MINUTES
OF MEETING
CORAL
SPRINGS
IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the
Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on
Present and constituting a quorum
were:
Bob Fennell President
Glen Hanks Vice President
Sharon Zich Secretary
Also present were:
John Petty Manager
Dennis Lyles Attorney
John McKune Engineer
Peter Colossy CH2M-Hill
Jane Early CH2M-Hill
Isabelo Rodriguez CH2M-Hill
Ilana Rabone
Janice Moen Larned
Dana Kaas
Randy Fredericks Field
Supervisor
Doug Hyche District Staff
Mr.
Fennell called the meeting to order and Mr. Petty called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of
the August 14, 2006 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member
received a copy of the
Mr. Hanks stated very thorough.
Ms. Zich stated very good.
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr.
Hanks with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Hearing to Consider
the Adoption of the Water and Wastewater Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2007
Mr. Fennell opened the public
hearing and requested comments.
Mr. Petty stated we have a few
changes to bring to the Board’s attention from the previous version of the
budget. Under Administrative, a line
item for Communication Expenses was added.
This item is for the public relations firm discussed at the last
meeting. Further down the page, Printing
and Binding was increased to $45,700 to reflect the cost of utility billing. The increase in Capital Outlay reflects the
cost of the new computer system.
For Plant Operations, Rentals and
Leases decreased because we allocated the vehicles to their proper places. There is currently a Ranger and a newer Ford 4150
reflecting those costs accurately. The
rest of the vehicle cost is in the field expenses. Operating Supplies decreased slightly to
$490,000. Dues and Subscriptions
decreased to actual spending levels and Capital Outlay included the cost of a
lift vehicle.
Mr. Hanks asked does it make sense
to purchase?
Mr. Petty responded yes. We had one onsite for two months now.
Mr. Hanks asked do we use it fairly regularly?
Mr. Petty responded yes. From time to time, there has
been algae and mold growing around the facility and the lift vehicle
allows you to get high enough to re-paint or spray chemicals.
Mr. Hanks asked why did Operating
Supplies decrease when there was a 25 percent increase last year? Was it due to the cost of chlorine?
Mr. Petty responded we had an
increase in chlorine usage at the time.
I can research this further.
Mr. Hanks asked did we drastically
reduce the usage of chlorine for odor control?
Mr. Petty responded we are still at
sufficient levels to stop any odors although we do not have a great abundance
of odors.
Mr. Hanks stated for a period there
was almost a constant spray.
Mr. McKune stated it reduced
somewhat.
Mr. Fennell stated we did some
pre-chlorination of liquids going into the tanks.
Mr. McKune stated for the raw
sewage.
Mr. Hanks asked were there any big
increases such as in Electric?
Mr. Petty responded Electric was
projected to be higher based on new bills.
Repairs and Maintenance decreased to $125,000 based on anticipated
in-house programs. Capital Outlay is budgeted
at $28,100, which represents our intent to purchase trucks instead of
leasing. It is easier for us to lease
but more cost effective to purchase. I
am changing the program with the Board’s approval. Those are the major changes in the budget to
date.
Mr. Fennell stated there are a
couple of areas on the revenue side such as Contract Personnel, Service Revenue
and Transfer-In from reserves. In
regards to Contract Personnel, one of the transformations we made is the shared
employees report directly to CSID.
Mr. Petty stated CSID owns all
personnel. We do not have Interlocal
Agreements with our sister districts, although they have the benefit of utilizing
our people and expertise so long as they are willing to pay. Mr. Lyles office
will be preparing Interlocal Agreements over the next year as we enter into this
program. CSID has ownership of all those
people and all the costs and personnel are in your budget.
Mr. Fennell asked do we have an
agreement with these districts?
Mr. Petty responded yes. The districts agreed in
concept and willing to go through the process.
Mr. Fennell stated then the $453,000
is not in jeopardy.
Mr. Petty responded we do not
believe so.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the amount
transferred in from reserves?
