MINUTES OF MEETING
CORAL SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
A regular meeting of the Board of
Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, July
20, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. at the District Office, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral
Springs, Florida.
Present
and constituting a quorum were:
Robert
Fennell President
Sharon
Zich Vice
President
Glenn
Hanks Secretary
Also
present were:
Kenneth
Cassel District
Manager
Jane
Early District
Engineer
Sean
Skehan CH2M
Hill
Gerrit
Bulman CH2M
Hill
Cory
Johnson CH2M
Hill
Dan
Daly Director
of Operations
Doug
Hyche Utilities
Director
Kay
Woodward District
Accountant
Jan
Zilmer Human
Resources Manager
Matthew
Cigale Craven
Thompson and Associates, Inc.
FIRST
ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Cassel called the meeting to
order and called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes
of the June 15, 2009 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member received
a copy of the minutes of the June 15, 2009 meeting and requested any
corrections, additions or deletions.
There not being any,
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded
by Ms. Zich with all in favor the minutes of the June 15, 2009 meeting were
approved.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’
Requests and Audience Comments
There
not being any, the next item followed.
FOURTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Canal
Bank Study by Dunkelberger
Mr. Cassel stated it was sent out to
you separately on Friday. We were
waiting for additional information to attach to it. No action is required from the Board at this
time. This is a report. There is potential for some repairs, but we
need to look at it from the attorney’s perspective as well as the engineer’s as
to how we do not jeopardize the District overall.
Mr. Fennell asked is there someone
who can speak to this report here?
Ms. Early responded I did not write
the report. I reviewed the report.
Mr. Fennell stated what I am coming
away with after reading this is that it is basically normal canal wear. It is not like the canals were dug the wrong
way or something like that. It does
sound like the canals tend to have wear as we go along and there can be erosion
at the edges. Things like that do
occur. The only thing I was a little
surprised at was this one particular house, 11988 Classic Drive, already had a
geotube system in there. I was kind of
wondering how it got there.
Mr. Hanks stated if you recall, that
was the former manager right after Hurricane Wilma.
The
record will reflect the recording picked up several people talking at the same
time.
Ms. Zich stated so that was already
done.
Ms. Early stated it was done. What probably happened was once they put the
tubes in and they did a nice slope, wave action caused a little bit of material
to slough in and go into the tube.
Mr. Fennell asked are any of these
outside of our right-of-way or outside of our ownership?
Mr. Cassel responded no.
Mr. Hanks stated the easiest place
to figure out where the right-of-way line falls relative to the right bank and
the slopes are on the exhibits in the back half of the report. As you go midway through the report there are
some pictures which look like cross sections.
If nothing is done, what will happen on these banks is they will
continue to change their shape to establish a stable position. This will just occur naturally. In a worst case scenario you are going to
bring yourself back, the top of the bank will be about 24 feet naturally from
the top of the rock. You can take a look
at your section there and see where your top of rock is and then take it back
about 24 feet. That is were your top of
the bank is. Some of these locations
have the opportunity and have the space the way it happened; others would
appear to be a little bit closer. Ms.
Early, did you have any review to verify what the design allocations were for
the top of the banks?
Ms. Early responded yes. I think it was 9.8 or 10.2; roughly 10.
Mr. Hanks asked was it about what is
being shown on these cross sections?
Ms. Early responded yes.
Mr. Hanks stated I think it is an
important piece of the puzzle if you can verify it. Mr. Lyles.
Mr. Lyles stated the study does not indicate,
in my review, any undermining that creates any damage to adjoining improvements
to real property. I think as a policy
level you will want to use that as the standard to begin the discussion of
taking action on something. As the
President said, it seems to be a study that confirms there is a lot of natural
wearing and depending on the subsurface conditions, whether you have a
limestone shelf, a scarp or the various geological figures they discussed in
their report, you would have different kinds of erosion or migrating away of
some of the softer soils that were used to fill the banks. There is no violation here that I see. There is no permit condition which is not
being met that I see. What I took away
from it is there are a variety of things homeowners might want to do if they
find themselves in a position where they are concerned about the appearance of
the property behind theirs. I do not see
an instance anywhere where we would have to start to think in terms of we have
a duty to not allow a condition within our right-of-way which we own and
maintain to create a subjacent failure to property improvements on the adjacent
real property parcel. It appears to me
that this is something we watch on a case by case basis and if we see something
getting closer to that point, it should be brought to the Board’s attention by
engineering and field staff. We will
approach it that way.
Mr. Hanks stated so we have the
report which identifies what the condition is, what the maximum likely extent
is going to be of the ultimate condition of the bank and it identifies
different scenarios that could be potentially implemented.
Mr. Lyles stated as well as a cost
for those which they have listed in terms of an estimate, but I do not see
anything in here which says you better go do them or you should do them
now. I think we have what amounts to
natural conditions given the passage of time and the movement of water. Some are of an aesthetic concern on some
people’s part perhaps, but nothing that is a life safety or property damage
issue was identified in this report. I
believe this is informational. Some
people have questioned what is going on with these banks. They have been there, in some cases, for 30
years. You have a snap shot of where
they are at this point into their life cycle.
There is no recommendation that there is a problem, which needs to be
resolved.
Mr. Hanks stated I am used to a four
to one regulatory on new projects and a four to one lake bank slope.
Mr. Lyles stated I believe that is a
permit criteria on all lake banks, canals, lakes or other water bodies for the
initial construction. They have to pass
an inspection at the time they are being constructed. I think the engineer will be better able to
tell you what happens in the future when something is built with the
appropriate slope. I believe SFWMD
requires four to one and every other agency follows that. I do not believe we have an obligation to go
back in and keep filling it to keep it at four to one forever. That is not my understanding of how it works.
Mr. Fennell asked what were they
built at?
Mr. Hanks asked do we have any asbuilts?
Ms. Early responded I could not find
any asbuilts, but I had the original cross sections. Some of them were four to one, but not all of
them because at the time it was not a requirement.
Mr. Hanks asked do we know who dug
these canals?
Mr. Lyles responded it is long
before my time and I do not have any files that would reflect that. Given the fact the four to one requirement
was not in effect at the time and we have not seen anything identified in this
report that would be a concealed or latent defect that we only now learned
about, I do not know that it does matter.
Ms. Early stated my understanding is
you would only have to make it four to one if, for example, we were going to
regrade that entire lot and we were going down to the water’s edge, then we
would have to make it a four to one. If
we are doing general maintenance in the canal, we do not.
Mr. Hanks asked are there any other
laws you are aware of that would require some kind of safety slope on canal
banks?
Mr. Lyles responded no, other than
what we just discussed.
Mr. Hanks asked so the fact we may
have three to one or a 1.5 does not exceed our exposure?
Mr. Lyles responded that kind of
hypothetical question is a little troubling to me because you never know when a
situation is going to arise or when a creative sort of claim might get made. There have been a couple of instances that I
am aware of, not in this community, but in nearby communities, particularly
Weston, in which it was alleged the necessary slope had not been installed in
the first place and there was a drowning that ensued. That was part of the allegation. I cannot assure you someone five or ten years
from now will not try to make a claim that had this slope been regraded to four
to one, this individual who tumbled into the water and did not know how to swim,
did not understand how steep it was beyond the initial little shallow
area.
We could potentially have that kind
of exposure, but it should not be a winning claim, if it was built in
accordance with the applicable criteria at the time the canals were dug, the
cross sections were established, the grades were finished and it was turned
over to the District. I can tell you
that I am quite sure, I have not seen any documents, but I am quite sure
somewhere way back then someone on behalf of the District examined those canals
and those slopes on those banks and certified them as ready for the District to
accept; either from the developer who put them in the first place or the
contractor who was hired by the District to dig the canal. An engineer told the District Board and staff
they were ready to be taken over by the District and they meet all applicable
standards and criteria.
Ms. Early stated and they would have
had to have been accepted by SFWMD as well. The as builts would have had to have been sent
to them.
Mr. Fennell asked what was the
address of the lady who originally came here?
Mr. Lyles responded before you get
to that, because there is a record of this meeting and because it may be the
subject of a discovery motion sometime when none of us are around to remember
the discussion I want to supplement one additional thing to the response we
gave to Mr. Hanks. I reviewed this
report and I also conferred with the manager as well as the engineer. Nothing has been brought to my attention from
any of these sources by any qualified expert that would indicate there is a
lack of safety, an unsafe condition, a steep, a hidden peril or anything the
Board should be made aware of today that it needs to commission staff to go out
and renovate, repair, rehabilitate or regrade.
There is nothing in this documentation or any of these meetings which
have been had at the staff level that contains any information in this regard. If there is any such thing that we should
know, from whatever source with the staff that is here, make the Board aware of
it now. If not, I think the record
should reflect that on behalf of the District and the District’s Board a
thorough survey and inspection using the locations the expert chose has been
completed. No unsafe conditions have
been identified that are being made aware to the District’s Board or to its
staff.
Mr. Hanks asked so right now, is it
just an aesthetic issue?
Mr. Lyles responded it appears that
way to me. There is normal timely wear
and tear that manifests itself more or less depending on where you are looking,
but nothing from an aesthetics that I take away from this report. I am sorry to interrupt Mr. President.
Mr. Fennell stated this is good
news. What was her name again?
Mr. Daly responded Ms. Bonnie
Epstein.
Mr. Hanks stated 1760 NW 126th
Drive. Another item we see occurring
here is if we were to go and take a look at the repairs, it would be coming out
of all of our residents’ pockets. We do
not have any funds for any of the repairs which are out there. If we were to undertake a system wide
approach to looking at these and correcting them, it would be coming out of our
own pockets.
Mr. Fennell stated since there is
nothing from a legal standpoint or from a practical standpoint that the canals
are actually dangerous, I think we should handle this the same way we have
handled previous issues as far as aesthetics on an exception basis only. From time to time we can donate money to
clean up areas that really do not have to do with water flow and those kinds of
things.
Mr. Daly asked would the exception
include damage to personal property such as fences and pools? We do have this one picture where the fence is
almost in the canal.
Mr. Hanks asked which one is that?
Mr. Daly responded 12073 NW 1st
Drive.
Ms. Zich asked is the fence on our
property or their property?
Mr. Daly responded I would imagine
it was on their property at the time, but I do not know.
Mr. Hanks stated if you drive down
Atlantic Boulevard and park at the CSID west outfall canal bridge, way down
Riverside Drive look up and down it and you can see many instances of where
improvements have been put in to the public right-of-way. Just because it is a privately owned fence,
it does not mean anything.
Mr. Daly stated I understand we
would have to see whose land it was really on.
Overall the question is, if it regresses so far that it is going to
impede upon a person’s personal property, what is the liability?
Mr. Fennell responded I think there
is a real issue here because the fence is on our public right-of-way.
Mr. Hanks stated there are other
areas and if we are going to be looking at this and people are going to be
looking to us to repair fences falling in, we need to take a close look of
where fences are within the entire District.
Mr. Daly stated these half dozen we
have here, Mr. Frederick was intimately involved with over years.
Ms. Early stated let me call Mr. David
who did the survey and tell him to look up his notes on this particular lot to
see where the fence was in relationship to the property line.
Mr. Fennell stated it looks like it
will cost us $150 a foot to do anything with this.
Ms. Early stated I actually did some
more investigation on the cost after I read this because I thought the cost was
out of line. We had Anchor Marine repair
a few of them a few years ago after the hurricane. I called and asked him what the prices were
because at the time we did this there were a lot that were $35 and a lot that were
$28. It fluctuated depending on the
location and access. He said the $35 is
a good price to still use. I think in
this report it is $110. That is three
times as much.
Mr. Fennell stated that makes a difference;
$35 on a 60 foot.
Mr. Early stated it was still for
the double tubes, two rows.
Mr. Fennell stated that is
approximately $2,000.
Mr. Hanks asked $2,000 per?
Mr. Fennell responded per a 60 foot
lot. Let us look at 1760 NW 126th
Drive and see what we actually now know.
Mr. Daly asked Mr. Frederick, do you
remember off hand what Ms. Epstein’s problem was?
Mr. Frederick responded she is the
one that had the big crevice with a big chunk ready to fall off.
Mr. Daly stated right. Another chunk is ready to come off and she
feels her fence is in jeopardy.
Mr. Fennell stated it looks like
this is one area Cross Section C and Cross Section B are in.
Mr. Hanks stated according to this
sketch it appears your rock is about 12 feet off the property line. The canal section in Eagle Trace, were many
of those canals were over dug?
Ms. Early responded a lot of them were
over dug.
Mr. Fennell stated I think Ms.
Epstein made a nice case. We said we
would take a look at it. I think we
should respond. It sounds like for $35 a
foot we can put something in there. That
is my concept. What do you guys think?
Mr. Hyche asked if you do this one,
is it going to open it up for the rest of the people to start complaining and
make the same cases?
Mr. Hanks asked what came first, the
canals or the houses?
Mr. Daly responded the canals.
Mr. Frederick stated we are going to
have to have someone official write them a letter and tell them this is the way
it is. They will not listen to me.
Mr. Hanks stated there may be an
opportunity to implement some repairs at some point in the future. We are looking at changes in the water
quality regulations. We just do not know
what the requirements are going to do and how they are going to impact us. We do not know if we are going to need to
implement changes to our system. I would
really hate to put something out there in terms of a remedy.
Mr. Cassel stated looking at the
obligations of the District and the potential impacts on the District we have
done some pilot tests and sampled things that now everyone is looking at
whether to do it. It is my understanding
that other Districts are pushing back to the residents and saying they are not
going to do anything. Others have said
if you want to fix it, you can fix it.
Our particular thing is, and my understanding of the past, we have not
issued any permits for anyone to work in our right-of-way to fix anything. It may be that if the individual is adamant
about repairing it that we issue a permit and they can repair it if they want
to rather than putting the District further out there in any kind of a
commitment.
Mr. Fennell stated I think in
general where we are at is from a stand point of a case by case basis. This is an aesthetic issue, purely. I think she made a good case for what is
happening there. We have from time to
time, depending on the conditions, like hurricanes and things like that, have
done different kinds of work and repairs.
It is not unprecedented that we do this.
I think we need to look at it on a case by case basis. This is not a general prerequisite to do all
the banks. She did take the time to come
in here and show us what was there. I
would say to go ahead and rebuild that particular area she complained about up
to a certain value.
Ms. Zich stated I am just concerned
that we have so many canal banks out there.
Mr. Fennell stated we do and they
are …
Ms. Zich stated they are going to
deteriorate as time goes on. She knew
she lived on a canal when she bought the house.
Mr. Hanks stated I know what my canal
in my backyard does. SFWMD is not going
to do one thing to that canal bank.
Mr. Fennell stated you have the
C-14.
Mr. Hanks stated I am talking about
C-14. Granted, I do not have any improvements
that are in jeopardy, but I bet if somebody had a license to install a dock out
there, it is kind of at their own risk.
Ms. Zich stated I just have a real
concern Mr. Fennell. We have an awful
lot of canals. Unless there is a real
reason like we have a liability there, I am just thinking half the people in
our District live on canals.
Mr. Fennell asked do you have an
alternative you would like to supply as a remedy for it?
Ms. Zich responded I wish I
did. I understand how she feels, but I
know how many canals there are.
Mr. Skehan stated it is just a cost
they have to bear themselves for maintaining the property if they choose to
maintain the aesthetic value of it.
Mr. Hanks stated you may even have
sufficient space at that particular property to let nature take its course and
let it go back to the property line.
What is included in this report on the cross sections is there is about
12 feet from the top of your rock layer to your property. This lets you take out three feet of vertical
distance at a stable slope.
Mr. Fennell asked so what are you
proposing?
Mr. Hanks responded if you do not do
anything, the bank is just going to go back to the property line.
Mr. Fennell stated then the
alternate would be to give her a permit to fix it herself.
Mr. Daly asked was her concern that
there was another piece about to fall off?
That was the big deal, right?
Mr. Frederick responded yes.
Mr. Daly stated what Mr. Hanks is
saying is that is exactly what is natural and it may stop at that point. We may just opt to ask her to let nature take
its course and keep an eye on it for her.
Mr. Hanks stated I think we have
some other issues we need to start focusing in on, which is the fate of people
not coming in for permits and changing the conditions. We have to tighten up some of these other
issues. This is still going to be
around. These are not going to be going
away.
Mr. Daly stated and if it is stable
up to the property line and it is that shelf that does fall in resulting in no
damage other than the aesthetics.
Mr. Hanks stated as part of addressing
some of these other bigger issues which we have elsewhere in the District, if
we have the opportunity to focus those improvements in a location where we have
this situation, then we can go ahead and address it and pursue it in that
manner. Let us keep an eye on it. I have a strange feeling we have other issues
out there which are going to be much more costly and are really going to strain
our ability to pay for it.
Mr. Fennell stated we owe her an
answer. What is our answer?
Mr. Cassel responded from what I am
hearing from the Board, at the present time if she wishes to correct the
aesthetic issues at her expense, we will issue her a permit to do such, but we
are not going to take any action from the District.
Mr. Daly stated the cross section as
well as the report back from the engineer came back and said there is no damage
that could happen inside of her property line.
Mr. Hanks asked is there a way to
document where that property line is? Do
we need a motion on this Mr. Lyles?
Mr. Lyles responded I think you can
just direct staff to respond to her indicating we had the situation
reviewed. We commissioned a study and it
does not appear there is potential for any property damage. It is aesthetic in nature and if she desires
to do something to change the appearance of the bank behind her property, we
will issue a permit to her for that purpose.
All we need is that direction. It
does not have to be a formal motion.
Mr. Hanks stated mention that we are
going to be in a position to authorize her to do work within the right-of-way
to correct it. This is still on our
radar screen.
Mr. Daly asked will she be
correcting our property?
Mr. Lyles responded that is why we
are giving her a permit. We are going to
allow her to come on to our property and do something if she wants it to have a
different appearance. Our drainage
system is functioning properly at that location and the reason she needs the
permit is because it is within the District’s right-of-way.
Mr. Fennell stated I think the
rationale behind that is it will be called maintenance of the property for
aesthetic reasons.
Ms. Early stated I believe the city
ordinance states you must take care of the property down to the water’s edge
anyway.
Mr. Lyles stated you have to
maintain the landscaping down to the water’s edge.
Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like
the consensus is we see this as a landscaping issue, which can be maintained
and we will issue a permit to do so.
Mr. Hanks asked since there may be
many homeowners who will want to pursue this option are we going to let them
choose which option they want to pursue out of this report or are they going to
have to retain the services of an engineer?
What level of plan and preparation is going to need to be performed in
each scenario?
Mr. Cassel responded the fifth
paragraph on the first page in the executive summary states there are three
different varieties of potential repairs.
As long as it is within one of those three parameters of repairs, it
will be submitted, reviewed and permitted.
I do not think it will have to be a full blown engineering issue because
I do not see anything structural that would require any geological or
structural type scenario other than the type of repairs he is referring
to.
Ms. Early stated Anchor Marine
actually did the sketch and they guaranty the work. Basically what we want is for them to guarantee
it. If they are not going to hire an
engineer, than whoever is doing the work needs to certify and guarantee it.
Mr. Fennell stated so what we are saying is
they can do it themselves, but they have to submit to us a plan that we can
certify to issue a permit.
Mr. Cassel stated that is correct.
Mr. Hanks asked do we go ahead and
do something to meet the homeowners halfway in that the District provides the
engineering and if the homeowners wish to go ahead and correct the problem?
Mr. Fennell responded you just added
a new step towards liability in doing that.
Mr. Lyles stated I want to make the
Board aware of a CDD that abuts us, Turtle Run CDD, which has a lot of
waterfront residential properties. They
are confronting a similar problem. Their
policy has been and continues to be the homeowner’s responsibility, but they
are finishing up a process of establishing a set of criteria through their engineer
applicable to these projects which will support the issuance of a permit. The middle ground of what you are discussing
is we may want to take a look at the criteria.
They have almost completed the task to develop the criteria in the City
of Coral Springs for this type of homeowner repair. We may want to get a copy of this engineering
work and if it suits our purposes and our engineer blesses it, we might want to
let it be our established set of guidelines for doing this as a homeowner.
Mr. Fennell stated that makes sense.
Mr. Hanks stated I just do not want
to have a million different scenarios of what they are doing to change the
situation.
Ms. Zich stated if the homeowner is
going to do the work, we have to okay it first.
Mr. Hanks stated I am just trying to
get it so it is easier. The property
owner is going to have a cost associated with just the construction. I am trying to figure out a way where we can
help make it easier since we have expertise in this area.
Mr. Fennell stated that actually
sounds like a great idea. We need a
policy that covers this. If there is
already one on the way, I think we should look at it. Can we do this quickly?
Ms. Early asked who is the engineer?
Mr. Lyles responded it is Keith and
Schnars.
Mr. Fennell stated let us do it.
Mr. Daly asked would you like to
entertain the idea of waiving the permit fee of $350 to help the homeowner?
Mr. Fennell responded I think it
should be part of what the engineers come back with; how much the fee should
be. It sounds like we need to set up a
policy going forward of how we handle complaints for different things. It is a smart thing to do. At that point we can have a general type of
policy for whenever these things occur.
Our people will know how to handle it.
We will know what to tell them.
What you can do and what we will not do.
It will be straight forward.
Mr. Hanks stated keep it simple for
the people who are coming in the future looking at what they are
purchasing. They can have an idea of
what the problems are.
Mr. Fennell asked can we get this
together?
Mr. Cassel responded yes. We will push to get it together. We will see what we get from Keith and
Schnars. We will come back by the next meeting,
if not sooner, with some report as to where we think we are.
Mr. Fennell stated okay, but please
send to Ms. Epstein a letter saying we have reviewed this, we have found there
are no structural issues here, we are in the process of formulating a policy on
how to handle this, it will probably be along the lines of the homeowner is
responsible and we are going to issue guidelines on how to do this. Then we will come back next month with
recommendations on what kind of policy we should have.
Mr. Hanks stated another item, which
is related to this, is one item which is not affected by the structural
setbacks are pools. Do we want to direct
our manager to communicate with the city’s building department? They can literally put a pool right up to
their rear property line. They cannot
put a screen enclosure over it, but they can put a pool right by the property
line. On water front property, depending
on the exact nature, we only have done a sampling of six locations within the
District, there is a possibility that you have different soil types and your
slope may go back further than 12 feet and encroach further into the
property. Do we want to put some kind of
notice out there that if you are constructing within 10 feet of the property
line with the District, you may be subject to changes due to natural
causes? I do not know.
Mr. Fennell stated you are
broadening this out to look at our policy in general.
Mr. Hanks stated we do not have a
policy or can have a policy as it relates to construction of pools or decks.
Mr. Fennell stated we do have one in
relation to decks.
Mr. Hanks asked on private property?
Mr. Fennell responded on our
property.
Mr. Cassel stated where Mr. Hanks is
coming from is the city will potentially allow someone to build their pool
right up to the property line. It cannot
have an enclosure on it, but they can build it out. Our property starts adjacent and goes down
the water slope. If we have the normal
type of issue we might have, they are going to claim we are impacting
them. Well they built their pool too
close. I guess what you are really
asking for is some kind of a notification factor that if someone builds a pool
or other structure within so many feet of the property line, they are doing it
at their own risk. It is a legal
thing. Mr. Lyles, can we do this?
Mr. Lyles responded I recommend we
ask the city to consider adopting a set back requirement for a pool if it is
within some reasonable distance. I do
not know we can ultimately make “build it at your own risk” stick.
Mr. Hanks stated no, but you grasp
the idea of my concern.
Mr. Lyles stated sure. I think probably 99% of the pools that are
ever going to be there are already there.
Ms. Zich stated that is what I was
thinking.
Mr. Lyles stated I do not know that
there is much we can do retroactively to make the situation any better than it
is.
Mr. Hanks stated put this on the
list of letters to the city.
Ms. Zich stated I built a house at
one time in Cypress Run and they put a pool in.
They told me it would never be able to have a screen enclosure. I sold the house to someone else and there is
a screen enclosure. One of the reasons I
never moved into the house was because I wanted a pool enclosure and they would
not give me one. They said I could never
have one and there is one right now. It
has been there for many years.
Mr. Lyles stated it might not be
permitted. A lot of those things go up
in a weekend without a permit. All it
takes is for the neighborhood to get upset and down it comes.
Ms. Zich stated no one would ever
know because it has been there so long now.
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Manager
·
Discussion
of Storm Water Nutrient Level Legislation
Mr. Cassel stated the first item
came in a separate package. I attended a
meeting back in the end of June or the middle of June at the Lake Worth
Drainage District along with a number of other representatives from other
drainage districts as well as improvement districts. There were representatives from Orlando South
regarding the potential proposed water quality standards which may be
enforced. Currently Florida has a
narrative type standard that you have to comply with. There is a push to change it to a numerical
standard. The problem with numerical
standards is a numerical standard for the type of drainage districts we are
involved in, you cannot do uniform standard for all of them. All of them have different characteristics,
different attributes, etcetera.
It was the position of the group
of individuals there that as members of the Florida Association of Special Districts,
we would be coming together as a group of districts to help set for opposing
any specific numerical standard and set standards we can live with for the long
haul operation of our districts and to the benefit of our residents versus our
residents being required to spend exorbitant amounts of dollars for treatment
of water which may or may not be necessary.
There is in here a sample resolution which was forwarded to most of the
districts, depending on whether we support their actions or not. In addition to supporting their actions, potentially
by resolution which would have to be cleaned up by District counsel, they were
also looking for a contribution of $3,000 to $5,000 as a commitment to help
support the effort of the group to fight this for all of our benefit.
Mr. Fennell asked how much?
Mr. Cassel responded I would say
up to a level of $5,000 to be contributed as we go through it. I would not contribute it all at one
time. I would find out what others are
doing and contribute slowly towards it, but I do not expect to exceed this
amount of money.
Mr. Fennell asked did we have
something we set aside last time in our budget regarding something along these
lines?
Mr. Daly responded we have some
money out there which can use for this.
This is legislative of sorts.
Mr. Fennell stated this is the
idea. We are trying to formulate policy
which is unified above and beyond our group.
Mr. Daly asked are they asking for
$5,000 or so for everyone of the districts here?
Mr. Cassel responded they are
asking for some contribution, no specific amount, from all of the districts
listed depending on the size of the district and number of canals,
etcetera. I came up with an idea and a
scenario of somewhere between $3,000 to $5,000 would be an appropriate
committal of dollars for NSID or CSID because of the nature of what we do and
how we interact. I do not expect PTWCD
to contribute that much because they are smaller and have less. They might contribute a lesser amount of
money. The fact is they are looking for
the continuity and unity of the mass of drainage districts south of Orlando to
be able to make sure we do not get adversely impacted by some standards which
are set out there, and criteria, so it costs all of us multiple hundreds of
thousands of dollars, if not more, to comply.
Mr. Hanks asked do we know how the
standards they are looking at compare to the current quality measures we have?
Mr. Cassel responded this is part
of what the group is doing. The group is
compiling water quality testing from the majority of the districts we
have. We are sending it to them so they
can say, “Coral Springs is such an average so let us fight to keep that or
higher. Lake Worth is this amount. Let us fight to keep it there.” It may be lower or higher than Coral
Springs. We are basically looking at the
whole area seeing where we are and what we can fight for. At the same time they are looking at,
currently our canals are classified as Class 3 water bodies, which are
swimming, fishing and recreation, and they are looking at possibly
reclassifying the canals as drainage so that we do not get caught in that
scenario. They can have their regulations
on certain ones which are mores like lakes and streams versus the ones which
are specifically for conveying water from point A to point B.
Mr. Hanks stated so the short
answer is we do not know where our District falls relative to what the proposed
regulations are.
Mr. Cassel stated at this point in
time, no. They are still playing with
it. From what I understand the alphabet
soup has not come out with a number yet.
The districts are trying to band together and have some information to
say whatever number they potentially come out with, which they always pick the
smallest number and cut it in half, we want them to go double the number they
think.
Mr. Fennell stated I think it is a
good idea for us to contribute, but I want to be assured of who will be holding
the money which is going to be spent. We
do not want it just to disappear.
Mr. Cassel stated I
understand. Prior to any distribution of
funds I will know exactly what it is going to and have it back to you; what it
is going to, what for and what the expected results are.
Mr. Fennell stated I can see us
contributing a small amount just in general to get something going.
Mr. Hanks stated we have data on
our water quality.
Mr. Cassel stated we will be
feeding them this data as well as NSID’s data and any other data we have for
sampling, which will help tremendously in establishing what currently is and
what will work versus some arbitrary number they may come up with.
Mr. Hanks stated this is
referencing impacts to MS4s. They are
municipal separate storm water sewer systems.
Are we an MS4 or are we part of Broward County? Where do we really stand on this?
Mr. Cassel responded it is
initially MS4s, but we are currently within the boundary of the City of Coral
Springs. They may have designations as
MS4s, but we are one of the conveyances of the stormwater. I do not believe we have an MS4 permit.
Mr. Hanks stated so we may not
have all of the necessary paperwork.
Mr. Cassel stated we may not be
required to have certain things, but because we own and operate the conveyance
systems…
Mr. Hanks stated we should still
be complying with it because it is the right thing to do.
Mr. Cassel stated exactly. We need to make sure what we are doing does
not adversely affect anyone downstream, to the east or to the west or
whatever. We need to do what we need to
do. We also need to protect the residents
from potential exorbitant costs of treating water which really does not need to
be treated. This is really where this
can potentially go. They can have you
treating your rain water. In reality, in
a couple of cases the rain water which falls exceeds some of the levels they
want the water to have after it hits the ground in certain cases.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need a
motion on this?
Mr. Cassel responded no. I would say just direction.
Mr. Lyles asked do you want to
establish a specific number at this point?
They are asking for a resolution of support. The resolution of support, which is in the
back up material, asks that you submit it in the name of the District. I do not know what resolution number we are
on, but we need to pass it.
Mr. Fennell asked do you have any
issues with the resolution Mr. Lyles?
Mr. Lyles responded no. I think it does track the policy of objecting
to the numerical criteria for the reasons the manager outlined. It contains within it language that you are a
member in good standing of the Florida Association of Special Districts, which
you are; that you affected by the proposed regulations, which you are; that you
wish to join with the Florida Association of Special Districts in opposing
these regulations, which you have indicated you do support; and it does
indicate in paragraph three on page two that staff is authorized and directed
to make such monetary contributions to the Florida Association of Special
Districts that may be determined by the Board.
I thought I heard you say you want to make an initial contribution to
get started now and you will consider a more substantial contribution depending
on what others contribute and which way things are going at a later time. So ‘A’ would be to adopt Resolution 2009-8 relating
to the states adoption of numeric water quality standards with the provisions I
have outlined and since the resolution itself does not contain a monetary cap,
we can take it up with a separate motion.
First you want to approve Resolution 2009-8.
Mr. Hanks stated let me make sure
I understand; if things are not opposed and our voice is not heard within the
rulemaking procedure, we have lost that voice and we have to follow whatever
standards are out there.
Mr. Cassel stated exactly.
Mr. Hanks stated one of the
standards which is potentially out there which would be lumped into are natural
lakes and streams so something that, I do not even know what the different
water bodies are, but we can end up…
Mr. Cassel stated push back
towards the pristine look and affect of issues versus manmade canals.
On MOTION Mr. Hanks seconded by
Ms. Zich with all in favor Resolution 2009-8, relating to the state adoption of
numeric water quality standards, was adopted.
Mr. Fennell stated I proposed we
contribute an initial amount of $1,500.
Do you agree?
Mr. Hanks responded I was going to
say $2,000.
Ms. Zich stated yes, $2,000.
On MOTION Mr. Fennell seconded by
Mr. Hanks with all in favor the Board authorized staff to initially contribute
$2,000 to the Florida Association of Special Districts to support efforts
associated with the development of numeric quality standards.
Mr. Fennell stated I think we have
to do this.
Mr. Hanks stated you have other
districts out there which are potentially affected.
Mr. Skehan stated we tracking this
on a separate basis with one of our other people who is an environmental
scientist. We can provide some
additional insight along the way.
Mr. Cassel stated if you look at the
number of attendees, the number of people who are concerned about this
potential ramming of some number down their throat is substantial. This is one of the encouraging things when I
showed up at the meeting and saw a packed room.
We are not going to get shafted and we need to be at the table.
Mr. Daly asked who started this and
got the attorney involved in this?
Mr. Cassel responded the Florida
Association of Special Districts and Lake Worth was the host of the
meeting. I signed up on one of their
special committees to keep ramrodding this thing forward.
Mr. Fennell asked is there
anything else from the manager?
Mr. Cassel responded yes. You have in front of you a letter from
Layne. It is a positive letter of
contractor understanding. Some of the issues
and potential delays at this point in time are related to their means and
methods. They are not looking for any
delays or anything else. They understand
they need to get it done in the timeframe they proposed and they will do
whatever they have to do to stay on track.
Mr. Fennell asked what are they
doing?
Mr. Cassel responded they are
doing your Monitoring Well #3. I
received this today and thought it would be appropriate to bring it before
you. Layne as a contractor is a positive
experience. They are doing whatever they
need to do to keep things on track and moving forward.
Mr. Fennell asked is the
monitoring well moving forward?
Mr. Cassel responded the
monitoring well is moving forward. The
problem child is our other project, which is the Lanzo/Intrastate contract for the
water treatment plant and Plant F. We
have been, through my efforts, Mr. Hyche’s efforts, through Mr. Daly’s efforts
and through CH2M Hill’s efforts, asking and pushing for them to get the permits
and have the appropriate number of people onsite to get things happening. We have been documenting their slowness to
respond on issues. We have scheduled a
meeting with the owner of Lanzo on Thursday along with the Intrastate people to
have a Dutch Uncle meeting. They need to get engaged and get it happening. We get a lot of excuses of why they are not
getting things done.
Ms. Zich stated we do have the
permit.
Mr. Cassel stated for Plant F,
yes. We do not have the permit for the
water treatment plant.
Ms. Zich stated the nanoplant.
Mr. Cassel stated the
nanoplant. We have been fighting with
them.
Ms. Zich stated this has been
going on for two months.
Mr. Cassel stated three
months. We have been pushing. We have had it from the county. We got it through the county three weeks ago.
Mr. Bulman stated yes and then
there was a delay because the contractor needed to write a simple letter
explaining they will not have hazardous materials within the zones of the
monitoring well. They dragged their feet
and then finally had stamps from Broward County so they could submit to the
City of Coral Springs the middle of last week.
My understanding is they submitted to the City of Coral Springs
today. I have not seen confirmation of a
transmittal letter.
Mr. Hanks stated so this is the
types of issues you have been having with them.
Mr. Cassel stated we are
constantly on them about these issues.
Ms. Zich stated so we had the
groundbreaking two or three months ago and everyone keeps saying we are going
to have it this week.
Mr. Cassel stated we have had
primarily, and this is my issues for having CH2M Hill document everything and
we have conveyed to them, every issue which has had any delay has been self
imposed by them not getting things to the city or to the engineer on a timely
basis. We lost three weeks on a special
engineer’s form which needed to be sealed for their special inspector. We sat in the meeting with the city. I believe it was a Tuesday or Wednesday. We were told they would have it by that
Friday. We received the letter three
weeks later. It has been very
frustrating. My proposition to the
Board, and my position at this point, is if we do not see marked improvement in
their productivity after this meeting on Thursday, we may want to call a
special meeting of the Board to consider options with the contract.
Mr. Fennell asked have you talked
directly to the contractor, the boss?
Mr. Cassel responded Mr. Johnson
has spoken with him, WD has spoken to several of them, I mentioned things. There had been some letters sent directly to
him. We received a response on the last
letter which was sent directly to Lanzo, but I think it is going to have the
Lanzo guys and the other guys in a direct face to face meeting on Thursday
which will be either the make or break.
Mr. Hanks stated I felt frustrated
when I had to take time away from my child’s spring concert to go to a city
commission meeting and meet face to face with the city commissioner and plead
our case to please make sure the building department moves quickly on things.
Mr. Cassel stated exactly and it
is not the building department. The city
has been well with us in the whole process.
Mr. Schubert calls me every Monday.
He calls Mr. Skehan every Monday to see if he has things and when he can
expect them. They are eager to do what
we need to do. It is the contractor who
is dragging his feet. CH2M Hill, Mr.
Hyche, all of us have been asking questions of where the stuff is, where we are
and what is going on. We get promises,
but we do not get deliveries.
Mr. Hanks asked what remedies do
we have in our contract?
Mr. Johnson responded we began
writing letters explaining contract deficiency.
The end result, or the final bullet, is to exercise general condition 15.02
in the specifications, which is a seven day notice to terminate for cause. We do not want to go down this road.
Mr. Fennell asked are they really
not ready to start? To have someone
staffed in your department for two weeks who is holding up the whole business
you are talking about, which is millions of dollars, If I was in that camp, I would
be hunting that guy down unless I am intentionally trying to delay the
program. Or is there a degree of
incompetence? I am trying to understand
if this is incompetency or intentional delay.
Mr. Johnson stated we share your
same question and opinion about how we would conduct our business. The fact is there are other projects they are
working on. We were supposed to have
people out there today and they had to go to another job to work. There are some limitations on what they can
do. They need to build based on approved
submittals. They submit how they are
going to build to us. We approve or
reject and have them resubmit. There are
numerous submittals we have not received from them. The ones we did receive from them we turned
around quickly. There are a handful
which are approved. The rest of them
have been rejected for re-submittal. There
are a lot of parallel tasks which need to be happening here and none of them
are going. We have RFIs on anything and
everything they may have a concern with the design. There are things we are turning around to
them in record fashion. We are making
sure we try to help make up any ground we can.
Mr. Fennell asked Mr. Skehan, Ms.
Early, what is really going on here?
Mr. Skehan responded Mr. Johnson
said it accurately. They do have people
going to other projects. This has been
part of the difficulty. Across the board
there has been a great deal of handholding where it was not necessary on the
permitting side with the county. The
permits needed to be initiated first.
From the county they go to the city.
Mr. Fennell asked have you guys
gone down and talked to their contractor at a high level meeting?
Mr. Cassel responded we have had a
meeting with Mr. Bisogno and Mr. Brown.
They have not corrected the issue.
Mr. Fennell asked who are they?
Mr. Johnson responded Mr. Bisogno
is the owner of Intrastate. They are the
sub to Lanzo. Our latest letter to the
contractor was to Lanzo. That was the
contract deficiency breach of contract letter.
It stirred up something. They had
people onsite last week, but there was no follow through. There has been no continuation of work.
Mr. Fennell stated before we give
someone seven day notice we need a real understanding from you guys that you
have gone to the highest level of whoever is in control. Are they really ready to go? Are they already tied up in some other
projects and are not going to be able to get to this project? Otherwise, you are going to get involved in
little hassles of things going back and forth.
As you know there are 101 different ways to delay a program, but if the
boss really wants it, it will happen.
Mr. Cassel stated this is why I
received the email the end of last week from Mr. Johnson delineating a number
of things. I met with Mr. Johnson
earlier today and this is why we will have the meeting with the Lanzo
individual on Thursday. From that
meeting we will read to see how well and how anxious they are to continue. We will go from there. I point out the potential of a special
meeting, but it depends on a read and a performance. We may need to call a special meeting prior
to the next meeting to move further down with some action.
Mr. Skehan stated the bonding
company could be called about it. More often
than not, the bonding company will in turn put it back to the same company that
has the contract in the first place.
They will just have a different leverage on them from a monetary
standpoint and a legal standpoint.
Ms. Early stated they do not want
to lose the bond.
Mr. Skehan stated when we looked
at some of the schedule, and not getting buried in all of the details of the
schedule when it came in a week ago, their completion dates for the schedule
were pretty much in line with where they need to be. They appear to demonstrate they will be
completed by December of next year.
Mr. Fennell asked they do not
think they are late?
Mr. Skehan responded I do not want
to say that. They have not commented on
it.
Mr. Johnson stated we are in the
process of addressing their preliminary baseline schedule right now. The initial read on it is it is riddled with
problems. There is no critical path to
it. There are no milestones. Certain tasks we would expect to take a
decent duration are said to take three days.
We are in the process of marking it up and returning it to them. The read on it is they set the date at the
end and then just backed into it.
Mr. Daly asked is this the first
time anyone has seen this schedule? We said
they would be done in X amount of months.
If now we did not do, collectively, our homework, then shame on us.
Mr. Cassel responded it is the
contractor’s responsibility to provide the baseline schedule. We are holding to our original baseline
schedule. Their baseline schedule should
match our schedule very closely. They
have not submitted their baseline schedule until now. We have been on them requesting this baseline
schedule since the Notice to Proceed went
out.
Mr. Daly stated just as a
footnote, I think the last time we received an invoice from this organization
for the $5.9 Million project that was cleared out in January was in
February. Here we are. September of 2009 is coming up. We took the bond out in September of
2007. We have paid $1.9 Million in
interest since we went out for the bond, yet we have not had a shovel hit that
ground other than the one the Board members had. There are a lot of issues involved with how
much money we are spending when we went out for the money.
Mr. Fennell stated so we need to
have this meeting and make several determinations. Are they just being mean and obtuse or are
there some real issues they have?
Ms. Zich asked can they get
penalized for this?
Mr. Skehan responded the penalty
would come at the close of the project and/or if some other determination is
made at the front of the project that they are not competent to move forward or
they are being non responsive to our request.
This is what Mr. Johnson has been suggesting. That we potentially look at another contractor;
a second low bid.
Ms. Zich stated this just seems
terrible that this has gone on and on.
Mr. Daly stated right now it looks
like we are going to have to put approximately $100,000 into one of our water
plants to repair to keep up and running because of our delay here. When we initially went out to bid on this
project it was with the idea that our assets were falling apart. Now we are going to have to put in possibly
$100,000 into one of our water plants just to tie us over.
Ms. Zich stated the timeframe is
crazy.
Mr. Fennell stated do your
homework on this one. The real question
is if they have themselves in a fix where they are over committed with the
resources they have that they really cannot respond. It is not just a question of whether these
are good guys or bad guys. Maybe they
just do not have it right now. Maybe
they have two other projects that have fallen on their faces and they have six
months to a year’s worth of work to do and they do not have the resources to do
it. I do not know what we do then.
Mr. Johnson stated in the
specifications there are numerous clauses, one of them being they provide an
adequate workforce.
Mr. Fennell stated all of that
stuff is good unless they do not have the workforce. You have to find out if they cannot fulfill
the contract or if they are just a month or two late.
Mr. Hanks stated let us know how
things go and if we need to take it to the next level.
Mr. Daly asked how are they doing
on Plant F? There was a lot of activity
over there with the ventilation.
Mr. Johnson responded following
some letters we directed towards them and towards Lanzo there was a flurry of
activity last week. They have not turned
in submittals so they cannot start pouring concrete over there. There is a number of things.
Mr. Daly stated that are still on
their lap.
Mr. Johnson stated yes. There was a flurry of activity, but I think
it was more for show.
Mr. Daly asked did the lift
station issue get taken care of with regard to permitting?
Mr. Skehan responded those issues
have been taken care of.
Mr. Cassel stated CH2M Hill was
all over it. My observation of this
scenario is Mr. Skehan, Mr. Johnson and CH2M Hill have been all over this; the
same as Mr. Bulman and the monitoring well.
CH2M Hill, under our new format of management and how they run a project
or work authorization, knows and are on top of the timelines as well as issues
in a heartbeat. They have responded and
have done excellent in this scenario, making sure whatever they need to get out
the door they get out the door. They
have been calling the contractor on a daily or every other day basis, which I
would expect the contractor to be calling the engineer. This has been my frustration as to this
project moving forward because we all keep getting this promise scenario and
nothing is happening. It is now at the
point where I am not going to put up with it any more.
Ms. Zich stated I have worked for
contractors before and I am hardly believing this. This seems like a nightmare. I thought the problem was the city, but it is
not the city. It is the contractor. This is just hard to believe that the
contractor is doing this. There has to
be a reason why because any contractor wants to get his money in the end. He is not going to get any money this
way.
Mr. Skehan stated he has money
which is held up right now from his permitting.
He just processed a pay request last week, which sat there three weeks
before hand. Mr. Daly made mention of a
pay request which needs to be finalized for a previous project. They just have not dotted the I’s and crossed
the T’s.
Mr. Johnson stated as far as what
you were saying that we have to look into their organization, at the end of the
day what we can hold into is to meet the requirements of the contract. If they are meeting the requirements of the
contract, there is no problem. Right now
they are clearly not meeting the requirements of the contract specifications.
Mr. Fennell stated jumping back
from the engineering function you have to trust whether or not they actually
have the resources to pull off the job. This
is what you need to look into.
Ms. Zich stated they have done a
lot of work for us in the past.
Mr. Fennell stated Intrastate has
been here for years.
Mr. Skehan stated they have
competent people from our initial assessment.
They are experienced. They
understand what is needed to get done.
We believe they are spread too thin.
Mr. Hanks stated well let us let
our people do what they need to do. If
it comes down to it, we will have another meeting.
Mr. Fennell stated what might be
good going forward is to have the contractors give us a five minute briefing
once a month at these meetings from both Intrastate and Lanzo. We have a lot of money going on here.
Ms. Zich stated I agree.
Mr. Hanks stated for periodic
updates.
Ms. Zich stated I would love to
have one of them here.
Mr. Hanks asked is this going to
trigger a change in the contract?
Mr. Cassel responded we will need
to look and see if it requires a change.
Mr. Skehan stated we can put forth
this request to them. It should not be a
problem.
Mr. Fennell stated there is too
much money on the table here not to have them.
Ms. Zich stated three months is
totally crazy.
Mr. Bulman asked just for
clarification, do you need the monitoring well contractor at the next meeting?
Mr. Hanks responded no.
Ms. Zich stated the monitoring
well is going well.
Mr. Cassel stated it is going
extremely well.
Ms. Zich stated if you are telling
me the monitoring well is going well, I am not so sure we need to have him
here. Something that is not going well
and we are hearing reasons why every month for three months and we are not
going anyplace, we should have one of them here.
Mr. Skehan stated we are making
progress with the well drilling and there has been a little bit of a slow
up. This we have acknowledged. Layne, the contractor, has acknowledged by
virtue of the letter. We are satisfied
with what they are doing.
Mr. Hanks stated let us extend an
invitation to our Nanoplant and Plant F contractors to present their sides of
the story.
·
Monthly
Water & Sewer Charts
·
Utility
Billing Work Orders
These items are for
informational purposes only. There was
no discussion.
B. Attorney
Mr. Lyles stated I do not have
anything in particular to bring to the Board’s attention other than what we
have already discussed. Since we are in
the month of July I want to remind the Board members you are in that period
immediately after the formal deadline for submission of your financial
disclosure forms. If they did not go in
by the end of June, there is a grace period this month. If it is not in this month, there might be
penalties.
Mr. Fennell stated mine is in.
Ms. Zich stated mine is in.
Mr. Hanks stated mine is in.
Mr. Lyles stated as a matter of
course I like to remind the boards we serve that the deadline came and we are
still in the grace period.
C. Engineer
Ms. Early stated the
first item is the Maplewood Elementary School permit. Mr. Hanks knows there is a lot going on. The engineer is here from Craven Thompson and
Associates, Inc. We have worked with him
all week. He submitted his final
drawings about an hour ago and they do meet all of the District’s
criteria. He brought a set of plans if
you want to take a look at them.
Mr. Fennell asked what are you
trying to do?
Ms. Early responded they are
modifying some drainage to change their parking a little bit. We went through their safe storage
requirements.
The
record will reflect the recording picked up several people talking at the same
time.
Mr. Hanks stated the issue on this
was the site met the 100 year flood storage, but not the 10 year.
Mr. Cigale stated what was there
before was direct discharge. Now we are
withholding it.
The record will reflect the recording picked up several
people talking at the same time.
Mr. Hanks asked Ms. Early, do you
recommend this for approval?
Ms. Early responded yes I do.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the Maplewood Elementary storm water permit
was approved.
Mr. Cassel stated we will catch up
the paperwork. The Board has approved
it. Since you are already in motion I do
not want to delay you any further. Keep
moving further based on the approval and we will make the paperwork catch up.
·
Consideration
of Work Authorization No. 53-07-20-09 – Wastewater Collection System in the
Amount of $22,900.
Mr. Cassel stated this is based on
prior discussions with the Board and the engineer with regard to looking at the
I&I in basins one through six.
Mr. Skehan stated we are going to
look at collected data, which is really a desktop study initially, to see what
is taking place. We are going to do an
initial assessment without going out there and getting into a real expensive
endeavor out in the field. We should be
able to make some determinations based on information of run times of pumps and
flows we are seeing from different places.
We can get this data from Mr. Hyche and from operations.
Mr. Fennell asked will this do
it? This has been the great mystery for
the last year.
Mr. Skehan responded this will give
us a much better idea as to what is taking place and why it is taking
place. It is a preliminary assessment
and we will be able to make the determination of whether we go out there and do
additional field testing to more thoroughly evaluate what is taking place in
each of these lift stations out there.
Mr. Fennell stated but you do not
actually have to go out there to take a look.
Mr. Skehan stated no, we are
not. We may take a look at the lift
stations themselves.
Mr. Hanks stated when we had our
meeting in Mr. Cassel’s office I expressed my concerns. By not making field measurements we are
missing something. I thought there was
going to be more field work, but $22,900 to look at some data; that is some
serious number crunching.
Mr. Skehan stated I do not have the
work authorization for the field work.
Mr. Fennell asked can we do most of
this ourselves as far as the field work?
Do we have cameras where we can take a look?
Mr. Daly responded we have cameras.
Mr. Skehan stated there is a series
of going through the mass and getting the mass pulled together to understand
what is taking place in each of the individual areas, then collecting all the
system details. The lines, where they
are, where the stations are and how they are all interconnected is not clearly
understood right now. We have to go back
through and look at videos. If videos
are available, we will look at them to see what it is they are going to be
showing us. Then we will look at what
the pumps are at each of those lift stations; whether the pumps are matching
what is going on and understanding the technical components of what is there in
the field right now.
Mr. Hanks stated we still have that
issue there that you can be measuring run times on those pumps and for various
reasons in those run times you might be missing what is actually going on.
Mr. Skehan stated that is
correct. There is rainfall data which
needs to be collected, groundwater elevations in those particular areas, the
plant information data which is coming in at that particular time. There is an awful lot of correlation of data.
Mr. Hanks stated correlation and
coordination so we get the right data at the right time. There is some minimal recognizance which is
going to take place out in the field just to understand what is going
there. This does not mean installing
flow meters for spot sampling when there are significant rain events.
Mr. Hanks stated within this report,
are you going to come back with a recommendation and if it does indicate we
need to go forward and further refine where the problem is, then it is going to
come back with the specific recommendation for where the pump meters are going
to need to be installed so we can verify the next step.
Mr. Skehan stated that is almost
exactly what one of the bullets states. “The
TM will provide recommendations of additional work and testing required to
develop an I&I removal plan for each basin and to facilitate the
development of contract documents.” We will provide an assessment of the
potential costs and measure that cost to see what the cost benefits are of
doing this and whether it makes sense to be doing this.
Mr. Hanks stated you are going to
take a look at it and see if we need to go ahead and if we go ahead, are we
going to get any bang for the buck and how many years will it take us to get
that bang back.
Mr. Skehan that is correct. There is a cost benefit analysis, which will
be a part of how the recommendation gets pulled together.
Mr. Daly asked what kind of study
did we do back when Mr. Moore was around?
Ms. Early responded I do not think
he ever did one. I was not aware if he
ever did any repairs. I know he wanted
to.
Mr. Daly stated we did repairs.
Ms. Early stated we were not
involved if you actually replaced things.
Mr. Daly stated we did about six
years ago. There would have been a study
or something along those lines done.
Mr. Cassel stated it could have been
based upon general field knowledge and field information.
Mr. Daly stated it was in
conjunction with Mr. McKune so I would imagine it would have been with the
company, CH2M Hill. I just want to know
if you duplicate some of the information we had.
Mr. Skehan stated we looked back to
see if there was any assessment which had been done like this. I did not find anything in our records which
demonstrated this.
Mr. Daly stated I am sure we spent
considerable dollars.
Mr. Cassel asked do you know what
year it might have been? Maybe we can
find something in the records.
Ms. Early stated we can give Mr.
McKune a call too.
Mr. Daly stated only because some of
this may have been done. The only reason
I bring this up is because I know we isolated a certain area based on how often
the motors were running and we went in to do some retro fitting to try and fix
it.
Ms. Early asked did you put some
cameras in there?
Mr. Cassel responded I believe there
are some cameras. I believe that is
where Mr. Hyche indicated there is potential video. That is part of the data on classifying these
six basins. These are the primary areas
where we are getting potential infiltration and we want to look at those first.
Mr. Hanks asked will you be looking
at the potential for surface infiltration or will that be part of your
recommendation?
Mr. Skehan responded based on
groundwater levels and what is taking place in the immediate vicinities of
that. That is part of the recognizance I
saw there of one of the bullet items.
Mr. Fennell asked what do you think?
Mr. Hanks responded I think we have
been looking at it in a couple of different ways. We have kind of taken the common knowledge
approach. What is triggering this all is
the…
Mr. Skehan stated mechanical
integrity testing.
Mr. Hanks stated you have to take
one well out of service. Are the rest of
the Board members familiar with this?
Mr. Skehan responded I am not sure
of the level of detail as with the conversation we had with you. When the mechanical integrity testing took
place there was an excessive amount of flow which came into the system because
it had rained almost non-stop for two weeks.
This just happened to coincide with when the two injection wells were
going to be taken out of service intermittently to be able to perform the
test. The question is if each of the
injection wells have the adequate capacity to be able to dispose of these peak
flows taking place, coming into the plant.
Leading up to the mechanical integrity testing flows were something like
3.5 MGDs. Then we got these heavy flows
coming through, the flows jumped up to something like 6.5 MGDs. Then DEP starts asking questions. Part of this effort is trying to mitigate any
potential large spending retro fit that would have to take place for another
injection well. If we can identify the
potential sources of where some of this in flow is taking place, it manages
rainfall coming into the collection system and it is sort of a stop gap measure
to prohibit DEP from asking something more.
Mr. Hanks stated like a new
injection well or another plant.
Mr. Skehan stated another injection
well or more capacity in the plant for the additional flow. More capacity in the plant means a potential
ripple effect into another injection well.
Spending $20,000 will help us understand what the issues are and DEP can
come down the road in another couple of months after they have reviewed the
mechanical integrity report and they can say we need a $5 Million or $6 Million
injection well. This is what we are
trying to avoid.
Mr. Fennell asked is this issue
reflected?
Mr. Skehan responded we have not dug
into these issues. That is what this
work authorization is going to look at; what this data means. What we do not understand when we look at
some of the information there is some of the points Mr. Hanks mentioned; the
pumps, the horsepower of the pumps, are there limitations in the mechanical
components of the system for collection and tipping it into the plant which
prohibits the data from representing what is actually taking place.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Mr. Fennell with all in favor WA-53-072009 was approved.
·
Project
Status Report
Ms. Early asked do we want to talk
about Bru’s Room?
Mr. Cassel responded yes. We have been working with Bru’s Room. We have some information for them. They do have a current storm water permit,
but we are going to set up a meeting and field walk it since we are having
trouble getting details. We are going to
field walk the site, see the difference between what was before and what is now
and make a determination to get this thing passed on. It is really an internal remodeling with a
little bit outside. We are trying to
make sure it goes through and passes. I
have had discussion with you, Mr. Hanks, and with the city. They are on board with checking these things
up front and making sure whoever starts coming in now gets a sign off from us
that they have a current five year permit in place.
Mr. Hanks stated not only that it is
current, but for permit modifications.
Mr. Cassel stated modifications or
if they are going to do any changes; pervious or impervious. The fact they do have a plan, they have an
active permit and there are no changes to their pervious and impervious, we
will go through the process quickly.
Mr. Hanks stated so staff, including
the engineers, would take a look at their proposed plans and see how it matches
with the approved plans. If it does not
match, they have to come back with a revised plan.
Mr. Cassel stated that is correct
and the city will do what the city does with us as well as with others. You do not get your permit until you get
CSID’s stamp.
Mr. Hanks stated okay.
Ms. Early stated one of the problems
was they did not have an engineer. It
was just the contractor we were dealing with.
He sent us over plans, which were just common plans and the site plan
with no drainage information. I did get
in touch with the architect. He is going
to email me an existing survey and what was proposed. I had to call him again today and I just got the
email 15 minutes ago. We can take a look
at it tomorrow.
Mr. Hanks asked are we able to not
turn on their water? What are our
options?
Mr. Lyles responded water no. There are a lot of serious federal
consequences when you turn people’s water off.
The problem is not water. The
problem is drainage. They are connected
to our drainage system and they do not meet our permit criteria, I think our
ultimate hammer is not allowing them to drain into our system until they bring
their project into compliance with our criteria. We notify the city that they do not have any
drainage and go that route.
We might want to consider whether we
want to take them into court and force them to comply because they are not in
compliance. This one got through the cracks
with the city as I understand it. We
have a better system than what we used to have with the city in terms of making
sure our criteria and the need to get a permit from us are recognized and
enforced. This one did not happen, but
in a huge increase of the percentage of the cases it does happen.
Mr. Hanks stated in the big picture
it is a good thing Bru’s Room happened because it opened up further dialogue
with the city. We are very appreciative
to Mr. Cassel. He has taken the effort
to have this dialogue. I am appreciative
the city has been positive in their response.
The other party we need to reach an understanding with in terms of these
modifications is SFWMD. If you think
about some of the larger permits, anything over 40 acres has to be permitted
through SFWMD. We need to reach an
understanding with SFWMD and perhaps we need to request permit modifications
for that would also be through our District with subsequent additional approval
from them with a parallel review on those.
Mr. Cassel stated okay.
Ms. Early asked did you discuss the
grant applications at the last meeting?
I was not here.
Mr. Hanks asked is that the AWA?
Mr. Skehan responded no. That is a different one. There are other grant application
opportunities which have come along also that Ms. Early has been working on.
Ms. Early stated the notice to
participate was due June 30, 2009. I
called Mr. Cassel and he told me to go ahead.
I filled out I believe five applications. The actual grant application is due in November. I am working with the gentleman in
Tallahassee to see if we are going to qualify for it. If we do, I will come back with a work
authorization to actually do these grant applications. It is called Pre-Disaster Mitigation. It is to prevent flooding if a hurricane
comes. Some of the things we want to do
are improvements, tree removal in right-of-ways, and I did five different
applications for CSID. Once I find out
if we are qualified and we can move forward I will get more information and
start working on it.
Mr. Cassel stated it is 25% local
match and 75% match from them. It is for
mitigation type issues. They have been
doing these types of pre-disaster mitigation grants for 20 years in different
areas. Dade County used it. The Youth Fair Building in Dade County is a
shelter that is hardened to categories four and five. A lot of the money which came to do that came
from pre-disaster grant money.
Mr. Fennell asked next month will
you put in the calendar to go over your “to do” list of all the different
things you do to prepare for hurricane season?
Mr. Cassel responded we did it June
1, 2009. We will bring you a
report.
Mr. Fennell stated sometimes we have
prearranged agreements for debris removal.
Have we made any kind of arrangements like that?
Mr. Daly responded we did not.
Mr. Fennell asked do we need to?
Mr. Daly responded what we have done
in the past is we have piggy backed on the city as a handshake gesture.
Mr. Lyles stated the problem with
piggy backing is you are in a subordinate position when a crisis arrives.
Mr. Hanks asked were there changes
to the level of bidding?
Mr. Lyles responded no. That was our proposed bill that got
vetoed.
Mr. Daly stated we need to ask
questions of Mr. Lyles with regard to piggy backing. We need clarification on it.
Mr. Fennell stated it is tough to
get someone in here to do the work. I
know it took us months to get someone in here to do it.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to
condition any permits coming up where the property owner will need to move
trees, palms and structures within the right-of-way?
Mr. Daly asked were we going to put
that in the permit criteria manual?
Mr. Hanks responded I do not
remember if we were going to try to do that or if was going to be just a
policy.
Mr. Lyles stated it would have to be
part of the permit criteria manual. I
think we have gone through this in recent months. You have not adopted the new version yet, but
it is something I see no reason that we cannot include it. Part of the process of applying for issuing a
permit for new construction or renovation would be to clear out of the
District’s right-of-way whatever is there.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of June
Financials and Check Registers
·
Summary
of Cash Transactions
Mr. Fennell stated everything looked
great to me and then I look at Excess
Revenues (Expenditures) and all of a sudden we are $470,000 short. We are really not. It really reflects we paid off the bond
issue.
Ms. Zich stated that is
correct.
Mr. Hanks stated $470,000 different
than what we had anticipated.
Ms. Woodward stated you got rid of
one bond issue. As we go through during
the year your monthly financials reflect cash basis. Whenever you pay off the principle under
normal accrual accounting you would reduce the actual bond issue by the amount
of principle you paid off. Because we
budget that we are actually going to fund that into our trust account we show
that temporarily during the year as an expenditure in the income
statement. When we close the books on
September 30, 2009 we will transfer the amounts paid from principle out of the
revenue looking statements and we will actually show it as a reduction of the
liabilities.
Ms. Zich stated this is an unusual
accounting method. I was not familiar
with it until I got involved in CSID. I
am used to the accrual system. The way
we do it here is all the expense comes in the month that we pay it, even though
it is the whole year.
Ms. Woodward stated we do not
actually report expenses. We are
reporting expenditures. The difference
is money in, money out. Anytime money
goes out we call it an expenditure. That
expenditure might be an expense or it can be the payment of some of your
principle balance. During the year you
are allowed to see whether we brought money in and spent money out of the
District based on the way we budgeted at the beginning of the year. In the end of the year in the audit, there
will be nothing showing in the way of principle expenditure. All of that will be offset and it will show as
a reduction in the balance sheet of your liabilities.
Ms. Zich stated this is a
governmental way of doing this. It is
not like a normal company.
Mr. Fennell stated once again it
looks like we are doing a good job of controlling expenses and revenues. We are on track.
Mr. Cassel stated Mr. Bloom is
working with the trustees on the other bonds to figure out how to better invest
those dollars so we are getting something back.
Ms. Zich stated I want to point
something out about our assessment collection.
Us collecting that much in June, you can see what the state of the
economy is. I mean, $130,000 in June is
just crazy because almost everyone would pay it within the first four months
you have.
Mr. Daly stated you have a lot of
movement with foreclosures.
Ms. Zich stated we used to collect
it all up front a couple of years ago.
Everything got collected in November and December.
Mr. Daly stated Mr. Zilmer and I met
with an insurance broker. In an effort
to have real numbers in the budget, we have asked him to come forward with a
policy starting August 1st and ending July 31st, which
would give us real numbers next year in time for the budget. Right now the first numbers for Aetna is a
15% increase, which is what we budgeted for.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by
Mr. Fennell with all in favor the June financial statements and check registers
were approved.
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There
being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Glen Hanks
Robert
D. Fennell
Secretary President