MINUTES OF MEETING
The regular meeting of the
Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on
Present and constituting a quorum were:
Bob Fennell President
Glen Hanks Vice President
Sharon Zich Secretary
Also present were:
John Petty Manager
Dennis Lyles Attorney
John McKune Engineer
Cedo DaSilva CH2M-Hill
Jane Early CH2M-Hill
Isabelo Rodriguez CH2M-Hill
Daniel Bohorguez CH2M-Hill
Janice Moen Larned
Randy Fredericks Field Supervisor
Doug Hyche District Staff
Mark Westfall City of
Mr. Fennell called the meeting to order and Mr. Petty called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the September 18, 2006 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member
received a copy of the
Mr. Hanks stated on page four in the third line down, I was incorrectly identified.
Ms. Rabone stated I will check the tape.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Resolutions
A. Resolution 2007-1 Designating John Petty as Assistant Treasurer
Mr. Fennell asked who is Treasurer?
Mr. Petty responded Ms. Janice Larned is Treasurer. Mr. Ed Goscicki is currently Assistant Treasurer but is no longer involved in the District. This is a housekeeping matter.
Mr. Hanks asked is this resolution numbered 2007-1 due to the new fiscal year?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
B. Resolution 2007-2 Designating Signatories
Mr. Petty stated we request deletion of this resolution from consideration as it is redundant. We no longer need it.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Chemical Bids for Aquatic Weed Control
Mr. Petty stated we will place this item on hold as we are re-bidding due to a discrepancy in the bids.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Selection of Capital Improvement Coordinator
Mr. Petty stated the Board received the advertisement for bid and proposal from McKune & Associates. During the budget process, we mentioned hiring a Capital Improvement Coordinator to act as our liaison in order to keep our engineering costs in line. They would work out of the percentage points the engineer typically gets. We believe we will obtain savings in this regard. The Capital Improvement Coordinator will receive the majority of their fees from this. We will also use them as an engineer for some of the on-site jobs, in particular the SFWMD best management practices. We already budgeted for this item and utilized Mr. Moore in this regard. In the advertisement, we asked for an experienced engineer who had knowledge of this District and its utility and drainage systems. Mr. McKune responded as we hoped he would.
Mr. Fennell asked was this put out for bid?
Mr. Petty responded yes, we did this as recommended by counsel.
Mr. Fennell asked did anyone else respond?
Mr. Petty responded no.
Mr. Hanks asked was this based on the criteria in section five?
Mr. Fennell stated the first qualification is a tricky.
Mr. Hanks stated this is an exclusive specification
Mr. Petty stated for a capital improvement, we thought we were being lenient. We could have asked for 30 years experience, which Mr. McKune has.
Mr. Lyles stated usually where you require special expertise, you indicate just what you said or put “or equivalent” and give someone an opportunity to show an equivalent level of experience.
Mr. Petty stated we were looking for very specific knowledge a Capital Improvement Coordinator would have in knowing enough about this particular system to provide us what we consider to be the safeguard and reliability of the 2% return, which is critical to them making the money on this project. Saving us 2% by their specific knowledge of these facilities, is what makes this work. As any competent engineer knows, trying to learn what is here can take years. This is what I meant by “specific knowledge” and the way we wrote these specific requirements.
Mr. Lyles stated this is out of the ordinary when it comes to CCNA notices and processing an RFQ. Therefore, there is some exposure. If you want to proceed, it is up to the Board. However, it is incumbent upon me to at least point out it is unusual and not something I have seen where you limit the experience to one particular capital project. However, I understand the rationale for trying to save money.
Mr. Petty stated keep in mind this is the Capital Improvement Coordinator and not a District Engineer. We were doing it this way in an abundance of caution since this is a service related issue. I think we have done a good job.
Mr. Lyles stated I certainly agree with the manager this it is not the full scope of engineering services you are looking to find a qualified person to perform and therefore, a full and complete CCNA process in terms of the description and qualifications is called for.
Mr. Hanks stated I have reservations about how the advertisement was worded.
Mr. Fennell stated advertise again and add the word “equivalent”.
Mr. Petty asked can I have a definition or indication of what “equivalent” means?
Mr. Fennell responded you have to be convinced they would in fact have equivalent experience to be able to do the job.
Mr. Hanks stated we only had one respondent and it is too restrictive. Mr. McKune has 35 years of experience, many years here with the District. I do not know who else is out there. Are we missing someone else out there who is well qualified just by the restrictive nature? I like Mr. McKune and the work he does but I want to set an example for all districts. I want to open this up as there are plenty of qualified and talented people out there. I do not want to be so selective to where we are tailoring it to one individual.
Mr. Fennell asked does Mr. McKune currently have a position here?
Mr. Petty responded no. Mr. McKune retired from CH2M-Hill and we have a new Project Manager here this evening who will introduce himself under the Engineer’s Report.
Mr. Hanks asked can we hire Mr. McKune through Severn Trent Services?
Mr. Fennell responded this not the hiring of Mr. McKune as a person but McKune & Associates. I think we need to re-run the ad with the words “or equivalent”. Do we need anything else?
Mr. Lyles responded this is all you need. This is a term you regularly see in requests for bids. Sometimes we put this in our request for chemicals. You can also use it to modify the experience you are looking for.
Mr. Hanks asked in the interim, is there a way we can retain the services of Mr. McKune so we have the coverage of the Capital Improvement Coordinator?
Mr. Lyles responded you can appoint him to this position on an interim basis for a fee not to exceed $25,000. This would remove any question about the CCNA process. This is tricky because this is a management type of service not required to be bid in this way but on the other hand it has engineering components. This is why staff wanted to do this in the right way and we are still trying to. This threshold kicks in at $25,000. Hiring Mr. McKune on an interim basis while we continue with the notice process, is an appropriate way to proceed. This preserves your ability to look at other things.
Mr. Fennell stated I understand there is a current need for management. Is Mr. McKune currently working for us?
Mr. Petty responded no. At this time he is independent.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Change Orders
A. Change Order No. 1 with Intrastate Construction Corporation for Emergency Roof Repairs at Maintenance Building, Roto-Guard Building and Deep Injection Well Pump Station for a Net Increase of $78,920
Mr. Petty stated we had leaks in these building during the rains over the summer and it was necessary for us to do roof repairs to stabilize it since we had facilities at risk. At the deep injection well station we have expensive equipment. If water damages any of those motor control cabinets we are in trouble. We had a contractor who was able to obtain roofing materials at short notice. As you may know, roofers are difficult to get right now. We had the need to do an emergency change order as recommended by staff and our engineer. They brought this item to management’s attention and management agrees. We recommend approval to the Board.
Mr. Fennell asked are the roof repairs complete?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked how many square feet of roof did we end up repairing?
Mr. Petty responded the roof on two buildings had to be repaired. They were patched after Hurricane Wilma but the patches did not hold. Another patch job was not recommended.
Mr. Hanks asked are we talking about 10,000 square feet of roof?
Mr. Hyche responded I do not know the exact square footage as I did not bring the invoice with me. I can get the number for you.
Mr. Fennell asked are these new roofs?
Mr. Hyche responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked has anyone obtained a price comparison?
Mr. Petty responded I am doing a tile job for NSID on the clubhouse which is not anywhere as near as the square footage here. They are being charged $140,000. By single family roof size, we have a job big enough to cover four single family homes. The warehouse is a large building while the deep well station is only 1,000 square feet. The roto-guard building is probably close to 4,000 square feet.
Mr. Hanks asked in order of magnitude, how much of a premium did we pay for the quick turnaround?
Mr. Petty responded I think he gave us a good price.
Mr. Hanks stated as long as it stays in good condition. It is not a good price if we have to repair it next year. Do we have a warranty?
Mr. Petty responded the contractor is on-site for at least the next year. We have a warranty.
Mr. Hanks asked in writing?
Mr. Petty responded the membranes and the paper have various warranties associated with them. The warranty on workmanship and quality is one year.
Mr. Hanks asked are there other buildings on the site with roofs in need of repair in the near future where it may be beneficial to the District to go out and put on a bid list?
Mr. Petty responded the reason the roto-guard building was added was because water was leaking near the roto-guards. The maintenance building had some damage. The deep well building holds the high service pumps.
Mr. Hanks asked do you understand my concern of an emergency or immediate corrective action versus planning?
Mr. Petty responded yes. The water plant roof was re-roofed four months after Wilma. We now have new roofs on 80% of our buildings.
Mr. Hanks asked how old is the roof on this building?
Mr. Petty responded three years old.
B. Change Order No. 8 with Intrastate Construction Corporation for Water Treatment Plant Improvements to Well 5 for a Net Increase of $32,466.90
Mr. McKune stated Well 5 is south of
Mr. Hanks asked is Well 4 the one we received calls from the neighbor on?
Mr. McKune responded yes. Well 5 is around the corner from the small neighborhood park. It was allowed to deteriorate simply because of being, “Out of sight, out of mind”. We made some mechanical changes to it but this is largely an upgrade change of the control system and electrical panel. We still need to do some re-grading around the site. The raising of the slab was due to the potential flooding to get the heads above the 100 year flood elevation, which is now a requirement. This well for all intents and purposes is new.
Mr. Hanks asked what about the interior casing?
Mr. McKune responded the casing is not deteriorating. However, we installed a new motor because it broke down.
Mr. Hanks stated so we should not have any surprises.
Mr. McKune stated it will work well with the proper maintenance.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Hurricane Debris Removal and Canal Bank Restoration Status
Mr. Petty stated this has become a standard item on our agendas. I will defer to Mr. McKune on the status of the Phase 2 contracts for removal of nuisance trees from within the ROW.
Mr. McKune stated Phase 1 is now
complete. This was for the removal of
the hurricane damaged trees. We received
money from NRCS. Phase 2 was designed
and bid to remove the remaining trees. Applications
submitted to the city were scaled back to only removing the nuisance trees. We then found out that ficus trees were no
longer a nuisance and are now considered ornamentals. All trees must now be removed by obtaining a
permit from the city. We contacted Stiles
Corporation who applied to the City of
Mr. Hanks stated Section 31 is
Mr. McKune stated there are also ficus and plum trees.
Mr. Hanks stated those were not exotic evasive and were not listed on the recent species list.
Mr. Fennell asked have you seen the reason for the rejection?
Mr. McKune responded no.
Mr. Fennell asked have you spoke to anyone about it? Is there any rationale other than they decided these will not contribute to the flooding?
Mr. Petty responded a representative
from the City of
Mr. Mark Westfall stated I am the individual who rejected the permits. The rationale is aside from the fact there was mis-identification of some tree species, one of the trees could be covered under the nuisance tree permit. The biggest problem hinged on the mitigation question. City code requires mitigation or removal of non nuisance trees. There was no mitigation.
Mr. Hanks asked has it been decided whether the trees are treated inch-for-inch for utilities? Has this issue been resolved?
Mr. Westfall responded no. Currently trees are treated inch-for-inch. If we have documentation CSID is considered to be a utility, I will be happy to revisit the matter.
Mr. Hanks asked is this something we need our counsel to talk to your counsel on?
Mr. Westfall responded probably.
Mr. Lyles stated we are sitting in the middle of a utility plant. I spoke to their counsel before and was under the impression we will be classified in that fashion. I tried to keep the lines of communication open. If we need to do more homework, we will do so as soon as possible. Any other minor problems with the permit request, the contractor can clarify.
Mr. Fennell stated the trees are on the CSID right-of-way.
Mr. Lyles stated CSID property.
Mr. Fennell asked are they in the canal right-of-way where water flows?
Mr. Hanks responded CSID property refers to the CSID right-of-way. This means we have title to the property and it is our property.
Mr. Westfall stated it is difficult for me to identify exactly where the right-of-way is. Obviously some of the trees are on the edge of the canal bank. Others were 10’ to 12’ from the root. I am assuming the trees are in the right-of-way. We need to answer this question.
Mr. Fennell asked do you know how the trees got there?
Mr. Westfall responded some of them were ornamentals.
Mr. Fennell asked does the city have a policy preventing people from planting into canal banks?
Mr. Westfall responded we certainly do not encourage them. The homeowners do not come to us every time they plant a tree on their property. In past years when dealing with commercial property or residential, we most definitely point out they should not be planting in the right-of-way.
Mr. Fennell stated we are not sure who is in control of the trees. If someone is giving permission to people to the homeowners to plant trees on CSID property, we want to see it strongly discouraged. We also want the city to say, “Do not plant trees in the canal right-of-way”. Do you think this is possible?
Mr. Westfall responded I will take your comments back to the city. When we receive a request from a developer, we make certain the trees are not planted in the right-of-way. This may or may not have been the case in the past.
Mr. Fennell stated this is something we want to encourage because we do not want to see those trees there. As you probably know, the trees in there are weak because as the water level rises it kills the roots and these trees do not stand a chance. Are you familiar with Mr. Sutton’s presentation to us?
Mr. Westfall responded I am familiar with it but have some reservations.
Mr. Fennell asked has the city done a hydrologic study of the area?
Mr. Westfall responded no.
Mr. Fennell asked do they have any rationale on what will happen if in fact the canals get blocked? Has the city taken into account the drainage issues either for the canals or the streets in these decisions?
Mr. Westfall stated we met with Mr. Petty on several occasions and we understand the concerns of the Board. We are not disputing your right. Our ordinance clearly gives the Drainage District the right to maintain the canal right-of-way. However, this is not the issue here. The issue is the question of mitigation. We are not saying we are going to stop you from removing the trees.
Mr. Fennell stated if the permit is rejected, that is what is going on.
Mr. Hanks stated it was rejected without mitigation.
Mr. Westfall stated it was rejected because the requirements of the ordinance have not been fulfilled. It was rejected with comments and you will receive the comment sheet along with the rejected permit. It is not unusual for permits to be rejected several times in order for corrections to be made.
Mr. Fennell asked does the city understand they are partially responsible for the drainage?
Mr. Westfall responded I cannot speak for the city.
Mr. Fennell stated if they stop us from doing our job, they are responsible. They are responsible for a series of permits for the street drainage and for insuring the drain areas are cleared and maintained. If there is any flooding, it is the city’s responsibility.
Mr. Westfall stated I cannot comment because I am a forester.
Mr. Fennell stated trees were intentially planted there and were not supposed to be. By an act of God or nature, they were planted in the wrong spot. What is the rationale for mitigating?
Mr. Westfall responded I discussed this with numerous developers who feel they are being punished because they did not plant the trees and now have to mitigate them. They current policy does not spell out every detail as to rationale behind it. The fact is there are trees on the property and we are requesting removal of them. We are against the removal of the trees if the requirements of the code are met.
Mr. Fennell stated there is a mitigation issue. We feel in many cases we do not have the right specification or approach for trees taking as much of the wind force as we expect our houses to. Has the city done something about that? What we need is a tree policy to beautify the city but also provide the same security we expect our trees to.
Mr. Westfall stated the city’s tree
subsidy program limits the number of trees eligible for subsidies in other
cities as well as
Mr. Fennell asked has the city revised their tree trimming policy?
Mr. Westfall responded our tree
trimming policy is out of
Mr. Fennell asked has there been a study done saying what we can expect in one class of trees in a category one storm?
Mr. Westfall responded I did not know any such study was possible because there are too many factors involved. It is not just the species. This is a common misconception. Everyone wants a list of the hurricane resistant trees. There is far more involved such as the proper tree structure in a good quality tree as opposed to a poor quality tree. We need to consider the quality of the tree, quality of the care over the lifetime of the tree as well as improper planting. If you plant the tree too deep, it can fail.
Mr. Fennell stated there must be some type of statistical result. You do not need to have a particular tree but you can take an average.
Mr. Hanks stated I have seen this list, which is a good list of trees well resistant to windstorms.
Mr. Westfall stated the
Mr. Fennell stated we lost a considerable amount of trees with the hurricane. Our solution was not an engineering or arborist one but to spend some money and clean it up quicker next time. This was a financial decision. My house got hit two years by a row by trees. I propose some type of study discussing types of plantings and hurricane resistant trees.
Mr. Westfall stated we changed our Landscape Ordinance to allow developers when building commercial properties to have cluster trees. It has been shown time and again clustering trees can buffer each other and do better than individual trees. We are currently reviewing a project where the parking island does not have to be every 10 parking spaces with one tree standing in the wind. Instead the parking islands can be aggregated to allow for cluster plantings. We have been making adjustments to the code. When you have as many trees as we do, the likelihood of losing trees during hurricanes is going to be greater.
Mr. Hanks stated there are going to
be situations we not going to be able to control in
Mr. Fennell stated I was looking not
so much at the canal but at my house. As
I look at the damage done in
Mr. Westfall stated in many ways, the District and the city are similar because we did not have any plans to look at this until Hurricanes Jeanne and Wilma. We had no experience with how two different tree species performed. My frustration is we sent out a tree information booklet to 20,000 households and the percentage of people who appear to be reading it is minimal. I can only do so much in terms of trying to educate the public.
Mr. Fennell stated we are going to try to insure the residents of CSID are better informed about what is needed by doubling our efforts. We hope to cooperate with the city to make sure we have a uniform policy, not only for trees in the yard but trees along the canal.
Mr. Hanks stated you are not going to change the residents perception. Occasionally we are going to see in the future where people hire companies to plant trees and they end up planting them in our right-of-way. Is there a way, if we catch them within a certain period of time, to go back to the resident and say, “Get rid of the tree because it is in our right-of-way and you are encroaching”?
Mr. Westfall responded this is a legal question and something we want to see happen. However, what the enforcement mechanism is and whether it is enforcement on the side of the District, Code Enforcement or the police, I do not know and is something we need to look into. When I deal with the residents and I deal with many residents regarding the trees all over the city, this is something I point out to them. I can say it but it does not mean they are going to listen to me.
Mr. Fennell asked are you here to help negotiate the mitigation issue?
Mr. Westfall responded no. The reasoning behind the rejection needs to be looked at.
Mr. Fennell stated the city has a policy for planting trees. Are they giving residents money to help plant trees?
Mr. Westfall responded yes. We are subsidizing street trees along public right-of-way. I inspect every tree planted for quality, proper planting and species. We are not just taking their word for it.
Mr. Hanks stated we need to review the city code. Representation here told us we have to provide mitigation. Do we need to provide the city with a proposal for mitigation?
Mr. Fennell responded yes.
Mr. Hanks stated if we remove 175 trees by the Auto Mall, there is going to be an impact to the residents adjacent to the canal in terms of a visual buffer. We need to take a close look at this.
Mr. Fennell stated the buffer should not have been there in the first place. Any mitigation will have to go behind it. The owner of the property bears some responsibility because he planted the trees in the wrong spot.
Mr. Hanks stated in the end, we are all responsible because as members of this District, we have to assume the cost one way or another for mitigation and tree removal. In some ways the Board is responsible because of inaction over the course of 20 years in terms of effectively exercising the right-of-way.
Mr. Fennell stated when the trees were only 15’ high and three inches in diameter, we were not anywhere near the seriousness of the problem it is today.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to provide direction to management?
Mr. Fennell responded we need to instruct staff to start negotiating a mitigation policy with the city as a utility. We cannot put those trees back in the same places.
Mr. Hanks stated let’s provide them some guidance as to where we want to prioritize the mitigation of these trees.
Mr. Fennell stated there is an issue of money as there is only so much we can afford. As a utility, is there a difference in mitigation responsibilities?
Mr. Lyles responded it is substantially different. The permitting as it relates to utilities authorizes tree for tree replacement. A private landowner or developer does it on an inch per inch basis. If you are removing a 10” caliper tree as a developer or private landowner, you have to replace a 10” tree. As a utility, if you remove one tree, you have to replace it with one tree. This is a loose standard in some ways, which is why city staff and your staff have to come to terms on the plan. I am absolutely convinced we are entitled to be considered as a utility under this tree ordinance and we will proceed in this fashion every step of the way.
Mr. Hanks asked is Comcast considered to be a utility?
Mr. Westfall responded I do not know. FDOT is not a utility but they are on an inch per inch replacement.
Mr. Fennell stated we want to work with the city. I request the city help donate some money to this issue. We still need to do something different as far as the design of our own property for shielding. We were talking about bringing in a Landscape Architect. Have we done so?
Mr. Petty responded yes. CH2M-Hill is standing by.
Mr. Hanks stated with the proper tree placement, you can also shield damage from your house. The house can be damaged by dropped branches but prevents other types of damage from occurring.
Mr. Fennell stated we need to do this and are asking the city to help us out financially. We consider ourselves to be a utility. Does staff need further direction?
Mr. Petty responded no. We can start talking to the City Manager’s office.
Mr. Hanks stated I think we are wasting our time. I wish to investigate whether or not the pumps will move a tree once it is hanging off the bank. The whole concern has been the trees in the canal were moved when all the pumps were turned on.
Mr. Fennell stated we were concerned about blockages.
Mr. Hanks stated if it moves a fallen tree, you can have it moved to the culvert. We should find a location where we can test to see whether or not the pumps will pull a tree off the bank.
Mr. Petty stated your engineer already did a calculation on the traveling speed of a tree and how many feet per second the canal water will be running. It will be impossible for us to do a test of various trees with flotation capabilities. You can take the velocity of the canal into consideration and consider it to be a threat versus a study of dropping a couple of trees into the canal.
Mr. Hanks asked how are you going to model a tree?
Mr. Petty responded I would fail modeling the tree because wood has different densities depending on the species.
Mr. Hanks asked if the tree stays on the bank and does not travel to a culvert and does not block the culvert, does the tree pose a risk to flooding or increase our risk for flooding? We can be spending millions of dollars to determine this.
Mr. Fennell responded I do not think there is any question that branches come off the trees. One branch came off my tree and flew 50 feet through the air. Whether it is whole or single branches, there is no question we are going to have branches in the water floating down the canal.
Mr. Hanks stated I am talking about a tree partially in the water and partially on the bank. You are dealing with a full canopy, which you will not have in a hurricane. The leaves are going to start to strip off early on before you start breaking branches.
Mr. Fennell stated we paid an engineering group to study this. What is the status of this study?
Mr. Petty responded the engineer will be giving a presentation under his report.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
ii. Special Act Codification
Mr. Lyles stated I distributed to the Board and manager earlier in the meeting the proposed amendment to the Special Act authorizing the District to serve in the function discussed at previous meetings pertaining to elections and amending bidding thresholds to be consistent with Florida Law as it relates to other government type agencies and adjusting the level of the compensation of the Board members to $400. Staff requested considering one additional item, updating the short term borrowing provision to make it clear, although it is implicit in the 34 year old document we are operating under like other government entities you have the ability to go to commercial institutions, banks, underwriters and other lenders to take advantage of what may be a short term borrowing, short of a five year bond issue. If you have any questions on what this will involve you can ask Ms. Larned. We will be filing this proposed bill with the Legislative Delegation this week. The most significant issue is going to be the Board’s ability to convert from a landowner election to an electoral (one person/one vote) system run by the Supervisor of Elections at your discretion. However, this will only happen in connection with a General Election every other November.
Mr. Fennell asked will we have two members serving for four years and one member for two years?
Mr. Lyles responded just for the first year in order to get a staggered election system. You have people serving four year terms but not the entire Board being replaced in one election cycle.
Mr. Fennell asked does it state when the elections will be held?
Mr. Lyles responded the elections will be held the next succeeding even number year in November on Election Day after you make the decision to convert to this system. It does not dictate when you will make this decision but that they will only be held in connection with the General Election in this county.
Mr. Fennell stated running elections are a big expense.
Ms. Zich stated now we are going to be elected by all residents in the District.
Mr. Fennell stated we can only do this if we get the state to change our rules.
Mr. Hanks stated all three Board members will vote in the General Election during non-presidential terms.
Mr. Fennell stated it has been this way for a long time. We said this was a good thing to do.
Mr. Hanks asked do you have the contract amounts for bids?
Mr. Lyles responded we will follow the state’s cap on its agencies and local government districts like CDD’s and cities. Typically a construction project is going to remain at $200,000 like every government as opposed to $4,000 but more importantly, the maintenance services going along with it for the water plants this District operates are heavy dollar contracts in some cases. But in other cases, it may be a $10,000 or $15,000 contract. We currently have to publish in the newspaper a notice to bidders and go through the preparation of bid specifications involving staff and engineering time. This is an expensive and cumbersome process. The state and all other local governments and CDD’s in the state only have to do this if the cost hits $150,000.
Mr. Hanks stated for the roof repairs we authorized with the change order, now we have to go out for a public bid if it was not done by a change order.
Mr. Lyles stated unfortunately given the way this was written in the early 1970’s, if we have roof damage exceeding $4,000, we have to go through a bidding process. This way we will be able to do it, with whatever authority levels the Board establishes for the management staff to get the work completed and bring it back to the Board for ratification.
Mr. Hanks asked do we you need a resolution?
Mr. Lyles responded we just need a motion to authorize staff to file the proposed bill amending Chapter 2004-469 Laws of Florida, which is your Special Act.
Mr. Petty stated I received comments on the Economic Impact Statement but I do not have the current draft. One item was about the bank being specified even though it is implicit. However, this is for short term notes and we are not looking to qualify for a short term note. In the past we had the issue of bidding anything over $4,000. We also had a problem with attaching to other government contracts. You said since we did not have this in our enabling legislation, we cannot participate in state contracts. Will these areas be covered with the changes you made?
Mr. Lyles responded we did not specifically authorize it because we were increasing the statutory limit. However, if you want to participate in a state contract or something bid by another local government, we can certainly add this language.
Mr. Petty stated if we have time.
Mr. Lyles stated we have time.
Mr. Fennell asked do we want to add the provision to attach and participate in state contracts?
Mr. Petty responded yes. Counsel understands these two issues. The issue allowing us to go to the bank is in order for us to do notes and bonds, which has always been in there. However, in an abundance of caution, we want to make sure commercial resources were not withheld for us, whether we were looking for long term or short term notes.
Mr. Lyles stated what we currently have is the ability to issue bonds. Although it is not part of this act, Florida Law requires any financing we do having a term in excess of five years be treated like a bond and therefore have it validated in Circuit Court. Whether or not we change the language in the Special Act, the five year cap applies to us. For anything less than five years, you have a restriction for short-term borrowing. We want to get rid of this so we can take full advantage of the ability to borrow more cheaply from a commercial bank or lender.
Mr. Hanks stated we currently have a gap of three years.
Mr. Lyles stated we need to be able to have more flexibility to save the District money to do the right borrowing in the right situation when it is appropriate. It could never be anything not brought to and pre-authorized by the Board under any circumstances. The Board has to authorize it.
Mr. Petty stated whether the validation is a requirement because it is a capital improvement or a long term maintenance assessment, I do not have an issue with the validation proceeding and I am not trying to get out of noticing anyone or validating any amounts of money but we have rooftops. Since we have rooftops, we can take advantage of commercial paper, which is the cheapest part of financing available to us, if we so word it in our Special Act. I am not looking for additional short-term notes from two years to five years, although I do not mind having it. I am more interested in looking at the commercial paper for the long term since I can obtain much better rates, in particular for your capital improvement program.
Mr. Hanks stated in other words like a mortgage.
Mr. Petty stated long term debt is long term debt. I do not want to compare it to a homeowner’s mortgage. It is more complicated than a mortgage. We are trying to make sure we can use commercial paper because we have the rooftops. When we were a landowner District and they were looking to get bonds for the “dirt” deals, there is a very small source of revenue for it. However, now you have rooftops and your credit rating is much higher and stable, which we can take advantage of and take those savings to the residents.
Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like a cap. Does everything longer than five years have to be a bond?
Mr. Lyles responded whether it is a
city, county or a special district, they run into the same issues. There are ways they do things like Lease
Purchase Agreements and other types of creative financing. The bottom line is in
Mr. Hanks stated it is a time threshold, not so much an instrument threshold.
Mr. Petty stated it is an instrument threshold. If we need to validate, let’s validate. If we need a referendum, let’s go through a referendum. If I need to have a special meeting to notice the landowners or homeowners by certified letter, let’s do so. The current language in the legislation says, “By bonds or note”. Notes are poorly defined. All I request is we change the language to, “Bonds, notes and commercial paper as applicable.” We are looking at an established community, not a new one.
Mr. Lyles stated the legislature currently says, “The District at any time may obtain loans in such amount and on such terms and conditions as the Board may approve for the purpose of paying any of the expenses of the District or any costs incurred or in connection with any project”. We currently have this authority.
Mr. Fennell asked is loans a more general term?
Mr. Petty responded there is other language. This is why we want to be specific by mentioning the banks and commercial paper. Because the financing can be construed in a negative light, in an abundance of caution, we want the language to specifically say we have this option.
Mr. Fennell asked is it an issue?
Mr. Lyles responded not really as it
is not part of the draft we have been working on or the discussion. There was a recommendation from staff to
broaden what I characterize as short term borrowing, meaning anything under the
five year threshold. I will be happy to
add this language. We were provided with
some language they would like to see in there.
I want everyone to understand, no matter what we put in the Special Act
or any amendments is not going to amend the General Law in
Mr. Hanks asked does this need to come back before us?
Mr. Lyles responded there is no time for it to come back to the Board.
Mr. Fennell asked which section are we looking at?
Mr. Lyles responded we are looking to add the language suggested by the manager and Ms. Larned in Section 20 of your Special Act.
Mr. Hanks asked is this a good idea or a bad idea?
Mr. Lyles responded it is a good idea.
Mr. Fennell asked what do you think our chances are?
Mr. Lyles responded very good. Everything we are proposing to do falls under the category of modernizing some terms and conditions thought to be necessary in 1970 for providing the flexibility for the Board to authorize elections on a one person/one vote basis rather than a landowner basis. This was something thought advisable in 1970, which right now can only be done through an expensive petition and referendum process. The legislative delegation should see this as a positive step.
i. Update on
Mr. Lyles stated there is no update.
Ms. Rabone stated we will remove this item from the agenda.
Mr. Lyles stated we will request it to be on the agenda when we have final agreement and signatures.
Mr. Bohorguez stated I am with CH2M-Hill. Mr. DaSilva and I prepared a report on the hydrologic model. This report shows what is occurring in the canals and points out the areas of concern in regards to eventual flooding.
Mr. DaSilva stated this has not changed since this report was presented some time back. There are several scenarios we can run. The east basin is of concern at this point but there is no concern for the 10 year storm. However, there is concern for the 100 year storm as the minimum finish floor for the east basin is 12”. We checked some of our data and every place we checked was above 12’. When we ran the 100 year storm, we reached flood stages of 12.4”, which is six inches above the required 12”. However, I do not think there is any house reaching 12.5” or lower.
Ms. Early asked what year did it flood?
Ms. Zich responded April of 1979.
Ms. Early stated Mr. Schooley told me in 1978 there was a 16” rainfall in six hours and no homes reported flooding. Was the water only in the garage or did it get into the house?
Ms. Zich responded the water was in the garage only.
Ms. Early stated this is expected under a 100 year flood.
Ms. Zich asked why did it flood?
Ms. Early responded when you get past a 10 year event and into the 100 year event, the water starts to get stored. The roads are at the 10 year event. What is the elevation of your house?
Ms. Zich responded 12’. I live off of
Mr. Petty stated in 1979 there was 15” to 16” of rainfall in a 24 hour period. This exceeded the 100 year storm event, which is calculated over 72 hours and not 24 hours.
Ms. Zich stated we thought at the time the water levels would be lowered.
Mr. Petty stated our system cannot keep up with this type of a rain event. We can pre-pump for a hurricane but if we are not ahead of the water, we cannot keep up. This is from the operational side. We will drop the level down 1’ and then go out and figure out the best estimate of rainfall expected with the event, monitor it fairly closely as the storm approaches and continue to adjust the level. The rain event in 1979 came without warning.
Ms. Zich stated my husband had to
Mr. Fennell stated I contacted the Weather Bureau and obtained data from them. This was not a 100 year event. A 100 year event is over 18” of rain. Ms. Early’s data is not from the Weather Bureau.
Mr. Hanks stated Ms. Early and her crew have been designing to the rainfall contours as published by the SFWMD.
Mr. Fennell stated this is what they like to see but is not what the Weather Bureau said.
Ms. Early stated this is what the permit is based on.
Mr. Fennell stated this may be true but it is not at the 100 year mark.
Mr. Petty stated we are arguing apples and oranges. The Weather Bureau has a 100 year storm event that does not calculate to the SFWMD 100 year storm event. One is for drainage and one is for a weather pattern.
Mr. Fennell stated this is what they think they can handle.
Mr. Petty stated this is what our permit is based on.
Mr. Fennell stated the Weather Bureau measures the water every day. I think the 72 hour constraint is fictional. It is not from the Weather Bureau and not the initial condition. This is like saying, “I do not want gravity to be quite as strong so I am going to have a three day limit on how far you can drive.” The correct amount is 18”. What we saw in 1978/1979 was not at the 100 year mark. It was more like a 40 to 50 year mark at best. The point is we can get more rain than expected. I do not doubt it was 18” but it was over a three day period.
Mr. DaSilva stated the most we received in one day was 14”.
Mr. Petty stated when you are doing the drainage design, you have to take into account the peak hour, peak day and peak period. The peak period is a 72 hour event, which they identify as the 100 year event. If you want to consider the peak hour of our drainage system, it is going to be fairly low. We can handle peak day somewhat better at 9.5”, which gets you into your 10 year storm event. We exceeded 9.5” many times.
Mr. Fennell stated according to the statistics, a 9.5” rain event happens once every 10 years.
Mr. Petty stated our permit requires us to meet these three levels. You are correct by saying this does not meet with what the Weather Bureau says. What we are trying to say is you are going to live through a 100 year storm event in 24 hours.
Mr. Fennell stated what you are calling a 100 year point is a misnomer. It is not the probability of this event. It is much less. Call it something else like an 18” rainfall phenomenon.
Mr. Petty stated we will call it the 72 hour event.
Mr. Hanks asked are there any recommendations in this report for changing our Permit Criteria Manual?
Mr. DaSilva responded not at this point. We need to have consensus and talk about what we can do to remediate this.
Mr. Hanks asked what do we need to remediate?
Mr. DaSilva responded unfortunately the city is built out to where we can no longer expand lakes. We can look into re-routing the canals.
Mr. Hanks stated I agree the city is built out and there is insignificant room for expansion of our lake system. However, the city can change their zoning code without consulting us and allow for increased intensity of development. Currently where we may have 30% lot coverage, they can say, “Fine, for certain districts, we will allow 50% lot coverage”. I want to make sure we have this covered in our Permit Criteria Manual.
Mr. DaSilva stated our Permit Criteria Manual covers certain elevations by their storage capacity.
Mr. Hanks stated it is based on acres of open space. This language needs to be removed from the Permit Criteria Manual, especially in the east basin.
Mr. DaSilva stated if you have a site that is 100% impervious, it is not going to meet the requirements.
Mr. Hanks stated a site can have 80% impervious area made up of 30% building and 50% parking lot. You can construct a parking garage, increase your building coverage so you are still within the 80% but now all the 80% is structure. According to our Permit Criteria Manual, the amount of storage the site has to provide has now decreased because now 80% of the site is covered.
Mr. DaSilva stated I think it is relative. The more impervious you are, the less storage you will have.
Mr. Fennell stated there may be other things we can do. The conclusion says, “On the other hand, the east basin has a deficit when compared to the west basin requirements”. Are we below a minimum of 11.4% surface area for the east basin?
Mr. DaSilva responded yes. For comparison purposes, by permit we require 11.4” of water for the west basin area versus 6% for the east basin.
Mr. Hanks asked what is required by our SFWMD permit?
Mr. DaSilva responded there is no requirement on the east basin. Back in 1977 when the permit was issued, a large percentage of the city was already built-out.
Mr. Petty stated there was no requirement for retention in the first phase.
Mr. DaSilva stated when you go back and look at the ratios, the ones for the east basin are higher than the west basin for storage. In order to provide more onsite storage, they must have certain mechanisms. It is relative how much you can build because the more you build, the less storage you have.
Mr. Hanks stated either change the Permit Criteria Manual to get it based on a per acre basis, not for open space but for site acreage and total gross acreage of the site or I will develop my own criteria and provide it to the Board. I feel strongly we need to tie it down.
Mr. DaSilva stated we can tie it down any way you wish.
Mr. Petty stated I agree with Mr. Hanks. As the landowner or homeowner goes back to the city and ask for a modification to his house, the city is going to look at it and say, “If you have a setback that is fine”. We just lost some square footage and I need to know so I can monitor it. If our Permit Criteria Manual allows it to happen, fine but the Permit Criteria Manual should say, “I will not allow this to happen.” We do not have enforcement powers but they should be able to obtain a permit. If we have to work on a bank in another area benefiting us, then the homeowners can have their garage if they give me a plot of land somewhere else. I do not want to find out in 10 years we are half of what we should be because everyone wanted to have a four car garage. It is in our manual; let’s make it work for us.
Mr. DaSilva stated the east basin is higher than the west basin, which is how you can move water from the north to the south through two canals and one large culvert.
Mr. Fennell stated I want to understand the extent and severity of the problem.
Mr. DaSilva stated in reality, it is not a big problem. Under the 10 year event, the model works fine but under the 100 year event, we can see some problem areas.
Mr. Fennell stated it looks like the west basin is in better shape.
Mr. DaSilva stated the water can only travel two ways in the west basin; through a canal or a pipe.
Mr. Fennell stated this brought up the discussion about what happens if you partially block the canal.
Mr. DaSilva stated the 100 year in the west basin is 11.93” but in some of these culverts, it jumps to 12.4”.
Mr. Fennell stated someone can flood out.
Mr. DaSilva stated in some areas, most of the houses are higher than 12”.
Mr. Fennell stated you have results for the big rain event if the pumps are working perfectly and none of our pumps fail and have no blockages.
Mr. DaSilva stated correct.
Ms. Zich stated I did not realize the culvert goes under the mall.
Mr. Petty stated we have divers who do inspections.
Mr. DaSilva stated there are inspection boxes where someone can look down into a portion of the culvert.
Mr. Fennell asked what happens if a category two hurricane hits?
Mr. DaSilva responded we can run scenarios.
Mr. Petty stated I think the point is made since we have limited outfall and we have seen Hurricane Wilma drop material into the canals. You have a real need to look at what we discussed in the past which is adding any outfall lines to increase your options. They may be able to show you partial blockage will provide flooding to 100 new homes versus the 50 we are now considering but I do not think the 50 homes are acceptable. We need to have a way to increase the outfall number so we can have better drainage or slow drainage from here. We discussed in the past about having interconnect pipes in a loop drainage system. I think you have enough information to make a decision with a clear mind that will be of benefit to the District and the residents.
Mr. Hanks asked can we re-allocate one of our pumps and our pumping capacity from the west basin to the east basin?
Mr. DaSilva responded I think we could because the permit includes the entire west basin.
Mr. Fennell asked how serious are the problems? For the east basin, the 10 year design elevation of 10.8” is adequate. You are saying with the 10 year flooding, you expect some flooding in the east basin.
Mr. DaSilva stated minimal flooding of less than an inch.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the extent of the flooding for the 10 year event?
Mr. DaSilva responded it is a one day storm event.
Mr. Hanks asked will there be flooding in parking lots or streets?
Mr. DaSilva responded streets and parks. Anything below elevation 10.8”
Mr. Hanks stated some parks will get flooded and you will have water in your front yard. Major thoroughfares such as University Drive will still remain open.
Mr. DaSilva stated some roads are less than 10.8”.
Mr. Hanks stated some roads higher than others will remain open. If FDOT ever repairs the drainage on University Drive, the road will be fine.
Mr. DaSilva stated the elevation of University Drive is 13.5”.
Mr. Hanks stated you should drive down University Drive after it rains.
Mr. DaSilva responded we just issued a permit to redo the drainage system in some of the problem areas on University Drive.
Ms. Zich asked including the intersection of Riverside Drive and University Drive?
Mr. Hanks responded yes.
Ms. Zich stated this is the worst place in the city.
Mr. Fennell asked does your model take into account local street flooding?
Mr. DaSilva responded throughout the basin. Anything throughout the basin less than 10.8” is going to be flooded.
Mr. Fennell stated according to the map, the elevation of sub-basin 2701 is 12.49”. This is the area by Royal Palm Boulevard, which is an older area.
Mr. DaSilva stated it is at the tail end of the system.
Mr. Fennell stated there have been a couple of houses built on my street in the last five to ten years. They changed the elevation for the new houses to a higher elevation.
Mr. Hanks stated the older houses are 12” above the road crown as opposed to 18”.
Mr. DaSilva stated there is a new regulation with the city.
Mr. Hanks asked is 18” above the road crown an unusual regulation?
Mr. Fennell responded this was an issue for some of our neighbors.
Mr. DaSilva stated anything 12.3” or lower will flood.
Mr. Fennell stated with everything working perfectly.
Mr. DaSilva stated we ran some scenarios but have not brought them to the Board as we are unsure of them. We can run many scenarios. We know we do not have a perfect 100% projection on the 100 year storm.
Mr. Fennell stated it is important for us to run these scenarios in order to understand the severity of the problem. Are we talking about a problem not that severe, never really happened or is likely to happen? We had cases where pumps failed before in our pump stations. The last time we replaced our pumps was seven years ago. We had a situation where two pumps were down, one was pumping and we had to bring out a portable pump. This is a real issue because it tells us we were at 50% of our capacity.
Mr. Petty stated you may have an issue. For the 10 year storm, the design calculated 10.8” and you found four basins exceeding it, with the greatest margin being 5/100 of a foot. I consider this to be a good design. Does this represent a flood condition as far as you can say? The topping out stage in the 100 year storm was 12” and the highest elevation was 12.5”. Is this a major deviation from the design we should correct or is it well within the design parameters.
Mr. DaSilva stated this is a deviation from the original design parameters. It has to do with how the canals flow.
Mr. Petty stated if it is not a deviation from design and we still see fit to add improvements, that is one thing but the report is showing we have a deviation from design. This sets off an alarm bell all by itself.
Mr. DaSilva stated there could be several issues.
Mr. Petty stated if it is a material deviation in the design, then this is a problem all by itself and we have other considerations such as if there is any blockage at any one point.
Mr. DaSilva stated on the east basin by permit, each parcel is supposed to hold up to the first inch of runoff. It will be almost impossible for us to go out there and find every control structure or berm.
Mr. Hanks asked where are the retention ponds in Ramblewood East providing this water quality?
Mr. DaSilva responded some of them do not have it because they were too old.
Mr. Fennell asked what did you find out about the elevation along the east outfall?
Mr. DaSilva responded we recently went through a process of acquiring survey services. We met with the surveyor within the last two weeks and as soon as I receive the information from them, I will bring to the Board. We are asking them for a perimeter elevation around the entire District as well as cross sections where we see problem areas, including canal bottoms.
Mr. Fennell asked what is taking so long? We approved this item last month.
Mr. DaSilva responded it took longer than we expected.
Mr. McKune stated it has been a long process. The surveyor walked the entire site and knows what he needs to do. The entire scope of work is 12 miles. We are giving him a couple of weeks to get the data, especially along the east outfall and putting the data into a model.
Mr. Fennell stated I would like to know whether or not there is a problem. Someone knocked off three feet of the canal top.
Mr. DaSilva stated keep in mind; these berms were set at certain elevations in the past. At one time we were a city with nothing surrounding it. In order to prevent flooding and sheet flow, it may not be necessary to keep the berm at elevation 16”. The floor elevation in this area is 12”. I am sure in Margate, it is not much higher. In NSID, it is even lower.
Mr. Fennell stated the problem with the east outfall canal is it is at the same water level as the C-14. We can back pressure into the C-14 and make it the highest level of ground.
Mr. DaSilva stated the worst scenario is if the C-14 flows into other canals.
Mr. Fennell stated that is what I am worried about.
Mr. Petty stated SFWMD having control over the C-14 is a big problem.
Mr. Fennell stated you said you ran some scenarios but you do not wish to share them with me.
Mr. DaSilva stated I would like to show you the scenarios with blockages.
Mr. Fennell asked what was the result?
Mr. Bohorguez responded Mr. McKune and I were working on potential blockages. What will happen is the level of the water and velocity of the flow will increase. In the worst case, the water will go over elevation 12.80”.
Mr. Fennell stated we have an inventory of the trees, now that we have gone through our second phase and have an issue with having ornamental trees in this area. We know where the heavy population of trees are and can put it on a map. In those areas we can consider running blockage scenarios. In this way, as we negotiate with the City of Coral Springs, we can tell them, “According to the hydrologic model, this is the area I am concerned about because there are 500 trees but I am not concerned about this area because there are no trees”.
Mr. Hanks stated we are concerned with the potential for flooding in the northeast section. If there is a blockage as we get further south, does the blockage affect the north section?
Mr. Petty responded if we do not have any trees there, the blockage is an act of God. I can only control what we have in our right-of-way, not outside of it.
Mr. Fennell stated any type of blockage will cause flooding, which will get worse.
Mr. Bohorguez stated we can increase the pipes leading to the pump station or add more pipes. We can also discharge to the west basin.
Mr. Hanks stated the culvert going underneath the mall is 11”. The amount of area they have at 11”, according to CH2M-Hill’s report is zero. The amount of water they are storing at 11” is zero acre feet. The amount they are storing at 12”, which is the predicted 100 year flood elevation, is 14 acre feet. This translates to .10 acre feet at the 100 year elevation.
Mr. DaSilva stated I do not recall the number or how old the mall is or how it was permitted. Is it more than 40 acres?
Mr. Hanks responded the mall has 138 acres.
Mr. DaSilva stated it could have been permitted through the SFWMD. I know for a fact there are some outparcels with retention areas and control structures.
Mr. Hanks stated Washington Mutual has a deep pit for stormwater retention.
Mr. DaSilva stated I think the mall itself has some control structures or greenbelt.
Mr. Hanks stated based on your report, they are not contributing.
Mr. DaSilva stated those are very conservative assumptions. We did not go into very much detail.
Mr. Hanks stated investigate whether the mall has a permit from the SFWMD. If so, see what are the calculations are and if they providing the storage. Considering we are in a situation where we have potential flooding in these areas, we need to take a look and say, “The mall is not providing any storage and they should not be building anything else out there.”
Mr. Petty stated there is probably something in our minutes. I do not doubt Westinghouse, the main developer at the time, wanting to get this type of facility built for their developments, offered storage to some other place. We will get you those details.
Mr. Hanks stated what concerns me is this is the only sub-basin in the east basin not having any storage below 11”. Everyone else has storage down to 6.5”. It sounds like we are subsidizing them. Is there a restriction some place else? Was it followed through to do the excavation or was it an outstanding commitment for Westinghouse? If they have not followed through, we should be approaching them.
Mr. DaSilva stated the next step is for me to bring to the Board a shading area of what the area will look like with 50% or 100% blockages.
Mr. Fennell stated the other concern is Sherwood Forrest, which is the oldest area of the Drainage District having the most mature trees. They are the ones most likely to have issues. My conclusions are:
1. There are flood issues in the east basin with a significant storm. Is there significant damage to property?
2. What would it take for 10% blockage, 20% blockage, 30% blockage…, particularly in the northeast corridor (Ramblewood South- B-33 Pipe)?
3. Give recommendations!
4. Should the District be purchasing land and installing interconnects?
5. What does it take for us to get this area down to a point where we can withstand the 100 year flood with confidence?
Mr. DaSilva responded better conveyance and storage.
Mr. Fennell stated we could pump out more water or try to change the mind of SFWMD.
Mr. Hanks stated we may have to find appropriate locations under our ownership and provide additional storage.
Mr. Fennell stated by Maplewood Elementary School, the east outfall canal is at the same level as the C-14. I do not understand why we could not pump into the C-14 and put in a pump station.
Mr. DaSilva stated we are limited as to how much water we can pump out.
Mr. Fennell stated maybe we should change the mind of the SFWMD. I am willing to fight this political battle if I have the information.
Mr. Hanks asked if we go for a permit modification for the east basin, what is the potential for SFWMD to impose additional water quality requirements on the District?
Mr. DaSilva responded we are already maxed out.
Mr. Hanks asked if we install a secondary pump station going into the Sunshine east canal, even though we are not requesting additional capacity, do we need to file for a change in our operating permit?
Mr. DaSilva responded yes, but what would you accomplish by doing so?
Mr. Hanks responded getting down your drainage cap from three miles to a mile.
Mr. DaSilva stated this is another possibility but at this time you have to weigh your dollars to see whether or not it makes sense.
Mr. Hanks asked what does a pump station cost?
Mr. DaSilva responded $1 million.
Mr. Petty stated we just refurbished all of our pumps. This is a 150’ wide right-of-way with a lot of dirt. We can build the structure and then break out the dirt in between the structure and the canal.
Mr. DaSilva stated it can be done but it is costly.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the damage if we flood out 100 homes?
Mr. Hanks responded at some point there is always going to be a storm providing the rainfall we cannot keep up with. Nowadays, if we had 16” of rainfall within 24 hours, the pumps cannot keep up and you will have flooding. If our pumps do not keep up with 10” of rain in the matter of an hour, you will have flooding. It may not have been the 100 year storm event but the problem is the rain was exceeded. We can design for most things but it will be costly.
Mr. Fennell stated I do not think we designed for this case. The data coming back to us tells us for some reason or another whether we are not up to where we should be. We should be able to take a 100 year flood.
Mr. Hanks stated that is what we committed to doing.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the bottom line?
Mr. DaSilva responded to present information to the Board for better understanding and pinpoint what we want to do. I can come back with some recommendations.
Mr. Fennell stated come back with some scenarios so we can see how bad the flooding actually is and how you can reduce the flooding by whatever means necessary.
Mr. Hanks stated run a scenario splitting our pumping capacity.
Mr. Petty stated this will require an Interlocal Agreement with Sunshine WCD.