Mr. Petty responded we have more
than enough money to cover our bond requirements. We are carrying $200,000, which will cover
some of the increases including Capital Outlay.
Instead of raising rates, we are pulling excess funds out of the Renewal
and Replacement Account as required by the bondholders.
Mr. Hanks stated I am concerned about
the projected increase of $200,000 in Electric.
Is this the correct way to pull money out of reserves for operating
expenses?
Mr. Petty responded we are actually
pulling $150,000 from Capital Outlay under Administration; $30,000 from Communication
Expense and Printing and Binding.
Mr. Fennell stated your point is
well taken. Every year we had either two to three percent appreciation in electric and end
up raising rates. We are probably approaching
this point but we can probably get by one more year.
Mr. Petty stated we are currently
doing a rate sufficiency in-house study, which we will bring back to the Board.
Mr. Fennell stated we also have to
take into account our capital expenditures.
Mr. Hanks stated I am keeping an eye
on this. I always hesitate knowing we
are working with an older plant. The
wish list Mr. Roger Moore generated two years ago was substantial.
Mr. Petty stated we succeeded Mr.
Moore’s wishes.
Ms. Larned stated when this budget
was prepared, Mr. Petty asked us to take a thorough look at all the
accounts. One of philosophies we always
follow and recommend is to match recurring revenues with recurring expenditures
and non-recurring revenues with non-recurring expenditures so you do not have
an imbalance.
Mr. Hanks stated Printing and
Binding is a reoccurring expense.
Mr. Petty stated if we had money in
excess of renewal and replacement requirements of the bonds, it is structured
to bring it back from the rates.
Mr. Hanks stated this is money we
had for coverage.
Mr. Petty stated the coverage is
part of the assessment all residents pay every month.
Mr. Hanks stated it was part of the
requirements on the bond based on how much money was out there. We capture some of this money for useful
purposes. When will the rate study be
completed?
Mr. Petty responded the rate study
should be completed within the next 60 to 90 days. The capital program should be coming at the
next meeting for conceptual numbers. We
will refine it at the wishes of the Board.
There is the concept part and then you actually do the work. What is our current balance?
Ms. Larned responded the audited
fund balance is $1.4 million.
Mr. Fennell asked for the Water and
Sewer Fund?
Mr. Petty responded General
Fund. In looking at the financials you
are guessing because you do not have all your bills in before the end of the
year.
Mr. Fennell stated this is an
Operating Budget opposed to the financial statement. We used to have $6 to $8 million.
Mr. Petty stated according to our
contracts, we spent a little over $2 million.
Mr. McKune keeps them well handled.
Mr. McKune stated the money is
accounted for.
Mr. Petty stated last time I looked,
we had $4.5 million. Mr. McKune has
programs the Board approved conceptually and we have a capital program.
Mr. Fennell stated this is a capital
funding issue.
Mr. Petty stated correct. When your rate study was adopted in 1992, a
certain percentage of the monthly bill to everyone had a portion to be used for
capital construction. It is still
funding capital construction to this day.
Mr. Hanks asked if we run short on a
portion of the revenue stream, what requirement do we have to the bond amount
of $1.1 million?
Mr. Petty responded the $1.1 million
coverage is in addition to the renewal and replacement requirement. We have dual requirements.
Mr. Hanks asked what happens if we
drop below the $1.1 million bond amount?
Mr. Petty responded this is a
concern we monitor throughout the year.
If we see a drop in rate sufficiency based on the monthly statements, we
will bring it to the Board’s attention.
It behooves the Board to consider a rate increase at that time to bring yourselves back up. However,
we do not see you in jeopardy at this time.
Mr. Fennell stated I agree. A year and a half ago we reviewed the entire
organization to see where we should be spending money and how we can become
more efficient. I have seen some of
those items decrease.
Mr. Hanks stated whether or not we
are utilizing any financial benefit, it makes a huge difference in knowing we
have the employees and they report to us.
It makes a difference for the members of the community.
Mr. Fennell stated it does but it
will be a good advantage for our sister districts. We will support them, just as they supported
us in the past and we will continue to do so.
However, the command of control is clearer, which is something we have
been trying to clear up for a year. Mr.
Petty did a great job putting this budget together. Congratulations. Interest Income increased slightly. Is Technology Sharing Revenue from renting
out our computers?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated it ties into our
system.
Mr. Hanks asked is
there payback on the computers?
Mr. Petty responded there should be
some benefit. Technology is moving
quickly in this industry. There used to
be a four to five year lifespan but now after two or three years, it is
outdated. We asked the company providing
the software to put us on their update schedule. They are providing at least two updates a
year. The computer systems today are
going through a huge change. We are
currently looking at a power to the 10 increase in speed on the system we are
looking at. In two or three years you
will see the speed triple.
Ms. Zich asked is the Electric under
the Administrative Expenses for this building?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Ms. Zich stated it has to go up more
than what is budgeted. Everyone’s bills
are increasing. The budget only
increased from $16,000 to $18,000.
Mr. Petty stated there is a timer on
some of the lights. Mr. Dan Daly makes
sure the lights go out at
Mr. Fennell stated there was
discussion before the meeting on our excess oil. When it is delivered, there will be a problem
with it sitting and getting stale. This
is an issue we need to contend with. We
also had an agreement with FP&L for auxiliary power. Take another look at the agreement and
options for using up the oil in other areas.
There may come a time where it would be smart to turn on our own power
for a week. This is an economic
decision. We can also have someone treat
it every once in awhile. If it becomes
an issue where we are spending large amounts of money to keep it fresh, it is
easier to burn it and make our own electricity.
Mr. Hanks stated you may want to
look at FP&L’s rate structure relative to the current cost of fuel.
Mr. Fennell stated we can try to cut
a deal with FP&L by having a Load Sharing Agreement.
Mr. Petty stated we can look into
it.
Mr. Kaas stated as part of your
routine maintenance of the generators, they have to be run periodically to make
sure they operate. There will be a certain
amount of consumption as a result. I have
seen situations where energy is sold back to a utility. You do not need it to run your plant. However, this requires contractual agreements
between the two entities.
Mr. Fennell stated it also requires
additional equipment because you have to synchronize the generators.
Mr. Hanks asked will the citizens in
the community be receptive to us increasing generator capacity at the plant?
Mr. Petty stated currently, there is
no concern about diesel fuel going stale.
We can power up our facilities, go off-line and not incur FP&L
charges to run the generators until we drop the tanks down to a level we feel
comfortable with. It is not an
issue. To generate power back to FP&L
requires a fairly large investment.
Currently we can operate our facilities but we do not have a generator
when we get back to being on the system.
It is certainly something we can look at in the capital plan but the
last time I looked at it, I determined it was not cost effective. Our current policy is similar to what you
suggested where we go off-line, do not incur the electrical charges and utilize
the diesel fuel we have on-site.
Mr. Fennell stated I assume we have
a preventative maintenance plan to make sure the diesel does not go bad.
Mr. Petty stated it is checked
regularly by the supplier.
Mr. Fennell closed the public
hearing.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr.
Hanks with all in favor Resolution 2006-7 Adopting the Final Waste and Sewer
Enterprise Budget for Fiscal Year 2007 was adopted.
FOURTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Status of
Negotiations with Surveyor Selected to Provide
Mr. Petty stated the negotiations
were handled by District Counsel and the engineer. The intent was to qualify two or three
surveyors so we have a pool to rotate from.
We discussed this item at the last meeting and hopefully Mr. McKune has
been in communication with Mr. Pawelczyk in Mr. Lyles
office. I will defer to Mr. McKune
regarding the status.
Mr. McKune stated negotiations are
complete with the highest ranked firm, Paul Brewer & Associates. I spoke with Mr. Lyles before the meeting as
there was some concern about the advertising.
This was straightened out as we advertised two weeks prior to receipt of
the RFP. I think we are in good shape.
Mr. Lyles stated no additional
action by the Board is required. Mr.
McKune just wanted to update the Board on the status of the negotiations. We confirmed the advertising occurred prior
to the last meeting and we are in the process of negotiating Standby Agreements
with the other two top ranked firms.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the
surveyor’s first task?
Mr. McKune responded it depends on
the capital improvement program. A great
deal of work was contemplated for the stormwater management system. We were talking about perhaps interconnecting
some of the canals. We still need to
complete the perimeter surveys, specifically with the Sunshine East Outfall
canal. In my opinion, this will be the
first major project. Other work includes
setting baselines at the plant.
Mr. Fennell stated let’s complete
this project first to take it off the table.
We need to understand whether or not this is a problem. All we know is we are missing three feet of
bank. The question is whether or not it
is a problem. If it is missing, there may
be other sections missing. How do we
know until we check?
Mr. Hanks stated in
Mr. Petty stated the Sunshine WCD is
contemplating doing something similar to our Hydraulic Study. If there is overlapping, I do not know if there
is a problem with Sunshine paying for any work CSID may have done or if there
is an issue on the CSID side of the Sunshine canal on the east outfall. There used to be a berm but now we have
filled lots. Sunshine is concerned about
the
Mr. Hanks stated on the east outfall
canal, this is an open connection. Their
pumps are located north of
Mr. Petty responded not one is missing
a berm.
Mr. Hanks stated there is no
continuation of the outfall canal. It
runs towards Woodside and up to
Mr. Petty stated the only area they
are concerned about is the berm. The
residents on the eastern border are concerned about additional water going into
their outfall. The canal can only take
so much.
Mr. Fennell stated the problem
besides missing the berm is the canal banks are not even. The far bank in
Mr. Petty stated the overflow will
go in our direction.
Mr. Hanks stated the bank for the
house on the C-14 Canal is right up to the 100 year storm.
Mr. Fennell stated you cannot tell
whether it is the same height as the C-14 Canal or lower.
Mr. Hanks stated we will find out.
Mr. Fennell stated maybe it needs to
be higher because you expect the water in the C-14 Canal to be down.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to take a
look at it?
What are our authorities with SFWMD to make these changes?
Mr. McKune responded it is low but
level. If it is on the
Mr. Hanks asked do you want to look
at it?
Mr. McKune responded I would not go
any further than casual conversation with their staff.
Mr. Fennell asked do you think there
is a problem?
Mr. Hanks responded no. However, we need to effectively exercise a
solution if there was a problem. The
question is whether we need to look for a problem having no solution.
Mr. Fennell stated you are assuming
SFWMD will do something.
Mr. McKune stated the original
drawing was based on the C-14 Canal and their banks.
Mr. Fennell stated the C-14 Canal
has the highest point.
Mr. McKune stated we are pumping uphill
into the C-14 Canal.
Mr. Fennell stated the only people
who know what happens in our area is us. SFWMD does not have a clue. In fact, they depend on us to tell them. If something is wrong, we need to tell them.
Mr. McKune stated within their own modeling
as part of their water management plan, SFWMD may change their modeling to
impact us. We do not always know what
they are doing.
Mr. Fennell stated we probably need
more cooperation from SFWMD. They have an
$800 million year budget and can do many things if they decide there is a
need. They also have immense power. All their positions are political ones. There are people we can talk to who actually
make the decisions. We have a
relationship with a member of their Board and there are members of staff the
engineer kept relationships with over the last 30 or so years. We have a good relationship with them. One of the difficulties is their
determination of policy can change drastically.
As you have seen in their operation of the retention areas and discharge
into the everglades, they are now looking at $9 billion and counting on
corrective matters. Their politics can
change with those issues.
Mr. Fennell stated you can not look
at a problem because you think it might not get solved. If it is a political issue and something we
have to fight, then this is what this Board will do.
Mr. Hanks stated let’s discuss this with
Sunshine first. As part of their
everglades restoration, SFWMD implemented additional water quality measures for
NSID, City of
Mr. Petty stated I believe they
looked at it from a time entry position of when we came into the system with
our permit. CSID and Sunshine were
grandfathered in because it had been so long ago. NSID received permission to pump into the
conservation area westward. Only one
other district was allowed to do so, which was Weston.
Mr. Fennell stated I attended the
Mr. Petty stated there is going to
be a push in the next year in the State of
Mr. Fennell stated I thought the
Federal Government was coming up with the money.
Mr. Petty stated they will come in with
some money and the state will have to come up with some. It will have to come from the residents in
one form or another. The Drainage
Districts are going to be hit with a surcharge.
Mr. Fennell stated there is a
political question which will affect the residents in this area. It can go one way or the other.
Mr. McKune stated the pollution and
stormwater is reminiscent of the early 1970’s when the Section 208 funding
program was initiated. Billions of
dollars were spent trying to resolve the program. They finally acknowledged no matter how much
money was spent, they could not make it go away or restrict pollution coming
into everyone’s front yard. NSID is
looking into a management program for removal of bulrushes and weeds from
stormwater management areas. There are
areas in NSID where we can do this removal because they are in the western
areas and not in developments. You will
hear a lot about this problem. Is it
practical? Probably
not.
Mr. Petty stated some of the ideas
are using chemicals to help the bacteria break down organic material. We will be maintaining our canals in similar
fashion to our wastewater treatment facilities where you try to optimize
conditions for the uptake. If you do not
have room for plants, you may want to do it with bacteria.
Mr. Fennell stated we will discuss
this matter at a future meeting.
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Acceptance
of the Audit for Fiscal Year Ended
Mr. Petty stated these are your
basic financial statements. I am happy
to say this is a clean audit, meaning we are in compliance. If you turn to page 28 under internal
controls, the auditors noted no matters involving the internal control over
financial reporting and its operations they consider to be material
weaknesses. They also checked for
compliance in other matters and the results of their tests disclosed no
instances of non-compliance or other matters required to be reported under
government auditing standards. On page
30 is the Management Letter. The first
item they reported on is if anything was leftover from last year’s audit needing
to be addressed. There were no
recommendations, meaning two years in a row we have been doing well. We are also in compliance with the Auditor
General under Section 218.415. Under
findings or recommendations, they noted no matters requiring disclosure in the
report to District management on the audited financial statements. If you recall, we had a special audit of our
accounting system earlier in the year where they gave us specific suggestions
on how we can improve. Due to this
reason, they did not include them in the audit report. We asked them specifically if they were any new
systems they were aware of and could recommend on checks and balances.
Mr. Fennell stated we were going to set
aside some money for emergencies. Do we
have this in place?
Mr. Petty responded yes. We have $15,000 sitting in a bank account.
Mr. Fennell stated there were other
changes for hurricane preparation. The
biggest issue we have is the small accounting staff; i.e. half a person.
Mr. Hanks stated it is a full person
now.
Mr. Petty stated Severn Trent
provided additional personnel. We also
made sure the backups to the accounting system provided a trail in case we need
to re-build the accounting stream.
Mr. Fennell asked are you satisfied,
Ms. Larned?
Ms. Larned responded absolutely.
Mr. Petty stated in the middle of
page 31, this is the one time you do not want to be in conformance with the
statute calling for a financial emergency.
This is a clean audit and one we are happy to receive.
Mr. Fennell asked have we
implemented the tracking of hours for personnel?
Mr. Petty stated it is not tracking
so much as the timing. There will be
blocks of time sold to the other districts.
In other words, they will be assigned 20 hours a week and if they work
16 hours, the district still pays for 20 hours because we are making 20 hours
available to them. Because we made this
individual available to them, they have to pay.
Ms. Larned stated there are other measurements
we can use to allocate the work. We can
do this by the number of checks written and how the contracts are being
managed. On the other side, it can cost
you more than what is reasonable. To
keep it in line with the cost, there are measurements we already had in place.
Mr. Hanks asked do they apply to the
field employees?
Ms. Larned responded yes. This is why we are getting more heavily
involved in the concept management effort.
Mr. Fennell stated just make sure
the other districts are in agreement.
Mr. Petty stated the sister
districts are fairly confident in their relationships with CSID.
Ms. Larned stated one page 15, there
is a statement of cashflows depicting how well the District performs on the
utility function. In the upper right hand
corner, there is a column of numbers, telling you whether or not your utility
is operating in the red or black. There
is $3.1 million in cash produced by the operations of the facility. You have debt service, which uses up some of
the cash. The District adopted a policy
of, “Pay as you go” of your capital program for renewal and replacement. You can continue to do so and $2 million is
being set aside for the cash operations.
The District Manager and engineer will come back to you with some
recommendations. It is important for me
as the Financial Officer to point out you have cash
operations but also obligations on your debt as well as a renewal and
replacement program, which can become a full term, long term capital plan. In the plan, this has been presented as a
“cash cow” but it is not. There has been
overall discussion by the Board regarding the rates and what you want to do
about it over time.
In regards to the fund balance, the
General Fund has fund balances.
Enterprise Funds do not have fund balances. They only have net assets or equity. Those are businesslike activities. We have $4.5 million in the capital plan,
which has been increasing over a period of years as you have been spending
methodically over a number of years.
However, you are now at the point where the District Manager along with
the engineer has said “If we stop this program, this is what we might be able
to do on a longer term basis”. This is the
information we provide in order for you to make decisions. I will work with the District Manager and the
engineer.
Mr. Fennell stated page 13 shows we
have net assets of $44,000,000 and total liability of $44,286,000. The difference between us and a corporation
is we never appreciate our assets.
Ms. Zich stated we do not depreciate
them but you have to replace.
Mr. Petty stated we are a government
and do not depreciate. Replacement is
part of your capital improvement program.
You have a line item for Renewal and Replacement adding to the lifespan
of these facilities. I am supposed to
keep the equipment in as new working condition.
This is why your pumps seem to last so long. GASB-34 takes depreciation based on fallout
in all businesses in this country and accountability and spreads it into the
government sector. Government entities
started to dilute their funds. When you
are fund based as governments are, you are supposed to keep the money you
generated for a specific reason in this fund and not move it over to something
else. For example, if we needed to spend
money for parks and recreation, I should not be taking money from the
utilities. Cities and counties were
doing this. You need to understand after
a time certain you will be replacing things.
We have a capital program to handle these items and in this District, a
financial model. As we build facilities,
those benefiting from it, pay for it.
This is how plants currently exist.
Everyone who is getting water and sewer are paying for it in their
rates. When parts go bad and we have to
re-build, the people who benefit from the new facility will pay. You can have a financial plan or as some municipalities
have done, double charge the residents for a worst case scenario. However, I may not be here in 30 years and
may not ever see the fruition of those payments. This is why we have a financial plan, which I
highly recommend. When you need it,
build it. Do not charge the residents
before you do. Otherwise, you may be
charging them double.
Ms. Larned stated GASB-34 is saying,
“We did not depreciate assets over time and therefore there was not a way for
you to know whether or not you needed to replace them”. GASB-34 brings this to management’s attention
so they can build around what should be considered by the Board in the way of
long term capital replacement through cash or long term financing. Some jurisdictions chose to go over their
elected official heads. I lived in one
area where people felt strongly about it because the elected officials put
their money into other kinds of programs instead of paying attention to
bridges, roads or water system.
Consequently they are facing billions of dollars of improvements. This is not true here. GASB-34 brings it to your attention. It is a testament to this District that you
have people staying on top of your capital plan; however, it is in a piecemeal
fashion and not necessarily for the long term.
Mr. Fennell stated this is an
interesting philosophy but it does affect us.
A classic case is using social security funds. Nevertheless, we still have an obligation of
maintaining facilities into the future.
We want the facilities we buy to last 15 to 30 years because that is the
best economical value. Therefore we have
to buy ahead. I do not think you want to
replace everything after 30 years.
Mr. Hanks stated it depends on
whether we want to look at it from the standpoint of taking on more debt and
paying interest on it or being fiscally responsible. We may not be here to take advantage of the
money we put away but by the same token, we are taking advantage of monies put
away by other people.
Mr. Petty stated we are not taking
advantage of money put away by other people.
We are utilizing a rate study envisioning a capital expense every year,
not for building new facilities 20 to 30 years in the future. We were building new facilities as they were
planned. It was piecemeal but at the
time, this was all we could do.
Mr. Fennell stated for at least
seven to eight years, we have had five, ten and fifteen year capital
plans. They get revised all the
time. The question is whether we could
forecast the demise of our own resources.
The errors in our capital planning is when determining when something
needs to be replaced. The depreciation
gave us a clue and we had people look at how they should decrease over time.
Mr. Petty stated it does work. This is why we have renewal and
replacement. If a pump station has parts
wearing out, I have a fund to go to. I
can rebuild them and they are going to be like new. It is better than repairs and
maintenance. You get to a point where
you have a perfectly good looking 1957 Chevy but it is costing me a great deal
of money to maintain it. This is what we
are currently looking at. It is going to
be a major leap in your current treatment practices.
Mr. Lyles stated I suggest the Board
make a motion to accept the audit rather than approve it since it was prepared
by an outside CPA firm.
Ms. Zich stated I was impressed with
the audit.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich
with all in favor the Audit for Fiscal Year Ended
SIXTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Hurricane
Debris Removal
Mr. Fennell asked are there any
comments from the public? Not hearing
any,
Mr. Petty stated the hurricane
debris removal and bank rebuilding is complete and we are well into the second
phase. I watched one contractor removing
some Australian Pine Trees. We asked our
contractor to remove existing trees not affected by the hurricane in our right-of-way
that were a potential threat. We hope to
remove the remaining 50 percent of the trees, which remained standing after
Hurricane Wilma. We went after the
majority of the species referred by the City of
Mr. McKune stated the contractor
removed 50 percent of the nuisance trees.
A permit we submitted was rejected by the City of
Mr. Petty stated based on
discussions from the city, we called District Counsel. Our discussions with the
city caused the following question to be asked:
“If in the middle of a
storm event I had a concern about flooding along my canal due to blockage by
four Palm Orchids, would I need a permit from the city to remove those trees?”
The answer was undeniably yes. We asked them for the proper procedure. They said you may want to request the city to
change their current ordinance because their tree ordinance did not have
specific exemptions for a Drainage District.
They were willing to accept such an application but their ordinance
model, the Broward County Ordinance requires an application. Therefore, we may wish to do an application
to both entities at the same time. We
asked District Counsel to research the issue of jurisdiction on the Tree
Ordinance issue.
Mr. Lyles stated our opinion is the
same as it has been for some time. We
are subject to the city’s Tree Ordinance.
There is no exemption from its overall applicability. There are some provisions we can take advantage
of to put us in a different position than a typical private homeowner. With respect to actions during an emergency
like a hurricane, they have a provision allowing for the City Manager to
suspend the permit requirement during an emergency. I assume in one sense they are saying, “We
have something that is supposed to come into play during an emergency event”,
but as far as saying the Tree Ordinance does not conform to this District
because it is a special improvement district as opposed to some other kind of
entity within the city of Coral Springs, there is nothing like this currently.
Mr. Hanks asked is this based on
city code or a court case?
Mr. Lyles responded it is based on
review of the current tree ordinances in effect and the history behind them. We are not aware of any cases saying an
entity such as this one is not subject to a local general purpose government
like a city or
Mr. Hanks stated DOT has to file for
a tree permit when they do their work.
Mr. Lyles stated DOT is a state
level entity and in most respects is superior to the governmental pecking
order. We do not have a way out of this
unless the city wants to amend its tree ordinance to somehow exempt us. I doubt very seriously this would be favorably
received and I do not see it going anywhere.
We need to work with them.
Mr. Fennell asked what happens if we
find we have a case where the trees will affect the health and welfare of the residents? Who is
responsible for making the decision?
Mr. Lyles responded if we are facing
a hurricane, the city is going to do what is appropriate, which is to suspend
the permit requirement. If it does not
get communicated or people are dealing with an emergency in front of them, our
crews are going to clear a situation likely to cause flooding and property
damage and potentially even harm to individuals and will deal with the city
after the emergency passes.
Mr. Fennell asked what if we do not
have enough time?
We only have three to four days to prepare for a hurricane, which is not
sufficient time to clear out 1,000 trees.
Mr. Lyles responded I am talking
about getting into a situation where trees are down in a culvert causing
flooding.
Mr. Fennell stated we will not be
able to do this within 48 hours. No one
can. The only way this can happen is if
you have sufficient time.
Mr. Hanks stated a situation where
this might come into play is a tornado.
Mr. Lyles stated you are looking to
me because of the legal issues involved.
I cannot tell you what is occurring at these city staff meetings but at
a meeting held here, we had some homeowners interested in this matter. The Arborist’s recommendation was to remove
the nuisance trees and then do a survey to find out if there are non-nuisance
trees posing a problem. I am not aware
we did this nor taken it to the city.
Mr. Fennell stated we did both. The Arborist recommended removing any trees
within the canal banks. This was the
recommendation from the engineer as well.
Mr.
Hanks asked were we proposing removal of trees or replacement and mitigation?
Mr.
Petty responded in our discussion we asked for a policy from the city removing
trees from the top of bank for the health, safety and welfare of the residents. This would not fall under mitigation since it
should not cost the District any money to ensure the safety of the residents of
Mr.
Fennell stated the issue is we have two different government bodies, one
charged with the responsibility of keeping the residents safe and doing due
diligence. Yet we have another
government body blocking it. Who is
responsible for doing the due diligence if flooding occurs? Is it the city because they blocked it?
Mr.
Hanks responded we need to negotiate with the city to mitigate on a one tree
down to one replaced basis.
Mr.
Fennell stated we have someone making a decision on a question of safety,
health and possibly death.
Mr.
Lyles stated these are fairly esoteric issues.
When you talk about who is responsible, you mean who is doing the right
thing but also who has liability if there is a problem and property is
damaged. These are the types of
activities government undertakes whether it is this government or the city,
which are subject to sovereign immunity.
These are legislative type decisions.
If you or the city or both make a decision for reasons of aesthetics or
ordinance compliance to not remove the trees, we are going to be immune from
suits and so is the city on any claims.
It is not like we are looking at a situation where people are beating
our door down with lawsuits because their homes flooded and somehow they will
make a case that we could have done more to prevent it. This city is responsible for making sure
those things do not happen, just like the District is. When you say the city is blocking the
District’s efforts to do what it would like to do and what has been
recommended, I think the city’s position is “We are not blocking, we are
regulating and we are subject to their regulations, end of discussion”.
Mr.
Fennell stated I am not so sure. The
fact is it is a moral responsibility from the city.
Mr.
Lyles stated the first consideration is determining who is responsible for
doing the right thing.
Mr.
Fennell stated I am not so sure they feel responsible. They see it as someone else’s responsibility
and they do not have to make it a consideration in their decision.