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
Sharon Zich Vice President
Glen Hanks Secretary
Also present were:
Dan Daly Interim Manager
Ed Goscicki Co-Manager –
Sue Delegal District Counsel
Sean Skehan CH2M-Hill
Jane Early CH2M-Hill
Daniel Bohorquez CH2M-Hill
Cedo DaSilva CH2M-Hill
Pete Colussy CH2M-Hill
Neal Janov DCES
Keith Beal Slattery & Associates
Sandra Babey, Esq. Attorney for
Doug Paton Hockman Attorney
Jim Aversa CSID
John McKune District Capital Improvement Coordinator
Doug Hyche CSID Utilities Director
Randy Frederick CSID Drainage Supervisor
Kay Woodward CSID Accountant
Jan Zilmer CSID Human Resources
Mr. & Mrs. Hockman Residents
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr. Daly called the meeting to order and called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the October 15, 2007 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr. Daly stated on page four, in the middle of the page “9,200” should be “$92,000”.
Mr. Fennell stated on page 12, “$41,000” should be “$41,000,000”.
Ms. Zich stated on page four, I asked how many claims we had last year and Mr. Grimmel reported there were less than 10%. Were there less than 10% of claims?
Mr. Daly responded this is what he reported.
Ms. Zich stated it did not sound right.
Mr. Daly stated on page eight, every instance of “Ms. Woodward” should be “Ms. Rower”.
Mr. Hanks stated on page 20, the word “charger” should be “charge”.
Mr. Fennell stated a revised agenda was provided to us by email. Since we have audience here for item eight, I request we take this item at this time.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Request
for Surface Water Management Permit for
Mr. Hanks stated everyone has called me about this request.
Mr. Goscicki stated I think people feel you have expertise in this area.
Mr. Hanks stated in the past I tried to team up on a project.
Neal Janov stated I am a Professional Engineer with DCES, the Civil Engineer
for this project. With me today is Mr.
Keith Beal from the firm of Slattery & Associates who are the Architects,
Ms. Sandra Babey who is the Attorney for the
reason why we are here is the existing site has been in existence for close to
if not over 30 years along with the other adjacent developed commercial sites
to the south, which do not comply with the existing regulations. I am not a newcomer to
The problem is even if we did nothing to the site, we cannot comply with CSID’s requirements. Furthermore, not knowing this when we first started this project, in order to add landscape islands and make it handicap accessible by adding a ramp and parking spaces, we decided to add only 700 sq. feet of additional pavement. For a number of months, we tried to get through to the engineers but by the time this meeting arrived, we found out there is nothing in your rules or regulations dealing with a project such as this one. I do not want to be a pioneer, but it appears we are pioneers within the District for this type of development. I had extensive conversations with Mr. Hanks to make sure I was not missing something from a technical standpoint. He assured me I was not missing anything and there is in fact a problem. There is not just a problem with our site. To the south of us, there is a Firestone Tire shop, which has been in place for a number of years. I have copies of the original design drawings, clearly showing the proposed grades do not comply with today’s standards or the standards from 25 or 30 years ago.
am asking for relief in the same manner as a project anywhere else in
Mr. Hanks stated the existing stage is 13.53’ for the 100-year flood and there is a reduction of a tenth of a foot.
Mr. Janov stated correct.
Mr. Hanks stated there is a similar magnitude on your 10-year flood.
Mr. Janov stated good point. It should be to the five-year flood.
Mr. Fennell asked does the canal belong to the Sunshine Drainage District?
Ms. Early responded they are not outfalling to it but are going next to it.
Mr. Hanks asked does this have any outfall?
Mr. Janov responded we found no evidence of the old exfiltration trench. What you currently have in the parking lot is what appears to be a positive drainage system, which collects water off of the front parking lot, conveys it to the south through the 18” CMP and travels through every other property to the south. The size of this pipe increases going south.
Mr. Hanks stated the water hydraulically heads from north to south.
Janov stated correct. From what I
understand, the water goes into a canal south of
Mr. Fennell asked is the problem it does not have enough drainage?
Mr. Janov responded no. We do not have the mechanism in place for your engineers to approve us for a permit.
Mr. Goscicki asked Ms. Early, can you explain what the permit conditions are preventing you from approving the permit?
Mr. DaSilva responded we could not locate the original permit as the building was built before 1977.
Mr. Hanks stated I did some research and found a Notice of Commencement from March of 1979.
Mr. DaSilva stated I do not think the permit was enforced as far as the storage and volumes. They are only doing a small modification. It is not like they are tearing down the building and adding substantial impervious area.
Mr. Fennell asked was it ever permitted before?
Ms. Early responded there was no Permit Criteria Manual until 1985. As of today, it does not meet CSID’s current criteria.
Mr. Fennell asked what is in jeopardy?
Mr. DaSilva responded as we stated in our recommendation letter, the issue is pre versus post. Have the owners experienced any flooding within the last 30 years?
Mr. Meisels responded I have no idea.
Mr. Fennell asked are you the new owner?
Mr. Meisels responded yes, as of last February.
Ms. Early stated we ended up contacting SFWMD and asking them how they handle a situation like this. This is an existing project, which is now changing hands and they are adding 700 sq. feet of pavement. SFWMD said they look at the pre versus post, which is what Mr. Janov provided. Our letter says:
“The project does not meet the District’s criteria; however the applicant would like to speak to the Board for permit consideration under a Pre vs. Post development analysis, providing that they are making improvements to the site.”
Hanks stated we have a specific issue for
Mr. Janov responded it is isolated.
Mr. Hanks stated the improvements will address the water quality of the area and help produce the overall stage for the site.
Mr. Janov stated correct.
Mr. Hanks asked are you adding any additional buildings?
Mr. Janov responded no.
Mr. Hanks stated so the four walls are still standing the same way.
Mr. Janov stated correct.
Mr. Hanks stated the issue is whether or not adding an exfiltration trench is sufficient.
Mr. Fennell asked did they do a study to see whether we have a big problem?
Mr. Janov responded no, because of how the site is draining. As the water moves south, the flow increases.
Hanks stated what we are dealing with is the master plan for CSID was permitted
in the 1970’s. Portions of the plan were
already built. Within the past year, we
asked our engineers to model the entire District in an attempt to establish
whether or not the system is in compliance with what we originally
planned. What was originally assumed is
not there now, especially over the course of 30 years. In the vicinity of the
The Board recognizes these are not fully compatible with what we originally assumed. We noted some grades in the area at 13’. You are protected from the 100-year flood but not everyone is at the same level. What the Board is struggling with is protecting the residents from the 100-year flood with the proportional amount of improvements. Everyone within the District is a taxpayer. The Board has not come up with a policy as to what level of improvement triggers full blown compliance within the regulations. I do not question anyone will argue with me if you tear down a building, you are going to have to comply with new regulations. You are not doing this. You are looking at a situation where you are adding some parking and improving the drainage. The Board is going to have to establish limits on how much improvement triggers bringing it into full compliance with the criteria of the District.
Mr. Fennell stated we went back and looked at what happened to the District now versus 35 years ago. We find some areas could have some flood problems during the 100-year flood. You happen to be in an area like this. We are not only trying to protect you. A big part of our approach is to not only bring the site under the drainage canal standards but also protect the drainage of the land. We expect some of the water to percolate down to the ground. The more we cover up the ground, the more percolation, which causes an immediate flooding problem. This is not so much a permitting issue but whether or not this will impact your neighbors and everyone else around you.
Mr. Hanks stated the other issue we are faced with going forward is if we continue having water shortages, we need to find other areas where we can increase our storage so we do not pump our freshwater into to the ocean. The Architect has done a good job trying to make a good situation better. He is not proposing many improvements and this is temporary until such time as we have a Permit Criteria Manual reflecting what levels we have to comply with.
Mr. Fennell stated the Permit Criteria Manual should be compliant with our permit. Obviously there is a historical reason for this. Nevertheless, we need to see what they would have to do in order to meet the permit criteria.
Mr. Hanks asked how far out of compliance are you?
Mr. Janov responded we have to rip out the entire parking lot, re-grade it and lower everything around the site to comply with the criteria in the east basin.
Hanks asked is your finished floor below
Mr. Janov responded no. Our finished floor elevations are 13.75’.
Mr. Fennell stated I do not want to see us build a new building and suddenly get a five-year flood.
Mr. Fennell asked is the parking lot going to drain?
Mr. Hanks responded yes. Your projected elevation is 12.24’.
Mr. Janov stated we are going to install more drainage in the parking lot.
Mr. Hanks stated as long as it can handle a 10-year storm, which is 8” of rain in 24 hours.
Mr. Janov stated this amount of rain in 24 hours will be a foot below the finished floor elevation.
Hanks stated some of the parking lot will be submerged. This is not an unusual situation for sites in
Mr. Fennell stated the applicant needs to have a good understanding of what the problems are and whether or not they want to take this further. You have to protect your property and your parking lot. What does the applicant have to do in order to get into compliance?
Mr. DaSilva responded we can include language in the permit whereby flooding will occur in the parking lot in the 10 year flood. Then the owners will realize this problem is their responsibility to deal with.
Ms. Early stated they are signing off knowing that this could be a reality.
Mr. Hanks stated if the owner currently does not do anything to the site; flooding is going to occur. As far as the overall basin, this is a small component. It is not going to be noticeable elsewhere.
Mr. Fennell stated only as precedence. Two cases may not make a difference but if we had 100 cases, there could be an issue.
Hanks stated we should take this as a wake up call for the engineers to
establish criteria for re-development reflecting what scenarios trigger partial
compliance with the Stormwater Criteria Manual and under what situations we
require full compliance. I recommend we
approve this request from
Mr. Fennell responded yes. Is the engineer agreeable?
Ms. Early responded yes.
Mr. Janov stated thank you for your time.
Mr. Fennell stated going forward we are going to have to look at a percentage improvement for drainage. It looks like we have some improvement here but I feel this is the best we are going to get because they improved the parking lot. We are not here to make life hard for them.
Mr. Hanks stated this is not going to be the last request we are going to receive. I want to give direction to our engineers to develop suggested criteria for progressive clients for re-development for the next meeting.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Request of Mr. & Mrs.
Hockman for an Easement Variance at 433 NW 115th Terrace,
Mr. Hockman stated my name is Mr. Don Andrew Hockman.
Early stated apparently there is a 32’ easement along
Mr. Hochman stated we are fine with keeping the drainage easement intact. The utility easement was planned at one time to run power in back of the homes but they ended up going around the front.
Hanks stated for whatever reason, this was contemplated to be a platted utility
easement and is part of the plat for the
Mr. Hockman responded we are planning to install a pool and deck up to the 8’ drainage easement. We only want the District to abandon a portion of it.
Hanks asked are you aware
Mr. Hockman responded I thought if it was abandoned and allowed a permit before, it should have been recorded to begin with.
Ms. Early stated I do not think it was abandoned. I think it was permitted.
Mr. Hanks stated there was a Hold Harmless or Quit Claim Agreement assigned to it.
Ms. Delegal stated we recommend the Board direct us to define the necessary area within the easement where the construction is to occur and grant an Encroachment Agreement. We will attach the legal description to the Encroachment Agreement.
Mr. Hockman stated I am not opposed to going through the necessary channels.
Mr. Hanks stated if we need to maintain the easement in the future and install a well elsewhere in the District, will our utility easement serve this purpose. Will we be able to install additional potable water wells?
Ms. Early responded if it is a CSID utility, you can.
Mr. Hanks stated it is. We have wells scattered throughout the city. In some instances, there are monitoring wells in the general area tracking the progress of contaminations from dry cleaning establishments and gas stations. At some point, it is possible if we need to close down one of those wells, to find another location for it. This is a philosophical argument. I am not comfortable about this as we have the easement and there is no reason to abandon it. However, perhaps we can come to some agreement for us having access to it.
Fennell stated there is going to be an agreement for its use but for what use,
I do not know. There may come a day
where we are going to have to bury portable gas tanks. This occurs in other places in
Mr. Hockman stated I looked into this matter somewhat and I am reasonable in this respect. I can understand you want to have some facilities in order to run a pipe but some lots are not much further back than 8’ from the wall.
Mr. Hanks stated your observations are accurate to what I have seen on the plat.
Mr. Hockman stated all we need is the 8’ drainage easement to build our pool and deck.
Mr. Goscicki asked do you have a proposed plan for what you want to place on this easement?
Mr. Hockman responded yes. The pool will be up to the 8’ drainage easement. The deck will be towards the house and covered with landscaping.
Mr. Hanks asked what happens if DOT installs facilities in the DOT right-of-way during a roadway project?
Ms. Early responded we have to relocate it.
Mr. Hanks asked does the county have a similar requirement?
Ms. Early responded yes.
Hanks asked will it have to be relocated at our cost or paid for by
Mr. Goscicki responded it will be our cost.
Mr. Hockman stated there is also a 4’ barrier wall along the property line. The houses on the south end of the property are close to the barrier wall. If the road needs to be widened and they will have to tear down those houses, the wall will not come out.
The record will reflect there was discussion in the background, which the transcriber could not understand.
Mr. Fennell asked is this something we need to resolve tonight?
Mr. Hanks responded no. There needs to be more discussion as we see discrepancies between what was platted and approved and what is identified on the survey. Whether you are requesting 8’ or 17’, there is a question about how much of the easement will be left over. You need to come back with sketches of exactly what you are proposing so we can get ideas of how much of the easement will be remaining.
Mr. Hockman stated I can tell you now there will be 8’ of drainage.
Mr. Hanks stated I am not interested in knowing this. I request we table this matter until the dimensions of the property and easements can be determined.
Mr. Hockman asked who determines the dimensions?
Mr. Hanks responded Ms. Early.
Ms. Early stated we have to work with the surveyor.
Mr. Hockman stated we provided the survey. This matter has been ongoing for three months. We are here today to get final resolution.
Mr. Hanks stated the subdivision was platted in 1994 by WCI or Florida National Properties. Right now, I am not clear on what your request is.
Ms. Early asked do I need to obtain an updated survey of the property?
Mr. Hanks responded yes, reflecting where the easement is located. The survey you provided to me is unclear. Depending on the extent of the request to utilize the easement, we are leaning towards entering into a Use Agreement or Removal Easement.
Mr. Fennell stated thank you for coming.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Authorization for
Execution of a Contract for
Mr. Fennell stated I reviewed the agreement. What are we agreeing to do?
Mr. Goscicki responded maintaining the flow through those lakes. The only maintenance you are providing is aquatic weed control. The necessity for the District is we have a flowage easement through these lakes and we need to keep the flowage going through them. They are permitted to provide additional maintenance if they want to, provided they do it with appropriate licensed people and with our knowledge. They can ask us to do additional maintenance, which we will give them a proposal for.
Mr. Frederick stated I agree with what Mr. Goscicki said we are going to do but in the past, this is not exactly what we were doing. We were doing all of the maintenance including the clean up. Then we found out this was a private lake we never had a contract with to do any work and stopped doing maintenance. This goes back to when Mr. Gary Moyer was here. Now they want us to go back and do the regular maintenance, to the extent of what we were doing before.
Ms. Zich asked how many private lakes do we have?
Mr. Frederick responded a couple.
Fennell stated like
Mr. Hanks stated some plats had water bodies over platted parcels. Where do you draw the line?
Mr. Goscicki responded there is some history here. A couple of years ago we were out there regularly removing coconuts and debris.
Mr. Frederick stated we spent three days picking up coconuts because the homeowners kicked them into the canal.
Mr. Goscicki stated this level of maintenance prompted the Board to question whether or not we owned this lake. The answer was we do not own it but we have a flowage easement through it. Therefore, it is to our benefit to make sure the lakes are maintained so there is flowage through them. Our concern was not to have the lake cluttered with Hydrilla and other exotics.
Mr. Frederick stated it is my understanding if there are some concerns of this nature, we will notify them and either they will take care of the problem or we will treat it and charge them, if they do not take care of it within 30 days.
Ms. Delegal asked do we have the legal description for the lake property, which is the subject of the agreement?
Mr. Frederick responded yes.
Mr. Goscicki stated especially for the canals within the highlighted area.
Mr. Frederick stated we only have the main north and south one.
Mr. Fennell stated in certain cases there are docks. The real concern gets to be “Who decides whether or not a dock gets built there?” We normally do not allow residents to build docks. The issue is not whether or not there is a dock but whether or not there is material floating down the lake blocking our canals.
Mr. Frederick stated this issue started the original controversy.
Mr. Fennell asked was the attorney involved in this matter?
Ms. Delegal responded our office is involved and based on our discussions, we recommend the agreement.
Mr. Hanks asked does this provide protection? One of the concerns we expressed earlier was the double application of herbicides.
Mr. Goscicki stated they are prohibited from making applications of any herbicide without going through a licensed Aquatic Weed Control Specialist who will need to coordinate with us.
Mr. Hanks asked where is this referenced in the agreement?
Mr. Goscicki responded in the scope and in the beginning of the agreement.
Mr. Fennell asked does Mr. Frederick agree with this?
Mr. Frederick responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated I get the feeling there is some reluctance.
Mr. Hanks asked do you have the personnel?
Mr. Frederick responded it is a big area, which will take a great deal of work and a large amount of chemicals for just the normal maintenance.
Mr. Fennell stated these residents pay into our District.
Mr. Frederick stated to perform a treatment is not a one day job.
Mr. Hanks asked should we be waiting for Mr. Lyles to review this agreement since he has a long history dealing with this matter?
Mr. Goscicki responded his office reviewed it and you were provided with a legal opinion. This is only a policy issue for the Board at this point. We used to do everything and then once we found out we did not own these lakes, we did not do anything. Then we saw we have flowage easements through these lakes and felt it was important to make sure those were maintained. As a result, we negotiated this agreement and will perform aquatic weed control.
Mr. Frederick stated hopefully we will not have homeowners calling us this time. Every day I received a call from another homeowner complaining about something. I am not going to spend every day fielding these calls.
Mr. Fennell stated on the other hand, this puts us firmly in charge of disbursing the chemicals. We have the right to do so and want to make sure this is done properly. As you well know, we have the state and everyone else looking at the water. We cannot afford to have someone else dumping chemicals into our lake.
Mr. Frederick stated exactly. If someone is dumping into our lake and something happens, we want to know who to blame. This gives us the right of access.
Mr. Fennell stated I think we need to do this.
Ms. Delegal stated in regards to the provision prohibiting the association from introducing any chemicals into the system, I want to insert this provision if it is not already reflected in the agreement.
Mr. Goscicki stated Section 3.6 covers this provision somewhat by saying “services shall be performed at levels which meet or exceed the aquatics maintenance standards administered by and throughout the District.” This means they cannot do anything interfering with our maintenance. If they double our chemicals, they will interfere with our maintenance.
Ms. Delegal stated we can state this to them in our cover letter when we deliver the agreement to them for execution.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Resolution 2008-1 Amending the General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2007
Mr. Fennell stated we received additional money in the General Fund.
Mr. Daly stated correct. We also received some invoices after the books were closed out for the 2007 fiscal year.
Mr. Fennell stated so we received money and expended money before the budget year was completed.
Mr. Daly stated correct. We have 60 days to amend the budget after the close of the fiscal year as we are not permitted to overspend.
Mr. Goscicki stated this is routinely performed every year. In this year’s budget you have significant numbers, mostly due to hurricane related repairs paid for from reserve funds.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Award of Contract for the Purchase of Chemicals
Fennell asked do we need more chemicals since we are now maintaining
Mr. Frederick responded these are good prices. It does not have anything to do with the quantity.
Mr. Hanks stated I spoke with Mr. Dave Hulett today who informed me they are proposing to redo their pump stations in the Sunshine WCD. I mentioned to him we are looking at bigger issues as far as the east basin versus the west basin and inquired whether or not he had any interest in relocating any of their pump stations. This would help us in cross-connecting our two Districts and provide an additional source to the east basin.
Mr. Fennell stated this is a matter for discussion at another time. I see there were some substations on chemicals you had not tried yet.
Mr. Frederick stated correct. In regards to the Cutrine Plus, we used the generic, F-30 last year and did a comparison treatment between the Cutrine Plus and the F-30. We felt the Cutrine Plus worked better than the F-30. Therefore, we might use the Cutrine Plus this year. There were other chemicals we had not used before but they do not compare to the Cutrine Plus, which we have used for years. It has a more active ingredient in it and seems to work better as an algaecide than the other ones do.
Mr. Fennell asked what did you specify in the bid?
Mr. Frederick responded we said “Cutrine Plus or equivalent”.
Mr. Goscicki stated I believe there was language in the bid requiring the bidders to provide documentation or samples.
Mr. Frederick stated we spoke to a representative after we did our comparison test between the Cutrine Plus and the F-30 and she said it works better if you buy a special enzyme, which costs $50 per gallon. I told her “you did not specify in your bid we had to use this additive with the chemical and if I spend $50 per gallon for the enzyme along with the chemical, it is not cheaper than the Cutrine Plus and will not give the desired effect I want.”
Mr. Hanks asked would you say it is not up to 90% effective as the Cutrine Plus.
Mr. Frederick responded it is 75% effective.
Mr. Hanks stated fair enough. Are there any legal issues if we go with the Cutrine Plus?
Ms. Delegal responded no. Mr. Frederick proved the F-30 is not sufficient enough as an equivalent.
Mr. Goscicki stated this was a cooperative bid, which CSID took the lead on with NSID, Pine Tree and Sunshine. All of these districts are going through a separate award but the bidding was done cooperatively.
Mr. Hanks asked are these prices above what we expected?
Mr. Frederick responded the $93.50 for Reward is the same as last year. This is the manufacturer’s price. For Induce, last year we used X-77 and paid $14.10. This year we are going to use AS Activate Plus, which only costs $12. For the most part, these are similar products.
Mr. Hanks asked are we over budget?
Mr. Frederick responded no.
Mr. Goscicki stated as a matter of direction, if it is the Board desire to have public input, we can place “audience comments” as the first item on the agenda.
Mr. Fennell stated especially if we have audience members. They do not need to sit through all of our other business.
Mr. Goscicki stated we will make sure we structure the agenda in this manner.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Presentations by CH2M-Hill
Mr. Bohorquez stated a couple of meetings ago, we were asked to verify engineering costs for the berm along the east outfall canal. The Sunshine WCD was going to provide enough protection for the east basin of the District. We surveyed this berm and found three areas of concern. In location A, the elevation is 11.6’, in location B, the elevation is 13.7’ and in location C, the elevation is 11.9’. Those are the areas we found the lowest elevations for the berm.
Mr. Hanks asked where was the 11.9’ elevation found?
Mr. Bohorquez responded south of
Mr. Hanks asked where were the other low elevations found?
Mr. Bohorquez responded elevation
11.6’ was measured south of
Mr. Fennell stated we are talking about hundreds of feet.
Mr. Hanks are those representative of your elevations throughout this corridor?
Mr. Bohorquez responded those are the lowest elevations we measured.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the
elevation on the other side of the bank in
Mr. Bohorquez responded we have not surveyed it.
Ms. Early stated but the elevation is much higher.
Mr. Fennell stated we are only talking about 3’ higher.
Mr. Bohorquez stated we were asked to verify whether or not our berm was going to provide enough protection for the east basin. In order to accomplish this, we simulated having Sunshine WCD pumping at full capacity into the canal. The elevations depended on the elevations of the C-14 Canal. If the Sunshine WCD canal is at elevation 6.5’ and SFWMD keeps the canal at 6.5’ and we have the Sunshine WCD pumping at full capacity, this canal can have elevations as high as 7.3’, 8.49’ and 8.69’.
Mr. Fennell stated in other words, if the C-14 Canal is at 6.5’, you are going to get an elevation rise between there and the top of the canal.
Mr. Bohorquez stated correct.
Mr. Hanks asked are you predicting the interior flood elevations, which is a maximum of the 100-year flood?
Mr. Bohorquez responded yes. Elevation 6.5’ is the minimum. If the C-14 Canal is at 9.5’, we could experience elevations of 10.24’, 10.59’ and 10.66’.
Ms. Early stated on the Sunshine WCD canal.
Mr. Bohorquez stated the highest level we experienced was on the C-14 Canal where the elevation was 10.5’. We did a model and the Sunshine WCD canal could experience an elevation of 10.52’.
Mr. Fennell asked where is this canal?
Mr. Bohorquez responded immediately
Mr. Hanks stated this area is 10” or 11” lower than the flooding elevation interior to the District.
Mr. Bohorquez stated with this simulation, we are raising the berm enough.
Mr. Fennell stated the final assumption is the height of the C-14 Canal.
Mr. Bohorquez stated correct.
Mr. Fennell stated the problem is if the C-14 Canal is blocked, the water flows right back up. There is no one way gate there.
Mr. Bohorquez stated correct. If the C-14 Canal is at elevation 10.5’, then the east outfall canal will experience elevations of 11.53’, 11.47’ and 11.52’ as you get closer to the pump station.
Mr. Fennell asked what is normally the height of the C-14 Canal?
Mr. Bohorquez responded the survey we currently have shows an elevation of 12’.
Mr. Fennell stated it is even higher now.
Mr. Bohorquez stated it is higher at the bend and then drops down.
Mr. Fennell stated at the corner where the outfall canal meets the C-14 Canal, it looks like there is a 3’ difference.
Mr. Frederick stated the water level goes down heading north and west.
Mr. Hanks asked do you have any indications of under what scenario the SFWMD canal reaches 10.5’?
Ms. Early responded the only time was in 1979.
Mr. Fennell stated show me proof of this data because the water reached my house.
Mr. Frederick stated the water was to the top of the dike.
Mr. Fennell stated the water was higher in the dike than the street. Where did you get your data from?
Ms. Early responded from SFWMD.
Mr. Fennell stated then you better get photographic proof this canal will never get higher than 10.5’. I certainly do not think it will. What is the highest level we ever recorded in our canals?
Ms. Early responded I do not know.
Mr. Fennell stated water was coming up out of the canals and onto my street. How can the water in our canals be 12’? I do not believe it. The canals on my street were at 12’ while the canals at the C-14 were at 10.5”. This was just a passing tropical storm, which dropped 12” to 14” of rain.
Ms. Early stated in nine hours.
Mr. Bohorquez stated it could be a combination of things.
Mr. Fennell stated the data you have is not correct. This is from my own personal observation.
Ms. Early stated we are not saying we do not believe you but this is the only data we can get.
Mr. Fennell asked is there an engineer at SFWMD who has some of this data?
Ms. Early responded they gave us files with the readings from this station.
Mr. Fennell stated I called them after I received this report because I thought they might have some additional data. What I found out was they called CH2M-Hill for the data. I also asked them for the rainfall data and they did not have this data either.
Ms. Early stated on their website, they have our hydrologic model for NSID. They do not have the report for CSID.
Mr. Fennell stated we should provide them with a copy.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the amount of water you are allowed by SFWMD to discharge to the District in relation to the 25-year flood?
Mr. Bohorquez responded 62.4’.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the capacity of the SFWMD canal based on? Is every canal the same?
Mr. Bohorquez responded no.
Mr. Fennell asked do some of these canals, unlike ours have free water flow?
Ms. Early responded some are free.
Mr. Fennell stated this means their water table will never get above 10.5”.
Mr. Frederick stated they have a control structure.
Mr. Hanks stated they are not free flow. They may have weir control but they are controlled discharge. They will have backups through their system due to hydraulic losses in the control structure and elsewhere. Their water tables could be higher than what you have on the SFWMD canals.
Mr. Fennell stated I do not feel we
are getting the correct data, although I applaud your modeling and think you
are accurate. What I want to know is
what happens if the water in the C-14 Canal gets too high? If it gets up to their normal height of
12.5’, I have to believe
Mr. Bohorquez responded our modeling shows the C-14 Canal going up to 10.5”. We can go up to 11’ or 12’ and see what happens.
Mr. Hanks asked are there any reporting gauges around there?
Mr. Fennell responded we need to get real data from SFWMD to show the maximum level they guarantee in writing the C-14 Canal will get up to.
Ms. Early stated you are not going to get this data because the person we obtained the data from used to work for us and is our friend. He obtained as much data as he could for us.
Mr. Fennell stated this is going to become a political issue because I am going to call up whomever I have to and find out what the maximum level is going to be for the 100-year flood for the C-14 Canal.
Mr. Bohorquez stated all of this information is published through their website.
Mr. Fennell stated not good enough. I have 40,000 people at risk and I want to know what the maximum level is going to be. If we cannot obtain this data from the SFWMD, we will call the Army Corp. of Engineers. We will get someone to tell us what the answer is.
Mr. Hanks stated if you want an
accurate and reasonable answer, keep in mind this is going to be based on
modeling. The best approach is to have
our engineers say “This is what
Mr. Fennell stated there is a gate at the east end of the canal. How high is it?
Mr. Frederick responded there is also a gate on the C-14 Canal.
Mr. Hanks stated pull up the readings at the control structure as far as what their minimum and maximum elevations are. Then come up with an idealized cross section in terms what the allowable discharge is. We do not need a fancy presentation.
Mr. Goscicki stated the Board’s concern is what the elevation is if you have debris piling up against the control structure on the C-14 Canal and it starts acting as dam rather than a weir.
Mr. Fennell stated it is not a weir. The height as far as the property all the way down to the road is the height of the C-14 Canal. There is no control at the bottom and is not one way. It is just a great big tube.
Ms. Early stated Mr. Bohorquez will get the height of the water.
Mr. Fennell stated what connects the canal to the C-14 Canal is not a pump.
Ms. Early asked when you were looking at the C-14 Canal elevations, where were you standing?
Mr. Fennell responded on a berm on top of the C-14 Canal.
Ms. Early stated the elevation fluctuates. As you start heading west the elevation goes down and you are now below the C-14 Canal. The 10.5’ elevation may be accurate. Only the berm elevation decreases.
Mr. Fennell stated the elevation was not at 6’ or 7’. It was higher than the street. I can believe this because our system was designed to pump at least 2’ of rainfall.
Mr. Bohorquez stated keep in mind your street is at elevation 9.5’. If you have some water, the canal was at elevation 10.5’.
Mr. Fennell stated I believe your simulations are as good as we are going to get but I think the premise of the data you are getting for how high the C-14 Canal can go is inaccurate. Unfortunately, this is key data.
Ms. Early stated if the bank is at elevation 11.6’ the water is coming from CSID.
Mr. Goscicki stated if the C-14 Canal goes up to elevation 11’, you have 12’ of water on the street.
Mr. Hanks stated we cannot plan an engineering design for every single storm. There is going to be some event, which will bring water into our homes and all we can do is our best to minimize those changes. We have a finite amount of resources and we should spend our money wisely.
Mr. Fennell asked is there a problem with the height of the C-14 Canal?
Mr. Goscicki responded this is the crux of the issue. At the height of a storm, you have water in your streets up to the foundation of the finished flood levels within the community. According to the modeling, if the C-14 Canal is at elevation 10.5’ and you are not getting any back breaching, it will further compound the situation. The Board is not comfortable with the accuracy of the 10.5’ elevation and questioning whether the elevation is 11.5’ and whether we are exacerbating our 100-year storm and getting additional backflow, which you are going to have to deal with.
Mr. Fennell stated I am more worried about the 10-year flood.
Mr. Bohorquez stated this modeling is telling you after elevation 10.5’ we are okay. If the level of the C-14 Canal hits elevation 11’ or 12’, we will have flooding.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the normal elevation of the C-14 Canal?
Mr. Frederick responded 7’.
Mr. Goscicki asked is SFWMD saying at the 100-year flood in this area, the maximum elevation we are going to see is 10.5’?
Ms. Early responded no. They only give us recorded data.
Mr. Goscicki asked have they done any predicted modeling?
Ms. Early responded if they have they will not give it to us.
Mr. Fennell stated it is wrong they are not sharing information with us. We need this information in order to do our job. Everything we do depends on us pumping water into the C-14 Canal. If we do not know the height of the C-14 Canal, we do not know what happens inside our District.
Mr. Hanks stated there was a lawsuit in the 1970’s where SFWMD was required to take additional drainage measurements. Do we have any access to this data?
Ms. Delegal responded you can request it.
Mr. Fennell stated someone is trying to stonewall us. I cannot believe they are not giving you this information. This is a political organization, which we all pay into.
Ms. Delegal stated if they have information, they cannot deny you access to public information.
Ms. Early stated we do not know if they even have this information. We requested information and they provided us with what they had.
Mr. Goscicki stated we are running into the same problems on the groundwater modeling where they do not have an approved model so they are requiring us to do new modeling. This may be the same situation. They may not have an approved final document or we may not be asking the right questions.
Ms. Delegal stated this may be their position. They do not want to give you certain documents until it gets to a certain level of review. Even so, it is public information within their organization. The right question needs to be asked but they cannot deny you drafts. They may say it has not been approved by the Governing Board and cannot disclose it. Most of the time people will accept this as an answer but if you dig a little deeper, this is not the answer. If it is in draft form and in their records within their organization, they have to disclose it to you.
Mr. Fennell asked is there a second source of information? SFWMD owes us an answer. You are not getting the data to rest your analysis on.
Mr. Goscicki responded I will make
some inquiries into
Mr. Fennell stated we want to know the maximum elevation for the C-14 Canal for the 100-year, 50-year, 25-year and 10-year storms. They should be able to give us this information.
Mr. Hanks stated keep in mind, all
of this is a moot point if
Mr. Fennell stated the other issue is to find out the height the C-14 Canal needs to be at before we get into serious trouble.
Mr. Bohorquez stated anything above elevation 10.5’.
Mr. Frederick stated the problem is
SFWMD will possibly tell us to turn off some of our pumps because people
downstream are flooding like
Ms. Early stated they cannot ask us to stop pumping.
Mr. Fennell stated the following issues need to be resolved:
1. Find out if someone has accurate and up to date information.
If they do not have this information, this tells us our current analyses, based upon their assumptions, are inaccurate.
2. What levels do we need to be at and what are our own expectations?
I think the C-14 Canal can go up to the height of the bank. There is no good reason in my mind on why this could not happen. You have five miles above and below creating a 10 mile path. This is the main drainage canal for 10 square miles for 20 miles or 200 square miles.
Mr. Hanks stated this is why under many design scenarios; you analyze the 100-year discharge event, without taking advantage of the pumps and gravity discharge.
Mr. Fennell stated thank you for giving us this presentation. I do not want to be in a situation such as what happened west of here. The problem was not the rain but the canal banks. I do not think we are going to lose any lives but if we get 2” of water in our living room, you will have to tear down the house and re-build it. The direction is for staff to come back next month with the answers to our questions.
Mr. Goscicki stated we will either email you any information we get from the county or I will have a letter drafted for your signature.
Ms. Early stated you basically want to know when the Sunshine WCD canal goes into CSID. I think CSID discharges first into the Sunshine WCD.
Frederick stated if we discharge into the Sunshine WCD, we are only affecting
the area from
Mr. Hanks stated it is under a design scenario outside of our permit.
Mr. Fennell stated first lets prove there is a problem. I think you already proved if the canal gets up to elevation 10.5’, we flood.
Mr. Hanks stated this is the worst case for our water quality issues.
B. Feasibility Study
This item was not presented at the last meeting.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Work Authorization No. 35 for Site Plan Amendment and Landscape Plan Upgrades for Utility Plant Site
Mr. Fennell stated this work authorization is for engineering costs associated with landscaping.
Skeehan stated the landscaping the City of
Mr. Hanks asked how did this come about?
Mr. Skeehan responded it was a requirement of the Planning Department.
Mr. Hanks asked did we apply for a permit for the Water Treatment Plant and they said we were not compliant?
Mr. Skeehan responded they issued this requirement after the contractor was hired.
Mr. Fennell stated I request a representative from Mr. Ron Gold’s office talk with us personally. We said we would do something all along but we just want to make sure we do not plant a bunch of ficus trees along the banks.
Mr. Daly stated there is a whole plan with bushes and trees.
Mr. Skeehan stated landscaping is going to be planted along the north and west sides. This is not a simple plan. There will be some palm trees at the entryway and islands along the way. There will be 2,000 linear feet of landscaping. We saw a preliminary cost estimate for the landscaping in the amount of $180,000. We laid this out according to what the city wants.
Mr. Fennell asked do they want us to plant a bunch of trees, which can fall into our canal.
Mr. Skeehan stated they are set back from the canal.
Mr. Fennell stated we have not come to a resolution on this matter. We are going to create the same mistakes again, which we made 20 years ago in regards to planting trees where they should not be planted.
Skeehan stated I think this addresses the visibility of the Water Treatment
Plant as residents said they did not want to see the Water Treatment Plant as
it was unattractive. It also addresses the
requirements imposed by the City of
Mr. Fennell stated we spent hundreds of thousands of dollars removing those trees.
Mr. Hanks asked have we gone through the city code and established they are not in error imposing these regulations to us? I know we want to appease our neighbors but is this in compliance with what we should be doing?
Mr. Skeehan responded I assume the Landscape Architect met the current standards. I did not ask him.
Mr. Hanks asked is it to scale?
Mr. Skeehan responded it is half scale or 2,000 linear feet.
Mr. Fennell stated I am looking at some way of doing this but not by putting us in the same situation as in prior years. We certainly do not want to have ficus trees falling into our canal. This was an unbelievable error.
Mr. Skeehan stated there will not be any ficus trees. There will be oak trees.
Mr. Fennell stated these trees are not designed to withstand 80 to 90 mph winds. Even when we trim them down to the city standards, they still fell down.
Mr. Skeehan stated pine trees withstand the winds the best.
Mr. Fennell stated there is one tree down.
Mr. Frederick stated I am getting prices for its removal.
Mr. Hanks stated I was surprised to see the price of this work authorization, which was $22,000.
Mr. Skeehan stated this is just for our efforts.
Mr. Hanks stated all Landscape Planners do is take an oak tree 20’ on center and place them around the perimeter. There is not much work involved and this is certainly not worth $22,000.
Mr. Goscicki asked is this work authorization for just the landscaping or site development?
Mr. Skeehan responded landscaping, irrigation and compliance issues related to the city.
Mr. Hanks stated I am sure there was more involvement than just placing oak trees. Did an analysis need to be done?
Mr. Skeehan responded I do not know. This work was done in conjunction with the request from the city before I became involved.
Mr. Colussy stated the city’s Arborist came out with the CH2M-Hill Landscape Architect and spent two days on-site trying to minimize the number of plants.
Mr. Hanks asked does Mr. McKune feel $22,000 is an appropriate amount for the engineer to amend the site plan and prepare the landscaping plan?
Mr. McKune responded it is not excessive.
Ms. Early stated my understanding is this issue has been ongoing since Mr. Petty was here. We never submitted the work authorization but we had to get the work done in order to proceed with this project. We are just following up with the paperwork in order for us to get paid for work completed.
Mr. Goscicki stated this is why we do not do things like this anymore.
Mr. Hanks stated with reluctance, I will approve this work authorization.
Ms. Zich stated I thought this was an excessive amount of money.
Mr. Fennell stated just because we approved the work authorization does not mean we approved the results.
Mr. Hanks stated I do not like being approached with situations where work has already been done and we are presented with a change order. Obviously you had some understanding from the prior manager this work was ongoing. I want to hire a Surveyor and Landscape Architect to provide services to the District.
Mr. Fennell stated we can have them give us an explanation at the next meeting.
Mr. Skeehan stated at the very least, we can have the Landscape Architect come to the next meeting.
Mr. Hanks stated just so we can at least have an understanding of the work completed. We have the ability within our Special Act to have a Landscape Architect and Surveyor at the Board’s disposal.
Ms. Delegal stated you can do this on a consulting basis because it is part of the requirements for the operation of this District. Since you are under the jurisdiction of the city, you have to meet their requirements when you are performing amendments to your operation or changes to your plan.
Mr. Fennell stated we needed to do this work and show progress is being made but we want to make sure it fits in with our plan.
Mr. Hanks stated I want to find out from the Landscape Architect whether there is another way we can provide more earth in terms of wind resistance for these trees. On the C-14 Canal, the trees standing in a straight line did not do well during Hurricane Wilma. Trees protected by each other may do better. Maybe we can look at other scenarios.
Ms. Zich asked what is the strongest tree we can plant?
Mr. Skeehan responded live oak, which is what these are.
Mr. Fennell stated we are looking for more inspiration rather than just a linear design; something protecting the canal from flying debris. Maybe this means there needs to be more of a set back on the property or have something that looks better.
Mr. Hanks stated perhaps we can use some of these trees to help protect our interior equipment.
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
i. Discussion of Cash Flow – Cash Transactions Analysis
This item was tabled until the next meeting.
ii. Pension Benefit Discussion
Mr. Goscicki stated there is nothing critical in terms of the timing. This is a long term policy issue for the Board.
Mr. Hanks stated I assume Mr. Daly is presenting this item.
Mr. Daly stated yes.
Mr. Hanks stated I want to see some bullet points as to why we are doing this, what this will represent in terms of benefits to the employee who is here now versus Mr. Frederick and Mr. Hyche and what it represents in terms of the cost.
Mr. Fennell asked is this the total pension plan?
Mr. Daly responded no. This is the same plan we have now. We are just requesting an additional 2% contribution.
Fennell stated we can table this matter until the next meeting.
iii. Review of
Ms. Zich stated I want to see exactly what they do for us; not what the company does for everyone.
Mr. Goscicki stated the first part of the contract is our standard contract. Exhibit A is the scope of services, which delineates exactly what we are supposed to do for this District. We included specific services the District will provide. We attempted to break this out and give you our stance on how we think this will work well for the District in terms of what the District will do with their own employees and what services we will provide as Severn Trent Services.
Mr. Fennell stated Mr. Daly proposed some ideas to me a month or two ago. I want to see a comparison of what Mr. Daly proposes in column A and what Severn Trent Services proposes in column B. We also talked about some special services such as conducting safety inspections once or twice a year or have a review of operations. I think this is a good start.
Ms. Zich asked do we have a financial contract?
Mr. Goscicki responded no. I did not give you any prices. I wanted to sit down with the Board first to see if these are the services you want us to provide and whether or not this relationship makes sense. If it does, we will come back to you with the final pricing.
Mr. Hanks stated once we reach agreement, we should have a workshop so we can ask any questions and express our concerns.
Mr. Goscicki stated a good way to deal with this contract is to have a separate workshop. We can include the pension issue as part of the workshop. You cannot make decisions at a workshop and if the Board wishes to make any decisions, we can schedule a special meeting. We seem to run out of time on several issues at your Board meetings as we had full agendas.
Mr. Fennell stated I am looking for a direct comparison between what we are taking in-house and our general services. It seems the standard and professional services are boilerplate.
Mr. Goscicki stated the agreement is our standard agreement. You need to look at Exhibit A, which gives a breakdown. It is not a side by side comparison. We tried to break out the services we will provide and services the District will provide.
Mr. Fennell stated I want to see a comparison of services Mr. Daly provides in column A and what Severn Trent Services provides in column B. We provide separate services.
Mr. Goscicki stated I suggest we not do this separately. I am not here to compete with CSID. This is not our goal. There is no competition between me and Mr. Daly.
Mr. Daly stated I was looking for guidance from Mr. Fennell as to whether he wanted a separate viewpoint.
Mr. Fennell stated I wanted both of you to sit down as a management group and list what your jobs are.
Mr. Goscicki stated a lot of this is a reflection of conversations Mr. Daly and I had. I am not going to say 100% agreed.
Mr. Fennell stated I want inputs from everyone here. I expect you to come back and address what services will be done locally and what services will be performed by Severn Trent Services. We need to have an ongoing working relationship for years.
Mr. Fennell stated this is the most progress we made in a long time.
Mr. Goscicki stated it is important we bring this matter to conclusion.
Ms. Zich stated I still do not understand everything Severn Trent Services does.
Mr. Goscicki stated we feel we are doing everything within the scope.
I have one other item to address, which we overlooked. As we progressed through the bond issue, our standard contract has a standard additional services fee, which Severn Trent Services charges our clients for the work we do in conjunction with the bond issue. Our current contract does not have this broken out separately.
Mr. Fennell asked do you want us to pay an extra $15,000?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes.
Ms. Zich asked why were we not told this before?
Mr. Goscicki responded I apologize for this. I thought it was in our contract because it is in every other contract and it was not in there. We currently provide assessment services to the District but this is not reflected in our contract. However, this is something we have historically done as part of our base fee. Since we do not know when bond issues come up, we cannot price it in the base fee. Bond Counsel, Mr. Lyles and even Ms. Delegal were involved in a number of bond meetings. I feel we certainly earned this fee as we put a great deal of time and effort between the preliminary bond issues and final bond issues in dealing with the Engineers, Underwriters, Bond Counsel and Special Counsel.
Mr. Daly stated the reason why this fee was not paid was because I did not see it in the contract. We are currently working under such a generalized contract.
Mr. Hanks asked did we previously have bond issues under Mr. Moyer’s contract?
Mr. Daly responded the last bond issue was in 2002. I believe Ms. Rhonda Archer handled this.
Mr. Hanks asked how was this handled with regards to Severn Trent Services? Was Severn Trent Services involved in 2002?
Mr. Goscicki responded I was not involved with this District or Severn Trent Services.
Mr. Hanks asked what happened in 2002?
Mr. Daly responded I did not see any line item in the disclosure statement.
Mr. Goscicki stated when we go through the Line of Credit, we include the fee in our management fee but getting into this level of effort is where we request compensation. This request is at your discretion. We should have brought this to you earlier.
Mr. Hanks stated if you do not mind, I wish to make some inquiries. Can we act on this next month?
Mr. Goscicki asked is there anything I can answer for you?
Mr. Hanks responded no. I was not aware this was a payment we owed you.
of Emergency Bulk Potable Water Agreement with the City of
Ms. Zich asked was this agreement negotiated with the city?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes.
Ms. Zich stated I had some questions about whether the city makes certain determinations regarding fees. Is this critical?
Mr. Goscicki responded no. This matter has been ongoing for a year. This agreement is for emergency interconnects.
Mr. Fennell stated this sounds like something we want to do but I do not want to do it unless District Counsel reviews the agreement.
Mr. Goscicki stated the City of
Mr. Fennell asked are they charging us for water cables?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes, $1.52 per thousand gallons.
Mr. Fennell asked is this a good price?
Mr. Goscicki responded no. This is a 25% surcharge on their old water regulations, which were in effect at the time they were selling water through an agreement like this to NSID. They informed me their land development codes require them to charge 25% to sell water outside of their service area. I know the State statute permits it but I have never seen a land development code requiring this. They have since raised their rates so locking it in at this number keeps us below the 25% surcharge. It was pointed out to me we can pay them in water rather than dollars. This is slightly cumbersome but it is a way to get around the dollars.
v. Monthly Water & Sewer Charts
vii. Utility Billing Work Orders
viii. Complaints Received/Resolved
There not being any questions or comments, the next item followed.
i. Update of Water Use Permit
This item was not discussed.
ii. Discussion of NSID Stormwater Pump Station No. 1 Discharge Alternative to Canal L-36
Mr. Goscicki stated I wish to have some discussion because the NSID Board is going to ask me about this at the next meeting.
Ms. Early stated NSID is currently
going through a modification with SFWMD because North Springs is pumping to the
In June, NSID received 20” of rain while CSID did not receive any. NSID had to pump 2 billion gallons of water to the ocean while everyone else was in a drought. We called, wrote letters and sent emails to SFWMD for weeks trying to convince them to let us pump south. They never made a decision so we ended up having to pump this water to the ocean. Now they are coming back to us and saying “If NSID works out an agreement with CSID and CSID agrees and you both work together, we will allow it”. For example, if NSID received a great deal of rain and CSID did not receive any rain and we had to pump the water out, we could call Mr. Frederick and ask him if he wants us to pump south. This is all the agreement reflects.
Mr. Hanks stated this also affects the Broward County interconnect on the stormwater, which we also use to help recharge the wellfields in the Sunshine WCD because of our proximity to the Sunshine WCD canals.
Ms. Early stated correct.
Mr. Goscicki stated in the past, this was handled through a handshake agreement and not a formal written agreement.
Ms. Delegal stated I need the Board’s authorization to make a presentation to the Broward County Legislative Delegation. As you know, a Bill was proposed to review all of the Special Districts. In the next few weeks, a Bill is going to be proposed, although in Chapter 189 there are already provisions to review Special Districts. This will create a county agency. There is a great deal of discussion about the actual goal, which is to get rid of Special Districts in Broward County and collapse them all into municipalities, Broward County in particular. I am bringing this before the Board to the extent, we are going to be making presentations authorized by our Boards regarding the position we do not want to see this bill get passed by the Florida Legislature. I want to make sure this is the direction by the Board.
Mr. Fennell stated we are interested in the engineer keeping the water in our areas. There needs to be a plan to do this.
Mr. Hanks stated I request we direct management to pursue interconnects with the other districts for the purposes of re-allocating the stormwater.
ii. Discussion of NSID Stormwater Pump Station No. 1 Discharge Alternative to Canal L-36
This item was not discussed and will be placed on the next agenda.
ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor Requests and Audience Comments
There not being any, the next item followed.
TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of October Financials and Check Registers
This item was not discussed and will be placed on the next agenda.
THIRTEENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There being no further business,
Glen Hanks Robert Fennell
Notes for 11/19/07 Meeting
AGENDA ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
***Place “AUDIENCE COMMENTS” as the second order of business on all future agendas***
1. Discussion of Cash Flow – Cash Transactions Analysis
2. Pension Benefit Discussion
3. Review of Severn Trent Scope of Services
4. Discussion of NSID Stormwater Pump Station No. 1 Discharge Alternative to Canal L-36
1. Determine how much easement is needed for the District’s maintenance (Hockman easement).
2. Provide a copy of the Hydrologic Model to SFWMD.
3. Get data from SFWMD showing the maximum level of the C-14 Canal. If this information cannot be obtained, Mr. Goscicki will write a letter to the Executive Director of SFWMD requesting the 10-year, 25-year, 50-year and 100 year flood elevations for the C-14 Canal.
4. Have the Landscape Architect attend the next meeting to provide a report on the landscaping work completed at the Water Treatment Plant.
1. Provide a worksheet with bullet points on the pension benefit program as to the benefits of the employee (new and senior) and what it represents in terms of the cost.
Dan Daly/Ed Goscicki
1. Provide a comparison to the Board on what services Mr. Daly proposes to provide and what services STS proposes to provide.
NOTE: Future meetings will now start at 3:00 P.M.