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
Isabello Rodriguez CH2M-Hill
Jane Early CH2M-Hill
Randy Fredericks Field
Supervisor
Doug Hyche District Staff
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr.
Fennell called the meeting to order and Mr. Petty called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of
the January 22, 2007 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
There not being any,
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr.
Hanks with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF
BUSINESS Award of
Contract for a Boom Lift
Mr. Hyche stated this is for an
aerial man lift.
Mr. Hanks asked how many hours is
this for?
Mr. Hyche responded this is a
purchase.
Mr. Petty stated we have many tall
structures on the site. We rented them
in the past and when the idea of purchasing them first came about, we said,
“Why did we not think about this before?”
We checked and determined purchasing makes more sense.
Mr. Hanks asked are we going to be
paying an excessive amount for maintenance?
Mr. Hyche responded it comes with a
one year maintenance warranty. The
maintenance is relatively simple. It
will not be an excessive amount.
Mr. Hanks asked what type of life
expectancy do they have?
Mr. Hyche responded this one has
2000 hours. If maintained property, you
can get a good 15 to 20 years.
Mr. Petty stated it is a hydrologic
device like our backhoe or front end loader, which we are used to
maintaining. This is similar in nature.
Mr. Hanks asked is this a used piece
of equipment?
Mr. Hyche responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked were the others
used?
Mr. Hyche responded at this price
used is all you are going to get.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the price
for a new one?
Mr. Hyche responded $60,000 to
$80,000, depending on the type.
Mr. Hanks asked what will you be
using it for?
Mr. Hyche responded trimming trees,
changing lights inside the garages, hanging tanks, etc.
Mr. Hanks asked inspection of the
catwalks?
Mr. Hyche responded yes. You can also lift it up and reach over items
in constricted areas.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the contract for the
purchase of a Boom Lift was awarded to Sunbelt Rentals in the amount of
$25,000.
FOURTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Attorney
Mr. Lyles stated just a quick update
on our legislation. I informed you at
the last meeting, we received negative questions from Representative Bogdanoff
who represents eastern
Mr. Hanks stated there are no
Special Districts in eastern
Mr. Lyles stated correct.
Mr. Petty stated the issue may be
landowner elections versus electoral.
Landowner elections make sense when all you have are landowners and no
electors. There are those who may come
after Special Districts from the vantage point of landowner elections being out
of place or old fashioned. They have
their place in time but there comes a point in time where you should transition
over. Our legislative act does not cover
the time period so we are doing it but there are those who may have angst
against Special Districts who may see this as an opportunity. It could be they are defending the
landowner’s election to protect Special Districts. We do not think we are weakening it.
Mr. Fennell stated the new Special
Districts already have this built into it their act. We are an older Special District and did not
have this written into our act.
Mr. Lyles stated I thought about
this and we discussed it a great deal within the firm, because there is more
than one of us working on this issue. A
few years ago, we had a bill to collect our Special Acts into one bill so you
did not have to look at the bill, then the amendments and then try to figure
out which was in effect. We were
required to do this in 2000/2001. At the
time we did this, a previous member of the Legislative Delegation did some
amendments to our Special Act. One of
the amendments was to change the nature of the Board, the size of the Board,
the meeting and election times and moving to an electoral system. After the Board authorized the bill to
proceed, without any involvement, Governor Bush vetoed the bill for the issue
of switching to a different Board without going through the statutory
process. It may be they are saying, “I
recall the Governor vetoed it so it must have been the right decision because
he is the Governor and he is not here to veto it so I am going to pursue this
same logic.” This is all we can think
about. We cannot conceive of anyone
having a problem with the contents of this proposed bill on any policy level. Mr. Petty is correct. What we usually get yelled at by other
elected officials about is the fact only landowners can vote. We are trying to take this away. Believe me, 90% of the Legislative Delegation
is applauding this effort but we have two people harpening back to the veto
from four or five years ago and wondering whether this should still be the
case, even though everything has changed.
The member of the Legislative
Delegation, who was our biggest adversary at the time, was made aware of the
fact we are coming forward with this.
She applauded our efforts and is very pleased. She wished it had happened sooner but she is
glad it is finally happening. Now she is
on the
Mr. Fennell asked is the eastern
district a republican or democrat area?
Mr. Lyles responded the Broward
County Legislative Delegation is the most heavily democratic delegation in the
state of
Mr. Fennell asked is this along
those party lines?
Mr. Lyles responded it is somewhat
party oriented.
Mr. Hanks asked has anyone ever made
a comment about Special Districts running along the same lines as other
professional Boards? You have
professional engineers or surveyors who sit on the Board in some capacity. Has there ever been this thought as far as
utilities?
Mr. Lyles responded no. I do not think it will be helpful to propose
this because it affects many people and their pocketbook. There are many different things other than
engineering and scientific based activities relating to water treatment and
production. Everyone who is in a
position to have a say about this wants to see qualified members on the Board
but no restrictions on their qualifications other than residency. This is only a status report and we are
continuing on as before. I just wanted
you to know questions are being raised and it may be interesting in
B. Engineer
– Discussion of Capital Improvement Program and Consideration of Work
Authorization No. 34
Mr. Petty stated at the last
meeting, the Board authorized staff to assign a Work Authorization under
certain parameters. We have been in
discussions with CH2M-Hill about this process to make sure we had all our
concerns addressed. They worked well
with us. This is Work Authorization No.
34. In the first part of the work
authorization, they will look over items we itemized previously. They validate them by component based on the
resources we have, permitting requirements, policies and the economics in
getting it done. They have been doing
this and will continue to do so. This
should be completed by the next meeting.
The components we identified to date are subject to change. You will see in Work Authorization No. 34,
where each component is identified as a task to be defined and explained before
the Board and signed off by staff before they actually start the work. Our Water Use Permit is tied to our effluent
reuse, which is tied to our Wastewater Treatment Plant. We want to maintain as much flexibility as we
can.
Before we define the size and pay
for something we may not be able to use, we will do it on a task by task
concept. Mr. McKune brought this into
the discussions as our coordinator and we think this is going to work very much
to the District’s benefit. Work
Authorization No. 34 is the overall authorization to do the design and its
specific elements will be approved one at a time. You currently approved one, which is the
Water Use Permit. This will be used as a
component. We summarized into the Water
Use Permit; membrane; wastewater process feasibility, which is the effluent
reuse concept and replacing Plants A and B with F, which is the solid system
including the Centrifuge and belt press.
The digester transfers to and from the engineer. The components will change as we go through
this program, as you see different tasks getting priority.
Once each task is approved, the
status of our capital improvement project will be reported to the Board. We have a timeline, which breaks down each
component into job tasks. You will see
the progress as we proceed along the timeline.
Of course, when we approve a task, we should know the time projection
for completing the task and the cost. We
are going to check with the engineer to see if we are on time with the
construction and the project and how the money was spent. You also need to follow the funding as well.
Work Authorization No. 34 includes
CSID’s vision of the next 20 years in utility services, which is to meet future
regulations in a speed adaptable and reliable and lasts 10 to 20 years. Step two is to prepare an Interim Report,
which we are going to be modernizing. We
expect the Engineer’s Report to be 30 and 50 pages to define the task. It goes through the process of putting down
objectives of how you are going to do this in a timeline in a formalized
document. We will use this document to
obtain our funding, build the facilities and talk to other government agencies
and residents about what we are doing.
As the task may change from time to time, we are asking for the
engineers to do a quarterly update so you do not have an Engineer’s Report and
as-builts that are substantially different from this report. We want the report to have supplements
explaining why we decided on the path we took so at the end of the day, you
have an Engineer’s Report matching your as-builts. Since we expect a two year construction
period, the Engineer’s Report will have updates every six months.
Step three is to write the
specifications, the District obtains the funding and the Engineer needs to bid
and award the contract based on priority and oversee the construction. Work Authorization No. 34 allows them to do
both the design and oversight. The rate
hearings should be between April and June.
At the next meeting, we expect to give you the results of the rate study
you authorized and take direction from the Board. If it calls for additional rates and we
suspect it will, we will have rate hearings where you will discuss changes to
the District’s rates. Mr. Lyles can
speak on this further. We expect the bid
specs to be written by our engineer between March and June. They may be written after June but we expect
most of the work to be specked out between March and June of this year. Are you talking about the elements?
Mr. Petty responded the tasks are
going to be completed sequentially according to priority but we expect this to
happen by the end of June. There may be
one or two elements left out because we do not have a customer for effluent
reuse but 80% to 90% of the job should be specked out.
Mr. Hanks asked are there six
different items including the Water Use Permit, replacing Plants A and B with
Plant F, effluent reuse and membrane?
Mr. Petty responded yes. There is the water treatment process, which
is the membrane; wastewater feasibility, which is effluent reuse; Wastewater
Treatment Plant changeover, which entails replacing Plants A and B with Plant F
and the engineering; solids handling of the wastewater facilities.
Mr. Hanks asked is the rate
sufficiency included?
Mr. Petty responded it is not part
of the capital improvement program. We
are doing the rate study as it own entity.
Mr. Fennell stated obviously the
rate study bears on the capital improvements.
Mr. Petty stated we will include it
in the consideration but it has a different scope. It does not come under the 7% contract
administration. It is on its own. We expect to have construction start this
summer if we can stay in our timeline.
Construction should take two years to build the majority of the plant,
in particular the effluent reuse, possibly taking longer than those two years. It depends on how successful we are in
negotiating the process of who can buy it.
Our sister district, NSID is currently under their capital improvement
program and the final leg of expansion of its facilities. They are going to be hit hard on their
Consumptive Use Permit. They use
Mr. Rodriguez stated we are fighting
for the major task on the capital improvement but everything ties together with
the Water Use Permit. We presented it to
SFWMD who is already working on a modification for the Water Use Permit. We are talking to them about the wastewater
facility. They are looking positive
about the way we are presenting the program because it will improve the
treatment for the water and provide recharge of the aquifer. Everything comes together, which they are
positive about. So far we have done
water quality testing and getting samples for the wall water. We are getting a good idea of the type of
membrane on how things are going to be tied together for the Water Use Permit
in relation to the wastewater. We are
going to show SFWMD what we have, what type of wastewater and what type of
water treatment will go into the water facility to distribute to our clients. We are happy with what we have been discussing
with them.
Mr. Hyche stated we have been doing
some sampling through wells as well and the water coming into the plant. We are looking at each of the nine
operational wells and still collecting samples from two other wells for a total
of 11 water wells looking at the water quality, range of water quality and
expected blended water quality so we can start securing design parameters for
our systems. This will tell us how much
bypass blending we can do, meaning how much of the water has to be treated. The treatment system we will be designing, can
remove a a lot of your hardness.
Mr. Fennell asked what do you mean
by blended?
Mr. Hyche responded with your
softening process, you are able to soften down to a certain level but you
cannot get all the hardness out. With a
nano filtration membrane, you can remove everything to where you are left with
H2O. You do not necessarily want to
distribute this water because it is aggressive on your pipes. You need to re-stabilize this water. One way of doing this is to bypass putting
back some of the well water going through a cartridge filter for pre-treatment.
Mr. Hanks stated you still have some
type of filtration on it to chlorinate or ionize so you have disinfected water
meeting parameters downstream. You are
maximizing the efficiency of the membranes by treating to the best ability a
certain portion and maybe half or a quarter of the water is going to come back
in a raw state because we have good well water down below.
Mr. Hyche stated absolutely.
Mr. Fennell stated you are not
talking about blending in wastewater.
Mr. Hyche stated you will send the
reject water to blend with your reuse system.
Mr. Petty stated for the irrigation
quality reuse water only.
Mr. Hyche stated we are trying to
match up your well water quality with your finished and also regulation
water. You need hydrogen sulfide removal
to get the rotten egg taste out of the water.
All of this has to be taken into account. We need to match up your goals with your well
water quality and how much of the water has to be treated with the nano
filtration membrane and how much can be blended back around to save on capital
costs for equipment. I have a picture of
a membrane. There are spiral wound
elements 40” long and 8” in diameter.
Water flows in one end.
Mr. Petty stated it is easy to think
of it as a filter since we say nano filtration.
It rejects the dissolved minerals based on an electrical repellent more
than fine hairs or fibers.
Mr. Hyche stated it is easier to
conceptualize this as a strainer removing sodium.
Mr. Fennell asked does this work in
salt water?
Mr. Hyche responded yes. There are different radiations of nano
filtration and reverse osmosis membranes removing more or less than what you
want. Certainly the more you remove, the
higher the pressure and the higher the operating cost.
Mr. Hanks stated if you were using
this in a desalination technique the waste product has some environmental
issues associated with it. What concerns
do we have with the bypass product?
Mr. Hyche responded certainly if you
are doing reverse osmosis, you have a great deal more sodium and chloride.
Mr. Hanks asked what are the issues?
Mr. Hyche responded there is calcium
and magnesium, which are not a great concern to the District. They are more worried about sodium and
chlorine, not calcium and magnesium.
Mr. Hanks asked how do you dispose
of the calcium and magnesium?
Mr. Hyche responded it is a
concentrated stream. For a gallon of
well water, you will treat 85% and get a usable product and 10 to 15% will go
towards disposal reject. It has a more
concentrated level of calcium and magnesium.
The disposal methods are deep injection well or blending with your reuse
facility. We think you will be able to
blend with the reuse facility and gain the benefit of the water so it will not
be wasted. It will actually go to a
beneficial use.
Mr. Rodriguez stated this is why we
call it part of the validation process because they will decide whether it will
go into the wastewater, irrigation water or the injection water.
Mr. Hanks stated when you throw it
back into the wastewater stream; your hardness is almost the same as what you
had come out originally.
Mr. Hyche stated you are going to be
removing a certain amount of hardness with the membrane and when you blend it
back together, you almost have the same water you left the ground with. You will increase your hardness but your
wastewater will go to the reuse.
Mr. Hanks asked at this point in
time, are there any environmental concerns?
Mr. Hyche responded no. Most concerns occur with the sodium chloride
and the total dissolved solids.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the result
of sending the water into deep injection wells?
Mr. Hyche responded it is a common
way of disposing waste.
Mr. Hanks stated we understand the
concept of deep injection wells and how safe it is.
Mr. Hyche stated the way I look at
it is you are taking the concentrate and blending it into your reuse
facility. You are taking a waste stream
and turning it into a beneficial use by maximizing your ground water withdrawal
rather than wasting 15% and sending it down a deep injection well.
Mr. Fennell stated you gave us a
more in depth overview than the last time we met.
Mr. Petty stated this is the concept
of taking water out of ground and splitting it in two and using one side for
drinking. When the water is done being
used for drinking, it comes back to our Wastewater Treatment Plant to be
treated and is put back into the ground similar in nature to the way it came out
of the ground. This concept was always
part of the initial validation concept.
What they told you tonight is SFWMD looked at it and this is exactly
what they are hoping people will do more of.
Mr. Fennell stated they are not
going to force us to go down to another water level.
Mr. Rodriguez stated we are not
expecting to.
Mr. Hanks stated the City of
Mr. Petty stated by being one of the
first utilities with reclaimed water, which is considered beneficial to push
back down into the ground, we have the potential.
Mr. Hanks stated also on the table
is aquifer recharge with the reclaimed water.
Mr. Petty stated Mr. McKune is
talking with representatives of the SFWMD for doing this on the west side of
the berm in conservation area 2A or what we call the
Mr. Fennell asked what are we going
to put out there?
Mr. Petty responded we could put our
effluent reuse water, which is treated wastewater with our reject stream
combined to put the water back to where it was when we pulled it out of the
ground and release it there.
Mr. Hanks stated release it into the
Biscayne Aquifer, which will elevate the water levels appropriately.
Mr. Petty stated it will give you a
positive water pressure. In conservation
area 2A, the concern is it seeping out through the ground water table. If we put water in at this location that is a
positive back pressure on the water. It
keeps it in conservation area 2A instead of bleeding through into our canals and
draining out to the ocean. By putting
the water at this location, you can provide some hydraulic back pressure, which
should retard the seepage rate from conservation area 2A.
Mr. Fennell asked how good is this
water?
Mr. Petty responded it is good water.
Mr. Hyche asked are you talking
about the wastewater?
Mr. Petty responded the effluent
reuse. It will be similar to the water
we are pulling out of the ground, which is very good.
Mr. Fennell asked does this mean we
need a new Water Treatment Plant?
Mr. Petty responded currently what
we are talking about doing and what is part of their design work is adding a
deep filtration system to the plant. You
do this to pull off any floating bacteria.
We are treating bacteria at the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the
solids look like sludge but at the finer end of the effluent is dust. This is actually bacterial runoff. You have filters to take off so your
chlorination process is effective. The
deep vent filtration pulls any suspended material out of the water so it can be
disinfected and therefore safe. In this
case, the water quality will be short of magnesium and a great deal of
calcium. We put it back in through the
reject water taken from the membrane plant and chlorinate it. This will be similar to the water we pulled
out the Biscayne Aquifer. The only
difference is it may have more dissolved solids and chlorine.
Mr. Fennell asked what prevents it
from coming back into the water we draw out of the ground? In three years will it be back in our well?
Mr. Petty responded absolutely. The water we are pulling out of the ground
now came from someone else’s facility.
The hydraulic cycle guarantees the water we are using has been used
billions of times. We are not making any
more. It is the same water here since
the beginning of time.
Mr. Hyche stated by the time water
reaches
Mr. Petty stated our responsibility
is to make water.
Mr. Hanks stated what we are dealing
with is the perception of the quality of the water. It is the perception; not the reality.
Mr. Fennell asked why not just drop
back into the local canal?
Mr. Petty responded this is what
many engineers are proposing to do. The
concept goes back almost 50 years. Show
a place where visually it disappears and the permitting agencies say
“yes”. Privately they will agree with
the engineer putting it back into a canal, if it is treated properly, is the
exact same thing.
Ms. Zich stated I always wondered
why you have to put it way down.
Mr. Petty stated out of sight/out of
mind. This policy has been around for 50
years.
Ms. Zich stated no one is going to
think about it. If you treat it well, it
does not make any difference.
Mr. Rodriguez stated we had this
conversation with them and they were receptive.
Mr. Fennell stated my understanding
is we are going to pipe water out of the C-14 Canal. Is the water going over the hill and dumped
or will it be distributed? What is the
plan?
Mr. Rodriguez responded there are
many options. Let’s compare the one we
have to tell us how we are streaming the treatment to be able to dispose of it.
Mr. Fennell stated our permit
expires this year. What month?
Mr. Petty responded I do not
recall. Since we are applying for a new
permit, as long as we are working on it, the deadline is immaterial, as long as
we have an application in and are in the process.
Mr. Rodriguez stated it expires in
August of 2007.
Mr. Fennell asked what happens if it
expires and is not renewed?
Mr. Rodriguez responded we already
have some indication. We will be having
a prefabrication meeting this month where we will be sitting down and
completing the application before submitting.
Mr. Petty stated there is no cutoff
date while you have the application into SFWMD.
I worked with them for two years after the expiration date. As long as you are working with them in good
faith, you are not predisposed. You
arbitrarily close out your discussions with them because of the deadline.
Mr. Fennell asked will they
necessarily approve it on this date or hold it for a period of time?
Mr. Petty responded the status of
your application is under review. If
they reject your application, then you start worrying about the timelines. As long as it is being processed, we do not
have an issue. Either way, our matters
should be signed, sealed and delivered long before the August deadline. When you approved this task, we expected this
to be completed in 120 days, which puts us well before the August
deadline. We expect to have the permit
in our hands by then.
Mr. Fennell asked if we do this and
get this nice water, how much of a percentage of our water will be
effluent? Are we talking about half,
quarter or all of it?
Mr. Petty responded part of the
review process is determining how much money will we have available for
effluent reuse? SFWMD will be satisfied
if we can do 2 million gallons a day.
Mr. Hanks asked is our total
capacity five million gallons?
Mr. Petty responded processed water
is eight million gallons. Our permit is
going to be around 6.5 million gallons.
We do not have this much water going out so our Wastewater Treatment
Plant does not need to be sized as much.
We have some redundancies built in.
We will be able to process up to eight million gallons but this will be
with all facilities on-line. As you all
know, Plant E, which you approved a year ago is supposed to be a redundant
plant so you can cycle the other two million gallon a day plants for repairs
and maintenance. I think we are going to
end up processing six million gallons a day.
In the end, we hope to be able to treat it all but we are thinking it
will be one treatment of two million gallons a day.
Mr. Fennell stated the deep water
injection well is eventually what you want to get rid of.
Mr. Hanks stated we will still have
a need for it.
Mr. Petty stated we will have to
keep it because they require us to have an alternative disposal site. They are up to $5 million.
Mr. Fennell stated something is
always going wrong.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to take
any action at this time?
Mr. Petty responded no.
Mr. Fennell stated we will be doing
all the engineering and design. As part
of your design philosophy, I want to have copies of all designs and programs.
Mr. Petty stated absolutely
Mr. Fennell stated we own the
design.
Mr. Petty stated along with the
design, we expect the engineers to prepare a Quarterly Report as we modify
this. We expect them to be before this
Board every month during this construction project. We currently have a Water Use Permit. At the next meeting, we should have the Water
Treatment Plant concept and the replacement of Plants A and B. We will be tracking progress and funds on a
monthly basis. The last item is facility
testing as required or available to us as they build facilities’ becoming a
beneficial use to us.
Mr. Fennell asked how much is it
going to cost us?
Mr. Petty responded it depends on
whether we will be able to treat two million gallons a day of our effluent or
eight million gallons. If we can meet
our goal of two million gallons, I will be happy. This is part of the reason why the regulatory
agencies want you to have the alternative disposal or a deep well. In many effluent reuse facilities, when you
are discharging to a water body, as we are proposing, many times they will have
rain events. In this case we either have
to store the water for a rain event or have an alternative means of disposal.
Mr. Hanks stated I am thinking in
terms of the ability to aim for the
Mr. Petty stated the revenue stream
is cost recovery only. Typically you
only charge for your pumping costs because the treatment costs are part of the
permit. This is how you were able to
operate the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
When you try to calculate how much you should charge for the effluent
reuse, you have a PR issue so you price it fairly low. Secondarily, you can only get cost recovery
and since treatment stops at the chlorination process, your holding tanks and
pumps are all you can charge for.
Mr. Hanks stated even though we are
adding tertiary treatment, it is not considered. Under today’s regulations, we are able to do
secondary treatment and pump it down to the ground.
Mr. Petty stated correct, without
using a filter.
Mr. Hanks stated the regulatory
agencies may have a different opinion.
Mr. Petty stated it is going to be
from our perspective on where we draw the line and will be based on a similar
analysis. You are absolutely right; you
may be able to cut it off further back.
This treatment process usually has to do with getting compliance on your
Consumptive Use Permit and therefore is part of our regular treatment. Cost recovery should be only for the section
occurring above and beyond. Your
residents have to pay for it as a cost of doing business today. The effluent reuse customer should pay for
bringing water to them.
Mr. Hanks stated which in a built
out situation could still be substantial.
Mr. Petty stated you want to recover
your cost. If you are pumping, you do
not have to recover your cost. If we get
a customer in NSID, we discussed the possibility for them paying for the cost
of the water but they will also pay for the piping. If we are running the piping to them, they
will have to incur the cost. We are
going to have to run some numbers to see if this is feasible and a financial
benefit to NSID. Since they have a
strong need for their Consumptive Use Permit, going to Fordam, hits their
pocketbook. The treatment train will
change drastically and the cost per thousand gallons of water will jump
dramatically. The cost of a pipeline may
be something they can fit in. As you
brought up earlier, we may affect other customers along the way. Currently we have NSID who is interested in
working with us at least on a concept basis.
Mr. Fennell asked what does the two
million, four million or six million gallons per day compare to the amount of
water we have in our canals?
Mr. Petty responded nothing. It is less than a summer storm.
Mr. Fennell stated it is an acre
foot of water.
Mr. Petty stated we have almost
5,000 acres in the District. Figure one
inch of rainfall across 5,000 acres. One
afternoon rainstorm is much more than we produce. You made an improvement and took a step
forward. SFWMD is looking for us to be
positive. By us taking the water and
putting it back in a nearby area helping support both the
Mr. Fennell stated maybe we should
do this and getting the water to the right place is a good thing. It seems like we have a gigantic lake and if
we cleaned off the water enough, we should make it such that we can put it back
into the canals. The out of sight/out of
mind is there.
Mr. Petty stated your current permit
has some rapid infiltration beds as an alternative disposal or deep well. We have three rapid disposal beds, which we
can put our effluent into. They are
percolation pods where the water will seep into the groundwater table.
Mr. Fennell asked can you handle
them?
Mr. Petty responded they can
probably handle a great deal of water. We have not tested them because our deep wells
have always been able to function with well water. They are an alternative disposal source,
which is why we do not have to build a deep well.
Mr. Hanks stated of course we are
subject to winds.
Mr. Petty stated if it rains, you
cannot use your rapid infiltration beds.
Mr. Fennell stated this is the dry
season and there is not much rain.
Mr. Petty stated this is why they
are asking our Drainage Districts to start crossing borders. If you recall, we cannot cross a border or
take drainage across the street. The
most famous parcel was at
C. Manager
i. Rate Study Status
Mr. Petty stated your engineer put a
team together to work diligently on this rate study. I spoke to them this afternoon. We expect to have the first draft ready for
discussion by staff in the next 10 days.
It will be at your next Board meeting for review. We asked them to look at funding in the same
capacity commodity format as in the past.
We asked them to look at one new item, “Institutional”. Since we are re-building the Water Treatment
Plant and do not have connection fees to help us pay for it or any other way,
we were asked to look at the institutional portion of the cost of running this
facility, which the homeowners own. This
will be a fee we will either add to the current user fees and pay it monthly or
see how appropriate it is to use alternative means. Institutional costs have no relationship to
how much water you use or to the monthly concepts we build.
Mr. Fennell stated there is a fixed
cost.
Mr. Petty stated we looked to see if
it is more appropriate to put this fee on our assessments to have it show up on
your tax bill. We looked at other
utilities who subsidize the utilities with the institutional cost through the
ad valorem tax base. The closest one is
the City of
Mr. Fennell stated in the future, we
should consider doing some serious reconstruction of interconnects. We can do this by area. We can also have a Board member, especially
someone with Ms. Zich’s experience join in some of these discussions.
Ms. Zich stated I wish to
participate.
Mr. Petty stated the study should be
ready by the next Board meeting. This
rate study is to be delivered to us in electronic format, which gives us the
ability to make changes each budget year so we can adjust the rates.
Mr. Hanks stated I had a meeting
earlier last week with Ms. Early and CH2M-Hill regarding the Stormwater
Criteria Manual. The additional
expansions to existing houses do not add a burden to our stormwater management
system but collectively represent a sizable increase. We were talking about finding a way to take
care of those additional impacts.
Ms. Early stated we were trying to
figure out some type of bank for improvements depending on the square footage
of the addition.
Mr. Petty stated like a retention
bank.
Mr. Hanks stated years ago, there
was a lawsuit in
Mr. Petty stated this gives us an
option to say no.
Mr. Hanks asked for every single
house permit going through the City of
Ms. Early responded we have not
received any requests before.
Mr. Hanks asked is it appropriate to
expect the homeowner to retain an engineer to figure out a way to install an
exfiltration trench? I do not think this
is going to happen. We were trying to
figure out different mechanisms to help address some of these situations to prevent
an issue in the future.
Mr. Petty stated I can see on an
individual basis where if you could not show a material impact to the District,
it will be difficult to say, “No” but if you look at 100 homes, there is an
impact to the District. Working out a
structure for handling this impact since land is at a premium in
Mr. Hanks stated I recognize this
will be a capital improvement program.
We will have to design the type of improvements to be conducted,
establish a cost and decide for each one.
It is fairly simple for the City Building Department to say, “You need
to get your receipt from CSID demonstrating you paid your drainage impact fee”.
Mr. Petty stated I want to work with
the engineer on this issue, bring it back to the Board at a later date and
determine the cost so we can set a flat fee, which can be paid when the permit
is issued. We do not have any way to
police this. It does not go through our
process. Working with the city to
collect the fee may be the easiest way to do it, if we can come up with a cost
and there were to be a quick review of what land was available and what we
think will work.
Mr. Hanks stated I am bringing this
up at this time so we can get your involvement and Mr. Lyles thoughts or issues
with it.
Mr. Lyles stated I do not have any concerns
at this time.
Mr. Fennell stated today it rained
for awhile but then went away. Since it
is not raining now, we do not have to fix the hole in our drainage system. We spend a great deal of money doing these
studies. It told us we had a problem. What are we going to do about it?
Ms. Early responded I obtained some
information about the dike from SFWMD.
The surveys we have recently taken show the lowest spot on the
Mr. Hanks asked is this on the east
or west side of the canal?
Ms. Early responded west side. The highest elevation of the C-14 Canal in
1999 was 9.4’.
Mr. Fennell asked do they have any
data from 1979?
Ms. Early responded the maximum
elevation in 1985 was 7.8’.