Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Stormwater_Tab 4_5/29/1996 , ----TT %� VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA �1 Post Office Box 3273 • 357 Tequesta Drive ?. ;• 0 ,,, f Tequesta,Florida 33469-0273 • (407)575-6200 •rs•:t.N.,,,e. Fax: (407)575-6203 ec N c-. N, VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA STORMWATER UTILITY BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 1996 • I . CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL The Tequesta Stormwater Utility Board held a meeting at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, Tequesta, Florida, on Monday, April 29, 1996. The meeting was called to order at 7 :00 P.M. by the Chairman, Mayor Ron T. Mackail . A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, Recording Secretary. Boardmembers present were: Mayor Ron T. Mackail, Vice Mayor Elizabeth A. Schauer, Joseph N. Capretta, Carl C. Hansen, and Michael R. Meder . Also in attendance were: Village Manager Thomas G. Bradford, Village Clerk Joann Manganiello, and Department Heads. II . APPROVAL OF AGENDA Boardmember Meder made a motion to approve the Agenda as submitted. Board ember Schauer seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for STORMWATER UTILITY BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 1996 PAGE 2 Elizabeth A Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for Michael R. Meder - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda was approved as submitted. III . COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS (NON-AGENDA ITEMS) There were no communications from citizens for non-agenda items. IV. PRESENTATION OF GEE & JENSON STORMWATER UTILITY RATE STUDY AND MASTER PLAN (Harry Benoit, P.B. , Gee L Jenson) and V. REVIEW OF PROPOSED FY 1996-1997 TEQUESTA STORMWATER UTILITY FISCAL YEAR BUDGET A) Operational Budget B) Capital Budget and VI . REVIEW OF PROPOSED TEQUESTA STOR VATER UTILITY NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT Ensuing discussion encompassed Agenda Items IV, V, and VI : Harry Benoit explained that the EPA, through its mandate to enforce the national Federal Clean Water Act, issued permits under the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) , and that he had attended meetings on behalf of the Village regarding a permit now in the process of being drafted by EPA which would be issued to Palm Beach County, and that all municipalities within the County would be required to abide by the requirements of that permit. Mr. Benoit commented that the municipalities' representatives had met and reviewed the permit, made criticisms and requested changes, and the permit was now being re-drafted. Mr. Benoit explained that the most efficient method of handling federal and state stormwater compliance was by establishing a STORMWATER UTILITY BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 1996 PAGE 3 stormwater utility, which were being set up all over the nation. Mr. Benoit reviewed several exhibits which were a part of the report prepared by Gee & Jenson showing how their proposed method of setting up a stormwater utility for the Village. Projected costs of operation included personnel requirements of a Stormwater Coordinator and a Field Technician, each of whom would devote 50% of their work to the Stormwater Utility and the other 50% to the Public Works Department. Other projected operational costs included equipment, building rent, computer software, and supplies, which would be shared with the Public Works Department. The second exhibit reviewed by Mr. Benoit was an Equivalent Residential Unit Analysis. Mr. Benoit explained that a study had been conducted to determine the best way to finance the Stormwater Utility, and that the only fair way to fund this type of system was from contributions by individual property owners. The premise used was that every developed property in the Village contributed to stormwater runoff within the Village, since stormwater runs off of all impervious surfaces--roofs, driveways, patios, etc. All tax records for the Village had been obtained from the County Tax Appraiser and the breakdown of impervious areas by real estate type had been analyzed. The real estate breakdowns used were Single Family Residential, Condominiums, Multi Family, Commercial, Commercial Parking Lots, Industrial, and Government/Public developments. An Equivalent Residential Unit had been defined as a 3, 576 square foot parcel, using the average impervious area for a single family residence, and the number of Equivalent Residential Units had been figured for each real estate category. A non ad valorem assessment for each parcel of land in the Village based upon the equivalent residential units of impervious area at each parcel was computed as the means for financing the stormwater utility. Residential units were classed as small, medium, or large, with different rates for those units within each classification. Medium sized units which equate to one equivalent residential unit consist of those parcels with impervious area within the range of one standard deviation STORMWATER UTILITY HOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 1996 • PAGE 4 either side of the average impervious area of all residential parcels. The majority of residential parcels fall within the medium size range. Mr. Benoit reviewed Exhibit 3, which showed the distribution of parcels by size of impervious area; and Exhibit 4, which showed the number of parcels in each size category and the number of equivalent residential units attributable to each category. Mr. Benoit explained that large parcels would be assessed at 1 .30 ERUs, twice the rate of 0.65 ERUs for small parcels, and medium parcels would be assessed at 1 ERU. Mr. Benoit reviewed Exhibit 5, which showed the projected annual income of the stormwater utility based on monthly ERU rates that varied from $3. 00 to $6.75 in 1997 and increased by 3% annually through the year 2001 . Mr. Benoit explained that Exhibit 6 illustrated the following scenarios and the assessment rates for each: (1) With no initial seed capital, the monthly rate covering utility costs and leaving an annual contingency surplus of approximately 5% of costs would be $5. 12. (2) With $50, 000 initial seed capital, the monthly rate covering utility costs and leaving 5% contingency surplus would be $4 . 88. (3) With $100, 000 initial seed capital, the monthly rate covering utility costs and leaving 5% contingency surplus would be $4 .60. Mr. Benoit explained that he favored the scenario with no initial seed capital so that there would not be a sharp jump in rates at the end of the first five years, as had happened in West Palm Beach. Boardmember Meder requested addresses for each size residential parcel, which Mr. Benoit agreed to provide. Village Manager Bradford responded to Boardmember Meder that approximately $100,000 was appropriated in the current budget for stormwater drainage projects--$40,000 for projects and $60,000 for debt service. Mr. Preston commented that additional project requests were usually presented later in STORMIATER UTILITY BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 1996 PAGE 5 the year. Boardmember Meder questioned the scope of the projects shown in Exhibit 2. Village Manager Bradford explained that the Shay Place project would run from the cul- de-sac at the western end of Shay Place and would tie into a proposed drainage line on Seabrook. The Village Manager explained that the Country Club Drive drainage project would tie Tequesta Circle into a drainage system which ended just to the north of the Country Club parking lot; and the Tequesta Drive drainage project would divert water from the Village Hall area and north of Tequesta Drive west along Tequesta Drive to the bridge as opposed to south into Dover Ditch, and was a stand-alone project for which funding had been requested from EEMA. Boardmember Meder questioned other drainage projects which were not listed. Village Manager Bradford responded that staff was in the process of preparing a list for approval of drainage related projects which could total $500,000 which would be proposed for construction this coming summer, using existing funds. Village Manager Bradford explained that he believed $400, 000 was available, however, recommended against using that much since it would make reserves too low. The Village Manager explained that the Seabrook project would definitely be done in order to have a pipeline to tie other drainage projects into, and it was not shown in this presentation because it was not proposed to be placed within the stormwater utility, since the utility would not formally be started until 10/1/96, by which time the project was expected to be completed. Village Manager Bradford explained that it was believed the preferable method of placing the main along Seabrook would be to run it north of the park, north to Westwood Avenue at Tequesta Gardens where a drainage inlet was needed and cross at that point and go north along Seabrook and allow Shay Place to tie into the back berm. Mr. Oslund explained that another scenario would be to let the pipe continue up the west side all the way up Seabrook to the south section of Shay Place and then "T" the pipes across the road at four different places. Boardmember Meder commented that South Riverside Drive was not mentioned in the report, and that there was still significant flooding at that location just north of the Jupiter line. Mr. Preston responded that the cost for that project was estimated at $81, 000 and was STORMWATER UTILITY BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 1996 PAGE 6 proposed for FY 1998; however, if it could be done at the present time the cost would be approximately $75, 000, and would provide drainage, an overlay for the road, and a new sidewalk. Mr. Oslund explained that Jupiter was in final design stages for Riverside Drive and was planning to rebuild Riverside Drive and to add bike paths and sidewalks, which Tequesta might want to continue and in order to do so would • need to revisit the budgeted figures. Boardmember Meder suggested that a figure for budget purposes and a place holder be added to this chart, to which Village Manager Bradford agreed. Boardmember Meder inquired about South Cypress Drive, where serious flooding had occurred in March, and suggested that something be done for the business district. Village Manager Bradford responded to Boardmember Capretta that the total for all needed projects was estimated at approximately $500, 000, excluding Riverside Drive and Cypress Drive. Mr. Preston stated one item which had not been addressed was dredging of Dover Ditch which was estimated at approximately $110, 000. The second project was replacing drainage pipes on Seabrook Road south of Tequesta Drive, four roadways would have to be repaired: Beacon Street, Church, Franklin, and