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, August 5, 2010 at 6:05 p.m. at the Parkland City Hall, 6600 North University Drive, Parkland, Florida.

 

            Present and constituting a quorum were:

           

            Paul Brewer                                                    President

            Donna McCann Benckenstein                        Secretary

            Donald Eckler                                                 Assistant Secretary

            Neil Study                                                       Supervisor

             

            Also present were:

           

            Kenneth Cassel                                               Manager

            D.J. Doody                                                     Attorney

            Warren Craven, Jr.                                          Engineer

            Randy Frederick                                             Drainage Supervisor

                                                                                                                                                           

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 May 6, 2010 Meeting

            Mr. Cassel stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the May 6, 2010 meeting and requested any changes, additions or deletions.

            There not being any,

           

           

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS                            Audience Comments

            There not being any, the next item followed.

 

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                        Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of the Budget for Fiscal Year 2011 (Resolution 2010-4) and Levy of Non Ad Valorem Assessments (Resolution 2010-5)

            Mr. Cassel stated I open the public hearing.  Seeing there is no public for the public hearing a motion is in order to close the public hearing. 

           

            Mr. Cassel stated the next item on the agenda is the consideration of the budget and it starts with Resolution 2010-4.  Does the Board have any questions regarding the budget?

            The record will reflect Ms. Benckenstein joined the meeting at approximately 6:08 p.m.

            Mr. Eckler stated if you can work within this budget that is great.

            Mr. Cassel stated we kept the assessments flat from last year to this year.  We arranged some dollars from our property search to maintenance issues and items. 

            Mr. Eckler asked does the property appraiser’s office give us the evaluation number and lot?  Are we going by lot?

            Mr. Cassel responded our assessment is based per acre.  Every unit is a percentage of an acre; whether it is an acre, 1.25, .75 or .2, right down to the condominiums and townhouses.  They are calculated out to a percentage of an acre. 

            Mr. Eckler stated so if you have 25 acres and there are 50 condominiums, it is a half an acre per unit.

            Mr. Cassel stated yes.  Are there any other questions?

            There not being any,

 

 

            Mr. Cassel the next item is Resolution 2010-5.  Since you have adopted the budget, this is the resolution which levies the assessment and puts it on the property bill.

            Mr. Study asked what are the fill in numbers?

            Mr. Cassel responded the assessment per acre is $209.14 and the total budget number is $428,000.  Are there any other questions regarding the resolution?

            Mr. Doody asked can you have a motion to incorporate into the resolution the recommendation of the District manager that the assessment per acre is $209.14 and the total budget will amount to $428,000?

 

 

            Mr. Doody stated now we need a resolution to adopt Resolution 2010-5 as amended.

 

 

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                             Manager’s Report

            A.        Meeting Schedule for Fiscal Year 2011

            Mr. Cassel stated the next item is the meeting schedule for the next fiscal year.  As you all know we advertise once for a meeting every month.  Anytime we do not have anything pertinent to the District we do not need to spend time and money.  It is less expensive for us to advertise once a year and put them all in at one time then to advertise them each time we meet.  Does anyone have any conflicts or issues with the dates proposed?  It is basically the same.  It is the first Thursday of each month.

 

 

            B.        Correspondence from the City of Parkland Regarding 6010 NW 67^th Court

            Mr. Cassel stated I received a letter from the City of Parkland.  There was an individual who was questioning the chemicals we are using in the canals to treat algae and other things.  He asked for a copy of the product safety data sheet.  It is a hazardous chemical in concentrate form, but in the dilution ration we are at you can use it up to a one and use it in surface water for drinking, swimming and fishing.  Our dilution rate is down at .6.  We are well under it.  Just to be safe I had Mr. Frederick take a water sample of the canal next to the individual’s house.  We had it tested for 39 or 40 different chemicals as well as Captan.  The only thing they really found in there was nitrogen.  They did not find anything else.  It was all below the detectable limits.  We are satisfied that our application rates and utilization of the products are well within the standards.  I do not know what his problem is.  He had one dog which got a disease.  He has another dog now, which is the same breed, having the same issue.  He thinks it is the water; from what we can say it is not anything we are doing. 

            Mr. Study asked do you know what the breed is?

            Mr. Cassel responded he mentioned it, but I am not familiar with it. 

            Mr. Eckler asked could it be possible they went swimming after an application and would it have made any difference even if they had?

            Mr. Cassel responded even if they had; you can use a dilution rate of one in an application and use it for swimming and fishing right after. 

            Mr. Study stated you are using this in other sections of the District without any problems.

            Mr. Frederick stated we have been using this ever since I have been working here for over 30 years, or a variation of this chemical.  We never had a problem.

            Mr. Cassel stated we use it here and in CSID.  NSID uses it as well as SWCD.  I cannot see it being related to this.

            Mr. Eckler stated copper is the main ingredient and it does not show up.

            Mr. Cassel stated it does not show up.  I have not communicated back to him.  He has not called me back, but I will communicate I have the test results.

            Mr. Brewer stated carbon copy the city with Mr. Archer.  They became involved in it a little bit.

            Mr. Cassel stated yes.  He originally went to the city and Mr. Archer brought it to my attention. 

            Mr. Frederick stated the resident says he has not been notified in the past several years.  We do not notify if there are no restrictions.  If he wants notification every time we are putting something in the canal, we can certainly do that if it will make him happy.

            Mr. Eckler stated maybe you can put a hanger on this door. 

            Mr. Frederick stated I am sure anytime something goes wrong he is going to blame us for it.

            Mr. Study asked did we use it to put a notification on a sign?

            Mr. Frederick responded he said we did.  We do that for certain chemicals, but lately all we have been putting in there is an algaecide and a Gly Pho-Sel to kill the grass.  In the past there might have been some chemicals put in which required some kind of posting at the time.  These labels change all of the time.  Some labels in the past required posting and some labels now say you do not have to post.

            Mr. Study stated the only reason I bring it up is because I owned some property in The Ranches at one time and I saw those signs as those canals were being treated. 

            Mr. Frederick stated most of the times we put them up it is because they can do something to your shrubs.  It is really not a health problem.  It is something which can kill your shrubs because we are killing weeds. 

            Mr. Study asked how often do you spray?

            Mr. Cassel responded it is on an as needed basis.

            Mr. Frederick stated whenever we have a bad problem with algae we are going to spray.  It can be once a month or once every two months.  On an average we spray once a month.  We rarely spray it in the winter because algae do not form in the winter months.  Algae blooms when you get these months with 90 degree temperature days.  We try to keep it looking decent and keep the algae down as much as possible.  You will put more in during the summer months than during the winter months. 

            Mr. Cassel stated this was just a public awareness for you.  I will notify the resident and copy the city.

 

            C.        Consideration of Motion to Accept the Broward County Recorded Maintenance Map as One of the Base Documents to be Utilized by the District

            Mr. Cassel stated at the previous meeting we spoke about the maintenance map and accepting the maintenance map as a base document.  It is kind of the linchpin of being able to make the move of the land and the easements to the District so that in the event we do have a storm we can clear it and get reimbursed for it.  Mr. Craven, do you have anything else to add to this?

            Mr. Craven responded Mr. Brewer and I met with Broward County last month to get their opinion on it.  Their opinion is pretty much the same as it has been.  They filed the map.  They feel it gives them ownership to it.  They are willing to quit claim it to us.  As we discussed at our last meeting we do not necessarily want to take ownership of it.  My suggestion is we do a two step by accepting the quit claim deed from the county and at the same time quit claim it back to the adjacent property owners while preserving the easement we need.  The reason I suggest this is because if we took ownership of this, there is always the possibility the house now sitting on the lot will violate setbacks.  We already know there are some minor encroachments into the maintenance map, which do not really affect us, but I think if we approach it this way we can mitigate any unexpected fall out which may occur and still get what we need. 

            The other thing I researched is the property appraiser’s office still recognizes the entire lot as being owned by the lot owner.  They do not recognize the county’s ownership to that maintenance map.  My point is they have always been paying taxes on it.  It is not like they will be burdened with more taxes.  It is a very difficult situation.  I have been trying to come up with something which does not upset the apple cart.  This is the best I can come up with at this point in time.  Mr. Brewer was at the meeting.  I do not know if he has anything to add.

            Mr. Brewer stated no. 

