The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, November 20, 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

            Glen Hanks                                                Vice President

            Sharon Zich                                                Secretary


            Also present were:


            John Petty                                                  Manager

            Dennis Lyles                                               Attorney

            John McKune                                             Engineer

            Cedo DaSilva                                             CH2M-Hill

            Daniel Bohorguez                                       CH2M-Hill

            Janice Moen Larned                                   Severn Trent Services

            Randy Fredericks                                       Field Supervisor

            Doug Hyche                                               District Staff

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS                         Roll Call

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


SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS                    Approval of the Minutes of the October 16, 2006 Meeting

            Mr. Fennell stated each Board member received a copy of the October 16, 2006 minutes and requested any additions, corrections or deletions.

            Mr. Hanks stated I came straight from another meeting.  If I have any corrections, I will provide them to Mr. Petty.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the minutes of the October 16, 2006 meeting were approved.


            Mr. Petty stated since we have several residents in the audience, at this time I request we discuss the item on the trees.  Mr. Brower and Mr. Friedman are here representing the HOA of Eagle Trace.  We have been working with them for three to four months ever since the Sawgrass construction crews came onto our berm and cut it down for the sound wall, impacting our side of the property.  They also impacted the trees we spent a great deal of time planting to address a past issue.  We discussed with the contractor about the replacement of the trees through a meeting here with our engineers and the HOA and they said they would take care of the trees.  They gave us a pallet of trees to approve, which we took action on 45 days ago.  Now they are having difficulty with the Turnpike Authority.  Of course they have protocol, which can take some time.  Meantime, the wall has been installed with partitions open every 1,000 feet, making planting extremely difficult.

            The berm abutting the Sawgrass Expressway had an extreme slope.  When we installed the trees originally it was tough.  We had to plant Wedelia material because grass cannot grow there.  The whole idea is to make this look natural before the wall.  The HOA of Eagle Trace has been working well with us on this matter and waited patiently for this issue to come about.  Since we are having problems with the Turnpike Authority in processing this and since the wall is almost complete, we wanted the Board to consider a policy from staff to fund the replanting of the trees and then we will wait for the Turnpike Authority to reimburse us.  We feel this will address the issue with the residents who rightfully come to the District for resolution.  In turn, we will go to the Turnpike Authority as is our responsibility. 

            We think the amount will be less than $75,000 to replant the trees.  Some of this material is also part of our application.  Since part of our existing contract is with Stiles Landscaping, we asked them to give us a price so we can consider a modification to our contract for removal of trees to include the planting of trees.  We advised counsel who directed us to speak to the Turnpike Authority to the best of our ability and keep the pressure on them.  This is where we currently are at.

            Mr. Brower stated prior to Mr. Petty’s involvement in 1999 through 2002, Eagle Trace planted ficus bushes on CSID property with the Board’s permission.  In fact, CSID contributed $5,000 towards the planting.  We did the planting in the hopes of preventing a sight line and noise abatement.  Several months ago when the Turnpike Authority came through, they cut down all the plantings.  A meeting was conducted here on August 3rd with DOT and CH2M-Hill where they agreed to be responsible and submitted a plan, which we were pleased with.  We are concerned and upset they are not proceeding at this juncture but hopefully it will be done and I encourage you to put more pressure on the Turnpike Authority than we have.

            Mr. Lyles stated we briefly discussed the plan during or after the last meeting.  My advice all along has been we have to keep after the Turnpike Authority because they have the agreement with the sub-contractor.  Therefore, we have no standing to say anything to them.  Although, there has been a meeting and acknowledgement of responsibility on the party who caused the problem.  What I am hearing differently today is the idea of the District doing a remediation program and looking to the Turnpike Authority to reimburse us.  Unless they signed off on it, we are going to be taking a risk of having to pay for it ourselves since we used taxpayer money for the re-planting.  I am not telling you not to do this but you are running the risk by taking this approach as opposed to having them tell us in advance they agreed to our approach and we will continue looking to the sub-contractor who caused the problem to ultimately fund it.  Without the agreement in place, before we do remedial work, we are going to be substantially more at risk than we otherwise will be.  We did not discuss this approach and would be remiss if I did not point out you are taking a risk.

            Mr. Fennell asked do we have an agreement with the Department of Transportation for reimbursement?

            Mr. Petty responded no.  We do not have a contractual link to them.  We have a good working relationship with Eagle Trace and wish to maintain it to the best of our ability.  Mr. Lyles is correct.  We have not gone into any type of depth as to whether or not we can pay for it.  We briefly stated this was one of the options we wanted to look at.  I do not believe there is going to be a quick solution with the Turnpike Authority.  I came to this realization from correspondence with our engineer who has been sending me emails almost daily.  Their sub-contractor sent back his first response, which was “All I agreed to do was to draw pictures of the trees, not supply them”.  This was an honest response.

            Mr. Hanks asked has the city been involved in the damage to the trees?

            Mr. Petty responded the city has not been a part of this at all.  The concept is to bring this to your attention for consideration if we planted the trees and take to the city to be counted against any mitigation plan approved in the future. 

            Mr. Hanks asked were trees or shrubs damaged on our property at the Eagle Trace location?

            Mr. Petty responded I will defer to Mr. McKune who went by boat and inspected them.  My view was from the Sawgrass side which was limited due to the wall.

            Mr. McKune stated there were three types of damage; one was non-vegetative, which was simply destruction of the canal bank on our side.  They also damaged some understory bushes and removed branches off of the ficus hedge and trees the HOA planted.  The most potential damage in one neighborhood was scraping of the soil down to grade and replacement of the footers.  They removed 40% off the top of the root ball on the wall side of the ficus’.  There seems to be a difference of opinion as to whether this will be a terminal event for the trees and is just another indication of the amount of damage.  They did not seem to care.

            Mr. Hanks asked based on our recent discussions with the city in regards to our tree removal program; will the trees having 40% or more root damage be classified as trees or shrubs?

            Mr. McKune responded I do not know.  We had a problem getting a straight answer from the city.

            Mr. Hanks asked how tall were the trees?

            Mr. McKune responded fairly small, 8’ to 10’ tall.

            Mr. Brower stated 7’ tall trees were planted in 2003. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what is the maintenance plan for those trees?  There is an issue of them falling into the water.  Trees directly on the bank can impede water flow.

            Mr. Brower stated there was no issue.  They were on top of the berm.

            Mr. Fennell asked were they set back?

            Mr. Petty responded they were set back to a location where they were not a drainage concern.  They would have to fall down and run down a 30 to 60’ embankment to reach the canal.  At the time, we were not looking as hard as we are now.  The trees we recommend re-planting would meet both the city’s approved plan and what was discussed here.

            Mr. Fennell stated this canal bank is critical to your area for drainage.  If it does not drain, the residents are in trouble.  In fact, the one area in real trouble is at the northwest corner of our drainage area.  We want to make sure it looks good and at the same time, does not set the residents up for any drainage problems.  What are we going to do?

            Mr. Petty responded the original pallet of trees were a low canopy.  I believe they were Coffee Trees, which did not get above 20’ in height but stayed bushy and green.  The idea is to have a green space in front of the wall.  This is what was intended before and what was damaged.  It is our intention to have the existing contract with Stiles amended to include the re-planting of these trees.  We request the Board consider allowing staff to do so, understanding it puts us in a position where we have to diligently go after the Turnpike Authority.  We want to satisfy the residents if we can.

            Mr. Fennell stated a former Board member lived on this canal.  Frankly some of the trees were in poor condition.  They went from looking part of nature to looking scraggly.  This may be a good opportunity to remove the unsightly trees.

            Mr. Brower stated there were a line of ficus trees on top of the berm.  The problem today is the wall is up and unless you have access to get behind it, you are not going to be able to do so.  I do not know how the re-planting is going to be done.

            Mr. Fennell stated anything growing beyond that height we better remove.

            Mr. Petty stated we are looking for approved native plants wherever practical.  Another reason why we can use Stiles is for the removal of any nuisance trees.  However, with the wall, it may be impractical.  We will have to use lifts to go over the wall.