the crossing on Seabrook Road right at Dover Ditch. Mr. Preston explained that FEMA had estimated $100, 000 for this project. The third project was Shay Place drainage from the cul-de-sac to Seabrook Road, which was estimated to cost approximately $40, 000. Another project was Seabrook Road north of Tequesta Drive for both drainage and streetscape, estimated at approximately $230, 000. The streetscape would not come out of the stormwater utility budget. Boardmember Capretta verified that the projects under discussion to be accomplished during the summer of 1996 had already been approved and would have been done whether or not a Stormwater Utility had been established; and stated that because the purpose of tonight's meeting was to set a tax rate, which could not be decided until it was determined what projects were going to be done, that only those projects not included in the list to be accomplished during the summer STORMWATER UTILITY BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 1996 PAGE 7 should be under discussion. Mr. Preston explained that certain projects needed to be completed before the Stormwater Utility began on October 1, 1996, for which it was hoped there was enough in the Undesignated Funds account; and that the Stormwater Utility would then accomplish one project per year. Boardmember Meder suggested a bond if additional funds were needed for the summer projects, and also so that many projects which had waited years to be done could be completed. Village Manager Bradford commented that the Cypress Drive project mentioned earlier by Boardmember Meder would cost approximately $1. 5 million, and that the Tequesta business people were holding up that project since they did not want to participate in the project because of the assessments they would have to pay. Village Manager Bradford explained that was a separate project under Northern Palm Beach County Water Control District and the problem which would be corrected by the Cypress Drive project was ponding on the Tequesta side of the Village boundary line, which the Board could decide to be done through the Stormwater Utility if they desired, but it would have to drain into Dover Ditch, and did not need to be taken on by the Stormwater Utility since it would be handled by another government agency. Boardmember Meder inquired whether ponding problems on Dover Road and Jupiter in the Pines were listed as a project, to which Mr. Preston responded that the pipes for Dover Road were in fine condition and that once Dover Ditch was resolved there would be no problems on Dover Road and Dover Circle. Boardmember Hansen inquired whether there was any connection between local municipalities' stormwater utilities and ENCON, whose mandate and charter was for stormwater, and who had experts in this field who might provide overall guidance. Village Manager Bradford responded that currently there was no connection, however, ENCON's charter did give them the right to be involved in stormwater management, and could perform the work proposed in the Gee and Jenson report. Village Manager Bradford explained that when the stormwater utility ordinance was passed 3-4 years ago that the Village Council at that time had passed the ordinance because of STORMWATER UTILITY BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 1996 PAGE 8 their position that it would be better for Tequesta to have control, so the ordinance had been passed in order to show ENCON that intent. The Village Manager explained that the relationship between ENCON and the Stormwater Utility could be whatever the Board decided, and that could be explored in an upcoming meeting with ENCON Boardmember George Gentile, Mayor Mackail, and Village Manager Bradford. The Village Manager commented that there was a direct relationship between three types of water--raw water which ended up as potable water, sewer water, and stormwater runoff, and whoever was in control of those three was the most important aspect, particularly in a municipality located on peninsulas surrounded by salt water. Village Manager Bradford responded to Mr. Hansen that the Village could ask ENCON for technical assistance to back up advice from the consultants. Boardmember Capretta commented that the Village could also ask ENCON for money, and that their original charter was only to handle stormwater, and they could be asked to handle projects such as Dover Ditch and C-18 Canal, which would reduce pollution in the river by a much higher percentage than replacing septic tanks, and would cost much less. Boardmember Capretta commented that consideration must be given to the question of whether the Village was willing to invite ENCON to participate, since it would open Pandora's Box, and the Village would lose control . Boardmember Hansen questioned whether the Village had been impacted negatively because the Country Club had turned down their project. Mr. Preston explained that the Village was in no worse a position than before the project was conceived, however, if the Country Club had agreed to install the ponds that would have helped the Village a great deal, and would have been a major expansion of the Village system without cost to the Village since FEMA would have paid for the project. Boardmember Hansen questioned whether Tequesta would be sweeping streets. Village Manager Bradford responded that it was an NPDES requirement that the Village establish a street sweeping