago. This plant had
never been down for repairs but it wore out.
We saw it coming. Mr. Hyche immediately
made some calls and rushed all the parts and material here. We just got it back online on Sunday
morning. In the meantime, they put plants
1 and 2 back online but they do not have enough capacity to meet demand. We also have the interconnect with the City
of Coral Springs. They started bringing
us water like we gave them during the hurricane but they started screaming
because we started picking up their capabilities as they do not have many
reserves.
We are back online and doing fine
but plant 3 is large while plant 2 is smaller and plant 1 holds 1,000,000
gallons a day. We need 6,000,000 to
7,000,000 a day during winter. We are
looking at additional membranes because we need to go out another 10 or 20
years. If you look out 10 to 20 years,
the softening does not give you any capability at all. We also looked at reliability. Lime softening has some issues with
reliability working each and every day.
Filters can back up or the line can be a problem. The membranes give us the adaptability and
reliability we are looking for as well as efficiency. Therefore, we are recommending the next phase
of our water treatment plant be a membrane plant.
The next item is the major main
upgrades, which are typical of any utility site upgrade plan. Reclaimed water takes the wastewater
treatment plant effluent and cleans it up to the point where you can spray it
out as irrigation. In the past we always
hit financial hardship under the assumption if we ever run a new pipeline along
University Drive it would cost billions of dollars.
This time around we decided to look
at the drainage right-of-way path. If we
take our effluent line and run it straight west from here down our canal, the
first thing we hit is a public park that might be able to use irrigation
water. We may want to talk to the City
of Coral Springs about that. If you keep
going, you hit a golf course. We may want
to see if they are interested in having water.
If you keep going, you hit the Sawgrass Expressway. We may want to talk to them about watering
their right-of-way. Mr. McKune thinks
there may be an opportunity to run a state of the art test facility and
discharge into the conservation area.
The SFWMD is pushing us extremely hard in our Consumptive Use Permit. We do not think we are going to take all of
our effluent but we certainly think we can handle some of it. We would love to have irrigation water here
at the utility site, especially if we re-landscape.
The miscellaneous category is for
the replacement of old gauges and pumps.
Plant 1 was reconditioned and is one of the best looking lime softening
plants I have seen. Plant 2 is harder to
calm down. Plant 3 is an eyesore. We are happy to answer any questions. Keep in mind we are hoping to get your
direction to go to the next step.
Mr. Fennell asked is the total
$35,000,000?
Mr. Petty responded over
$35,000,000.
Mr. Hanks asked what about
prioritization?
Mr. Petty responded it happens
during the design phase. The vision is
to address the items we know should be addressed to meet our objectives. We looked at long term financing and at the
next meeting we will have the Rate Sufficiency Study, showing us how much money
we have to play with under the current rates and what we need to put into the
rates. First, we want to get your
thoughts on the vision to see if you had any additions, deletions or
corrections. We want to get into this further
but as we go further, Mr. McKune will end up going to the engineer and the
engineer will start providing work authorizations to you.
Mr. Fennell stated for awhile we
thought we had enough capacity and then we installed another tank.
Mr. Petty responded these are
digesters, not treatment plants. The
issue is replacing the 30 old plants with plants of similar size and
capacity. All we exceeded now is the
life. We are not asking for growth
related issues.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to go
back to the engineers or are they off the shelf designs for these plants?
Mr. Petty responded good point. There is a distinct possibility. When it comes to the membranes, the
technology is contingent upon the membrane itself. First you get the right membrane and then you
build around it. You need to do a pilot
study first and once you find the best reacting membrane to your water
condition, build around it.
Mr. Hanks stated Plantation has a
membrane system.
Mr. Petty stated most plants are
going that way. The economies have
gotten so good for the membranes, they are put up against these metal tanks and
their O&M are typically going to be less.
Mr. Fennell stated the solids
handling cost of $8.6 million seems high.
Mr. McKune stated this is the
contract amount, which was recently awarded.
Mr. Hanks asked do these numbers
account for savings in cost reductions or are we going to see continued
increases in our operating cost?
Mr. Petty responded we are going to
continue seeing increases in our operating costs but we are trying to minimize
the impact. Currently the biggest
increase factor is the cost of living increase.
Trying to get a good operator out here is difficult. We currently have hammer and metal operators
but membrane plants require someone with education and experience. The pay is going to increase to get someone out
there with a college degree and experience with membranes. We are going to see increases no matter what
trying to keep them here. The good news
is we think we targeted the west coast where property values are almost as high
as ours and their pay is behind us.
Mr. Fennell asked can we pull a pipe
and hand it off to the county?
Mr. Petty responded the county does
not have a water pipe.
Mr. Fennell stated the city is proud
of not handling any waste products.
Mr. Petty stated the city was happy
to turn over their utilities to the District.
In fact they offered it to us twice.
Reclaimed water is an extra benefit.
The comparison with the regional wastewater treatment plant of the
county should be done as part of the engineering evaluation.
Mr. Fennell stated this is a legitimate
question to ask.
Mr. Hanks asked will these monies
come from the Enterprise Fund rather than the General Fund?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked depending on what
happens with the CH2M-Hill study, will we be seeing a similar capital program
for stormwater?
Mr. Petty responded yes. As a matter of fact, Mr. McKune already
started this process. I already saw the
draft.
Mr. Hanks asked are you considering
potential changes to water quality standards or is this outside the scope?
Mr. Petty responded what Mr. McKune
was focusing on was the hydraulics.
