The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, April 17, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. at the District Office, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.


            Present and constituting a quorum were:


            Bob Fennell                                                President

            William J. Eissler                                         Vice President (by phone)

            Glen Hanks                                                Secretary


            Also present were:


            John Petty                                                  Manager

            Michael Pawelczyk                                     Attorney

            Doug Hyche                                               District Staff

            Jean Rugg                                                   Severn Trent Services

            Ilana Rabone                                              Severn Trent Services

            John McKune                                             Engineer

            Ed Flavin                                                    Engineer

            Cedo DaSilva                                             Engineer

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS                         Roll Call

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


SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS                    Approval of the Minutes of the March 20, 2006 Meeting

            Mr. Fennell stated each Board member received a copy of the March 20, 2006 minutes and requested any additions, corrections or deletions.

            Mr. Pawelczyk stated I have a correction on page 35.  In the first line, “I need to confirm with the Board that CSID funds are”, the word “not” should be added.  In the third sentence, the word “enequivitable” should be “unequivitable”. 


On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the minutes of the March 20, 2006 meeting were approved as amended.



FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                         Consideration of Change Orders

A.        Change Order No. 1 with GIC Water Systems for Pump Retrieval from Well 2 and Fill Removal from Wells 2 & 3 for a Net Increase of $5,920


B.        Change Order No. 2 with GIC Water Systems for Cone Strainer Retrieval from Well 1 and Replacement of 230 Volt Electric Motors with 460 Volt Electric Motors at Wells 2 & 3 for a Net Increase of $7,500

            Mr. Hyche stated these are change orders for wells 2 and 3.  A screen broke loose in well 1.  When well 2 was videotaped it fell off its casing and dropped to the bottom, which had to be retrieved. 

            Mr. Hanks asked is this part of our ongoing contract which was bid through competitive bidding?

            Mr. Hyche responded yes.

            Mr. Fennell stated this is typical of what you find in these wells.

            Mr. Hanks asked when we put out our budget and looking at the projects, did we put in a 10% contingency?

            Mr. Petty responded for budgeting purposes only.  Normally we have a contingency in our budgeting of 10%, usually the engineers want 15%.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor Change Order No. 1 with GIC Water Systems for Pump Retrieval from Well 2 and Fill Removal from Wells 2 & 3 for a Net Increase of $5,920 and Change Order No. 2 with GIC Water Systems for Cone Strainer Retrieval from Well 1 and Replacement of 230 Volt Electric Motors with 460 Volt Electric Motors at Wells 2 & 3 for a Net Increase of $7,500 were approved.


SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                        Consideration of Amendment 1 to Work Authorization No. WA-25 for Phase 2 Wastewater Plant Improvements

            Mr. McKune stated some months ago, the Board approved the original Work Authorization No. 25 to design some sludge thickening and digestion facilities along with the replacement of some pumps at Effluent Pump Station 1.  This pump station was built 20 years ago.  We started these jobs and soon then after had a hurricane.  Since that time we realized there were some activities, although on the capital improvement program for subsequent work, needed to be kicked up in the schedule and provided now.  Hopefully we will get the work completed before the next hurricane season.  One example is the additional fuel storage.  These amendment items are those we feel should be provided in the current project and simply updated and moved up in the schedule from your original capital improvement program.  Item one is to provide a new effluent pump to Pump Station 1, identical to the existing pumps in the newer Pump Station 2.  This would now allows for 100% redundancy in the pumping operation.  Included with the new pump is the necessary rehab of the 20 year old instruction, control and piping systems.  We will end up with a reworked and new pump station which increases greatly our disposal reliability. 

            Mr. Hanks asked are these the deep injection pumps?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.

            Mr. Hanks asked is this in compliance with the Florida Code as far as the backup material?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.  The second item is to replace a hazardous metal walkway across the chlorine contact tank and install piping interconnects for the new pump station configuration.  This is a relatively minor item.  When you walked on the old metal walkway, you had to put your feet on the outside.

            Mr. Hanks asked has it deteriorated?

            Mr. McKune responded somewhat.  Item three is to provide new hurricane-resistant CBS building for storage of hazardous chemicals and spare mechanical parts for the water plant.  During the last hurricane, many of these hazardous chemicals were stored in an old metal building that fortunately did not blow away.

            Mr. Fennell asked what were these chemicals for?

            Mr. McKune responded for the canals.

            Mr. Petty stated to remove aquatic vegetation.  There is Rodeo, Cutrine and 24D.

            Mr. McKune stated some are considered hazardous.

            Mr. Petty stated they are tagged that way.  They are permitted chemicals but hazardous to get into the water stream without going through a process.  The purpose is to replace a steal building that is 15 to 20 years old.

            Mr. Hanks asked what is the cost for the new building?

            Mr. McKune responded $75,000. 

            Mr. Petty stated the criteria on these holding facilities changed over the last 15 years.

            Mr. Hyche stated since it is a wellfield, there would have to be special containment.

            Mr. Petty stated total containment of all chemicals stored.  They have to be contained within the building.

            Mr. Fennell asked where are they currently held?

            Mr. McKune responded in a tin building at the south end of the wastewater plant.

            Mr. Petty stated the building is the size of a two car garage.  It is a pre-fab metal building that is fairly sound. 

            Mr. Fennell asked is it in the wellfield area?

            Mr. Hyche responded yes.

            Mr. Petty stated but we have wellfields onsite.

            Mr. Hyche stated our entire site is in a wellfield.

            Mr. Fennell stated then we have no other choice to put the building.

            Mr. Hyche stated we may not end up with a zone three wellfield.  I already spoke to SFWMD Water Use Division.

            Mr. Hanks stated we should think about this when it comes time for our fuel storage.

            Mr. Petty stated currently fuel storage is underground.  Is the next phase going to be above ground?

            Mr. McKune responded there is an existing tank above ground in back of the pump within a containment area.  All of the new tanks will be double long.  There is one tank that will be under a new generator.  Item four is to provide a new covered parking area or rain shelter for temporary storage of the large 40 cubic yard trailers containing dewatered sludge to prevent re-liquification, leakage and odor generation.

            Item five is to provide truck and trailer drive-through capability at the sludge dewatering building to prevent sludge hauling bottleneck.  Currently when these trailers are parked under the building, they fill up and have to back up.  There is no way to drive straight through.  The problem is the hauler we have a contract with will not, cannot and does not come out to pick these trucks up.  We have been trying to get him to come out but he refuses to do so.  This will let these trucks maneuver better to get these pull trailers out of the way so we can put an empty trailer in and continue operations.

            Mr. Fennell stated the solution is we will move them to another spot.

            Mr. McKune stated we will put them under a range and they can remain there.

            Mr. Hanks asked will another service provider perform a better service?

            Mr. McKune responded possibly but this is hurricane related.  When you are about to have a hurricane, no one is going to come out here and haul sludge.  I would like to have a place to put these items, plus it helps normal operations.

            The sixth item is to provide a truck loading station to discharge liquid sludge into tanker trucks.  This will allow continued disposal of solids during potential periods of mechanical failures within the digestion system.  This system is nothing more than an extension of a piece of pipe leading to where the trailers are.  It looks like an elephant truck dumped into a tank.  It is no big deal.

            Mr. Hanks asked have there been issues before?

            Mr. McKune responded not recently but there was a time when we had to go for literally months on liquid sludge because of a breakdown in the digestive system. 

            Mr. Hyche stated if the land application areas are under water, H&H is not allowed to apply the materials until it dries out. 

            Mr. Petty asked if they cannot take the sludge out, how do they take the liquid out?

            Mr. Hyche responded the liquid is put into a sewer tank.

            Mr. Petty stated if the fields are flooded, you have to go further than that for a wastewater treatment plant to take the solid.

            Mr. Hyche stated true.

            Mr. Petty stated I operated plants myself where I had to take liquid because of some breakdown.  We have the one press and thickener.  All we need is for one of them to break.  Unless we change how we grow the bacteria, the only other option is to take off liquids.  This is a minimal cost and gives the operators another advantage.

            Mr. McKune stated item seven is to reconfigure the 1.0 MG lined effluent storage prone to allow for both maintenance of storage volume in the pond and placement of the new sludge truck drive-through access road.  It will simply reconfigure the south end of the plant.

            Item eight is to improve the paving and drainage of the wastewater plant access road and provide site drainage to carry stormwater away from the south blower building.  Flooding has been a chronic concern at the south end of the wastewater treatment plant.  The drainage provided on-site has done well in this vicinity as well as in front of the water plant but south of the curb is non-existent.  It was originally envisioned to be sheet flowed down to the canal.  We now have the berm and put in at one time a small outflow pipe so everything flows into the canal.  In regards to number nine, we need to install a new outfall pipe into the L-104 canal with an upstream baffled sediment chamber to help reduce the pollutant discharge.

            Mr. Hanks stated the likely pollutants that occur will be oils and sediment.

            Mr. McKune stated the 10th item is to provide improved site lighting for enhanced operational safety.  This represents half a dozen site lights to light up some of the pump areas that right now are marginal at best.  Number 11 is to provide an additional 18,000 gallons of fuel storage which brings the total amount stored on-site to 35,000 gallons.  This should give us what we need.  We are pulling this item out of the big job.  I would like to get the Board’s authority to do this by change order to make sure we have this additional fuel on-site in the shortest amount of time possible.  This involves the purchase of tanks and erect them with no power involved.  This is gravity drainage. 

            Mr. Petty stated you are talking about keeping it in your work authorization but put it out for separate bid so it can be expedited without the larger contract.  Is this correct?

            Mr. McKune responded a separate job without the larger contract.  I would like to do this with change orders as opposed to a bid.

            Mr. Petty stated I agree.  I think it should be expedited. 

            Mr. Hanks stated if the District is procuring these tanks, they need to be out for competitive bid.

            Mr. Petty stated we bid anything above $4,000.

            Mr. Pawelczyk stated a change order is not an amendment to the contract.  It is for unforeseen conditions.  The additional work in the contract provides for the additional work element.  Often times we can do that but the contractor needs to show competitive prices on the storage tank.  I can look at it.

            Mr. McKune stated I understand.  This is the standard contract we always had on-site.  Whenever we add items by change order, we agree with the contractor on the price and then award the change order.

            Mr. Petty stated your intent is to have this expedited.  We can take action on the work authorization.  He gave us the indications; we nodded our heads and told him we like the idea.  Some specifics will have to be discussed but we can move on.

            Mr. McKune stated item 12 is to provide a new 1,000 KW engine/generator set to replace the 20 year old high maintenance unit currently in the facility of the north lower building.  By providing this 1,000 KW unit, we will also be able to put this building on the emergency power system.

            Mr. Fennell asked what size do we currently have?

            Mr. McKune responded 750 KW.

            Mr. Hanks asked what are doing with the high maintenance unit?

            Mr. Petty responded Mr. McKune thinks we may have a buyer in Paraguay.

            Mr. McKune stated in Brazil. 

            Mr. Petty stated it would be declared surplus by the engineer and if anyone bid on it, we take the highest bid.  If it was not bid upon, it would be considered whatever you get for salvage.

            Mr. Hanks asked can we utilize it elsewhere in the plant or is it not worth it?

            Mr. McKune responded I would not recommend that.

            Mr. Petty stated the issue is it has gotten so hard to service this unit and it has become unreliable.

            Mr. Hyche stated parts are no longer manufactured for this unit. 

            Mr. Petty stated the facility is working fine currently.  How long it will last depends on the part.  When it breaks, it is busted.

            Mr. Fennell asked what are you requesting?

            Mr. McKune responded approval of this amendment so we can finish preparing the plans and specifications to make these additions part of the bid construction package.

            Mr. Fennell stated the only one you want to expedite through is the diesel fuel.

            Mr. Petty stated this is for a work authorization for the engineer to do the specifications.  We are not at the point of doing the bid.

            Mr. Eissler asked awhile back, did we approve the diesel fuel storage tanks?

            Mr. Petty responded in concept the Board directed staff to do this but it has not come before you formally to approve any costs.  The engineering cost is the first step.  It was the Board’s idea.

            Mr. Fennell stated it says the costs will not exceed $160,000.  Whose costs?

            Mr. McKune responded your expense to be paid to us to do this work.

            Mr. Eissler stated all 12 items.  Correct?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.

            Mr. Petty stated typically when we pay these lump sum numbers, we like to stay in a certain percentage range that is acceptable in the industry, which is 7.5%.  We are looking for Mr. McKune to provide an update so the Board knows they are on the plus or minus side of that figure. 

            Mr. Fennell stated he charges us his rates anyway.

            Mr. McKune stated we charge our contract hourly rates.

            Mr. Fennell asked what is your estimated construction cost?

            Mr. McKune responded $5,000,000.

            Mr. Hanks asked how long do you think it will take to wrap these items up?

            Mr. McKune responded another month at the most.  It is a big job and it will be out for bid for two months.  It will take another month to get the contractor lined up and give him the Notice to Proceed.

            Mr. Hanks asked does the $160,000 include contract administration?

            Mr. McKune responded no.

            Mr. Petty stated the $160,000 is the upfront cost.  The engineers put in a great deal of hours to date.

            Mr. Fennell asked do you agree with what they are doing?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.

            Mr. Hanks asked is the scope consistent with the fee being charged?

            Mr. Petty responded this is what I want to make sure we are all comfortable with.  I asked Mr. McKune to tell me it is below 7.5% because that is my maximum.  Anything above that is above the industry standard.  I am comfortable it is within scope.  This is above the scope of a capital improvement program.  Almost everything on this list is due to the impact we felt after Hurricane Wilma, either directly related to the storm and the concerns we had during the storm and the perception of the public afterwards and response of our vendors.  This is why we want to have places to hide the sludge underneath tarps so they do not get wet.  We may have multiple trailers sitting back there for periods of time.  That is why we want diesel and the reliability so our residents know they can count on us.

            Mr. Hanks stated you have gone back and revisited the capital improvement projects in light of recent developments and reprioritized items.

            Mr. Petty stated that is why I said it is outside the norm.  I will be working with Mr. McKune on the capital improvement program.

            Mr. Fennell stated it makes sense to me.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor Work Authorization No. WA-25 Amendment 1 for Phase 2 Wastewater Plant Improvements in an amount not to exceed $160,000 was approved.


SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                  Consideration of Permit Requests

A.                 Right-of-Way & Surface Water Management Permit for Expansion of Sawgrass Expressway to Six Lanes from Atlantic Boulevard to Coral Ridge Drive

            Mr. Fennell asked I thought we approved this request at a prior meeting.

            Mr. Hyche responded NSID, CSID and Sunshine are involved with the Sawgrass Expressway widening.

            Mr. Petty stated we mentioned this item may come before the Board.  I do not think the Board actually saw the permit but we knew it was coming.  I will defer to the engineer for recommendations.  We discussed this matter on the staff level this afternoon.  It appears this was already anticipated in the first permit approved conceptually.  This is an as-built or intended design coming to you.  Some concerns have been raised and staff will be looking at the items discussed this afternoon.  I believe it is the engineer’s recommendation for approval for this permit at this time.

            Mr. Hanks stated at one point in time it was questioned whether the Sawgrass Expressway was even falling in our District boundary.  Is it within the District boundary?

            Mr. DaSilva responded I think it is just outside of the District boundary but there are two control structures, one of which discharges into CSID that existed in the original construction of the expressway in 1985.  The original construction was very interesting. 

            Mr. Fennell asked who has the canal next to the dyke on the west side of the pump station?

            Mr. Petty responded SFWMD.

            Mr. Fennell stated this is the canal Mr. Eissler lives off of.

            Mr. Eissler responded that is the on the east side of the Sawgrass Expressway.

            Mr. Hanks asked do they discharge to the east?

            Mr. Eissler responded yes.

            Mr. Hanks asked are there control structures above their predicted 100 year flood?  I am hypothesizing they would not be providing 100 year storage.

            Mr. DaSilva responded they show storage and swale areas right off of the roadway.  The storage goes up to elevation 12.

            Mr. Fennell stated they are going to widen the roadway with guardrails and installation of noise barrier walls.  Where will the walls go?

            Mr. DaSilva responded along the right-of-way on the east side of the road, just west of the canal. 

            Mr. Hanks asked will this impact our maintenance ability?

            Mr. Fennell responded yes.

            Mr. Eissler stated it should not impact our maintenance.  The wall will go on the west side of the ficus hedge where the berm is.  The surveyors are out putting the stakes up.

            Mr. Fennell asked is it going to go on the berm or before it?

            Mr. Hyche responded five feet from the right-of-way line.

            Mr. Eissler stated it should not affect anything as far as getting on the berm.

            Mr. Flavin stated the berm elevation is shown in cross sections.

            Mr. Hanks stated my concern is if this was not accounted for in the original permit and if they are not providing storage for the 100 year storm, they are pushing water onto the rest of us.

            Mr. Flavin stated there is a 15 foot high wall.

            Mr. Eissler stated the wall is going to be 12 feet to 15 feet.  The homeowners just received a letter in the mail.

            Mr. Fennell stated you are probably our number one representative out of that area.  What is the feeling of your constituency?

            Mr. Eissler responded they look forward to the wall.  They want the wall.  Right now thanks to Wilma, we have no trees.  It is like living on the expressway.

            Mr. Hanks asked do the standards comply with the storage requirements for the 100 year storm?

            Mr. DaSilva responded yes.  I can show you the cross sections.  The weir elevations are 10 feet.  They only do 10 year analyses’. 

            Mr. Hanks stated if this was a development project, they would have to demonstrate they were providing sufficient storage to meet the criteria listed in our Permit Criteria Manual at certain elevations based on the acres of open space.

            Mr. DaSilva stated they would provide that.  As a matter of fact, they hold storage offsite for 10 years and do not discharge onto the property.

            Mr. Flavin stated the inlet and swale is at elevation 10.80.

            Mr. Hanks asked did they model the 100 year flood?

            Mr. Flavin responded no.

            Mr. Hanks stated so we do not know in the 100 year flood how much water they are putting into our canals.

            Mr. Petty asked how can an entity outside of our District drain into us?

            Mr. DaSilva responded I do not know whether the right-of-way was given to them in the original construction.  There may be an agreement with the original permit.

            Mr. Petty stated in the past this District has always been very strong about supporting the legislature that said District boundaries cannot be violated by Statue.  An agreement would not cut it.  Boundaries are boundaries.  Mr. Gary Moyer, my predecessor, this Board and his predecessors have been very strong about protecting those District functions.  I was surprised the Sawgrass Expressway was able to come in if it is outside of our boundaries.  If it is inside of our boundaries, of course it should.  Are we sure it is outside of our boundaries?

            Mr. DaSilva responded yes.

            Mr. Fennell asked why didn’t they go in the canal on the opposite side?

            Mr. DaSilva responded they do but they go into the canal in two locations through two control structures.

            Mr. Petty stated I am going to pull back what I said earlier when I said staff was supporting approval.  We would like to pull any approval at this time.  I have been in other District bodies where state roads drained into them and caused flooding.  I do not wish to be part of that again.

            Mr. Fennell stated the goal of most state roads is for them to stay afloat.  I can understand the goal but not when the water is flowing in my direction.

            Mr. Petty stated it sounds like the Board needs more time on this.

            Mr. DaSilva stated we can go back and have the consultant analyze the 100 year flood.  We only analyze the 10 year flood at roads.  The question is how much flow they will be discharging on the 100 year flood that can affect the District’s ability to protect our residents.

            Mr. Hanks asked if we approve a connection from this state highway located outside of our District boundaries into our District for stormwater purposes, what will the impacts be?

            Mr. Petty responded there is possibly a legal issue but there are rules of various agencies like SFWMD.  We may want to give Mr. Pawelczyk time to investigate.  Our permit is with SFWMD and those boundaries are defined by that agency.  By us breaching those boundaries going outside and letting others come in, we may be in violation of the permit.

            Mr. Hanks stated it may be a condition whereby allowing other parties to come in and expend the boundaries, we have to be forced into a modification to SFWMD as a District.

            Mr. Petty stated statutorily we may run into some issues, which Mr. Pawelczyk may need to look at.

            Mr. Pawelczyk stated they went through SFWMD for modification of their original permit. 

            Mr. DaSilva stated where the control structures are is on jurisdictional lines of SFWMD.

            Mr. Hanks asked do you mean wetlands jurisdictional?

            Mr. DaSilva responded in the area where the control structure is.

            Mr. Hanks stated it is not our jurisdictional area or SFWMD, but it is referencing jurisdictional wetlands.

            Mr. DaSilva stated as a storage area as well.  Maybe they have storage there and discharging on a 10 flood stage.

            Mr. Fennell stated 10 years is nothing.  If we are using 10 year criteria, that is a low criteria for us.

            Mr. DaSilva stated when you designed the roads, you designed them for 10 years.

            Mr. Hanks asked if I was putting in a roadway in Coral Springs through an undeveloped parcel, under our Permit Criteria Manual, what storage do I have to provide?  Do I have to provide demonstration on meeting the 10 year storage or meeting the storage for the 100 year flood?

            Mr. DaSilva responded the purpose of the road is for 10 year storage.  You do not have any buildings there.

            Mr. Flavin stated we can call our consultant to find out.

            Mr. DaSilva stated we do not have any encroachment.

            Mr. Hanks stated if I was building a parking lot, I could say, “I am providing for 10 year storage” and forget about doing anything as far as 100 year.

            Mr. DaSilva stated I am not saying to forget about the 100 year, but for this purpose, we should because it is in our best interest for the 100 year to not exceed an allowable discharge.  A certain discharge might affect the District’s ability to function.  For 110 year flood, they do not discharge anything.  There is zero discharge in front of facilities under 10 year and under, but you have control discharge from the 10 year to 100 year. 

            Mr. Hanks stated based on their application, we are talking about 286 acres of land.

            Mr. DaSilva stated that is the entire project.  Our section is only a third of the total acreage.

            Mr. Petty asked if the Board does not take any action on this permit tonight, are we going to cause substantial harm to the expansion of the Sawgrass Expressway so we have time to consider this matter?  If not, I suggest we do so and direct staff the analysis you are asking for. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what do you call 10 year rainfall?

            Mr. DaSilva responded 9.5 inches.

            Mr. Fennell stated every 10 years we are going to get up to 10 inches of rain.

            Mr. DaSilva stated there is a 10% chance every give year.

            Mr. Fennell stated 15 inches was recorded over Pompano.  We can get 15 inches in my lifetime and we have.  If we get 15 inches of rain, how much additional rain will this area need to reach the 100 year flood and can we handle it?  We are going to get those 15 inches.