program, which was an example where ENCON' s STORMWAT'ER UTILITY BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 1996 PAGE 9 participation could be an asset, since ENCON could purchase a street sweeper (which would cost $80,000 - $90,000) and could contract it out to several local municipalities, thereby relieving each municipality of the expense of purchasing their own sweepers. Village Manager Bradford explained that the Village would have to contract privately for this service, and that the streets were required to be swept whether or not they were curbed. Boardmember Capretta discussed the retention ponds which were rejected by the Country Club, and pointed out that most of the water runoff into the Country Club came from undeveloped Dorner land, and questioned whether the Dorner Trust could be required to install ponds to prevent that before the land was developed. Mr. Oslund responded that it was difficult to force someone to do anything when the land was in its natural state, but they could be forced to do something when the land became impervious. Boardmember Capretta commented that the No. 7 pond, which held IQ water on the golf course, had flooded during the last storm and that the Country Club should be required to build the banks higher on their pond. Mr. Oslund explained that the Country Club had discussed a berm to prevent overflow. Boardmember Capretta discussed the scope of the Stormwater Utility, which was a taxing authority to raise money, but also would have personnel and equipment. Village Manager Bradford explained that projects would still be contracted out, but would be funded differently, and a current field technician would devote 50% of their =ime to the stormwater utility in the beginning. Only the Stormwater Utility Coordinator would be hired, and the Coordinator's time would be divided equally between the Stormwater Utility and the Public Works Department. Boardmember Capretta discussed whether initial seed money was needed. Village Manager Bradford commented that he favored seed money because projects always came up that must be fixed. Mr. Benoit explained that the $5. 12 rate he had suggested for 1997 would cover the total utility costs including all of the personnel, equipment, and a $40, 000 STORM/ATER UTILITY BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 1996 PAGE 10 capital improvement project. Boardmember Capretta questioned whether that rate with no seed money would cover startup costs and five projects over a 5-year term, to which Mr. Benoit responded that was correct. Boardmember Capretta expressed his opinion that not enough money had been included for projects, and possibly should have more money in the early years of the utility, because too little had been spent in the past. Boardmember Schauer questioned who would do water sampling, to which Mr. Preston responded that was a requirement of the NPDES and would be contracted out. Boardmember Schauer questioned the item of building rent, which was explained as representing a work space for the Stormwater Utility Coordinator, since there was no more work space available in the Village facilities. Boardmember Schauer questioned the equipment included in the $14, 000 allotted for the first three years of the Utility, to which the response was that money would be used for items such as edgers, weed eaters, sprayers, suction pumps, etc. , and that amount was considered sufficient, since suction pumps were long-term equipment items. Boardmember Schauer questioned whether each individual commercial development would need to be physically reassessed in order to determine its Equivalent Residential Unit status, to which Mr. Benoit responded that would be done through County records, and agreed that commercial parking lots were bigger polluters than residential properties. Mr. Benoit explained that a differential rate had not been considered for commercial parking lots, but that the total impervious area of the parcel would be equal to a specific number of equivalent residental units, and the rate would be multiplied by that number to arrive at the monthly amount that parcel would pay. Boardmember Hansen inquired regarding rates set by other municipalities, to which Mr. Benoit responded that Delray Beach had a rate of $4.50 per month and did not differentiate between small, medium, and large residential properties, and included trailers as one Equivalent Residential Unit. Mr. STORMWATER UTILITY BOARD MZETING MIN 7rZS APRIL 29, 1996 PAGE 11 Benoit explained that Jupiter's rate was $2.28 per month initially to cover only the cost of NPDES monitoring, paperwork, regulatory work, and some minor maintenance of existing infrastructure, and Jupiter anticipated doubling that rate in the near future. The West Palm Beach rate of $3.00 was anticipated to jump to $4 .50 and then to gradually rise to over $8.00 in ten years. Mr. Benoit advised against a low rate which would need to be increased dramatically. Boardmember Capretta expressed concern that 3/4 of the $200,000 annual estimated expenditure was for overhead, to which Mr. Benoit responded that was not completely true since $10,000 was included for current maintenance and $60, 000 was included for debt service on existing debt. Boardmember Capretta stated he was concerned that the project money was inadequate. Village Manager Bradford explained that funding for drainage projects was now handled by either (1) budgeting, (2) bonding, or (3) using undesignated reserve funds. The Village Manager explained that in the initial years of the Stormwater Utility it was very likely that unanticipated projects would arise and money would have to be taken from the general fund in order to keep the rate palatable for residents. Boardmember Meder suggested that all the small items which were anticipated to total approximately $100, 000 annually be contracted out if that would cost less, and the savings be added to capital projects. Village Manager Bradford agreed that could be considered, but explained that some field work would be difficult to contract out, since the contractor might not be available in emergency situations such as pre-storm activities, and there were also conditions which must be learned. Boardmember Capretta pointed out that the Village budget would benefit from the Stormwater Utility since drainage projects would no longer be funded from the general fund. Village Manager Bradford explained that the direct reduction in the general fund would be the total of 50% of the field technician's salary, storm sewer preventative maintenance, and bond debt service. Chairman Mackail questioned whether the NPDES program was the STOR)!ATER UTILITY BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 1996 PAGE 12 result of an amendment to the Clean Water Act. Mr. Benoit explained that the NPDES system was EPA's way of enforcing the Clean Water Act. Chairman Mackail expressed his belief that this had been an amendment which brought a federally unfunded mandate to local jurisdictions. Chairman Mackail identified various studies currently in process by different governmental agencies and expressed concern that with EPA involvement and monitoring, that both regulations and costs would increase for local municipalities. Chairman Mackail suggested prioritizing projects to be sure funding was available, and commented that the Board must recognize that costs over the next ten years could increase to millions of dollars and must take a realistic approach in planning rather than changing the rates each year. Chairman Mackail favored seed money, and commented that financing for future years would be critical to the Village. Mr. Benoit commented that he had not anticipated this reaction, and could not predict requirements for the Village under the permit which would be granted to the County, but if the Board believed more money should be added for capital improvements that other alternatives could be considered such as a higher rate, a bond issue, etc. Chairman Mackail questioned the lack of a prioritized list of projects, to which Mr. Benoit responded that in the process of developing the report several projects which had originally been placed into the Stormwater Utility had been eliminated since it had been determined that they could be completed during the summer. Mr. Benoit responded to Chairman Mackail that the report did not deal with potable water for the urban water supply requirements under NPDES. Mr. Preston commented that all of the EPA documents were intended to assure that the water was cleaner. Chairman Mackail inquired whether interlocal agreements were addressed, to which Mr. Preston responded there was nothing under NPDES which provided for interlocal agreements. Chairman Mackail stated that this was a mandate with no funding mechanism and no interlocal agreement mechanism between municipalities, and that must be addressed. Mr. Benoit commented that in all of the meetings he had attended regarding redrafts of the permit, people felt that funding should be by the federal government, and redrafts had deleted many of the requirements from the federal government. STORM/ATER UTILITY BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 1996 PAGE 13 Boardmember Capretta commented that the plan was to divert all drainage into the river, however, ways to prevent pollution of the river were also being pursued, which could only lead to a requirement that all runoff be treated before it could be put into the river. Boardmember Capretta expressed the opinion that ENCON should be very interested in coming up with a program to help the Village find a way to clean the water before it got to the river, since their IQ water also polluted the river. Village Manager Bradford explained that the $60, 000 debt service amount resulted from the original 1979 bond debt of $550,000. Boardmember Capretta suggested that $100, 000 could be borrowed to complete projects which could not wait, and the $60, 000 annual debt service would only increase by approximately $12,000. This strategy would let residents see that problems which had existed for years were fixed, and they would feel that the $5.12 they were paying each month was accomplishing something. Mr. Oslund commented that a decision must be made regarding which projects had highest priority. Village Manager Bradford explained that budget meetings had taken place and that the priority list for summer of 1996 projects would be presented to Public Works for approval during May. Following that meeting, another meeting of the Stormwater Utility Board would be held to consider that prioritized list. The Village Manager explained that tonight's meeting should provide direction regarding general philosophy. Discussion ensued regarding the undesignated fund balance available for summer projects. Chairman Mackail called for communications from citizens for agenda items. Tom