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
Sharon Zich Vice President
Glen Hanks Secretary
Also present were:
Dan Daly Interim Manager
Dennis Lyles District Counsel
Sean Skehan CH2M-Hill
Daniel Bohoquez CH2M-Hill
Cedo DaSilva CH2M-Hill
Pete Colussy CH2M-Hill
Bill Barbaro CH2M-Hill
Doug Hyche CSID Utilities
Director
Randy Frederick CSID
Drainage Supervisor
Kay Woodward CSID Accountant
Jan Zilmer CSID Human
Resources
Pamela Rower
Michael Scholl Public
Risk Underwriters
Mark Grimmel Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs
Numerous Residents
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr.
Daly called the meeting to order and called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of
the September 17, 2007 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr. Daly stated on page three, in
the second to the last paragraph “we acquired more of our employees” should be
“we required more of our employees”. In
the same paragraph, “we will get them on a CAD drawing starting with the City
of
Mr. Hanks stated I have a follow up
item in regards to the insurance as it relates to chlorine gas.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Hanks
with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Presentation
from Mark Grimmel of Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs on Property Insurance, Question
and Answer Session and Consideration by the Board to Change Insurance Carriers
Mr.
Daly stated at this time, I would like to introduce Mr. Mark Grimmel and Mr.
Michael Scholl from Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs.
In our quest to save money for the District, we looked at everything we
spent a large amount of money on. I had
the great fortune to meet Mr. Grimmel one day and we started talking. Within a reasonable period of time, Mr.
Grimmel re-bid our property insurance policy based on the companies he deals
with. Based upon his proposal, we recommend
going with this organization.
Mr.
Grimmel stated not only do we try to improve the price, but we try to improve
the coverage as well. I provided to the
Board a copy of our annual report. We
are a publicly traded firm with 120 offices nationwide and over 4,000
employees. There are seven offices in
the State of
With
me today is Mr. Mike Scholl, Vice President of Underwriting for Public Risk
Underwriters who manages the Preferred Government Insurance Trust (PGIT) in
● Coverages are $1 million higher than the current program with
no umbrella
● Increased limits
○ Coverages to $3 million
○ Same amount of coverage in property, auto
and general liability
○ $500,000 per occurrence limit for each
crime incident
○ $500,000 limit for employee theft through
Travelers
● Windstorm perils
○ Windstorm deductible of 5% and minimum of
$500,000 per occurrence through Travelers versus $25,000 coverage through PGIT for
only named storms.
Mr. Fennell asked is the word
“retention” used the same way as “deductible”?
Mr. Grimmel responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated I assume the
sewer back-up coverage under the extension of coverage is in the case of
someone suing us for causing a sewage backup in their home. Correct?
Mr. Grimmel responded this coverage
is in place if the sewage backs-up into this office. Sewage in a resident’s home falls under the
general liability coverage. Under
general liability, we cover sewer back-ups for which you are negligent
for. There is no exclusion. This is a common question. The first page of the comparison is for your
owned property. The second page includes
some of your liability coverage.
Mr. Fennell stated thank you for
looking into this. I do not think we
looked at our policy in my 15 years on the Board.
Mr. Daly stated it is hard to do
it. When you gave me this direction, I
called our existing insurance company and put them on notice and said “We will
shop this and we hope you win.” We
called Mr. Grimmel and he provided this proposal. Because of his expertise in the industry and
dealing with similar companies, you should look at Mr. Grimmel and his
company. In addition, our current
provider does not want to give us a proposal until 20 days before the policy
expires because they do not want to give you time to shop around. This is the tactic in the industry.
Mr. Fennell asked when is this up
for renewal?
Mr. Daly responded the 31st
of this month. We literally obtained the
price from our current provider on Monday and met with Mr. Grimmel on Tuesday.
Mr. Grimmel stated I provided you
with a list of what other water treatment districts are currently paying
through PGIT.
Mr. Fennell asked what does public
official liability insurance cover?
Mr. Grimmel responded this is
commonly referred to as Directors and Officers insurance. In the interest of time, we tried to
summarize the coverages. I am happy to
answer any questions about this. On the
second to the last page is the bottom line amount. Our estimate came out to be $92,000 less than
what you are currently paying for this year’s renewal. I think it speaks for itself.
Mr. Fennell stated this is as much
as we pay for our engineering or management firms.
Ms. Zich asked how many claims did
we have last year?
Mr. Grimmel responded there were
less than 10%.
Mr. Daly stated in all honesty, this
savings is close to our workers compensation insurance premium for the year,
which we just paid. This is a big
decision and is not something I or any manager should take upon themselves to change. This needed to go before the Board because
something of this magnitude can have many repercussions if we make a
mistake.
Mr. Hanks asked what about if
anything is missing?
Mr. Grimmel responded we went
through this policy line by line. This policy
is structured differently. Your existing
policy has a $1 million umbrella. The
umbrella policy has a separate deductible and different terms and
conditions. We made every effort to meet
the liability.
Mr. Hanks stated it looks like you have
the cost for the liability.
Mr. Grimmel stated PGIT has 690
participating governmental members in the State of
Mr. Hanks asked how long have you
been in business?
Mr. Scholl responded the trust has
been in existence since 1999. HRH goes
back 100 years.
Mr. Fennell asked does HRH insure
us?
Mr. Grimmel responded Mr. Scholl’s
group manages the trust. I handle the
retail end by representing the trust to Boards and other Special Districts
across the state.
Mr. Hanks asked is this something
Mr. Scholl as the underwriter shopped for?
Mr. Scholl responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked does the list of
utilities show who they are insured with?
Mr. Scholl responded yes.
Mr. Grimmel stated it is not a
complete list since we insure a couple of hundred cities, counties and other
Special Districts.
Mr. Hanks asked how do these
companies compare in terms of their ratings?
Mr. Grimmel responded every one of
these carriers have an A and best A rating.
We will not work with anyone who carries less.
Ms. Zich asked what is the highest
rating you can have?
Mr. Grimmel responded you can have
A++ in insurance. Our lead property
carrier, AIG carries this rate, which is the largest insurance company in the
world. There are some carriers rating as
low as A-. The A rating is the
outstanding rate. Then it goes A-, A+ and
A++.
Ms. Zich asked what is the lowest
rating an insurance carrier can have?
Mr. Grimmel responded D.
Mr. Fennell asked what is Star
Insurance?
Mr. Grimmel responded they are a
public entity specialist who insures governmental businesses. They are the insurer of our
Mr. Fennell stated I see a $100,000
retention. Is this the deductible?
Mr. Grimmel responded this is what
the agent retains. We combine 700
governments together and their combined premium contribution is $105
million. The agent will retain roughly
half of those monies to pay for the claims. This is how we get the biggest benefit for our
dollars. One example is if your truck
knocks someone’s rearview mirror off as it is pulling down the road. We know we are going to have those claims.
Mr. Hanks stated this is the same
idea as an individual paying a higher deductible insuring that rather than
having these extraordinary high deductibles of $100,000, you are approving
everyone’s risk together and spreading them among the various members.
Mr. Grimmel stated let’s say I have
property worth $5,000. PGIT on a
non-hurricane loss bears the layer between $5,000 and $25,000. Then we have the excess carriers above
this. On a G/L loss, if someone calls
and says their pipe burst, PGIT bears the first $100,000. If the claim gets above this amount, it gets
tendered to the carriers.
Mr. Fennell asked is it like a
re-insurance rate from a medical standpoint?
Mr. Grimmel responded yes. The easiest way to describe PGIT is it is an
insurance company. We are trying to be
open and share with you the financial stability of the carriers. The backing of PGIT in the event of a large claim
is very good. They are all A rated. My understanding is you purchased your
workers compensation insurance through FMIT.
Correct?
Mr. Daly responded yes.
Mr. Grimmel stated PGIT is the same
type of program and is set up under the same statute as FMIT.
Mr. Hanks asked are these existing
customers?
Mr. Grimmel responded a lot of those
have been around since 1999.
Mr. Hanks asked such as
Mr. Grimmel responded
Mr. Hanks asked did we track this
with our existing carrier?
Mr. Daly responded no.
Mr. Grimmel stated your policy term
ends on the 31st.
Ms. Zich stated we have not said we
will go with them for next year.
Mr. Daly stated correct. They submitted an invoice to us a week ago
for next year’s policy. We should be
allowed to make up our mind. Normally it
automatically renews and we never did our homework ahead of time to find out
where else to go. It is not like
shopping at a grocery store.
Mr. Fennell asked is there an
advantage to having a two year policy as opposed to a yearly policy?
Mr. Scholl responded it is nice to
get a two year policy but given Florida’s geography, we cannot commit to a two
year guarantee on the property or workers compensation. If you are interested, we can explore it.
Mr. Grimmel stated my experience has
been if you can get a two year lock on a premium, you certainly want to go this
route. I think we are probably in a
softening insurance market across the nation and you should see a reduction in
the liability rates. I do not think a
two year program will meet your client’s needs.
Mr. Hanks stated I want to take
action on this but prefer to wait until our attorney looks at the policy.
Mr. Fennell asked what is our situation?
Mr. Daly responded we have to make a
decision before the end of the month.
This was the only meeting we could bring this to the Board. If you decide to go with HRH, District
Counsel can write a letter to the existing carrier thanking them for their
service over the years and putting them on notice you are going with another
carrier. Please make sure it is done
professionally.
Mr. Fennell asked from a legal
standpoint, do we need to consult with other professionals?
Mr. Daly responded I do not
know. Our current provider/broker deals
with a much higher level of organization.
We are small potatoes for them as they are writing a policy less than
$500,000. They mainly write policies
ranging from $500,000 to $1.5 million.
This is not to say they will not miss us as their commission rate is
substantial.
Mr. Grimmel stated your broker is
ultimately responsible for going into the market and trying to putting together
the best program. There are limited
markets, especially in the property sector for this type of risk. With the size of your current program, you
have one or two other options available at this time. Normally someone on the brokerage side
understands the rating, who is being competitive and who is hungry for
business. In this case, PGIG has done a
tremendous job with a lot of public entities and districts throughout the State
of Florida in the last few years but ultimately that is your broker’s
responsibility.
Mr. Daly stated I spoke to Mr.
Goscicki about this matter a month ago and he said there are not many people
who write these policies. He deals with
Marsh all the time and says they are a large one who writes these
policies. There are not many companies
in the industry. I was complaining about
how the rates have been increasing and this year it is even higher.
Mr. Grimmel stated it is the same as
health insurance. You have to market it.
Ms. Rower stated all of our
districts are either with PGIT or the Florida League of Cities. As Mr. Goscicki was saying, there are not many
players in the governmental entity market.
We worked with PGIT. They are one
of the leaders.
Mr. Hanks stated we should go back
and check last year’s record. Have we
priced this with anyone else? How come
no one went out and priced it before?
Ms. Rower responded I was not
involved.
Mr. Hanks stated if you go back and
take a look at the minutes, you will see we had this discussion from a Board’s
perspective for years.
Mr. Grimmel stated because PGIT is a
government entity, I can provide your attorney with all the statues but Marsh
does not recognize us as an insurance company.
When they do their marketing, they do not want to deal with us.
Mr. Hanks stated it is not anything
directed at you. It is a general
frustration for our past managers.
Ms. Rower stated to be honest with
you, it becomes a relationship. I do not
know who chose Marsh to begin with.
Mr. Fennel stated we never had a
discussion about this type of insurance.
It has been grandfathered in.
Your concern is how we can grandfather in a $250,000 year expense. It is a line item in the budget.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the proposal from
Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs to provide insurance to the District was approved,
subject to review and approval of the policy by District Counsel as to the
legal sufficiency.
Mr. Daly stated I suggest Mr.
Grimmel and Mr. Scholl remain at the meeting in case Mr. Lyles has any
questions.
Mr. Fennell stated one of the
reasons we want to have more employees in-house is due to the fact we have
someone actively thinking about what happens here and where our costs are
coming from on a day-by-day basis and not just accepting things.
Mr. Daly stated we are dealing with
the customers when they call us up because their bill is going up $10. The $10 is very important to them and makes
every penny we spend important when we put the budget together.
Mr. Fennell stated thanks to staff.
Mr. Daly stated I have two rival
companies competing for workers compensation insurance, which has already been
paid for because it was renewed on October 1st. However, there is a period of 60 days where
you can terminate.
Mr. Fennell asked how much do we pay
for workers compensation per year?
Mr. Daly responded about $100,000.
Mr. Fennell stated this is
substantial.
Mr. Daly stated the fact is, we do
not take advantage of the company we have right now, due to their rules. We hold safety classes and will have a safety
inspection by STS this month. We can
only improve from what they happen to say.
It is nice to have outside professionals pointing out things for
us. Our current policy is for everyone to
be drug tested before they are hired. If
there is an accident, they get tested immediately. We do not have to do random testing but those
two things alone; will allow us to get drug credits. Mr. Grimmel’s company will be invited to
provide a proposal for the workers compensation. Our other insurance broker for our health
insurance has already provided a proposal to us. There are some schools of thought where the
property and workers compensation should be in the same house while other
schools of thought say it should be elsewhere.
We will see what happens.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Request for
Drainage Permit for Coral Springs Retail
Mr.
DaSilva stated this is a permit request, which came through our office for
drainage review. We issued a letter to
the applicant requesting additional information on May 25th and gave
final approval in July. I request the
Board approve this request based on our letter of recommendation. The proposed site is an existing site, which
they are adding an additional building to the existing building by deleting
some parking. The site is just west of
University Drive, south of Royal Palm Boulevard and north of Ramblewood Drive.
Mr.
Hanks stated I have a contractual relationship with the applicant as I am one
of their traffic consultants.
Mr.
Fennell asked what is your conclusion?
Mr.
DaSilva responded approval based on our recommendation letter. They provided the drainage calculations as
required in the previous letter.
Mr.
Hanks asked what is the building coverage on this parcel going to end up being?
Mr.
DaSilva responded I do not have the exact numbers.
Mr.
Hanks asked are they providing enough storage?
Mr.
DaSilva responded they are providing stormwater runoff through exfiltration
trenches.
Mr.
Hanks asked are they meeting their required storage?
Mr.
DaSilva responded yes.
Mr.
Hanks asked is this based on the building?
Mr.
DaSilva responded they have a small retention area in the back of the building.
Mr.
Hanks stated the retention area is at elevation nine. The parking lot is at elevation 11’ or
11.5’.
Mr.
DaSilva stated it meets the requirement.
Mr.
Hanks stated this is our opportunity, if they are not in compliance with our
drainage criteria, to bring them into compliance. Are they in compliance with our permit
criteria?
Mr.
DaSilva responded yes.
Mr.
Hanks stated the 130 L.F. drainfield on the north side of the property has a
15” diameter pipe.
Mr.
DaSilva stated it is adequate.
Mr.
Hanks stated our DOT recommendation is to have an 18” diameter pipe.
Mr.
DaSilva stated the 18” diameter pipe is used for DOT roads. We requested both.
Mr. Hanks stated the developer’s
engineer can choose to do whatever they wish.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell
with all in favor the
request for a drainage permit from PEBB Enterprises for Coral Springs Retail
was approved.
Mr.
Daly stated Mr. Hanks wanted to ask the insurance broker about the chlorine
gas.
Mr.
Hanks stated it may not have any bearing at this point but with the prior
insurance company, we kept seeing increases.
One of the reasons we went with a more expensive liquid chlorine system was
to reduce the risk. Where is our savings
from reducing our risk?
Mr.
Fennell responded good question. You may
not be aware but there is a substantial risk for chlorine gas leaks as the
plant is in a residential area. We spent
a considerable amount of money changing to liquid chlorine.
Mr.
Grimmel stated the rating was based on the assumption this operation took every
measure for risk mitigation and safety.
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Manager
i. Discussion
of Cash Flow – Cash Transactions Analysis
Mr. Daly stated Ms. Woodward
prepared a well-structured document for the Board’s information.
Ms. Woodward stated there should be
three pages of summary cash transactions.
The first two pages are in the same format you have seen in the past few
months. Under the General Fund, you will
notice an additional line item was added to show another $389,000 came in from
NRCS when they adjusted the contract.
They agreed to give us an additional 3% reimbursement on
engineering. This money came in the second
week of September.
Mr. Daly stated this is good,
especially for this particular fund because we were lenient.
Mr. Fennell asked for the General
Fund?
Ms. Woodward responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated this is the one
we were concerned about. This is good
news.
Mr. Daly stated very good news.
Ms. Woodward stated we showed this
as a separate line item so it will not be hidden from view. In the Water and Sewer Fund, there was a
major change in the far right column under “Restricted Investments”. This reflects the fact we have net bond
proceeds from the sale of our bonds of roughly $41,700,000. Those funds were deposited with US Bank on
September 17th and changed the nature of what the schedule will look
like. The third page is a summary of the
face amount of the bond, the net amounts taken from it and where those monies
were initially deposited.
Mr. Hanks asked what is “Original
Issue Discount”?
Ms. Woodward responded this is where
we are selling something for less than the face amount. Depending on how competitive bonds are in the
market when you decide to sell them and whether the interest rate you are
offering is above or beyond what the market will bare, will determine whether
you have discounted the bonds in order to sell them or offer them at a premium. Typically you offer them at a premium, if you
are offering a higher interest rate. The
reserve will be true for the original issue discount.
The record will reflect Mr. Lyles
joined the meeting.
Mr. Fennell stated is our money
making good money? We are supposed to be
making 4 to 5 percent on our $41,000,000 sitting there.
Ms. Rower responded the money is in
the trust account and earning interest.
Ms. Zich asked how much interest?
Ms. Rower responded 4.6%. There are permissible investments allowed
within the Trust Indenture. I am
currently working with an Investment Banker and looking at buying some other
government issues based on our cash flow so we can earn a higher yield than
what it would earn in just the trust vehicle by itself.
Mr. Fennell stated great. Please do this. As we know, even though we have all the money
we currently need, we are not going to be able to build everything. There is going to be a payout. We know at least over the next three years,
we will be paying.
Ms. Rower stated we are working with
a schedule and doing some type of laddering.
We think interest rates are going down and are looking at locking in
some monies within the next 30 days due to the fact of what the current
interest rates are doing.
Mr. Hanks stated the trouble is
everyone else is looking ahead with money in one pocket and money out of the
other. Actually 4.6% is not bad when we
are paying 4.8%.
Ms. Rower stated when you are
talking about a range of $38,000,000, we have to ladder some of those out.
Mr. Hanks stated I want to make sure
we do not get taken by surprise to where we need help.
Ms. Rower stated correct. We have to look at the Cash Flow Analysis on
when the construction draws are occurring.
We work closely with the engineers.
It is worth it even if you can earn another 50 basis points on $20
million.
Mr. Fennell stated it is worth it
but it will probably be limited to federal funds.
Ms. Rower stated the bond document
gives you a descriptive analysis on what we are allowed to use the money
on. Obviously if it is not beneficial or
you are only gaining 10 basis points, it is not worth the cost. I will work closely with Ms. Woodward.
Mr. Hanks stated on page two, under
the Water and Sewer Fund, there were expenses and disbursements of $569,000.
Ms. Woodward stated those are for
all the expenditures you see in your income statement. On the cash transactions, I attempted to show
the money going in and out between the checking and trust accounts. In other words it was not true income. We were only moving money from one account to
another. I tried to show this so you
understand this is not a revenue source.
I only show a couple of lines of detail here. The rest of the detail is in the income
statement.
Mr. Hanks asked are you referring to
the requisitions paid to consultants or is this a draw?
Ms. Woodward responded it is for the
draws on construction. The $157,000 is
for cost of issuance items such as the attorneys, trustees, etc.
Mr. Hanks stated thank you for
bringing this to us.
Mr. Fennell stated this is
great.
Ms. Zich stated I appreciate
this. You can see where everything is
going. Looking at the check register
does not help me. I want to see where we
are spending the money.
Mr. Fennell stated the next thing
you are going to give us is a schedule, which is what we are actually looking
for.
Ms. Woodward stated exactly.
Mr. Fennell stated it is going to
tell us where we expect expenditures for construction as well as our general
operating expenses and what cash we have available. They can use this to foresee when we go broke
and do something about it. This is only
going to be as good as the information coming from the engineer. Therefore, we are going to be looking to our
engineer to make sure we have excellent schedules, particularly pertaining to
scheduled completions. Tied to this is a
real understanding of when the contractor expects to get paid or when we need
to have a certain amount of money in a certain amount of time so we know going
forward what our expenditures are going to be.
We have not done this for a long time as far as the scale of the
operations. We always had enough money
in the bank to cover our bills. We
borrowed money for 30 years and we better make sure we use it wisely.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of September
Financials and Check Registers
Mr. Hanks asked are there any
surprises?
Mr. Daly responded no.
Mr. Hanks asked was there any
unusual activity?
Mr. Daly responded no.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr.
Fennell with all in favor the financials and check registers for September 30,
2007 for the General Fund in the amount of $64,841.26 and for the Water and
Sewer Fund in the amount of $541,482.73 were approved.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
(Continued)
ii. Report
from Mr. Frederick on Grinding of Tree Stumps & Erosion Report
Mr. Daly stated Mr. Mark Westfall
from the City of Coral Springs contacted us regarding complaints he received
about the condition of the canals and canal banks. They have an ordinance stating “If you cut
down a tree, you have to grind the stump”.
Mr. Frederick stated when we had our
tree removal project, this was never mentioned.
We had several meetings with the city and they knew we were going to
flush cut these stumps and were worried about grinding them. All of a sudden Mr. Westfall is telling us all
stumps have to be grinded because he received complaints.
Mr. Daly stated we had thousands of
stumps.
Mr. Frederick stated he is not going
to enforce this unless he gets a complaint.
We received a complaint from a resident.
Ms. Zich stated I saw them grinding
stumps on 19th Street.
Mr. Daly stated not by us.
Mr. Frederick stated we have not
grinded any stumps yet.
Mr. Hanks stated if we have a
situation where we are required to access the canal bank, we should request an
easement or right-of-entry from the property owner.
Mr. Daly stated good idea. Mr. Colussy from CH2M-Hill found out in the
last month NRCS is willing to give us more money. We still have to expend more money for the
canal bank project, but they will pay 75%.
Mr. Hyche, Mr. Frederick and Mr. Colussy put together a plan for residents
complaining about their canal banks.
Will they take care of some of the tree stump grinding?
Mr. Colussy responded we need to
remove them for maintenance purposes so they will qualify.
Mr. Daly stated this is a good
thing. Otherwise it costs hundreds of
dollars to grind a stump.
Mr. Hanks asked what was the reason
for not grinding the stumps in the first place?
Mr. Frederick responded I wanted to
stump grind but it was an astronomical figure to grind every tree we were
talking about removing at the time.
Mr. Fennell asked where is the area
in question?
Mr. Frederick responded south of
Sherwood Forest off of Shadow Wood Boulevard.
This is the canal by the Jefferson Apartments running under the mall and
north to Shadow Wood.
Mr. Fennell asked are those stumps
on District property?
Mr. Frederick responded yes. The fence is where the District property line
is for the canal.
Mr. Daly asked will NRCS take care
of something like this?
Mr. Colussy responded yes, as long
as it is for maintenance. They are
lenient.
Mr. Daly asked for maintenance of
our property or the waterway?
Mr. Colussy responded maintenance of
the canal bank. We cannot cut the grass
around the stumps.
Mr. Fennell stated we did not plant
those trees.
Mr. Frederick stated the homeowner
probably planted them because they are in the direct line of the house. They were obviously there for a long time
because of the size of the stump.
Ms. Zich asked were they Australian
Pines?
Mr. Frederick responded yes.
Ms. Zich stated they were all along
the canal across from me by Visconti.
Those were there ever since I have been here.
Mr. Hanks asked is this part of the Capital
Improvement Plan we are looking at for the drainage system where we are
considering the canal expansions?
Mr. Frederick responded no. The only reason this is being addressed is
because a homeowner called the city and the city is calling us because we cut
the trees. They told us they have an
ordinance where if we cut the tree, we have to grind the stump. We did not grind the stump.
Mr. Fennell asked do we have our own
stump grinder?
Mr. Frederick responded no.
Mr. Fennell asked should we?
Mr. Hyche responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated if it gets to the
point of where we are grinding a lot of trees, we should consider getting a
stump grinder. If we had one, we could
go out with our own people and do the grinding.
Mr. Frederick stated in some cases, the
stumps are easy to grind. The ones on
the side of the bank are hard to reach.
We need a special grinder for those.
Mr. Fennell asked what direction do
you need?
Mr. Frederick responded we want to
get permission from the Board to grind these stumps.
Mr. Daly asked was there a cap on
what NRCS allows?
Mr. Colussy responded we originally
had a project agreement with NRCS for $2.6 million. We have $200,000 left. Our project agreement was slated to end at
the end of September. NRCS extended it
to the end of December of this year. We
have $200,000 to spend on stump removal, bank restoration or any other upgrades
for storm related problems in the District.
Mr. Hanks stated the problem we are
going to run into is we are going to need to go out for public bids. By the time you put the notice out for a
public bid and they come back, it will be too late in the year to do anything.
Ms. Zich stated we are in the middle
of October. If you go out for bids, we
will not get it done by the end of the year.
Mr. Fennell stated we will have to go
out for bids right now in order to receive them by November 1st.
Mr. Hanks stated the question is
what the scope will be.
Mr. Fennel stated it is determined
by the manager to not exceed a certain amount of money, which is the amount of
money we can get.
Mr. Daly stated the certain amount
of money also entails Part B, which we have not received yet. We are not including the engineering fee.
Mr. Colussy stated the engineering
fee is a 10% reimbursement for this project of the final construction
cost. We received a cost estimate for
the bank restoration of $100,000.