Mr. McKune stated you have a huge
plant on this site similar to the two city pump stations. One of the pump stations will cost $8,000,000
today with its own power generation system.
These facilities will need to have a large pipeline connecting to the
nearest county enforcement, which is the C-14.
It may or may not have capacity to pick us up. When they first built the regional force main
system, everyone had to buy in. CSID did
a comparison back then to see whether this plant was more cost effective than
the one at the county. It was decided by
the Board it was more cost effective by having it here. I think this was a good decision because the
rates for wastewater paid by the citizens of the District are much lower than
the county. They are going to build a $100
million per day plant on Copans Road, which is extremely expensive.
Mr. Hanks stated this does not mean
we should not do the analysis.
Mr. Fennell stated strategically we
had a real issue with the water. The big
issue is what we should do with the wastewater.
Mr. McKune stated whether you keep
the wastewater here or not, you still need reclaimed water ability and
characteristics.
Mr. Petty stated even if we got rid
of the wastewater, they will still ask us what we are doing for water
conservation including reuse. We will do
the analysis. It should not be difficult
for us to do.
Mr. Hanks asked is water
conservation in conjunction with it?
Mr. Petty responded yes. This is what we have been getting by on so
far.
Mr. McKune stated there is only so
much you can do with water conservation.
Mr. Hanks asked how many acres of
land do we have?
Mr. Petty responded 24 acres.
Mr. Fennell stated we still have a
nice size facility. Should we expand and
sell more water to the city? The interconnect
is already there.
Mr. Petty responded we have this
capability to a certain regard. The
vision showed going to a membrane plant.
It did not show taking down any of the lime softening plants. We still have the capability to produce. We will build the membrane plant as separate
entity so if there was the ability to expand and possibility serve one of our
surrounding neighbors, you will have a great deal of your infrastructure in
place to do so but you need to find a well to supply you with the additional
water, until we have the capability. The
only true possibility lies with the city who asked us to run water on two
occasions. I do not know if this will
ever occur again.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the city’s
capacity and what did their last ERU measure?
Mr. Petty responded as far as I know
they are at their max. When we opened
the interconnect, they only had a day or so they could allow us to pull off and
then we started eating into their tanks and they started dropping. I do not believe they have a great deal of
extra capacity left in their system.
Mr. Hanks stated I am wondering how
they are doing the downtown re-development.
With re-development you see an increase in consumption.
Mr. Petty stated a fairly small
percentage. We are asking you to look at
this plan put any additional funds coming from the outside, although the
division before you has the ability to produce more water should the
opportunity present itself because we are looking to switch to membranes. We will still have lime softening plant
capabilities. Certainly for the short
term you can run both if you have the water.
Mr. Fennell asked can we clean up
the water good enough to dump it into the canals?
Mr. Petty responded out of sight/out
of the mind is the rule.
Mr. Fennell stated I know, but if we
have crystal clear water flowing, we can use it for a good purpose.
Mr. Hanks stated we need discharge
permits.
Mr. Fennell stated the amount of
water we are talking about, 8 or 10 million gallons is peanuts compared to the
amount of water in the canals.
Mr. Petty stated of course it
is. A water plant in California takes
water and puts it through what they call secondary treatments, which is what we
have. They also put it through tertiary
treatment, which chlorinates and de-chlorinates the water and shoves it through
a reverse osmosis membrane. The water
comes out beating potable water standards.
They inject it into the aquifer and no one gets to see the water. They do this 50 miles from the coast to form
a barrier for saltwater intrusion. After
a huge amount of treatment, they still will not let the two water bodies
touch.
Mr. Fennell stated I am looking for
some strategic ways to change. The
reclaimed water is one alternative. It
seems the right thing to do is to pump into the everglades and allow for a
natural cleaning of the water it goes through.
Mr. Hanks stated the trouble is you
have to do more cleaning here than pumping into the everglades because the
water will be too rich in nitrogen and phosphates.
Mr. McKune stated the impact on the
everglades will be minimal after 1,000 yards.
We used to pump all the discharge here into the adjacent canal in the
1970’s. There are some demonstration
projects currently taking place to allow pumping highly treated wastewater into
the conservation area. This is the only
process making sense.
Mr. Hanks stated you are wasting a
resource.
Mr. McKune stated if the everglades
are screaming for water, give them water.
Mr. Fennell stated there is a group
talking about how pure the water has to be.
Rainfall does not pass the purity standards they are looking for. This was an excellent presentation and a good
start. We are looking for more specific
details. Thank you!
Mr. Petty asked can you authorize
staff to work with the engineer on this matter further?
Mr. Fennell responded we will
authorize staff to proceed. Obviously
the plant is getting old and we need to replace it.
iii. Monthly Water & Sewer Charts
iv. Utility Billing Work Orders
v. Complaints Received/Resolved
These items were tabled until the
next meeting.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor Requests and
Audience Comments
There not being any, the next item
followed.
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of September
Financials and Check Registers
Mr. Fennell asked do we need to give
approval at this time?
Mr. Petty responded no, we can wait
until the next meeting.
ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There being no further business,
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr.
Fennell with all in favor the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 P.M.
Sharon Zich Robert
Fennell
Secretary President
NOTES FOR CSID MEETING FOR 10/16
• Engineer to provide the Board with
scenarios with 50% and 100% blockages to see how bad the flooding is and
recommendations to reduce the flooding
AGENDA ITEMS
FOR NEXT MEETING
1.
Consideration of Chemical Bids for Aquatic Weed
Control
Note: Remove from agenda “UPDATE ON LAKE CORAL
SPRINGS” from Attorney’s Report