Little, 486 Dover Road, stated that although he had signed in to speak on agenda items IV, V and VI, that he would only address item VI . Mr. Little favored a motion to keep ENCON out, so that the Village would retain control. Mr. Little provided a history of the beginning of ENCON, and explained that the government had required them to show that they could run a sewage system, and their intent had always been to get rid of septic tanks. Mr. Little objected to the number of studies conducted. Mr. Little STORMWATER UTILITY HOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 1996 PAGE 14 questioned whether ENCON could object to drainage containing trash going into the river. Village Manager Bradford responded that if they could stop the drainage into the river if they wanted to. Mr. Little stated his questions regarding Stormwater Utility costs had been answered. Mr. Little predicted that once Dover Ditch had been cleared out that it would be able to handle an astounding amount of water, and related that the October storm had been the first time water had entered his house and garage in 33 years. Mr. Little expressed his opinion that if Dover Ditch were cleared and all underground mains were flushed that every lateral connecting to the mains on Tequesta Drive would contribute a large amount of water which would flow to the river. Mr. Little discussed a Palm Beach Post article dated April 27 regarding the Clean Water Act, and urged the Village to do something quickly to handle items such as treatment of surface drainage water before the state or federal government decided to step in. VII. ANT OTHER MATTERS Al Oslund, Gee & Jenson, explained that Exhibit #1 containing the rates and costs for the Stormwater Utility needed to be finalized so that the total of $165, 900 would not change since that would affect the rate. Village Manager Bradford explained that a standard practice in utilities owned by municipalities was for the general fund to charge the utility an administrative service or administrative management fee for the work associated with operating and overseeing the utility. Boardmember Capretta expressed the opinion that the Board accepted the figures in Exhibit #1 except the $50, 000 for capital, therefore, the major projects which needed to be accomplished immediately must be listed, and the Village Manager must advise the Board as to the amount of money available to fund them, which if insufficient, would necessitate borrowing and raising the annual debt service amount. Discussion ensued regarding what should be fixed immediately. Mr. Oslund advised that a number must be arrived at for planning purposes. Chairman Mackail commented that he wanted to be shown a list of projects which must be STORMWATER UTILITY BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 1996 PAGE 15 accomplished, prioritized according to need, and their cost, so that he could make a decision; but he did not want to have to set priorities himself. In response to Boardmember Meder' s question regarding how much debt service and other operating costs would go up if capital projects were increased to $500, 000, Mr. Oslund stated that they would increase but would not double, since much of the $500,000 was construction costs and the administrative costs would usually be 10% or 15% for engineering. Mr. Oslund expressed concern regarding the time frame needed to get Public Works Committee approval for a prioritized project list. Village Manager Bradford advised that the Public Works Committee would meet on or about May 20, and the Stormwater Utility Board would meet before the end of May. Village Manager Bradford commented that timing would be sufficient unless any of the Boardmembers had other projects in mind that staff did not know about. Boardmember Meder requested a list of the projects from staff, with each project defined as to what would be done, the cost, and the length of time for completion. Boardmember Meder expressed his opinion that the Stormwater Utility Board needed to be involved in prioritization of the list. Boardmember Schauer inquired whether Fairway East would be done, to which Mr. Preston responded that was on the list. Village Manager Bradford explained that project would come before the Village Council at their May 9 meeting for approval because that pipe should go in before Hardrives repaired the road under the FEMA project. Boardmember Hansen commented there was an approximately 40- page report from Mr. Preston that had not been addressed, which indicated that the Village was entering into a time of bureaucracy, and that administrative costs would increase with many more forms to be filled out, and the Village must be prepared. Mr. Oslund stated this was only the beginning, and probably in 3 to 5 years stormwater being discharged into the Loxahatchee River would require treatment. Village Manager Bradford stated that every gallon discharged into the river was a gallon lost to the aquifer. STORMWATER UTILITY BOARD MEETING MINUTES APRIL 29, 1996 PAGE 16 XII . ADJOURNMENT Boardmember Hansen moved that the meeting be adjourned. Boardmeaber Schauer seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Ron T. Mackail - for Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Carl C. Hansen - for Michael R. Meder - for the motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Betty Laur Recording Secretary ATTEST: Joann Manganiello Village Clerk DATE APPROVED: