Governing Board Meeting

Transcription

1 \ Governing Board Meeting Agenda and Meeting Information June 26, 2012 :00 a.m. The Villages Savannah Center 1545 N. Buena Vista Boulevard The Villages, Florida (352) Weeki Wachee River

2 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida (352) or (FL only) TDD only (FL only) On the Internet at: WaterMatters.org An Equal Opportunity Employer The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) does not discriminate on the basis of disability. This nondiscrimination policy involves every aspect of the District's functions, including access to and participation in the District's programs and activities. Anyone requiring reasonable accommodation as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act should contact the District's Human Resources Director at 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, FL ; telephone (352) , ext. 4702, or (FL only), ext. 4702; TDD (FL only) ; or to AGENDA MEETING NOTICE GOVERNING BOARD MEETING JUNE 26, :00 A.M. THE VILLAGES SAVANNAH CENTER 1545 N. BUENA VISTA BOULEVARD,THE VILLAGES, FL All meetings are open to the public. Viewing of the Board meeting will be available at each of the District offices and through the District s web site ( -- follow directions to use internet streaming. Public input will be taken only at the meeting location. Public input for issues not listed on the published agenda will be heard shortly after the meeting begins. Unless specifically stated, scheduled items will not be heard at a time certain. At the discretion of the Board, items may be taken out of order to accommodate the needs of the Board and the public. The meeting will recess for lunch at a time to be announced. The current Governing Board agenda and minutes of previous meetings are on the District's web site: 10:00 A.M. CONVENE PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING (TAB A) 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation 3. Additions/Deletions to Agenda 4. Oath of Office for Reappointed Governing Board Member Paul Senft 5. Welcoming Comments and Overview of The Villages 6. Public Input for Issues Not Listed on the Published Agenda Bartow Service Office 170 Century Boulevard Bartow, Florida (863) or (FL only) Sarasota Service Office 6750 Fruitville Road Sarasota, Florida (941) or (FL only) Tampa Service Office 7601 US Highway 301 North Tampa, Florida (813) or (FL only)

3 SWFWMD GOVERNING BOARD AGENDA ~2 ~ June 26, 2012 CONSENT AGENDA (TAB B) All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine and action will be taken by one motion, second of the motion and approval by the Board. If discussion is requested by a Board member, that item(s) will be deleted from the Consent Agenda and moved to the appropriate Committee or Report for consideration. Finance & Administration Committee 7. Budget Transfer Report 8. Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) Program Budget Transfer 9. Amend the Fiscal Year Annual Service Budget to Merge the Former Basin Budgets into the District s General (Operating) Fund Budget 10. Information Technology Bureau Computer Network Infrastructure Upgrades Regulation Committee 11. Consider Fourth Amendment to Districtwide Modified Phase I Restrictions 12. Consider First Amendment to Modified Phase III Restrictions in Northern Counties 13. Individual Water Use Permits a. WUP No Layline Land, LLC / Coffee Pond Farm (Manatee County) b. WUP No McClure Properties, Ltd. / McClure Rutland (Manatee County) c. WUP No TDM Enterprises, LLC / TDM Sumter County (Sumter County) d. WUP No City of Clearwater / City of Clearwater Public Supply (Pinellas County) Resource Management Committee 14. Englewood Reclaimed Water Supply First Amendment 15. Authorize Submission of Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps to the Federal Emergency Management Agency a. Sarasota County b. Manatee County Gamble Creek 16. Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) a. Family Dynamics, Inc. (H663), DeSoto County b. FLM, Inc. Prairie River Ranch Phase 3 (H673), DeSoto County c. Keysville Road Plant City, LLC Phase 2 (H672), Hillsborough County d. CPM2, Inc. Amendment (H658), Pasco County e. Luna Berry Farm, LLC Amendment (H671), Polk County General Counsel s Report 17. Administrative, Enforcement and Litigation Activities that Require Governing Board Approval a. Initiation of Litigation Surface Water Activity - Robert J. Colvin and Mary A. Colvin Lake County 18. Rulemaking Executive Director s Report 19. Approve Governing Board Meeting Minutes May 22, 2012 FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (TAB C) Discussion Items 20. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion 21. Independent Auditor Selection 22. Presentation of Fiscal Year (FY) Recommended Annual Service Budget 23. Board Travel Submit & File Reports None Routine Reports 24. Treasurer's Report, Payment Register and Contingency Funds Report 25. Monthly Financial Statement 26. Monthly Cash Balances by Fiscal Year OUTREACH &PLANNING COMMITTEE (TAB D) Discussion Item 27. Water Resources Education Update Submit & File Reports None

4 SWFWMD GOVERNING BOARD AGENDA ~3 ~ June 26, 2012 Routine Reports 28. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews 29. Development of Regional Impact Activity Report 30. Significant Activities REGULATION COMMITTEE (TAB E) Discussion Items 31. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion 32. Denials Referred to the Governing Board Submit & File Reports None Routine Reports 33. Southern Water Use Caution Area Quantities 34. Overpumpage Report 35. E-Permitting Metrics: Online vs. Paper Applications 36. Individual Permits Issued by District Staff 37. Resource Regulation Significant Initiatives RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (TAB F) Discussion Items 38. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion 39. Funding Request Hillsborough County and City of Tampa Duck Pond Best Management Practices Implementation Second Amendment Submit & File Report 40. Lower Hillsborough River Recovery Strategy Implementation Annual Update Routine Reports 41. Minimum Flows and Levels 42. Watershed Management Program and Federal Emergency Management Agency Map Modernization 43. Significant Water Supply and Resource Development Projects OPERATIONS &LAND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (TAB G) Discussion Item 44. Hydrologic Conditions Status Report Submit & File Reports 45. Surplus Lands Assessment Update 46. Flying Eagle Nature Center Update Routine Reports 47. Structure Operations 48. Significant Activities GENERAL COUNSEL S REPORT (TAB H) Discussion Items 49. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion 50. Lake Region Lakes Management District Request to Transfer Ownership of the P-5, P-6, P-7 and P-8 Water Control Facilities in Polk County 51. Central Florida Water Resource Development Project Partnership 52. Approve District s Annual Regulatory Plan Required by Executive Order Number and subsection (3), Florida Statutes Submit & File Reports None Routine Reports 53. Litigation Report 54. Rulemaking Update

5 SWFWMD GOVERNING BOARD AGENDA ~4 ~ June 26, 2012 COMMITTEE/LIAISON REPORTS (TAB I) 55. Joint Agricultural and Green Industry Advisory Committees Meeting 56. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council Meeting 57. Other Liaison Reports EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR S REPORT (TAB J) 58. Executive Director s Report CHAIR S REPORT (TAB K) 59. Approve Resolution Commending C. A. Neil Combee, Jr. for His Service on the Board 60. Chair s Report ANNOUNCEMENTS RECESS PUBLIC HEARING Governing Board Meetings Schedule: Meeting Brooksville... July 31, 2012 Meeting Brooksville... August 28, 2012 Meeting Tampa... September 25, 2012 Meeting TBD... October 30, 2012 Governing Board Public Budget Hearings Schedule: Tentative Budget Tampa... September 11, 2012 Final Budget Tampa... September 25, 2012 Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule: Environmental Tampa... July 9, 2012 Well Drillers Tampa... July 11, 2012 Industrial/Public Supply Tampa... August 14, 2012 Agricultural/Green Industry Tampa... September 13, 2012 ADJOURNMENT The Governing Board may take action on any matter on the printed agenda including such items listed as reports, discussions, or program presentations. The Governing Board may make changes to the printed agenda only for good cause as determined by the Chair, and stated in the record. If a party decides to appeal any decision made by the Board with respect to any matter considered at a hearing or these meetings, that party will need a record of the proceedings, and for such purpose that party may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is to be based. If you wish to address the Board concerning any item listed on the agenda or an issue that does not appear on the agenda, please fill out a speaker's card at the reception desk in the lobby and give it to the recording secretary. Your card will be provided to the Chair who will call on you at the appropriate time during the meeting. When addressing the Board, please step to the podium, adjust the microphone for your comfort, and state your name for the record. Comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker. In appropriate circumstances, the Chair may grant exceptions to the three-minute limit. The Board will accept and consider written comments from any person if those comments are submitted to the District at Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida The comments should identify the number of the item on the agenda and the date of the meeting. Any written comments received after the Board meeting will be retained in the file as a public record.

6 GOVERNING BOARD OFFICERS,COMMITTEES AND LIAISONS Effective June 2012 Chair Vice Chair Secretary Treasurer OFFICERS H. Paul Senft, Jr. Hugh M. Gramling Douglas B. Tharp Albert G. Joerger REGULATION COMMITTEE OPERATIONS AND LAND OUTREACH AND PLANNING MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE COMMITTEE Bryan K. Beswick, Chair Michael A. Babb, Chair Jeffrey M. Adams, Chair Todd Pressman, Vice Chair Randall S. Maggard, Vice Chair Jennifer E. Closshey, Vice Chair Carlos Beruff Albert G. Joerger Michael A. Babb Judith C. Whitehead Douglas B. Tharp Judith C. Whitehead RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE FINANCE AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE SURPLUS LANDS SUBCOMMITTEE Hugh M. Gramling, Chair Albert G. Joerger, Chair* Albert G. Joerger, Chair Michael A. Babb, Vice Chair Douglas B. Tharp, Vice Chair Hugh M. Gramling, Vice Chair Randall S. Maggard Jeffrey M. Adams Jeffrey M. Adams Douglas B. Tharp Jennifer E. Closshey Jennifer E. Closshey Randall S. Maggard Douglas B. Tharp * Board policy requires the Governing Board Treasurer to chair the Finance and Administration Committee. STANDING COMMITTEE LIAISONS Agricultural Advisory Committee Hugh M. Gramling Environmental Advisory Committee Michael A. Babb Green Industry Advisory Committee Douglas B. Tharp Industrial Supply Advisory Committee Randall S. Maggard Public Supply Advisory Committee Vacant Well Drillers Advisory Committee Bryan K. Beswick OTHER LIAISONS Governing Board Diversity Coordinator Carlos Beruff Strategic Planning Initiative Jennifer E. Closshey Central Florida Water Initiative (formerly CFCA) H. Paul Senft Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program Policy Board Vacant Sarasota Bay Estuary Program Policy Board Albert G. Joerger Tampa Bay Estuary Program Policy Board Hugh M. Gramling Todd Pressman, Primary Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council Jeffrey M. Adams, Alternate 6/12/2012

7 Executive Summary

8 Executive Summary GOVERNING BOARD MEETING JUNE 26, :00 a.m. If viewing this document electronically, links are now available from the Executive Summary to the item s information page. To return to the Executive Summary, click on the item number in the upper right-hand corner of the page. CONVENE PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING (TAB A) 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation 3. Additions/Deletions to Agenda 4. Oath of Office for Reappointed Governing Board Member Paul Senft 5. Welcoming Comments and Overview of The Villages 6. Public Input for Issues Not Listed on the Published Agenda CONSENT AGENDA (TAB B) All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine and action will be taken by one motion, second of the motion and approval by the Board. If discussion is requested by a Board member, that item(s) will be deleted from the Consent Agenda and moved to the appropriate Committee or Report for consideration. Finance & Administration Committee 7. Budget Transfer Report Staff recommends the Board approve the Budget Transfer Report covering all budget transfers made during the month of May Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) Program Budget Transfer Staff recommends the Board approve the transfer of $2,000,000 from the cancelled City of Punta Gorda s Brackish Groundwater Reverse Osmosis project (H087) budgeted in Governing Board funds to the FARMS Program (H017) for future funding of agricultural best management practices consistent with FARMS Rule 40D-26, Florida Administrative Code. 9. Amend the Fiscal Year Annual Service Budget to Merge the Former Basin Budgets into the District s General (Operating) Fund Budget Staff recommends the Board approve Resolution No , Amendment of the Fiscal Year Annual Service Budget, to eliminate the individual FY Basin budgets totaling $283,132,462 and to increase the District s FY General Fund (Operating Fund) budget by the same amount, $283,132,462, to reflect the 2011 merger of the seven Basins with the District.

9 SWFWMD Governing Board Executive Summary ~2~ JUNE 26, Information Technology Bureau (ITB) Computer Network Infrastructure Upgrades Staff recommends to authorize a transfer of $178,300 of prior year encumbrances originally allocated to expanding Business Objects reporting software and $18,700 of the $95,000 in FY2012 funds originally intended to upgrade the Bartow Service Office Governing Board video equipment to purchase the hardware required to support the upgrade of existing wireless network and core network switch equipment. These funds will supplement available existing ITB hardware and software maintenance funds. Total amount to be transferred is $197,000 and total cost for the upgrades is $233,600. Regulation Committee 11. Consider Fourth Amendment to Districtwide Modified Phase I Restrictions Unless changing conditions result in staff proving an updated recommendation during the Governing Board s meeting on June 26, 2012, staff recommends the Board approve the Fourth Amendment to Water Shortage Order No. SWF This amendment would extend the terms of the Order through December 31, Consider First Amendment to Modified Phase III Restrictions in Northern Counties Unless changing conditions result in staff proving an updated recommendation during the Governing Board s meeting on June 26, 2012, staff recommends the Board approve the First Amendment to Water Shortage Order No. SWF to extend the terms of the Order through July 31, Individual Water Use Permits (WUPs) a. WUP No Layline Land, LLC / Coffee Pond Farm (Manatee County) This is a renewal with modification of an existing water use permit for agricultural use. The annual average quantity increases from 1,208,900 gallons per day (gpd) to 2,941,400 gpd; the peak month quantity increases from 2,187,200 gpd to 6,793,500 gpd; and a crop protection quantity of 1,344,000 gpd is added. There is no change in Use Type from the previous revision. The changes in the permitted quantities are due to changes in the crop plan, from 557 acres of tomatoes exclusively to 275 acres of tomatoes, 156 acres of citrus, and 915 acres of sod. Quantities are based on the District's irrigation allotment calculation program (AGMOD). This renewal includes the addition of a reservoir and two surface water withdrawals as part of a District FARMS project to offset groundwater use and to reduce the potential for offsite discharge of irrigation water to the Upper Myakka River Watershed. Staff recommends the Board approve the proposed permit included as an exhibit in the Board s meeting materials. b. WUP No McClure Properties, Ltd. / McClure Rutland (Manatee County) This is a renewal with modification of an existing Individual water use permit (WUP) for agriculture. The annual average quantity increases from 2,101,900 gpd to 2,258,900 gpd, and the peak month quantity is reduced from 4,108,700 gpd to 4,103,500 gpd. There is no change in Use Type from the previous revision. The change in quantities is due to the addition of melons to the crop plan. Quantities are based on the District's irrigation allotment calculation program (AGMOD). This water use permit is located in the Most Impacted Area (MIA). The increase in the annual average quantity is met in full by Self-Relocation of 157,000 gpd from WUP , as provided for in Part B, Basis of Review, Section 4.3.B.2., and therefore does not represent a New Quantity within the MIA. Staff recommends the Board approve the proposed permit included as an exhibit in the Board s meeting materials.

10 SWFWMD Governing Board Executive Summary ~3~ JUNE 26, 2012 c. WUP No TDM Enterprises, LLC / TDM Sumter County (Sumter County) This is a new water use permit for agricultural use for irrigation of 190 acres of sod. The standard annual average quantity is 508,900 gpd and the peak month quantity is 1,399,900 gpd. Quantities are based on calculations using the District irrigation allotment calculation program (AGMOD). The Permittee is not using Alternative Water Supply sources because none are available at this location at this time. Staff recommends the Board approve the proposed permit included as an exhibit in the Board s meeting materials. d. WUP No City of Clearwater / City of Clearwater Public Supply (Pinellas County) This is a modification of an existing public supply water use permit for the development of a new brackish groundwater source for a second reverse osmosis facility at the City of Clearwater's Water Treatment Plant No. 2 (RO2). The RO2 Facility is an Alternative Water Supply (AWS) project under a Cooperative Funding Agreement (N176) with the District. As provided for in Section (5) of the Florida Statutes, this permit extends the permit duration to coincide with the City s funding of the AWS project through 30-year capital improvement bonds. There is no change in Use Type from the previous revision. The 6,300,000 gpd increase in the permitted quantities reflects the reduced reliance on the regional water supply system, substituted with 5,800,000 gpd from 12 proposed brackish water wells and concentrate from the RO1 Water Treatment Plant for the City s planned RO2 Facility, then blended with an additional 500,000 gpd from 2 existing freshwater production wells. The annual average quantity increased from 8,000,000 gpd to 14,300,000 gpd, and the peak month quantity increased from 9,520,000 gpd to 15,820,000 gpd. Staff recommends the Board approve the proposed permit included as an exhibit in the Board s meeting materials. Resource Management Committee 14. Englewood Reclaimed Water Supply First Amendment This is a request to approve a first amendment to the cooperative funding agreement with the Englewood Water District for the Englewood Reclaimed Water Supply Project to reduce the scope of the project by eliminating the supplemental reclaimed water supply well. This well is not needed due to the reduced system demand as a result of the economic downturn. This action changes the scope, reduces funding, and extends the contract expiration date. Staff recommends the Board approve the first amendment to the existing agreement with the Englewood Water District to modify the scope by eliminating the supplemental reclaimed water supply well; reduce the total cost of the project from $260,000 to $100,000 and proportionately reduce the District s obligation from $130,000 to $50,000; extend the contract termination date from June 30, 2012, to December 31, 2012; and authorize the Resource Management Division Director to execute the amendment. 15. Authorize Submission of Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps to the Federal Emergency Management Agency a. Sarasota County Staff recommends the Board authorize submission of the preliminary Sarasota County Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA will then begin the FIRM adoption process for Sarasota County. FEMA s adoption process includes a technical review, further public input, and a 90-day appeals period. Depending on the public input and issues, the post-preliminary process can take an additional one to two years before the FIRMs become effective.

11 SWFWMD Governing Board Executive Summary ~4~ JUNE 26, 2012 b. Manatee County Gamble Creek Staff recommends the Board authorize submission of the preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the Gamble Creek watershed in Manatee County to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The FIRMs were modernized based upon a detailed watershed management model. The watershed model and floodplain information have gone through the District s process that includes internal review and external peer review by experienced licensed professional engineers. Preliminary floodplain information was presented for review and comment during a public workshop held July 19, The preliminary floodplain information is ready to be incorporated into FEMA s mapping specifications for submittal to FEMA. Following submittal of the preliminary FIRMs, FEMA will conduct their own technical review, take public input, and allow for a 90-day appeals period during the adoption process. Depending on public input, the FEMA process can take an additional one to two years. 16. Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) Staff recommends the Board: a. Family Dynamics, Inc. (H663), DeSoto County (1) Approve the Family Dynamics, Inc. project for a not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $574,724 with $32,609 provided by Peace River Basin Funds and $542,115 provided by the Governing Board; (2) Authorize the transfer of $32,609 from fund 020 H017 Peace River Basin FARMS Funds and $542,115 from fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS Funds to the H663 Family Dynamics, Inc. project fund; and (3) Authorize the Director, Resource Management Division to execute the agreement. b. FLM, Inc. Prairie River Ranch Phase 3 (H673), DeSoto County (1) Approve the FLM, INC. - Prairie River Ranch - Phase 3 project for a not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $225,000 provided by the Governing Board; (2) Authorize the transfer of $225,000 from fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS Funds, to the H673 FLM, INC. Prairie River Ranch Phase 3 project fund; and (3) Authorize the Director, Resource Management Division to execute the agreement. c. Keysville Road Plant City, LLC Phase 2 (H672), Hillsborough County (1) Approve the Keysville Road Plant City, LLC Phase 2 project for a not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $41,370 with $10,966 provided by Alafia River Basin Fund and $30,404 provided by the Governing Board; (2) Authorize the transfer of $10,966 from fund 011 H017 Alafia River Basin FARMS funds and $30,404 from fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS funds to the H672 Keysville Road Plant City, LLC Phase 2 project fund; and (3) Authorize the Director, Resource Management Division to execute the agreement. d. CPM2, Inc. Amendment (H658), Pasco County (1) Approve the CPM2, Inc. project for an increase in the not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $9,685 with $9,685 provided by the Hillsborough River Basin Fund; (2) Authorize the transfer of $9,685 from fund 013 H017 Hillsborough River Basin FARMS funds to the H658 CPM2, Inc. project fund; and (3) Authorize the Director, Resource Management Division to execute the agreement. e. Luna Berry Farm, LLC Amendment (H671), Polk County (1) Approve the Luna Berry Farm, LLC project for an increase in the not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $236,250 with $236,250 provided by the Governing Board; (2) Authorize the transfer of $236,250 from fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS funds to the H671 Luna Berry Farms, LLC project fund; and (3) Authorize the Director, Resource Management Division to execute the agreement.

