Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDocumentation_Regular_Tab 6H_6/12/1997 � I N • wyr v'G 'F Tf•Gf >#� s, VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA 9 ,�� ` I/11,1 Yost Office Box 3273 • 357 'Tequesta Drive 1� Tequesta. I'loticla 33°i69-0273 • (;(�l) 57�-62(Nt 1 i c; h Fax: (56 1) 375 CZ03 4� 4C COU Sy VILLAGE OF TEQUESTA STORMWATER UTILITY BOARD • MEETING MINUTES MAY 27, 1997 • • I. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL • The Tequesta Village Council held a meeting sitting as the Stormwater Utility Board at the Village Hall, 357 Tequesta Drive, ! Tequesta, Florida, on Tuesday, May 27, 1997 . The meeting was called to order at 7 : 02 .P.M. by Mayor Elizabeth A. • Schauer. A roll call was taken by Betty Laur, Recording Secretary. Councilmembers present were: Mayor Elizabeth A. Schauer, Vice Mayor Carl C. Hansen„ Joseph N. Capretta, and Ron T. iMackail. Also in attendance were: Village Clerk Joann Manganiello, Village Manager Thomas G. Bradford, and Department Heads. Councilmember Alexander W. Cameron was absent : from the meeting. II. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor Schauer requested the addition under ANY OTHER MATTERS of a report on the Indiantown Bridge Task Force meeting. Vice Mayor Hansen made a motion to approve the Agenda as amended. Councilmember Mackail seconded the motion. The vote on theimotion was: • Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Carl C. Hansen - for ' `d Stormwater Utility Board Meeting Minutes May 27, 1997 Page 2 Joseph N. Capretta - for Ron T. Mackail - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted and the Agenda was approved as amended. III. COMMUNICATIONS FROM CITIZENS (NON-AGENDA ITEMS) • There were no communications from citizens. • IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES & REPORTS A) Stormwater Utility Board; April 28, 1997 Councilmember Mackail made a motion to approve 'the minutes for the Stormwater Utility Board meeting of April 28, 1997 as submitted. Vice Mayor Hansen seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Carl C. Hansen - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Ron T. Mackail - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. V. REVIEW OF PROPOSED TEQUESTA STORMWATER UTILITY FISCAL YEAR BUDGETS A) OPERATIONAL. BUDGET Village Manager Bradford explained that the operational budget presented was, a preliminary budget which had been reviewed once by Mr. Bradford during Mr. Preston' s budget review. A second review would be done in approximately two weeks . The proposed annual budget was presently $224, 800, including capital projects. This very basic operational budget provided for one-half of the v , Stormwater Utility Board Meeting Minutes May 27, 1997 Page 3 coordinator for the Stormwater Utility and capital projects cost and one-half of the cost of an equipment operator as well as typical benefits and operational expenses . Drainage maintenance had been increased from $12, 500 to $15, 000 for next year. $12, 000 was allotted for contractual services for drainage repairs for next year. Village Manager Bradford stated those were the main changes contemplated in this budget, however, this Could be altered somewhat before the July budget workshops. Vice Mayor Hansen made a motion to approve the Operational Budget for the Stormwater Utility Fiscal Year 1997/1998. Councilmember Mackail seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Carl C. Hansen - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Ron T. Mackail - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. B. Capital Budget Village Manager Bradford referred to a spreadsheet showing the rate for the current year and ten years into the future to the year 2007 . A separate spreadsheet at the bottom showed a 10-year Capital Improvement Program. The proposed 10-year expenditures capital outlay across the board matched each year in the 10-year Capital Improvement Program. At the last meeting the Stormwater Utility Board had directed staff .to report what they would do differently in terms of capital projects if Money were no object. Councilmember Capretta had expressed the opinion that perhaps not enough improvements were being done fast enough which was due to not wanting residents to be overburdened with fees associated with improvements. Mr. Bradford reported that he, Mr. Oslund, and Mr. Preston had gone over all the different projects they were aware of and established priorities for those projects. Mr. Bradford stated that he would make one change on the 10-Year Capital Stormwater Utility Board Meeting Minutes May 27, 1997 Page 4 Improvement Program spreadsheet, to move the $15, 000 for a Drainage Study from FY 1999 to FY 1998 . Village Manager Bradford reviewed the proposed projects as listed in the 10-Year Capital Improvement Program: 1 . FY98 : Seabrook Road Drainage Repair . $54, 000 This project was given highest priority since it was a collapsing situation. 