            Mr. Hanks responded this leads into a meeting I had immediately prior to this where I met with representatives of CH2M-Hill and Mr. Petty to discuss the stormwater management issues and get more into the technical aspects.  We identified the criteria we are permitting is 30 years old.

            Mr. Fennell stated 32 years old.

            Mr. Petty stated certainly not as-built conditions.

            Mr. Hanks stated I feel it is time to request the District Engineer revisit the stormwater management system for the District, estimate the build-out condition and model the District to see how well we are complying with the permit criteria.  We also need to see if there are any changes we need to make to accommodate redevelopment.

            Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like a good idea.

            Mr. Hanks stated if we are looking at bringing in additional runoff onto our site, we need to determine whether this additional area will create a hardship and whether we have the capacity to handle it.

            Mr. Fennell stated I understand where you are going and we will continue this discussion.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the right-of-way and surface water management permit request for expansion of the Sawgrass Expressway to six lanes from Atlantic Boulevard to Coral Ridge Drive was tabled until the next meeting. 


B.        Surface Water Management Permit for Wal-Mart Store at Cypress Run Plaza

            Mr. Petty stated I recommend approval of this permit.  My understanding is this is the Wal-Mart Grocery Store they intend to open in Coral Springs.

            Mr. Fennell asked where is this located?

            Mr. Petty responded Coral Springs Drive and Atlantic Boulevard.  There used to be a Winn Dixie.

            Mr. Flavin stated they are doing some minor modifications to the building to bring it up to Wal-Mart standards, but they are keeping all of the existing drainage systems.  I asked under the special conditions they have it cleaned and tested as part of the permit.

            Mr. Fennell stated they are taking up any additional parking.  

            Mr. Petty stated every inch of the parking lot is paved.

            Mr. Hanks asked are they maintaining the storage they currently have?

            Mr. Flavin responded yes.  Everything is the same.

            Mr. Petty stated you are asking them to inspect and clean all existing systems.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the stormwater management permit request for the Wal-Mart Store at Cypress Run Plaza was approved.


EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                     Consideration of Award of Contract for the Purchase of a Mobile Radio System

            Mr. Fennell asked is the equipment different?

            Mr. Hyche responded no.

            Mr. Hanks asked have you used either of these companies before?

            Mr. Petty responded I am familiar with Express Radio but I am not familiar with Industrial Communications.

            Mr. Hyche stated Industrial offers a three year warranty.

            Mr. Fennell asked on the equipment?

            Mr. Hyche responded yes, on the equipment and installation.


On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the contract for the mobile radio system was awarded to Industrial Communications in the amount of $16,597.64.


            Mr. Hanks asked what about the satellite phones?

            Mr. Hyche responded we purchased three.


THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS                       Hurricane Debris Removal and Canal Bank Restoration Status

            Mr. Fennell asked what is the status of the tree removal project?

            Mr. McKune responded we should have complete vegetation removal in three weeks.

            Mr. Fennell stated one area I was impressed by was the canal going under the mall on Atlantic Boulevard.  There was a group of Australian Pine Trees along the bank and in people’s yards and they removed all of the trees.  Have we been receiving many complaints?

            Mr. Petty responded no.  Mr. Dan Daly has been handling all of the calls.  There were quite a few calls but most of them were from people who are very happy to have the trees down.  We have a few people testing our abilities who want free irrigation systems.  One caller wanted compensation because they took the tree out themselves before we got there.  As a rule, it has been very positive.  We had some small issues with notification so we can stay ahead of them with our door hangers.  However, all of the calls have been workable.  Only less than 10 calls had to come to me since we started construction.  I consider this to be a very good program.

            Mr. Fennell stated that is pretty good considering what we thought might happen.  They are almost complete with the east block and they are starting the west block.  Did you ever receive a copy of their schedule?

            Mr. McKune responded the latest completion schedule is four weeks out.  We have weekly meetings so we know where they are going to be that week and the next week. 

            Mr. Fennell asked does it look like we will be substantially completed by mid-May?

            Mr. McKune responded the end of May.  All of the vegetation is gone.  The remaining work is the bank restoration and sod replacement.

            Mr. Fennell stated I attended another meeting at City Hall a couple of weeks ago.  We received an award for the waterway cleanup.  I accepted the award on the Board’s behalf.  There is a new mayor and staff at City Hall.  Although many people changed positions, the fact we had people out and you can see movement was very positive to them.  I volunteered a couple of times to serve on a Common Tree Committee.

            Mr. Petty stated good.

            Mr. Fennell stated my parting note was “I am here and want to serve with you so we can plant the types of trees we want”.  They know we are interested and we are receptive at this point.  We need to define what trees we will plant and where.  I think our current relationship with them is good.  I do not know if they have been receiving any complaints.  I suspect the letter took care of that with the right phone number for them to call.  Have you knowledge about any residents calling the city?

            Mr. Petty responded a couple of weeks ago we received a call from the city about an issue and directed them to bring the call straight to us.  For all we know, all the calls are coming straight to us.  I do not think the city is receiving any phone calls.

            Mr. Fennell stated it looks like we are making good progress.  From looking at the canals around my house, it looks much better.  The canals look better than they have in years from a waterflow issue.

            Mr. Hanks stated I am happy with how things are going.

            Mr. Fennell stated at this time, we should discuss what we want to do regarding an operable policy for trees along the banks.  We discussed this matter at the last meeting and we received documentation from Mr. Petty on two alternatives; no bushes or trees around the banks or ornamental trees around the banks.  We have not yet defined what “ornamental” means.

            Mr. Petty stated this is part of what you discussed on getting together with the city and coming up with a tree policy.  I am trying to get some comments from the city.  I am pleased to find out you are on the committee.

            Mr. Fennell stated I volunteered. 

            Mr. Petty stated as you know, they have a canopy program where they want the front yard to be planted and we are saying, “you have to be careful about the back yard”.

            Mr. Fennell stated they had an Arborist who attended the last City Hall meeting.  He made recommendations on the type of trees they want to plant.  However, I do not know whether he looked at this from the standpoint of canals.  I think he looked at it from the standpoint of restoring the trees, giving back our canopy, etc.

            Mr. Petty stated the City Manager offered this gentleman’s services.

            Mr. Fennell stated from an engineering standpoint, we need to say, “here is what we need”.

            Mr. Hanks stated we need understanding from the tree company on how different trees perform during storms.  Do we need to monitor certain trees?

            Mr. Fennell asked why do we need to cut down these trees and what happens if we do not cut them down?  The engineer is going to look at this again.  What are the consequences?  Did you have a meeting today?

            Mr. Hanks responded yes. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I have data showing 10 inches of rain is the 10 year flood and 15 inches for the 50 year flood and 17 inches or more for the 100 year flood.  This is a standard fluid dynamic report.

            Mr. McKune stated it is a very scientific analysis. 

            Mr. Hanks stated the analysis was done 30 years ago and did not benefit from computer models.  The criteria used for some of the districts was the best projection on what the city was going to look like in 30 years.  It may not be completely accurate as to what actually took place.

            Mr. Fennell stated there was a city plan for each area.  Mr. McKune did a comparison at one time.  The only real change is a large part of the plan actually turned out to be true, especially for the east basin.  For the west basin, they forecasted the higher density of housing than was there.

            Mr. Hanks stated that may be the case.  They had several different categories.  We agreed there are enough questions as to what the initial design assumptions were.  Some of the calculations were based on a water table or canal elevation that is not seen in our District, typically a couple of feet higher than we maintain them.  Just by looking at it, you cannot quantify the ongoing affects.  We should consider authorizing CH2M-Hill to model CSID based on what we know how development has proceeded so far to try to come up with an answer some of our questions, which is how much do we need to pull the trees out of our right-of-way.  Once they have the model set up, they can create artificial blockages at different points so we can see what the affects are.  We can see what the affects are of bringing runoff from a roadway. 

            Mr. Fennell asked do you have the capability of making that kind of model?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.

            Mr. Fennell stated then I agree.  We can model the blockage issue which will tell us from a scientific standpoint what kind of trees we can afford to have down. 

            Mr. Petty stated this is a fairly standard engineering process today.  Our system was built 30 years ago before these systems were available.  If they were doing our systems today, they would have built a computer model so they can look at the “what if” scenarios. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I think we should do this because where I live, I have a fairly hefty flood insurance policy, which I now understand is due to the flood charts originally prepared by CH2M-Hill.  I did some research trying to figure out who has this information.  As far as I can see, SFWMD relies upon flood plain data originally prepared from Gee & Jenson, which is now CH2M-Hill.

            Mr. Hanks stated we can implement any necessary measures to reduce the risk rather than going out blindly.  I also think we should take a look at the perimeter elevations for the 100 year flood.  We are relying on our capacity to pump into the C-14 canal.  What does not appear to be included in those calculations is if we receive in-flow from other districts.

            Mr. Fennell stated this is a concern I had.  If I look at what happened in New Orleans, it was not so much the amount of rain they received but the canal walls fell down.  We are bordered on every side by levies.  We have the C-14 in the south and the Drainage Districts canals north of me.  If either one of those failed, the water will flow into my area, just like what happened in New Orleans.  As I recall, one of the districts in New Orleans intentionally cut their walls and flowed the water into someone else’s district. 

            Mr. Hanks asked do we need to take a look at the C-14 canal?

            Mr. Fennell responded if we are doing a theoretical study we should test the integrity of all of the canals around us to make sure they are working.  Our goal is to protect these two basins.

            Mr. Petty stated we had great success for over 30 years.  The system has done well under heavy duty circumstances.  We had those 15 inches plus rain within the last 10 years when a Tropical Storm hit us in the 1990’s.  We were one of the few Districts in this area that did not flood, other than the road flooding from the catch basins.  We have a great past.  This District has done a great job in maintaining that system.  The Board has done well in supervising it.  It is time to update it and do exactly what you said.  Let’s get the computer models done so we can do the “what if” scenario and the perimeter checks to see if any of our outside berms have been cut down over 30 years.  We should also check some of these canal as-builts because the hydraulic analysis map they have is 30 years old and does not match the as-built drawings.  The first step is the engineer will come back at the next meeting with a work authorization so you can get started.

            Mr. Fennell stated SFWMD does not have any data as they use our data.

            Mr. McKune stated it is up to us to convince them. 

            Mr. Hanks stated we are headed in the right direction, seeing that we have new development in downtown Coral Springs where there are higher densities.

            Mr. Petty stated people put in patios which are more impervious.

            Mr. Hanks stated we need to see what happens with extra additions to houses such as extra bedrooms and converting a two car garage into a three car garage.

            Mr. Fennell stated you have a good point.  In a couple of months because of the build-out around here, people will actually take the smaller houses, knock them down and put in bigger houses because the land will be more valuable.

            Mr. Eissler stated absolutely.  It is already happening.

            Mr. Fennell stated we will probably get denser as we move forward.  This is a good time to look at the study.  In my neighborhood, there are people who are modifying their houses.  There are two actions we need to take; first is authorize the engineer to do the model.  We want to get this started as soon as possible because we were going to take out more vegetation but we need the criteria to do so. 

            Mr. Petty stated if you would like to consider this quicker, you can approve it with a number not to exceed.  What is the estimate?

            Mr. McKune responded it depends on the extent of the survey data and the complexity of the model.

            Mr. Hanks stated we can get a price from a surveyor.

            Mr. Petty stated the survey company is a separate company they will hire in-house.

            Mr. Pawelczyk stated under their contract, they can retain a subcontractor.

            Mr. Hanks stated going out for an RFP would not be the quickest way of procuring that information.  As far as analyzing the coverage, we discussed a couple of methodologies where you break it down and take some samples off of the aerials.

            Mr. Petty stated you may want to have a not to exceed number for Phase 1 for the next 60 days.  That way we know the engineer and surveyors will be covered by that amount.  They can always come back and do the remainder.

            Mr. McKune stated for the first 60 days, the cost should be $25,000.  If it is more, we will come back next month.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor CH2M-Hill was authorized to implement the drainage study in an amount not to exceed $30,000 for the next 60 days.


            Mr. Fennell stated this could have a lot of implications.

            Mr. Hanks stated it will help us reach a decision based on the performance of that model. 

            Mr. Fennell stated at one time we were talking about preventative maintenance.  Do we still perceive a rush to do this?

            Mr. Petty responded to help the trees?

            Mr. Fennell responded yes, the ones still there.

            Mr. Petty stated financially speaking; I cannot give you a reason to go because the cost of going in there quickly is so high.  We asked the engineer to put out a bid.  We had to persuade him because he wanted to wait to get a better number.  We wanted to give this Board a number for what it would cost to enter into a contract arrangement to remove all of the trees still standing within the right-of-way.  That should be ready on Friday.  If the Board wants to consider action, we can continue this meeting or you can wait and we will be happy to transmit the information to you for your consideration at the next meeting.

            Mr. Fennell asked do we need to quickly make a decision?

            Mr. Petty responded I do not have a reason to tell you to hurry.

            Mr. Hanks stated I do not think we need to hurry.

            Mr. Eissler stated neither do I.

            Mr. Fennell stated after seeing what happened in another District, 75% of the removed trees were Australian Pines.  The problems were the trees that fell down.  The Australian Trees behind the shopping mall or the apartment buildings were dangerous.  In looking at the trees behind the houses, most of them are not that bad.  The problem was with the commercial interests who put up trees as screens and forgot about them.  We could have probably pressured them to take them out.

            Mr. Petty stated I agree because I do not want to start a fight with these people.

            Mr. Hanks asked for the Wal-Mart permit, should we be imposing a condition on permits adjacent to canals regarding the maintenance of trees?

            Mr. Fennell responded yes.

            Mr. Petty stated in this particular case, the canal was cleared by us.  It runs north and south behind the outparcel to the east of the supermarket.  That is the main Sunshine canal and those trees have been removed as a District program four years ago.

            Mr. Fennell stated we received calls on that.

            Mr. Petty stated the first time we tried to remove them, the residents stood in front of their trees.

            Mr. Hanks asked can you let Mr. Lyles know we are interested in adding a condition of approval to development permits relating to the maintenance of landscaping within our easement.

            Mr. Petty stated it is totally appropriate.

            Mr. Fennell stated we are going to have more criteria to the quality of water.

            Mr. Petty stated the trees are not part of the permit.

            Mr. Hanks stated if we are removing trees, we need to establish limits as to what we can and cannot request.

            Mr. Flavin stated we have special conditions on the permit.

            Mr. Hanks stated we need a tree protection ordinance.  The question is whether we have the authority to remove healthy trees without obtaining a permit.

            Mr. Pawelczyk stated Mr. Lyles can go into this more but my understanding is you are interfering with the operation by those trees. 

            Mr. Fennell asked when can we have an answer?

            Mr. Petty responded at our next meeting, we will be considering the permit for the Sawgrass Expressway.  You will have to do a mini study for it.

            Mr. Fennell asked did anyone have a chance to see whether or not my street is connected to the C-14 canal?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.  There is no connection.

            Mr. Fennell stated there used to be a pipe.

            Mr. DaSilva stated it is the irrigation pipe.

            Mr. Petty stated it is a subdivision drain.

            Mr. Fennell stated I recall seeing one on the canal.

            Mr. Petty asked does Taravella have a connection?

            Mr. Fennell responded the school has one but I think there is one on my street.

            Mr. DaSilva responded we looked into it and there is no connection.

            Mr. Petty asked were you able to do a site inspection or did you look at the plans?

            Mr. DaSilva responded I spoke to the engineer.

            Mr. Fennell stated this is important because if the C-14 gets too high, the water will come into the street. 

            Mr. DaSilva asked which development?

            Mr. Fennell responded Shadowood. 

            Mr. DaSilva stated we can pull the original permit to look at it.

            Mr. Fennell stated we just approved a permit for Taravella.  The real issue I have is if the water gets to the height of the C-14, the water may backflow into Taravella.

            Mr. Petty stated that is the “what if” scenario.

            Mr. McKune asked when will you be done with the model?

            Mr. DaSilva responded next month we can give a better update.  We will start right away.

            Mr. McKune stated we cannot do much until we receive the survey results.

            Mr. Hanks stated we can model it assuming we need the water elevations.  We can proceed independently of the Surveyor.

            Mr. DaSilva stated I can start by having someone take aerials and analyze sub-basins.

            Mr. Hanks asked how will you check the elevations?  We assumed the finished elevation was 11.5.

            Mr. DaSilva responded usually we have permits.  We can take the proposed plans.

            Mr. Flavin stated data collection is going to be the most time consuming.

            Mr. Petty stated the engineers just heard about this for the first time today and realize speed is of the essence.  As we are walking the field and know a dyke is supposed to be elevation 11 and instead see a dip to elevation 8 we give this information to them and they will come back to us and we will start construction.  We will not wait until the report is done four months later and highlight it.  Let’s take it as we see it. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I want to make sure it is high on the priority list.  Mr. Hanks is correct that this is a parallel type of system.  Frankly, it is going to take some time to complete the model.  You need what is there already and then you will come back with the data and modify the model. 

            Mr. DaSilva stated I will check with the city on the zoning criteria to see if it changed.