12 SWFWMD Governing Board Executive Summary ~5~ JUNE 26, 2012 General Counsel s Report 17. Administrative, Enforcement and Litigation Activities that Require Governing Board Approval a. Initiation of Litigation Surface Water Activity - Robert J. Colvin and Mary A. Colvin Lake County On November 8, 2008, the District received a complaint from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection concerning wetland dredging and filling on property located in Lake County and owned by Robert and Mary Colvin. On December 12, 2008, District staff visited the property and observed dredging impacts to approximately 1.29 acres of forested wetlands and filling impacts to approximately 9.91 additional acres of forested wetlands (activities). No Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) had been issued to authorize these activities. On January 22, 2009, the District issued a Notice of Unauthorized Construction to the owners. Subsequent to the issuance of the Notice of Unauthorized Construction, District regulatory staff met with the owners and discussed what would be necessary for restoration of the impacts to the property, but the owners did not restore the property or apply for an ERP. On February 4, 2010, a Notice of Violation and proposed consent order were issued to the owners. In response to the revised proposed consent order, the owners contacted the District and arranged for a meeting at the property to discuss the restoration requirements. On April 20, 2012, District staff met with the owners at the property, walked the southern portion of the property, and discussed options for restoration and the ability to off-set the penalty amount. Since the site visit, District staff have followed up with the owners in an effort to resolve this matter but have not received any response. Staff recommends the Board authorize the initiation of litigation against Robert and Mary Colvin and any other appropriate parties to obtain compliance, to recover an administrative fine/civil penalty for the violations, and to recover District enforcement costs, court costs and attorney s fees. 18. Rulemaking None Executive Director s Report 19. Approve Governing Board Meeting Minutes May 22, 2012 Staff recommends approving the minutes as presented. FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (TAB C) Discussion Items 20. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion 21. Independent Auditor Selection This purpose of this request is to initiate the process to obtain proposals, evaluate firms, and select an independent auditor to perform the agency s annual financial audit in accordance with Florida Statutes and industry best practices. Staff recommends the Board: (1) Approve the scope of the audit services (Exhibit A); (2) Approve the factors to be used to evaluate the firms and the ranges of point values to reflect the relative importance of the factors (Exhibit A); (3) Approve the method to be used to select and negotiate a contract with a qualified firm; (4) Approve the issuance of a Request for Proposals to select an independent auditor to perform the annual financial audit;

13 SWFWMD Governing Board Executive Summary ~6~ JUNE 26, 2012 (5) Delegate a minimum of three Board members to review, evaluate and rank proposals; and (6) Select a Board member or other designee to conduct negotiations with a qualified firm. 22. Presentation of Fiscal Year (FY) Recommended Annual Service Budget Staff will submit the FY Recommended Annual Service Budget (RASB) for consideration by the Governing Board as required by statute; and request staff authorization to prepare the Standard Format Tentative Budget Submission based on the RASB, adjusted for any modification made by the Governing Board on June 26 and changes in estimated ad valorem revenue based on the July 1 certifications of taxable value. Staff will provide an overview of the RASB for FY , and an update on the changes that have been made since the May 22, 2012 meeting. An electronic copy of the RASB will be placed on the District s web site in advance of the meeting. 23. Board Travel Staff recommends the Board approve Governing Board member travel to attend the July 17-20, 2012 Environmental Permitting Summer School. Submit & File Reports None Routine Reports The following items are provided for the Committee s information, and no action is required. 24. Treasurer's Report, Payment Register and Contingency Funds Report 25. Monthly Financial Statement 26. Monthly Cash Balances by Fiscal Year OUTREACH &PLANNING COMMITTEE (TAB D) Discussion Item 27. Water Resources Education Update At the Governing Board s May meeting, staff proposed funding $1.3 million in Water Resource Education Grants and Contracted Services, a reduction of 18 percent from the current year. Following discussion by the Board, District staff continued to look for opportunities to reduce costs in the program. As a result of those efforts, staff is recommending eliminating funding for B726 Adopt-A-Pond Hillsborough County ($37,500), reducing funding in P268 Public Water Resources Education from $111,251 to $6,000 by eliminating the Community Education Grant Program ($100,000), and reducing funding in P259 Youth Water Resources Education by $60,000, from $608,525 to $548,525, for programs covering 15 counties. Total recommended savings from these reductions is $202,751. Florida-Friendly Landscaping The District currently funds portions of 13 FFL positions in partnership with 11 county governments (Charlotte, Citrus, Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota and Sumter). In May, $508,298 was the proposed Fiscal Year budget for support for Grants and Contract Services. Some concerns were expressed about funding these education programs and the appropriateness of funding positions at other agencies. Staff has reevaluated the program to look at both the level and the type of funding support being provided to promote FFL. Four potential alternative options for promoting FFL will be offered to the Governing Board for consideration. Staff is requesting direction and action from the Board on funding Florida-Friendly Landscaping. Submit & File Reports None

14 SWFWMD Governing Board Executive Summary ~7~ JUNE 26, 2012 Routine Reports The following items are provided for the Committee s information, and no action is required. 28. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews 29. Development of Regional Impact Activity Report 30. Significant Activities REGULATION COMMITTEE (TAB E) Discussion Items 31. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion 32. Denials Referred to the Governing Board If any denials are requested to be referred to the Governing Board, these will be presented at the meeting. Submit & File Reports None Routine Reports The following items are provided for the Committee s information, and no action is required. 33. Southern Water Use Caution Area Quantities 34. Overpumpage Report 35. E-Permitting Metrics: Online vs. Paper Applications 36. Individual Permits Issued by District Staff 37. Resource Regulation Significant Initiatives RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (TAB F) Discussion Items 38. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion 39. Funding Request Hillsborough County and City of Tampa Duck Pond Best Management Practices Implementation Second Amendment This is a multiyear cooperatively funded project with the County and City for implementation of best management practices (BMPs) within the Duck Pond watershed. The Original Agreement became effective on January 1, 2006, and a first amendment to the Original Agreement became effective on September 1, Based on an updated construction cost estimate, the City has requested a funding increase to incorporate the relocation of the Donut Pond pump station site and associated engineering fees. In addition, the County has requested additional funding due to an increase in engineering and construction cost of the Duck Pond pump station and 36-inch force main. These cost increases, along with cost increases for project components that are already completed, result in the overall project budget change from $18,000,000 to $27,230,864. The project involves six components (County has three and City has three) of which four components are completed. The County has completed the regional detention pond and the Duck Pond equalizer pipe components. The City has completed the shared force main and the 113th Avenue force main components. The remaining components of the project that have not been constructed include the Duck Pond pump station/36-inch force main (County), and the Donut Pond pump station (City). These remaining components of the project are ready to start construction and are scheduled to be completed by June The following funding options are provided for the Board s consideration: (1) District provides $3,995,432 of additional funding ($650,000 to the County and $3,345,432 to the City). (2) The District does not provide any additional funding. (3) District provides $1,622,168 of additional funding ($500,000 to County and $1,122,168 to City).

15 SWFWMD Governing Board Executive Summary ~8~ JUNE 26, 2012 Staff recommends the Board approve the second amendment to the agreement with Hillsborough County and the City of Tampa for the Duck Pond BMPs Implementation to increase the total project budget to $27,230,864, increasing the District s share by $1,622,168 to the total amount of $8,722,168 which includes $300,000 of state funding from the WPSTF (Option 3), and extend the agreement expiration date from November 1, 2012 to November 1, 2013; and authorize the Resource Management Division Director to execute the amendment. The additional funding to be included in the FY budget from the Hillsborough River Basin reserves. Submit & File Report The following item is submitted for the Committee s information, and no action is required. 40. Lower Hillsborough River Recovery Strategy Implementation Annual Update Routine Reports The following items are provided for the Committee s information, and no action is required. 41. Minimum Flows and Levels 42. Watershed Management Program and Federal Emergency Management Agency Map Modernization 43. Significant Water Supply and Resource Development Projects OPERATIONS &LAND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (TAB G) Discussion Items 44. Hydrologic Conditions Status Report This routine report provides information on the general state of the District's hydrologic conditions, by comparing rainfall, surface water, and groundwater levels for the current month to comparable data from the historical record. This item is provided for the Committee's information, and no action is required. Submit & File Report The following items are submitted for the Committee s information, and no action is required. 45. Surplus Lands Assessment Update 46. Flying Eagle Nature Center Update Routine Reports The following items are provided for the Committee s information, and no action is required. 47. Structure Operations 48. Significant Activities GENERAL COUNSEL S REPORT (TAB H) Discussion Items 49. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion 50. Lake Region Lakes Management District (LRLMD) Request to Transfer Ownership of the P-5, P-6, P-7 and P-8 Water Control Facilities in Polk County Recently, the District received a draft interlocal agreement from LRLMD for the conveyance, operation and maintenance of the District s P-5, P-6, P-7 and P-8 water control structures, adjacent canals and associated equipment serving the property and structures. There are three options available to the Board for consideration as it relates to the long term disposition and operation and maintenance of the P-5, P-6, P-7 and P-8 water control structures, canals and associated equipment: (1) ownership of the facilities may be conveyed to the LRLMD as requested as long as LRLMD provides all necessary assurances regarding its ability to own and operate outside its boundaries for the life of the facilities; (2) the District could enter into a new cooperative agreement with the LRLMD for the operation and routine maintenance of the facilities (with District oversight); or, (3) the District could retain ownership, operation and maintenance of the facilities.

16 SWFWMD Governing Board Executive Summary ~9~ JUNE 26, 2012 Under the previous cooperative agreement with the LRLMD, the LRLMD was reimbursed up to the not to exceed amount of $35,000 per year for routine operation and maintenance costs. Based on the LRLMD s annual reports to the District, over the course of the agreement period invoiced costs have ranged from $6,732 in FY2002, to $61,588 in FY2010. The District s Operations and Land Management Bureau estimates it can perform the needed routine operation and maintenance of the facilities from between $33,372 and $35,527, depending on whether or not the structures are instrumented for remote control. The cost to instrument the four water control structures for remote control is estimated to be $72,663, and has been included in the Board s FY2012 budget. Staff requests the Board provide direction as to which option staff should pursue with LRLMD in response to its request for conveyance of structures, associated canals and all equipment serving such structures and canals. Any agreement, if applicable, will be presented to the Governing Board in the future for the Board s consideration. 51. Central Florida Water Resource Development Project Partnership Polk County Utilities and the 17 municipal utilities within Polk County utilize the Upper Floridan aquifer as the principal source of water supply to meet 96 percent of existing water demands. Groundwater sources within Polk County are limited by the Southern Water Use Caution Area Recovery Strategy, Central Florida Water Initiative (formerly known as CFCA) interim rules, and other related rules and policies. The ultimate goal of this effort is to help develop cost-effective alternative water supply options for the County and municipalities. Staff recommends the Board authorize staff to work with Polk County to develop the Central Florida Water Resource Development Agreement. If authorized, the agreement will be presented to the Governing Board later this year for the Board s consideration. 52. Approve District s Annual Regulatory Plan Required by Executive Order Number and subsection (3), Florida Statutes Executive Order , which superseded Executive Order Number 11-72, requires state agencies under the direction of the Governor to submit to OFARR in writing an annual regulatory plan that shall identify and describe each rule that the agency expects to begin promulgating during the next twelve-month period by July 1, 2012 (and every July 1 thereafter). During the 2011 session, the Florida Legislature created subsection (3), F.S., which requires that all agencies file with the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House, and Joint Administrative Procedures Committee, by July 1, 2012 (and every July 1 thereafter) a regulatory plan identifying and describing each rule the agency proposes to adopt for the 12-month reporting period beginning on July 1 and ending on June 30. The District s Annual Regulatory Plan will list upcoming rulemaking in four broad rulemaking categories. Staff recommends the Board approve the District s Annual Regulatory Plan for July 2012 June 2013 and authorize staff to revise the Plan, if necessary, and submit the Plan to the Governor s Office of Fiscal Accountability and Regulatory Reform, President of the Senate, Speaker of the House, and Joint Administrative Procedures Commission. Submit & File Report None Routine Reports The following items are provided for the Committee s information, and no action is required. 53. Litigation Report 54. Rulemaking Update

17 SWFWMD Governing Board Executive Summary ~10~ JUNE 26, 2012 COMMITTEE/LIAISON REPORTS (TAB I) The following reports will be provided at the Board s meeting. 55. Joint Agricultural and Green Industry Advisory Committee Meeting 56. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council Meeting 57. Other Liaison Reports EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR S REPORT (TAB J) 58. Executive Director s Report CHAIR S REPORT (TAB K) 59. Approve Resolution Commending C. A. Neil Combee, Jr. for His Service on the Board Staff recommends the Board approve Resolution for presentation to Mr. Combee at a future meeting. 60. Chair s Report RECESS PUBLIC HEARING ANNOUNCEMENTS Governing Board Meetings Schedule: Meeting Brooksville... July 31, 2012 Meeting Brooksville... August 28, 2012 Meeting Tampa... September 25, 2012 Meeting TBD... October 30, 2012 Governing Board Public Budget Hearings Schedule: Tentative Budget Tampa... September 11, 2012 Final Budget Tampa... September 25, 2012 Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule: Environmental Tampa... July 9, 2012 Well Drillers Tampa... July 11, 2012 Industrial/Public Supply Tampa... August 14, 2012 Agricultural/Green Industry Tampa... September 13, 2012 ADJOURNMENT

18 A. Public Hearing & Meeting

19 Governing Board Meeting June 26, :00 a.m. CONVENE MEETING OF THE GOVERNING BOARD AND PUBLIC HEARING PUBLIC HEARING AND MEETING (TAB A) 1. Call to Order Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation Additions/Deletions to Agenda Oath of Office for Reappointed Governing Board Member Paul Senft Welcoming Comments and Overview of The Villages Public Input for Issues Not Listed on the Published Agenda... 2

20 Items 1-6 Governing Board Meeting June 26, Call to Order The Board Chair calls the meeting to order. The Board Secretary confirms that a quorum is present. The Board Chair then opens the public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Governing Board concerning any item listed on the agenda or any item that does not appear on the agenda should fill out and submit a speaker's card. Comments will be limited to three minutes per speaker, and, when appropriate, exceptions to the three-minute limit may be granted by the Chair. Several individuals wishing to speak on the same issue/topic should designate a spokesperson. 2. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation The Board Chair leads the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. An invocation is offered. 3. Additions/Deletions to Agenda According to Section (2), Florida Statutes, additions to the published agenda will only be made for "good cause" as determined by the "person designated to preside." The items that have been added to the agenda were received by the District after publication of the regular agenda. The Board was provided with the information filed and the District staff's analyses of these matters. Staff has determined that action must be taken on these items prior to the next Board meeting. Therefore, it is the District staff's recommendation that good cause has been demonstrated and should be considered during the Governing Board's meeting. Staff Recommendation: Approve the recommended additions and deletions to the published agenda if necessary. Presenter: Blake C. Guillory, Executive Director 4. Oath of Office for Newly Appointed Board Member The Oath of Office will be administered to Mr. Paul Senft who was reappointed by Governor Scott to continue serving his term as a Board member. Presenter: Lou Kavouras, Deputy Executive Director 5. Welcoming Comments and Overview of The Villages Presenter: Trey Arnett, Utility Engineer for The Villages 6. Public Input for Issues Not Listed on the Published Agenda At this time, the Board will hear public input for issues not listed on the published agenda.

21 B. Consent Agenda

22 Governing Board Meeting June 26, 2012 CONSENT AGENDA All matters listed under the Consent Agenda are considered routine and action will be taken by one motion, second of the motion and approval by the Board. If discussion is requested by a Board member, that item(s) will be deleted from the Consent Agenda and moved to the appropriate Committee or Report for consideration. Finance & Administration Committee 7. Budget Transfer Report Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) Program Budget Transfer Amend the Fiscal Year Annual Service Budget to Merge the Former Basin Budgets into the District s General (Operating) Fund Budget Information Technology Bureau Computer Network Infrastructure Upgrades Regulation Committee 11. Consider Fourth Amendment to Districtwide Modified Phase I Restrictions Consider First Amendment to Modified Phase III Restrictions in Northern Counties Individual Water Use Permits a. WUP No Layline Land, LLC / Coffee Pond Farm (Manatee County) b. WUP No McClure Properties, Ltd. / McClure Rutland (Manatee County) c. WUP No TDM Enterprises, LLC / TDM Sumter County (Sumter County) d. WUP No City of Clearwater / City of Clearwater Public Supply (Pinellas County) Resource Management Committee 14. Englewood Reclaimed Water Supply First Amendment Authorize Submission of Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps to the Federal Emergency Management Agency a. Sarasota County b. Manatee County Gamble Creek Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) a. Family Dynamics, Inc. (H663), DeSoto County b. FLM, Inc. Prairie River Ranch Phase 3 (H673), DeSoto County c. Keysville Road Plant City, LLC Phase 2 (H672), Hillsborough County d. CPM2, Inc. Amendment (H658), Pasco County e. Luna Berry Farm, LLC Amendment (H671), Polk County General Counsel s Report 17. Administrative, Enforcement and Litigation Activities that Require Governing Board Approval a. Initiation of Litigation Surface Water Activity - Robert J. Colvin and Mary A. Colvin Lake County Rulemaking Executive Director s Report 19. Approve Governing Board Meeting Minutes May 22,

23 Item 7 Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Finance and Administration Committee Budget Transfer Report Purpose Request approval of the Budget Transfer Report covering all budget transfers made during the month of May Background In accordance with Board Policy No , Budget Authority Transfer of Funds, all transfers approved by the Executive Director and Finance Bureau Chief under delegated authority are regularly presented to the Finance and Administration Committee for approval on the Consent Agenda at the next scheduled meeting. The exhibit for this item reflects all such transfers executed since the date of the last report for the Committee's approval. Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit Request approval of the Budget Transfer Report covering all budget transfers for May Presenter: Linda R. Pilcher, Assistant Bureau Chief, Finance 2

24 Item No. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Budget Transfer Report May TRANSFERRED FROM TRANSFERRED TO --- Bureau / Bureau / Expenditure Category Expenditure Category Reason For Transfer Executive Director Approved General Fund: 1 0Information Technology 0Information Technology Transfer of funds originally budgeted for Statistical Analysis System (SAS) programming and $ 39, Temp Contracted Services 3424 Temp Contracted Services support to produce the final Water Use Estimates Report for Planning and Regulatory. The project will be completed for less than budgeted. The funds were required for additional SAS programming and reporting support for the Resource Regulation Division database and permitting process. 2 0General Services 6Operations & Land Management Transfer of funds originally budgeted for maintenance & repair of buildings. Funds were 8, Maint/Repair Bldgs Structures 3111 Consultant Services needed for the Surplus Lands Assessment project. The Land Management section requires funds for enhancements to the Risk-Adjusted Lands Assessment Tool. Transfer Amount 3 0General Services 0Board and Executive Services Transfer of funds originally budgeted for acquisition of printing and bindery supplies for the 6, Reproduction Supplies 5401 Books, Subscriptions and Data print shop. Funds were required to provide Governing Board members a stipend for mobile computing devices Water Resources 0Public Affairs Transfer of funds originally budgeted for Minimum Flows and Levels Technical Support - 35, Consultant Services 3111 Consultant Services Hydrologic Analyses to assess the impact of groundwater withdrawals in the Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI). Funds were required to match the St. Johns River and South Florida Water Management Districts contribution for consultant services to develop the Regional Water Supply Plan for the CFWI. 5 6Operations & Land Management 6Operations & Land Management Transfer of funds originally budgeted for digital 2-way radio equipment. Instead, the funds 9, Equipment - Non-Capital Outlay 3401 Other Contractual Services were needed to reprogram existing radios to enable Land Management staff to communicate with the Florida Division of Forestry during wildfires. Total Executive Director Approved $ 98,600 Finance Bureau Chief Approved 1 6Operations & Land Management 6Operations & Land Management Transfer of budgeted funds to the appropriate project code for maintenance of District lands. $ 2, Maint/Repair Bldgs Structures 4602 Maint/Repair Bldgs Structures Funds were required to cut down two hazardous trees on the District's Lower Hillsborough property. 2 6Operations & Land Management 6Operations & Land Management Transfer of budgeted funds to the appropriate expenditure category for communication 6403 Equipment - Outside 5201 Parts and Supplies upgrade to structure controls. The components for the structure controls upgrade were under 131,504 the capitalization threshold of $1, Natural Systems & Restoration 3Natural Systems & Restoration Transfer of budgeted funds to the general Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) 350, Contracted Construction 3431 Contracted Construction Mitigation Program budget appropriation for allocation to future FDOT Mitigation Program projects.

25 Item No. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Budget Transfer Report May TRANSFERRED FROM TRANSFERRED TO --- Bureau / Bureau / Expenditure Category Expenditure Category Reason For Transfer 4 0Information Technology 0Information Technology Transfer of budgeted funds to the appropriate expenditure category for the technology 72, Temp Contr/Sftwre Development 3401 Other Contractual Services enhancements of District developed systems. Transfer Amount 5 0Information Technology 0Information Technology Transfer of budgeted funds to the appropriate project code and expenditure category for the 14, Software Development 3420 Software Development technology enhancements of District developed systems. Total Finance Bureau Chief Approved $ 570,826 Total Transfers for Governing Board Approval $ 669,426 This report identifies transfers made during the month that did not require advance Governing Board approval. These transfers have been approved by either the Executive Director or Finance Bureau Chief consistent with Board Policy 130-8, and are presented for Governing Board approval on the consent agenda. Executive Director approved transfers are made for a purpose other than the original budget intent, but are limited to individual transfer amounts of $50,000 or less. Finance Bureau Chief approved transfers are accounting type transfers with no change to the original budget intent. 4

26 Item 8 Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Finance and Administration Committee Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) Program (H017) Budget Transfer Purpose The purpose of this item is to request authorization to transfer $2,000,000 from the City of Punta Gorda s Brackish Groundwater Reverse Osmosis (RO) Project (H087) to the FARMS Program budget (H017) to support future FARMS Program projects. Background/History Over the last several fiscal years, the FARMS Program has experienced a steady increase in program participation and cost-share funding. The number of projects funded by the program almost doubled between FY2010 (20 projects) and FY2011 (37 projects). Thus far, in FY2012, 31 projects have been approved for funding by the Governing Board. An additional five (5) FARMS projects are on the Governing Boards June 26, 2012 Resource Management Committee s Consent Agenda which require a funding commitment of $1,087,029 from available FARMS program funds. Following approval of these five (5) FARMS projects, the FY2012 FARMS funding balance available for FARMS Program projects is $900,965 with the following distributions: Governing Board $124,499 Alafia River Basin 0 Hillsborough River Basin 728,599 Withlacoochee River Basin 47,867 Peace River Basin 0 Manasota Basin 0 State Appropriations 0 TOTAL $900,965 Sufficient funds remain in the former Hillsborough River and Withlacoochee River Basins to support projected FY2012 projects for the remainder of the fiscal year. However, significant funding shortfalls are occurring in the former Alafia, Manasota and Peace River Basins, as well as the Governing Board. It is estimated that up to $2,000,000 is needed to support the FARMS Program for the remainder of FY2012. Any unused FARMS Program dollars in FY2012 will be requested to be encumbered into FY2013 at the September Governing Board meeting. FARMS Program projects, traditionally funded 50 percent by the Basins and 50 percent by the Governing Board, have transitioned to 100 percent Governing Board funding supplemented by former Basin Board funds or state funds when available. The District originally budgeted $4,500,000 for the City of Punta Gorda s Brackish Groundwater RO project (H087) to convert existing Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) wells into brackish groundwater supply wells. The project was to develop three million gallons per day (mgd) of water supply to be used as a recovery strategy for minimum flows for the Shell Creek, to blend with the city s 10 mgd Shell Creek water supply to address water quality issues associated with Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), and to provide additional water supply to the region. In June 2011, the Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) granted the city a renewable 5-year exemption to the TDS requirement delaying the need for the city to develop this water supply. In 5

27 Item 8 November 2011, the city provided the District with a letter indicating that FDEP s exemption allows the city to postpone this project until the growth dictates the need for the project. Therefore, the city will not need the District s funds and these funds are now available to be balanced forward into FY2013 or used for other needs such as the FARMS Program. In December 2011, the Governing Board approved the transfer of $2,500,000 from H087 into the FARMS Program budget to support additional FARMS Projects. Staff now requests that the remaining funds from H087, in the amount of $2,000,000, be transferred for FARMS Program support. Impact If Not Transferred If funds are not transferred the FARMS Program would be severely limited in its ability to continue cost-sharing agricultural best management practices (BMPs) aimed to offset groundwater quantities, improve water quality and restore natural systems in the current 2012 fiscal year. Objectives identified in the District s SWUCA Recovery Strategy, Regional Water Supply Plan, Strategic Plan, SPJC Watersheds Management Plan Reasonable Assurance Documentation and Dover/Plant City WUCA Recovery Strategy would be delayed without further program funding. Staff Recommendation: Approve the transfer of $2,000,000 from the cancelled City of Punta Gorda s Brackish Groundwater RO project (H087) budgeted in Governing Board funds to the FARMS Program (H017) for future funding of agricultural BMPs consistent with FARMS Rule 40D-26, F.A.C. Presenter: Eric C. DeHaven, P.G., Bureau Chief, Natural Systems and Restoration, Resource Management Division 6

28 Item 9 Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Finance and Administration Committee Amend the Fiscal Year Annual Service Budget to Merge the Former Basin Budgets into the District s General (Operating) Fund Budget Purpose Request to approve Resolution No , Amendment of the Fiscal Year Annual Service Budget, to eliminate the individual FY Basin budgets totaling $283,132,462 and to increase the District s FY General Fund (the Operating Fund) budget by the same amount, $283,132,462, to reflect the 2011 merger of the seven Basins with the District. Background/History All Basin boundaries were merged into the boundaries of the District effective May 31, 2011, and the Basins ceased to exist as separate taxing authorities. When the District s budget for FY was adopted, a separate budget was adopted for each of the seven former Basins. When Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions, was recently implemented by the District, a change was made to report the restricted Basin resources as part of the General Fund rather than continuing to report the restricted Basin resources in separate special revenue funds. These funds no longer meet the accounting definition of a special revenue fund under GASB 54. This budget amendment is required to eliminate the former basin budgets totaling $283,132,462, and to increase the General Fund budget by the same amount, $283,132,462. The net assets of each Basin are restricted assets of the District General Fund and will be held until expended for water management purposes within the geographical boundaries of the basin in which the ad valorem tax revenue was collected. Benefits/Costs The proposed budget amendment is an administrative type budget amendment and has no impact on the District s total budget appropriation for FY This amendment is required to be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles regarding the use of special revenue funds. Impact If Not Approved The budget would not be in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. Staff Recommendations: See Exhibit Approve Resolution No , Amendment of the Fiscal Year Annual Service Budget, with no change to the total budget. Presenters: Kurt P. Fritsch, Director, Management Services Division Linda R. Pilcher, Assistant Bureau Chief, Finance Bureau 7

29 D R A F T SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO AMENDMENT OF THE FISCAL YEAR ANNUAL SERVICE BUDGET WHEREAS, the Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District), as required by Chapters 200 and 373, Florida Statutes, and Chapter , Laws of Florida, adopted the fiscal year (FY) total budget of $155,543,897 on September 27, 2011; and WHEREAS, the Governing Board of the District reappropriated and incorporated into the final budget all valid commitments for goods and services that remained uncompleted as of September 30, 2011, and all Governing Board approved funds (encumbrances not yet under contract), for an original budget of $509,205,848; and WHEREAS, the Governing Board adopted separate FY Basin budgets for the seven former basins; and WHEREAS, in conformity with the recently adopted Governmental Accounting Standards Board No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions, the former Basin budgets no longer meet the requirements of special revenue funds; and WHEREAS, the Governing Board of the District is authorized to amend the budget as provided for in Section (4), Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the District has complied with the notice requirement and all other requirements of Section (4), Florida Statutes. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District that the District's FY original budget is amended to eliminate the seven FY Basin budgets totaling $283,132,462, and to increase the District s FY General Fund budget by the same amount, $283,132,462, as reflected on the attached budget, with no impact on the District s total budget. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 26th day of June, 2012, by the Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Attest: By: H. Paul Senft, Jr., Chair Douglas B. Tharp, Secretary 8

30 D R A F T CERTIFICATE AS TO RESOLUTION NO STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF SUMTER We, the undersigned, hereby certify that we are, Chair and Secretary, respectively, of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, organized and existing under and by virtue of the Laws of the State of Florida, and having its office and place of business at 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Hernando County, Florida, and that, on the 26th day of June, 2012, at a duly called and properly held meeting of the Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, at The Villages Savannah Center, 1545 Buena Vista Boulevard, The Villages, Sumter County, Florida, at which meeting a majority of the members of the Governing Board were present, the resolution, which is attached hereto and which this certificate is a part thereof, was adopted and incorporated in the minutes of that meeting. Dated at The Villages, Florida, this 26th day of June, SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Attest: By: H. Paul Senft, Jr., Chair Douglas B. Tharp, Secretary STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF SUMTER ACKNOWLEDGMENT The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 26th day of June, 2012, by H. Paul Senft, Jr. and Douglas B. Tharp, Chair and Secretary, respectively, of the Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District, a public corporation, on behalf of the corporation. They are personally known to me. WITNESS my hand and official seal on this 26th day of June, Notary Public State of Florida at Large My Commission Expires: 9

31 Southwest Florida Water Management District Proposed Fiscal Year Budget Amendment Proposed administrative budget amendment to eliminate the individual FY Basin budgets totaling $283,132,462, and increase the District's FY General Fund (the Operating Fund) budget by the same amount, $283,132,462, to reflect the 2011 merger of the seven Basins with the District. Revenues: FY Proposed FY FY Proposed Budget Adopted Prior Year Original Budget As Amended Budget Encumbrances Budget Amendment June 26, 2012 General Fund $111,682,823 $104,184,187 $215,867,010 $283,132,462 $498,999,472 Special Revenue Funds Former Basin Funds Alafia River Basin 1,348,144 16,702,517 18,050,661 (18,050,661) - Hillsborough River Basin 9,137,891 52,627,119 61,765,010 (61,765,010) - Coastal Rivers Basin 3,429,121 9,907,973 13,337,094 (13,337,094) - Pinellas-Anclote River Basin 9,477,344 90,055,770 99,533,114 (99,533,114) - Withlacoochee River Basin 3,013,504 9,306,692 12,320,196 (12,320,196) - Peace River Basin 4,204,117 31,540,074 35,744,191 (35,744,191) - Manasota Basin 10,763,400 31,618,796 42,382,196 (42,382,196) - Total Former Basin Funds 41,373, ,758, ,132,462 (283,132,462) - FDOT Mitigation 1,448,268 3,372,194 4,820,462-4,820,462 Total Special Revenue Funds 42,821, ,131, ,952,924 (283,132,462) 4,820,462 Capital Projects Funds Facilities Fund 1,039,285 2,997,542 4,036,827-4,036,827 Florida Forever 0 1,349,087 1,349,087 1,349,087 Total Capital Projects Funds 1,039,285 4,346,629 5,385,914-5,385,914 Total Revenues $155,543,897 $353,661,951 $509,205,848 $0 $509,205,848 Expenditures: General Fund $111,682,823 $104,184,187 $215,867,010 $283,132,462 $498,999,472 Special Revenue Funds Former Basin Funds Alafia River Basin 1,348,144 16,702,517 18,050,661 (18,050,661) - Hillsborough River Basin 9,137,891 52,627,119 61,765,010 (61,765,010) - Coastal Rivers Basin 3,429,121 9,907,973 13,337,094 (13,337,094) - Pinellas-Anclote River Basin 9,477,344 90,055,770 99,533,114 (99,533,114) - Withlacoochee River Basin 3,013,504 9,306,692 12,320,196 (12,320,196) - Peace River Basin 4,204,117 31,540,074 35,744,191 (35,744,191) - Manasota Basin 10,763,400 31,618,796 42,382,196 (42,382,196) - Total Former Basin Funds 41,373, ,758, ,132,462 (283,132,462) - FDOT Mitigation 1,448,268 3,372,194 4,820,462-4,820,462 Total Special Revenue Funds 42,821, ,131, ,952,924 (283,132,462) 4,820,462 Capital Projects Funds Facilities Fund 1,039,285 2,997,542 4,036,827-4,036,827 Florida Forever - 1,349,087 1,349,087 1,349,087 Total Capital Projects Funds 1,039,285 4,346,629 5,385,914-5,385,914 Total Revenues $155,543,897 $353,661,951 $509,205,848 $0 $509,205,848 The final and/or amended budgets are on file in the office of the Southwest Florida Water Management District as a public record. Office located at 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida

32 Item 10 Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Finance and Administration Committee Information Technology Bureau Computer Network Infrastructure Upgrades Purpose Request the Governing Board reallocate $197,000 from prior years encumbrances budgeted for Business Objects reporting software expansion and Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 funds originally budgeted for Bartow Service Office Board Room video equipment to support the upgrade of existing wireless network and core network switch equipment in the Brooksville and Tampa facilities. Background/History Wireless Network Upgrade. A wireless network consists of a series of controllers and access points that allow users to connect mobile devices (smart phones, tablet computers and laptops) to the District s network. The District, as with many other organizations, is seeing a dramatic increase in the demand for access to wireless networks. This demand is driven by (1) an increasing number of mobile computing devices used by District staff and visitors; and (2) an increasing number of web-based applications employing technologies that consume a large amount of bandwidth ( attachments, video, audio, etc.). This demand has further increased across the District and especially in the Tampa Service Office with the consolidation of Resource Regulation staff and the increased presence of Executive and General Counsel staff in that location. The existing Brooksville and Tampa wireless infrastructure is over five years old and is experiencing difficulty supporting the increased number of users and traffic traversing this network. The hardware supporting the wireless infrastructure goes unsupported by the manufacturer in FY2012 and cannot support the device density or increased bandwidth requirements necessary to support a more dynamic and mobile workforce. The proposed upgrade will increase the number of devices that can access the network and increase the available bandwidth per device. Tampa Core Network Switch Upgrade. Network switches provide connectivity to servers and desktops that allow sharing of District computing resources. The core switch in Tampa is 11 years old and additional 10 Gigabit Ethernet modules and distribution layer switches will be required to support the relocation of servers and associated supporting systems to the Tampa Service Office. These switches support the entire Tampa campus user community and the District s Disaster Recovery systems. Benefits/Costs Replacement and upgrading of computer hardware is a part of the normal maintenance of information technology infrastructure. The upgrade of the wireless network equipment will provide improved performance for users of the District s wireless networks, increase the ease of administration of these networks, and replace equipment that is unsupported by the manufacturer in FY2013. The upgrade of the core Tampa Network Switch will improve scalability, enhance high availability and business continuity efforts, and will extend the life of this equipment until the end of the manufacturer s supported lifecycle to December Costs for the upgrades are identified below: 11

33 Item 10 ITEM COST 1 BUDGETED FY2012 AVAILABLE FUNDS 2 PRIOR YEAR BUSINESS OBJECTS ENCUMBRANCE 3 FY2012 BUDGETED FUNDS FOR BSO BOARD ROOM 4 Wireless Network Hardware $127,000 $ - $127,000 $ - Hardware Maintenance 11,000 11, Software Maintenance 13,000 13, Sub Total $151,000 $24,000 $127,000 $ - Network Switch Upgrade Hardware $ 70,000 $ - $ 51,300 $18,700 Hardware Maintenance 12,600 12, Sub Total $ 82,600 $12,600 $ 51,300 $18,700 GRAND TOTAL $233,600 $36,600 $178,300 $18, Cost to upgrade systems. 2. Available existing FY2012 funds budgeted for hardware and software maintenance. 3. Funds in the amount of $178,300 were budgeted in prior years to expand the existing Business Objects reporting system. Reductions in staff and changes in technology have eliminated the need for the expansion. 4. Funds in the amount of $95,000 were budgeted in FY2012 to upgrade video equipment in the Bartow Service Office (BSO) Governing Board Room. Closing of the BSO eliminates the need to update this equipment. Upgrades to the wireless network and core network switch systems were originally budgeted for FY2013. Approval of this request will allow the Information Technology Bureau (ITB) to eliminate $219,400 from its proposed FY2013 budget. Impact If Not Funded Internal and external customers will receive reduced levels of service if the wireless network is not upgraded and the District s reliance on under provisioned equipment will increase the risk of failure, reduced performance, and loss of scalability. The District s Disaster Recovery planning efforts will experience increased risk if the core network switches are not upgraded and it will decrease the District s expansion capability, due to capacity constraints within the existing hardware configuration. The KPMG Information Technology Review and Analysis Study identified out-of-date equipment and an inadequate Disaster Recovery Strategy as areas of improvement for the District. Staff Recommendation: Authorize a transfer of $178,300 of prior year encumbrances originally allocated to expanding Business Objects reporting software and $18,700 of the $95,000 in FY2012 funds originally intended to upgrade the Bartow Service Office Governing Board video equipment to purchase the hardware required to support the upgrade of existing wireless network and core network switch equipment. These funds will supplement available existing ITB hardware and software maintenance funds. Total amount to be transferred is $197,000 and total cost for the upgrades is $233,600. Presenter: Steven Dicks, Bureau Chief, Information Technology, Management Services Div. 12

34 Item 11 Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Regulation Committee Consider Fourth Amendment to Districtwide Modified Phase I Restrictions The Governing Board first approved Water Shortage Order No. SWF (Order), a Modified Phase I (Moderate Water Shortage) declaration, during its November 16, 2010 meeting. The Order reinforced the twice-per-week maximum lawn watering schedule and other provisions of the District s year-round water conservation measures (Chapter 40D-22, Florida Administrative Code), acknowledged and affirmed more stringent local restrictions, asked all property owners to test and repair their irrigation systems to reduce waste, and required water utilities and other local enforcement agencies to report their restriction enforcement efforts to the District on a monthly basis. This Districtwide Order was originally scheduled to expire on July 31, 2011; however, the Governing Board subsequently extended its expiration date three times, most recently through June 30, Its restrictions are currently only in full force and effect within seven counties because subsequent orders declaring more stringent restrictions have temporarily overridden any less restrictive Phase I provisions in nine counties. Staff continues to monitor conditions in accordance with the District s Water Shortage Plan to determine if any additional actions or rescission of current restrictions would be prudent. As of May 31, 2012, conditions are such that Phase I water shortage restrictions should remain in effect in areas of the District not currently subject to more stringent measures. Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit Unless changing conditions result in staff proving an updated recommendation during the Governing Board s meeting on June 26, 2012, approve the Fourth Amendment to Water Shortage Order No. SWF This amendment would extend the terms of the Order through December 31, Presenter: Lois Ann Sorensen, M.B.A., Demand Management Program Manager, Water Use Permit Administration Section, Regulation Division 13

35 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN RE: DECLARATION OF WATER SHORTAGE FOURTH BOARD ORDER MODIFYING WATER SHORTAGE ORDER NO. SWF The Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District), during a public hearing held at its regularly scheduled monthly meeting on June 26, 2012, at The Villages Savannah Center in The Villages, Florida, received data and recommendations from District staff, and provided opportunity for comment from the public, regarding hydrologic conditions and other pertinent facts regarding the existence of an ongoing water shortage within the District. Based upon the testimony, data, staff recommendations and public comment, the Governing Board makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At its November 16, 2010, meeting, in accordance with Chapter 40D-21, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the District's Water Shortage Plan (Plan), the Governing Board considered then-current water resource and water supply information, staff recommendations and public input and, upon careful consideration, issued Water Shortage Order No. SWF At its July 26, 2011, October 25, 2011, and February 28, 2012 meetings, in accordance with the Plan, the Governing Board considered then-current water resource and water supply information, staff recommendations and public input and, upon careful consideration, extended the terms of Water Shortage Order No. SWF through June 30, The Plan specifies that the District will monitor certain water resource conditions as Drought Indicators, including rainfall, groundwater levels and stream flows. 4. The southern region of the District includes the following counties: Charlotte, DeSoto, Hardee, Manatee and Sarasota. Pertinent current values for Drought Indicators in the southern region of the District and Polk County in the central region of the District are summarized as follows: a. Rainfall i. As of May 31, 2012, the southern region of the District is experiencing a 12- month moving sum of rainfall that registers at the 10 th percentile, which is classified as extremely abnormal by the Plan. ii. As of May 31, 2012, the southern region of the District is experiencing a 24- month moving sum of rainfall that registers at the 5th percentile, which is classified as critically abnormal by the Plan. 14

36 iii. As of May 31, 2012, Polk County is experiencing rainfall conditions that are classified as severely abnormal by the Plan b. Groundwater Levels i. As of May 31, 2012, the Aquifer Resource Indicator for the southern region is at the 18 th percentile and has been at or below the 25 th percentile for at least four weeks, which is classified as severely abnormal by the Plan. ii. As of May 31, 2012, Polk County is experiencing an Aquifer Resource Indicator value at the 22 nd percentile, which is classified as severely abnormal by the Plan. c. Stream Flows i. As of May 30, 2012, the 7-day moving average stream flow for the Peace River, as measured at the gage at Arcadia, is at the 2 nd percentile, which is classified as critically abnormal by the Plan. ii. iii. iv. As of May 30, 2012, the 8-week moving average stream flow for the Peace River, as measured at the gage at Arcadia, is at the 2nd percentile, which is classified as critically abnormal by the Plan. As of May 30, 2012, the 7-day moving average stream flow for the Peace River, as measured at the gage at Bartow, is at the 19 th percentile, which is classified as severely abnormal by the Plan. As of May 30, 2012, the 8-week moving average stream flow for the Peace River, as measured at the gage at Bartow, is at the 7 th percentile, which is classified as extremely abnormal by the Plan. 5. The northern region of the District includes the following counties: Citrus, Hernando, Marion, Lake, Levy and Sumter. Pertinent current values for Drought Indicators in the northern region of the District are summarized as follows: a. As of February 14, 2012, Drought Indicators for the northern region (12-month and 24-month moving sum rainfall, 8-week and 7-day moving average stream flow, and the Aquifer Resource Indicator) were all severely, extremely or critically abnormal. This combination of indicator values was such that the Governing Board issued Water Shortage Order No. SWF , declaring Modified Phase III restrictions which temporarily override less restrictive provisions of the existing Modified Phase I order. b. As of May 31, 2012, Drought Indicators for the northern region are still severely, extremely or critically abnormal. 6. The central region of the District includes the following counties: Hillsborough, Pasco, Pinellas and Polk. Pertinent values for these Drought Indicators in the central region of the District, except Polk County, are summarized as follows: 2 15

37 a. As of May 9, 2012, Drought Indicators for three of the region s counties (12-month and 24-month moving sum rainfall, 8-week and 7-day moving average stream flow, and the Aquifer Resource Indicator) were all moderately, severely, extremely or critically abnormal and resulting water supply storage was low enough to constitute a public health, safety and welfare emergency. In response to the emergency, the Executive Director issued Order No. SWF , subsequently ratified by the Governing Board, declaring Modified Phase II restrictions that temporarily override less restrictive provisions of the existing Modified Phase I order. b. As of May 31, 2012, Drought Indicators for the central region are still severely, extremely or critically abnormal. 7. The Plan also specifies that the District will consider additional factors when determining whether to declare or modify a water shortage and in determining which phase of restrictions and other required actions should be implemented in response to a declared or continuing water shortage event. 8. Pertinent additional factors include: a. The Climate Prediction Center s current forecasts are uncertain, with equal chances of above, normal and e that rainfall will be below normal through June b. The majority of citizens in the southern region of the District are served by water utilities which receive or are capable of receiving water from Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority. As of May 28, 2012, the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority has about 4.12 Billion Gallons of water stored in its reservoirs and ASR wellfields, which constitutes a 168 day supply. 9. All groundwater and surface water sources throughout the District are currently affected by this water shortage event, to varying degrees. 10. All categories of water users are impacting the available sources and contributing to the potential for harm to the natural systems. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 11. The Governing Board of the District is duly authorized by Section (2), Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Chapter 40D-21, F.A.C., to issue Orders declaring the existence of a water shortage within all or part of the District and to impose such measures, restrictions and other required actions as may be necessary to reduce demand on available water supplies. 12. County and city officials and all law enforcement authorities are required to enforce orders lawfully issued by the Executive Director pursuant to Rule 40D , F.A.C., and Section , F.S. 3 16

38 ORDERED THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED: 13. Water Shortage Order No. SWF , as written, is extended through December 31, 2012 unless further extended, modified or rescinded by Governing Board action prior to that date. 14. In the event that the Governing Board or Executive Director declares an additional Water Shortage Order in any portion of the District, the stricter provision of any such additional Order shall supersede the corresponding provision of this Order. 15. Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions of Water Shortage Order No. SWF shall remain in full force and effect. DONE AND ORDERED in Sumter County, Florida, on this 26 th day of June SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Attest: By: H. Paul Senft Governing Board Chair Director By: Douglas B. Tharp Governing Board Secretary Filed this day of June, 2012 Agency Clerk Approved as to Legal Form and Content Attorney 4 17

39 NOTICE OF RIGHTS Persons to whom this Order is directed, or whose substantial interests are affected, may petition for an administrative hearing in accordance with Sections and , F.S., and Chapter , Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). A request for a hearing must: 1) explain how the petitioner s or other person s substantial interests will be affected by the District s action; 2) state all material facts disputed by the petitioner or other person, or state that there are no disputed facts; and 3) otherwise comply with Chapter , F.A.C. A request for hearing must be filed with and received by the Agency Clerk of the District at District Headquarters, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of this notice. Receipt is deemed to be the fifth day after the date on which this notice is deposited in the United States mail. Failure to file a request for hearing within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any right you or any other person may have to request a hearing under Sections and , F.S. Mediation pursuant to Section , F.S., and Rule , F.A.C., to settle an administrative dispute regarding the District s action in this matter is not available prior to the filing of a request for hearing. In accordance with subsection (1), F.S., the following additional administrative or judicial review may be available. A party who is adversely affected by final agency action may seek review of the action in the appropriate District Court of Appeal pursuant to Section , F.S., by filing a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, within thirty (30) days after the rendering of the final action by the District. 5 18

40 Item 12 Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Regulation Committee Consider First Amendment to Modified Phase III Restrictions in Northern Counties The Governing Board approved Water Shortage Order No. SWF (Order), a Modified Phase III (Extreme Water Shortage) declaration, during its February 28, 2012 meeting. The Order implemented a once-per-week maximum lawn watering schedule and other Phase III provisions of the District s Water Shortage Plan (Chapter 40D-21, Florida Administrative Code), including recent amendments to that phase of the plan. The Order affected five counties (Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Levy and Sumter) and two portions of a sixth county (the City of Dunnellon and The Villages in Marion County), and was originally scheduled to expire on June 30, As of May 31, 2012, due to ongoing drought conditions, it would be prudent to maintain measures that are more stringent than Phase I restrictions in the applicable counties. Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit Unless changing conditions result in staff proving an updated recommendation during the Governing Board s meeting on June 26, 2012, approve the First Amendment to Water Shortage Order No. SWF to extend the terms of the Order through July 31, Presenter: Lois Ann Sorensen, M.B.A., Demand Management Program Manager, Water Use Permit Administration Section, Regulation Division 19

41 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT IN RE: DECLARATION OF AN ONGOING MODIFIED PHASE III WATER SHORTAGE FOR CITRUS, HERNANDO, LAKE, LEVY, MARION AND SUMTER COUNTIES FIRST BOARD ORDER MODIFYING WATER SHORTAGE ORDER NO. SWF The Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (District), during a public hearing held at its regularly scheduled monthly meeting on June 26, 2012, at The Villages Savannah Center in The Villages, Florida, received data and recommendations from District staff, and provided opportunity for comment from the public, regarding hydrologic conditions and other pertinent facts regarding the existence of an ongoing water shortage within the District. Based upon the testimony, data, staff recommendations and public comment, the Governing Board makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At its November 16, 2010 meeting, in accordance with Chapter 40D-21, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the District s Water Shortage Plan (Plan), the Governing Board considered then-current water resource and water supply information, staff recommendations and public input and, upon careful consideration, issued Water Shortage Order No. SWF At its July 26, 2011, October 25, 2011, and February 28, 2012 meetings, in accordance with the Plan, the Governing Board considered then-current water resource and water supply information, staff recommendations and public input and, upon careful consideration, extended Water Shortage Order No. SWF through June 30, At its February 28, 2012 meeting, in accordance with the Plan, the Governing Board considered then-current water resource and water supply information, staff recommendations and public input specific to Citrus, Hernando, Lake, Levy, Marion and Sumter counties, and, upon careful consideration, issued Water Shortage Order No. SWF specific to those counties. 4. The Plan specifies that the District will monitor certain water resource conditions as Drought Indicators, including rainfall, groundwater levels and stream flows. 5. Pertinent current values for the Drought Indicators associated with the northern region of the District (Citrus County, Hernando County and the portions of Lake, Levy, Marion and Sumter counties located within the District) are summarized as follows: 20

42 a. Rainfall i. As of May 29, 2012, the northern region of the District is experiencing a 12- month moving sum of rainfall that registers at the 14 th percentile, which is classified as severely abnormal by the Plan. ii. As of May 29, 2012, the northern region of the District is experiencing a 24- month moving sum of rainfall that registers at the 7 th percentile, which is classified as extremely abnormal by the Plan. b. Groundwater Levels c. Stream Flows As of May 30, 2012, the Aquifer Resource Indicator for the northern region is at the 12 th percentile and it has been at or below the 16 th percentile for twenty-six weeks, a status which is classified as critically abnormal by the Plan. i. As of May 30, 2012, the 7-day moving average stream flow for the Withlacoochee River, as measured at the gage at Trilby, is at the 4 th percentile, which is classified as ciritically abnormal by the Plan. ii. iii. As of May 30, 2012, the 7-day moving average stream flow for the Withlacoochee River, as measured at the gage at Holder (downstream of Trilby), is at the 4 th percentile, which is classified as critically abnormal by the Plan. As of May 30, 2012, the 8-week moving average stream flow for the Withlacoochee River, as measured at the gage at Holder, is at the 1 st percentile, which is classified as critically abnormal by the Plan. 6. The Plan also specifies that the District will consider additional factors when determining whether to declare or modify a water shortage and which phase of restrictions and other required actions should be implemented to respond to a declared or continuing water shortage event. 7. Pertinent additional factors include: a. As of May 31, 2012, Drought Indicators throughout the Ditrict are moderately, severely, extremely or critically abnormal. b. The Climate Prediction Center s current forecasts are uncertain, with equal chances of above, normal and below-normal rainfall until last summer. c. The majority of citizens and other water users in the northern region rely exclusively on ground water supplies to meet their needs, including water utilities providing water for public health, welfare and safety. Unlike water utilities in the central and southern regions of the District, those in the northern region are not currently capable of also receiving water from reservoirs and other surface water storage systems. 2 21

43 8. All groundwater and surface water sources throughout Citrus County, Hernando County and the portions of Lake, Levy, Marion and Sumter counties within the District are currently affected by this water shortage event, to varying degrees. 9. All categories of water users are impacting the available sources and contributing to the potential for harm to the natural systems. 10. Pursuant to an Interagency Agreement between the District and the St. Johns River Water Management District, The Villages and the City of Dunnellon in Marion County are governed by those water shortage restrictions established by the District. The remainder of Marion County, including the City of Ocala, is governed by any water restrictions established by the St. Johns River Water Management District. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 11. The Governing Board of the District is duly authorized by Section (2), Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Chapter 40D-21, F.A.C., to issue Orders declaring the existence of a water shortage within all or part of the District and to impose such measures, restrictions and other required actions as may be necessary to reduce demand on available water supplies. 12. County and City officials and all law enforcement authorities are required to enforce Orders lawfully issued by the Executive Director pursuant to Rule 40D , F.A.C., and Section , F.S. ORDERED THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is ORDERED: 13. Water Shortage Order No. SWF , is extended through July 31, 2012 unless further extended, modified or rescinded by Governing Board action prior to that date. 14. In the event that the Governing Board or Executive Director declares an additional Water Shortage Order in any portion of the District, the stricter provision of any such additional Order shall supersede the corresponding provision of this Order. 15. Except as modified herein, all other terms and conditions of Water Shortage Order No. SWF shall remain in full force and effect. 3 22

44 DONE AND ORDERED in Sumter County, Florida, on this 26 th day of June SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Attest: By: H. Paul Senft Governing Board Chair Director By: Douglas B. Tharp Governing Board Secretary Filed this day of June, 2012 Agency Clerk Approved as to Legal Form and Content Attorney 4 23

45 NOTICE OF RIGHTS Persons to whom this Order is directed, or whose substantial interests are affected, may petition for an administrative hearing in accordance with Sections and , F.S., and Chapter , Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). A request for a hearing must: 1) explain how the petitioner s or other person s substantial interests will be affected by the District s action; 2) state all material facts disputed by the petitioner or other person, or state that there are no disputed facts; and 3) otherwise comply with Chapter , F.A.C. A request for hearing must be filed with and received by the Agency Clerk of the District at District Headquarters, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of this notice. Receipt is deemed to be the fifth day after the date on which this notice is deposited in the United States mail. Failure to file a request for hearing within this time period shall constitute a waiver of any right you or any other person may have to request a hearing under Sections and , F.S. Mediation pursuant to Section , F.S., and Rule , F.A.C., to settle an administrative dispute regarding the District s action in this matter is not available prior to the filing of a request for hearing. In accordance with subsection (1), F.S., the following additional administrative or judicial review may be available. A party who is adversely affected by final agency action may seek review of the action in the appropriate District Court of Appeal pursuant to Section , F.S., by filing a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, within thirty (30) days after the rendering of the final action by the District. 5 24

46 Item 13.a. Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Regulation Committee Individual Water Use Permit (WUP) No Layline Land, LLC / Coffee Pond Farm (Manatee County) This is a renewal with modification of an existing water use permit for agricultural use. The authorized quantities shown above are changed from those previously permitted. The annual average quantity increases from 1,208,900 gpd to 2,941,400 gpd; the peak month quantity increases from 2,187,200 gpd to 6,793,500 gpd; and a crop protection quantity of 1,344,000 gpd is added. There is no change in Use Type from the previous revision. The changes in the permitted quantities are due to changes in the crop plan, from 557 acres of tomatoes exclusively, to 275 acres of tomatoes, 156 acres of citrus, and 915 acres of sod. Quantities are based on the District's irrigation allotment calculation program, AGMOD. This renewal includes the addition of a reservoir and two surface water withdrawals as part of a District FARMS project to offset groundwater use and to reduce the potential for offsite discharge of irrigation water to the Upper Myakka River Watershed. Special Conditions include those that require the Permittee to record and report monthly meter readings from all withdrawal points within 90 days of construction; adhere to specific well construction stipulations for the proposed wells; implement water conservation and best management practices; monitor wetland water levels; and comply with SWUCA recovery goals. The permit application meets all Rule 40D-2 Conditions for Issuance. Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit Approve the proposed permit included as an exhibit in the Board s meeting materials. Presenter: Darrin Herbst, Chief, Water Use Permit Bureau, Regulation Division 25

47 26

48 27

49 28

50 29

51 30

52 31

53 32

54 33

55 34

56 35

57 36

58 37

59 Item 13.b. Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Regulation Committee Individual Water Use Permit (WUP) No McClure Properties, Ltd. / McClure Rutland (Manatee County) This is a renewal with modification of an existing Individual water use permit (WUP) for agriculture. The authorized quantities shown above are changed from those previously permitted. The annual average quantity increases from 2,101,900 gpd to 2,258,900 gpd, and the peak month quantity is reduced from 4,108,700 gpd to 4,103,500 gpd. There is no change in Use Type from the previous revision. The change in quantities is due to the addition of melons to the crop plan. Quantities are based on the District's irrigation allotment calculation program, AGMOD. This water use permit is located in the Most Impacted Area (MIA). The increase in the annual average quantity is met in full by Self-Relocation of 157,000 gpd from WUP , as provided for in Part B, Basis of Review, Section 4.3.B.2., and therefore does not represent a New Quantity within the MIA. Special Conditions include those that require the Permittee to report monthly meter readings, submit seasonal crop reports, modify the permit to reflect incorporation of any new alternative sources of water, implement water conservation and best management practices, and comply with SWUCA recovery goals. The permit application meets all Rule 40D-2 Conditions for Issuance. Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit Approve the proposed permit included as an exhibit in the Board s meeting materials. Presenter: Darrin Herbst, Chief, Water Use Permit Bureau, Regulation Division 38

60 June6 39

61 June6 40

62 June6 41

63 June6 42

64 June6 43

65 June6 44

66 June6 45

67 June6 46

68 June6 47

69 June6 48

70 Item 13.c. Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Regulation Committee Individual Water Use Permit (WUP) No TMD Enterprises, LLC / TDM Sumter County (Sumter County) This is a new water use permit for agricultural use for irrigation of 190 acres of sod. The standard annual average quantity is 508,900 gallons per day (gpd) and the peak month quantity is 1,399,900 gpd. Quantities are based on calculations using the District irrigation allotment calculation program, AGMOD. The Permittee is not using Alternative Water Supply (AWS) sources because none are available at this location at this time. Special Conditions include those that require the Permittee to record and report monthly meter readings, to modify the permit within 90 days of incorporating an alternative water source for irrigation, and to implement water conservation and best management practices. The permit application meets all Rule 40D-2 Conditions for Issuance. Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit Approve the proposed permit included as an exhibit in the Board s meeting materials. Presenter: Darrin Herbst, Chief, Water Use Permit Bureau, Regulation Division 49

71 50

72 51

73 52

74 53

75 54

76 55

77 56

78 57

79 58

80 59

81 Item 13.d. Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Regulation Committee Individual Water Use Permit (WUP) No City of Clearwater / City of Clearwater Public Supply (Pinellas County) This is a modification of an existing public supply water use permit for the development of a new brackish groundwater source for a second reverse osmosis facility at the City of Clearwater's Water Treatment Plant No. 2 (RO2). The RO2 Facility is an Alternative Water Supply (AWS) project under a Cooperative Funding Agreement (N176) with the District. As provided for in Section (5) of the Florida Statutes, this permit extends the permit duration to coincide with the City s funding of the AWS project through 30-year capital improvement bonds. There is no change in Use Type from the previous revision. The 6,300,000 gpd increase in the permitted quantities reflects the reduced reliance on the regional water supply system, substituted with 5,800,000 gpd from 12 proposed brackish water wells and concentrate from the RO1 Water Treatment Plant for the City s planned RO2 Facility, then blended with an additional 500,000 gpd from 2 existing freshwater production wells. The annual average quantity increased from 8,000,000 gpd to 14,300,000 gpd, and the peak month quantity increased from 9,520,000 gpd to 15,820,000 gpd. Special Conditions include those that require the Permittee to continue to record and report monthly meter readings from all withdrawal points; submit the Public Supply Annual Report by April 1 of each year; submit the Annual Report on Water Rate Billing and Meter Reading Practices by October 1 of each year; comply with rolling 12-month average pumpage; cap all wells not in use; adhere to per-capita requirements; maintain a water-conserving rate structure; continue to implement the District-approved water conservation plan; adhere to and update the water quality monitoring plan; update and adhere to the environmental monitoring plan; and investigate water level and water quality complaints. The permit application meets all Rule 40D-2 Conditions for Issuance. Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit Approve the proposed permit included as an exhibit in the Board s meeting materials. Presenter: Darrin Herbst, Chief, Water Use Permit Bureau, Regulation Division 60

82 61

83 62

84 63

85 64

86 65

87 66

88 67

89 68

90 69

91 70

92 71

93 72

94 73

95 74

96 75

97 76

98 77

99 78

100 79

101 80

102 81

103 82

104 83

105 84

106 Item 14 Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Resource Management Committee Englewood Reclaimed Water Supply Project First Amendment (N218) Purpose To request the Board approve a first amendment to the cooperative funding agreement with the Englewood Water District (EWD) for the Englewood Reclaimed Water Supply Project to reduce the scope of the project by eliminating the supplemental reclaimed water supply well. This well is not needed due to the reduced system demand as a result of the economic downturn. This action changes the scope, reduces funding, and extends the contract expiration date. Background/History The District entered into a cooperative funding agreement on November 9, 2009, with EWD for the design and construction of a supplemental reclaimed water supply well and modification of the intake structure at the onsite reuse pond at the Englewood Water Reclamation Facility to provide additional dry-weather irrigation supplies. EWD decided after further investigation that the supplemental reclaimed water supply well is not needed under the reduced demand on their reclaimed water system due to the economic downturn. Re-engineering and construction of modifications to the onsite wet-weather pond was completed, and the pond will be used to provide additional reuse supply to existing customers during peak demand periods. These customers include Lemon Bay Golf, Oyster Creek Golf, and Rotunda West Utilities in Charlotte County; and Myakka Pines Golf, Englewood Sports Park, Boca Royale Golf, and Gran Paradiso Subdivision in Sarasota County. A schedule extension to December 31, 2012, is also requested to provide additional time to complete permitting of the project. Benefits/Costs The total cost of the project was estimated at $260,000. Since the benefits were evenly split between customers in the Peace and Manasota basins, EWD requested $65,000 from each basin for a total of $130,000 (50 percent) in FY2010 District funding. The cost of the pond modification portion of the project totaled $100,000 ($50,000 District) of the $260,000 total costs pursuant to the agreement; of which $160,000 ($80,000 District) for the supplemental supply well will be returned to the respective basin s reserves. A copy of the amendment is available upon request. Staff Recommendation: Approve the first amendment to the existing agreement with the Englewood Water District to modify the scope by eliminating the supplemental reclaimed water supply well; reduce the total cost of the project from $260,000 to $100,000 and proportionately reduce the District s obligation from $130,000 to $50,000; extend the contract termination date from June 30, 2012, to December 31, 2012; and authorize the Resource Management Division Director to execute the amendment. Presenter: Kenneth R. Herd, P.E., Bureau Chief, Water Resources, Resource Management Division 85

107 Item 15 Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Resource Management Committee Authorize Submission of Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps to the Federal Emergency Management Agency Background/History The District initiated a partnership with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to modernize flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs) as part of its Watershed Management Program (WMP). Flood protection and floodplain information has been a priority at the District since the inception of the organization and that priority was renewed following the El Niño weather event in In addition to studies conducted by the District and others, information on floodplains (elevations) is available through the FEMA FIRMs. However, many of the existing maps do not accurately represent the flood-prone areas because either the initial studies were technically limited, or the maps are outdated due to significant land use changes since completion. To improve the floodplain information, develop regional scale flood routing models for alternative analysis, and improve local government s understanding of their flood protection level of service, the District reached out to local governments and initiated the WMP in the late 1990s. The District recognized a potential funding partner in FEMA as they had mutual goals to improve and modernize the existing FIRMs to better identify risks of flooding within the District. The District and FEMA executed a Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) Memorandum of Agreement on September 14, 2001, to formalize the relationship. As a CTP, the District is eligible for federal funds to act as FEMA's partner in modernization of the FIRMs. Federal funds have allowed the District and local governments to accomplish significantly more than would have otherwise been possible. To date, the District has received approximately $12 million in federal funds from FEMA for countywide map modernization projects in Pasco, Sarasota, Hernando, Marion, Polk, Hardee, DeSoto, Citrus, Sumter, Levy, and Highlands counties. FEMA also includes federal funding for the Map Modernization Management Support (MMMS) program to ensure MMMS partners can support the map modernization effort through activities that do not directly result in production of new or revised flood hazard maps. Since 2004, FEMA has provided $1,013,860 in funding through the MMMS program. In October 2007, staff provided a report to the Governing Board outlining staff s technical and procedural approach for development and professional oversight of watershed models. Since March 2008, staff provides the Board a monthly update on the status of the District s WMP and FEMA Map Modernization, including an update on the progress and activities associated with these issues. Since November 2008, the Governing Board has authorized staff to submit preliminary FIRMs to FEMA for 17 watersheds in Hernando County, four watersheds in Pasco County, three watersheds in Citrus County, one watershed in Manatee County, six watersheds in Sarasota County, one watershed in Polk County, two watersheds in DeSoto County, five watersheds in Hardee County, one watershed in Highlands County, and 11 watersheds in Marion County. 86

108 Item 15.a. Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Resource Management Committee Authorization Submission of Preliminary FIRMs to the FEMA Sarasota County Purpose Request the Board s authorization to submit the preliminary Sarasota County Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMS) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). FEMA will then begin the FIRM adoption process for Sarasota County. FEMA s adoption process includes a technical review, further public input, and a 90-day appeals period. Depending on the public input and issues, the post-preliminary process can take an additional one to two years before the FIRMs become effective. Background/History The Governing Board has authorized staff to submit preliminary FIRMs to FEMA for 6 of the 12 watersheds in Sarasota County. The watershed models and floodplain information have gone through the District s process including internal review and external peer review by experienced licensed professional engineers. The District s Environmental Resource Permitting Advisory Group members (consultant and development community) were provided opportunities to review and comment on the watershed models and floodplain information. Public workshops were held for each watershed for the public to review and comment on the floodplain information. The floodplain information was also made available through the District s website. The detailed watershed models for the six remaining watersheds remain under development; therefore, the current effective FIRMs for those watersheds will be updated to meet the FEMA specifications and submitted as the preliminary FIRMs, along with the six watersheds where detailed watershed models have been completed. In the future when a detailed watershed model is developed for any of the six remaining watersheds, the detailed watershed model will go through the District s process and be submitted to FEMA for adoption through a separate process. Staff Recommendation: Authorize staff to submit the preliminary FIRMs for Sarasota County to FEMA. Presenter: Kenneth R. Herd, P.E., Bureau Chief, Water Resources, Resource Management Division 87

109 Item 15.b. Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Resource Management Committee Authorize Submission of Preliminary FIRMs to the FEMA Manatee County Gamble Creek Purpose Request the Board s authorization to submit the preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for the Gamble Creek watershed in Manatee County to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The FIRMs were modernized based upon a detailed watershed management model. The watershed model and floodplain information have gone through the District s process that includes internal review and external peer review by experienced licensed professional engineers. Preliminary floodplain information was presented for review and comment during a public workshop held July 19, The preliminary floodplain information is ready to be incorporated into FEMA s mapping specifications for submittal to FEMA. Following submittal of the preliminary FIRMs, FEMA will conduct their own technical review, take public input, and allow for a 90-day appeals period during the adoption process. Depending on public input, the FEMA process can take an additional one to two years. The floodplain information for the Gamble Creek watershed was prepared by a District s consultant (Engineering Firm of Record), reviewed by District and County staff, and then reviewed by the District s independent peer review consultant (see table below). The District s Environmental Resource Permitting Advisory Group members (consultant and development community) were invited to attend the presentations of the floodplain information to the peer review consultants; and provided opportunities to review and comment on the watershed model and floodplain information. A public workshop was held on July 19, Approximately 871 affected property owners were notified of the workshop by mail, 30 attended, and 6 property owners contacted District staff by phone or . The floodplain information was also made available through the District s website. WATERSHED ENGINEERING FIRM OF RECORD PEER REVIEW Gamble Creek Atkins NA Interflow Engineering, LLC Staff Recommendation: Authorize staff to submit the preliminary FIRMs for the Gamble Creek watershed in Manatee County to FEMA. Presenter: Kenneth R. Herd, P.E., Bureau Chief, Water Resources, Resource Management Division 88

110 Item 16.a. Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Resource Management Committee FARMS Family Dynamics, Inc. (H663), DeSoto County Purpose To request approval for a Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) project with Family Dynamics, Inc. and approval to reimburse FARMS eligible costs up to a not-to-exceed limit of $574,724 (50 percent of total project costs). Of this amount, $32,609 is requested from the Peace River Basin Fund and $542,115 from the Governing Board FARMS Funds. Total project costs are estimated at $1,149,448. Project Proposal The District received a project proposal from Family Dynamics, Inc., for their 28,823-acre farm located 9 miles west of Arcadia, in western DeSoto County, within the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA). This project will involve the construction and operation of a 5.0 acre reservoir to collect tailwater and surface water from the property and surrounding watershed to offset Upper Floridan aquifer groundwater used for citrus irrigation. The Water Use Permit (WUP) currently authorizes an annual average groundwater withdrawal of 1,481,700 gallons per day (gpd) to irrigate 1,154 acres of citrus with low volume under tree spray and 300 acres of melons with seepage irrigation. The WUP is currently being modified to increase quantities to allow the citrus grove to expand by 469 acres. FARMS project components consist of two surface water irrigation pump stations, filtration systems, hydraulic valves, culverts, control structures, and the piping necessary to connect the surface water reservoir to the irrigation system. Benefits/Costs The proposed project involves water quantity BMPs for supplemental irrigation and qualifies for a 50 percent cost-share reimbursement rate under the FARMS Program since it is expected to offset the use of groundwater by less than 50 percent. Using an estimated 16 percent savings of anticipated permitted quantities for daily irrigation, or 315,000 gpd, yields a daily cost of $2.30 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over the proposed five-year contract term, and $0.69 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over a thirty-year term. This value is within the guidelines for the generally accepted average cost savings per thousand gallons for the implementation of alternative supplies and improved irrigation techniques for flatwood citrus operations. Reimbursement will be divided between the Peace River Basin Funds and the Governing Board. Upon approval, the Peace River Basin Funds and Governing Board will have $0 and $124,499, respectively, remaining in their FARMS Program budgets. Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit (1) Approve the Family Dynamics, Inc. project for a not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $574,724 with $32,609 provided by Peace River Basin Funds and $542,115 provided by the Governing Board; (2) Authorize the transfer of $32,609 from fund 020 H017 Peace River Basin FARMS Funds and $542,115 from fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS Funds to the H663 Family Dynamics, Inc. project fund; and (3) Authorize the Director, Resource Management Division to execute the agreement. Presenter: Eric C. DeHaven, P.G., Bureau Chief, Natural Systems and Restoration, Resource Management Division 89

111 Location Map Family Dynamics, Inc. FARMS Project - (H663) SR-70 E ") 661 ") 661 ") 760 ^_ Miles ") 769 UV 72!.!. Legend # Proposed Surface Withdrawal!. Gorundwater Well Proposed Mainline!. Proposed Reservoir WUP Project Area!. DeSoto County Miles!. # #!.!. μ JLB 04/20/ Aerial 2009 NAVTEQ 90

112 Item 16.b. Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Resource Management Committee FARMS FLM, INC. Prairie River Ranch Phase 3 (H673), DeSoto County Purpose To request approval for a Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) project with FLM, INC. and approval to reimburse FARMS eligible costs up to a not-to-exceed limit of $225,000 (100 percent of FARMS eligible costs) from the Governing Board FARMS Funds. Total project costs are estimated at $547,000. Project Proposal The District received a project proposal from FLM, INC., for their 1,888-acre citrus grove located eight miles south of Arcadia, in eastern DeSoto County, within the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA), and Joshua Creek watershed. This project will involve the construction and operation of a 5-acre reservoir to collect tailwater and surface water from the property and surrounding watershed to offset Upper Floridan aquifer groundwater used for supplemental irrigation of citrus. The Water Use Permit (WUP) authorizes an annual average groundwater withdrawal of 1,515,500 gallons per day (gpd) for 1,615 acres of citrus with microjet irrigation. Since January 2004, an average of 97 percent of the permitted quantities was used to irrigate the grove. There are two previous FARMS projects on this property. In 2005 FARMS funded a pump station on an existing reservoir in the northeast quadrant of the grove. In 2008 FARMS funded a second reservoir with two pump stations in the southeast quadrant of the grove. Improvements to the irrigation system allow the two existing FARMS projects to serve the entire grove. Projected offset from the previous FARMS projects totals 368,200 gpd, with actual offset averaging 404,184 gpd (approximately 27 percent of all water used on site.) The new, proposed FARMS project will be located in the northwest quadrant of the property and will also be capable of serving the entire grove. FARMS project components consist of one surface water irrigation pump station, a filtration system, nine water control structures, and the piping necessary to connect the surface water reservoir to the existing irrigation system. Benefits/Costs The proposed project involves water quantity and water quality BMPs for supplemental irrigation and qualifies for a 75 percent cost-share reimbursement rate under the FARMS Program. Using an estimated 15 percent savings of permitted quantities for daily irrigation not previously offset, or 173,000 gpd, yields a daily cost of $2.00 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over the proposed five-year contract term, and $0.60 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over a thirty-year term. This value is within the guidelines for the generally accepted average cost savings per thousand gallons for the implementation of alternative supplies for flatwood citrus operations. Reimbursement will be from the Governing Board FARMS Fund. Upon approval, the Governing Board will have $124,499 remaining in its FARMS Program budget. Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit (1) Approve the FLM, INC. - Prairie River Ranch - Phase 3 project for a not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $225,000 provided by the Governing Board; (2) Authorize the transfer of $225,000 from fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS Funds, to the H673 FLM, INC. Prairie River Ranch Phase 3 project fund; and (3) Authorize the Director, Resource Management Division to execute the agreement. Presenter: Eric C. DeHaven, P.G., Bureau Chief, Natural Systems and Restoration, Resource Management Division 91

113 92

114 Item 16.c. Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Resource Management Committee FARMS Keysville Road Plant City, LLC Phase 2 (H672), Hillsborough County Purpose To request approval for a Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) project with Keysville Road Plant City, LLC and approval to reimburse FARMS eligible costs up to a not-to-exceed limit of $41,370 (75 percent of total project costs). Of this amount, $10,966 is requested from the Alafia River Basin Fund and $30,404 from the Governing Board FARMS Fund. Total project costs are estimated at $55,160. The project is located within the Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area (DPCWUCA) and will result in a reduction in groundwater used for frost/freeze crop protection. Project Proposal The District received a project proposal from Keysville Road Plant City, LLC for their 57.5 acre strawberry farm located 4.75 miles south of Plant City in eastern Hillsborough County, within the DPCWUCA. This Phase 2 project will involve the addition and use of frost/freeze cover cloth on 20 acres of strawberries located in the southwest parcel of this property to offset Upper Floridan aquifer groundwater quantities used for cold protection. The WUP authorizes cold protection groundwater withdrawals of 7,200,000 gallons per day (gpd) to frost/freeze protect 50 acres of strawberries with overhead sprinkler irrigation. The existing FARMS project (H519), located on the northeastern parcel, consists of a surface water pump station on a 1.5-acre reservoir. This phase of the project pre-dates the development of the DPCWUCA and focuses primarily on supplemental irrigation offsets, not frost/freeze offsets, from the Upper Floridan aquifer. However, the Phase 1 project can also be used to offset frost/freeze quantities. Phase 1 has been operational since July 2008, covering 30 acres of strawberries and small vegetables, resulting in an offset of 19,560 gpd of annual average daily groundwater quantities (26 percent of total annual average water use) since becoming operational. FARMS project components for Phase 2 consist of 20 acres of frost/freeze cover cloth, hardware for securing the cloth during deployment, and a shed to store the cloth when not deployed. Benefits/Costs The proposed project involves alternatives to using groundwater for frost/freeze protection within the DPCWUCA. Therefore, the project qualifies for a 75 percent cost-share reimbursement rate under the FARMS Program rule (40D-26, F.A.C.). Using an estimated 70 percent savings of permitted quantities for cold protection on Phase 2, the project is expected to offset 2,520,000 gpd of the originally permitted frost/freeze quantities (permitted at the time of the January 2010, freeze event), yielding a cost of $0.88 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over the proposed three-year contract term, and $0.17 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over a thirty-year term. This value is within the guidelines for the generally accepted average cost savings for the implementation of alternative frost/freeze methods. Reimbursement will be divided between the Alafia River Basin Fund and the Governing Board. Upon approval, the Alafia River Basin Fund and Governing Board will have $0 and $124,499, respectively, remaining in their FARMS Program budgets. 93

115 Item 16.c. Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit (1) Approve the Keysville Road Plant City, LLC Phase 2 project for a not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $41,370 with $10,966 provided by Alafia River Basin Fund and $30,404 provided by the Governing Board; (2) Authorize the transfer of $10,966 from fund 011 H017 Alafia River Basin FARMS funds and $30,404 from fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS funds to the H672 Keysville Road Plant City, LLC Phase 2 project fund; and (3) Authorize the Director, Resource Management Division to execute the agreement. Presenter: Eric C. DeHaven, P.G., Bureau Chief, Natural Systems and Restoration, Resource Management Division 94

116 LUPTON PL LUPTON PL HENRY GEORGE RD HENRY GEORGE RD Location Map Keysville Road Plant City, LLC - Phase 2 FARMS Project - (H672) UV 60 SHEPHERD RD TURKEY CREEK RD W KEYSVILLE RD KEYSVILLE ^_ RD E NICHOLS RD NICHOLS RD ") LITHIA RD Miles LITHIA PINECREST RD ") 640 Legend WUP $K Proposed Crop Cloth Proposed Cloth Storage Shed Existing FARMS Project H519 Hillsborough County $K KEYSVILLE RD E μ Miles KPC 04/12/ Aerial 2009 NAVTEQ 95

117 Item 16.d. Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Resource Management Committee FARMS CPM2, Inc. Amendment (H658), Pasco County Purpose To request approval for an amendment to an existing Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) project with CPM2, Inc. and approval to increase the reimbursable FARMS eligible costs up to a not-to-exceed limit from $103,354 to $113,039 (75 percent of total project costs) for a net increase of $9,685. Of this amount, $9,685 is requested from the Hillsborough River Basin FARMS Fund. Total project costs are estimated to increase by $12,915 (from $137,804 to $150,719). Project Proposal The District received an amended project proposal from CPM2, Inc., for their 49-acre blueberry farm located eight miles northeast of Dade City, in north central Pasco County, within the Northern Tampa Bay Water Use Caution Area (NTBWUCA). The proposed amended project will reduce groundwater use through the operation of two surface water reservoirs, 1.0 and 0.5 acres in size, to offset Upper Floridan aquifer groundwater used for daily irrigation and cold protection over 30 acres of blueberries. The Water Use Permit (WUP) authorizes an annual average groundwater withdrawal of 52,000 gallons per day (gpd) and a cold protection quantity of 1,728,000 gpd for 30 acres of blueberries with overhead irrigation. There is no reported pumpage as the permitted quantity is less than 100,000 gpd. The original project, approved by the Governing Board on April 24, 2012, involved two surface water pump stations, filtration systems, and the piping necessary to connect the surface water reservoirs to the existing irrigation system. The proposed amendment will add three water control structures that will facilitate routing runoff into the reservoirs and better control reservoir water levels. Benefits/Costs The proposed project involves water quantity BMPs for supplemental irrigation and cold protection and qualifies for a 75 percent cost-share reimbursement rate under the FARMS Program since it is expected to offset the use of groundwater by 50 percent or more. Using an estimated 59 percent savings of permitted quantities for daily irrigation, or 31,200 gpd, plus five percent of cold protection quantities, or 2,246 gpd on an annualized basis, pursuant to Rule 40D , Florida Administrative Code, will attain a total offset of 33,446 gpd on an annualized basis, yielding a daily cost of $2.43 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over the proposed six-year contract term, and $0.86 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over a thirty-year term. This value is within the guidelines for the generally accepted average cost savings per thousand gallons for the implementation of alternative supplies and improved irrigation techniques for blueberry operations. Hillsborough River Basin FARMS funds approved for the original project will also be used for the increased project costs associated with this amendment application. Upon approval, the Hillsborough River Basin will have $728,599 remaining in its FARMS Program budget. Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit (1) Approve the CPM2, Inc. project for an increase in the not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $9,685 with $9,685 provided by the Hillsborough River Basin Fund; (2) Authorize the transfer of $9,685 from fund 013 H017 Hillsborough River Basin FARMS funds to the H658 CPM2, Inc. project fund; and (3) Authorize the Director, Resource Management Division to execute the agreement. Presenter: Eric C. DeHaven, P.G., Bureau Chief, Natural Systems and Restoration, Resource Management Division 96

118 Location Map CPM2, Inc. FARMS Project Amendment - (H658) HAMM RD BUSCH LN JOHNSTON RD ^_ OLD OLD JOHNSTON JOHNSTON RD RD Miles JOHNSTON RD XY XY#!.!. OLD OLD JOHNSTON JOHNSTON RD RD Legend XY Proposed Structure Proposed Ditch # Proposed Surface Withdrawal!. Groundwater Well Proposed Mainline Proposed Reservoir WUP Pasco County μ Miles # XY JLB 04/26/ Aerial 2009 NAVTEQ 97

119 Item 16.e. Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Resource Management Committee FARMS Luna Berry Farm, LLC Amendment (H671), Polk County Purpose To request approval for an amendment to an existing Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) project with Luna Berry Farm, LLC and approval to increase the reimbursable FARMS eligible costs up to a not-to-exceed limit from $30,730 to $266,980 (75 percent of total project costs) for a net increase of $236,250. Of this additional amount, $236,250 is requested from the Governing Board FARMS Funds. Total project costs are estimated to increase by $315,000 (from $61,460 to $376,460). Project Proposal The District received an amended project proposal from Luna Berry Farm, LLC, for their 118- acre blueberry farm located six miles east of Lakeland, in central Polk County, within the Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA). The amended project will reduce water use through use of surface water from an existing on-site 32 acre reclamation lake to offset Upper Floridan aquifer groundwater used for supplemental irrigation over 80 acres of blueberries. The Water Use Permit (WUP) authorizes an annual average groundwater withdrawal of 176,200 gallons per day (gpd) for 80 acres of blueberries irrigated with drip irrigation. There is no reported pumpage, as the blueberry farm is early in the process of becoming operational. The original project involved the installation of a weather station and associated sensors, soil moisture sensors, and radio relay equipment. The proposed amendment will add three surface water pump stations to the existing 32 acre lake, and the piping necessary to connect the surface water reclamation lake to the irrigation system. Benefits/Costs The proposed project involves water quantity BMPs for supplemental irrigation and qualifies for a 75 percent cost-share reimbursement rate under the FARMS Program since it is expected to offset the use of groundwater by 50 percent or more. Using an estimated 57 percent savings of permitted quantities for daily irrigation, or 112,340 gpd for all project components, yields a daily cost of $2.11 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over the proposed five-year contract term, which is a reduction from $2.36 per thousand gallons saved and from the original seven year contract term, and $0.63 per thousand gallons of groundwater reduced over a thirty-year term. This value is within the guidelines for the generally accepted average cost savings per thousand gallons for the implementation of improved irrigation techniques for blueberry operations. The original project estimated an offset of 12,340 gpd, and therefore this amendment proposes a 100,000 gpd increased groundwater offset. Governing Board FARMS Fund were approved for the original project and Governing Board funds will be used for the increased project costs associated with this amendment application. Upon approval, the Governing Board will have $124,499 remaining in its FARMS Program budget. Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit (1) Approve the Luna Berry Farm, LLC project for an increase in the not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $236,250 with $236,250 provided by the Governing Board; (2) Authorize the transfer of $236,250 from fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS funds to the H671 Luna Berry Farms, LLC project fund; and (3) Authorize the Director, Resource Management Division to execute the agreement. Presenter: Eric C. DeHaven, P.G., Bureau Chief, Natural Systems and Restoration, Resource Management Committee 98

120 ROBIN ST ROBIN ST CARTER ST CARTER ST SUMNER ST SUMNER ST TAYLOR ST TAYLOR ST LEISURE DR LEISURE DR Location Map Luna Berry Farms, LLC FARMS Project - (H671) LYNHURST DR ANARECE AVE CARDINAL ST NEMETH ST PAYNE PAYNE ST ST E E HAMPTON HAMPTON DR DR POLK PKY AUBURNDALE HWY AUBURNDALE HWY NEPTUNE RD NEPTUNE RD AUBURNDALE HWY ELLIE RD PLUM AVE ^_ Miles AUBURNDALE HWY kj kj POLK PKY K-VILLE K-VILLE AVE AVE kj kj POLK PKY NELSON ST KING AVE Legend # Proposed Surface Withdrawals kj!. Proposed Soil Sensors Groundwater Withdrawal dproposed Weather Station ROWELL ST K-VILLE AVE kj #!. # # d kj kjd kj kj Proposed Mainline WUP Polk County μ kj Miles JLB 05/14/ Aerial 2009 NAVTEQ 99

121 Item 17.a. Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 General Counsel s Report Administrative, Enforcement and Litigation Activities that Require Governing Board Approval Initiation of Litigation Surface Water Activity - Robert and Mary Colvin Lake County On November 8, 2008, the District received a complaint from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection concerning wetland dredging and filling on property located in Lake County (Property) and owned by Robert and Mary Colvin (Owners). On December 12, 2008, District staff visited the Property and observed dredging impacts to approximately 1.29 acres of forested wetlands and filling impacts to approximately 9.91 additional acres of forested wetlands (activities). No Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) had been issued to authorize these activities. On January 22, 2009, the District issued a Notice of Unauthorized Construction to the Owners. Subsequent to the issuance of the Notice of Unauthorized Construction, District regulatory staff met with the Owners and discussed what would be necessary for restoration of the impacts to the Property, but the Owners did not restore the Property or apply for an ERP. On February 4, 2010, a Notice of Violation and proposed consent order were issued to the Owners. The proposed consent order required that an ERP be obtained or the Property be restored and assessed penalties and costs totaling $222,431 as follows: $220,431 for wetland impacts resulting in units of functional loss calculated using UMAM and valued at $30,000 per acre for forested wetlands; and $2,000 the standard cost assessment for unauthorized construction. Upon receipt of the proposed consent order, the Owners contacted the District and arranged a meeting with District staff. On October 7, 2010, during the meeting with District staff, the acreage amounts of the impacts were revised based on the Owners assertion that much of the dredging activity was maintenance to a pre-existing ditch system. In addition, some of the acreage amount for the filling activities included piles of fill material which were in existence on the Property when the Owners purchased the Property. District staff also discussed with the Owners what would be necessary to restore the impacts to the Property and what information would be needed to possibly justify a reduction of the proposed penalty. On October 14, 2010, a revised proposed consent order was issued to the Owners which reflected the revised acreage amounts and assessed penalties and costs totaling $167,687 as follows: $165,687 for wetland impacts resulting in units of functional loss calculated using UMAM and valued at $30,000 per acre for forested wetlands; and $2,000 the standard cost assessment for unauthorized construction. District staff had not received any response to the revised proposed consent order, nor had the Owners met with District staff further about restoration of the Property or possible reduction of the proposed penalty. The District moved to acquire authorization to initiate litigation against the Owners from the Governing Board at the December 14, 2010, Governing Board meeting, but the item was pulled from consideration due to the fact that the Owners hired counsel and expressed interest in getting the matter resolved. 100

122 Item 17.a. On October 21, 2011, the District requested that the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumers Services (FDACS) make a binding determination, pursuant to Section (2), Florida Statutes, as to whether the activities on the Property were exempt (agricultural exemption). FDACS issued its binding determination on or about January 3, 2012, finding that the dredging and filling to the northern area of the Property was exempt from District jurisdiction since the activities occurred before 1984, but that the dredging and filling to the southern portion of the Property occurred after 1984 and did not meet the requirements of the agricultural exemption. Neither the District nor the Owners challenged FDACS binding determination and it is now FDACS final agency action. On January 23, 2012, the Owners proposed taking a portion of the fill out of the wetland in the southern portion of the Property. On March 12, 2012, a revised proposed consent order was sent to the Owners reflecting the revised impacted acreage amounts pursuant to FDACS final agency action, and assessing penalties and costs totaling $62,300 as follows, with the option to off-set the penalties for restoring the Property to conditions above and beyond the original condition of the wetlands: $60,300 for wetland impacts resulting in 2.01 units of functional loss calculated using UMAM and valued at $30,000 per acre for forested wetlands; and $2,000 the standard cost assessment for unauthorized construction. In response to the revised proposed consent order, the Owners contacted the District and arranged for a meeting at the Property to discuss the restoration requirements. On April 20, 2012, District staff met with the Owners at the Property, walked the southern portion of the Property, and discussed options for restoration and the ability to off-set the penalty amount. Since the site visit, District staff have followed up with the Owners in an effort to resolve this matter, but have not received any response. Staff Recommendation: Authorize the initiation of litigation against Robert and Mary Colvin and any other appropriate parties to obtain compliance, to recover an administrative fine/civil penalty for the violations, and to recover District enforcement costs, court costs and attorney s fees. Presenter: Laura Donaldson, General Counsel 101

123 Item 18 Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 General Counsel s Report Rulemaking None 102

124 Item 19 Consent Agenda June 26, 2012 Executive Director s Report Approve Governing Board Meeting Minutes May 22, 2012 Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit Approve the minutes as presented. Presenter: Blake C. Guillory, Executive Director 103

125 MINUTES OF THE MEETING GOVERNING BOARD SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT BROOKSVILLE,FLORIDA MAY 22, 2012 The Governing Board of the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) met for its regular meeting at 9:00 a.m. on May 22, 2012, at the District s headquarters in Brooksville. The following persons were present: Board Members Present Hugh Gramling, Vice Chair Douglas B. Tharp, Secretary Albert G. Joerger, Treasurer Jeffrey M. Adams, Member Michael A. Babb, Member Carlos M. Beruff, Member Bryan K. Beswick, Member Jennifer E. Closshey, Member Neil Combee, Member Randall S. Maggard, Member Todd Pressman, Member Board Member(s) participated via phone H. Paul Senft, Chair Judith C. Whitehead, Member Staff Members Blake C. Guillory, Executive Director Karen A. West, Assistant General Counsel Robert R. Beltran, Assistant Executive Director David T. Rathke, Chief of Staff Kurt P. Fritsch, Division Director Mark A. Hammond, Division Director Michael L. Holtkamp, Division Director Alba E. Más, Division Director Board s Administrative Support LuAnne Stout, Administrative Coordinator Linda De Jonge, Senior Administrative Asst. A list of others present who signed the attendance roster is filed in the permanent records of the District. This meeting was available for viewing through internet streaming. Approved minutes from previous meetings can be found on the District's Web site ( PUBLIC HEARING (Video A 00:00) 1. Call to Order Vice Chair Gramling called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and opened the public hearing. Mr. Tharp noted a quorum was present. 2. Pledge of Allegiance and Invocation Vice Chair Gramling led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America. Mr. Rathke offered the invocation. Public Hearing Vice Chair Gramling introduced each member of the Governing Board. He noted that the Board s meeting was recorded for broadcast on government access channels, and public input was only taken during the meeting onsite. Vice Chair Gramling stated that anyone wishing to address the Governing Board concerning any item listed on the agenda or any item that does not appear on the agenda should fill out and submit a speaker's card. To assure that all participants have an opportunity to speak, a member of the public may submit a speaker s card to comment on agenda items only during today's meeting. If the speaker wishes to address the Board on an issue not on today's agenda, a speaker s card may be submitted for comment during "Public Input." Vice Chair Gramling stated that comments would be limited to three minutes per speaker, and, when appropriate, exceptions to the three-minute limit may be granted by the Chair. He also requested that 104

126 Minutes of the Meeting May 22, 2012 SWFWMD Governing Board Page 2 of 12 several individuals wishing to speak on the same issue/topic designate a spokesperson. (Track 1 00:00/04:00) 3. Additions/Deletions to Agenda Mr. Guillory noted that Consent Agenda Item 5 was deleted and Item 8 moved for discussion on the Regulation Committee agenda. PUBLIC HEARING &MEETING The following item was deleted: 5. Oath of Office for Reappointed Governing Board Member Paul Senft Ms. Closshey moved, seconded by Mr. Maggard, to approve the amended agenda. Motion carried unanimously. (Track 1 04:00/05:23) 4. Employee Recognition Staff members who achieved milestones of 20 years or greater for the period of January 1, 2012 to April 30, 2012, were recognized before the Board. (Track 2 00:00/07:34) MILESTONE EMPLOYEE NAME TITLE BUREAU LOCATION 30 Years Jerry Walker Stores Keeper Finance Brooksville 25 Years Mark Hammond Director, Resource Mgt Executive Brooksville Bill Permenter Field Technician Supervisor Regulatory Support Tampa 20 Years Kelly Keck Business Analyst Regulatory Support Brooksville 5. Oath of Office for Reappointed Governing Board Member Paul Senft Due to Chair Senft s absence, this item was deferred to the next monthly Board meeting. 6. Election of Governing Board Officers (Video A 13:36) In accordance with Board Policy 110-7, Board members participate in an election of officers. During this process, a Chair, Vice Chair, Secretary and Treasurer are elected. The newly elected officers assume their duties at the end of meeting. Vice Chair Gramling reviewed the procedure for nominations and voting. Chair Senft and Ms. Whitehead participated in the meeting via teleconference. Chair Senft expressed his appreciation for the opportunity to serve as the Board s chair over the past year. He commended Mr. Gramling s service as Vice Chair. Mr. Beruff moved to nominate the current officers to serve for another year due to the transition that has occurred over the past year at the District. Ms. Closshey seconded the motion to retain the current slate of officers. Mr. Beruff moved to include waiving the policy that officers serve for one year only. Ms. Closshey was in agreement. Mr. Pressman said he opposed the motion because the policy gives everyone a chance at a leadership role. Vice Chair Gramling called the question. Motion carried with a vote of eight in favor and four opposed. Mr. Combee had not yet arrived for the meeting. (Track 3 00:00/08:15) Vice Chair Gramling noted that Chair Senft will have staff poll Board members during the coming month to determine committee and liaison preferences. (Track 3 00:00/08:15, Track 4 00:00/00:15) 7. Public Input for Issues Not Listed on the Published Agenda (Video A 21:45) 105

127 Minutes of the Meeting May 22, 2012 SWFWMD Governing Board Page 3 of 12 Vice Chair Gramling called upon the public who submitted speaker cards. Mr. Paul Crowell, resident of Odessa, addressed Lakes Horse, Raleigh, and Rogers Recovery Project (f/k/a Rocky Creek Lake Enhancement Project) and its impact on the lakes. He noted that a number of people have expressed concern and objections. (Track 4 00:15/04:07) Ms. Staci Barber, resident of Odessa, addressed the Board regarding the Rocky Creek Lake Enhancement Project. She said she has never received notification of the project. (Track 5 00:00/00:33) Mr. Ed Caplinger, resident of Odessa, noted he lives next to the proposed project which will negatively affect his property s value. (Track 6 00:00/03:36) Mr. Scott Taylor, resident of Odessa, also addressed the Board regarding the Rocky Creek Lake Enhancement Project process and water levels. (Track 7 00:00/03:11) Mr. Andres Mamontoff, resident of Odessa, provided comments regarding inundation of Lake Rock which is north of Lake Pretty. In response to Ms. Closshey s question, Mr. Mamontoff said he is opposed to the project. (Track 8 00:00/03:12) Mr. Gordon Schiff, attorney representing the Oak Hammock Ranch, LLC and James P. Gills, III Custodian, addressed the Board regarding the Upper Tampa Bay Trail Extension. He noted that he is here with Mr. David Brown, representing Progressive Water Resources, discussed the Tampa By Trail master plan. (Track 9 00:00/07:32) (Video A 36:13) Ms. West advised the Board not to engage in discussion since there is a permit currently in-house under review for Hillsborough County regarding this trail. She noted there could be an administrative hearing if the permit is challenged. Board members voiced their opposition to not discussing this item to reach a resolution in a public forum. Discussion ensued regarding public hearing comments and project configuration. Mr. Pressman requested a meeting be scheduled between the District, County and Mr. Schiff. (Track 9 07:32/29:34) (Video A 65:45) Ms. Rhonda Culver, resident of Brooksville, said she is against the expansion of hunting on District lands since it is not compatible with horseback riding. (Track 10 00:00/01:48, Track 11 00:00/00:30) Mr. Gary McIntosh, resident of Bushnell, said he is a member of the Florida Forever Back- Country Horsemen and requested that the organization be included in future hunting expansion discussions. He said the threshold for no-net loss for hunting has been met and exceeded at this point so further expansion would be contrary to state law. (Track 12 00:00/00:45) Vice Chair Gramling said District staff will provide an explanation of Item 47, Sabal Palm Point. (Track 12 00:45/01:11) Ms. Marti Moore, Assistant General Counsel, provided a brief presentation on this verified (signed and sworn to) complaint filed pursuant to the Environmental Protection Act ( ). She noted that Ms. Rachel Wray has submitted two complaints. Ms. Moore presented a brief history of this MSSW permit. (Track 13 00:00/07:11) Mr. William Tucker of Ft. Lauderdale, lawyer representing Ms. Rachel Wray, said the homeowners association wants to build a mini-marina which would impact Ms. Wray s two lots. He said this is an injustice and spoke in opposition to Item 47, Sabal Palm Point. (Track 13 07:11/11:55) 106

128 Minutes of the Meeting May 22, 2012 SWFWMD Governing Board Page 4 of 12 Ms. West said the two verified complaints have been filed which are a pre-suit notice process and several issues exist. She noted there is a permit application currently in-house for additional docking facilities. (Track 13 11:55/14:30) Ms. Rachel Wray said she owns Sabal Palm Point lots 23, 24 and 30. She said she and her husband bought those properties to live a quiet, peaceful life. She said she came to the Board because no one else has provided assistance. (Track 13 14:30/16:42) Mr. Combee said he feels staff should respond to the public comments regarding Lake Rock and Lake Pretty addressing their concerns. Mr. Pressman said he has been involved with this issue, and staff held an extensive presentation and discussion with the citizens. Ms. Closshey said the public comments make it evident more communication is needed and suggested the presentation be provided at the July Board meeting to allow time to notify the citizens and their engineer. Mr. Hammond provided a brief update. (Track 14 00:00/09:20) CONSENT AGENDA (Video A 95:25) Item 8 was moved for discussion on the Regulation Committee agenda. Regulation Committee 8. Consider Issuance of Any Water Shortage Order or Ratification of Any Executive Director Order in Accordance with the Water Shortage Plan This item was moved to Regulation Committee Discussion Items. 9. Individual Water Use Permits (WUP) WUP No L. L. Hiers and Jodi Hiers / Hiers Farm (Marion County) Staff recommended the Board approve the proposed permit included as an exhibit in the Board s meeting materials. Operations & Land Management Committee 10. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission/Cooperative Aquatic Plant Control Program 10-Year Agreement Renewal Staff recommended the Board: (1) Approve the ten-year Cooperative Aquatic Plant Control Agreement with FWC and authorize the Operations, Maintenance & Construction Division Director to execute the agreement. (2) Authorize the Operations, Maintenance & Construction Division Director to execute Annual Task Assignments and Task Assignment Change Orders as required. (3) Authorize the Contract Manager (Vegetation Management Manager) to execute non-financial Task Assignment Change Orders to modify the annual work plan (species, acres controlled and control methods). 11. Agreement with Hillsborough County and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission to Designate Edward Medard Park Reservoir a Fish Management Area (FMA), SWF Parcel No X Staff recommended the Board approve the no-cost Agreement for a FMA with the County and the Commission at Edward Medard Park Reservoir for (SWF Parcel No X); and authorize the Operations, Maintenance and Construction Division Director to execute the Agreement. Resource Management Committee 12. Polk County Northwest Regional Utility Service Area (NWRUSA) Reclaimed Water Storage and Pumping Station Project First Amendment Staff recommended the Board authorize staff to negotiate the first amendment to the existing agreement with Polk County for the Polk County NWRUSA Reclaimed Water Storage and Pumping Station project to modify the scope of work to an ASR well project; reduce the project costs and proportionately reduce the District s funding commitment; make the effective date January 1, 2012; extend the project construction start and completion dates, and contract termination date; update the District s contract language 107

129 Minutes of the Meeting May 22, 2012 SWFWMD Governing Board Page 5 of 12 and change the District s project manager; and authorize the Resource Management Division Director to execute the amendment. 13. Authorize Submission of Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) a. Sarasota County North Port/Big Slough Watershed Staff recommended the Board authorize staff to submit the preliminary FIRMs for the North Port/Big Slough watershed in Sarasota County to FEMA. b. Sarasota County Roberts Bay Watershed Staff recommended the Board authorize staff to submit the preliminary FIRMs for the Roberts Bay watershed in Sarasota County to FEMA. 14. Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) a. Arcadia JV Citrus, LLC (H665), DeSoto County Staff recommended the Board: (1) Approve the Arcadia JV Citrus, LLC project for a not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $200,200 with $100,100 provided by Peace River Basin Fund and $100,100 provided by the Governing Board; (2) Authorize the transfer of $100,100 from fund 020 H017 Peace River Basin FARMS Fund and $100,100 from fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS Fund to the H665 Arcadia JV Citrus, LLC project fund; and (3) Authorize the Resource Management Division Director to execute the agreement. b. Grange Hall Strawberries, LLC (H667), Hillsborough County Staff recommended the Board: (1) Approve the Grange Hall Strawberries, LLC project for a not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $170,116 with $85,058 provided by the Alafia River Basin Fund and $85,058 provided by the Governing Board; (2) Authorize the transfer of $85,058 from fund 011 H017 Alafia River Basin FARMS Funds and $85,058 from fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS Funds to the H667 Grange Hall Strawberries, LLC project fund; and (3) Authorize the Resource Management Division Director to execute the agreement. c. E. Wayne and Juanita Wiggins (H669), Hillsborough County Staff recommended the Board: (1) Approve the E. Wayne and Juanita Wiggins project for a not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $102,338 with $102,338 provided by the Hillsborough River Basin Fund; (2) Authorize the transfer of $102,338 from fund 013 H017 Hillsborough River Basin FARMS Funds to the H669 E. Wayne and Juanita Wiggins project fund; and (3) Authorize the Resource Management Division Director to execute the agreement. d. Layline Land, LLC (H668), Manatee County Staff recommended the Board: (1) Approve the Layline Land, LLC project for a not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $468,890 with $379,682 provided by the Governing Board, $79,808 provided from 2003 State Appropriations and $9,400 provided from 2009 State Appropriations; (2) Authorize the transfer of $379,682 from fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS Funds, $79,808 from 2003 State Appropriations allocated to fund 021 H017 FARMS Funds, and $9,400 from 2009 State Appropriations allocated to fund 010 H017 FARMS Funds to the H668 Layline Land, LLC project fund; and (3) Authorize the Resource Management Division Director to execute the agreement. e. CFI USA, Inc. and FLM, Inc. Venus Grove Phase 2 (H662), Manatee County Staff recommended the Board: (1) Approve the CFI USA, Inc. and FLM, Inc. - Venus Grove Phase 2 project for a notto-exceed project reimbursement of $240,000 provided by the Governing Board; (2) Authorize the transfer of $240,000 from fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS Funds, 010 H017 FARMS Funds to the CFI USA, Inc. and FLM, Inc. Venus Grove Phase 2 project fund; and (3) Authorize the Resource Management Division Director to execute the agreement. 108

130 Minutes of the Meeting May 22, 2012 SWFWMD Governing Board Page 6 of 12 f. Heartland Farming, LLC (H670), Polk County Staff recommended the Board: (1) Approve the Heartland Farming, LLC project for a not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $44,962 with $44,962 provided by the Governing Board; (2) Authorize the transfer of $44,962 from fund 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS Funds to the 010 H670 Heartland Farming, LLC project fund; and (3) Authorize the Resource Management Division Director to execute the agreement. g. Luna Berry Farms, LLC (H671), Polk County Staff recommended the Board: (1) Approve the Luna Berry Farms, LLC project for a not-to-exceed project reimbursement of $30,730 with $15,365 provided by Peace River Basin Funds and $15,365 provided by the Governing Board; (2) Authorize the transfer of $15,365 from fund 020 H017 Peace River Basin Funds and 010 H017 Governing Board FARMS funds to the H671 Luna Berry Farms, LLC project fund; and (3) Authorize the Resource Management Division Director to execute the agreement. Finance & Administration Committee 15. Budget Transfer Report Staff recommended the Board approve the Budget Transfer Report covering all budget transfers for April General Counsel s Report 16. Administrative, Enforcement and Litigation Activities that Require Governing Board Approval a. Approval of Updated Operating Agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Water Management Districts (WMDs) Staff recommended the Board approve the Operating Agreement between the ACOE, DEP and WMDs and authorize the Executive Director to execute the Agreement on behalf of the District. b. Interagency Agreement between SWFWMD and SJRWMD for Designation of Regulatory Responsibility Florida Department of Transportation US 27 Improvements from Barry Road to US 192 Polk and Lake Counties Staff recommended the Board approve the Interagency Agreement between the SWFWMD and the SJRWMD for Designation of Regulatory Responsibility for the US 27 Improvements from Barry Road to US 192 in Polk and Lake Counties. c. Final Order ERP No Tony s Roasted Pepper, LLC v. Hillsborough County Public Works and SWFWMD Staff recommended the Board approve the Final Order of Dismissal dismissing with prejudice Petitioner Tony s Roasted Pepper, LLC s amended petition for administrative hearing concerning ERP No issued to Hillsborough County Public Works. 17. Initiation and Approval of Rulemaking to Amend Rule 40D-1.603, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), to Specify that Requests for Notices of Agency Action Must be Made in Writing or by Electronic Mail Staff recommended the Board initiate and approve rulemaking to amend Rule 40D-1.603, F.A.C., to specify that requests for Notices of Agency Action must be made in writing or by electronic mail. Executive Director s Report 18. Approve Governing Board Minutes a. Regional Cooperative Funding Public Meeting Northern Region April 3, 2012 b. Regional Cooperative Funding Public Meeting Tampa Bay Region April 5, 2012 c. Regional Cooperative Funding Public Meeting Heartland Region April 10, 2012 d. Regional Cooperative Funding Public Meeting Southern Region April 19, 2012 e. Monthly Meeting April 24, 2012 Staff recommended the Board approve the minutes as presented. 109

131 Minutes of the Meeting May 22, 2012 SWFWMD Governing Board Page 7 of 12 Mr. Tharp moved, seconded by Mr. Maggard, to approve the Consent Agenda as amended. Motion carried unanimously. (Track 14 09:20/09:39) Vice Chair Gramling relinquished the gavel to Regulation Committee Chair Beswick who called the Committee meeting to order. REGULATION COMMITTEE (Video A 95:50) Ms. Más noted that Item 27 will be heard before the Board considers Item 8. Discussion Items 19. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion Item 8 will be considered following Item Hydrologic Conditions Status Report Mr. Granville Kinsman, Manager, Hydrologic Data Section, noted that April was the seventh month of the eight-month dry season (October-May) and was extremely dry throughout the District for the first three weeks. The passage of a cold front during the last week of April delivered most of the rainfall received during the month, bringing rainfall totals for April into the normal range in all regions of the District. Localized rainfall provided some improvement to hydrologic conditions, although most hydrologic indicators remain below-normal throughout the District in response to the long-term dry conditions. Analysis of partial dry-season (October through April) rainfall shows District-wide totals to be about 6.6 inches below the long-term historic average. District-wide, the provisional 12-month rainfall deficit improved slightly during April, ending the month approximately 11.4 inches below the long-term historical average, while the 24-month deficit worsened to 17.3 inches below the long-term average. Groundwater levels remain at below normal conditions in the northern and southern regions. One groundwater monitor well recorded a new period-of-record low in the northern District, while Rainbow Springs and two lakes in the northern region also set new record lows. Streamflow on the District s major river systems remain at extremely low levels, limiting their use as water supply sources. Regional lake levels are below-normal in all regions and continue to decline. (Track 15 00:00/09:22) This item was presented for the Committee's information, and no action was required. 8. Consider Issuance of Any Water Shortage Order or Ratification of Any Executive Director Order in Accordance with the Water Shortage Plan (Video A 105:30) Ms. Más said Tampa Bay Water activated the third level of its water shortage mitigation plan on May 7, In response, Mr. Guillory signed Executive Director Order No. SWF on May 9, The Modified Phase II restrictions specified by this emergency order, which went into effect immediately, include the following measures: reducing lawn watering to a once-per-week schedule, stricter watering hours, limiting fountains to four hours of operation, only washing cars once per week, limiting pressure washing for aesthetic purposes to once per year and requiring certain best management practices for other water uses. Staff recommended the Board ratify the issuance of Executive Director Order No. SWF which imposed Modified Phase II water shortage restrictions for Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas counties through July 31, Mr. Combee moved, seconded by Ms. Closshey, to approve ratifying issuance of Executive Director Order No. SWF which imposed Modified Phase II water shortage restrictions for Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas counties through July 31, Motion carried unanimously. (Track 16 00:00/01:35) Ms. Más said, on May 15, 2012, Tampa Bay Water requested emergency District action to lower the elevation of the middle pool of the Tampa Bypass Canal to 10.0 feet NGVD from 110

132 Minutes of the Meeting May 22, 2012 SWFWMD Governing Board Page 8 of 12 the currently permitted 12.0 feet NGVD, while not exceeding a 12.0-foot head differential across Structure S-161 of the Tampa Bypass Canal. Executive Director Order No. SWF declares a water shortage emergency for the Hillsborough River Reservoir, authorizes Tampa Bay Water to lower the middle pool of the Tampa Bypass Canal to elevation 10.0 NGVD, authorizes Tampa Bay Water to withdraw 40 million gallons per day, and expires July 31, 2012 or when water is flowing over or through the dam. Discussion ensued regarding the annual average pumpage, reservoir, desalination plant and membranes, plant operation agreement, and concerns due to funds expended on plant. Mr. Warren Hogg, Tampa Bay Water, addressed the questions about the desalination plant s status. (Video A 133:35) Staff recommended the Board concur with and ratify Executive Director Order SWF for diversion of water from the middle pool of the Tampa Bypass Canal to augment the Hillsborough River Reservoir. Ms. Closshey moved to concur with and ratify Executive Director Order SWF for diversion of water from the middle pool of the Tampa Bypass Canal to augment the Hillsborough River Reservoir. (Track 16 01:35/26:05) Discussion ensued regarding operational agreements, cost to taxpayers, and plant design compared to desalination plants operating around the world. Vice Chair Gramling seconded the motion and it carried unanimously. (Track 16 26:05/38:39) 20. Denials Referred to the Governing Board None Submit & File Report The following item was provided for the Committee s information, and no action was required. 21. Major Water Production Supply Report Routine Reports The following items were provided for the Committee s information, and no action was required. 22. Southern Water Use Caution Area Quantities 23. Overpumpage Report 24. E-Permitting Metrics: Online vs. Paper Applications 25. Individual Permits Issued by District Staff 26. Resource Regulation Significant Initiatives Resource Regulation Committee Chair Beswick adjourned the Committee meeting and relinquished the gavel to Operations & Land Management Committee Chair Babb who called the meeting to order. (Track 17 00:00/09:56) OPERATIONS &LAND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (Video A 144:10) Discussion Items 27. Hydrologic Conditions Status Report This item was heard earlier in the meeting as part of the Regulation Committee. 29. Hurricane Preparedness Mr. Roy A. Mazur, Bureau Chief, Operations and Land Management, presented an overview of District emergency preparedness for the 2012 hurricane season. Mr. Mazur 111

133 Minutes of the Meeting May 22, 2012 SWFWMD Governing Board Page 9 of 12 discussed the District s responsibility as a member of the State s Emergency Response Team (SERT) along with the actions taken to prepare District staff and infrastructure for the upcoming hurricane season. (Track 18 00:00/16:00) (Video A 160:30) This item was provided for the Committee's information, and no action was required. Submit & File Report The following item was submitted for the Committee s information, and no action was required. 30. Flying Eagle Youth Center Update In response to Mr. Tharp s inquiries, Mr. Mazur said the Boy Scouts lease ended May 10, 2012, and will no longer use the facility. He said the District intends to continue routine maintenance, along with electrical and utility service to caretaker s cabin. Mr. Mazur said the request for proposal (RFP) is being discussed to target audience and determine requirements. Mr. Holtkamp said he is making this a priority for staff and the RFP will be released in no more than 90 days. (Track 18 16:00/24:50) Routine Reports The following items were provided for the Committee s information, and no action was required. 31. Structure Operations 32. Significant Activities Operations and Land Management Committee Chair Babb adjourned the Committee meeting and relinquished the gavel to Resource Management Committee Chair Gramling who called the Committee meeting to order. (Track 18 24:50/24:56) RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE (Video A 169:05) Discussion Items 33. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion None Submit & File Reports None Routine Reports The following items were provided for the Committee s information, and no action was required. 34. Minimum Flows and Levels 35. Watershed Management Program and Federal Emergency Management Agency Map Modernization 36. Significant Water Supply and Resource Development Projects Resource Management Committee Committee Chair Gramling adjourned the Committee meeting and relinquished the gavel to Outreach and Planning Committee Chair Adams who called the Committee meeting to order. (Track 19 00:00/00:28) OUTREACH &PLANNING COMMITTEE (Video A 169:35) Discussion Items None Submit & File Reports None Routine Reports The following items were provided for the Committee s information, and no action was required. 37. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews 38. Development of Regional Impact Activity Report 39. Significant Activities 112

134 Minutes of the Meeting May 22, 2012 SWFWMD Governing Board Page 10 of 12 Outreach and Planning Committee Chair Adams adjourned the Committee meeting and relinquished the gavel to Finance and Administration Committee Chair Joerger. (Track 19 00:28/00:50) The meeting recessed to provide a lunch break at 11:53 a.m. (Track 19 00:50/01:45, Video A 170:59) and reconvened at 12:30 p.m. (Video B 00:00) Mr. Beruff requested Ms. West to the Board a copy of Attorney Frank Hearne s opinion letter on the Tampa Bay Water contract. Vice Chair Gramling noted that there is an original opinion and reaffirmation. Finance and Administration Committee Chair Joerger called the Committee meeting to order. (Track 20 00:00/01:14) FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE (Video B 01:16) Discussion Items 40. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion None 41. Fiscal Year Budget Development Update Mr. Fritsch provided an update on the development of the non-recurring or project portion of the District s fiscal year (FY) budget. He provided details of the project portion of the draft FY budget including District-led contracted projects and cooperative funding/grants categories. The separate exhibit booklet contains summaries and detailed project descriptions of every project proposed for inclusion in the draft FY budget. The order of consideration was altered slightly during the presentation. c. Final Results of Cooperative Funding Encumbrance Review With the District Governing Board s support, staff is reviewing $386 million worth of projects to ensure the continued viability and priority of these projects. During March and April, Mr. Fritsch said staff completed reviews of projects totaling $118 million including $96 million of cooperative funding projects. Approximately $5 million has been recovered this month bringing total encumbrance review savings to $20 million. Mr. Beruff suggested the cooperators provide an audit each year. Mr. Fritsch noted that staff continues to evaluate remaining encumbered balances and expect to complete the review by the July Governing Board meeting. (Track 20 01:14/14:40, Video B 13:55) a. May 22, 2012 Budget Update Mr. Fritsch summarized revenue and expenditure graphics showing potential changes in the proposed budget compared to the current budget. (Track 20 14:40/23:57, Video B 23:50) b. District Project Requests Mr. Fritsch provided a brief report on each project request. Within the separate exhibit packet, a chart shows a year-to-year comparison in the level of the funding for each subcategory. Overall, staff is recommending increases for the FARMs, Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Mitigation, Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area (WUCA) Meters, Watershed Management, and Structures Levee Safety Rehabilitation programs. (1) Water Resource Education Mr. Molligan briefly reviewed the individual aspects of this program. (Track 20 23:57/36:50) (2) Restoration and Water Quality (3) Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) 113