2 . FY99 : Fairview East Drainage Modification $90, 000 Water which builds up in the Fairview East area/Yacht Club Place/Country Club Drive would be diverted from the golf course pond where it now drains . 3. FY00 : Golfview Drive Drainage Modification $50, 000 Alteration of the height or level of the inlet at the same golf course pond. 4 . FY00 : Country Club Drive Drainage Expansion (Tequesta Circle to 215 Country Club Drive) $48, 000 This project would extend from the northern extreme of the Country Club parking lot to Tequesta Circle. This would provide extra outflow for this area where there was standing water from time to time. Village Manager Bradford explained that the Video Drainage System to begin FY00 and the Drainage Study to begin FY99 (or possibly FY98) had been added subsequent to the direction regarding what would be done if money were no object. The drainage study would be done to determine the level of service standards for drainage in individual communities which pre-dated the level of service requirements of SFWMD. The level of Stormwater Utility Board Meeting Minutes May 27, 1997 Page 5 service needed to be known in order to compare it to the adopted level of service of the Stormwater Utility. Mayor Schauer questioned what would be done to improve the drainage at the intersection of Willow Road and Tequesta Drive. Village Manager Bradford explained that the improvements to Cypress Drive drainage would dramatically improve drainage at that intersection. Mayor Schauer questioned Beach Road drainage, to which the Village Manager responded that Beach Road was a County right-of-way for which the County was responsible, that Beach Road had a very good swale system, and that the private property owners were responsible for meeting certain drainage requirements on-site, as were all property owners.' Additionally, no drainage problems were known on Beach Road at this time. Village Manager Bradford explained that beginning in FY 2000, for the next three years it was proposed to spend $10, 000 annually to video the drainage system. This would tell the exact condition of the drainage system, which was the best way to determine condition other than a person going to the site to view the condition. 5. FY01 : Bridge Road Drainage Improvement $90, 000 Village Manager Bradford explained that Bridge Road had absolutely no drainage system at the present time. 6. FY02 : Riverside Drive Drainage Improvement $85, 000 7 . FY03: North Dover Road Drainage Improvement $$100, 000 Stormwater Utility Board Meeting Minutes May 27, 1997 Page 6 Village Manager Bradford explained that the Swale Reshape slated for FY04 was so that the soil would percolate the runoff and a system would be designed that would be contoured between the sidewalk and the edge of •the pavement to capture water based upon a certain design criteria, and with absorption dissipation, of the standing water would occur. Over time, grasses would grow far above the original design criteria for handling the runoff and the soil would become compacted.. Therefore, the efficiency of the original system would become impaired. To correct this, the swale area would be scarfed off, the soil would be dug out and replaced with fresh soil and resodded with grass back to the original design criteria in terms of angle and depth, so that it would function again. Village Manager Bradford stated this process needed to be done on a systematic basis town-wide in order to improve the sodded rights-of-ways . $50, 000 annually was estimated to accomplish this on a Village-wide basis . The other addition, pipe replacement, would replace piping installed around 1979 which was not a part of the areas improved. It was proposed to being a replacement process in FY04 at $50, 000 per year. A product called Instupipe could be used which was a vinyl or rubberized product slipped inside existing pipes and expanded to form a hard-case shell inside the pipes. This product was cheaper than replacing pipes and would allow for less disruption on. Village streets. Mr. Bradford explained that these changes would alter the rates beginning in FY99, and that moving projects forward or adding projects the rate would be affected in the year those projects were placed. Councilmember Capretta questioned the alternates shown on the spreadsheet. Village Manager Bradford responded that Mr. Oslund had prepared alternative rate choices to raise the 'money necessary to meet expenditure levels. Councilmember Capretta stated that he thought the plan presented was reasonable, Stormwater Utility Board Meeting Minutes May 27, 1997 Page 7 since for $517, 000 over six years, seven major projects would be implemented, which would basically solve the known stormwater problems. The pipe replacement and the swale replacement programs would maintain the system. The rate would slowly rise, without any sudden dramatic change to impact i residents . Councilmember Mackail commented that initially the Board had taken a conservative approach to identify projects, and the increases needed to institute the program now