            Mr. Fennell asked do we still have barges?

            Mr. Petty responded yes, however the embankment is 60’ away from the water’s edge and you cannot travel up the bank.  We should be able to address many of these issues if we proceed.

            Mr. Hanks asked do we have an outstanding mitigation obligation with the city as part of our water renewal?

            Mr. Petty responded not yet.

            Mr. Hanks stated I want to be careful about the classification of the existing materials.  Is this an opportunity for us to use selective plantings to compensate or offset some of our requirements elsewhere within the District?

            Mr. Petty responded I believe so.  We could have good reception with the city.  From now on I want every tree we plant account for something.

            Mr. Fennell asked is the wall helping the residents?

            Mr. Brower responded it definitely decreased the noise level.  This was something the residents of Eagle Trace wanted for a very long time.  Are they seeing those beautiful sunsets?  No, but they do not hear the diesel trucks going up and down the expressway at all hours of the day and night anymore.  You cannot please all the people all the time.  There were some who objected to the wall but by and large, it will be an improvement.

            Mr. Fennell stated I do not know how we are going to get money back from DOT but we need to make sure the canal is well taken care of and drained so it will not have any flooding problems.  At the same time, we want to make sure it is aesthetically pleasing.  Can we combine the two?

            Mr. Petty responded I believe we already went through this with the removal.  There are a couple of trees left at the top of the bank that were out of reach.  If we go up there with a crew and remove the trees with a chainsaw, I see no reason why we could not take them down to where they can be hidden by the ground cover.

            Mr. Fennell asked where does the city boundary end in this area?

            Mr. Petty responded good question.  Mr. McKune, do you know what side of the Sawgrass Expressway it is on?

            Mr. McKune responded not with any degree of confidence.

            Mr. Brower stated when we were in litigation several years back, we performed surveys and this bank was within the city limits of Coral Springs. 

            Mr. Petty stated most cities abutting the Sawgrass Expressway have tried to do annexations of property between us and the conservation areas in order to have control.  I do not know if CSID has done this.

            Mr. Hanks stated I consulted the history of the Sawgrass Expressway and in 1987 or 1988 when the eminent domain action went through, in places like Sunrise and Tamarac, there were some situations were remnants remained on the west side of the Sawgrass Expressway.  I would not count of us obtaining a release if there was an unincorporated Broward County.

            Ms. Zich asked how easy is it going to be to get the money back?

            Mr. Fennell responded I do not think we are going to get any money back but it would be nice if we did.  On the other hand, this gives us an opportunity to get the canal in good shape, which is a benefit to the homeowners.

            Mr. Hanks stated I do not think we should do anything until we establish and quantify mitigation requirements elsewhere under the assumption we are not going to get any money from FDOT or the contractors.  We should make some beneficial use of having it for potential mitigation for tree and canopy loses elsewhere within the District.  We need to make a deal with the city as far as what compensation we need to provide elsewhere and then come back and identify those mitigation areas.

            Mr. Fennell stated it makes sense.  

            Mr. Hanks stated I think we should re-plant first.

            Mr. Brower stated keep in mind time is of the essence and the wall will be closed and you will not have access.

            Mr. Hanks stated we may not currently have access because if we were to have Stiles use state turnpike facilities for their access, they need to obtain a permit from DOT.  This is also an active construction area and falls under the contractor’s control.  There is no way you are even guaranteed to have access of the area for planting.  It is a limited access highway.  If we were to pursue it, Stiles could be stuck permitting at the turnpike for a month to two months.  I am thinking of the legal aspects of permitting this through DOT.

            Mr. Brower stated you have a contractor coming onto your property and removing trees, shrubs and bushes planted at great expense both by yourself and this HOA.  This guy probably thinks he is going to get away with this.  You have to take some steps to go after the contracting party who was the Florida Turnpike.  Before you go to the city, the Turnpike Authority has to be notified.  They were here once before and agreed to do this.

            Mr. Petty stated Mr. McKune has been in contract with the sub-contractor, contractor and the Turnpike Authority.  Maybe he can give some insight on the chances of obtaining access.

            Mr. Hanks asked have we taken this to Mr. Bruce Styler at the Turnpike Authority?

            Mr. McKune responded no.  We have been told we would get more definitive answers from those we contracted, however we have yet to receive any answers.

            Mr. Hanks stated DOT collects a retainer of 10%.  For a project of this size, this covers certain areas.  What steps do we currently need to take, not necessarily with the contractor but with DOT who is writing the check?

            Mr. Lyles responded you are properly recognizing we have no stand in dealing with the contractors.  We have to deal directly with DOT.  If this were being presented to me today for the first time I would accumulate all evidence we can, photographic and otherwise; get estimates for the cost of repairing the damage and replacing the missing material and put into a claim.  We are a government and DOT is as well and we have some statutory processes we have to follow which are more cumbersome than a private individual who suffers damage.  We need to submit numbers and our evidence to DOT telling them unless they take care of it; they are going to be telling a judge about it.  This is a start to make sure you maximize your chances of recovery in the shortest amount of time.  For better or worse, we had one or two meetings where there has been discussion.  An attempt has been made, which I do not disagree with to sit down at the table and get this matter resolved.  DOT said they want to resolve this without the necessity of this process.  Not having been part of those discussions, I do not know whether we are acting in bad faith to slap a claim letter on them and start the litigation path or tell them they have until some period of time to make this happen.

            Mr. Hanks stated we need to send a letter to DOT notifying them there has been damage and are attempting to work it out. 

            Mr. Lyles stated we will be seeking relief from DOT.  We should let them know they should hang onto the retainage at the end of the job while this claim is pending.

            Mr. Hanks stated we should not state it exactly in those words.  The people at DOT who are writing the checks may not be aware of what is going on in this room or other meetings.

            Mr. Brower stated DOT contracts have safety clauses regarding withholding money for damages their vendors might do.

            Mr. Hanks stated exactly.

            Mr. Brower stated I am more optimistic about you being able to collect but you are correct about going on record.  If you expend the funds, you have not lost anything because you do not have a claim.

            Mr. Lyles stated we have a claim and not only photograph and testimonial evidence but also an estimate with a cost for replacing missing or damaged materials.

            Mr. Brower stated I think you are stonewalling us.

            Mr. Lyles stated I think we are trying to do this in the right way.

            Mr. Brower stated for ground cover and shrubs, we need to look at the expense for options 1 and 2.

            Mr. Petty stated DOT acknowledged their responsibilities and submitted the pallet of tree cover.  The trees you will see from the homes will be the full Coffee Trees as well as some low lying material.  We simply said we want Wedelia re-planted in areas made bare by the contractor.  Now their sub-contractor is saying his coloring book makes up for his commitment.  The issue in my mind is something within the Board’s ability to do now.  Counsel has a legitimate issue to bring forth, which is if we spend the money, there are no guarantees we will get it back.  I do not know if there are guarantees of getting the money either way and my concern is whether to leave the berm in its existing condition while we address this issue, to the best of our ability. 

            Mr. Fennell asked how do you know how much this will cost?  We have a legal process for spending more than $4,000 with our bid specifications for anything other than an emergency situation.  I do not know if I can classify this as an emergency situation, without having a good understanding of what this is going to cost and what we are getting. 

            Mr. Hanks stated it is my understanding trees were originally planted to help provide some screening and noise abatement.

            Mr. Fennell stated we need to determine how much we are actually spending.  There is an issue of us legally going after something like this without at least having some understanding.

            Mr. Hanks asked if we do not go after it, is anything going to happen?  We can either do the work or advise DOT we want to get reimbursed for the damage.  We can pursue requesting compensation from DOT for the damage and let them know we are serious about it.  It may just be we are being stonewalled because they have not sent a letter.

            Mr. Brower asked if you do not make the repairs, are you running a risk because you have a collapsing drain?

            Mr. Hanks responded this is a separate issue from the landscaping.  They have a permit with us for discharge for working within our right-of-way.  Correct?

            Mr. Lyles responded yes.

            Mr. Hanks asked do any of our permits cover this situation?

            Mr. Lyles responded yes.  There is standard language in all permits I have seen from CSID providing they have to pay for any damage done to CDD property.

            Mr. McKune stated if DOT damages District property, they are responsible to make the repairs.

            Mr. Hanks stated if we have seen this damage to District property, meaning the landscaping and other physical components, we should document to the appropriate people at DOT this has occurred and it is our expectation the repairs will be made.

            Mr. Petty stated we have done this.

            Ms. Zich asked in writing?

            Mr. Petty responded I have seen emails.  I do not know if a letter was sent by certified mail.

            Mr. Hanks asked what format do we need to have this in?

            Mr. Lyles responded we need to express it in terms of a notice of claim.  I think it should be written and certified so we have a receipt and can demonstrate they received the notice.  The emails and meetings could potentially resolve the situation but they have not as of yet.

            Mr. Hanks stated I do not want to lose the opportunity we have here.  When we have these discussions with DOT, let them know we want to make sure the appropriate people within DOT are notified and we want to keep things moving along. 

            Mr. Lyles asked do we have any reliable estimate someone can stand behind for the amount of money we are talking about to replace the damaged material and restore the banks?

            Mr. Petty responded we have a landscape plan submitted by the Turnpike Authority to us for approval.  We approved it and gave it to Stiles for an estimate.  The Coffee Trees were not something he could obtain economically but he has similar trees so we can formalize this.

            Mr. Lyles asked are those in the nature of an upgrade or a lifetime replacement for what was damaged in this construction activity?  You do not want to get caught asking them to pay for an upgrade.  You want them to be presented with a fair substantiated estimate to replace what was damaged and removed.  Then we get into a big contest over us trying to take advantage of the situation.  We do not want to be in this position?

            Mr. Petty responded the trees they submitted for consideration are what they submitted to us.  We showed them to the HOA for their consideration.  The height was not the issue.  They were glad to give up some of the height as long as they still had the bushiness. 

            Mr. Hanks asked is it fair to say to them, “You damaged our property and what do you propose to do about it?”  Their response would be in the form of a plan provided to our contractor for estimates.

            Mr. Petty responded I will go so far as to say, “We will take the landscape plan”.  We can get more than one price on it from different contractors.

            Mr. Hanks asked is this really an upgrade?

            Mr. Lyles responded it was their proposal to use this type of plant material to rectify the situation.  From my point of view, I am more interested in the cost to replace and repair.  If you want to take care of it, you can do so but if you want to give this money to CSID and have us do it through our contractors, we will but it needs to be done.

            Mr. Hanks stated if there was harm done to the canal system or bank due to construction activity, it should be included.

            Mr. McKune stated the bank will heal itself with the Wedelia.  The remaining damage is not extensive.  What little tree debris there is can be easily removed.

            Mr. Hanks asked do we have an area where the cross section of a canal has been compromised by the amount of debris?

            Mr. McKune responded not yet.

            Mr. Fennell stated you apparently have an estimation on your part that DOT will not do anything.

            Mr. Brower stated this is an inference I drew because we were talking about a situation I needed work on in August.  It was available and there was no law at the time to do our planting before the rainy season.  Nothing was done and then the wall went up.  Now there are a few openings left and nothing has been done.  We are assuming they are not going to be doing it.

            Mr. Fennell asked did someone tell you they were not going to?

            Mr. Petty responded we have indications from them this is not something they can complete quickly.  It is starting to feel like a stall tactic and an intended stall.  Our calls to them are not being answered.  They are basically copying us on the response from the sub-contractor and we do not want to talk to them.

            Mr. Hanks asked is “them” DOT’s prime contractor?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.

            Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like there was damage done to the property and we need to be compensated.  You have the meetings scheduled but it sounds like we are in a hurry or afraid it might not happen.  We need to take tougher action such as writing them a letter and obtaining estimates.  If they are inferring we are stalling, we need to proceed.  It looks like there is a two step process; one to be compensated for those damages and do whatever it takes to fix it and two putting this into a better look than just repairing it.

            Mr. Hanks stated the other item contemplated at this time is the change in price to install the plantings should the wall be closed.

            Mr. Fennell stated the important thing to do is to support this effort but we need to obtain some estimates and we can do so fairly quickly.  However, I do not think we can tack this on legally to work being done within the $75,000.  I am not sure whether it is going to be $75,000 or $150,000.  As an organization, we cannot write checks without knowing what we are doing.

            Mr. Hanks asked do you think we should take care of the administrative aspects of this?

            Mr. Fennell responded I think we should officially submit a claim and get estimates.  At least we will know how much it will cost, which we will know anyway if we are going to spend the money.  It also makes it official we want this done but we do not have to be hostile about it.

            Mr. Brower stated we applaud you for taking this stance and being proactive.  I suggest you do some additional consultations with the Project Engineer and PR people who were at this meeting.  It would not hurt.  You have to go after them from a legal standpoint. 

            Mr. Petty stated we waited three months for this action to be taken and were copied on an email where the sub-contractor said his only commitment was to draw the pictures. 

            Mr. Fennell stated Mr. Lyles is correct.  Let’s make a claim saying our property has been damaged and what needs to be done to it and provide estimates of the cost.  We want to be compensated.  Anything we do above and beyond is our responsibility.

            Mr. Hanks stated which is something we should look into if we are faced with mitigation.

            Mr. Fennell stated let’s find out how much they are going to do.  We need to show them we are serious. 

            Ms. Zich stated I agree.  We need to know exactly how much and tell DOT exactly what we are expecting.

            There was Board consensus to proceed in a compliant fashion with DOT informing them of the damage and costs.


THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS                       Consideration of Selection of Capital Improvement Coordinator

            Mr. Petty stated as you may recall, we had this item on last month’s agenda.  The Board asked us to change the ad to read “Or equal” which we have done.  We received two submittals; one from IBI Group and the other from McKune & Associates.  Both firms met the requirements and have direct experience meeting the criteria for CSID.  IBI has in its employ an engineer who worked with Gee & Jenson in the early days of CSID.  We provided a ranking sheet to the Board based on our review of the proposals along with our recommendation.  It is only a suggestion and is subject to the Board’s evaluation.

            Mr. Hanks stated I believe Mr. Ben Parker used to have his own engineering firm in Coral Springs.  I had conversations previously with Mr. Parker on providing construction observation services for my firm for a project in Ft. Pierce.  However, this will not affect my decision.

            Mr. Lyles asked do you currently have a relationship with this firm?

            Mr. Hanks responded there is presently no contract. 

            Mr. Lyles stated then this does not qualify as a conflict.

            Mr. Fennell asked is anyone here from IBI?

            Mr. Petty responded we were contacted by Mr. Peter Dessert.  I spoke to him briefly about the project and his experience with CSID.  He is the engineer who worked with Gee & Jenson.

            Mr. Fennell asked what are you asking for?

            Mr. Petty responded for the Board to rank these firms.  Staff ranked McKune & Associates as number one and IBI as number two and asks for approval to negotiate with the number one ranked firm.  If successful, we will bring a contract back to the Board for execution.  If not, we will move to the number two ranked firm.

            Mr. Lyles stated the categories staff is suggesting should be used as a basis for your ranking.  There is a weighted average of 65 points for water and wastewater facility experience and knowledge.  The Board can agree with the categories, modify it or come up with your own.  However, there is a formal allocation of the different categories of experience and qualifications, which staff proposed to you in the materials before you.

            Mr. Fennell stated Mr. McKune has a Masters Degree in Industrial Management.  Can you elaborate further on this type of degree?

            Mr. McKune responded I received my Masters Degree in 1970 from GIT.  This was a technical MBA. 

            Mr. Fennell asked did it involve project management?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.  It involves the same things as an MBA plus a lot of math and statistics.

            Mr. Fennell stated this is interesting from the standpoint Mr. McKune has a civil engineering background giving him technical project training.  Was there an Industrial Engineering Department?

            Mr. McKune responded at the time Georgia Tech had a separate Industrial Engineering Department.

            Mr. Hanks stated we have three categories; water and wastewater experience and knowledge, contract management and roads and landscaping design.  What is it we are actually looking for?

            Mr. Petty responded we are looking to save money.  We have a relationship with CH2M-Hill.  The people who work there used to be with Gee & Jenson, who we have a great deal of faith in.  We are looking for value as we embark on a capital improvement program and someone who can act as our liaison to look at those design criteria coming from an international corporate entity to make sure they are applicable for us.  We want the CIC to review those criteria.  They would get paid if we can save money by going to a Florida style design rather than something from Saudi Arabia.  The CIC also gets paid by doing cost efficiencies, better design work, better oversight and administration.  This is why we came up with this position.  I have 25 years experience doing utility inspections and contract administration and want someone who has more experience than me to watch our interest.  This is why we asked for 10 plus years in CSID experience.  If we embark on the capital improvement program discussed at last month’s meeting, I want a CIC here.

            Mr. Fennell stated Mr. Hanks made this suggestion at one time.

            Mr. Hanks stated I think it is valuable to have someone who is accountable directly to us.  What percentage are we looking at compared to the overall capital budget?  Are we talking about a $20,000,000 capital improvement budget?

            Mr. Petty responded as far as the proposal we will negotiate, we will have CH2M-Hill submit a plan for $10,000,000 for the portion of the plant we want to build.  The CIC will not get paid unless they can go below $10,000,000.  They also will not receive any of those savings if the amount exceeded 2% of the total.  The CIC’s job is to save us money on the design through proper application, proper specification and helping to negotiate the design and administration costs.  We want to stay in this market.  Our engineering costs year to date are all over the board. 

            Mr. Hanks stated in terms of the entire CIP, we are not talking about 10%.

            Mr. Petty stated it would be in the 1% range.  We do not expect them to save you much more.  We also put into our budget approximately $100,000 we were paying to in-house engineers such as Mr. Moore to complete projects such as best management practices and getting permits from local government entities where you need an engineer on-site.  We also wanted this person be a licensed engineer in Broward County who could perform these functions for us.

            Mr. Hanks asked if we are looking for someone with an active engineering license, what type of professional liability insurance requirements are we going to need from these respective firms?

            Mr. Petty responded we should not need any, but if counsel thinks we do, we will make it part of the negotiations.  However, since he is not going to be our engineer for other than things like best management practices, we have not required anything in the past as they acted as an employee of the District.  It is not like they are building anything where a professional engineering license is to be held.  They are processing permits.

            Mr. Fennell asked will he be a Program Manager?

            Mr. Petty responded he will not be a Program Manager because his work is supposed to happen before this Board decides on a project.

            Mr. Fennell stated there are two ways to save significant money; one is to negotiate the costs beforehand and the other is to make sure the project runs on time and solving issues when they happen.  He will probably save us money by making things happen correctly and at the right time.  In the past we had issues with delays in the start up schedule.  What can we do about it?

            Mr. Petty responded we have to be able to hold the contractor responsible.  There is a fine line where you do not want our people to take over responsibility for the contractor.

            Mr. Hanks stated you have to be careful if you have an accelerated schedule because the District can be responsible for the additional cost incurred.  We have an aging plant.  We need to determine what we are designing, who is designing it, how it is going to be designed and how it is going to be bid out as well as who comes up with the overall program.  We need someone to look down at this plant from 30,000 feet and determine which items to proceed with.  Are these responsibilities of the CIC?

            Mr. Petty responded first it is discussed here.  We started this process last month when we came to you with a general outline, which is supposed to get more definitive as we move along.  Then there is a time and place where this body makes a decision with the money it has available on what it can, will do and for what period of time.  With those general parameters, CH2M-Hill will submit a capital program in compliance with these objectives, which is then reviewed by the CIC.  Then it comes back to this body for approval.

            Mr. Hanks stated the CIC has responsibility or accountability for developing the capital improvement program.

            Mr. Fennell stated they will provide what you will get from any other customer, which is good service and reliability.  You probably will not get more than that.  What we need is someone with the vision to put this together, given what our desires are for the plant.

            Mr. Petty stated this will be staff with the CIC playing a significant role.  Once we get this big outside picture approved by this Board, we will go to our Design Engineer who will do all the specifics.

            Mr. Fennell stated I am hoping you and Mr. McKune will work closely together to form the initial plan.  Mr. Hanks has a good point.  Mr. Petty has been with us for over a year and he may be promoted and suddenly we have someone new coming in.  We want to make sure we have the technical expertise.

            Mr. Petty stated I have no intention of being promoted.

            Mr. Fennell stated not everyone has the same technical background you have.

            Mr. McKune stated over the last few years we developed a good idea of what needs to be done and when.  I intend to get together with CH2M-Hill who is the Consulting Engineer for the District as they will be held ultimately responsible for everything they do.  Even though I come up with something I think is 100% correct, I will have to get them to buy into it.  If they do not buy into it, it will come back to us.  We will come to you with any changes.  Sooner or later we will all agree.

            Mr. Hanks stated this is very much like the independent mode Mr. Roger Moore acted in some situations where CH2M-Hill came forward to the Board with their recommendations.

            Mr. McKune stated there are various delivery methods.  What has been used in the past is the old standard; design, bid and build.  There is a good opportunity to save money overall, not only on engineering but also saving time with construction.

            Mr. Fennell stated I do not know if I am looking for innovation as much as presence.  In my own experiences, I found the best results are usually for someone out there looking at what is going on.

            Mr. Hanks asked how many people are working at McKune & Associates?

            Mr. McKune responded only myself.

            Mr. Hanks stated I am happy to see this other response.

            Mr. Fennell stated we may need them at some point in time.

            Mr. Hanks asked how do we deal with succession?  With a larger firm, you have problems with succession within the firm as people move around.

            Mr. Petty responded we have an expanded bank to draw upon because the employees of CH2M-Hill who are still the District Engineer are still here.

            Mr. Hanks asked does the attorney have any concerns over how the RFP was put out or presented?

            Mr. Lyles responded no.  We had a bump in the road a month ago but staff heard the comments, noticed it correctly and came up with a set of criteria the Board is comfortable with.  I think you are ready to proceed.  I noticed you had a question about insurance, which never got answered.  Does Mr. McKune carry a certain level of professional liability insurance?

            Mr. McKune responded not liability insurance. 

            Mr. Lyles stated the core of this is finding cost savings through value engineering.  My concern is there may be instances where the design changed because the representative of the owner insists upon the change for a cost savings.  If something goes wrong later on it is going to give the design and project engineers a healthy out.  I think this is something we should think about as we go into this and make sure at the end of this process, the District is properly protected.

            Mr. Hanks stated if I understand this correctly, CH2M-Hill is and will remain the engineer of record on these projects.  As the engineer of record, when you take on those responsibilities, you are taking on and have to understand and certify the design as if it were your own from beginning to end.

            Mr. Fennell stated they should be.

            Mr. Petty stated I think counsel is capable of negotiating a contract by asking for reasonable liability coverage.

            Mr. Hanks stated I carry $1,000,000 in professional liability insurance.

            Mr. Petty stated we can make this part of the negotiated contract.

            Mr. Lyles stated my first comment to Mr. Petty was for them to carry some coverage, but certainly not at the level CH2M-Hill covers itself.  When we had Mr. Moore, we did not have this kind of insurance as he was an employee of Severn Trent Services.  An employee of a governmental entity does not have any exposure. 

            Mr. Hanks stated I suggest $1,000,000.

            Mr. Petty stated this is fairly standard in the contracts we sign.

            Mr. Fennell stated I rank them one and two as it stands.

            Mr. Hanks stated I rank McKune & Associates number one and IBI Group number two.

            Ms. Zich stated I agree.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor McKune & Associates was ranked number one to perform Capital Improvement Coordinator and IBI Group was ranked number two and staff was directed to negotiate a contract with McKune & Associates and bring to the Board for execution at the next meeting, subject to the firm carrying $1,000,000 in liability insurance.


FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                    Consideration of Resolution 2007-2 Amending the General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2006

            Mr. Petty stated this is a housekeeping matter brought to you by staff having to do with the monies received and expenditures thereof for the hurricane cleanup.  We are doing this is in conformance with our requirements for accounting. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what does this resolution say?

            Mr. Petty responded we are amending our revenue to correctly reflect monies brought in for handling hurricane issues and repairs and maintenance going out.  The budget was for $115,000 for repair and maintenance and we spent close to $2,000,000.   This properly reflects what we did in the budget.  We do this when you change the categories above what you approved in the budget.

            Mr. Fennell asked is this looking forwards or backwards?

            Ms. Larned responded it has already been done.  We are closing the books and in order to make sure we captured everything recorded throughout the year, we have to amend the budget.

            Mr. Lyles stated you need to conform your final budget for the past fiscal year to the reality of the receipts and expenditures.

            Ms. Larned stated your budget is a plan and as you go through the year, you have actuals.  As long as it within a certain range, you do not have to make any changes but at the end of the year, you have to go back and account for everything.  If it was not in accordance to the budget, you have to go back and amend the budget to what actually happened.

            Mr. Fennell asked what is the normal percentage range we are supposed to be within?

            Ms. Larned responded this is a large expense due to the hurricane.

            Ms. Zich asked did we receive any of this money back?

            Ms. Larned responded these are the revenues and expenditures.  You can never finish a year in a deficit position.  Therefore, we need to make an amendment to take into consideration any actions to bring the budget to zero or have a modest surplus.  During your budget process, anything with a large surplus is carried over into next fiscal year and treated accordingly.  If you have a deficit, we need to have a plan of action to file with the state stating this is how we are going to manage the resources for next year.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor Resolution 2007-2 Amending the General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2006 was adopted.


            Mr. Fennell asked what is the percentage difference we are supposed to adhere to?

            Ms. Larned responded zero or a surplus.  There is usually a tolerance range of 3% to 5%.  It is not as critical as if you were 10% or greater.

            Mr. Petty stated if you exceed a line item by a few percentage points, I am not going to bring it back to you.  However, if you exceed your totals in the fund by any amount, you must do an amendment.  As manager, we have the ability to move funds around.  If it is material, we still like to bring it to your attention.


FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                         Award of Contract for the Purchase of Light Trucks

            Mr. Petty stated we are happy to bring this item to you for consideration.  In the past we have been leasing our vehicles.  Every year the leasing costs seem to increase.  This year by purchasing them we expect to save close to 20%.

            Mr. Hanks asked how often will we need to purchase vehicles?

            Mr. Petty responded the lease period is three years or more.

            Mr. Hanks asked are we going to see this every two years?

            Mr. Petty responded we will get prices on an annual basis.  As long as the prices do not change we will stick with this contract for purchasing trucks.  However, as the leases expire, the vehicles are turned in and we will purchase trucks based on this bid. 

            Mr. Hanks asked is this going to save us money overall?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.

            Mr. Fennell stated you have two different bids; one from Plantation Ford and one from Maroone.

            Mr. Petty stated we are recommending award to Ford.

            Ms. Zich stated these are inexpensive trucks.

            Mr. Petty stated it turns out these trucks beat the state contract price.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the contract for the purchase of light trucks was awarded to Plantation Ford.


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

            Mr. McKune stated the hurricane debris removal contract is complete and we received money from NRCS.  The active contract with Stiles is for the removal of non-hurricane vegetation.  They completed most of the work to Mr. Randy Fredericks satisfaction as of last week but CH2M-Hill is in a position to sign off today.  We are still in the process of negotiating with the City of Coral Springs as to mitigation requirements and removal of additional trees. 

            Mr. Fennell asked how are we handling this going forward?

            Mr. McKune responded at the present time, Stiles has been stopped from doing additional work.

            Mr. Hanks asked have we received confirmation from the city that we are a utility and tree mitigation will be conducted on a one to one basis?

            Mr. Petty responded no.  We met with them this past week where we brought the matter up.  We found the city has no process to do the evaluation.  There is no form I can fill out or entity I can see.

            Mr. Hanks asked can Mr. Lyles write them a letter?

            Mr. Petty responded this is exactly what they suggested.

            Mr. Lyles stated after last month’s meeting, I contacted the City Attorney and let him know it was our position we are a utility by definition or standard.  I wanted to present this to them before they had any further staff discussion.  I have not heard any position from the city and was not aware of the meeting Mr. Petty just told us about.

            Mr. Petty stated it only happened last week and their staff was looking for direction from the City Attorney to allow them to treat us as a utility.  This was a short meeting.

            Mr. Lyles asked was a representative of the City Attorney’s office at this meeting?

            Mr. Petty responded no.  We spoke with Mr. Mark Westfall and the Public Works Director.  The City Attorney sent me a letter looking for a written presentation of why we think we should be considered a utility.

            Mr. Hanks asked Mr. Lyles, can you please write this letter?

            Mr. Lyles responded yes.

            Mr. Hanks stated this way we have it on file.

            Mr. Petty stated one issue brought up by Mr. Westfall who attended the last CDD meeting was if the city did consider us to be a utility, Broward County who has an exception in their ordinance countywide would claim jurisdiction and stop us.

            Mr. Hanks stated Broward County should not have anything to do with this.

            Mr. Petty stated the city’s ordinance mirrors the Broward County ordinance.

            Mr. Lyles stated Broward County does not have any jurisdiction over the city’s ordinance when it comes to this issue.

            Mr. Petty stated Broward County has no exception for a utility.

            Mr. Hanks stated it does not matter.

            Mr. Lyles stated they do not have jurisdiction to tell Coral Springs what it can and cannot accept from its ordinance.  The state is a different matter.  Cities cannot have an ordinance in conflict with the state statute. 

            Mr. Hanks asked do we have any outstanding permits?

            Mr. Petty responded no.  The only permit was for the ficus removal behind the Coral Square Mall, which was rejected because they needed more information.

            Mr. Hanks asked did we have a mitigation plan with the application?

            Mr. Petty responded no.  We do not know whether or not they will allow us to be called a utility so we are in a waiting mode.

            Mr. Hanks stated for any future permits into the City of Coral Springs, please put a plan in for one for one mitigation.  We are getting stonewalled by the city because we are not including a mitigation plan.  Do we need to have a position from the Board?  We have to abide by their tree protection order.  I wonder what harm is happening to the District in terms of political goodwill if we keep submitting permits not meeting the city’s requirements.

            Mr. Petty responded we will direct engineering staff to do this if this is the opinion of the Board.

            Mr. Fennell asked what is the proposal?

            Mr. Hanks responded any tree mitigation permits filed with the City of Coral Springs will have mitigation on a one for one basis.

            Mr. Fennell asked are we going to get them to do anything for us?

            Mr. Petty responded I do not think this is a problem.  I think it is a suggestion we go in there with a positive attitude saying we are a utility and provide a mitigation plan.  This is what has been suggested.  I do not have any problem doing this.  We were trying to keep things amenable and did not want to rub anyone the wrong way.  I do not know how you cannot consider us a utility.  If they do not want to call us a utility, I think this is a problem we are going to have to face harder than what we are trying to do.

            Mr. Hanks stated if we have mitigation out there based on one for one and they choose to reject the permit based on the proposed mitigation plan, then we have identified this as an issue and it gives Mr. Lyles an opportunity to resolve this matter.

            Mr. Lyles stated for the record and to make sure my direction is also clear, what I thought I heard Mr. Hanks say is he did not want to see the District submitting tree removal applications or plans unless those applications and plans are accompanied by a mitigation plan utilizing the one for one mechanism for utilities within the city of Coral Springs.  I thought he identified the problem areas by submitting a permit application with no mitigation.

            Mr. Hanks stated my understanding is we are submitting an application without a mitigation plan and they are being rejected by the city.

            Mr. Lyles stated the Board’s direction to staff is we cannot submit any applications for tree removal unless they are accompanied by a mitigation plan.

            Mr. Fennell stated up until now we have been trying to negotiate with the city to have them pay part of the mitigation costs.  Frankly, I do not think the city is coming up with any money.

            Mr. Hanks stated if we feel the engineer’s opinion is these trees present a hazard to the CSID drainage system, then get serious with the mitigation and tree applications.  How many meetings do we have lasting until 7 p.m. or later because we are stuck on tree mitigation?  I am getting sick of it.  If we are serious about getting rid of some of the nuisance trees, let’s get serious.

            Mr. Petty stated you are asking for staff to submit mitigation with the next application classifying us as a utility.

            Mr. Hanks stated correct.

            Mr. Fennell stated I still want to get the city to pay for some of the mitigation.  Do you need a proposal?

            Mr. Petty responded it would clear up a lot because we talked about the city paying for some of the mitigation or not paying for mitigation if it was a health safety and welfare issue, which is anything below top of bank.  This puts us in a positive step with the city by saying, “We acknowledge the mitigation requirements being a utility and will submit an application”.


On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor staff was directed not to submit any applications for tree removal unless they are accompanied by a mitigation plan and being designated a utility.


            Mr. Hanks asked is Mr. Lyles still going to write a letter to the city?

            Mr. Lyles responded absolutely.


SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                  Staff Reports

A.        Attorney

            Mr. Lyles stated based upon the authority you provided at your last meeting, we filed the bill with the Legislative Delegation.  It has been deemed to be complete and in order.  The next step is to schedule a public hearing in the next 60 days in Broward County.  I will notify the Board when the public hearing is scheduled for.  You are not required to be there but it may be a positive step if you are there.  Our bill is now in the pipeline.  Some items were discussed at the last meeting and we are satisfied with the necessary authority in our existing act to do short term financing.  Counsel for the Legislative Delegation suggested having a referendum for the voters within the District to approve this, assuming the Legislative Delegation approves the bill.  I tried to explain to him the whole idea was to avoid the expense and hassle of doing so.  If you think anyone has an objection to having a regular election and a more reasonable purchasing threshold and $200 increase in the compensation level after 32 years, I cannot imagine anyone is going to want to have a referendum.  It will be costly to do so at the District’s expense.  He is not speaking for anyone in particular and this was more in the nature of an update.  We are going to be prepared to talk about why we do not feel this is necessary or a good idea.

            Mr. Fennell asked was Ms. Stacy Ritter elected to the County Commission?

            Mr. Lyles responded yes.  I ran into her the day the bill was submitted and told her although it had taken awhile, we filed the bill to change the electoral process, with the Legislative Delegation’s assistance.  Now that the election is over, we are thinking about whether or not we want to ask Ms. Ritter for a letter of support.  We may or may not do this depending on how things go.  I think she would be happy to do so.

            Mr. Fennell asked did anyone new move into the area?

            Mr. Petty responded we have a new senator out of Parkland.  We asked him to come by and say hello.  We introduced ourselves and told him what we did and why and asked him if he would be favorable to CSID and any legislation. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we can tell him about our upcoming legislation.

            Mr. Petty stated Mr. Lyles has more than enough support to get it going. 

            Mr. Lyles stated we are now looking for sponsors since the election is over. 

            Mr. Petty stated I asked him where his office was.  He said his office was supposed to be at the City of Margate but it looked like they were going to renege.  If it is possible to make a local senator favorable towards the District, it will be a plus for us but I do not see anything foreseeable.

            Mr. Fennell stated the access to this place is not openly public and we are still unsecured, which is a negative.

B.        Engineer – Drainage System Study Update

            Mr. DaSilva stated Mr. Bohorguez provided a revised report on the hydrologic model to the Board.  This report shows our results and recommendations.

            Mr. Fennell stated you are up to the 72 hour event with 18.2” of rainfall and 9.5” of rainfall for the10 year event.

            Mr. Bohorguez stated I have a presentation showing the conditions 10 years ago when initial studies were done on how we can compare those studies to today’s conditions.  Mr. Fennell was asking about the rainfall and what-if scenarios.  I went to Broward County and requested an aerial from 10 years ago.  There was a great deal of construction taking place for area already developed.  The initial studies show the entire District divided into sections, independent from each other with one outfall coming down from the Sunshine WCD.  When these studies were completed it took the east and west basins into consideration plus Pump Station #1 and #2, each one with 150,000 gallons of water.  The initial studies show the 10 year flood elevation for the east basin at 10.8” and 11.5” for the 100 year storm.  For the west basin, the 10 year flood elevation is 9.8” and 11.1” for the 100 year flood elevation.

            Mr. Fennell asked for the original design?

            Mr. DaSilva responded not for the original design.  At the time, Gee & Jenson took the overall area and based on the assumption of what has been built and the projection on the land uses and came up with a model representing those numbers.  There was 50% or more existing area on the east basin, which is our target basin.

            Mr. Bohorguez stated the report shows the original land uses and storage functions used to develop the permit criteria.  In 1977, 1,700 acres were going to be dedicated for residential use, 377 acres were going to be used for business, public and parks and 105 acres were going to be dedicated for canals and lakes in the east basin.  It is important to note, 60% of the area had been slated for construction. 

            Mr. Hanks stated these are the areas of Oaks, Oakwood, Maplewood, Ramblewood and Shadowood. 

            Mr. DaSilva stated now we know why some of these roads are lower than others.  They were desired to be designed at the 10 year storm.  When we built the pump system, it created a higher water level but at the same time provided a pump system based on whatever capabilities we have for discharging to the C-14 Canal.

            Mr. Bohorguez stated in the west basin, the area for residential, business and parks and canals were much better compared to the east basin.

            Mr. Hanks stated when you are considering impervious area in the residential component; it will include driveways, roads and the building.  In most of the residential properties, there is 25% of impervious area.

            Mr. Petty stated there is medium density for a quarter acre lot.  Low density is the Ranches.

            Mr. Bohorguez stated I provided an apple to apple comparison from 1977 to today.  We thought about what Mr. Fennell asked regarding what happens with the rainfall intensities.  We used the SFWMD guidelines but Mr. Fennell suggested we use the Weather Bureau.  Back then there was the Weather Bureau, which then changed to the National Weather Service.  They provided this information.

            Mr. Hanks asked what is the current 100 year rainfall from SFWMD for this area?  Is it still 18.2”?

            Mr. DaSilva responded 18.2” is for the 100 year storm.

            Mr. Petty stated these estimates are for three days of rainfall.

            Mr. Fennell asked did NOAA say three days or one day?

            Mr. DaSilva responded four days.

            Mr. Bohorguez stated I have a copy of what they follow, which any engineering company or governmental entity has to follow.

            Mr. Petty stated the 10 year storm uses a 24 hour period measurement and the 100 year storm uses a four day period measure.  This is where we got confused. 

            Mr. Bohorguez stated in reality, this is between the three day and one day business commercial center, if you divide the three days by 1.359.

            Mr. Hanks stated these are all statistics.

            Mr. Fennell asked are you saying the data is the same as it was in 1977 as in 2006?

            Mr. Bohorguez responded yes.  There have been amendments to their guidelines. 

            Mr. DaSilva stated in 1966 there was a clinical paper about rainfall throughout the United States.  This is what SFWMD or any other entity was using.

            Mr. Petty stated earlier I said low density was the Ranches.  I was incorrect.  I am thinking of water use when we talk about low density. 

            Mr. Hanks stated for a 10,000 square foot lot, you are restricted to 2,500 square feet for your driveway, garage, home and patio.  How many homes are built to this level?

            Mr. Fennell responded probably most of them.  A typical house in those areas run anywhere from 2,200 to 2,500 square feet.

            Mr. Hanks stated under air, plus your garage, pool, patio and driveway.  From this standpoint, you are already pushing the limit. 

            Mr. Fennell stated this area is not as dense as some of the other housing areas.

            Mr. Bohorguez stated we came up with an average, much the same as in 1977.  The District is now all built-out.  In order to make a better study we could measure the east and west basins the same way but in the meantime, we can measure smaller subdivisions in order to find a better relationship between the impervious and pervious area for each subdivision; not for the entire District or the entire basin but piece by piece.  By having this information, we will know how much area was dedicated for lakes, how much belongs to the basin for the right-of-way for the roads, for the commercial and how much residential area we have.  The total area of the lakes and canals came up to 6% in comparison to the 4.4% we initially had for the east basin.

            Mr. Fennell stated we have 2% more lakes than we thought.

            Mr. Bohorguez stated we actually have 1.6% more. 

            Mr. Hanks stated developers may have dug those extra lakes to provide extra storage. 

            Mr. Fennell stated this could be good news.

            Mr. Bohorguez stated for the west basin, we ended up with 12%.

            Mr. Fennell asked what did we think it was going to be?

            Mr. Bohorguez responded 8.5%.

            Mr. Fennell stated due to Lake Coral Springs. 

            Mr. Bohorguez stated we have to consider the culverts and the canal as they are going to end up with 18” of water out of each section down to the pump station.

            Mr. Fennell stated all the different sides look like a needle effect.  It is nice to see this because it is a big part of the system.  Are the culverts the city’s responsibility?

            Mr. DaSilva responded no, our responsibility.

            Mr. Petty stated the large culvert going underneath the mall is ours.

            Mr. Bohorguez stated the wide lines are the pipes and the purple lines are the bridges.

            Mr. Frederick stated it does not tell you how many pipes are at a certain location.

            Mr. Fennell stated in regards to the existing condition map, if everything is working for the 100 year storm and there are no blockages, we will have a half of a foot of water in these areas.

            Mr. Hanks stated not in all areas. 

            Ms. Zich asked what does this mean?

            Mr. Fennell responded meaning anything over 12’ will flood.

            Ms. Zich stated where I live the elevation is 11.93.  What does this mean?

            Mr. Hanks responded your garage will be under water.

            Mr. Petty asked are the house pads built at elevation 12?

            Mr. Bohorguez responded most of them are.  On the old flood map, the minimum elevation was 11.5’.

            Mr. Petty stated from a land use point of view, you are saying the drainage system does not meet the 100 year four day classification and we are somewhere between 80 and 90 years.  Is this how you grade this system?

            Mr. Bohorguez responded the system is in a built-out situation.  It is not going to get any worse than this.

            Mr. Petty stated one of the reasons they tell you it is a 100 year four day storm event is to give you a certain amount of assurance.  If you live to be 100, you will probably be okay but if you live to 105, all bets are off.  If we do not meet the 100 year criteria, do we meet lesser criteria?  Can you classify this as an 80 year system?

            Mr. Bohorguez responded we have not classified it but we can look at where the 60 year event is.

            Mr. Fennell asked are you saying there are houses at elevation 11.5?

            Mr. Bohorguez responded yes.

            Mr. Hanks stated but you also have roads at elevation 11 and up.  The Coral Square Mall is at elevation 12.08.  What is the finished floor in this location?

            Mr. Bohorguez responded 13.5’.

            Mr. Fennell stated newer houses are a foot higher.  Two houses across from me were built significantly higher, to the point where they caused problems for their neighbors because the water drains off of their property onto theirs.

            Mr. Bohorguez stated most of the homes along there were at elevation 12.

            Mr. Hanks stated the purpose of this study is not intended to identify individual problems but identify certain issues where the flood elevations fall so we can make decisions as to what improvements if any, we need to make.

            Mr. Bohorguez stated there were situations in the east basin under the zero pump situation.  If I do not have any pumps, the entire basin is going to get flooded at an average elevation of 13.  If we only have one pump working, the average elevation is going to be 12.60.  If two pumps are working, we are going to get flooded at elevation 12.33.

            Mr. Hanks stated keep in mind in these scenarios you are dealing with a different rate above current than the 100 year storm.  Once you have a 100 year storm and failure of a pump, you are no longer dealing with a 100 year event.  You are dealing with something less likely.

            Mr. Fennell asked are you calculating these scenarios on the 100 year rainfall?

            Mr. Bohorguez responded yes.  If we have four pumps working, which we are capable of, we stay dry but this area will be flooded at an average elevation of 12.2.  If we have a blockage in a pipe, the area the pipe is located in is going to be flooded.  If the pipes under the mall get blocked, the top part will rise another six inches but the bottom will be raised less.

            Mr. Fennell stated it is up to the 13’ level.  There is no other way for the water to get out.

            Mr. Bohorguez stated one recommendation is to improve the pumping rate in the east basin.  A pipe could also be added to those flooded areas in the event a 100 year three day storm occurs.

            Mr. DaSilva stated the recommendation is to look at the District as a whole and add piping or borrow the capacity from the west basin into the east basin by using the additional pump at pump station #1.

            Mr. Fennell asked can we actually do this?

            Mr. DaSilva responded yes.  It is just a matter of permitting.  The capacity is the same whether we use it or not.  You cannot use three pumps on the west basin; you can only use two pumps.

            Mr. Hanks asked by re-allocating one of the pumps to the east basin, are the flood stages exceeded in the west basin?

            Mr. DaSilva responded by doing this, the average elevation came down to 12.05, which is less than an inch.  This would be a combination of adding a few pipes plus using the fourth pump.  By doing this, we can manage the 100 year storm much better.

            Mr. Fennell stated you just gave us the ability to think we can still meet our critiera by turning on two or three pumps and alleviating the problem.

            Mr. Hanks stated we still need to have these discussions with SFWMD.  If we were to go forward with an application to them, they would have the opportunity to ask for additional water quality treatments.  There are opportunities for SFWMD to change the terms and conditions of our operating permit if we were to file an application.

            Mr. DaSilva stated the west basin elevation is 11.4, but this is still under the 100 year event.

            Mr. Fennell stated this gave us an alternative that did not occur to us before.  I am happy to see this report.

            Mr. Hanks asked did you get a chance to run any of the scenarios for increases of storage in the east basin?

            Mr. DaSilva stated we were thinking about increasing the lake area but since we do not have this area, you are taking the canal from right-of-way to right-of-way.  We only have 8 to 9% of the bulk and need to obtain 11 or 12%.

            Mr. Fennell stated the recommendation is to set the maximum elevation at 12.05’.  However, we have places in the area which are at 11.5’.

            Mr. DaSilva stated if you have houses higher than elevation 12.05, we should be in good condition throughout the year.

            Mr. Fennell asked are 10 or 5,000 houses at 11.5’

            Mr. Petty stated we may not be able to fix them but we should know the extent.  We may decide to take more extraordinary means in order to resolve this issue.

            Mr. Hanks asked can we put something on the bills for residents to call in with their elevations?

            Mr. Petty stated there should be an insurance database we can get access to.

            Mr. Fennell stated another alternative is to pull 293 contacts from the county and look at the elevation of each of them.

            Mr. Petty stated you can look at the elevation of all houses built before 1977.

            Mr. DaSilva stated you can also look at each development.

            Mr. Fennell stated the sampling method of 200 to 300 homes will give you an accuracy of 5% of how many houses are below 11.5’.  Did you look at any possibilities for recommendations?

            Mr. DaSilva responded economically this makes sense.

            Mr. Fennell asked what about adding a pump to the right outfall canal?

            Mr. DaSilva responded because of the pipe downstream, you only benefit a small area.

            Mr. Hanks stated the entire area is designed to flow water from north to south.

            Mr. DaSilva stated pulling water from north to south causes the water to flow from bigger to smaller pipes and becomes a strain to the system.

            Mr. Fennell stated there is an outfall canal to the east.

            Mr. Petty stated since we have to pump everything out, you can pump in multiple pump stations.

            Mr. Hanks stated or you have to install uniform size culverts throughout.  The engineers are going to look into the storage requirements for re-development and put a revision into the permit criteria manual.

            Mr. Petty stated we will talk more about this next month.

            Mr. Hanks stated one way we can improve the flood protection is to implement into the Permit Criteria Manual stricter conditions for re-development to provide for additional storage.  In this way, the cost of providing the additional storage is on re-development and not on the District.  It is incremental as projects are re-developed.  We may want to re-look at what type of easement we have under the Coral Square Mall.

            Mr. Fennell stated there is another issue, which is the blockage issue. 

            Mr. DaSilva stated I have not seen any other situations. 

            Mr. Hanks stated if you shut off all the pumps, you are dealing with a no flow situation where you exceeded your predicted flood stages.  If you shut three pumps off, the flood elevation is incrementally higher.

            Mr. Fennell asked did you ever get the heights of the east outfall?

            Mr. DaSilva responded the water elevation on the east outfall canal is the same as the C-14 Canal, which is 6.5.

            Mr. Hanks stated the C-14 Canal fluctuates considerably.

            Mr. Fennell stated the problem was it can get above our level.

            Mr. DaSilva stated I looked at the historical numbers for the C-14 Canal and one time it got higher than 13’. 

            Mr. Fennell stated it happened in 1979.

            Mr. Brower stated I have seen the water even with the dyke and I have been here since 1974.

            Mr. DaSilva stated since then SFWMD added automatic shut offs.

            Mr. Fennell asked is the mile of canal bank we are missing a problem?

            Mr. DaSilva responded the surveyor did a survey of the east outfall canal.  We have an average of 12.5’.  There was one low point of elevation 11’.  The highest point is 18’.  There is a berm on the high side and the low side is flat to the water’s edge.  The elevation every 100’ is 12.5’.

            Mr. Hanks asked does it matter if you are up at 12’?

            Mr. Fennell responded it does if it the water level in the C-14 Canal is up.  When this happens, the water will backflow into our area. 

            Mr. DaSilva stated I feel the C-14 Canal operations dramatically improved since the 1979 storm event.  There have been augmentations to the gate.  The C-14 Canal stages have not been increasing more than 9’.

            Mr. Hanks stated I would like Mr. DaSilva to contact SFWMD and request a hydrologic model for the C-14 basin.  They should have predictions based on their capacity so we can find out the predicted stage at the 100 year event.  If the predicted stage at the 100 year is 11’ in the C-14 Canal and we are up at 12’, it makes absolutely no sense to fix the berm because this is our only outfall.  The question is how the C-14 stages correspond to ours.

            Mr. Fennell stated a more likely scenario is we are pumping at 10.5’ and they are up at 12’ flooding our area.  Have you done a model for Sunshine?

            Mr. DaSilva responded no, but we are on-site.

            Mr. Fennell stated besides the C-14 water going down there, all the water from the area north of us is coming down one canal.

            Mr. DaSilva stated I have a study on the C-14 basin showing the contributing areas for the C-14, including Sunshine, Coral Springs and Margate.

            Mr. Hanks stated you have to consider the C-14 elevations are at the C-14 level.  You have the hydrologic losses for 150,000 gallons per minute down the Sunshine WCD canal.  You are going to have a higher hydrologic grade line upstream on the east outfall canal than you will for the water surface in the C-14 Canal.

            Mr. Petty stated the Sunshine WCD east outfall is immensely oversized and is not sized to handle the pumpage requirement.  It was dug for fill and exceeded the requirement.  The head loss is still there but I think it is going to be minimal.  You certainly want to know the answer.

            Mr. Fennell stated if there is a hurricane coming from the east with a surge in front of it, the surge can be anywhere from 10’ to 20’ and fill up the intercoastal canal and all the tributaries.  In fact, there is going to be flooding towards US1.  This means we will have no outfall canal as long as the hurricane is on it.  As far as I know, they do not have the capability to pump against the ocean.

            Mr. Hanks stated which is why if you do a new project within SFWMD, you base your building pad on the 100 year zero discharge.  In some respects, if you are looking at this project from today’s perspective, we are considerably at an advantage because we are able to take the discharge into account.

            Mr. Fennell asked what is the normal height of the C-14 Canal?

            Mr. DaSilva responded I can look at the SFWMD hydrologic model.  As you go west from the outfall canal, the elevation is 12’ to 12.5’.  From top of bank is 13’. 

            Mr. Fennell stated around the corner is 11’.

            Mr. DaSilva stated the top of bank is actually higher.

            Mr. Fennell stated I think we have to be capable of taking whatever the C-14 Canal has.  We are currently a foot below them.  This is an excellent report and we want to continue this discussion at the next meeting.  This is the data we wanted to see.  I can draw two conclusions, one we have a flooding condition we need to watch out for and do something about and two, the top of berm is a problem, if not our most serious problem.

            Mr. Petty stated I think your most serious problem is the need to balance the system.

            Mr. Hanks asked is there any action or information you need from us as a Board to take away from this meeting?

            Mr. DaSilva responded yes, because at this point we just ran the scenarios.

            Mr. Fennell stated I want to see a scenario of what will happen if the C-14 Canal gets to the top of bank.  I have seen it and know it will happen.  What will happen to our homes?

            Mr. DaSilva responded we have a pump system.  If the C-14 Canal gets higher than 13.5’, the water can potentially go into other districts.

            Mr. Fennell stated I am concerned about the 11’ outfall.

            Mr. Petty stated we will try to quantify the 11’ versus the top of bank in regards to how far it goes.  Maybe the engineers can have a slide for the next meeting.

            Mr. Hanks asked are any of the adjacent communities built significantly higher than CSID such as Tamarac or Margate?

            Mr. DaSilva responded according to the 100 year map, Margate is 12’ and Tamarac is 13’; some sections are 11.5’, 10’ and 9.57.

            Mr. Fennell stated the canal banks on the east outfall canal are not equal.  It is only low on the north side.  The other side is high.

            Mr. Petty stated at this time, Mr. McKune will talk to you about the permit conditions for our contracts.

            Mr. McKune stated we are currently constructing the digester project.  In the process of doing so, we need quite a few permits from both the county and the City of Coral Springs.  We were in the process of obtaining all the permits we needed from the county and they came back with a new one we had not needed in the past.  We needed to re-design the outfall system going into our canal to meet the criteria for stormwater.  They were not concerned with the quantity or quality but with the location.  We finally agreed this was fine after fighting with them for a month.

            Mr. Petty stated this is nothing more than site drainage through the canal.  We checked with DEP to see if it had been validated by them and it has been.

            Mr. Fennell asked did we pass our own permitting criteria?

            Mr. Petty responded yes.

            Mr. Hanks asked does Broward County have jurisdiction on stormwater?

            Mr. Petty responded not according to Broward County but according to DEP.  They have a contract with Broward County for inspections.

            Mr. McKune stated this is a standard drainage permit application.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the drainage permit request from the county to re-design the outfall system going into the CSID canal to meet the criteria for stormwater was approved.


            C.        Manager

            i.          Discussion of Water and Sewer Rate Sufficiency

            ii.         Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

            iv.        Utility Billing Work Orders

            v.         Complaints Received/Resolved

            These items were tabled until the next meeting. 

                    Ratification of Engagement Letter with Keefe, McCullough

            Mr. Petty stated we have a multi-year contract for the audit with Keefe, McCullough who performed last year’s audit.  I gave them approval to perform this year’s audit.  Staff requested me to bring to you the engagement letter for ratification.

            Mr. Fennell stated I think they did a great job on the audit.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the engagement letter with Keefe, McCullough to perform the audit for fiscal year 2006 was ratified.


EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                     Supervisor Requests and Audience Comments

            There not being any, the next item followed.


NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                       Approval of September and October Financials and Check Registers


On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the check registers for the General Fund dated September 30, 2006 in the amount of $47,502.22 and October 31, 2006 in the amount of $1,040,429.74 and for the Water and Sewer Fund dated September 30, 2006 in the amount of $47,548.87 and October 31, 2006 in the amount of $1,463,531.08 were approved.


TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                       Adjournment

            There being no further business,


On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.






Sharon Zich                                                               Robert Fennell

Secretary                                                                   President