Mr. Fennell stated since we have to
do this work anyway, it is better to do it now.
Mr. Daly stated there is a large
sinkhole. It will not be long until the
entire bank goes into the water.
Mr. Frederick stated a chunk of land
is getting ready to break off along the water’s edge.
Ms. Zich asked where?
Mr. Frederick responded in Eagle
Trace.
Ms. Zich asked is this near the area
in Eagle Trace where we already did some restoration work?
Mr. Frederick responded no.
Mr. Fennell asked where is the
property line?
Mr. Frederick responded near the
fence. The residents are already
complaining about not being able to maintain the bank. A couple of people called to tell me they are
getting cited by the city because they are not maintaining the bank. We are running into a problem as to whether
the homeowners or the District are responsible.
Are the homeowners expected to spend their money to repair the bank so
they can maintain it or is the District responsible?
Mr. Fennell responded they are
responsible for cutting the grass.
Mr. Frederick stated exactly. They are saying “Why should I spend my money
to repair your property”?
Mr. Fennell responded it is common
property for everyone. It is funny how
it becomes common property once it needs to be repaired.
Mr. Hanks asked what are the
conditions in the canal?
Mr. Frederick responded pretty
good. There is a shelf, which eroded
over time but you do not see a huge build up.
There is supposed to be a two to one slope.
Mr. Daly stated we have an estimate
for $100,000.
Mr. Frederick stated in these
locations, we received a price of $100,000; 75% to be reimbursed by NRCS if the
work is done by the end of December.
Mr. Daly asked using the geo-tube?
Mr. Frederick responded yes.
Mr. Daly asked are these the same
people who did work for us in the past?
Mr. Frederick responded exactly the
same.
Mr. Daly asked does it have to go
out for bid?
Mr. Fennell responded you have a
bid.
Mr. Lyles stated we have a
proposal. Going out to bid means
publishing a notice in the newspaper for two weeks. This is maintenance of District
infrastructure and falls under our bidding thresholds of $4,000. It has to be noticed and bid.
Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like we
should do the bank restoration and stump grinding at the lowest amount we can
get.
Ms. Zich stated do it quickly.
Mr. Fennell stated we should go out
for bids now. When the bids come in, the
manager and President will select the lowest bidder. Can we do this?
Mr. Lyles responded under the
circumstances, you need to put a not to exceed amount on it and authorize them
to award to the low bidder. It is in the
nature of an emergency.
Mr. Hanks asked has any member of
CH2M-Hill been out to these sites?
Mr. Frederick responded Mr. Colussy
has.
Mr. Hanks stated there have been
situations where you have a layer of rock between 1’ and 5’ deep. Over time the soil, especially if you cut too
deep, erodes out from underneath. You
have an unsupported shelf and eventually the weight snaps off. Have we looked at what the conditions are in
the canals at this location? The
application of the geo-tube appears to be on the surface. It may not be addressing the underlying
problem.
Mr. Colussy responded we did not do
any investigation in this area.
Mr. Hyche stated I think the shelf
is still there.
Mr. Colussy stated where we used the
geo-tube previously, we sent drivers down and it was eroded underneath. However, the soils report said it was from
the same rock. We did the work. It has not been there a long time but it
seems to be holding up fairly well.
Mr. Frederick stated one of these
locations was supposed to be repaired with the last bank restoration we did but
unfortunately they did not have the material in the canal to fill the tube so
it did not get done. The homeowner complained
about how steep the bank was, how hard it was to maintain and gets closer to
his pool every day.
Mr. Hanks stated then we start
dealing with whether or not there is a responsibility. I do not think the District constructed these
canals. They were constructed prior to
the construction of the homes. Most of
Coral Springs was built this way.
Mr. Colussy stated there are problems
with the banks as they are failing. You
may be right.
Mr. Fennell stated if we can fix it,
particularly now, we can with the amount of money we can get from NRCS. Let’s go ahead and do it. He is correct. Another three feet of erosion is going to eat
up this guy’s backyard and we are going to have a $100,000 lawsuit. Frankly, we are left with the responsibility
for the canal.
Mr. Frederick stated we are going to
end up with the same situation we have with another homeowner where the bank
eventually broke up at his pool after a storm.
Mr. Hanks stated when you are
putting together the design for any structure; you have to take into
consideration the subsurface conditions.
If you are on a bank, you do not build your house on the edge of the bank.
Mr. Lyles stated our job is to make
sure drainage occurs, not to make sure they have a nice gently sloping bank.
Mr. DaSilva asked is this a four to
one slope?
Mr. Frederick responded I do not
think so.
Mr. DaSilva stated if this is the
same neighborhood, when they built the schools, they pushed the dirt over the
canal and re-did the canal and this is what washed off.
Mr. Hanks stated another solution is
to establish the bank by putting in more dirt there and excavating it back with
stack bags or do nothing.
Mr. Colussy stated we stacked bags
on one lot in Eagle Trace. It worked out
nicely but was expensive.
Mr. Frederick stated it was more
expensive than the geo-tube.
Mr. Hanks stated I am concerned the
application of the geo-tube in this situation may not be the best use. I am familiar with the geo-tube being used to
address beach erosion or retaining walls.
If we are talking about trying to stabilize the bank, this leads me to
think it is not just the issue of erosion of a bank but an overall bank
stability issue. The answer is not going
to be to put in more soil with additional weight.
Mr. Fennell asked has anyone from
our engineering firm gone out there?
Mr. Colussy responded we did a
visual inspection but not a geotechnical inspection.
Mr. Fennell stated the question is
whether or not we have the correct analysis.
What is the engineering firm’s recommendation?
Mr. Colussy responded we used the
geo-tube before in instances like this and had good success. However, we are trying to make repairs in an
emergency situation. Margate uses
geo-tubes. We looked at the areas where
they used it and even after some storms, they worked out well. I agree with Mr. Hanks. It is a good idea to do additional
investigation into the expense. If the
Board wants to do this, we can.
Mr. Fennell asked how much will the
additional investigation cost?
Mr. Colussy responded we need to
have divers and geo-technical work performed.
It will probably cost $5,000.
Mr. Frederick stated if we do not
get there within the time limit set by NRCS, we are not going to receive
reimbursement.
Mr. Lyles asked have we determined
in this particular location whether we are the owner of this bank or have an
easement for maintenance purposes? In
some cases we have a wide right-of-way and CSID owns fee simple title. This looks like an easement but I do not
know.
Mr. Frederick responded there is no
right-of-way there now.
Mr. Lyles asked who owns the
property?
Mr. Frederick responded the
homeowner.
Mr. Lyles asked do we have an
easement over it?
Mr. Frederick responded if we do, it
is maybe a foot.
Mr. Lyles stated we have no business
going outside of our easement. Arguably
the Board can decide to spend the money to do something inside of our easement but
you are not required to. You are
required to provide a functional storm drainage system for the entire
District. This is part of our charge and
what you are in business for. However,
to go onto private property and improve it in this way is outside the scope of
our authority in any scenario. We cannot
improve this property with public funds.
Mr. DaSilva stated I recall doing a
survey on Classic Drive.
Mr. Frederick stated the fence is on
their property line. Everything outside
is ours.
Mr. Lyles asked do we have a
recorded deed making us the sole owner of this property or do we have a plat
map showing there is a canal maintenance easement along this strip of property? Two entirely different analyses have to be
brought to the open depending on the answer.
Mr. Hyche stated we will have to
verify this with the county.
Mr. Hanks stated I am
concerned. If this is not within our
charter or special act to maintain it in this matter, we are going to be
setting a precedent within the City of
Mr. Fennell stated I understand but
there is the question of who still owns those canals. It could turn out to be us.
Mr. Hanks stated if this was a
river; which changes over time, we would not be having this discussion.
Mr. Lyles stated as a general
proposition in
Mr. Hanks stated I see some evidence
of erosion or bank failure. However, I
have not seen enough of an engineering recommendation for what is a
substability issue to say this is the right solution. You have not sent divers down or performed a
geo-technical evaluation.
Mr. Fennell asked should we grind
the stumps on this property?
Mr. Lyles responded we are the
permittee to do the tree removals. A
condition is you do it lawfully.
Apparently the City of
Mr. Fennell asked what is the
proposal?
Mr. Frederick responded to give me
approval to do the stump grinding.
Mr. Fennell asked how much money should
we allocate?
Mr. Frederick responded enough to grind
10 to 11 stumps the city says we are responsible for.
Mr. Fennell asked are there any
other stumps to grind?
Mr. Frederick responded we had some
stumps behind Home Depot and the school off of Shadow Wood and I was concerned
we might have to do some maintenance because we have a maintenance area there. However, the stumps are not a problem as they
do not interfere with our maintenance.
Mr. Hanks asked should we authorize
$4,000?
Mr. Colussy responded it will cost
more than $4,000.
Mr. Frederick stated probably. Some people charge different prices for
grinding stumps.
Mr. Fennell stated we have an
opportunity to remove stumps in the next couple of months. It will be a quarter of the value it will
normally cost us if we go out and identify them. Correct?
Mr. Colussy responded it is 25 cents
on the dollar.
Mr. Fennell stated we should
authorize $25,000. We should get the bid
quickly and proceed in the next two weeks.
I direct the manager to accept the low bid and I will come in to sign the
contract as long as we meet the requirements for NRCS.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Fennell
with all in favor an amount not to exceed $25,000 was allocated for the stump
grinding and the manager was authorized to go out for bids and award to the
lowest bidder.
Mr. Daly stated if something happens
in the future, we already know we have a bid of $100,000 for those four
properties.
Mr. Fennell stated there was an
issue to do this on a case-by-case basis.
We first need to establish whether or not we own this land by fee
simple.
Mr. Hanks stated once it is
determined it is our land; we need to find out how we can access it since this
is a gated community. We may have to
bring in a boat.
Mr. Frederick stated we can use
barges in some areas.
Mr. Hanks stated the homeowner can
grant us an easement.
Mr. Fennell stated if we do not move
quickly, we are not going to be able to get 25 cents on the dollar, which means
we probably will not do it as we do not have the money. I am looking for ways to do anything we can. You are not coming up with the answer.
Mr. Daly stated the question is
whether we are supposed to do anything legally.
Mr. Colussy asked if it is determined
it is District property, would you want to authorize an investigation? We can have a diver go down and look and then
we would know the conditions for sure.
Mr. Fennell stated you should do it.
Mr. Colussy stated if you decide you
want us to do the geo-tubing to prove it is feasible, we can get it installed
quickly.
Mr. Frederick stated if you do not
want to get involved in this work, let me know what I am supposed to tell these
residents when they call and complain.
Mr. Hanks asked what is our exposure
if the bank was to catastrophically fail and take out part of the pool?
Mr. Lyles responded it depends on
whether we own it fee simple, whether we were the permittee or our agents
constructed it, whether someone constructed it and turned it over to us and
whether it was inspected by our engineer and certified as being required with a
four to one slope. If it was constructed
negligently and we own it in fee simple and waived our right to complain about
the way it was constructed, we might own the problem but it is a long way from
here to there. In most cases, we are
going to have an easement and it is not going to be our job. The purpose of the easement is to maintain
our stormwater system so it flows; not to create banks and slopes where they do
not exist or where erosion affects it over time.
Mr. Hanks stated I am sure Gee &
Jensen was the engineer of record on the design. They have been the engineer for the District
for a long time. We are going to need a
determination on whether this was built according to the requirements at the
time.
Mr. Skehan stated it sounds like
they need to have a study done to gather the information, be able to assess
where the ownership is as well as the conditions as to how it was constructed,
whether it needs to be repaired or re-constructed and better understand the
full spectrum of all issues tied to it.
There are legal and engineering issues.
To understand this, all of those items need to be addressed.
Mr. Hanks stated you need to take a
look to see if we have something constructed according to plan.
Mr. Skehan stated we are looking at
a small piece of the entire canal system.
What is left in the funding from NRCS?
Mr. Colussy responded the deadline
is December 31st.
Mr. Skehan stated any extensive
study looking in greater detail at the entire canal system is going to be a
huge effort, but a smaller study could be done by December 31st in
order to take advantage of the funding.
Mr. Hanks asked do you think there
will be a disruption in activity?
Mr. Skehan responded no.
Mr. Hanks stated we can take it off
the table.
Mr. Hyche stated I was speaking to
Mr. Jesse Wilson at NRCS yesterday. In
my opinion, he was willing to give us a time extension after he asked us if we
were involved in the project going forward.
Mr. Colussy stated NRCS has been
good to work with and when we are in a tight spot they have always come through
for us. This is only an option. I know he wants to close this project out, however,
if we needed another 30 to 60 days, I am sure he will allow it.
Mr. Fennell stated we can either
resolve it here or stop the discussion.
Mr. Colussy stated we can easily find
out the ownership. Then we can get some
costs to do an investigation of those sites.
Mr. Hanks stated concurrently with
this, I want you to get someone from your office to look into the permitted
drawings to see what was certified as far as being complete and what was
accepted by the District. Look at the
plat to see what was dedicated to the District for the use of the public. At what point does it become ours? Do we have to take some action accepting the
improvements?
Mr. Lyles responded we may not have
been one of the signers to the plat because we may not have owned property
within the four corners of the platted area.
It could be dedicated effectively to the District by plat. Whether this is a recorded instrument like an
easement or a deed, it requires an act of formal acceptance by the Board of the
governmental body it is deeded to.
Mr. Hanks stated these plats do not
have dedications or conveyances to the District. At what point do we take over the physical
improvement of the canal?
Mr. Lyles responded there has to be an
instrument of conveyance such as a deed or Bill of Sale indicating it was
conveyed.
Mr. Fennell stated you are
authorized to work with $4,000 but not exceed it to resolve any engineering
issues arising from the fact we find out the land is ours.
Mr. Hanks stated we should have a
coordination meeting to strategize on how to do this.
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Presentation
from Mark Grimmel of Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs on Property Insurance, Question
and Answer Session and Consideration by the Board to Change Insurance Carriers
(Continued)
Mr.
Daly stated since Mr. Lyles is here, we can finalize the insurance matter.
Mr. Fennell stated we received
another quote for our insurance saving us $90,000 a year. The question is why we had not done this
before. This was always a line item in
our budget and we continued with the current insurance company. Mr. Daly was good enough to get a competitive
bid for us. By doing this, we will save
30%. What more do we need to do?
Mr.
Lyles responded I reviewed the policy to see if we had any special steps to
pursue such as services to perform repairs.
We do not have to take any steps with insurance. It is a matter of what is in the best
interest of the District as determined by the Board. If the Board wants to authorize this policy
and these rates; it is within your discretion to do so at this time.
On
MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the proposal from
Hilb, Rogal & Hobbs to provide insurance to the District was approved.
iii. Broward County Library Funding of CSID
Branch
Mr. Hanks stated the City Commission
neglected in its recent round of budgeting to cut out the local library on
Mr. Fennell stated it is out of our
purview, although from time to time we donate money to various charities. What can we do here?
Mr. Lyles responded there is a
problem with a Special District funding the operations of a public project like
a library. Cities can spend their money
and exercise their powers in any way not expressly prohibited by the
legislature with a statute or by the constitution. Special Districts on the other hand have
powers expressly and directly given to them, which in our case is the special
act. There is an obscure case where the
use of a park for housing a public library is considered a park or recreation
use and I think this is a narrow loophole to get at what you want to do. I did not want to just say no.
Mr. Hanks stated if the park out here
is in the District’s name and we saw fit to put a building on the land of the
park for a library, it would fit more in with the use.
Mr. Lyles stated donating District
funds to a library run by a city or county is difficult.
Mr. Hanks stated I saw this as an
asset to the community and I wanted to try to save it.
Ms. Zich stated it is an asset to
the community.
Mr. Hanks stated it is unfortunate
the City Commission did not see fit to fund this library. It takes $300,000 per year to fund the
library. The county funds a portion of
it and the city funds the rest.
iv. Discussion of Employee Severance Pay and Policy/Procedure
Manual
This item was tabled until the next
meeting.
v. Pension Benefit Discussion
This item was tabled until the next
meeting.
vi. CSID Newsletter
Mr. Daly stated Mr. Hyche put
together 90% of this newsletter.
Mr. Lyles stated it says canal bank
maintenance is the homeowner’s responsibility down to the water’s edge.
Mr. Daly stated except the water’s
edge is getting closer to their homes.
Mr. Fennell stated there are some
nice pictures. I will take this home and
look at it. Does it talk about our new
bond issue?
Mr. Daly responded yes, on the first
page.
Mr. Hanks asked can you get the two
fonts to be the same size?
Mr. Hyche responded yes.
Mr. Daly stated we could probably
have a better canal bank picture.
Mr. Fennell stated we will try to
provide our comments by Friday.
Ms. Zich asked is Mr. Fennel
considered Chairman or President?
Mr. Lyles responded he is technically
President.
Mr. Fennell stated please get name cards
for us.
Monthly Water &
Sewer Charts
vii. Utility Billing Work Orders
Mr. Hanks asked did you get the
utility billing sorted out?
Mr. Daly responded yes.
viii. Complaints Received/Resolved
There not being any, the next item
followed.
B. Attorney
There
not being any, the next item followed.
C.
Engineer
i. Update of Water Use
Permit by Sean Skehan
Mr. Skehan stated the Water Use
Permit is the foundation of what has taken place here. We received several pages of questions from
the Water Management District three to four weeks ago dealing with the Water
Use Permit. One significant item is the
groundwater modeling, which is an integral part of the water use
permitting. The Water Management District
is interested in looking at the effects of your water use on your neighbors. The groundwater modeling becomes important
because of where you are situated with your extensive canal system as you are
sitting right at the end of the everglades.
As the modeling effort becomes fairly complicated, it becomes rather
extensive and costly. We discussed with
Mr. McKune and Mr. Goscicki since CSID is in the process of going through their
water use permitting and NSID is in the process of starting; potentially combining
efforts with all three utilities to undertake this groundwater modeling. It will benefit each utility to try to
mitigate the high cost of doing a separate model for each utility.
Mr. Hanks asked will you bring in a
specialist?
Mr. Skehan responded staff is well versed
in groundwater modeling. They are
working on a groundwater model for Miami-Dade and have done one for the Florida
Keys Aqueduct Authority and a number of other utilities throughout the state. Given the circumstances and the location, the
model is fairly pricy on an individual basis.
Mr. McKune attended many meetings thus far with the City of
Mr. Fennell asked are you talking
about a complex computer model?
Mr. Skehan responded yes.
Mr. Fennell responded why does SFWMD
not have one?
Mr. Skehan stated they have a model,
which they use for planning purposes.
They make certain assumptions in these models but do not have the
specific data from individual wells in this particular area. The expectation from SFWMD is each individual
utility is required to get the data so the model can be calibrated against
actual operating conditions.
Mr. Hanks stated SFWMD is
establishing the performance criteria and it is up to the individual districts
or independent utilities to demonstrate they are complying with the performance
criteria.
Mr. Fennell asked do they have a
problem or are they asking us to create one?
Mr. Skehan responded we are going to
look to see what assumptions they made in this particular model. This is all tied into the lower east coast
planning documents. We will see how it
applies and how well it runs initially to see if it will be applicable and
acceptable to SFWMD. If it meets the
criteria they are looking for, we will make a full run of the model.
Mr. Fennell stated I am getting
confused because six months ago, they did not even have a model for the
flooding in our District. When you asked
them about the flood levels, they did not have anything.
Mr. Skehan stated I am referring to
the planning document.
Mr. Hanks stated they are not
looking at global issues. They are
looking regionwide in
Mr. Fennell stated the
responsibility for having this type of analysis program to cover the entire
area has to be theirs. Frankly, we have
more data in this District than the others.
If they are trying to get every district to find an analysis model of a
particular water flow, someone here does not know what they are doing.
Mr. Skehan stated the District was
trying to augment or arrange some of the issues in and around these other
utilities. The regionalization is
something they are currently interested in.
The record will reflect Mr. Fennell
left the meeting.
Mr. Skehan stated we are looking at
this in CSID and NSID to see if this can move forward. Mr. McKune was looking at some of the
details. Overall it could be a $250,000
proposition by doing it alone. If you
divide it by three, you are looking at doing this in a much more economical
manner. I do not want the Board to be
surprised by this, which is why I wanted to present this to you. We can talk about this in more detail and
talk to our ground water modeler. Mr.
McKune is trying to get some information.
There have already been some preliminary discussions. This all ties back into getting the details.
Mr. Daly asked what is Royal Land
Utility doing? They have 1,100 accounts
and have to do the exact same thing you are saying. It makes absolutely no sense for every single
city down to the everglades to spend the exact same amount of money to do the
exact same thing. I do not buy it. Something about this does not sit right with
me. It also does not make sense for
Mr. Hyche stated especially since
SFWMD already has the data.
Mr. Daly stated I want to know what
they are doing before we decide what we should do.
Mr. Skehan stated your neighbors to
the south are
Mr. Daly asked are we looking for
additional use? Is this predicated or
mandated by the fact we want more use?
Mr. Skehan responded we are looking
for limited additional use but they are looking for the justification of giving
you a 20 year permit. This has all been
a change over the last 10 years from what they used to require. An incidental model would be done and you
could do it in a couple of hours on your computer.
Mr. Daly asked why are we looking
for more reuse?
Mr. Skehan responded because it will
fit into what you have here.
Mr. Daly asked did we over build the
plant?
Mr. Skehan responded no.
Mr. Daly stated if we are built out
in the District and there is zero growth, why do we need additional water? There are ways to get around using less water
per year than we have.
Mr. Skehan responded this is a
potential way to do this. The City of
Mr. Daly stated we have done this in
the past. There are probably two or
three ways to do this. Are we being led
down a path to spend money on something we can use to fix the problem by
looking at it from another set of eyes or different viewpoint? If it is going to be mandated by government,
I am still going to ask questions.
Mr. Hanks stated we should have Mr.
McKune look at this and give us some answers back.
Mr. Skehan stated we have been in
some discussions with Mr. McKune and Mr. Hyche has been tied into this. Some meetings have been taking place between
CSID and the other agencies.
Mr. Hanks asked if the City of
Mr. Skehan responded they are
looking at some incremental increase.
Mr. Daly’s comment was this does not line up.
Mr. Daly stated there are other ways
to use less water than spending money.
Mr. Hanks stated I understand where
Mr. Skehan is coming from. If SFWMD says
you have to do it, you have to. I
understand completely about Parkland and
Mr. Skehan stated this is why I
wanted to bring it to the Board’s attention to be able to say “these are in the
information request at this point and if you want to give some consideration to
it and look at it, we can generate some discussion about it and be able to get
the right answers on the table”.
Mr. Hanks stated it is a couple of
months worth of work.
Mr. Skehan stated it is an extensive
deal.
Mr. Daly stated if you do the work,
terrific. I just want to know why it is
mandated and why a government entity such as the SFWMD would put the burden on
the residents it is supposed to serve.
Eventually it has to be paid for.
This is what I have an issue with.
The burden is on CSID and NSID.
Mr. Skehan stated all of the
residents are using the water.
Mr. Hanks stated the waste goes
downhill. That is where it goes and
where it eventually ends us.
Mr. Daly stated then we should
charge sewer rates.
Mr. Skehan stated this is why you
are collecting on it at the same time.
Ms. Zich asked is there anything
else to discuss?
Mr. DaSilva responded we still have
the two presentations, which we postponed due to time constraints.
Mr. Hanks stated it is perfectly
fine with me to take them off of the table.
I looked at your presentation and agree with you.
Mr. DaSilva asked do you want us to
come back next month with them?
Mr. Hanks responded no.
Ms. Zich asked do you want to
permanently table the presentations? I
am not even aware of them.
Mr. Hanks responded there were some
concerns expressed by a certain member of this Board relating to a berm on the
east outfall canal. The engineer ran
some models on the C-14 canal with the 100 year flood and ran the water towards
the pump station on the east outfall for the Sunshine WCD. You compared two elevations and determined
our flooding from internally is higher than the water levels outside of our
District.
Mr. Daly stated I will put them on
next month’s agenda.
Ms. Zich stated list them at the top
of the agenda.
Mr. DaSilva stated they are short
presentations.
Ms. Zich stated if there is one
thing I am interested in with this entire District, it is the flooding.
Mr. DaSilva stated the other
presentation is on the Feasibility Study results.
Mr. Colussy stated the
recommendations of the Feasibility Study for cost and constructability.
Mr. DaSilva stated the study was
provided to the Board in the last agenda package.
Mr. Hanks asked will we have staff
look at establishing whether or not there is a right-of-way easement?
Mr. Daly responded to the degree
they can.
Mr. Hanks asked what do you think we
need to do?
Mr. Lyles responded we already
tasked CH2M-Hill with giving staff and ultimately the Board a report on this
issue. It is probably based in large
part on documentation, which will be in their files and has to be located. Whatever was recorded at one time has
remained the same. The only thing
changing is if the erosion affects the bank.
I do not think the Board is asking for a field survey at this
point. They want to know the legal
status of the various types of ownership along the areas we have under
review. I thought I heard Mr. Hanks
indicate he wanted to have a meeting about this issue, which he will be part of
with staff prior to having it come back to the Board. I think this is a good idea.
Mr. Hanks stated there are certain
issues with regards to the original design, where we went with it and some key
features I wanted everyone to be looking into so we can establish the baseline
for the construction drawings.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor Requests and
Audience Comments
There not being any, the next item
followed.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There being no further business,
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich
with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.
Glen Hanks Robert
Fennell
Secretary President
Notes
for 9/17/07 Meeting
AGENDA
ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
1.
Drainage and
Feasibility Presentations (list first on the agenda)
2. Pension
Benefit Discussion
NOTE: Future meetings will now start at
3:00 P.M.