The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Tuesday, June 27, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. at the District Office, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.


            Present and constituting a quorum were:


            Bob Fennell                                                President

            William J. Eissler                                         Vice President

            Glen Hanks                                                Secretary


            Also present were:


            John Petty                                                  Manager

            Dennis Lyles                                               Attorney

            John McKune                                             Engineer

            Doug Hyche                                               District Staff

            Jean Rugg                                                   Severn Trent Services

            Janice Moen Larned                                   Severn Trent Services

            Cedo DaSilva                                             Ch2M-Hill

            Jane Early                                                   Ch2M-Hill

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS                         Roll Call

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


SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS                    Organizational Matters

A.                 Acceptance of Resignation of Mr. Eissler

B.                 Appointment of Supervisor to Fill the Unexpired Term of Office (6/2007)

C.                 Oath of Office of Newly Appointed Supervisor

D.                Election of Officers

            Mr. Fennell asked if anyone was present who was interested in the position.  Not hearing any, this item was tabled until after staff reports.


THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS                       Approval of the Minutes of the May 15, 2006 Meeting

            Mr. Fennell stated each Board member received a copy of the May 15, 2006 minutes and requested any additions, corrections or deletions.

            Mr. Hanks stated on the bottom of page nine and top of page 10, I asked questions rather than made statements.  On the bottom of page 12, the sentence “surveyors usually charge $12,000” should be deleted.


On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the minutes of the May 15, 2006 meeting were approved as amended.


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

            Mr. Petty stated our contractor submitted his first invoice, which we paid and submitted to NRCS.  We are hopeful to see the money in a short period of time.  We will then be able to tell you what the rest of the fee return will be and the timeliness.

            Mr. McKune stated the work is almost complete.  We are in the process of some final walkthroughs.  NRCS sent a representative last week and they are pleased with the job.  The representative called his supervisor in Gainesville from the boat to tell him it looked like there was never a hurricane.

            Mr. Eissler stated I agree.

            Mr. Fennell stated it actually looks better than before the hurricane.

            Mr. McKune stated they exceeded our expectations both with their speed and quality of work.

            Mr. Fennell asked were there any comments from the city?

            Mr. Petty responded none from our government associates.  We received positive responses from the residents and relatively few from those who wanted to get their irrigation system repaired.  Generally speaking, the response has been powerful and positive on the cleanup efforts.  We have not received any accolades from the city for our sister districts.

            Mr. Hanks asked have you spoken to the new commission?

            Mr. Fennell responded yes, after they were elected as I was accepting the award for the waterway cleanup.  It went fairly well.  I feel we are in good shape.  However, I have not heard any details about a common tree definition.  I guess we will have to make our own definition.

            Mr. Hanks stated I spoke with an Arborist who is familiar with assessing the quality of trees.  He had some projects in Palm Beach County related to damaged trees on canals and lakes from Hurricane Francis.  He has considerable experience looking at storm damaged trees.  I spoke with him at length today, bringing him up to speed as to where we are as a District.  I explained to him we just completed a major cleanup activity and we are looking at developing a policy to reduce or minimize our future exposure on storms.  I requested he prepare a proposal on some representative sections of our canal system and make a presentation to the Board.

            Mr. Fennell asked how much will he charge us?

            Mr. Hanks responded he estimated an hourly rate not to exceed $500.

            Mr. Eissler asked hourly or total?

            Mr. Hanks responded total.  I have a copy of his contract.

            Mr. Eissler asked did you receive a copy of the booklet from the City of Coral Springs regarding trees?

            Mr. Hanks responded yes.

            Mr. Fennell stated they are talking about trees in front of the house.

            Mr. Eissler stated they are all good trees.

            Mr. Fennell asked has he started this work yet?

            Mr. Hanks responded no. 

            Mr. Fennell asked do we need to do anything if the contract is under $3,000?

            Mr. Petty responded if it is under $4,000 we can award based on the Board’s direction.  Anything above $4,000, we should go out for bids.  If it is part of a consultant’s contract, we will ask for it to be part of the engineer’s contract as a subcontractor.  We will also ask our engineer to complete a study to see if this is something they can work with, unless Mr. Lyles sees a problem.

            Mr. Lyles stated no.

            Mr. Petty stated for $500, we can do this in-house with direction from the Board.

            Mr. Hanks stated I did not feel comfortable having him walk the canals and spend several hours of his professional time without offering to reimburse him.

            Mr. Fennell stated I do not have a problem with this.


On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the proposal with Sutton Consulting Arborist, Inc. in the not to exceed amount of $500 was approved.


            Mr. Hanks stated he is available for the July meeting.

            Mr. Petty stated we will make arrangements with him to come before the Board and walk through our facilities.

            Mr. Fennell asked did we pay the Arbor Tree and Land bill?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.

            Mr. Fennell stated we do not have $1,000,000 in our checking account.

            Mr. Petty stated according to your financial statements, you have $1,800,000 as of May 31st.  This amount is now slightly higher.  We are making payment to them out of our general funds.  The first bill from Arbor Tree and Land was $1,000,000.  We should be receiving another bill for $800,000.  We feel there is enough cashflow to handle the next payment.  If we need additional funds, we can go into the Water and Sewer account and do a transfer from this fund to the General Fund in order to borrow the money.  I will defer to Ms. Larned, if you have any questions.

            Mr. Fennell stated the bottom line is we are spending $1,000,000 and will have to assess the residents.

            Mr. Petty stated we are going to ask you to assess the residents $800,000 to bring the account back to $1,000,000 so we have the funds in case there is another storm.

            Mr. Fennell stated I assume we are going to be discussing the results of the hydraulic study of the systems.

            Mr. McKune stated we were going to discuss this item under item seven.

            Mr. Fennell stated this ties into hurricane debris removal.  We need to decide what to do next.  We hardly received any rain but we had some wind.  We need to see what happens if we receive 10 to 15 inches of rain after we remove all the trees.

            Mr. Hanks stated if we had rain with the storm, we would have had more trees come down due to the soil getting saturated.

            Mr. Petty stated as the water table rises, the trees become unstable.


FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                         Distribution of Proposed General Fund and Water and Sewer Fund Budgets for Fiscal Year 2007 and Consideration of Resolution 2006-2 Approving the Budget and Setting the Public Hearing

            Mr. Petty stated the Board did not receive the Water and Sewer Fund Budget, only the General Fund Budget.  Resolution 2006-2 by title is:



            The public hearing will be held on August 27, 2006 at 4:00 P.M. at this location.  This will start the process.  We will be making changes to this budget as we go through the process over the next 60 days until the public hearing.  We will take comments at that time from the public and the Board will make their consideration.  Afterwards, you will set the budget to final form and adopt it.  We will then go through the assessment process at the public hearing to fix the assessments and put them on the roll.

            Mr. Hanks asked when is the deadline to have the assessments into the Property Appraiser?

            Mr. Petty responded the first week in August.  You probably have two weeks to play with.

            Mr. Hanks asked when do we set the actual rates?

            Mr. Petty responded you will adopt the budget first, which will set the rate we will input into the resolution.  You will then adopt the resolution setting the assessment to be put on the roll.

            Mr. Hanks asked if we are having the public hearing on the General Fund Budget on August 27th, how will we be able to approve the budget setting the assessment and submit to the Property Appraiser on August 1st?

            Mr. Petty responded we will provide them a preliminary budget to get us through the TRIM process and finalize immediately after our meeting. 

            Mr. Lyles stated we have additional flexibility because we are not bound by the Chapter 190 budget processes.  Therefore, we do not have the 60 day notice period.  We have to publish the notice of the public hearing on final adoption of the budget once a week for two consecutive weeks.  The second instance has to be at least seven days ahead of time.  We could schedule the public hearing for July under our Special Act rather than waiting until August.  Then you have time to deal with the Property Appraiser and Tax Collector.

            Mr. Hanks asked when do we need to adopt the Water and Sewer Budget?

            Mr. Petty responded before the end of the fiscal year.

            Mr. Hanks asked when is the end of the fiscal year?

            Ms. Larned responded on September 30th.

            Mr. Fennell stated we should hold the public hearing in July.

            Mr. Hanks asked is staff prepared to proceed?

            Mr. Petty responded with counsel’s permission, we would be glad to consider July, with a date of the Board’s choosing.  We will schedule the public hearing for the next regularly scheduled meeting in July.

            Mr. Hanks stated the second week of advertising falls within a holiday.

            Mr. Lyles stated it does not affect it.  However, I am available on July 24th if the Board wishes to move the meeting.


On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor moving the July 17, 2006 meeting to July 24, 2006 at 4:00 P.M. at the District Offices, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral Springs, Florida was approved.


            Mr. Lyles stated at this time, the Board needs to consider a resolution adopting the proposed budget and setting the public hearing for July 24, 2006 at 4:00 P.M. at this location.


On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor Resolution 2006-2 Approving the General Fund Budget and Setting the Public Hearing for July 24, 2006 at 4:00 P.M. at the District Offices, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral Springs, Florida was adopted.


            Mr. Petty stated the budget you are being presented with is the proposed budget.  It is called the Manager’s Budget because direction typically comes from the accounting and manager’s office.  The philosophy comes from Ms. Larned as Treasury Director.  We defer to her for long term policies. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we are going to get our reserves back to $850,000.  To do so, we are going to have to increase assessments. 

            Mr. Petty stated from $91.38 to $158.50.

            Mr. Eissler stated I thought the assessment was always in the $80 range.

            Mr. Petty stated the year before it was $82.04 and last year it increased to $91.38.

            Mr. Fennell stated for the catastrophe we just went through, this amount is accurate.

            Mr. Eissler stated the residents will not even notice.

            Mr. Fennell stated we have a good reason to increase the assessment.

            Mr. Petty stated we have had assessments in the thousands.  The Manager’s Budget proposes this as a one year issue.  There are several projects before this District.  We think it is reasonable for you to allocate such funds for such issues. 

            Mr. Hanks asked would we be looking at some point in the future if there is an absence of cash for the assessment to decrease?

            Mr. Petty responded no.  There is a predominance of contracts ahead of you.  You have the healthy tree removal issue, which we expect to be around $1,000,000 plus; re-landscape this site to buffer us at a cost of well over $1,000,000 and refurbish your reserve account to get it back up to $1,000,000.  We feel this is the highest priority, which is why it is in this year’s budget.  However, next year or the following year under the hydraulic profiling, we expect to bring up other projects as well.  We do not see this assessment going down in the foreseeable future, probably for the next five years for sure.  You may have other conditions where you may consider financing to cover other projects you bring in as a priority.  Hurricane Wilma brought many things to our attention. 

            Mr. Fennell stated at the next meeting, I would like for you to provide us with a capital spending plan.  We have a budget but it does not reflect what we are going to do for capital spending.  Let’s talk about the plans you have, time frame, money and expenditures for the next five years.  We have been doing this mostly for water and sewer.  We are not going to approve these projects, but have an understanding going forward of what we think it is going to be.  Obviously tree removal should be on the list.  Now the question is why we had the trees there in the first place.  Part of the reason was because we were trying to create buffers.  We will see what the hydraulic study brings us.  It may either say nothing or indicate we have more issues than we intended.  Commensurate with the July meeting, we need to have a Capital Improvement Budget.  I am looking for a Gant Chart, which is a simple line mechanics chart with a time frame. 

            Mr. Petty stated we can do one.

            Mr. Fennell stated page three shows an Adjusted Fund Balance of $1,400,000 but we actually have $1,800,000.  Correct?

            Mr. Petty responded as of May 31st. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we spent $1,000,000 and we are now down to $800,000.

            Mr. Petty stated you committed $1,000,000.

            Ms. Larned stated the bill has not yet been presented.

            Mr. Petty stated Mr. Fennell is referring to the first draw on the contract.  Keep in mind, this is a working paper.  We are trying to project out for budget purposes what carry forward we can use as a revenue source for your consideration in next year’s proposed budget.  In this calculation you are not seeing $1,000,000.  What you are seeing is $300,000 less, which is our share after we get reimbursed by NRCS.  This is a presentation of what we think is a reliable expectation of the funds in the bank we can carry forward to use as revenues to offset any projects we have in next year’s budget.  Ms. Larned and I spent at least an hour and a half going over the same item with the Accounting Department.  It is subject to some interpretation.  We feel this presents a fairly reliable presentation to the Board for consideration.

            Mr. Fennell stated I see a line item for pump station replacement engines.

            Mr. Petty stated we will be discussing this item later in the meeting but I can tell you we are not satisfied with our pump station situation.  We will ask the Board to authorize the engineer to do an evaluation.  The reason why we are not happy is because there was a contract a year and a half ago to re-do five pumps and motors at a cost of $440,000.  The money has been held, although the contract was awarded because the contractor provided one motor in the past year and a half.  We spoke with Mr. Lyles office about our dissatisfaction.  From our experience, it is best to give the contract to the attorney and direct him to remit the letter to the contractor stating we find them in default of the contract.  In our opinion, the contract is not responsive and we are asking the attorney for advice.  Our engineer was not a party to the issue as it was performed by on-site staff, mainly Mr. Roger Moore.  I prefer to have CH2M-Hill involved since they built the first units in Coral Springs and we rely on them a great deal for their design work.  I would like an evaluation from them on why we are even doing this.  The only problem I know of from staff is we have a faulty water pump.

            Mr. Fennell stated we replaced the pumps four or five years ago.  This contract is for replacing the engines.  In fact we put an extra pump and engine into each one.  Then we heard the motors were going bad and we had to replace them.

            Mr. Petty stated the motors were old and getting to the point where the cost for repair and maintenance was getting so high you wanted to consider replacing them.  A contract was awarded but the contractor has not been responsive after a year and a half.  One motor was delivered but has not been installed.  We will have the engineers evaluate the current condition and maintainability of the pumps.  You may be able to save $400,000 or continue the contract with a modified motor before the next year and a half elapses.  I would like the Board to have the ability to say with confidence the pump station is 110% ready for hurricane season.  In case we keep the contract, there is $452,045 set aside which is the contract amount.  The reserve for the first quarter option is standard operating procedure since all of our revenue comes from the Property Appraiser.  However, this money does not start coming in until January.  Therefore, we have a Reserve Fund for the first three months.  Available reserves to be applied is $122,977.

            Mr. Fennell asked what are available reserves?

            Mr. Petty responded these are projected amounts off of the $1,400,000.  This is a cost from your reserves. 

            Ms. Larned stated it is what we think was leftover from last year.  We have not completed the audit, even though we are working off of $1,400,000.  According to the financial statements, it appears we are getting less revenues than expenditures.  The accountant is estimating it out for the rest of the year.  If all goes well, this is the number we plug in to true-up at the end of the year to close the books and have $250,000 leftover.

            Mr. Fennell asked are we spending this money this year?

            Ms. Larned responded yes.  It is tied into next year’s budget planning.  We bring this number forward to be used during this current fiscal year.

            Mr. Hanks stated this is hopefully a low estimate of our carry forward.

            Ms. Larned stated correct.

            Mr. Petty stated $251,000 is a revenue source in this year’s budget.  The number could change dramatically if we initiate programs before the end of the year.  We have time.  The bottom line is you will have more projects done this year and less carry forward for projects next year.  The total should be the same.  I would not carry forward the projects to next year.  We may be able to get to some of these projects before the end of the fiscal year.

            Mr. Hanks stated we have to be careful with the cashflow.  I would like to have more in reserves.

            Mr. Fennell stated we had $1,400,000 as of last September.  The report last month indicated $1,800,000 in excess revenues.

            Ms. Larned stated this amount is in the monthly financial statement for the projected through May 31, 2006.

            Mr. Fennell stated some of this is committed money.

            Ms. Larned stated correct.

            Mr. Fennell stated even though we did not terminate the contract, the $450,000 is part of the committed money. 

            Mr. Petty stated we currently stand in a good financial state.  We do not expect to run into problems, even after paying all the monies due under this current contract for cleanup.

            Ms. Larned stated what you are seeing are just the revenues and expenditures.  You do not see the activity for the reserves.  You are basically asking what is going in and out of your reserves.  There is an extra schedule in your budget for planning purposes to show what has been designated for certain items.

            Mr. Fennell stated the piece we are missing is the cashflow sheet.

            Mr. Petty stated the items on page one as well as some other control and oversight functions will be brought to you on October 1st on the transaction overlay.  The transaction overlay gives us some protection since we have a single accountant in case an accident, illness or move by the employee occurs; the District is not affected.  This document gives you daily cashflow reports.  Whenever there is a posting, it becomes available and internet based. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we have not needed this up until now.  However, we need it now with the expenditures we have for capital expenses.

            Mr. Eissler stated I agree.

            Mr. Hanks asked are the assessments calculated on a per lot basis for the commercial properties?

            Mr. Petty responded per unit, with $11,000 units calculated.  The commercial properties are converted on a per acre basis.

            Mr. Hanks asked what about the assessment for EMS?

            Mr. Petty responded it is on a per unit type basis based on the call rates of single family.  For purposes of figuring out what it is going to cost for the number of units, we use 11,113 homes to show what the bill will go up by.  Some will pay less and others will pay more. 

            Mr. Fennell asked will you have a cashflow sheet for us at the next meeting?

            Mr. Petty responded no.  This will be implemented on October 1st.  At the end of the first month, you will have some preliminary numbers.  By the third month of the new fiscal year you will have indications of your spending levels and program efficiencies. 

            Mr. Fennell asked who is generating this document?

            Mr. Petty responded Severn Trent.

            Mr. Fennell asked where will it be paid from?

            Mr. Petty responded in a line item, we allocated $5,000 under the General Fund.

            Ms. Larned stated the transaction overlay is half way down through the expenditure listing for administration.  There is a check and balance system to have a three way match between the Purchase Order, receipt of the goods and the invoice.  It is internally controlled.  When the field location receives the goods, they will enter it onto the internet and submit to the Accounting Department.  The information from the internet is posted to the General Ledger.

            Mr. Fennell asked is our current system capable of doing this?

            Ms. Larned responded we have to do some work on it.  We will get to this item later in the budget.

            Mr. Petty stated generally speaking, this is a double entry system, which does not have to be compatible with other software.  It can be independent.  There are two checks.  Let’s say for management purposes, I wrote a Purchase Order for $25,000.  The accountant is not going to book it until the vendor sends an invoice and they are satisfied with the contract conditions.  However, for purposes of planning and management, as soon as you get approval to spend the money, you need to know the money is gone for your next consideration of a project.  This is cashflow management.  If you want to see what your cashflow is, you look up the transaction overlay on the website to see what its condition is.  If you are trying to find out your accounting status, you look on the financial monthly reports supplied with the agendas.  There are two different systems, one for management purposes, which we refer to as the cashflow, which will be accomplished by the transaction overlay and the other is the financial accounting, which satisfies the Auditor General for the State of Florida.

            Mr. Fennell asked what does the electronic document system do?

            Mr. Petty responded it scans all our blueprint plans through a large format scanner, which is on-site and functioning.  It will be located in the operations building.  We will start loading all our as-built drawings and have them on a server, which Mr. Daly will maintain.  The database is yours but Severn Trent will supply the optical character recognition and large scale scanner.

            Mr. Fennell asked what type of machine?

            Mr. Petty responded an AS400 or its successor.  Later in this budget, we are going to ask you consider a successor.

            Mr. Fennell asked why is our computer time down to zero?

            Mr. Petty responded because later on we are going to talk to you about a successor to the AS400.  We feel you should own it rather than renting.  The intent is to make you as independent as possible.  As a leader among your sister districts, we feel this puts you in a better position to handle your business.

            Ms. Larned stated this is supported by the internal audit report presented at the last meeting.

            Mr. Fennell asked does this have to do with the $50,000 spent for capital purchases?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.  We believe $50,000 is the General Fund’s fair share of purchase of a new breed of AS400, which is eight times faster than the existing machine.  We are looking for at least a terabyte of storage.  It turns out we can get approximately seven terabytes.  The reason why we are considering a fairly large one is because of the blueprints and drawings.

            Mr. Hanks asked is this system compatible with what the city has for their information?

            Mr. Petty responded it is non-proprietary.  The document management system stores the documents in a number of different formats, the most standard which is PDF.  It should be standard with 99.9% of any program out there.

            Mr. Hanks asked do we have documents to scan?

            Mr. Petty responded you have warehouses all over the city full of documents to scan.  Ms. Rugg has been a genius to be able to retain the information about where these files are located.  However, she has been running three different document management systems and has come up with what we think is the best program we can run on-site.  You know it by the name it was saved by but it uses artificial intelligence to find the document by search criteria similar to Google.

            Mr. Fennell asked will this also apply to the Water and Sewer Fund?

            Mr. Petty responded the transaction overlay is done on a transaction estimate.  For some of these items, we try to do a 50/50 split between utility billing and normal accounting functions.

            The next item is under Field Operations on page two.  As discussed during the audit, we thought it was in the District’s best interest for all shared employees to be owned by CSID.  The slight increase in your General Fund is complete ownership of Mr. Randy Frederick who has been handling your water management facilities for almost 30 years, along with Mr. Nick Schooley, his predecessor.  Mr. Hyche is now bound to CSID solely.

            Mr. Fennell stated this is a good thing.

            Mr. Petty stated Net Pension Expense increased because our labor costs increased with full allocation to CSID but also because we are recommending the Florida State Pension Plan for our employees.  It is competitive with everyone else out there since we are competing with a labor market dwindling faster than I care to speak to at this meeting.  All our competitors offer this to their employees.  We investigated it but the increase was not dramatic at this time.

            Mr. Fennell stated we revised our pension plan five or six years ago.

            Mr. Eissler stated it is a big jump. 

            Mr. Petty stated Mr. Bill Joyce took with him $90,000 when he retired.  This is what he has for his lifetime award. The money market issue has gone up and down.  My pension program was similar in fashion and I lost capital for a couple of years.  You have people who put in a lifetime to this District.  We are seeing quite a few of them cycling through the system.  They are leaving with less than what you know they need.  However, to maintain a lifestyle here, they have to move.

            Mr. Fennell asked is this like a 401K?

            Mr. Petty responded it is a self directed 401K.

            Mr. Eissler stated it is probably hard to get everyone to join.

            Mr. Petty stated the young guys want the cash because they are trying to pay for their lifestyle.  We are going to increasingly be hit with this as we are what is considered to be an upscale community in Broward County, where the average price of a new home is $600,000 and a used home is close to $400,000.  These people cannot afford to live nearby.  If we are going to compete, we feel it is essential to have these tools to do so.

            Mr. Eissler stated I agree.

            Ms. Larned stated part of what the Florida State Program offers is a health subsidy, once they reach retirement age.  This is a very large attraction of the program because in most cases this becomes your biggest expense.  Consequently this is a subsidy program underwritten by the state through the funding they achieved over the last few years so it is fully vested and is a nice benefit for the employees.

            Mr. Fennell stated I assume this requires a vote of the Board.

            Mr. Petty stated through the budget process.  When the application comes in the first month we will ask you to approve it.  However, you can approve it through the budget process.

            Mr. Eissler stated to recruit, hire and maintain good employees you have to be competitive. 

            Mr. Petty stated we do.  Our pay is not bad.  We like to think our quality of life is exceptional and we are different.  We let someone work in any area that he/she can excel in and we have diversity.  In some city programs you will work at the same job from the day you walk in to the day you die.  We have this to help us compete so our pay is typically close but our benefit program is where we flounder.  We lost personnel, mainly qualified operators at the water and wastewater plant over the last year due to this issue.  Once they get their licenses, they feel they can do better on benefits with other companies. 

            Mr. Hanks asked do we pay to train them?

            Mr. Petty responded yes, however this is a minimal investment for us.  We do this hoping they stay.  We cannot get commitment for a year or two worth of service because the dollars are not there.

            Ms. Larned stated it is not just a recruitment tool; it is also a retention tool.

            Mr. Hanks stated good point.  I am looking for a sheet with current benefits.

            Mr. Petty stated we have an example we can bring to the next meeting.  We obtained information from the Florida State Pension on their current program. 

            Mr. Fennell asked is this a defined benefit?

            Ms. Larned responded it is a defined contribution.

            Mr. Petty stated it took us a long time to admit openly this was considered civil service work.  We had several lawsuits filed over our 25 plus years from the labor pool.  We tried to keep the mentality of business, not bureaucracy.  We find most of the staff is willing to do so.  In a practical conversation, it is getting difficult to motivate people when they say, “I do not mind treating this as a business, giving it my full effort, giving 110%, coming in when the storms hit and making sure everything functions, but I have to make at least as much as the guy who is working at 70%”, which is the typical bureaucrat.  We have people with motivation but we want to be able to keep them here and hire their replacements when it is time for them to go.  We can certainly show this example and bring it to the next meeting.

            Mr. Hanks stated just because it is in the budget does not mean we have to adopt or accept it later.

            Mr. Petty stated it is only for consideration right now.  As you are owners of the personnel and will be paying the costs, you will be seeing the revenue generated from your ability to take employees and work them in other Districts.  They will also be paying their fair share.

            Mr. Fennell asked why did health insurance decrease?

            Mr. Petty responded due to the age of our personnel.

            Mr. Eissler asked because they are younger?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.  We are going through a cycle where the oldest employee is Mr. George Guck.  We used to have four employees who were here 30 years and longer.  Mr. Jan Zilmer keeps track of this constantly.

            Mr. Eissler stated he is doing a good job.

            Mr. Fennell stated workers compensation insurance is increasing.  Another large increase was in Repairs and Maintenance.

            Mr. Petty stated Field Operation Services went to zero because you are getting this service with existing staff and we see no reason to add to this line item.  This line item was for Mr. Moore or his assistant.  As an ex-operator, I have operational experience so there is no reason to hire anyone.  We told you this time you will know exactly what you received from Severn Trent and what we were going to do for you.  For Repairs and Maintenance, some items were incorrectly allocated to Capital Outlay, which should be under Repairs and Maintenance.  We removed some of Mr. Moore’s items because we do not believe they made sense.  There were some items with life spans of 75 years but we will not get 1.75% of their value today.  We are bringing back the divers. 

            Culvert Inspection and Cleaning was budgeted at $100,000, which is high.  We used to spend $35,000 a year, but when we went out for bids we obtained a bid for $80,000.  It turns out the issue is OSHA started watching what these companies were doing and they now are required to have three divers in the water.

            Mr. Hanks stated Shenandoah had a big problem this past year with some divers.  Is there a company who provides cameras?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.  We can use the cameras to find the silt, but the divers are there to clean them.

            Mr. Hanks asked do we own these culverts or are they owned by Broward County?

            Mr. Petty responded they are owned by us because we paid for them out of bond funds.  We are not inspecting culverts installed by other entities.  This does not include the cost of inspecting secondary culverts.

            Mr. Hanks stated you have a right-of-way for Riverside Drive, which is a county road.  If there is a culvert underneath Riverside Drive, who has the ownership and maintenance responsibilities?

            Mr. Petty responded the District.  Typically we install culverts.  If the county expanded them due to four lanes, they have to come to us before we allow it. 

            Mr. Hanks stated we have a license from them for this right-of-way for our stormwater crossing.

            Mr. Petty stated we have a primary license since we were there first.

            Mr. Lyles stated those are right-of-way and utility easements.  We are the permittee by SFWMD.  It is our system.

            Mr. Hanks asked has anyone checked with Broward County to make sure they are not paying for the same service?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.  We are ahead of everyone else when it comes to inspecting these pipes.  Other entities use our format.  We are first and foremost the best drainage entity in South Florida if not the State of Florida.

            Mr. Fennell asked are you proposing we delete this item from the budget?

            Mr. Petty responded we recommend you set aside monies for budget purposes if we are doing culvert inspections and cleanouts.  This is a reasonable amount of money to spend, with all the pipes we have.  We spoke to our engineers about this and they are recommending it as well.

            Mr. Fennell stated there is a line item for roof replacement.

            Mr. Petty responded you have seen this roof item before but we have not done it yet.

            Mr. Fennell asked did we approve it?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.

            Ms. Larned stated you have been building up reserves.  I started looking at a number of these items in the budget and it did not make sense to me.  You had Capital Outlay, Repairs and Maintenance and a Reserve.  We looked at the useful life of some of these assets and asked ourselves whether it was an annual expense that needed to be in the O&M portion of the reserves.  When it becomes time to do the work, we will have the funds.  The reserves can be used for hurricane expenditures or at the Board’s pleasure.  We tried to clean up these items and simplify it.  We had lengthy discussions about it.

            Mr. Petty stated Contingencies increased based on what I feel is an accurate projection of 95% but this is only a projection.  As a conservative Budget Manager we will ask you to hold 5% in Contingencies.  We already discussed Reserves, which is the next big number.  We have time to work on this budget and make changes and amendments as you see fit.  We expect to distribute the Water and Sewer Budget at the next meeting. 

            Mr. Fennell stated the difference is in Budget Reserves.

            Ms. Larned stated we deleted some items.  We put adequate funds into Culvert Cleaning.  There were other items for $1,500 and $3,400, which we felt were small items and could come out of Repairs and Maintenance.

            Mr. Fennell stated this is an operating budget; not a Capital Expense Budget.

            Mr. Petty stated there is no debt at this time but there are capital expenses.  We were able to handle this with our current budgeting program.  We do not have to go outside for financing at this time.  We do not see it unless the time frame for some of the five year capital program items we bring you in the next version gets accelerated.  We think you have time to handle one priority per year, with the first one to bring back up the reserves.  There is one exception, which is the healthy tree removal situation.  As we know from Hurricane Wilma, there is a direct threat that trees within our right-of-way are a concern.  Whether we do it this year or next year is up to the Board’s discretion.  However, if we did this in an accelerated program, we would probably talk to the Board about financing options so you can complete this project quickly with short-term financing without hurting the assessment pattern.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor Resolution 2006-2 Approving the Proposed General Fund for Fiscal Year 2007 and Setting a Public Hearing for July 24, 2006 at 4:00 P.M. at the District Office, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral Springs, Florida was adopted.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                        Consideration of Change Order No. 5 to Intrastate Construction Corporation for Rehabilitation of Wastewater Plants C & D

            Mr. McKune stated in the past several months, we have been talking about adding to the diesel fuel storage.  This Change Order incorporates furnishing labor, equipment and materials for the installation of one 8,000 gallon and one 4,000 gallon diesel double wall fuel tanks, to include the containment fuel piping, valves, leak detection systems, manual fuel pumps and hoses, with related appurtenances necessary to incorporate the new tanks as functional components into the utility site emergency fuel storage system.  The 8,000 gallon tank will be installed next to the existing one at the injection well system to be piped into the system and made a functional component of the system.  The other tank will be installed at the east end of the water plant, next to the pump building.  The fuel piping will go into the building where the generator is.

            Mr. Fennell stated this seems to be a great deal of money.

            Mr. McKune stated it is.  Approximately half of this amount was used to purchase the tanks and the rest to install them.  These are large expensive tanks.

            Mr. Eissler asked what are they made of?

            Mr. McKune responded steel with concrete inside.

            Mr. Petty stated these are not the same steel tanks you envision going under ground.  Does this price include monitoring of the wells?

            Mr. McKune responded they do not require monitoring.  We still have one buried fuel tank on-site.  It was refurbished five years ago and is still in good shape.

            Mr. Hanks asked what was your estimate initially of the cost?

            Mr. McKune responded $10,000.  Mr. Fennell is correct.  This is a large amount of money but it is a large job.  We acquired this contractor by obtaining competitive bids for the equipment. 

            Mr. McKune asked how long will this fuel last us?

            Mr. McKune responded an extra week.

            Mr. Eissler asked will it give us 20,000 gallons?

            Mr. McKune responded it will give us an additional 12,000 gallons.

            Mr. Petty stated the capital improvement program for water and sewer has been troubling management for several months.  We discussed this matter with the engineer and at the next meeting when we give you the Water and Sewer Budget, we hope to give you a comprehensive idea of the capital program for the water and sewer plant so these items can be monitored.  As items come up for consideration, sometimes they have the effect of being out of place but when you put it into the entire picture, they look good.  All the money has been for expansions and remodeling of facilities necessary and independent of the options available to us to handle the future.  We reached the point where this may be one of the last projects we do before we have to evaluate our capital projects program.  Otherwise we get into an area where we may be putting away money on projects we cannot get back.  As far as the facilities, we may not be able to get the entire full life from them because they are associated with another product that has five years already on it.  We have been doing the capital program on a piece by piece basis.  They have been independent, which has been working but now they are getting into an interrelated part where I will not get the full lifetime of the brand new piece.

            Mr. Hanks stated at a certain point, you are going to have to replace them.

            Mr. Petty stated at next month’s meeting, in the budget we will give you a strong recommendation on the capital improvement program so it can be monitored as an entire entity versus a component based system.

            Mr. Hanks stated this is an extra week of fuel supply for the plant.  I am not sure we have a need for it.

            Mr. Fennell stated a week did not last us long since we have new equipment.  From what I saw, we were hurting from day one.

            Mr. Petty stated your impression is correct.  This is why we started looking for storage for extra fuel.  From a staff perspective, they are anxiously supporting this expansion as well as management.  The dollars are a surprise to everyone involved. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I was thinking more around $50,000 to $100,000 but the total amount is $262,000.  I am surprised by this amount. 

            Mr. Petty stated our engineer is the one we look to for evaluation of market prices because we do not know if it is due to OSHA.

            Mr. Fennell asked when will we receive the tanks?

            Mr. McKune responded in 10 to 12 weeks.

            Mr. Fennell stated that is when we receive it from the manufacturer.  When will it be installed and filled with diesel?

            Mr. McKune responded probably one month after it gets here.  We have to do all the slab work and piping prior to delivery.

            Mr. Petty stated the question is whether we will have it before our peak part of the hurricane season.

            Mr. Eissler asked does this amount include the installation and equipment?

            Mr. McKune responded half of the total amount represents the equipment, metering and panels.

            Mr. Eissler stated the proposal says the furnishing and installation of field instruments and integration of tank monitoring panel are not included. 

            Mr. McKune stated those are labor items.  A good portion of the cost is site work.

            Mr. Hanks stated this translates into $26 per household.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor Change Order No. 5 with Intrastate Construction Corporation for Wastewater Plants C and D Rehab in the amount of $262,375 was approved.


            Mr. Fennell stated if you do not think we are going to make it, figure out how to have a semi sitting here full of diesel.

            Mr. Petty stated I understand. 


SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                  Consideration of Right-of-Way & Surface Water Management Permit for Expansion of Sawgrass Expressway to Six Lanes from Atlantic Boulevard to Coral Ridge Drive

            Mr. Petty stated this item was carried over from the last meeting.  I think the topic of interest at that time was whether it was within the District or outside.

            Mr. Fennell stated they are going to dump water into the District.  How much water can they dump?

            Mr. DaSilva responded in looking at the present conditions, there is nothing we can do.  The fact is before the allowable discharge they had into the District, they reduced it within this phase.  They raised the weirs and created deeper and wider storage areas.  They have been able to store water to minimize impact on the District size.

            Mr. Fennell asked did they do this on their own or was it a requirement?

            Mr. DaSilva responded it was part of the modification.  I think they had a weir to store water from elevation 7.6 to 9.  The street basin affecting our District is the Sawgrass Basin.  There is no discharge from the 10 year storm and minimal discharge from a 100 year storm.  It is an improvement from before as far as affecting the District.  At this point, I recommend the Board approve this permit.  However, I would like to add some conditions, which I will get with Ms. Rugg on.

            Mr. Fennell asked where are you in your study?

            Mr. DaSilva responded I have a summary of our findings.  CSID is divided into two independent basins, the West Basin and East Basin.  We created the model for both basins and showed major roads like University Drive.  We analyzed each basin independently.  For each neighborhood, we went to the Property Appraisers website and used a tool to take the square footage of a home.  We took the square footage of a small, medium and large home into a calculation.  We did the same thing for right-of-way, roads and green areas.  After this information was compiled, we ran data on 10 year and 100 year storm situations.  Because one basin has a larger pipe, it is going to flow more water into the other one.  I do not know if the Board understands this, but as an engineer, I can see it easily.  Within the basins are the stages.  We ran a model for 10 year and 100 year storms to see what these basins would do according to the lake storage and how much they can store, runoff and discharge into the adjacent basins until the water reaches the pump station. 

            If you start at the pump station, which is the lowest point in the system, as the storm event occurs you will connect into another basin with a canal so the loses are minimal.  The 10 year model is exactly the same but the 100 year model has a slight increase.  As you move west, those numbers increase.  As water goes through pipes, the numbers jump significantly due to the fact it is a pipe and not an open channel.  Overall, the West Basin is in good condition.  There is a summary showing the 10 year elevation should be 10.  Therefore, every basin should be under elevation 10.  Anything above 10 is a problem.  We have two areas in the West Basin, near Taravella High School where there is no storage.  This does not represent a problem because their roads are higher. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what is the amount of rainfall for the 10 year and 100 year models?

            Mr. Petty responded the rainfall has to be over 24 hours.  We hit this mark in recent memory.

            Mr. DaSilva stated the West Basin works differently than the East Basin.  In the West Basin, the water elevation is 6.5.  The pump station does not turn on by permit until the elevation reaches 7.2, which is .700 inches higher.  By the time you multiply .700 times 11.4% (how much lake area we need to have according to the District Manual), the total is .08, which is one inch.  This is what we use.

            Mr. Hanks stated which is why the West Basin provides water quality.  NSID and Sunshine do not provide that.

            Mr. DaSilva stated on the East Basin, the pumps are supposed to pump anything above an elevation of 6.5. 

            Mr. Hanks asked are you permitted to pump 150,000 gallons per minute?

            Mr. DaSilva responded the permit requires us to pump 334 cfs. 

            Mr. Petty stated this is just the beginning.  This is your base document.  Now you start going through the “What if” scenarios.

            Mr. DaSilva stated if this is a threat to the District, you may want to add another pipe.

            Mr. Hanks asked what is the finished criteria?  The finished floor criteria in the permit manual is not the same as the 100 year flood.

            Mr. DaSilva responded it was permitted for 100 years on the East Basin above elevation 12.  I believe it is 9.5 inches for a 10 year event and 17.5 for a 100 year storm event.

            Mr. Petty stated there have been many factors over the years.  There have been vacant properties which helped the system.  We are at build-out now and we are at a 25 year or higher age.  Expectations after Hurricane Wilma are higher as far as performance.  We would like to keep our number one status.  For example, say we hear a hurricane is coming in five days and it this is going to be a wet one, how long will it take the engineer to run the model as a form of our hurricane preparedness if we have this type of notice?

            Mr. DaSilva responded the hard work is done, it is now a matter of including different scenarios and changing models.

            Mr. Petty stated I like this, particularly if there is construction or a particular problem.  Some pipes are one-third blocked and I will not have time to clean them out before the storm.  What is this going to do to the system?

            Mr. Hanks responded we need to allow for some contingencies.

            Mr. Petty stated Mr. Hyche and I have been discussing this.  The key question is how available the engineers will be.

            Mr. Lyles stated keep in mind, you need time for them to implement this.  You need to start thinking “What ifs” ahead of time and work through these scenarios.  We are never going to have everything covered and some contingencies available.

            Mr. Petty stated this is what we would like to do starting this year.  As each new threat comes along, we would like to work with the engineers.  Funding is something we will have to talk to you about, but we would like to start with our current funds and see how it goes.

            Mr. Fennell stated putting operational control with a computer program is a great idea. 

            Mr. Petty stated I thought this is what you wanted us to do.

            Mr. Fennell stated the reason for the study was to see whether or not we had problems.  We are taking operations down to a point where on a daily basis they can figure out if they are pumping out the right water.  I do not know if anyone had this situation before.  Why is the West Basin so much better than the East Basin?

            Mr. Eissler responded Lake Coral Springs.

            Mr. DaSilva stated we actually have 12% percent lake area within the District at the West Basin, whereas the East Basin only has 6%.

            Mr. Fennell stated we are talking about a foot and a quarter of water difference in height in the 100 year flood.

            Mr. DaSilva stated if you look at the East Basin for the 10 year flood, throughout the District we are going to have anywhere from four to nine inches of water on the road.

            Mr. Hanks stated this is assuming your road elevations are at the 10 year elevation.

            Mr. DaSilva stated some of the roads like 13th Drive are up 14 to 16 feet.

            Mr. Hanks stated the finished floor is at elevation 12.  The difference between finished floor and road crown may not be much, maybe a foot to 18 inches in some locations.  Your local roads may indeed be higher and what we are seeing is the 10 year elevation is being exceed.  However, your conditions for local roads may be higher and you may not exhibit any flooding in those locations.

            Mr. DaSilva stated where Mr. Fennell lives, the 10 year flood elevation is 10.54.  We investigated this area and the minimum road elevation is 9.5.  Therefore, in a 10 year event, you may get a foot of water on this road.

            Mr. Fennell stated this is the case if everything is draining the way it should be.

            Mr. DaSilva stated exactly.  It depends on whether all the pipes are clean.

            Mr. Petty stated it makes for an inconvenience under this scenario if everything is working perfectly.  You have the inconvenience of a time line waiting for the water to drain, if you have blockages.

            Mr. Fennell stated there is only one pipe coming out of my subdivision.

            Mr. Petty stated now it is not an inconvenience.

            Mr. Fennell stated in Shadow Wood, there is only one drainage pipe. 

            Mr. Petty stated only one pipe goes under the mall.

            Mr. Fennell stated no one at the city has information like this.  I called them and they did not know.

            Mr. Petty stated they are looking at the bigger picture.

            Mr. Hanks stated they are not concerned about what happens with individual lots.  They are concerned about what happens along the C-14 canal.  If we increase our pumping capacity by even a quarter, what does this do to the downstream communities such as Tamarac and Lauderhill that are gravity discharged?

            Mr. Fennell responded I hope they have their models working. 

            Ms. Early stated it is not going to change their minds because they have the maximum allowable discharge and that is all they have.

            Mr. DaSilva stated you would have to analyze the C-14 canal.

            Ms. Early stated it depends on whether no one else shuts down and if someone else is low and they agree to shut down for so many hours.  It all has to work together.

            Mr. Hanks stated the easier solution is to identify parcels within the East Basin that are candidates for lake excavation or wetland creation.

            Mr. Fennell stated the whole area will fill up, unless we get rid of the mall.

            Ms. Early stated or we can look at adding additional culverts.  Some of these areas only have one culvert.

            Mr. Fennell stated there are obviously things we need to change.  It looks to me like the East Basin is in trouble.

            Mr. DaSilva stated you can replace pipes with canals and bridges.

            Mr. Fennell asked what happens if a tree falls and blocks 30%?

            Ms. Early responded the water will still get out but you will have to wait longer.

            Mr. Petty stated it will back up and reconnect.

            Mr. DaSilva stated it will flow through the mall.

            Mr. Petty stated I think you hit on the key component.  The east side seems to have fewer options than the west.  You are correct in saying it is more prone to back up because it has single discharge or singular flow pattern in its design where the west may have multiple flow patterns.  It is very much like your water and sewer where you loop versus dead end lines.  I think the “What if” scenario is going to tell us where those spots are and give us an indication of where we should start thinking about dropping another culvert pipe to make the redundancy.  In your capital program for water and sewer, redundancy issues are going to be key in our presentation and I think this is what you are going to start looking at on your drainage.

            Mr. Fennell stated one of the things we are trying to get out of this is a tree policy and whether we need to cut back trees from the canal at all and whether there is any danger of these trees causing blockages.  Should we take preventative action and remove trees?

            Mr. Petty responded you have a recommendation from staff to remove the trees.  The question before the Board is whether we should do wholesale or selective clearing.  You gave staff direction to work with the tree consultant to bring back some preliminary information to help in this decision making process.  We would definitely like to do that this summer, preferably before peak hurricane season.

            Mr. Fennell asked should we remove all the trees within a certain area?  There were options to remove all of them or leave them.

            Mr. Hyche responded we recommended you remove all of them.

            Mr. Fennell asked what is CH2M-Hill recommending?

            Ms. Early responded I agree with Mr. Petty.

            Mr. Eissler asked will you be removing the trees 15 feet from the back.

            Mr. McKune responded no, from right-of-way to right-of-way.

            Mr. Petty stated in some cases this is over 100 feet of bank on major canals but in other cases, it is as small as five feet on both sides.

            Ms. Early stated some are off center.

            Mr. Petty stated this is going to have impacts.  Management staff modified its position.  We had been telling you we wanted selective removal.  This was in an effort to try to not alienate the residents because of the issues facing us over the spring.  However, the Sunshine Water Control District, in order to fulfill their responsibilities, decided to remove trees right-of-way to right-of-way.  It is a moot point.  Whether you do a wholesale clearing or selective clearing, you are going to get the blame because you are part of the Drainage District system.  Management staff is no longer giving you a viewpoint.  We will follow the direction of the engineer.

            Mr. Fennell asked do you agree with them?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.

            Mr. Fennell stated we now have evidence.

            Mr. Hanks stated if a tree is in the canal in the vicinity of one of these culverts, it does not quantify it.

            Mr. McKune stated when you get something in the canal, it blocks the culvert.

            Ms. Early stated say we block P30 and run the model to see whether or not the water will run north, you will have to take the culvert out in order to run the model.

            Mr. Fennell stated if you blocked it and nothing happens, it would tell you one thing.

            Ms. Early stated one option is to take it out and see what happens.

            Mr. Petty stated keep in mind a tree limb is a collector and the debris coming from a hurricane is going to come in.  Plastic bags are going to get caught. 

            Mr. DaSilva stated we can do a 50% flow model.

            Ms. Early stated just do a worst case scenario.

            Mr. Fennell asked what happens if it never happens?

            Mr. Petty responded then you have redundancy and you do not have to be worried.

            Mr. Fennell stated you can assume it only gets blocked at one point.

            Mr. Hanks stated with clearing from right-of-way to right-of-way, you may be clearing perfectly good trees representing minimal threat to the system and having complete inability to effectively control other trees, which represent a threat to the system.

            Mr. Fennell stated the only thing connecting me to a canal and my street is a pipe going under several houses and dumping into the canal.  By the way, they did find a pipe.  The city actually came out and tried to clean it, which I was impressed with. 

            Mr. DaSilva asked did you look inside?

            Mr. Fennell responded I could not tell.  They tried to push a pipeline down there.  I asked them if they normally clean these and he said they normally go into the corners and clean out what is there.  What is not happening, which is a real issue, is for local flooding on the street.  Those pipes going back into the canal are not being cleaned.

            Ms. Early stated I thought this was what the HOA was supposed to do.

            Mr. Fennell asked what makes you think there is an HOA?  I lived in this area for 30 years and we do not have a HOA.

            Ms. Early responded then you need to call the city.

            Mr. Fennell stated I do not think the city is cleaning them or that they know to do them. 

            Mr. Petty stated they do not have this model or our experience of 30 plus years.  They use a vacuum truck to clean out their catch basin.

            Mr. Fennell stated I do not think they have any direction on where to go, how to do it or what they are supposed to do.  They responded within a couple of days.  They will be responsive to them but as a drainage group, we need to say, “Here are all the different locations”.

            Mr. McKune stated they have the equipment but not a proactive policy.

            Mr. DaSilva asked would you like a copy of the drawings?

            Mr. Hanks responded yes.

            Mr. Petty stated we would like one for the public record.

            Mr. DaSilva stated I can include a CD with the electronic files.

            Mr. McKune stated you have to look at the logic of what happens if one tree falls or one culvert blocks up.  If there were no issues, then when you have culverts with water flowing through them, it will not cause a backup.  If we wanted to go back and test a culvert to see what the affect would be, I can tell you what the affect is; it is going to flow.  We are going to come back here a month from now and verify this.  We will be 30 days behind in removing trees.  I am a firm believer in removing trees.

            Mr. Hanks stated you taking the trees out is not going to resolve the debris issue.  The pipe in question in Mr. Fennell’s neighborhood is 48 inches in diameter.  Many things can end up getting lodged in a 48 inch pipe.  If a shopping cart or trash can gets stuck, you are shut down.

            Mr. Petty stated we are talking about what we do with our own property, not everyone else’s property.  We have this responsibility.  Let’s focus on what we can do. 

            Mr. Hanks stated even under the best scenario, which is for these systems to function, there are areas in this District which have predicted stages in excess of the minimum finished floor.  Correct?

            Ms. Early responded yes.

            Mr. Hanks stated even if we were to remove all the trees from within the District right-of-way, we will still have an issue with flooding during the 100 year storm.  Do we need to look someplace else and say, “What do we need to do to correct this issue to prevent flooding during the 100 year storm?”  This is the first priority.

            Mr. McKune stated this is the second issue.  There are two issues.

            Mr. Hanks stated we can remove the trees but if we get a 100 year flood, we are still going to have wet people. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I agree with what has to be done.  You can make some conditions but if you still have trees, you still have a problem.  I think the problem is there with the trees no matter what.  You are correct.  There are additional things we can do to alleviate the problem and get the system working correctly.  Get rid of the trees as much as you can and install additional drains or culverts.  However, we can attack the tree removal right now, quicker than anything else.

            Mr. Hanks stated if you have a tree where the canopy is completely outside of the edge of water, your root system is going to be confined to where the canopy of the tree is.  If it is not overhanging in one manner or in the canal system, it will not tip over.  There are certain reasons resulting in a tip hazard or debris collection.  You are looking at braches flying out.  How far back are you going to go?  We have areas within this District, namely Cypress Park, where we have wetland preservation areas where the trees are growing, right up to the bank. 

            Mr. Petty responded in your sister District, where they are considering this tree removal program, there are exceptions, one would be wetland areas abutting; however they are few and far between in the Sunshine Water Control District.  I can think of only one place where there is a pocket of Cypress Trees.  The other exception is the buffer trees planted next to commercial and multi-family areas.  In many instances, in the early days the trees were planted in our right-of-way.  If we removed those trees, you would see some very nasty parts of commercial buildings like the back of Publix and Home Depot.  The Sunshine Water Control District made an exception for those buffer trees for commercial and multi-family to be considered on a case by case basis and left if at all possible.  Of course the pocket of protected areas is something we have to live with.  We are in the drainage business and have to live with it.  CSID is similar where you have more specific conditions like Lake Coral Springs, which you may want to make special exemptions for.  However, going after all the trees will be part of our responsibility even if we do not do it because we are one of the Drainage Districts and Sunshine is doing it.  We will catch some of the blame anyway.  Staff will go by whichever policy the Board wishes to go by.

            Mr. Eissler stated it is going to be a nightmare.  People are going to be upset.

            Mr. Hanks stated you have scenarios where you have trees on private property five feet outside of the ditch.  We are not going to be able to touch them.  We are going to implement a policy to clear trees 20 feet on another side where the tree represents a small risk to the District. 

            Mr. Fennell stated in the C1 area, we already removed 50 to 100 trees.

            Mr. Hanks asked is this the area where the apartments and the Coral Springs Auto Mall are located?

            Mr. Fennell responded yes.  There are tall Australian Pine trees along this area.

            Mr. Hanks stated I would love to remove the Australian Pines as well as any Melaleucas.  Let’s be proactive and smart about which trees we want to remove.

            Mr. Fennell stated we have to make some decisions now.  The hurricane season is upon us and we do not have much time left.  We need to have a policy.  Our current policy is all trees are okay.

            Mr. Eissler stated you are talking about spending another $1,000,000 in addition to everything you are spending money on now.  We need a tree expert.

            Mr. Fennell stated he is not going to have an answer for us. 

            Mr. Hanks stated if there are trees within close proximity to the bank, remove them.  If their canopy overhangs the bank or root structure is into the bank, remove them.

            Mr. Fennell asked how close to the bank?

            Mr. Eissler responded 15 feet.

            Mr. Fennell stated they have to be definable.

            Mr. Petty stated administratively friendly.

            Mr. DaSilva stated right-of-way to right-of-way.  If you look at the C-14 Canal, there are trees all over it.

            Mr. Petty asked have you seen the Miami Canal?  There are trees all over it and there is no policy.

            Mr. Fennell stated neither does the C-14 Canal.

            Mr. Petty stated but the Miami Canal affects more people.

            Mr. Hanks stated you need a definable specification.  Cypress Trees are not going to go over the canal.

            Mr. Fennell stated I had Cypress Trees in my yard and it is not true.

            Mr. Petty stated we have upland Cypress Trees here.  I have seen them in the preserves down the street and they tend to be hollow. 

            Mr. Hanks stated there are certain trees you are going to be okay with. 

            Mr. Fennell stated our current specification is to clear from right-of-way to right-of-way.  This is definable.  If you have something better we can define, let’s hear it.  We need to do it now as we are running out of time.  Our contractor is here.  We received a bid that is only good for a certain amount of time.  We need to make a decision to either live with these trees so they will not cause a problem or believe the trees will not cause us a problem and we do not need to clear trees.

            Mr. Hanks stated my screen enclosure ended up in my front yard.  If the wind was blowing towards the south, my screen enclosure would have ended up in the C-14 Canal. 

            Mr. Petty stated we have the obligation to do the best job we can in protecting the drainage of the District.

            Mr. Fennell stated we have to do the responsible, reasonable thing.

            Mr. Petty stated if the trees are considered to be a threat and your engineers give an opinion, you must respect their opinion even through we have an alternative.  I would like to have an option but I do not know if there is one that is timely.  I do not know if there is one to mitigate any of the blame or anger of the residents and us going in our area on our property and making it 100% drainage friendly.  This is something we should have done in retrospect a long time ago.  We are going to get the blame now, regardless of whatever policy you establish.  I cannot come up with an alternative that puts you in a better position.  I think you are still going to get yelled at, even if it was right-of-way to right-of-way and I do not know whether you could have done anything else to help the residents accept this better.  Certainly we could not have done a better job protecting our drainage system.

            Mr. Eissler stated I do not know how far right-of-way to right-of-way is.

            Mr. Petty stated it all depends.  Sometimes the canals are centered and sometimes they are offset.  This is why in our current contract, we had the engineer following the contractor, going from the center line of road back and setting markers every 500 feet.  Most residents who have seen us work in their canals, which is almost everyone in the District, has seen this definition.  They have a survey of their homes, which they have to rely upon.  We cannot be doing surveys for private properties.

            Mr. Hanks stated no, but we have access to the plats.

            Mr. DaSilva stated usually right-of-ways are 80 feet.  On the West Basin, they are 100 feet. 

            Mr. Petty asked how wide is the flowway going through Lake Coral Springs?

            Mr. DaSilva responded 100 feet.

            Mr. Lyles stated in previous discussions, we indicated we believe tree removal even within our right-of-way is regulated by the City of Coral Springs and requires permits.  I do not know if in between the last meeting and this one the engineer discussed this with the city and obtained an indication of how they would do this, whether they would issue a blanket permit or resist it.  What would happen under the city code?  Even though we adopted at a public hearing a policy having sound engineering basis, this question has to be answered before we start working with a contractor.  The only answer I have is the ordinance does not provide the exemption.

            Mr. Petty stated we discussed this matter with staff.  We have not received a solid opinion and this is in discussions with the city manager staff.  We were informed the Drainage District is not within the ordinance’s concept and we have to do whatever we need to in order to prevent flooding.  I am sure you want to get this in some form other than verbal.

            Mr. Lyles stated city staff changes.  We have laws prohibiting this.  This is a consideration we are going to need to resolve on an operational level.  I am not suggesting this impairs your ability to adopt a policy.  I just want the discussion to include a cautionary note to implement if we have this hurdle to clear.  The manager indicated they had some meetings and we had some positive feedback.  However, we will want to make absolutely sure we have this tied down.

            Mr. Hanks asked what did the estimates come in at for tree removal?

            Mr. McKune responded $937,000.

            Mr. Fennell stated the questions are what should the policy be and who is going to pay for it.  Frankly I do not live on a canal and I sometimes wonder why I am paying.  As far as I know, the canal owners are responsible for maintaining the property down to the water line.

            Mr. Eissler stated tree canopy is vital for oxygen.  We had 75% damage or loss of tree canopy in Coral Springs due to Hurricane Wilma.  If you start cutting down trees, you will have a riot on your hands.  You better get a permit from the City of Coral Springs.  I would rather have tree canopy a reasonable distance from my canal.  If my tree is not big enough to fall into the canal, you are not taking my tree without a fight.

            Mr. Fennell asked is it in the right-of-way?

            Mr. Eissler responded I do not know.  I will go to the city and they will tell me tree canopy is more important than your tree in my canal.

            Mr. Fennell asked who is going to be responsible for the canals flooding?

            Mr. Eissler responded you need to use common sense.  You do not have a blanket rule.

            Mr. Fennell stated the current policy is for the area to be free of trees to the water’s edge.

            Mr. Eissler asked if you have a 15 foot tree 20 feet from the canal and I am in the right-of-way, why would you take my tree?  There has to be exceptions.

            Mr. Hanks responded there is a 1% chance in any given year we are spending $1,000,000.  Is there a way we can make better use of our finite resources to improve flood protection resulting in a tangible result with a quantifiable benefit?

            Mr. Fennell responded your argument would be trees falling into the canal were in trouble.

            Mr. Hanks asked how many trees fell into the canal?

            Mr. Eissler responded thousands.

            Mr. Hanks asked did we turn on the pumps?

            Mr. Petty responded no.

            Mr. Hanks asked did the pumps go on at all during Hurricane Wilma?

            Mr. Petty responded no.  They did not have to go on because the water level was able to flow naturally and did not reach the control point.  We did not have any localized flooding in any location even though we had five or six inches of rain over a 24 hour period. 

            Mr. Hanks stated we still have trees in the water.

            Mr. Petty stated there was no flow going down the canal so there was nothing to draw the trees into the pipe.  If we get a storm event where we have to turn on the pumps, the flow of those canals is now real.  This is what we are concerned about as you are going to start pulling in like a vacuum everything in the canal.

            Mr. Hanks stated on this model, you can figure out what velocities you are looking at in those canals.

            Mr. Eissler stated before you make any motion, you should find out from the City of Coral Springs if we even have a right to remove those trees.

            Mr. Fennell stated we have the right to make a policy.  If we can in fact take down those trees is a secondary question.  It may be the city’s responsibility to enforce the code.  They are not going to be happy about it.  Frankly it is the homeowner’s responsibility to remove the trees but the rest of us are stepping up and helping to pay the bill.

            Mr. Petty stated we had a suggestion for an Arborist to give counsel to this body on trees we should be removing.  We have an issue with the city we would like to resolve.  I think we can move forward with the idea we are going to be removing trees.  If you go past the next meeting before making a decision, then you have fewer options. 

            Mr. Fennell stated this decision is not one you can hold in abeyance.  Do also believe the trees will not affect flooding if we do not do anything?

            Mr. Petty responded we may have 30 days to get the work done before the major part of the hurricane season but we are already pressing our luck because we are in the hurricane season.  Therefore, we have limited time to look at options but you have the option to go a couple of more weeks at the maximum.

            Mr. Hanks stated we did a nice job of trimming the trees and removing the weak ones.  Are we in better shape now that Hurricane Wilma has come through than we were before the storm?

            Mr. Petty responded no, because it did not have a rain event.  When the water table goes up, the number of trees capable of coming down increases.  Any Arborist in Coral Springs is going to tell you if you can drill a hole five feet deep, it is a top soil tree.  The winds from Hurricane Wilma took down every tree.

            Mr. Hanks stated the issue is the tree may go over and be dragged into the canal. 

            Mr. Petty stated in the conversation areas where you still have old Florida, there are hardly any trees.

            Mr. Fennell stated the number of trees down in the C1 area was tremendous.  Half the trees were down in the water and the other half were leaning.  We have been able to remove most of those trees.  There are still a few left on the other bank.

            Mr. Petty stated we could not even see the bank damage.

            Mr. Fennell stated it tore up the bank.  This was without any water.

            Mr. Hanks stated we need to have a better policy of maintaining what is out there, restricting what trees go in and how close they are to the canal.

            Mr. Fennell stated I would like an operable policy where someone can go out without a great deal of interpretation to decide which trees stay and which ones go.  We need to have something because right now all we are saying is we do not remove any trees.

            Mr. Hanks stated we do not have a policy where we can remove trees at the edge of water or top of bank so we can help the city identify we have trees on private property which are a problem and represent a potential risk to our drainage system.

            Mr. Hanks responded do you want to remove trees from the edge of the water?

            Mr. Petty responded this is an option you cannot opine on.  There are two issues; one is the possible blockage of the canal and any tree growing within a certain distance of the canal.  Any tree growing to a certain height should be removed.  Therefore, you have a height factor and distance factor.  The other issue is needing these rights-of-way to mobilize equipment.  I need 25 feet to bring the trucks in.  I do not care if the tree is only 12 feet tall, it has to come out because I have to get a truck through there.  If you look at the height of the tree, distance from the water and making sure every right-of-way has the deliverability of equipment, it covers you and anything outside is subject to your policy.  However, anything within your zone you cannot justify, even though trees are a definitive benefit to our city.  We have to look at the drainage possibility.  Our engineer told us it is a danger and we have seen it.  I think you are on the right track and I would look to the engineer to define the area we need to deliver the large equipment on the right-of-way and then come up with a formula for the tree (height from distance) so the tree cannot fall in the canal.  We just went through a construction program.

            Mr. Hanks asked if it falls in, is it a risk?

            Mr. Petty responded I think it is.  If the tree or any part of it lands in the water, you have to say yes because we perceived it when we saw the fallen trees with Hurricane Wilma.  You do not know until it blocks up the canal.  However, if it is on your property and it fell in your canal and blocks your canal, and you could have trimmed the tree on your property, that is an issue.

            Mr. McKune stated if it falls and does not reach the canal, it still blocks your access.

            Mr. Petty stated you have to respond within 16 hours of the event to mitigate the damages of the storm.  Our reaction time is critical.  After the last storm, our staff was clearing the roads within two hours of the winds getting down below 70 mph.  It is critical for us to get access under certain conditions.

            Mr. Fennell stated the issue is whether we should clear the right-of-way.

            Mr. Hanks stated let’s clear it within 25 feet of top of bank to give Mr. McKune access.  I am willing to agree to this.

            Mr. McKune asked can a tree beyond 25 feet stay regardless of height?

            Mr. Hanks responded yes.

            Mr. Petty stated except any tree by ordinance which needs to be removed, which includes what they refer to as nuisance peppers.

            Mr. Hanks stated pines and peppers.

            Mr. Petty stated correct.  I cannot spend money for the removal of nuisance species but I can spend money for public relations with government agencies.

            Mr. Fennell asked what if the right-of-way is less than 25 feet?

            Mr. DaSilva responded it would be up to the District.

            Mr. McKune stated I can live with this.  It is better than what we have now.

            Mr. Eissler stated I will not be here so I will not vote.

            Mr. Petty stated counsel may tell you if you do not vote, they will consider it to be a yes vote.

            Mr. Lyles stated if you are present at this meeting, you are required to vote unless you have a conflict recognized under Florida Law as a financial interest.

            Mr. Fennell stated at this point we are talking about 25 feet from right-of-way.

            Mr. McKune stated 25 feet from top of bank.

            Mr. Eissler stated you are precluding anyone from planting a tree in their yard.

            Mr. McKune stated it would not preclude anyone from planting trees on their property, even if it is closer than 25 feet.

            Ms. Early stated they are not supposed to plant trees in the right-of-way.

            Mr. Eissler stated I would not vote for this.  You are telling people they cannot plant trees on their private property.

            Mr. Fennell stated we are saying 25 feet maximum.

            Mr. Petty stated we are going from design top of bank, which means the water level is going to be 10 feet.

            Mr. Lyles stated what you would be looking at for clearing is right-of-way to right-of-way.  This allows us to go in if we need to do any bank maintenance.  Traditionally nothing has been done.

            Mr. Eissler stated you can always get access by the canal.

            Mr. Fennell stated on some of these main canals things were done.

            Mr. Petty stated the outfall canals were sized with a much greater right-of-way than 25 feet because the design included you coming back with a drag line to rebuild these canals over a period of time as they silt up.  Drag lines are going to take more than 25 feet to operate.  However, you can do this with a dredge.  We will do the best we can in being a good neighbor and the 25 feet is what we consider to be a reasonable expectation of your neighbor allowing for landscape usages.  Anything within the 25 feet has to be considered a blockage of equipment.

            Mr. Hanks stated you have to keep in mind if we have excess right-of-way and stage issues, we may need to consider expansion of our canal system to allow for more storage.  This is why I want to keep the $1,000,000 in our pocket as opposed to sending it out to remove these trees. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we will probably have to go out for a bond issue.

            Mr. Hanks stated I do not look at this issue as being a major concern.  We could have a rain event without the wind and vice versa.  It is the combination of those two being the root of the problem.

            Mr. Petty asked what are the odds?

            Mr. Hanks responded we are playing the odds.  We can establish we needed to have finished floors in this District at 15 feet, roads at elevation 12 and 20% lake area.  Our roads would be protected for the 100 year storm.  We could identify a particular level of service for our facilities.  Are we eliminating all of this?  No.  My question to the engineer is whether we have been prudent in watching what we have approved to comply with the desired level of service for the various components.

            Mr. Fennell stated I suggest establishing a policy ensuring maintenance access and ameliorate canal blockage, all trees are to be cleared within 25 feet on the top of the bank or right-of-way, whichever is less.

            Ms. Early stated for a maximum of 25 feet.

            Mr. Hanks stated or to the right-of-way, whichever is less.

            Mr. Petty stated administratively we can ask the engineer to define the word “cleared”.

            Mr. Fennell stated my proposal is on the floor which can be modified or changed.

            Mr. Hanks asked what is the opinion of the attorney?

            Mr. Lyles responded you are going to have a firestorm of protests.  I think you are in a stronger position than the vast majority of other Districts because you own the right-of-way in fee simple.  You own the property and what grows there.  Most Districts have a lake or canal maintenance easement.  The property is privately owned and part of someone’s backyard and they pay taxes on it, but the District has a right of ingress and egress for maintenance activities.  Therefore, those Districts are in a less secure position than this one in this activity.  However, this would have such a profound effect on so many people, probably not just people who live adjacent to a waterway, but those who drive on the streets.  I question doing this with no notice, even if it is just a courtesy notice.  I am not suggesting you have a public hearing.

            Mr. Hanks asked do you think we should accept public comment?

            Mr. Petty responded you do not need to have input to adopt the policy as you have people with technical expertise advising you.  All I am saying is if you are going to implement this policy, let people know it is coming before you start cutting.  It is not a legal requirement but it may help the relationship you have with your taxpayers.

            Mr. Fennell stated the issue is we are not maintaining our own land correctly.  Shame on us. 

            Mr. Eissler stated life is not without risk.  Lake Coral Springs is going to have trees up to the lake.  All of their water interconnects into the C-14 Canal.

            Mr. Fennell stated I have an issue with this.  Lake Coral Springs is there because someone mined it out.

            Mr. Eissler stated all the water has to come out of Lake Coral Springs to get to the C-14 Canal.  Before you do this, you need to find out from the city if you can even do this.

            Mr. Fennell stated this is our land and we are making a policy of what we are going to do with our land.

            Mr. Eissler stated somehow I do not think you can do what you want even thought we own it.

            Ms. Early stated we planned the entire Sunshine East Outfall canal and believe we received approval from the city with no problems.  However, we had a great deal of resistance from the homeowners.  I spoke to Mr. Nick Schooley after Hurricane Wilma and he wanted to ask the residents what their opinion was after those trees were removed because many trees fell on their homes.

            Mr. Fennell stated we have to decide on a policy.

            Mr. Petty stated let me give you an example of what Drainage Districts are currently requiring on the west coast in new subdivisions.  They are requiring a 20 foot maintenance easement from top of bank.  This is what they need for the equipment.  Anything else you need to do around this water management facility is something you better be able to do with specialized equipment.  All your new projects are typically 20 feet from top of bank.  You would like to have 25 feet to make turn arounds but 20 feet is typical.  I cannot give you any examples of any new systems going in with less than 20 feet of maintenance around the facility.  Anything else is older than we are.

            Mr. McKune stated you also do not have 20 foot lots.

            Mr. Petty stated on the west coast we do since there is quite a bit of preserve area.  Typically we clear the water management back to the preserve.

            Mr. Hanks asked do we need to establish a policy within our right-of-way?

            Mr. Lyles responded you are not required to establish a policy, especially the formal policy we are talking about adopting.  However, staff would like some direction.  They do not want to do something administratively and find out it is not consistent with the Board’s thinking.  The Board needs to come to consensus on the direction staff needs to pursue. 

            Mr. Fennell asked can Mr. McKune clear with our current policy?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.

            Mr. Fennell stated what we are talking about is probably more restrictive than the policy we currently have.

            Mr. Eissler stated you are going to have the highest form of protest from the residents.

            Mr. Fennell stated some will protest.  However, in my area, people were glad we came in and removed the trees.  They actually wanted us to remove more trees.  We did not take out everything.  We removed what we thought were the problem trees.

            Mr. Petty stated there is nothing saying you cannot change this policy in six months, a year or 10 years.

            Mr. Fennell stated our current policy is not actionable from the direction of the Board or it is so open it cannot be interpreted anyway.

            Mr. Eissler stated you are giving the approval to spend up to $1,000,000.

            Mr. Fennell stated no, we are just setting a policy.  The next question is what we want to do about it.

            Mr. Eissler stated the policy you are going to approve will be to spend $1,000,000. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I think we should have done this years ago. 

            Mr. Eissler asked have you walked the canals?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.

            Mr. Eissler stated the fallen trees are removed and the canals are clean.

            Mr. Petty stated we can see the light through many areas of concern for us for many years.  We were also looking at areas, such as behind Arbys, where we thought problem areas were where two thirds of the trees came down.  All around the athletic center we have top cut Banyan Trees.

            Mr. Eissler stated you have to use common sense.  Behind Home Depot, there were a group of Australian Pines.  This was a nightmare.  They should have come down years ago.  When you look at other residential areas, they do not look like ours.

            Mr. Fennell stated this is why I do not think we are going to have as firm of a policy as you think.  Frankly the biggest abusers are the commercial properties.  Most people’s houses are not that bad.  However, one particular corner was bad as there were Australian Pines all around the corner and down the canal. 

            The meeting was recessed at 6:47 P.M.

            The meeting was reconvened at 6:57 P.M.

            Mr. Fennell asked are there any amendments to the policy we placed on the table?

            Mr. Eissler responded I suggest you postpone this matter for 30 days.

            Mr. Petty stated I recommend you implement the policy.  In authorizing the contract, you indicate a contract start date, which would be the day after the next meeting.  This gives the Board time to do evaluations of options.  We can get the contract started and the contractor on-site to proceed the day after the next meeting.  He would have a firm policy and decision at that time.

            Mr. Eissler stated I concur.

            Mr. Fennell stated we will have a policy statement and implementation of the policy.  We are ready to maintain the areas we own and areas requiring maintenance.  We need to clear the trees so we can get our equipment in there.

            Mr. Hanks stated the question is the need.


On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Hanks with Mr. Fennell voting aye and Mr. Hanks and Mr. Eissler voting nay establishment of a general policy removing all trees within 25 feet of the top of the bank or in the right-of-way, whichever is less, in order to ensure maintenance access and ameliorate canal blockage was denied.


            Mr. Petty stated there is still the issue of the contract as we discussed with the 31 day time to activate.  The contract is for tree removal of any standing trees unharmed by Hurricane Wilma within our right-of-way.  Staff is asking you to award of contract and authorize the contractor to start one day after our next Board meeting.


On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Eissler with Mr. Fennell and Mr. Eissler voting aye and Mr. Hanks voting nay, Pay Estimate #1 with Arbor Tree and Land, Inc. for tree removal in the amount of $1,079,747.90 was approved, subject to the contract commending one day after the next meeting.


            Mr. Lyles stated we will work with the manager to ensure we do not execute a contract with a start date creating the right of the contractor to sue us for awarding the contract and rescinding it after he has mobilized his staff, if for some reason the Board adopts a policy more restrictive than the contract as it currently sits.

            Mr. Petty stated we have options in the contract. 

            Mr. Lyles stated I want to make sure we have a two step process.  We are awarding the contract subject to a delayed start date and a Notice to Proceed by the Board to do the work.  I do not think you want them mobilizing or cutting trees the day after the next Board meeting when there is every possibility the Board may not want them to cut anything.  They are going to be incurring some costs we do not want them to incur.

            Mr. Petty stated I do want them out there the day after the Board meeting cutting down trees and incurring costs we have to pay for.  There is no doubt there are trees that have to come down.  However, the issue is to what degree.  We are getting later and later in the hurricane season. 

            Mr. Lyles asked is this what the Board’s understanding is with respect to implementing some “to be determined” policy?

            Mr. Fennell responded the current policy now stands.  We did not modify it. 

            Mr. Eissler stated we have just approved the contract.

            Ms. Early asked is the contract for a fee or for a lump sum?

            Mr. Petty responded lump sum.

            Ms. Early stated if we approve this contract and decided we are only going to remove half of the trees, the contract states if there is a 25% reduction or increase, the contractor has a right to come back and request an increase.

            Mr. Petty stated this better not be the case because the engineer was told this contract could entail trees except for ornamentals and we needed those options.  The specifications were supposed to be written for this.  This is not NRCS.  This is to be taken out of the District funds.  If it is lump sum and limits us, this is not how the engineer was directed by staff or the Board.

            Mr. McKune stated we have the right to issue a change order.

            Mr. Eissler asked if it is decided only 50% of the trees have to come out, can we go back and say the contract is now $500,000?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.  We can negotiate it.

            Mr. Eissler asked can we go to the contractor and say “We gave you a $1,000,000 contract and a month later we are going to change it to $400,000.”  He is going to incur costs and come back and say, “I am ready to go”.

            Mr. McKune responded they have enough people to do either size job. 

            Mr. Petty asked what did Arbor Tree charge for remobilization in the last contract?

            Mr. McKune responded $13,000 to come back with the barge.  In this contract they are not anticipating using a barge.

            Mr. Hanks asked what is the rush to go forward with the decision to have them start on July 28th?  It seems to me we could be incurring greater increases in cost than the $15,000 mobilization, which I do not think we will be faced with because we are not talking about as much equipment.

            Mr. Petty responded I agree.  It is not a cost issue.  The issue is whether we have done the best job we can to prevent flooding in our Drainage District.  We are tempting fate by saying we are working on trying to remove a threat to drainage during the hurricane season.  September, October and November are the peak of the hurricane season.  If we are going to do anything, let’s give it due diligence.  This is why I would like to move by the next Board meeting.  If I started a contract at the next Board meeting in late July, I have about four to six weeks to clear the trees before I am in the peak of the season.  I know what the public reaction is going to be if the system backs up due to a tree on our property.

            Mr. Fennell stated I would like to approve the Surface Water Management Permit for the Sawgrass Expressway.

            Mr. Hanks asked was it included in the District boundaries?

            Mr. McKune responded yes. 

            Ms. Early stated it is subject to a few stipulations.

            Mr. Petty stated approval will be subject to the engineer’s evaluation.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the Right-of-Way & Surface Water Management Permit for expansion of the Sawgrass Expressway to six lanes from Atlantic Boulevard to Coral Ridge Drive was approved, subject to the engineer’s evaluation.


EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                     Consideration of Award of Contract for Landscape Maintenance

            Mr. Petty stated we would like to pull this item from the agenda as we did not receive enough responses.  This is for the utility site maintenance.

            Mr. Fennell stated we need to move forward with the trees.  We have not changed our policy.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor establishment of a general policy removing all trees within 25 feet of the top of the bank or in the right-of-way, whichever is less, in order to ensure maintenance access and ameliorate canal blockage was approved.


            Mr. Lyles stated we will issue the Notice to Proceed to have the contractor mobilize to work within the confines of the policy established by the Board.  This will be a reduction in the contract price of a fairly noticeable nature.  The contractor is going to have to agree before he starts to do the work with a 25 foot or less zone and the price will be reduced accordingly. 

            Mr. McKune stated we can straighten this out in a day to two. 

            Mr. Lyles stated we have enough contractors if we need to re-bid.

            Ms. Early asked is the contractor supposed to remove the trees on the drawing or all of the trees?

            Mr. McKune responded we gave him the drawings for the first job.  The scope for this job is to remove the remaining trees.

            Mr. Hanks asked have you prioritized any areas?

            Mr. McKune responded no, there is no need to.

            Mr. Hanks stated I think we should prioritize this.

            Mr. Petty asked do you have a suggestion for prioritizing?

            Mr. McKune responded we can do the prioritizing.

            Mr. Fennell stated I believe our manager should be able to make exceptions to this policy as he sees fit.  There may be a tree in the right-of-way.  If there is a tree in obvious danger, it should go.

            Mr. Petty stated without a doubt. 

            Mr. Lyles stated you want the manager to have the ability to come to the Board if a situation arises where there was a tree within the 25 foot zone that should remain.

            Mr. Petty stated I suggest you allow me to tell the contractor to move around a tree removal site which may incur some costs so I can bring such matters to the Board’s attention as I deem fit under these general guidelines.  This way I am not giving a pardon to a group of trees.  I am just telling the contractor to go around them until I get word from the Board. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I do not know that the Board should be involved to decide which trees should be removed or remain. 

            Mr. Petty stated I do not mind giving the order the trees are to be removed in.  There are some cases where the Sunshine Water Control District is involved such as where these trees are the buffer to commercial areas.  I want to have authority as a manager to administer this general policy.  I know you are going to judge me on how well I administer this and I do not suspect coming back to you because of the singular tree issue.  There is new data you need to look at.


NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                       Staff Reports

A.        Attorney

            Mr. Lyles stated I was contacted by the attorney for the Lake Coral Springs Property Owners Association since the last meeting.  They apparently went through some changes on the Board and in philosophy.  He requested we sit down with him and the new President of the Association.  We tentatively scheduled a meeting to resolve this agreement for July 12th.  I just wanted to let you know that something finally happened.

            Mr. Eissler stated he called me.

            Mr. Lyles stated there is new leadership in the HOA.

B.        Engineer

            There not being any, the next item followed.

C.        Manager

            1.         Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

            2.         Utility Billing Work Orders

            3.         Complaints Received/Resolved

            Mr. Petty stated we included the monthly water and sewer charts.  We already spoke to you about our stormwater pumps.  The Board received a Work Authorization for the engineer to evaluate the Water Management System as we described earlier and give us status of the existing equipment and whether or not they feel it is justified to go forward with the contract to change out of the motors.  We recommend you authorize Work Authorization #31 for evaluations and recommendations for stormwater pump stations 1 & 2.

            Mr. Eissler asked is this the contract where the contractor has not done the work?

            Mr. Petty responded this is the one we were working on in-house for the last year and a half.  I would very much like our engineer to give me a strong evaluation.

            Mr. Hanks asked is it $25,000 to look at the pumps?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.  This is their standard fee.

            Mr. Hanks asked how many contracts do we currently have with Ch2M-Hill?

            Mr. Petty responded good question.  I have been working with Mr. McKune and Ms. Early with CH2M-Hill who I consider to be invaluable to the District.  The number of bills coming in and the amounts prompted me to take a look at them.  I have a couple of different ways of looking at it such as how much I have under construction versus how much I am paying the engineer.  I feel that Ch2M-Hill is pricy.  We are reviewing their bills and will come back to the Board at a later date.  I believe what you have before you is a realistic proposal.  It will be done by Mr. McKune and Ms. Early and I am sure they will give us the same quality work they have given us in the past and not overcharge us.


On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor CH2M-Hill Work Authorization #31 for Ch2M-Hill for Evaluations and Recommendations for Stormwater Pump Stations 1 & 2 in an amount not to exceed $25,000 was approved.


            Mr. Petty stated we have nothing further to bring before the Board.

            Mr. Fennell stated a year and a half ago we spent some money to get an engine.  We should have received something by now.

            Mr. Eissler stated it is not even installed.

            Mr. Petty stated correct.  Staff has to take this hit.  Our in-house program should have saved us but all it did was give us a black eye.  We should have spent the money before.

            Mr. Hanks stated I have two requests.  The first item is the request for qualifications for general surveying services.  We discussed this item briefly at the last meeting.

            Mr. Petty stated we talked about pre-qualifying for a couple of different items.

            Mr. Hanks stated also for value engineering.

            Mr. Petty stated I looked into the value engineering but I would like to discuss it further during consideration of the Water and Sewer Budget.  This refers to the evaluation of CH2M-Hill and their bills.

            Mr. Hanks stated we need to start moving on this, especially because we are contemplating in the next year some stormwater improvements.

            Mr. Petty stated since this item came before the Board and we have direction and since our engineers went through different steps of obtaining a survey group, I will be happy to work with Mr. McKune and look at the specifications.  We will see if we can have something for you by the next meeting. 

            Mr. Hanks stated we were looking at the rest of the study regarding the CSID boundaries.  We authorized additional fees for surveying of $60,000.  Where do we stand?

            Mr. McKune responded we combined the surveying for this item with the selection of the surveyor for the District.

            Mr. Petty stated all they have left are parts of the permitted boundary.  We wanted to tie it in. 

            Mr. Hanks stated I want to see how we compare with Sunshine Water Control District as we are adjacent to them and have two of their canals running adjacent to our facilities.  If they have stages higher than they predicted and we have elevations lower than we predicted, all of our wonderful modeling is wasted.

            Mr. McKune stated we have not run models for Sunshine Water Control District.  We can only assume.

            Mr. Petty stated Sunshine Water Control District is going to be asked to develop a hydraulic model as well.

            Mr. Fennell stated we know the top of the canal is lopped off.  If the canal gets high enough, the water will come over the bank and into us.  I do not think there is a real understanding of how high the C-14 Canal actually is.  The issue is the fact we can pump more water into the C-14 Canal.  Unfortunately, the water will come right back up this canal and into our area.  Our modeling is good except it will be just like New Orleans if the canal banks fail.  I request Mr. Petty look into this matter.

            I do not think SFWMD has done anything for our area and I am anxious to know if they have a hydraulic program predicting the height of the C-14 Canal.

            Mr. McKune stated yes they do.  We are currently obtaining this information.

            Mr. Hanks stated I would like to meet with Mr. McKune and Ms. Early before the next meeting.

            Mr. Fennell stated we have had pump failures going off on a regular basis. 

            Mr. Hanks stated we need to take a look at other scenarios where we have three pumps off to see whether rainfall results in a problem.


TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                       Supervisor Requests and Audience Comments

            There not being any, the next item followed.




ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS               Approval of February Financials and Check Registers


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the financials and General Fund invoices for May 31, 2006 in the amount of $19,334.17 and the Water and Sewer Fund invoices for May 31, 2006 in the amount of $877,283.60 were approved.


SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS                    Organizational Matters (Continued)

A.                 Acceptance of Resignation of Mr. Eissler

B.                 Appointment of Supervisor to Fill the Unexpired Term of Office (6/2007)

C.                 Oath of Office of Newly Appointed Supervisor

D.                Election of Officers

            Mr. Petty stated we received a resignation from Mr. Eissler.

            Mr. Eissler stated I enjoyed my tenure.

            Mr. Petty asked do you have anyone in mind to serve Mr. Eissler’s unexpired term?

            Mr. Fennell responded no, we are looking for someone who not only has an interest but a financial background.

            Mr. Eissler stated you need someone with a business and financial background.

            Mr. Fennell stated I would like to present to Mr. Eissler a plaque in recognition of his loyal and dedication service to the CSID.  He served from July 15, 2002 to June 30, 2006.  Thank you for all you have done.

            Mr. Eissler stated my pleasure.


TWELFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                 Adjournment

            There being no further business,


On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the meeting was adjourned at 7:28 P.M.






Glen Hanks                                                               Robert Fennell

Secretary                                                                   President