Mr. Hanks stated run the numbers. We do not need to bother other districts at this stage. Let's see what those numbers show for half the pumping capacity on the C-14 and half on Sunshine. Another scenario is to maximize the canals right-of-way to right-of-way. This will be a major dredge excavation.
Mr. Bohorguez stated we will check the right-of-way again.
Mr. Hanks stated see how much storage we need to provide. If we need to provide 350 acre feet of storage, figure out where to provide it. Let's come up with a number of what we need to provide and then we can look at some scenarios on how we are going to provide it.
Mr. Fennell stated we want to proceed with this. We saw the same study three to four months ago and you have not assuaged any of my fears. In fact, if anything, you made them worse. When will you have the new information?
Mr. DaSilva responded we can run the scenarios and present the data at the next meeting.
Mr. Fennell stated I am looking for the top 10 things you should change given the current situation to get us back to the 100 year flood level.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need magnitude of costs at the next meeting?
Mr. Fennell responded yes. The problem is we have outfall canals on three sides of us; the C-14, east outfall canal and the west outfall canal.
Mr. DaSilva stated it is easy to install a pump station if we have to.
Mr. Fennell stated maybe this is the smart thing to do.
Mr. DaSilva stated it will not help much.
Mr. Fennell asked are you familiar with the probability of failures or survival theory?
Mr. DaSilva responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated the reason you do this is you have more than one area for outflow. Even if we decide we are never going to pump out more water than we should, this alone might save us because if one pump station goes down, we can just transfer the amount of water we were going to pump out to some other pump station.
Mr. Hanks stated Pompano Beach is higher than we are and they are in the east outfall.
Mr. Fennell stated thank you for coming. Obviously we are interested. Please run these scenarios. We are the only District within the City of Coral Springs running these studies in the last 30 years. You are breaking some ground here. I understand you are going to do this for some of the other districts.
Mr. Petty stated we will be doing this for Sunshine W.C.D.
Mr. Fennell stated we need this information in order to make a good decision.
i. Award of Software Contract
Mr. Petty stated staff is asking for approval of an AS/400 upgrade and software for running utility billing and District accounting. The price came in well under what we anticipated.
Mr. Hanks asked were we thinking $250,000?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Hanks stated our turn on our investment is going to be shorter. Are they providing the actual equipment?
Mr. Petty responded yes. They are an IBM supplier.
Mr. Hanks asked how many responses did we receive?
Mr. Petty responded this was the only response.
Mr. Hanks asked do we know if IBM is going to stop servicing this machine next year?
Mr. Petty responded the AS/400 has been a long lived model, which they have stuck with and supported with upgrades.
Mr. Hanks asked are they providing the backup support for the software?
Mr. Petty responded for maintenance of both the hardware and software.
Mr. Hanks asked are they out of North Carolina?
Mr. Petty responded South Carolina.
Mr. Fennell asked what happens to the old contract for the software?
Mr. Petty responded the software is updated to match the new configuration.
Mr. Hanks asked will we have any downtime during the transition?
Mr. Petty responded no. We will run dual programs.
The meeting was recessed at 6:20 P.M.
The meeting was reconvened at 6:30 P.M.
ii. Discussion of Capital Improvement Program
Mr. Petty stated the Board asked us to create a capital improvement program. Mr. McKune who we brought on board for a short period of time is helping us in this regard. He started the process in what we are referring to as the water/wastewater capital improvement vision. He is not doing the engineering work. He is basing this off of his 30 plus years experience and taking comments from Mr. Hyche, the Utility Director and management to come up with what we believe is a good start on the capital projects vision. The objections are:
1. Each item filling a 10 to 20 year window.
2. Meet future regulations. The state regulations can change in 10 to 20 years.
3. Capability of adaptation.
4. Reliability (Class 1 reliability, which is the highest rating available from DEP).
The capital improvement program is broken out into separate items and costs:
1. Solids Handling - $8.6 Million
2. Replacement of Plants A & B - $3.3 Million
3. Monitor Well No. 3 - $920,000
4. Wastewater Treatment Plant Membrane - $12,995,000
5. Major Main Upgrades - $2.3 Million
6. Reclaimed Water - $10,350,000
7. Miscellaneous - $2.3 Million
Mr. Petty stated these prices are estimates. We need to prioritize these facilities.
Mr. Fennell asked have you added these items?
Mr. Petty responded no, because this is not a take it or leave it proposition. Some of these items are less priority. For example, reclaimed water is estimated to cost $10,350,000 to make irrigation water out of the wastewater effluent, which SFWMD has been asking us to do for a long time. We think we found a way to do this economically. In doing so, we do not have to take our entire wastewater stream and turn it into irrigation. We can just take a part of it and still make them happy. The amount of $10,350,000 will decrease.
Solid handling is misunderstood while wastewater treatment is a biological process. We are raising bacteria each and every day. All the raw material in the tank is what we raise. The wastewater is fed to these bacteria. These bacteria are the same bacteria growing in the lake adjacent to the building. We just make their living conditions ideal and their colonies turn the water brown. Every day we waste a certain percentage of the bacteria in our water plants. There is a digester in most water plants except for plants C and D. The wastewater goes there and stabilizes in mass. It then goes to a central digester where it is thickened further. It gets more stable by being oxidized.
From the central digester, the solid goes to a centrifuge. We only have a single centrifuge as part of our solids handling project, we will be installing a centrifuge so we have redundancy. These require maintenance. Currently when it goes down, we go down. The centrifuge removes the solid from the water but it is still sludge. It gets pumped from there to the belt press. In the belt press, a huge amount of pressure is exerted. We squeeze enough water out to make a manageable cake that can be shipped out and put on an approved landfill. This is what we do with the bacteria. We currently have two solid handling machines but one is 18 years old. Putting money into it is not worthwhile at all. Of course, we want to have redundancy because belts and motors need to be replaced. We need to have two machines for reliability. We have money in solids handling for digesters, belt pressers, centrifuges and piping.
Water treatment plants A and B have been here for over 30 years. However, they have a lifespan between 15 and 20 years. I do not think we can get another nickel out of these water plants. The structural integrity is such we do not think we can lower the water levels without the walls pushing in. We have already been using handmade devices to get them to work. In the vision, we are seeing the replacement of those two 30 year old steel tanks. Similar treatment processes, whether steel or concrete will likely be determined during the engineering phase.
We currently have two deep wells. Each deep well has a monitor well next to it where you test to see if there is upflow from your deep well. These wells go down 3,500 feet and there are various zones. The casing on monitor number two failed and we are currently in non-compliance with DEP. This well needs to be replaced with what we are referring to as monitor well number three.
Water treatment plant three failed eight or nine days ago. This plant had never been down for repairs but it wore out. We saw it coming. Mr. Hyche immediately made some calls and rushed all the parts and material here. We just got it back online on Sunday morning. In the meantime, they put plants 1 and 2 back online but they do not have enough capacity to meet demand. We also have the interconnect with the City of Coral Springs. They started bringing us water like we gave them during the hurricane but they started screaming because we started picking up their capabilities as they do not have many reserves.
We are back online and doing fine but plant 3 is large while plant 2 is smaller and plant 1 holds 1,000,000 gallons a day. We need 6,000,000 to 7,000,000 a day during winter. We are looking at additional membranes because we need to go out another 10 or 20 years. If you look out 10 to 20 years, the softening does not give you any capability at all. We also looked at reliability. Lime softening has some issues with reliability working each and every day. Filters can back up or the line can be a problem. The membranes give us the adaptability and reliability we are looking for as well as efficiency. Therefore, we are recommending the next phase of our water treatment plant be a membrane plant.
The next item is the major main upgrades, which are typical of any utility site upgrade plan. Reclaimed water takes the wastewater treatment plant effluent and cleans it up to the point where you can spray it out as irrigation. In the past we always hit financial hardship under the assumption if we ever run a new pipeline along University Drive it would cost billions of dollars.
This time around we decided to look at the drainage right-of-way path. If we take our effluent line and run it straight west from here down our canal, the first thing we hit is a public park that might be able to use irrigation water. We may want to talk to the City of Coral Springs about that. If you keep going, you hit a golf course. We may want to see if they are interested in having water. If you keep going, you hit the Sawgrass Expressway. We may want to talk to them about watering their right-of-way. Mr. McKune thinks there may be an opportunity to run a state of the art test facility and discharge into the conservation area. The SFWMD is pushing us extremely hard in our Consumptive Use Permit. We do not think we are going to take all of our effluent but we certainly think we can handle some of it. We would love to have irrigation water here at the utility site, especially if we re-landscape.
The miscellaneous category is for the replacement of old gauges and pumps. Plant 1 was reconditioned and is one of the best looking lime softening plants I have seen. Plant 2 is harder to calm down. Plant 3 is an eyesore. We are happy to answer any questions. Keep in mind we are hoping to get your direction to go to the next step.
Mr. Fennell asked is the total $35,000,000?
Mr. Petty responded over $35,000,000.
Mr. Hanks asked what about prioritization?
Mr. Petty responded it happens during the design phase. The vision is to address the items we know should be addressed to meet our objectives. We looked at long term financing and at the next meeting we will have the Rate Sufficiency Study, showing us how much money we have to play with under the current rates and what we need to put into the rates. First, we want to get your thoughts on the vision to see if you had any additions, deletions or corrections. We want to get into this further but as we go further, Mr. McKune will end up going to the engineer and the engineer will start providing work authorizations to you.
Mr. Fennell stated for awhile we thought we had enough capacity and then we installed another tank.
Mr. Petty responded these are digesters, not treatment plants. The issue is replacing the 30 old plants with plants of similar size and capacity. All we exceeded now is the life. We are not asking for growth related issues.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to go back to the engineers or are they off the shelf designs for these plants?
Mr. Petty responded good point. There is a distinct possibility. When it comes to the membranes, the technology is contingent upon the membrane itself. First you get the right membrane and then you build around it. You need to do a pilot study first and once you find the best reacting membrane to your water condition, build around it.
Mr. Hanks stated Plantation has a membrane system.
Mr. Petty stated most plants are going that way. The economies have gotten so good for the membranes, they are put up against these metal tanks and their O&M are typically going to be less.
Mr. Fennell stated the solids handling cost of $8.6 million seems high.
Mr. McKune stated this is the contract amount, which was recently awarded.
Mr. Hanks asked do these numbers account for savings in cost reductions or are we going to see continued increases in our operating cost?
Mr. Petty responded we are going to continue seeing increases in our operating costs but we are trying to minimize the impact. Currently the biggest increase factor is the cost of living increase. Trying to get a good operator out here is difficult. We currently have hammer and metal operators but membrane plants require someone with education and experience. The pay is going to increase to get someone out there with a college degree and experience with membranes. We are going to see increases no matter what trying to keep them here. The good news is we think we targeted the west coast where property values are almost as high as ours and their pay is behind us.
Mr. Fennell asked can we pull a pipe and hand it off to the county?
Mr. Petty responded the county does not have a water pipe.
Mr. Fennell stated the city is proud of not handling any waste products.
Mr. Petty stated the city was happy to turn over their utilities to the District. In fact they offered it to us twice. Reclaimed water is an extra benefit. The comparison with the regional wastewater treatment plant of the county should be done as part of the engineering evaluation.
Mr. Fennell stated this is a legitimate question to ask.
Mr. Hanks asked will these monies come from the Enterprise Fund rather than the General Fund?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked depending on what happens with the CH2M-Hill study, will we be seeing a similar capital program for stormwater?
Mr. Petty responded yes. As a matter of fact, Mr. McKune already started this process. I already saw the draft.
Mr. Hanks asked are you considering potential changes to water quality standards or is this outside the scope?
Mr. Petty responded what Mr. McKune was focusing on was the hydraulics.
Mr. McKune stated you have a huge plant on this site similar to the two city pump stations. One of the pump stations will cost $8,000,000 today with its own power generation system. These facilities will need to have a large pipeline connecting to the nearest county enforcement, which is the C-14. It may or may not have capacity to pick us up. When they first built the regional force main system, everyone had to buy in. CSID did a comparison back then to see whether this plant was more cost effective than the one at the county. It was decided by the Board it was more cost effective by having it here. I think this was a good decision because the rates for wastewater paid by the citizens of the District are much lower than the county. They are going to build a $100 million per day plant on Copans Road, which is extremely expensive.
Mr. Hanks stated this does not mean we should not do the analysis.
Mr. Fennell stated strategically we had a real issue with the water. The big issue is what we should do with the wastewater.
Mr. McKune stated whether you keep the wastewater here or not, you still need reclaimed water ability and characteristics.
Mr. Petty stated even if we got rid of the wastewater, they will still ask us what we are doing for water conservation including reuse. We will do the analysis. It should not be difficult for us to do.
Mr. Hanks asked is water conservation in conjunction with it?
Mr. Petty responded yes. This is what we have been getting by on so far.
Mr. McKune stated there is only so much you can do with water conservation.
Mr. Hanks asked how many acres of land do we have?
Mr. Petty responded 24 acres.
Mr. Fennell stated we still have a nice size facility. Should we expand and sell more water to the city? The interconnect is already there.
Mr. Petty responded we have this capability to a certain regard. The vision showed going to a membrane plant. It did not show taking down any of the lime softening plants. We still have the capability to produce. We will build the membrane plant as separate entity so if there was the ability to expand and possibility serve one of our surrounding neighbors, you will have a great deal of your infrastructure in place to do so but you need to find a well to supply you with the additional water, until we have the capability. The only true possibility lies with the city who asked us to run water on two occasions. I do not know if this will ever occur again.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the city’s capacity and what did their last ERU measure?
Mr. Petty responded as far as I know they are at their max. When we opened the interconnect, they only had a day or so they could allow us to pull off and then we started eating into their tanks and they started dropping. I do not believe they have a great deal of extra capacity left in their system.
Mr. Hanks stated I am wondering how they are doing the downtown re-development. With re-development you see an increase in consumption.
Mr. Petty stated a fairly small percentage. We are asking you to look at this plan put any additional funds coming from the outside, although the division before you has the ability to produce more water should the opportunity present itself because we are looking to switch to membranes. We will still have lime softening plant capabilities. Certainly for the short term you can run both if you have the water.
Mr. Fennell asked can we clean up the water good enough to dump it into the canals?
Mr. Petty responded out of sight/out of the mind is the rule.
Mr. Fennell stated I know, but if we have crystal clear water flowing, we can use it for a good purpose.
Mr. Hanks stated we need discharge permits.
Mr. Fennell stated the amount of water we are talking about, 8 or 10 million gallons is peanuts compared to the amount of water in the canals.
Mr. Petty stated of course it is. A water plant in California takes water and puts it through what they call secondary treatments, which is what we have. They also put it through tertiary treatment, which chlorinates and de-chlorinates the water and shoves it through a reverse osmosis membrane. The water comes out beating potable water standards. They inject it into the aquifer and no one gets to see the water. They do this 50 miles from the coast to form a barrier for saltwater intrusion. After a huge amount of treatment, they still will not let the two water bodies touch.
Mr. Fennell stated I am looking for some strategic ways to change. The reclaimed water is one alternative. It seems the right thing to do is to pump into the everglades and allow for a natural cleaning of the water it goes through.
Mr. Hanks stated the trouble is you have to do more cleaning here than pumping into the everglades because the water will be too rich in nitrogen and phosphates.
Mr. McKune stated the impact on the everglades will be minimal after 1,000 yards. We used to pump all the discharge here into the adjacent canal in the 1970’s. There are some demonstration projects currently taking place to allow pumping highly treated wastewater into the conservation area. This is the only process making sense.
Mr. Hanks stated you are wasting a resource.
Mr. McKune stated if the everglades are screaming for water, give them water.
Mr. Fennell stated there is a group talking about how pure the water has to be. Rainfall does not pass the purity standards they are looking for. This was an excellent presentation and a good start. We are looking for more specific details. Thank you!
Mr. Petty asked can you authorize staff to work with the engineer on this matter further?
Mr. Fennell responded we will authorize staff to proceed. Obviously the plant is getting old and we need to replace it.
iii. Monthly Water & Sewer Charts
iv. Utility Billing Work Orders
v. Complaints Received/Resolved
These items were tabled until the next meeting.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor Requests and Audience Comments
There not being any, the next item followed.
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of September Financials and Check Registers
Mr. Fennell asked do we need to give approval at this time?
Mr. Petty responded no, we can wait until the next meeting.
ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There being no further business,
Sharon Zich Robert Fennell
NOTES FOR CSID MEETING FOR 10/16
• Engineer to provide the Board with scenarios with 50% and 100% blockages to see how bad the flooding is and recommendations to reduce the flooding
AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
1. Consideration of Chemical Bids for Aquatic Weed Control
Note: Remove from agenda “UPDATE ON LAKE CORAL SPRINGS” from Attorney’s Report