            Mr. Hanks stated I do not think we should get the city involved.  Zoning criteria can be changed by the City Commission.

            Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like a good plan.  We will hold our decision and what to do for the next meeting.  We hope to have some substantial input next month.  There is a time frame involved.  If we are going to do this type of criteria and work with the city, we need to be putting this criteria forward now as opposed from a year from now.  The best time to do this is now. 


EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                     Staff Reports

A.        Attorney

            There not being any, the next item followed.


B.        Engineer

            There not being any, the next item followed.


C.        Manager

            1.         Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

            Mr. Eissler stated the month water and sewer charts look very good.

            Mr. Fennell stated water line loss is down five percent.  Do you know why?

            Mr. Petty responded it is a good mark not only on your utility field workers but also on your utility meter readers and utility billing service people to be that close.

            Mr. Fennell stated we are using Sodium Hypochlorite as opposed Chlorine.

            Mr. Petty stated liquid Chlorine versus gas. 

            Mr. Fennell asked have there been any comments since we changed over our water quality?

            Mr. Petty responded no.  The change was mostly for our safety issues and DEP requirement. 


            2.         Utility Billing Work Orders

            3.         Complaints Received/Resolved

            There not being any, the next item followed. 


TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                       Supervisor Requests and Audience Comments

            Mr. Fennell asked what is the status of our audit?

            Mr. Petty responded we spoke to our auditors, specifically since they sent us a bill.  They have been bombarded with work.  They have given us some highlights on the emergency management, which you are seeing now in the Work Authorizations.  We asked the audit to come up with emergency response capabilities.  He met with the engineer and staff and reviewed those capabilities. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I would like to sit down with the auditor.  Can you schedule a meeting?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.


ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS               Approval of February Financials and Check Registers

            Mr. Hanks stated on the Water and Sewer Fund, there are legal fees of $24,762 to Law Collins under “Under Current Charges”.

            Mr. Petty stated I will have to check on that and bring it back to you.  It could be a personnel issue.  We hire outside counsel.  Did we have an issue with an operator where we used a separate attorney?

            Mr. Hyche responded one of our Field Operator’s hurt his knee.  I do not know whether he sued the District.  I know he was trying to get disability. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I noticed under the Water and Sewer Fund, the prorated budget shows we are $400,000 less in revenues than the expected.  Do we know why this is?  Most of it is for the Water Revenue.

            Mr. Petty responded we are behind a month to 45 days on the billing cycle.  I will check on that.  This is what you are going to see all year until the end of the year when you catch up.  When the budget is approved, you cannot bill for October until it is done, which makes us one month behind.

            Mr. Fennell stated check to see whether that is the case.  What are we going to do about the trees?

            Mr. Petty responded we will be asking the Board to approve a Budget Amendment at either the next meeting or the one after.  We will be taking funds from our capital program in the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund and transferring it to the General Fund to pay off these bills with interest.  We will make the General Fund pay every dime back the Enterprise Fund.

            Mr. Fennell asked have we received any money yet from FEMA?

            Mr. Petty responded no. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what about the NRCS?

            Mr. Petty responded the engineer was able to put together a contract.  NRCS approved the entire contract amount, which is highly unusual.  We have $1.88 Million approved by NRCS.  We should get 75 cents on the dollar for the $1.88 Million, possibly 12.5% from the state.  The exposure to CSID for this entire issue, because of the extra care that went into it, could be extremely small.

            Mr. Fennell asked what do we need to show them?

            Mr. McKune responded the contractors pay request.

            Mr. Fennell asked did we pay them?

            Mr. McKune responded this contractor prefers to get the job done and provide one bill, which is fine with me.

            Mr. Fennell stated so we do not have any money yet.

            Mr. Petty stated not yet, which means we do not need any action of the Board at this time.  We do not expect to have to finance any monies other than intrafund transfers for this issue.  When we look at removal of trees, we will talk about.

            Mr. Fennell stated if everything comes out to be true, it looks to me like we are talking about a $1.25 Million gift, if all of those different funds come in.  We already have $1,000,000 in reserve.

            Mr. Hanks stated we should take a look at how much we need to set aside in the event of an emergency.

            Mr. Fennell asked do you think it is enough?

            Mr. Hanks responded no.

            Mr. Fennell stated we need to find some place to put the money we are getting in.  Maybe the contingencies.

            Mr. Petty stated we will be talking about these items in the next month as we start having our budget discussion.  You will be receiving a preliminary budget so we can talk to the public about the items and have discussion.  Reserve is very much part of the budget process.

            Mr. Hanks stated I see old checks that should have been paid.  Accounts payable should be paying them every two weeks.

            Mr. Petty stated it depends on whether the vendors invoice them correctly.  The manager brought staff in to provide extra help.  However, for the last two weeks, she has not had that extra help because we have been backed up.  We hope to bring her back within the next week or two.

            Mr. Hanks stated I want to make sure we are not getting hit with fees and we are not jeopardizing the performance of our plant by not having the required chemicals because we have not paid for the chemicals.  I also want to make sure we are not compromising employee benefits.

            Mr. Petty stated absolutely.  I do not know of any late fees.  I will take care of those issues.

            Mr. Fennell stated this is a big concern and one we should deal with next month to make sure we are sufficiently staffed for accounting functions.  We basically have half of a person working on our accounting system due to sickness, death in the family, etc.

            Mr. Hanks stated take care of the invoices in two weeks.




On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the financials and General Fund invoices for March 31, 2006 in the amount of $106,312.37 and the Water and Sewer Fund invoices for March 31, 2006 in the amount of $1,053,824.70 were approved.


TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                 Adjournment

            There being no further business,


On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the meeting was adjourned at 5:48 P.M.






Glen Hanks                                                               Robert Fennell

Secretary                                                                   President