            Ms. Benckenstein asked would they accept the quit claim?

            Mr. Craven responded I am sure they will if we explain the repercussions that if they do not own it, they can end up having problems with the city.

            Mr. Study asked what happens in those encroachment problems that already exist attorney wise on a resale?

            Mr. Doody responded I am sorry.

            Mr. Study stated there are some which have encroachment problems into this quit claim area or maintenance easement.  What happens if you as an outside attorney take a look and see that encroachment?

            Mr. Doody responded some may need a variance.  Let me expand upon this because the minutes reflect I was asked for a legal opinion.  I too contacted the county separately, but I spoke to the county attorney’s office.  To summarize it and clear this up, because we have been going back and forth since 2003, the usual suspects are still in the movie, if you will; Mr. Brewer, Mr. Huizinga, the county attorney I speak to, and myslelf.  We are not going to dislodge, if that is the proper legal term, the county from its position that they own it.  We need to make a request and ask them to deed to us the property; this is following their recommendation so we need to take the path of lease resistance.  They will quit claim it to us predicated on our request which is the property involved in what they call the East/West Pine Tree Water Management Maintenance Map.  This is miscellaneous map book five, page 11. 

            There is a hiccup in this process which has been outlined by Mr. Craven, but I am giving it some quick thought.  As a governmental entity you cannot just deed property to private owners without the benefit of assessment or whatever.  You are going to have arguably property which has some value.  I think the best approach to continue in this vain would be to declare it surplus property and at that point try to make sure the appropriate property owners apply for their portion of surplus property and we can deed to them what we do not need and retain what we think we do need for some public purpose.  To address Mr. Study’s position if there were title problems with the encroachments, we can develop a variance process where they can come to the District and obtain a variance for the encroachment into the maintenance easement. 

            Mr. Study stated each owner is going to have to tackle this problem themselves; either through a resale or do we put out a notice of our process so they are alerted to it. 

            Mr. Cassel stated we can do that.

            Mr. Eckler stated or individually contact each of the property owners.

            Mr. Doody asked how many property owners are we talking about?

            Mr. Craven responded we are talking about approximately 30 property owners. 

            Mr. Brewer asked is there any way to legally obtain it and convert it to an easement versus an ownership?  We do not really need to own it.

            Mr. Doody responded to get it out of the county there has to be a conveyance of an interest and property ownership interest.

            Mr. Brewer stated I argued with the county.  I did not think they owned it, but they threw me out one day. 

            Mr. Doody stated I am not even going in that direction to argue.  It is not going to change.

            Mr. Brewer asked if somebody quit claims it to us, can we at that point and time convert it from an ownership to an easement?

            Mr. Doody responded we can give it to the property owner and than back to us as an easement.

            Mr. Brewer stated then there would be no violations of setbacks.  If they tell me they do not want to give it back to us, then we have a problem. 

            Mr. Doody stated that is a condition of the conveyance or we can grant ourselves an easement.  In other words; our conveyance is subject to an easement. 

            Mr. Eckler asked would the conveyance we give to them give the easement as part of the conveyance and the variance for what is necessary or would that be something separate?

            Mr. Doody responded that would have to be something separate. 

            Mr. Brewer stated the hardest part you are going to have with this whole thing is they already think they own it. 

            Mr. Doody asked who is ‘they’?

            Mr. Brewer responded the homeowners and when you try to give someone something, they all get nervous.

            Mr. Doody stated I do not agree with it, but I will put on my municipal attorney’s hat.  The county does this to cities within this county all of the time.  All of a sudden you get copies of a bunch of quit claim deeds that they do not want.  They give you the property.  I am not really thrilled with it, but we can do the same thing.  We do not need their acquiescence to deed the property to them so we do not have to get into this debate.  We are doing them a favor whether they appreciate it or not.  We are cleaning up a title issue and retaining an easement.  We are going to have a stronger chain of title then the individual property owner.  They can debate the issue and I can talk to any lawyer who represents a property owner, but we are going to have the maintenance map as well as a chain from the county to the District.  It is just a logical progression; not that the law is always necessarily logical.  The fact is from a title standpoint, there always needs to be dots connected.  In this case I think the dots will be clearly connected because at the present time we cannot connect them. 

            Mr. Study asked if we go about it this way, eventually these homeowners are going to receive something in the mail and that is it?

            Mr. Doody responded yes.  We record them and then we send them a copy.  They can either say wow or what are you giving me.  All we are doing is getting a foothold in terms of legal easement which we do not have presently.  It does not necessarily sound like we might get it from the property owner or there might be people who will ask what the easement is worth to us. 

            Mr. Study asked how quickly can the county put this into action and how fast can we react thereafter?

            Mr. Brewer responded they are pretty receptive.  They just want to get it done. 

            Mr. Doody stated the county does not meet until September.  It will probably be September or October before we get it on the county agenda.  That is the process.  We have to make the request and they have to process it.  The county commission is off for August so we do not know when this will be slotted for an agenda consideration.  I am going to be conservative and say October so we can process this in either November or December. 

            Mr. Eckler asked do we then have to write up individual quit claims to each of these homeowners?

            Mr. Doody responded yes and Mr. Craven will have to go to work and we would have to figure it out.  We are just going to get this whole area.

            Mr. Craven stated I like the idea of getting the whole area, giving ourselves the easement over it and then we have time to give it back to the adjacent property owners.  We get what we need to deal with the DOT and to deal with our issues.

            Mr. Doody stated it will also have to come back to you as a resolution declaring certain property as surplus. 

            Mr. Eckler asked what are we talking about in terms of acreage?

            Mr. Craven responded I will calculate it and send it out to everyone.  It is approximately 50 feet by those lots.  What is the depth of those lots?

            Mr. Brewer responded 330 feet time 50.  You are talking about close to a mile in property.  There is no repercussion from us taking it from Broward County.  Once we get it ourselves we can sit here and say we have to go to work.

            Mr. Doody stated exactly.  Then we are able to control our own faith; otherwise, we will continue to talk in the same vain since we have from 2003.

            Mr. Brewer asked let us say we get it the first week of October, we get a storm at the end of October, can you at that point go to FEMA and say we own it?

            Mr. Doody responded I could.  I could then get a title company to certify they own it that I can rely upon because there is a quit claim deed.  There it goes to a logical chain of title.  If we do not, you are not getting my signature because I do think it is owned by the county.  I do not have any law to suggest otherwise.  You have people out there saying they are going to disagree.  They are going to disagree on individual property.

            Mr. Brewer asked would you feel comfortable saying to FEMA that we own it?

            Mr. Craven responded yes.

            Mr. Eckler asked once the county deeds it to us and we have not gotten rid of it back to the homeowners is there any additional liability responsibility on our part with where we are at today?

            Mr. Study responded only if there is a sale that exposes it.

            Mr. Brewer stated you cannot find it.

            Mr. Craven stated there is going to be a newly recorded quit claim deed and it is going to be easier to find. 

            Mr. Doody asked do you mean because of the encroachments or just ownership?

            Mr. Eckler responded not just that.  I meant people falling into the canal or whatever.

            Mr. Doody stated you still have control of it.  If someone were to fall in, someone might sue us and we will have to assert a sovereign immunity argument anyway. 

            Mr. Eckler stated so nothing additional.  How quickly do we need to move to get it to the homeowner so it is out of our jurisdiction, in that respect?  If it does not really matter, then if it takes six months, it takes six months.  Obviously we would rather get it done sooner than later. 

            Mr. Craven stated one thing we might want to think about before we give it to the adjacent homeowner is there are a couple of sections in that canal that have some issues right now.  It might make sense to go in and address those issues.  It might make sense to do a couple of minor fixes while we still retain ownership to it. 

            Mr. Doody stated if you have the easement, you can still do it.  That would be the purpose for the easement. 

            Mr. Eckler asked do we have the money for it?

            Mr. Cassel responded yes.  We basically took the extra we kept in the budget the last two years for solving this and put it under maintenance repairs.  You have funds to do some of the work we need to do.

            Mr. Doody stated this may be part of the consideration.  We have to come up with some consideration with all due respect.  We have to ensure we have some consideration flowing back to the District. 

            Mr. Brewer stated okay.

            Mr. Doody stated I will talk to the deputy county attorney and see what we need to do to process the request. 

            Mr. Cassel asked do we need a motion to accept it.

            Mr. Doody responded no.  I think we have a consensus to process the request.  I guess a motion to accept the map and initiate the process.

 

 

            Mr. Cassel stated I have one other item which is not on the agenda.  At the last meeting Ms. Zentefis was here regarding the property located on the north side and clearing it.  It brings me to your question about what was being cleared at 441 and the Sawgrass Expressway.  It appears FDOT is going through clearing land they have adjacent to any of their right-of-ways.  Mr. Craven is going to see if we can get them to clear the areas they own before we take over them. 

            Mr. Craven stated I was planning on calling them anyway because when they cleared the piece at 441, I would also like them to clean up along our canal edge.  They cleared it with a bulldozer.  I think at a minimum they need to put our canal bank back in order.  I will talk to them about that and I will mention the other areas.

            Mr. Cassel stated I just wanted to keep you up to date because she called me; especially with the recent coyote issue. 

           

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 have two items.  We were contacted by SFWMD to process a permit conversion and transfer on some of the facilities in Coral Creek.  I have been working with them on it.  Most of the lakes in that area were conveyed to us from WCI in the mid 1990’s.  There were a few which must have fallen through the cracks and they want us to convert them.  They are still in the construction phase.  They want us to convert them to the operating phase.  I do not believe there is a fee.  The paperwork just needs to be filled out.  I would like to get your approval to have Mr. Cassel sign the permit transfer so we can clean this up.  It has been hanging out there for a while because there was some confusion about what permits have been converted and what permits have not.  I worked with them on clearing this up so there are four permits which need to be included in this permit transfer and conversion.

            Mr. Brewer asked who owns the permits now?

            Mr. Craven responded they are various entities.

            Mr. Eckler asked for construction purposes?

            Mr. Craven responded yes.

            Mr. Brewer asked are we maintaining these?

            Mr. Craven responded yes.  We are maintaining them already.

            Mr. Brewer stated okay.

            Mr. Cassel stated it seems as things have slowed down all of the agencies are going back to the piles on their desks and cleaning up the items which slipped through.

            Ms. Benckenstein asked do you need a motion?

            Mr. Craven responded I have all the paperwork filled out.  I just need to know whose name needs to be on it.

           

 

            Mr. Craven stated the last thing we have is the permit application for an aerial crossing of our canal on the north side of Holmberg Road.

            Mr. Brewer asked is that the canal by the bridge?

            Mr. Craven responded yes.

            Mr. Cassel stated I believe the city raised a red flag on them or someone raised a red flag letting them know they were crossing PTWCD so they need a permit from us before they get other permits.  They contacted us for our approval.

            Mr. Brewer asked are we charging them anything?

            Mr. Cassel responded we charged them for the review and they have to put up a trash bond until they complete it.

            Mr. Craven stated everything looked fine to me.  My only concern was they want the lowest wire on the pole and it appears they are going to be putting the crossing between their lowest conductor and the AT&T cable, which does not affect clearance for us.  I am fine with it. 

 

 

            Mr. Cassel asked is there anything else?

            Mr. Craven responded now that I have direction on the maintenance map I will start back up with FDOT and get all the background work started for doing the land transfer.  I think that should wrap up everything we need to prove we own what we own.

            Mr. Study asked what is the status with BJ’s?

            Mr. Craven responded I put that in FDOT’s hands because all we have to do is receive their water.  It is more their problem to get it to us.  We have straightened out all of the other easement issues, we had four outstanding.  I am working with them on it, but I am putting the burden on them because I think they carry a little more clout than I do.

            Mr. Eckler stated this is only my second meeting so I am sure I do not know the history on a lot of these issues, but I will catch up sooner or later.  I think it is important we know easement wise that we have all of our appropriate easements, all of the appropriate right-of-ways and who is in charge of maintenance and replacement of whatever culverts we may have.  I think it needs to be really clear on that so we all know plus if FDOT is responsible for something that is conveyed in our water, we need to make sure they are aware and maintaining that properly.  We need to know thoroughly this is happening throughout the system.  It seems like you have all done a good job; particularly since Hurricane Wilma because it caused questions. 

            Mr. Craven stated that was the intention of this mapping and ownership project.  We added a little to it.  Since we are going to have to draw up these flowage easements across existing roads, I took it a little bit further and we now have gotten GPS locations on every culvert crossing we have.  We know the invert of every pipe we have.  We know the exact location of it.  We have all the easements documented.  Mr. Cassel has to carry a five pound box to his office with all the information. 

            Mr. Cassel stated we do have a complete set up.  There are three or four orange binders where we have made sure we have everything documented.  I have a set and Mr. Craven has a set as well.  We have them in our records so we can research it.  We have all the information easily on hand to prove ownership and who needs to maintain what.

            Mr. Craven stated at one time Mr. Weissman asked if we could produce it electronically.  We are in the process of updating it.  It is basically a living document.  If certain ownerships adjacent to us change, we have the information.  Once we get the latest update done I will burn a CD of it.  At anytime I will be glad to go over it.  I have learned a lot through this process and it is fresh so if you want to take some time, I will go ahead and go through the process with you.

            Mr. Eckler asked are we doing a condition survey on some of these culverts?

            Mr. Cassel responded we are getting ready to bid out an inspection and cleaning of our culverts.  We do it every other year or so to make sure we have good flowage through everything. 

            Mr. Craven stated I am going to try to be a little more involved than we would have been in the past.      

            Mr. Eckler asked on our culverts when we know what our invert is and it is cleaned out, at that same point of inspection do we look to see what is on either side so we know we are not just mounted up and here is the culvert? 

            Mr. Craven responded the divers give us a profile which extends outside of the culvert.  If there is a build up in front of the culvert, it is noted on the inspection.

            Mr. Eckler asked how far is out side of the culvert?

            Mr. Craven responded usually to where we get the natural drop off. 

            Mr. Eckler stated that would certainly be one of our next maintenance spots if we have a build up near a culvert.  We need to make sure that goes away before we have the pile inside the culvert again. 

            Mr. Cassel asked is there anything else?

            Mr. Craven responded no.

 

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                         Supervisors’ Requests

            Mr. Study stated 66^th Terrace or whatever it was that the angle was failing over by the school.

            Mr. Frederick stated we fixed that. 

            Mr. Study asked how did you plug it or what did you do?

            Mr. Frederick stated we filled it in with dirt, packed it in the best we could and sodded it.  It seems to be alright so far.  The breakaway part seems to be stable.

            Mr. Study stated it was mentioned that you have some shallow spots in the ditch.

            Mr. Frederick stated yes.  The E2 canal as we call it.

            Mr. Study asked what is the intent?  Are you bringing a track machine in there to open?

            Mr. Frederick responded we are going to have to get some kind of way to dredge it.  Some of the homeowners involved would rather just bury it. 

            Mr. Study stated I am sure.

            Mr. Craven stated that was what prompted my comment about doing some of the worst areas before conveying them.  The property owner will have something to say about it.  Approximately a year ago we discussed doing it over a three year period by addressing the worst spots as soon as possible.  It is definitely something we are going to have to contract out.  It is not something we can do with what we have. 

            Mr. Study asked is it all soft bottom or is there rough bottom eventually?

            Mr. Frederick responded I am sure there is some rock somewhere.

            Mr. Eckler asked in this conveyance we are getting from Broward County, when we do get it, is there adequate space available for proper maintenance?

            Mr. Craven responded it is very tight.  When FDOT widened the Sawgrass Expressway they basically gave us two feet between the top of our bank and their sound wall.  Almost all maintenance needs to be done from the water.  If we have to get in there and do any digging, we are looking at a small machine on a small barge and a very slow process.  FDOT did not do us any favors.

            Mr. Study stated I would wait for dry weather and pump it down.  Block it off.  Go a section at a time.

            Mr. Craven stated that may very well be the best way of approaching it. 

            Mr. Eckler stated depending on how deep it is and how much we have to do, if there is access from a road, just put a crawler down; even if it is in a couple of feet of water it is not a problem.

            Mr. Study stated we have the end of those streets. 

            Mr. Cassel asked are there any other Supervisors’ requests?

            Mr. Brewer responded yes, one.  On Holmberg Road, do we have any issues with the city from the north side to the south side?  Do we have any flowage to there at all which affects us?  The reason I am asking is because they are putting another sidewalk in on the north side of Holmberg Road and I do not know if it affects us or not.

            Mr. Craven responded we do not have any overgrown flow.  We do have the main canal which crosses Holmberg Road. 

            Mr. Brewer stated so it does not really affect us. If they want to flood their own road out, they can do whatever they want. 

            Mr. Craven stated technically what is on the south side of Holmberg Road is supposed to run all the way down behind everyone of those houses to our canal and then go back north, but you know people have filled those ditches. 

            Mr. Study stated the city filled it.

            Mr. Craven stated we do not have any jurisdiction over those ditches.

            Mr. Eckler asked are they looking at putting a sidewalk on the north side?

            Mr. Brewer responded yes, from Parkside Drive to 441.

            Mr. Eckler stated I am looking at where FPL is coming across.  Our canal encroaches into the right-of-way of Holmberg Road.  Is that going to impact the sidewalk?  Typically a sidewalk will go on the backside of the right-of-way and the backside of the right-of-way is under water at that location.

            Mr. Brewer responded I think they jog around there or something.  They swerve all over the place in some areas. 

            Mr. Eckler asked would it be worthwhile to ask the city to fill it in for us?

            Mr. Craven responded no.

            Mr. Eckler stated okay.  I just see the picture here from FPL and it is construction in a part which appears to be our canal.

            Mr. Craven stated actually the sketch from FPL opened up a question mark.  The title I ran actually shows us having a hiatus across that road.  I was planning on going to the city for a flowage easement.  What that document shows is our easement through there being continuous.  I am researching it right now to figure out what is right.  That does have some bearing on their sidewalk location.

            Mr. Brewer stated I was thinking that flowage easement did go all the way through there. 

            Mr. Craven stated I originally thought it did too.  Then we plotted it up.  I just want to verify it.  I believe you are right, but I want to verify it. 

            Mr. Eckler stated Mr. Cassel and I have been working on consumptive use permits for other utilities.  One of the main things we need to be doing in order to get through these permitting issues is to be sure all of our drainage districts act more as water managers and not just drainage districts.  We need to save as much water as possible.  Obviously drainage is our primary concern, but we do not want to discharge unless we absolutely have to.  We want to maintain as much water as we can in any particular time from a water management standpoint.  We have Parkland Utilities up here and then all the others such as NSID, CSID and Coral Springs need to have that water in our canals.

            Mr. Frederick stated we are limited to how much we can hold. 

            Mr. Eckler stated I do not know what areas we have which are prone to flooding.  I do not know the history of this yet, but if we have space where we can raise it, would it be worthwhile looking at the control structure to help out in that respect.

            Mr. Frederick stated we do not.  After hurricane season we try to hold as much water as possible, but that is about a half a foot.  It is all I can raise it. 

            Mr. Eckler asked is it because of the limitation on the control structure?

            Mr. Frederick responded we have a control gate structure.  When you raise it up so far the water starts going underneath the gate.  You can only raise it up so far to keep water from escaping and that is about six inches, maybe five inches.  If we get to a certain level and it gets pretty low, the county has the ability to back pump from the Hillsborough Canal.

            Mr. Eckler asked do we have a permit for that?

            Mr. Cassel responded we have an agreement.  I just received today the invoice for last month saying there was no back pumping activity this month so we do not owe them any money. 

            Mr. Eckler stated we just need to keep it in mind.  We need to be water managers and not just drainage people.

            Mr. Frederick stated we try not to, but when you have this gate type structure it takes a long time for water to get out of the system so you cannot wait too long before you start letting water out before a system comes in.  There is always the possibility of a system turning at the last minute and we get nothing. 

            Mr. Eckler stated we cannot risk the flooding aspect of it.

            Mr. Frederick stated it is better to be safe then sorry.  I had people calling when this last tropical storm was coming because we had not lowered the canal.  They wanted to see the water down. 

 

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                            Approval of Financials and Check Registers

            There being no questions or comments.

 

 

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                           Adjournment

            There being no further business,

 

 

                                                                                                                                                           

Kenneth Cassel                                                           Paul Brewer

Assistant Secretary                                                     President