proposed were not dramatic, major concerns were addressed in a six-year period, and Tequesta' s rate was not high or low compared with rates in nearby municipalities . Councilmember Mackail questioned whether the Village had taken steps to work with other municipalities to combine resources, such as street sweeping equipment. Mr. Oslund explained that he had recently obtained the NPDES permit and was anticipating working with Jupiter, Northern Palm Beach County Improvement District, and ENCON. Councilmember Mackail commented that Palm Beach County was planning a program also. Mr. Oslund explained that street sweeping would be required only where there was curb and gutter, and that those services would be contracted. Mr. Oslund explained that Jupiter was in the process of revising their Stormwater Utility rate, and that they did have a CPI percentage built into their rate. Mr. Oslund speculated that for service provided versus size of the town, Tequesta was probably in better shape that Jupiter. Vice Mayor Hansen commented that new driveways had been installed that were reshaped to the point that there would be a dip upon entering, and the lawn on either side did not correspond to that. Village Manager Bradford explained that when people did major alterations to their driveways, the Village had driveway permitting reviewed by the Stormwater Utility Coordinator. Where he believed it was appropriate in order to improve drainage or eliminate standing water, he. had been requiring homeowners to modify their property to accommodate r Stormwater Utility Board Meeting Minutes May 27, 1997 Page 8 a swale. Therefore, swale reshaping had been instituted on a piecemeal basis since fall of 1996. During ensuing discussion, Mr. Oslund explained that in areas with no swales this was intended to eventually solve the water problems . Mr. Oslund commented that there was supposed to be a swale in the Country Club for water retention. The goal was to get driveways into shape so that if and when ENCON came through, they would have the opportunity to tie them in. Councilmember Mackail commented that complaints had been heard from residents regarding severe dips in their driveways . Mr. Oslund explained that the requirement was a '1-foot drop from the edge of the pavement at a minimum of four feet off the edge of the pavement, and that there was a maximum also. In the cases Mr. Oslund had seen, the contractor had chosen to place the foot drop at the minimum of four feet, causing a severe drop. Mr. Oslund explained that if a longer distance had been used that the drop would have been much less severe. Mr. Oslund stated that each property needed to be individually assessed, and that Tequesta was actually allowing a less severe dip than the one-foot required by SFWMD. Mr. Bradford stated that every home had a different elevation, therefore it would be impossible to have a consistent Village-wide policy. Councilmember Capretta stated that Building Official Scott D. Ladd and his people who gave out building permits must be aware that on every individual building permit the goal is to minimize the severity of the drop. Village Manager Bradford requested that Mr. Oslund identify the problem driveways and he would have Mr. Ladd address those situations . Councilmember Mackail stated that the Village must have consistent application in these situations . • Village Manager Bradford advised that he would have Mr. Oslund tresearch and report on an administrative process to be adopted internally and would be sure that the Building Department staff was involved. Vice Mayor Hansen questioned why Dover Ditch was not listed as a project. Village Manager Bradford Stormwater Utility Board Meeting Minutes May 27, 1997 Page 9 explained that staff had assumed that because $115, 000 had been spent and people seemed satisfied, that the underground piping was not necessary. Mr. Bradford advised that this project could be added at any point. Mr. Oslund commented that the piping would cost about $900, 000 which was too much for the Stormwater Utility to finance, so that a separate charge would be needed for that project. Mr. Oslund explained that the piping would make drainage worse that it presently was . During ensuing discussion, Village Manager Bradford explained that piping would reduce Village maintenance to only mowing. Vice Mayor Hansen commented that he was satisfied that the Village' s program and drainage system was not as bad as he had feared, and believed the Village would be doing the job they needed to do with this plan as proposed. Village Manager Bradford explained that establishment of a level of service standard was very important, and that staff was satisfied that over time every problem currently known would be taken care of. Village Manager Bradford commented that the program would be re-evaluated constantly. It was the consensus of the Board to allow Village Manager Bradford to shift the $10, 000 for a video drainage system from FY00 to FY99, and to shift the $15, 000 for a drainage study from FY99 to FY98 to provide funds for the study as soon as possible. Mr. Bradford advised that if the $15, 000 could be taken from Undesignated General Fund Surplus, that moving the $10, 000 would not impact the rate analysis . VI. REVIEW OF PROPOSED TEQUESTA STORMWATER UTILITY NON-AD VALOREM ASSESSMENT (EXISTING EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT (ERU) = $5. 12) In determining a proposed rate change, Village Manager Bradford commented that the current fee of $5. 12 had been used, and translating the traditional annual growth so far as • r Stormwater Utility Board Meeting Minutes May 27, 1997 Page 10 the Stormwater Utility was concerned worked out to between $500 and $1000 annually. Interest income had been left at $2500 across the board, although that had been a point of disagreement between Mr. Oslund and Village Manager Bradford, since Mr. Oslund would spend all monies granted him on improvements and Village Manager Bradford had not found that to be the case with any other Department in the Village and therefore believed there would be accrued funds from which to build interest revenue. For the first four years, funds from the General Fund would subsidize the Stormwater Utility. Another factor taken into consideration was anticipated amounts for estimated accumulated carry-over. Village Manager Bradford stated that this amount was only showing what the carry over should be and was not representative of what would actually happen. Mr. Bradford stated that 25% of income into a fund should be accumulated for a rainy day, and that if Mr. Bradford' s theory that Mr. Oslund would not spend 2-1/2% each year of what was given him, that 25% accumulation would be reached in the tenth year. Village Manager Bradford pointed out that $75, 000, the anticipated accumulation in the tenth year, would not buy even one project in the event of a disaster; therefore, 25% reserve might not be sufficient for a Stormwater Utility. Village Manager Bradford reviewed the proposed 10-year expenditures : personal services, operating expenses, and capital outlay. Mr. Bradford explained that for personal services and operating expenses a 3% inflation rate was assumed for every year. Using all of the above factors, no shortfall was anticipated in FY98, the required ERU rate for FY98 was $5.12, but the proposed rate was 9.4%, or $5. 60-- because if something was not done now a 20. 7% rate increase would be necessary the next year in order to accomplish the proposed capital improvement projects . Mr. Bradford proposed the incremental rate increase. Alternative ways to accomplish the rate increase had been submitted by Mr. Oslund. Both Councilmember Capretta and Councilmember Mackail expressed preference for Alternate No. 1, which Mr. Oslund explained • would build an account balance at 3% annually. Councilmember Mackail stated that if necessary, the General Fund could provide more funds if available. Vice Mayor Hansen expressed his preference either for the basic program or for Alternate No. 1 . Mayor Schauer expressed her preference for Alternate No . 1, which would mean a rate increase to $5. 63 . Reserves were discussed. Village Manager Bradford explained that the concept was in good times to accumulate reserves in each fund • Stormwater Utility Board Meeting Minutes May 27, 1997 Page 11 • o of 10961 to 25%, so that in hard times or disasters the Village could draw down those reserves. Councilmember Mackail commented that a sinking fund could also be established. Councilmember Mackail made a motion to recommend to the . Village Council at their July budget workshop approval of • Alternate No. 1, ' setting the Stormwater Utility Rate at $5.63 for Fiscal Year 1997/1998'. Vice Mayor Hansen seconded the • motion) The vote on the motion was: Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Carl C. Hansen - for Joseph N. Capretta - for Ron T. Mackail - for The motion was therefore passed and adopted. VII. ANY OTHER MATTERS Mayor Schauer announced that at that day' s meeting of the Indiantown Bridge Task Force it had been announced that during one ofithree weekends in June U.S. Highway One would be closed . at thejIndiantown Road intersection. June 13-14, June 20-21, or the last weekend in Juhe would be chosen upon receipt of all final approvals for the bridge. Closing would occur from Friday night to Tuesday morning. Mayor Schauer provided copies of the detour map to the Councilmembers and requested the Fire-Rescue and Police Departments be notified. • XIV. ADJOURNMENT Councilmember Mackail moved that the meeting be adjourned. Vice Mayor Hansen seconded the motion. The vote on the motion was: Elizabeth A. Schauer - for Carl C. Hansen - for • Joseph N. Capretta - for • Ron T. Mackail - for the motion was therefore passed and adopted and the meeting was adjourned at 8:22 P.M. Stormwater Utility Board Meeting Minutes May 27, 1997 Page 12 Respectfully submitted, Bettt `l" c4...L.AJJ y Qaur Recording Secretary ATTEST: Joann Manganiello Village Clerk DATE APPROVED: