MINUTES
OF MEETING
PINE
TREE WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
A
meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Pine Tree Water Control District was
held on Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at the Parkland City Hall, 6600
North University Drive, Parkland, Florida.
Present and constituting a quorum were:
Margaret Bertolami President
Paul Brewer Vice President
Donna McCann Benckenstein Assistant Secretary
Neil Study Supervisor
Mark Weissman Supervisor
Also present were:
Kenneth Cassel Manager
Julie Klahr Attorney
Warren Craven Engineer
Randy Frederick Drainage
Supervisor
Brenda Schurz Severn Trent Services
Terri Lusk Severn Trent
Services
Kathy Craven Craven Consulting
FIRST ORDER OF
BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Cassel called the meeting to order and called
the roll.
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the March 5, 2009 Meeting
Ms. Bertolami stated each Board member received a
copy of the minutes of the March 5, 2009 meeting and requested any corrections,
additions or deletions.
There not being any,
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Mr. Study with
all in favor the minutes of the March 5, 2009 meeting were approved.
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Distribution
of the Proposed Operating Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2010 and Consideration of
Resolution 2009-4 Approving the Proposed Budget and Setting the Public Hearing
Mr.
Cassel stated at this point you will set a level of the budget which you cannot
exceed. This level will be communicated
to the tax collector. At the final adoption
hearing you can decrease the budget, but you cannot increase it. Whatever you set today is your maximum level
for assessments for the next fiscal year.
If you want to set it high at this meeting, you can come back at the
next meeting and trim some things out.
The
proposed budget has an assessment decrease of approximately $11.08 per unit,
per year. We reduced the projected costs
based on what we have been spending in this current budget with regard to engineering
and legal services associated with researching what the District owns. This research is going a little slow so the
funding requirements will not be as big as anticipated. I reduced them for next year’s budget.
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Mr. Brewer
with all in favor the proposed budget was approved as amended to keep the
assessments the same as in the current fiscal year and have the funds generated
from that placed into the reserves.
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Mr. Brewer
with all in favor Resolution 2009-4, approving the proposed budget as amended
and setting the public hearing for August 6, 2009 at 6:00 p.m. at the Parkland
City Hall, was adopted.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Independent Contractor
Agreement with Warren Craven
Mr. Cassel stated we did not have a copy of the
agreement prior to sending out the package.
There is a copy of the proposed agreement before you, which was worked
out between the attorney and Mr. Craven.
Mr.
Craven stated the commercial liability is $2 Million.
Mr.
Cassel asked are these the amounts you worked out with Mr. Doody?
Mr.
Craven responded no. This is what we got
and it is more than what we were talking about before.
Mr.
Weissman asked on surveying services, is there a certain amount where we will
have to bid if it should come to that?
Mr.
Cassel responded I believe it is over $25,000.
Mr.
Weissman asked do we need to incorporate it in the agreement?
Mr.
Cassel responded no. It is under
statutes of the CCNA. As long as we
operate within the parameters of the CCNA, which governs the Board’s dealings
with engineering services we are fine.
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Mr. Study with
all in favor the Independent Contractor Agreement with Warren Craven was
approved.
Mr.
Brewer asked how long is this for?
Mr.
Craven responded it is renewable in one year.
Ms.
Benckenstein stated it says it can be terminated by either party with 60 days
notice. It does not specifically have a
term of years.
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Manager’s
Report
A. Consideration
of Proposed Rate Increase for Permit Fees
Mr. Cassel stated at the last meeting we discussed
rates the District currently charges for storm water permits. Ours have not been changed in a long
time. We do not issue many permits, but the
proposed permit fees and cash bonds are used in other districts. We call it a trash bond and we use it to make
sure the contractor has cleaned up the site and made sure our right-of-way is
not a mess. We have these funds in case
the District has to clean up after the contractor. We send Mr. Frederick or one of the other
supervisors to inspect the area and sign off on it before we return the
bond.
Ms.
Schurz stated the current rate for applications is $150.
Mr.
Brewer asked do CSID, NSID and SWCD have the same rates?
Ms.
Schurz responded I cannot speak for SWCD.
I know CSID and NSID charge $350 for the application and $2,500 for the
trash bond. There is a $200 charge every
five years for recertification.
Mr.
Brewer asked are we going to add a $2,500 trash bond for this District?
Mr.
Cassel responded we are recommending a $2,500 trash bond.
Mr.
Brewer stated I agree with that.
Mr.
Weissman asked are you recommending we match them on all fees?
Mr.
Cassel responded yes.
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Ms.
Benckenstein with all in favor the Board approved increasing the permit
application fee to $350 and revising the permit criteria to include a $2,500
trash bond.
Mr.
Bertolami stated I noticed the scope of what needs to be permitted does not seem
to necessarily have come through this.
Ms.
Schurz stated we have not revised this scope.
Ms.
Bertolami asked so you do not seek all the permits this scope would lead you to
acquire? On page two it says the provisions shall apply to all developments within
the boundaries where it modifies the natural flow or level of water. Is this the honor system? Does someone apply if they think they need
to?
Mr.
Cassel responded what we typically have worked out, with the City of Coral
Springs for example, one of the first things their building department does is
they are starting a plan review. They
asked where the CSID or NSID permit is or where is the sign off letter saying
they do not need a permit from them. We had
a meeting with the School Board of Broward County and decided they were not
going to interfere with our drainage. We
did not have to issue a permit because it does not adversely impact what we are
doing. We issue a letter stating they
are not going to impact us.
Ms.
Bertolami stated I think historically the information from Parkland came from
the city engineer.
Mr.
Cassel stated we might need to look at it and see how that interface is working
currently.
Mr.
Study asked was the overflow self contained on that school project?
Mr.
Cassel responded it ultimately goes in, but they have several other drainage
areas that they cannot figure how the water drains to it because it never
fills. They do not even know where the
pipes go. They are going to clean up and
redo the piping which is there.
Mr.
Study asked if we are receiving water, does it dictate?
Mr.
Cassel responded we make sure they have on their plans the proper water quality
parameters, drainage structures and filter structures which are required. Typically, since it is onsite, it is the
building department of that particular city which controls those issues. We make sure that by the time it gets to us
there is nothing, which is going to impact us or that they are going to be
working into our area.
Mr.
Study asked what happens in a 100 year flood?
Mr.
Cassel responded we receive their water, but most of our designs were set up so
engineering does not adversely affect pre-imposed conditions with
construction. If they had a flow level
for the 100 year storm of a certain amount, the flow level after their work had
to meet the same conditions. It is
pre-imposed. If they had a post
condition situation, it triggers other NPDES requirements.
Mr.
Study asked who sets the elevation of overflow?
Is it your department?
Mr.
Cassel responded it would be a combination between the engineers, the building
department and we would also review it to see if there is any impact.
Mr.
Brewer stated unfortunately there is a big
brother watching named SFWMD.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney’s
Report
There being no report, the next item followed.
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer’s
Report
Mr.
Craven stated I want to bring you up to date of where we are. We acquired maps from the City of Parkland
and the City of Coral Springs.
Mr. Craven presented the Board with maps.
Mr.
Craven stated we have located all of the parcels on the map according to the
property appraiser’s parcel identification numbers which are under the
ownership of the District. We also have
those in folios where we obtained the deed as well as other supportive
information. We also indicated all of
the culverts which are under the District’s jurisdiction and numbered those in
accordance with our numbering system in the maintenance department. We are going ahead and the map turned out
better than I thought it might. It will
be available on a disk so the District can do whatever it proposes to do with
it.
Ms.
Klahr stated this will be eventually overlaid on an aerial.
Mr.
Craven stated as part of flow gate components and determining their capabilities,
we have taken photographs of both ends of the culverts. We also took photographs going down the reach
of the canal. We think it is a good idea
to do this annually.
Ms.
Klahr stated there is a tree which will have to be taken down. It is a dead tree. Whatever direction the water is going, we
took pictures of both ends and looking at both directions.
Mr.
Craven stated the next step is we have a small copy of the plat in the folio
files. In some cases we have the whole
plat. We are now working on the
easements indicated on the plats and any recorded easements we might find.
Mr.
Brewer asked do we have any problem areas or is it still too early to tell?
Mr.
Craven responded we have one problem area.
It is the canal on the north side of the Sawgrass Expressway.
Mr.
Brewer asked is it the one which runs east to west?
Mr.
Craven responded yes. It is the only
means we have of transferring waters from the south half of the District to the
north half and we discharge to the north.
Mr.
Brewer asked is that the piece we thought was in the Pine Tree maintenance map?
Mr.
Craven responded it is our opinion we need to get a survey of that reach which
ties the right-of-way of the Sawgrass Expressway to the maintenance map through
the property line of the adjacent property to the north.
Ms.
Bertolami asked is this information available on the property appraiser’s
website?
Mr.
Craven responded no.
Mr.
Klahr stated the maintenance map leaves some room for interpretation. We are working on it. Off the property appraiser’s site we have
each of the properties, but we are not sure about the easement on the
maintenance map.
Mr.
Craven stated the only place which would have all of the surveys of the
property adjacent to this canal would be the building department. Ms. Bertolami said she did not see a problem,
but there is a cost.
Ms.
Bertolami stated we have two places where our records are located. One is in offsite storage and one is on
microfilm. Any properties which predate
1994 or 1995 in Pine Tree will be on microfilm.
We do not have a reader printer so we have to carry our records to Coral
Springs and pay to have them printed. If
there is a survey there, we can print it in Coral Springs; if it is on one type
of roll. The other type of roll we can
not print at all. The other thing is
offsite storage. We need to order an
entire box to bring in one file. If it
is something the District wants to do, we will have to approach the city to see
what they are willing to do. If the
District is willing to wait over a period of time, it may be that boxes like
that would roll in and we can keep an eye out for them as opposed to separately
ordering them.
Mr.
Brewer stated we need to abolish that map.
Mr.
Craven stated we do not need to do it yet.
Mr.
Brewer stated it has to go away because the county still thinks it rules. If someone tries to build a house adjacent to
the Sawgrass Expressway, the county will go to that map and they will make them
adhere to it.
Mr.
Craven stated we feel we need to know where everything fits in the world
between the north right-of-way line of the Sawgrass Expressway and the “lot
line” of the adjacent property. We need
to know physically where the water is.
We need to know where the maintenance map fits. The reason we would like to get to the
surveys is because we found several surveys which show that they gave us an
easement. Those records are hard to
find. It will be a more expeditious if
we see a survey for the building and see what it says.
Mr.
Brewer stated they are giving easements to the city via resolutions. The city has a resolution that when you come
in to permit you automatically grant these easements. The resolution might be a recorded document,
but that does not actually record the easement.
The easement becomes part of the resolution.
Ms.
Bertolami stated you will probably find most of the older surveys do not show
the current location of the canal.
Mr.
Craven stated I do not care. I want to
know where their property line is and then we are going to need to find out
where everything is in between.
Mr.
Brewer stated go to the end of 74th Terrace and there is a wall
sitting in your canal.
Mr.
Craven stated I would not doubt it.
Mr.
Brewer stated it is really bad. It has
been abused. Some people would want to
take a legal battle that there are no rights to the District to be there. If you go back and date this battle, they are
right because there is no legal issue. What
do you have? There is no easement. You say the map is not valid. So now all of a sudden they argue with the
city that they will give them five feet.
Five feet does not take care of the canal. You need 35 feet, 45 feet or whatever.
Mr.
Craven stated we need to know.
Mr.
Brewer stated I agree. Will you continue
to keep us abreast?
Mr.
Craven responded yes. Does anyone have
any adverse comments?
Mr.
Brewer responded no sir.
EIGHTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’
Requests
Mr. Brewer asked how did the city commission meeting
affect the District last night? There
was something on the agenda about maintenance.
Did it affect us?
Mr.
Weissman responded not at all.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Financials
and Check Registers
There being no question or comments,
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Ms.
Benckenstein with all in favor the financials and check registers were
approved.
TENTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Adjournment
There being no further business,
On MOTION by Mr. Weissman seconded by Ms.
Benckenstein with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.
Kenneth Cassel Margaret
Bertolami
Assistant Secretary
President