MINUTES OF MEETING

PINE TREE WATER CONTROL DISTRICT

 

            The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Pine Tree Water Control District was held on Thursday, March 2, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. at the District Office, 10300 N.W. 11 Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.

 

            Present and constituting a quorum were:

 

            David Rosenof                                                  President

            Margaret Bertolami                                           Vice President

            Donna Benckenstein                                         Assistant Secretary

            Paul Brewer                                                     Assistant Secretary

            Mimi Bright Ribotsky                                        Assistant Secretary

 

            Also present were:

 

            John Petty                                                        Manager

            D.J. Doody                                                      Attorney

            Warren Craven                                                 Engineer

            John McKune                                                   CH2M Hill

           

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS                               Roll Call

            Mr. Rosenof called the meeting to order and Mr. Petty called the roll.

 

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS                          Approval of the Minutes of the February 2, 2006 Meeting

            Mr. Rosenof stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the February 2, 2006 meeting and requested any corrections, additions or deletions.

            Mr. Craven stated in the first line on page five, “lights” should be “right-of-way”.  The third sentence under the engineer’s report should state, “Another area is the road right-of-way and canal banks north of Butler Farms to the Sawgrass which the City of Coral Springs decided they own.”

 

On MOTION by Ms. Benckenstein seconded by Mr. Brewer with all in favor the minutes were approved as amended.

 

            Let the record reflect Ms. Ribotsky joined the meeting.

 

 

 

 

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS                             Discussion of Butler Farms

            Mr. Petty stated this was discussed at the last meeting and you asked staff to hold off until we received payment.  The check has been received, but it has not cleared.  We are waiting for them to verify fund availability.

            Mr. Doody stated they made the check payable to my law firm.  I will issue a check to the Pine Tree Water Control District.

            Mr. Rosenof asked what is the next step?

            Mr. Petty responded the Board is awaiting further consideration or expending any other time on the matter until we recover our cost to date.

            Mr. Rosenof stated there were a couple of other conditions if I remember correctly.

            Mr. Petty stated there were other concerns which were expressed.  The first one was to recover the cost we told them about in the past.  We will ask for monies to be deposited with the District before any future work takes place.

            Mr. Rosenof asked were the payments we received for the engineer’s work as well?

            Mr. Craven responded I did not charge anything.

            Mr. Rosenof stated there are no engineering fees to date.  Is there anything else to discuss at this point?

            Mr. Petty responded no sir. 

            Mr. Rosenof asked are there any questions or comments?

            Ms. Ribotsky asked what are our next steps?  Are we just waiting for the check to clear?

            Mr. Petty responded we will be talking to the Board at the next meeting about going further or stopping consideration.  If they want to go forward and they are capable of putting some money in the account for us to work with, the Board is willing to consider working on the matter.

            Mr. Rosenof asked are there any more comments or questions?

            There not being any, the next item followed.

 

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                          Discussion of Management Services Proposals

            Mr. Doody stated I handed out a copy of the request for qualifications and proposals which I put together.  I would like to draw your attention to pages three and four to seek your direction as to the timeframe.  If this is acceptable to you, I will mail or email this contacting the individuals identified on the front page and asking them to submit proposals with the information requested.  I set March 10, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. as the deadline for any questions.  March 24, 2006 at 3:00 p.m. is the deadline for submission of all proposals.  I left the months of June and July for interviews.  I identified the meetings in April and May for you to review proposals submitted.  August and September gives you leeway to make a selection with the idea that the management services will be situated to commence on October 1, 2006, which is the beginning of the fiscal year.  This is my way of making it convenient to you unless you have another idea.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I would give them another week in the beginning to reply.  It is going to be March 3, 2006 already.  Someone might be too busy to reply.  You have to give them a minimum of 10 business days.  As long as we have them by April 5, 2006 we are okay.

            Mr. Doody stated they need to get them in to make them part of your agenda. 

            Mr. Petty stated the agenda goes out one week before.  We can send them out under separate cover.

            Mr. Doody asked would you like it to be the Friday closest to April 1, 2006?  It will give them a whole week. 

            Ms. Ribotsky responded let us give them until March 10, 2006.

            Mr. Doody stated March 10, 2006 is the deadline for questions.  They have until March 24, 2006 to submit proposals.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I am sorry.  I misunderstood. 

            Mr. Doody stated I am giving them until March 24, 2006 for their written response.  I can extend it.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated no, that is fine.

            Mr. Rosenof asked what do you think about the list?  Is there anyone you do not feel is qualified?

            Mr. Petty responded I am pleased to see and surprised to see Mr. Rosenbaum’s name.  I have worked with him.  I have enjoyed him.  He is very intelligent and his company is well learned.  I have not seen him involved in special districts in the past, but the man has good credentials in municipal government.  I believe he was involved with the City of Davie on very innovative ideas. 

            Ms. Ribotsky stated he was the City Manager of Davie and I believe he is the Assistant Dean to Public Administration at Nova.  He has this as well. 

            Mr. Rosenof asked do you think it will preclude him from doing an effective job?

            Ms. Ribotsky responded no.  Sometimes there are effective managing partners.  He was very well respected in Davie.

            Mr. Petty stated it would not hurt to see either.

            Ms. Bertolami stated I would not pull him out.  We will see when he submits his background.  He might also want to affiliate with someone.

            Mr. Petty stated Mr. Pimental has 20 to 25 years experience in Palm Beach County and in Dade.  Most of his experience is in Palm Beach, but he is a knowledgeable man in special districts.  He ran the North Palm Beach County Water Control District for 22 years as their District Administrator.  Mr. Wrathell was also from our firm.  He is very well experienced.  He was the City Manager of Marathon for its first two and a half years when we had them under contract.  He managed 35 districts for us before he left.

            Mr. Rosenof asked do we need to put selection criteria in the RFP?

            Mr. Doody asked are you going to award points?

            Mr. Rosenof responded I am not prepared to say how we are going to award it yet.  Are we going to need to outline it on the RFP?

            Mr. Doody responded no.

            Mr. Rosenof asked when they submit a proposal, do we have to give them a criteria by which we are going to choose or can we make it subjective?

            Mr. Doody responded you can make it completely subjective.  It does not have to be ethical in nature.  It can be.  I try to shy away from it.  Based on personal experience, I have never been impressed with that system.  It is subject to internal pressures.  Whomever you can collectively agree on, it is your choice based on the information provided to you. 

            Ms. Benckenstein stated in some ways it will help you with litigation if someone challenges it.

            Mr. Rosenof asked challenge in what way?  I have seen them challenge subjective criteria.

            Ms. Benckenstein responded from a litigation standpoint, it is easier to defend the subjective method.

            Mr. Doody stated I would rather defend you in a discretion area.  They have to prove you abused your discretion as opposed to you failing to meet your own criteria.  Mr. Rosenof stated I would rather it be subjective.  I want to make sure we are not in any trouble legally. 

            Mr. Doody stated there are no specifics in a special act or any subsequent legislation.  You are exercising your authority as the Board of Supervisors.

            Mr. Rosenof asked are there any other questions or comments?

            Ms. Ribotsky asked are we going to advertise this as well?  Do we have to legally advertise it?

            Mr. Petty responded the Board’s indication is for it to be by invitation.  You can ask for a wider spread if you would like, but I believe we have been instructed to do this by invitation.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I would rather keep it short and sweet with people who are qualified.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I did not know if there was an obligation.

            Mr. Doody stated you have code requirements in the statute.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated but there is no statute.

            Mr. Doody stated that is correct.  You may want to prolong the process.

            Mr. Rosenof stated this is not like bidding for chemicals.  There are only a certain number of people who can do this.  Do we need a motion for this?

            Mr. Doody responded no.  A consensus is enough to proceed if the schedule is satisfactory.  Are there any changes to the schedule?

            Mr. Rosenof responded it is fine the way it is.

 

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                               Staff Reports

A.            Attorney

            There being no report, the next item followed.

B.            Engineer

            Mr. Craven stated I have a couple of things.  Since the last meeting I have spoken to Craven, Thompson & Associates regarding their capabilities in regard to the FEMA application.  I talked to CH2M Hill and they gave Craven, Thompson & Associates a proposal to be a sub consultant.  I do not know if there was a problem with the proposal, but there was a question as to whose agreement they were going to use as a sub consultant.  If we want to accomplish anything, I suggest the Board enter into an agreement with CH2M Hill to do whatever work is necessary in preparing the application for the tree and debris removal from the canal. 

            Mr. Petty stated we also would like to see CH2M Hill involved in this action.  We worked with our representative Mr. Craven who has been diligent in this matter.  The difficulty has been in his former company.  Their bureaucracy is such right now that I believe they have other matters gaining priority and our topics at PTWCD did not gain their attention. 

            CH2M Hill is prepared.  CH2M Hill has submitted an application to NRCS, which is the federal government we will be funding for.  They have submitted it on our behalf.  If we are going to pull any trees out and hope to get funding from the federal government’s program, this is what we also propose.  Otherwise, I do not believe we will be able to get anything back because the proposal will have to be done by the new entity.  I do not know if they are going to be able to do it in time.

            Mr. Rosenof asked do you need direction or consensus from us?

            Mr. Petty responded we are looking for direction.  We need a motion and a second to award the hurricane clean up work to CH2M Hill at a not to exceed number.  Mr. McKune, do you have a number we can use?

            Mr. McKune responded the number we put in the proposal is $25,000 per month.  If we send the crews out to do a great deal of things, we will bill you on an hourly basis.

            Mr. Petty stated it will be based on generally acceptable engineering values.  They have to be competitive with everyone else.

            Mr. Rosenof asked where is this money coming from?

            Mr. Petty responded from whatever capital we can raise.

            Mr. Rosenof asked how will we raise capital?

            Mr. Petty responded for the short term we are going to be able to handle his billing from our general fund.  If the clean up costs are from $100,000 to $300,000, we will recommend to you an appropriate line of credit.

            Mr. Rosenof asked will it be reimbursed by assessments or by the federal government?

            Mr. Petty responded it will hopefully be repaid by whatever we get from the federal government in contributions and through assessments.  We will undertake the work with the understanding it will be paid through assessments.  The federal government funding is considered more of a grant than a subsidy.

            Mr. Rosenof asked will the subsidy cover CH2M Hill’s work?

            Mr. Petty responded that is the retrievable number.  It is subject to money availability and meeting the requirements of reimbursable material.  It has to be in a flow way for it to be 100% reimbursable.  There are some side notes you can put in there.  The engineer has to be related to it and it has to be in an area the District either owns or has an easement over for drainage.  It is an issue we wish to talk more about.  At the last meeting we discussed getting the District’s ownerships and easements down on paper because of this issue.  The NRCS application has been submitted on your behalf by CH2M Hill to go evaluate this, put our bids together and get a contractor to bid on it.  It is something we would like to expedite.

            Mr. Rosenof asked do we need any guidelines from CH2M Hill?

            Mr. Petty responded not if it is only for the hurricane clean up because we would be hiring him under the criteria of hurricane clean up and not as the District’s engineer.  If you were trying to hire a new District Engineer, it is a new can of worms.  We are not trying to go there.  We are trying to hire someone who can do an oversight of the hurricane clean up application to NRCS.

            Mr. Rosenof asked can we do the work subject to minimum wages?

            Mr. McKune responded no.

            Mr. Rosenof asked why not?

            Mr. McKune responded it is not that type of project.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I thought it is for any federally funded project.

            Mr. Petty stated this will not be federally funded.  It will be reimbursed at a later date.

            Mr. Craven stated it is not like you are using federal funds to do the project.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I want to make sure when we put the RFP out they understand this.

            Mr. Petty stated it is not federally funded.  The money is not up front.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I do not want to run the risk of not being reimbursed for not abiding by all of the federal procurement guidelines.

            Mr. McKune stated it would not abide here because the NRCS has specific criteria and we have adhered to those putting the documents together for CSID, Sunshine and NSID.

            Mr. Petty stated we are going to use NRCS as a federal guideline in the compliance factor.

            Mr. Rosenof stated my concern is we do not put ourselves in jeopardy of not being reimbursed by not abiding by official guidelines.

            Ms. Ribotsky asked can you give me an idea of the timing?  I walked over there the other day and you can see it is getting worse.

            Mr. Petty responded I wish I could.  The issue is going to be the specifications can be written under some general parameters, but as Mr. Craven told you at the last meeting the issue is going to be what easements do we feel comfortable with doing the work in which we believe have been clearly dedicated to the District.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated let me know if you need the City of Parkland to assist in getting any right-of-way entries.  You want to go out, get an assessment and say this is where we would like to do our work from.  You can give me a list and I can make sure it gets expedited because there are people who are climbing across these branches on canals.  They are using them as monkey bars.

            Mr. Craven stated there is a requirement from NRCS.  There is an affidavit, which has to be certified by the District’s Attorney as it relates to the right-of-way.  Without going into details, he has to say we have the right-of-way.  The situation with the canal we are talking about is it was deeded to Broward County in 1972.  It is not part of those plats.  It was deeded for specific drainage purposes.  As far as I know, the right-of-way is still deeded as part of Broward County.  Some years ago they took to all of these districts for various right-of-ways.  I am not sure if this was included in that.  I should be able to find out tomorrow and I will give it to Mr. Doody.  He is going to have to see whether we have access to the right-of-way.  We do have a definite access problem because there is no platted access to the canal and we do need to have access. 

            Ms. Ribotsky asked may I make a suggestion?  Rather than going through that process, the people living there are so eager to get this done, you might be better off picking two houses and draw up a document for them to sign off on.  It might be easier than doing all the research.  If the research takes a month to figure out where the potential right-of-ways might be and then they are still not acceptable, we are going to have to go back to the homeowner’s to ask for the right-of-ways.

            Mr. Doody stated there are two different things.  Mr. Craven just handed me this application and a copy of the deed which conveyed the canal area to the county in 1972.  I have to get a title update based on this legal description.  Then I can attest that Pine Tree has required me to assign where you have to do the work.  The access issue is separate from that. 

            Ms. Ribotsky stated we have to work on both of them at the same time because I do not want one to be conditional on the other.

            Mr. Doody stated we have done it before.  It is not unusual.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated the title search can be done tomorrow.

            Mr. Doody stated it can be initiated, but it will be a week or two based on all of the mates and bounds.

            Mr. Petty stated part of the reason for us wanting to contract CH2M Hill is to define the scope of work involved, which will include access.  I can tell you the people bidding on this job will be required to go through whatever access we have available to us.  Access is always an issue and contractors understand they will need special equipment.  Several of the contractors who bid on CSID had barges which are installed by a crane.  We will do a right of entry form.  We will do our own access first.  If we have to go on private property, we welcome the City of Parkland.  The right of entry form they use is what we will suggest our contractor use within city limits.

            Mr. Rosenof asked is there an advantage to doing this work in conjunction with the City of Parkland?

            Mr. Petty responded not as far as getting money back to the District from federal grants available or the NRCS.  It has to be done a certain way.  We are in the top 10% of people who applied.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated you have a good point I did not think about.  While the swales are different, the ditches which run into the canals have the same exact problem.  You might be able to piggy back on bids the City of Parkland is going out for.

            Mr. Rosenof stated Mr. Petty is saying they are two different funding sources.  Is it not under two different applications?

            Mr. Petty responded it is under two different applications.  What we are hearing as a suggestion is instead of writing two new business specifications, we can piggy back the City of Parkland or possibly use the contractor there.  I recommend you wait to see the scope first.  All the bid specifications for our other districts to date have been lump sum and not per item.  The prices we received are lower than anyone else anywhere.  The process CH2M Hill has been going through for the last three months with NRCS has proven to be the best one since we have been working with NRCS in all of our drainage districts.

            Ms. Ribotsky asked do you know what this bid is going to be?

            Mr. Petty responded ours was $1.88 Million for one district.  We expect the next one to be closer to $3 Million.  We expect this one to be up there.  You need to know the scope before you start allowing contracts.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I understand, but if they are going to be bidding and contracting, there timing might be better than ours.

            Mr. Petty stated it is something to consider once you see the scope.

            Mr. Rosenof stated when you piggy back you get a great deal of contractors interested.  You might get a larger and better equipped contractor interested in a $10 Million job than a $500,000 job.

            Mr. Petty stated I can assure you we have the interest of the biggest contractors.  Arbor Tree just took the CSID bid.  They did 50% of clean up for the City of Coral Springs.  They want our contract as the low bidder.  We are getting the biggest ones.  I believe we had 20 different contractors pull proposals.  We had submittals from either 10 or 11.  We are the drainage districts here.  Everyone is focusing on the four districts in Coral Springs and Parkland.  PTWCD is one of them.

            Mr. Rosenof asked is there anything else in the engineer’s report?

            Mr. Craven responded we discussed the necessity of getting our records up to date.  We are acquiring information and will likely have a proposal of how to do it by the next meeting.

 

C.            Manager

            Mr. Petty stated the only thing I have to bring to your attention is the possibility of the down tree situation we just discussed and the time period between doing scope, bid specifications, bid and award.  It is possible we can have spot problems which need immediate attention.  I am looking for allowance from the Board to address this in a format you feel comfortable with.  There are going to be places I will be concerned with during rainy periods.  Because we are looking at a period of time which is going to put me through a possible rain event, I am asking this Board for leeway in picking a contractor and clearing it up on an as need basis. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated I do not have a problem with giving you a fund to do this on an emergency basis.  Do you know how much you will need.

            Mr. Petty responded I suspect I will be working with $10,000 or less for a specific emergency.  I do not know if I will be working with a singular one.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I am all for $25,000.  I would like someone to look and tell us what will happen if 10 inches of rain falls.  There might be immediate danger.

            Mr. Rosenof stated Mr. Frederick will likely be the one to do this because he is in the field.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated you have to walk out there one day.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I know.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated there is a canal bank.  It is vertical going down on a drop which is this far of a walking path.

            Mr. Craven stated I understand your concern.  You need to get permission.  We are going to be in a bind and we are going to be limited in reshaping any banks.

            Ms. Ribotsky asked is there anything we should consider using such as orange fencing because it is open?

            Mr. Petty responded working with the banks is outside our ownership or easement.  Until they get a definition otherwise, it will be inappropriate.  We believe most of our area is water without bank.

            Mr. Craven stated the 80 foot canal was excavated from right-of-way line to right-of-way line.

            Mr. Petty stated we are dealing with private property on bank erosion.  Is there a concern on Mr. Frederick’s first inspection to make a condition that it has to be signed off by the engineer?  Mr. Frederick has expertise.

            Mr. Rosenof responded I suggest we act to his discretion.  Do we need a motion from the Board?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.

 

On MOTION by Ms. Ribotsky seconded by Mr. Rosenof with all in favor staff was authorized to use money from the reserve fund at an amount not to exceed $25,000 for removal of debris within the District before receiving funding from the NRCS as they deem necessary.

 

            Mr. Craven stated one of the items I did not address was the comments about the trees down on private property.  Due to the nature of right-of-ways we have, the Board should look at the problem we have regarding growth on private property encroaching on the canal. 

            Mr. Petty stated I agree.  I believe it falls back to Ms. Ribotsky’s direction to staff to talk with the City of Parkland and try to come to a consensus on what our responsibilities are.  Once we have the hurricane clean up done we can sit down to discuss regular work.  Working with the City of Parkland and the City of Coral Springs on the control of proper drainage is something we have to do.  We have no control over private property.  The cities have ordinances for the protection of health, safety and welfare where the partnership will be helpful. 

            A resident stated some of the banks are such that it is aesthetic to have growth there.

            Mr. Rosenof stated it can be appropriate growth as opposed to the Australian Pines on the banks.  It will be a great educational tool for people living along the bank to tell them what to plant.

            Mr. Petty stated the stabilizing effect is well taken.

            Mr. Rosenof stated it might be a good suggestion we can give to our homeowners.  If you live on a bank, we suggest you plant this.

            Mr. Petty stated this is the type of thing we would like to work out with the city.  Education is great, but enforcement is the end all.  I would like to introduce Ms. Larned.  She is the Treasury Officer for Severn Trent.  She is our financial expert.  When speaking of how we should address a large construction program, Ms. Larned developed a commercial line of credit for all the districts at a competitive rate with hardly any closing costs with Suntrust Bank.  We have come to rely on her a great deal.  Financially, she can hold her own.  Ms. Larned, this is the Board of Pine Tree.

            Mr. Rosenof asked are we done with the engineer?

            Mr. Craven responded yes.

            Mr. Rosenof stated we will move on to the manager.

            Mr. Petty stated we have nothing further to bring to your attention.

 

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                              Supervisor’s Request and Audience Comments

            Mr. Rosenof stated we had a meeting at a Pine Tree subdivision.  We did a state of the union type of address about Pine Tree.  It was rather spirited. 

            Ms. Ribotsky stated that is the best word I heard for it.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I was able to tap dance my way through most of the questions, but there are a few things I would like you to address in writing so I can make sure they get forwarded to the residents in Pine Tree.  It was a good meeting because Pine Tree is one of the few developments in Parkland, which is not represented by an HOA.  Speaking as a Pine Tree resident we do not want it this way.  It was good to hear their issues which are unique to Pine Tree.  One of the things which came up was hurricane clean up.  I understand how long it is going to take and I understand how arduous the process is, but I would like a timeline to give to everyone.  Emergency repairs in this time period, RFP in this time period, construction in this time period and who to call if you feel you have a life safety issue.

            Mr. Petty stated I can give you a timeline at the next meeting.  I feel I can count on Mr. McKune to give me the information by then. 

            Ms. Ribotsky stated you might want it before then in order to prepare it and pass out to everyone at the next meeting.  You might want to check with the city clerk.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I can do it independently by email.

            Ms. Ribotsky asked to all of Pine Tree?

            Mr. Rosenof responded yes.  If you can do it in two weeks to give to the city clerk, it will be great.

            Mr. Petty stated we would like to present it to the Board.  We hate to send anything out without the Board seeing it.

            Mr. Rosenof stated the other issue we discussed was preemption of the next hurricane and what we are proactively doing to deal with the next hurricane.

            Mr. Petty stated we recommended to our other districts in Coral Springs and Parkland that any tree on our property should be removed.  In our other districts we have right-of-ways which go anywhere to 20 feet after a bank.  We do not have it here.  We are in water here.  We are not going to have much of a chance to do preemptive removal. 

            Mr. Rosenof asked can Mr. Frederick go down the canal to see what is going to be a problem and send a letter to the homeowner saying we cannot make them do it, but we strongly recommend cutting these trees down?

            Mr. Petty responded yes sir.  This is what we were talking about in regard to a partnership with the city as well as coming up with a solid approach to urging homeowners to take control of the situation from their private properties.  We can do this and build a program on it.  Let me write it down for you. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated the last issue was interesting because everyone in Pine Tree has a well.  Do we test the water in the canals?

            Mr. Craven responded no.

            Mr. Rosenof asked should we be testing the water in the canals to see if it might have a negative affect on our drinking water someday?

            Mr. Petty responded I will defer to our engineer.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I believe Broward County does it.

            Mr. Rosenof asked the storm water?

            Mr. Petty responded South Florida Water Management District does. 

            Mr. Doody stated you should not be making any representations.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I would like to tell the residents why we are not doing it.

            Mr. Doody stated you do not have the authority.  You are a drainage district.

            Mr. Rosenof asked who does and if someone is concerned who do they talk to?

            Mr. Craven responded the health department.

            Ms. Rosenof stated call Mr. Archer.

            Mr. Petty stated water management districts are concerned with nutrient removal.  Drainage districts are concerned with water removal.  We are a drainage district.  We move the water.  The South Florida Water Management District is not only concerned with moving water around, but also in the nutrient loading and pollution effect.  They are responsible for getting those criteria.  There is nothing about our flow ways which has anything to do with removing nutrient load from decomposing natural material, from fertilizer run off or any other means.  We are not the appropriate agency to be monitoring it.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I am not suggesting we are.  I did not have the answer and it frustrated me.

            Mr. Petty stated South Florida Water Management District is the appropriate agency.

            Mr. Rosenof stated that is all I had from the Pine Tree state of the union.  Another question I have is an open issue.  For several months we have been discussing trying to formalize many of the maintenance agreements which no one is sure about.  We need a plan put together on how we are going to tackle this. 

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I believe Mr. Doody and Mr. Frederick are working on it.

            Mr. Petty stated I am going to respectfully disagree.  It was part of the summit we were supposed to have with the City of Parkland and Coral Springs to determine who had responsibility for what.  The hurricane cleared up some of the issues, but we need to sit down with these entities to discuss the viability of continuing in the manner we have been. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated I would like to look at each maintenance agreement on an individual basis because it makes sense for us to do it.  If it does, let us get it in writing. 

            Ms. Ribotsky stated we do not have one.

            Mr. Petty stated we do not have one at this time. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated we need to figure out what we are doing and then formalize. 

            Mr. Petty stated I can bring you all of the agreements the District has done in the last several years. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated I am worried about the ones we do not have. 

            Mr. Petty stated these are ones which have fallen out due to lack of response from one party or another.  I do not know of any agreement we are currently doing with anyone for mowing. 

            Mr. Craven stated not for mowing.  For over a period of time we have accepted waterways from various HOAs where we have access and we have maintained the waterways. 

            Mr. Rosenof asked are you saying we are not doing any maintenance within the District without an agreement?

            Mr. Craven responded no.

            Mr. Petty stated I do not have an extraordinary maintenance program through an agreement process with anyone at this time.  We have agreements which have allowed access to our canal in certain areas, but I do not have an agreement to mow anyone’s grass or to monitor any private lakes. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated but you are doing it.  That is what I am trying to get to.

            Mr. Petty stated no sir. 

            Ms. Ribotsky asked what about the swales you said you were mowing for years?

            Mr. Rosenof responded that is where my concern came about.

            Mr. Petty stated we started out with an agreement because of the fee structure.  It stopped.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated there is no fee.  That was one of the issues, but we were also worried about liability.

            Mr. Petty stated we are not mowing at this time.  I believe it was reversed.  Mr. Frederick’s presentation may have been misinterpreted.

            Mr. Rosenof stated I have been hearing from people the mowing stopped along the bank of the back of Pine Tree.  People are concerned because no one has been doing it. 

            Mr. Petty stated let me bring Mr. Frederick in and he can give us the history. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated the goal is we are not doing anything without an agreement. 

            Mr. Doody stated I do not know what, from a legal standpoint, you are referring to that we will maintain.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated a long time ago someone was asking because they had a problem in the swale.  The water level was going up in the swale.  The mowing could not happen.  Mr. Frederick said some time ago the City of Parkland asked us to do it and we started doing it out of good faith.  We do not have any handshake agreement.  The attorney went into a level of responsibility.  Who is doing what where? Who is responsible for what when?  I thought it was in process.

            Mr. Doody stated I did have a discussion with Mr. Frederick on it.  As a result the mowing has stopped. 

            Mr. Craven stated back in the beginning Parkland built the swales and put grass on top of them to stabilize.  They did not have a mower and the grass grew.  We started to mow them.  It was the poorest judgment we ever made. 

            Mr. Doody asked is it in the PTWCD right-of-way?

            Mr. Craven responded no.  It is a private easement.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated I would have liked it if someone formally told us the mowing was going to stop.  If I lived there and all of a sudden the mowing stopped, someone should have given me a letter saying it was being done incorrectly and it is my responsibility.  As a result, there may be negligence there.  Someone might be waiting for a mower to come.

            Mr. Craven stated in the beginning it was not a problem because the number of houses was limited. 

            Ms. Ribotsky asked can we check with Mr. Frederick on what the status is, when it stopped and can you send me an email so I know?

            Mr. Petty responded I will be glad to.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated it was casual.  He did it whenever he had a chance.

            Ms. Bertolami stated there was one person we had to give a code enforcement violation to because he built a fence in the middle of the swale. 

            Mr. Craven stated when you get into the rainy season the swale stays wet longer.

            Mr. Petty stated after the hurricane the swales were full of trees and the City of Parkland thought we maintained it because of this mowing deal which happened so long ago. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated we are coming full circle to why I want to make sure if we maintain it.

            Mr. Petty stated we will look into it. 

            Mr. Craven stated I did not mean to confuse anyone.  I am talking about the area south of the Sawgrass Expressway in Coral Creek.  We have flowage ways in the lakes down there and we do not have specific right-of-ways within the lake area.  We have access to those and we maintain the lakes. 

            Mr. Rosenof stated I remember something like it.  Thank you for filling in the details.  Are there any other Supervisor comments?

            Mr. Brewer asked why do we have an engineering firm that cannot represent us? 

            Mr. Craven responded do not ask me.  I just work for them as a consultant. 

            Mr. Brewer asked why do we have to go to an outside consultant if we are supposed to have one on staff?

            Ms. Ribotsky stated if they cannot handle the capacity during a crisis, there is a concern. 

            Mr. Brewer stated it concerns me.

            Ms. Ribotsky asked has it appeared to affect our progress?

            Mr. Petty responded it has.  Mr. Craven is irreplaceable.  His old firm is not.  You have addressed the situation to the best of your ability.  Now you can exert due diligence on further consideration of this matter.

            Mr. Rosenof asked is CH2M Hill the engineer for NSID?

            Mr. Petty responded yes sir.  Mr. Craven and Mr. McKune are two of the oldest and most respected engineers in the area. 

            Mr. Brewer stated I am not sure we need a consultant on staff as much as we might need an engineer like Mr. Craven to consult us.  When we do have a crisis we can go to an outside consultant as we have done here.  I do not know how the rest of the Board feels.

            Mr. Rosenof asked what other work does Craven, Thompson & Associates do?

            Mr. Craven asked for this District?

            Mr. Rosenof responded yes. 

            Mr. Craven stated in the last two years, nothing. 

            Mr. Brewer stated I do not think PTWCD is in a major design criteria area.  It is a system we are maintaining.  Are we looking for an engineering firm for anything other than issues such as hurricane clean up?

            Mr. Rosenof asked are you an employee of Craven, Thompson & Associates or are you a consultant to them?

            Mr. Craven responded a consultant.

            Mr. Rosenof stated it makes it easier.  Does the Board want to take action on this tonight or give direction to management?

            Ms. Ribotsky asked can we have someone explain the situation to us?

            Mr. Brewer responded I have the impression they may want out.

            Ms. Ribotsky stated let us call them and tell them we would like them to come to our next meeting to discuss what happened.

            Mr. Petty stated I will be glad to send a letter.  I  had to send them a formal letter to get them to acknowledge the issue of a subcontract offer from CH2M Hill.

            Mr. Rosenof asked what is our formal agreement with Craven, Thompson & Associates?

            Mr. Petty responded they serve at the privilege of this Board.  Mr. Craven substantiates the pay. 

            Mr. Rosenof asked if Mr. Craven is agreeable to it, can we make him our consultant and stop paying Craven, Thompson & Associates?

            Mr. Petty responded I will defer to counsel because there is a statutory requirement for an engineer for a district and a selection process.

            Mr. Doody stated there is a statute which requires you to have an engineer.  Is there a written contract?

            Mr. Craven responded to the best of my knowledge, no.

            Mr. Doody stated I suggest you put it on the agenda for discussion at the next meeting and I can advise you legally as to your options.

            Mr. Craven stated the District might want to check their records and see if they have a written contract.

            Mr. Rosenof asked are there any other Supervisor requests?

            Mr. Brewer responded I was at your meeting the other night.  Did you feel there was a great deal of concern when the meeting was over or during the meeting of who is going to take care of the easements in the backyards?  We kept on saying we did not believe Pine Tree was going to do it and we did not feel Parkland was going to do it. 

            Mr. Rosenof responded I believe Mr. DaBrusco and Mr. Lauzier made a strong case about what the process was to clean up the individual swales.  I was looking for more of a definition from staff of what we are going to do with our canals.  A big part of the meeting was peoples’ concern with their drainage, why it was not preemptively kept clean and why it is taking so long for them to get cleaned out. 

            Mr. Brewer stated because of money.

            Mr. Rosenof stated that is why I am emphatic about staff giving us a timeframe.  If you know you have an issue, at least you know government is working for you.  It is working slow, but at least you know it is working for you.  A great deal of these people are looking at the same branches over their canals for six months.  It is important we keep them informed. 

 

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                        Approval of Invoices

            There being no questions or comments,

 

On MOTION by Mr. Brewer seconded by Ms. Ribotsky with all in favor the invoices were approved.

 

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                           Adjournment  

            There being no further business,

 

On MOTION by Ms. Ribotsky seconded by Mr. Brewer with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.

 

 

 

 

                                                                   

 Paul Brewer                                                                   David Rosenof

 Secretary                                                                        President


Agenda Items for Next Meeting:

 

  • Discussion of Butler Farms
  • Discussion of Engineer Services