135 Minutes of the Meeting May 22, 2012 SWFWMD Governing Board Page 11 of 12 (4) Florida Department of Transportation Mitigation (5) Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Research (IFAS) (6) Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area Meters (7) Watershed Management Program (8) Water Resource Development Lower Floridan Aquifer, Polk County (9) Data Studies & Assessment (10) Mapping Conversion NGVD29 to NAVD88 (11) Well Abandonment (12) Structures Levee Safety Rehabilitation Program Board members requested to see the progression of actual budget figures. (Track 20 36:50/46:14) Due to the level of information provided this month, staff requested the Governing Board to identify project(s) or category(s) of projects for which additional information should be presented in June. (Track 20 46:14/55:00) d. Cooperative Funding Requests Subcommittees Recommendations Mr. Fritsch reviewed a summary listing and detailed description of all projects ranked medium or greater. The summary provides funding levels required to fund all 1A, High and Medium ranked projects. Discussion ensued regarding ranks, criteria and funding scenarios. Mr. Fritsch reviewed the budget development calendar and detailed June, July, August and September 2012 events. (Track 20 00:55:00/01:20:25, Video B 80:28) Committee Chair Joerger said that one speaker card was submitted for this item. Mr. Todd Boyle, representing Manatee County, spoke in support of Project N151, Benchmarks Manatee County, as well as survey and floodplain benchmarks. He provided each Board member with a letter from the Manatee County Administrator. (Track 20 01:20:25/01:23:40) Mr. Hammond noted that Project N151 was ranked low. Mr. Pressman requested a copy of the staff reports for this project. (Track 20 01:23:40/01:25:14) Submit & File Reports The following item was submitted for the Committee s information, and no action was required. 42. May 2012 Report on Workforce and Vendor Diversity Routine Reports The following items were provided for the Committee s information, and no action was required. 43. Treasurer's Report, Payment Register and Contingency Funds Report 44. Monthly Financial Statement 45. Monthly Cash Balances by Fiscal Year Finance and Administration Committee Chair Joerger recessed the Committee meeting and relinquished the gavel to Vice Chair Gramling. (Track 20 01:23:40/01:25:26) GENERAL COUNSEL S REPORT (Video B 85:25) Discussion Items 46. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion None Submit & File Reports None 114

136 Minutes of the Meeting May 22, 2012 SWFWMD Governing Board Page 12 of 12 Routine Reports The following items were provided for the Committee s information, and no action was required. 47. Litigation Report 48. Rulemaking Update (Track 21 00:00/00:16) COMMITTEE/LIAISON REPORTS (Video B 85:40) The following reports were provided in a handout at each Board member s seat. 49. Joint Industrial/Public Supply Advisory Committee Meeting 50. Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council Meeting 51. Other Liaison Reports None (Track 22 00:00/00:38) EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT (Video B 86:22) 52. Executive Director s Report None CHAIR'S REPORT (Video B 86:30) 53. Chair s Report Vice Chair Gramling said that Mr. Combee has resigned from the Board and thanked him for his service. Mr. Combee expressed his appreciation of the Board and staff. Vice Chair Gramling noted that formal recognition of Mr. Combee s service will take place at a later time. Vice Chair Gramling announced that the Board s next meeting is at The Villages on June 26, 2012, and the start time has changed to 10:00 a.m. There being no further business to come before the Board, Vice Chair Gramling recessed the public hearing and adjourned the meeting at 2:01 p.m. (Track 23 00:00/04:22, Video B 91:01) The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) does not discriminate on the basis of disability. This nondiscrimination policy involves every aspect of the District's functions, including access to and participation in the District's programs and activities. Anyone requiring reasonable accommodation as provided for in the Americans with Disabilities Act should contact the District's Human Resources Bureau Chief, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida ; telephone (352) , ext. 4702, or (FL only), ext. 4702; TDD (FL only) ; or to ADACoordinator@swfwmd.state.fl.us. 115

137 C. Finance & Administration

138 Governing Board Meeting June 26, 2012 FINANCE &ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE Discussion Items. 20. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion 21. Independent Auditor Selection... (10 minutes) Presentation of Fiscal Year (FY) Recommended Annual Service Budget... (30 minutes) Board Travel... (5 minutes) Submit & File Reports None Routine Reports 24. Treasurer's Report, Payment Register, and Contingency Funds Report Monthly Financial Statement Monthly Cash Balances by Fiscal Year... 85

139 Item 21 Finance and Administration Committee June 26, 2012 Discussion Item Independent Auditor Selection Purpose Request the Governing Board initiate the process to obtain proposals, evaluate firms, and select an independent auditor to perform the agency s annual financial audit in accordance with Florida Statutes and industry best practices. Background Section , Florida Statutes (F.S.), Auditor Selection Procedures, requires the Governing Board to establish and use an audit committee. A primary purpose of the audit committee is to assist the Governing Board in selecting an auditor to conduct the annual financial audit; however, the statute authorizes the audit committee to serve other audit oversight purposes as recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and as determined by the Governing Board. Currently, the audit committee is comprised of all thirteen Governing Board members. Discussion The District must comply with the procedural requirements of Section , F.S., when selecting an auditor to perform the annual financial audit required by Section , F.S. The auditor selection process includes establishing factors to use for the evaluation of the audit services, publicly announcing and providing interested firms with a Request for Proposals, evaluating proposals provided by qualified firms, and ranking and recommending to the Governing Board in order of preference no fewer than three firms deemed to be the most highly qualified to perform the services. The statute provides that the public shall not be excluded from the auditor selection proceedings. The audit committee must approve the scope of the audit services, the factors to be used in evaluating the firms, and the ranges of point values to reflect the relative importance of the factors. At a minimum, the statute requires audit services to be evaluated based on ability of personnel, experience, and ability to furnish the required services. If compensation is selected as one of the evaluation factors, it may not be the sole or predominant factor used to evaluate proposals. A proposed Request for Proposals that includes recommended scope of audit services, evaluation factors, and ranges of point values is attached as Exhibit A for the audit committee s consideration. The Governing Board must also select one of the following methods to be used to select and negotiate a contract with a firm recommended by the audit committee. In making its selection, the Governing Board must ensure that the agreed-upon compensation is reasonable to satisfy the requirements of Section , F.S., pertaining to the annual financial audit report, and the needs of the Governing Board. The Governing Board may designate a Board member or other designee to conduct contract negotiations on the Board s behalf. Method 1: If compensation is a factor to be considered in evaluating the firms, the Governing Board must select the highest-ranked qualified firm or document in its public records the reason for not selecting the highest ranked firm. 2

140 Method 2: If compensation is not an evaluation factor, the District must either: a) Commence negotiations with the highest ranked firm and if a satisfactory contract is not able to be negotiated with the firm, formally terminate negotiations with the first ranked firm and commence negotiations with the second ranked firm. This process will continue with the next ranked firm until a satisfactory contract can be negotiated. In negotiating with firms, the Governing Board may reopen formal negotiations with any one of the three top-ranked firms, but it may not negotiate with more than one firm at a time; or b) Select a firm recommended by the audit committee and negotiate a contract with one of the firms using an appropriate alternative negotiation method for which compensation is not the sole or predominant factor used to select the firm. Item 21 As discussed in the Background paragraph above, the audit committee is currently comprised of all 13 Governing Board members. If the Board chooses, it may delegate its responsibility to review, evaluate and rank proposals to a subset of the Board. The 2007 Auditor Selection Guidelines prepared by the Auditor Selection Task Force, established by the Auditor General, provides non-mandatory guidance in the selection of an auditor including the composition and size of the audit committee, and is attached as Exhibit B for your reference. These guidelines provide the following recommendations: (1) ideally, all members of the committee should possess or obtain a basic understanding of governmental financial reporting and auditing; (2) the audit committee should have access to the services of at least one financial expert, either a committee member or an outside party engaged by the committee for this purpose; (3) all members of the audit committee should be members of the governing body; (4) no member of the committee should have managerial responsibilities that fall within the scope of the audit; (5) as a general rule, the minimum membership of the committee should be no fewer than three; and (6) members of the audit committee should be educated regarding both the role of the audit committee and their personal responsibility as members. Staff Recommendation See Exhibits (1) Approve the scope of the audit services (Exhibit A); (2) Approve the factors to be used to evaluate the firms and the ranges of point values to reflect the relative importance of the factors (Exhibit A); (3) Approve the method to be used to select and negotiate a contract with a qualified firm; (4) Approve the issuance of a Request for Proposals to select an independent auditor to perform the annual financial audit; (5) Delegate a minimum of three Board members to review, evaluate and rank proposals; and (6) Select a Board member or other designee to conduct negotiations with a qualified firm. Presenter: Daryl Pokrana, Bureau Chief, Finance 3

141 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT - REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS SUBMIT PROPOSALS TO: CONTRACTS ADMINISTRATION (MAIL CODE: PRO) SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 2379 BROAD STREET - BUILDING #2 BROOKSVILLE, FLORIDA EXHIBIT A DRAFT Direct Inquiries to: JoAnne M. Rehor, Contracts Administrator Phone: , Ext. 4146; FAX: ; Procurement@swfwmd.state.fl.us DATE POSTED: June 29, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. Page 1 of 20 PROPOSALS WILL BE OPENED: July 26, 2012 at 2:30 p.m., and may not be withdrawn for 90 days after this date. ORAL PRESENTATIONS: If required, are expected to be held at the Southwest Florida Water Management District, Tampa Service Office, Building 1, 7601 Highway 301 North, Tampa, Florida 33637, in the Laurel Oaks Video Conference Room , at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, August 22, TITLE: RFP Independent Auditing Services SPECIFICATIONS: The Southwest Florida Water Management District is requesting proposals from qualified certified public accounting firms for the audit of the District s financial statements and single audits. Respondent Name: Reason for No-Bid Mailing Address: City-State-Zip: Telephone Number ( ) - FAX Number ( ) - Toll-Free Number ( ) - address for correspondence: Authorized Signature: Full Name (please print or type): Title (please print or type): I the above signed, as Respondent hereby declare that I have carefully read this Request for Proposals and its provisions, terms, and conditions covering the equipment, materials, supplies or services as called for, and fully understand the requirements and conditions. I certify that this proposal is made without prior understanding, agreement, or connection with any corporation, firm, entity, or person submitting a proposal for the same goods/services (unless otherwise specifically noted), and is in all respects fair and without collusion or fraud. I agree to be bound by all of the terms and conditions of this Request for Proposals and certify that I am authorized to sign this proposal for the Respondent. IT IS THE RESPONDENT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ASSURE THAT HIS/HER SEALED PROPOSAL IS DELIVERED AT THE PROPER TIME TO THE SPECIFIED LOCATION. PROPOSALS RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE AND TIME SPECIFIED WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. FORM (05/07) SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/12 1 4

142 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS # INDEPENDENT AUDITING SERVICES TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I - GENERAL CONDITIONS 1.1 Purpose 1.2 Definitions 1.3 Development Cost 1.4 Changes, Delays, and Addenda 1.5 Pre-Proposal Conferences 1.6 Rules for Proposals 1.7 Proposal Format 1.8 Proposal Opening 1.9 Technical Questions 1.10 Conflict of Interest 1.11 Proposal Withdrawal 1.12 Public Availability of Records 1.13 Right to Accept or Reject Proposals 1.14 Notice of Decision 1.15 Protests 1.16 Contract Information 1.17 Indemnification 1.18 Withholding Payment 1.19 Termination 1.20 Law Compliance 1.21 Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) 1.22 Public Entity Crimes 1.23 Discrimination 1.24 Correspondence 1.25 Employment Eligibility Verification PART II - INTRODUCTION 2.1 General Information 2.2 Term of Contract 2.3 Proposal Calendar PART III STATEMENT OF WORK 3.1 Scope of Work 3.2 Auditing Standards 3.3 Work Products Required 3.4 Special Considerations 3.5 Working Papers Retention and Access to Working Papers PART IV DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT (Cont.) 4.3 Fund Structure 4.4 Budgetary Basis of Accounting 4.5 Federal And State Financial Assistance 4.6 Defined Benefit Pension Plan 4.7 Reporting Entity 4.8 Overview of Finance Bureau 4.9 Computer Systems 4.10 Internal Audit Function 4.11 Availability of Prior Audit Reports and Working Papers PART V TIME REQUIREMENTS 5.1 Schedule for the 2012 Fiscal Year Audit 5.2 Entrance Conferences, Progress Reporting and Exit Conferences 5.3 Date Final Report is Due PART VI ASSISTANCE TO BE PROVIDED TO THE AUDITOR AND REPORT PREPARATION 6.1 Finance Department and Clerical Assistance 6.2 Information/Computer Systems 6.3 Preparation of Comprehensive Annual Financial Report 6.4 Work Area, Telephones, Photocopying, And Fax Machines 6.5 Report Preparation PART VII - INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 7.1 Insurance Requirements PART VIII - EVALUATION PROCEDURES 8.1 Review of Proposals 8.2 Evaluation Method and Criteria 8.3 Final Selection ATTACHMENTS PART IV DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT 4.1 Name and Telephone Number of Contact Person(s)/Organizational Chart/Location of Offices 4.2 Background Information Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C Attachment D Attachment E District Staff Organization Chart List of Key Personnel Schedule of Federal and State Financial Assistance Schedule of Professional Fees and Expenses Sample Agreement SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/12 2 5

143 PART I - GENERAL CONDITIONS 1.1 PURPOSE. The purpose of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to provide guidelines for submission of proposals to implement the project described in Part III, hereinafter referred to as the Project. 1.2 DEFINITIONS. "Respondent" will mean any contractor, consultant, organization, firm, college or university, Auditor, or other person submitting a response pursuant to page 1 of this RFP. "District" will mean the Southwest Florida Water Management District, which is the issuing agency. 1.3 DEVELOPMENT COST. Neither the District nor its representatives will be liable for any expenses incurred in connection with preparation of a response to this RFP. All proposals should be prepared simply and economically, providing a straightforward and concise description of the Respondent's ability to meet the requirements of the RFP. 1.4 CHANGES, DELAYS, AND ADDENDA. The District reserves the right to delay scheduled RFP due dates if determined to be in the best interest of the District. Persons/firms receiving the RFP from the District s Internet web site ( will be responsible to recheck the web site for any changes, delays or addenda related to this RFP. All interpretations and supplemental instructions will be in the form of written Addenda to the contract documents including District answers provided in response to the Technical Questions provided in Section 1.9 of this RFP. Respondents will acknowledge receipt of all Addenda and District answers in their Proposal. No interpretation of the meaning of the specifications or other contract documents, nor correction of any apparent ambiguity, inconsistency or error therein, will be made to any Respondent orally. Any interpretation or correction given by the District in writing shall be binding. Prospective Respondents are advised that no other sources are authorized to give information concerning, explaining, or interpreting contract documents. Any information obtained from an officer, agent or employee of the District or any other person shall not affect Respondent s risks or obligations or relieve it from fulfilling any and all conditions of the contract. 1.5 PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCES. NONE 1.6 RULES FOR PROPOSALS. Two or more firms may combine for the purpose of responding to this RFP providing that one (1) is designated as "Prime" Respondent and the other as "Sub-Respondent(s)". The signer of the proposal must declare that any person or entity with any interest in the proposal, as a principal, is identified therein; that the proposal is made without collusion; that it is, in all respects, fair and in good faith; and that the signer of the proposal has full authority to negotiate for and bind the Respondent stated on the cover page. 1.7 PROPOSAL FORMAT. In order to assist the District's review process, proposals are to be prepared utilizing the following format. The evaluation criteria are set forth in Part VIII, Evaluation Procedures Sign and Return the Request for Proposals Form (Cover Sheet) Letter of Transmittal - This letter should not exceed two (2) pages in length and should briefly state the Respondent's understanding of the work to be done and make a positive commitment to perform the work in a timely fashion. It should also give the names of the individuals who will be authorized to make representations for the organization, their titles, addresses and telephone numbers. This letter must be signed by an official authorized to negotiate for the Respondent Organizational Profile and Qualifications - This section of the proposal will include the following qualification information: Minimum Requirements An affirmative statement from the Respondent that it meets the appropriate criteria for independence as defined by generally accepted auditing standards Documentation that the Respondent is duly licensed under chapter 473, F. S., as a public accounting firm and qualified to conduct audits in accordance with government auditing standards as adopted by the Florida Board of Accountancy (FBOA). Submit copy of license with proposal and documentation of qualifications to conduct audits per FBOA Documentation supporting that the Respondent is qualified to perform the work Documentation to support adequate continuing professional education completed by key personnel A copy of the report of the Respondent s most recent external quality control review, with a statement whether that quality control review included a review of specific government engagements. Expertise and Experience Details of the qualifications of the firm, including a summary of the firm s history of performing quality audits, experience, and staffing. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/12 3 6

144 Identification of the principal supervisory and management staff, including engagement partners, managers, other supervisors, and specialists, who will be assigned to the engagement and indicate whether each such person is licensed to practice as a certified public accountant in Florida. The respondent also should provide information on the governmental auditing experience of each person, including information on relevant continuing professional education for the past three (3) years and membership in professional organizations relevant to the performance of this audit. Identification of the principal supervisory and management Information Technology (IT) staff that will be coordinating/performing the delivery of all Information Technology audit services, assessing IT audit risk relating to the external audit, and identifying areas of significant IT risk to the District How the quality of staff over the term of the agreement will be assured. Engagement partners, managers, other supervisory staff, and specialists may be changed if those personnel leave the firm, are promoted or are assigned to another office. These personnel may also be changed for other reasons with the express prior written permission of the District. However, in either case, the District retains the right to approve or reject replacements. Consultants and firm specialists mentioned in response to this Request for Proposal can only be changed with the express prior written permission of the District, which retains the right to approve or reject replacements. Other audit personnel may be changed at the discretion of the proposer provided that replacements have substantially the same or better qualifications or experience The availability of the firm and the individuals proposed to provide the service within time requirements. Identify the extent and nature of any anticipated outside support For the firm s office that will be assigned responsibility for the audit, a list of at least three (3), of the most significant engagements performed in the last five years that are similar to the engagement described in this Request for Proposal. These engagements shall be ranked on the basis of total staff hours. Indicate the scope of work, date, engagement partners, total hours, and the name, address, and telephone number of the principal client that the District may contact for reference A description of the firm s experience with specific state and Federal grant programs, particular with the types of grants related to the District which are listed on Attachment C Schedule of Federal and State Financial Assistance A description of how the firm utilizes current technology in performing the audit If the proposer is a joint venture or consortium, the qualifications of each firm comprising the joint venture or consortium shall be separately identified and the firm that is to serve as the principal Auditor shall be noted, if applicable Technical Proposal This section of the response will explain the requested Statement of Work as understood by the Respondent. The Respondent shall prepare this section of the response in a manner that the District can incorporate the proposed Statement of Work into the final contract with minimal changes. The following details shall be included: A statement of the proposed work objective and scope Methodology and rational for the proposed approach Proposed engagement management plan, including staffing assignments, sampling techniques, and analytical and compliance testing procedures A list of resources and equipment to be provided by the District A list of resources and business equipment as supplied and to be used by the Respondent No dollar units or total costs are to be included in the Technical Proposal document Supplemental Information - This section shall include the following items: Information on the results of any federal or state desk reviews or field reviews of its audits during the past three (3) years. In addition, the firm shall provide information on the circumstances and status of any disciplinary action taken or pending against the firm during the past three (3) years with state regulatory bodies or professional organizations A summary of any litigation filed against the Respondent in the past three (3) years which is related to services that the Respondent provides in its regular course of business. The summary shall state the nature of the litigation, a brief description of the case, the outcome or projected outcome, and the monetary amounts involved Financial statements for the past two years, annual reports, or other similar evidence of Respondent s financial stability. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/12 4 7

145 Any additional information which the Respondent considers pertinent for consideration should be included in this part of the proposal Attachments The following attachments will be provided with the response: Certification from the Florida Secretary of State, if Respondent is a corporation or partnership, verifying Respondent s corporate status and good standing. If Respondent is also an out-of-state corporation, provide evidence of authority to conduct business in the State of Florida Cost Proposal - Cost is not an evaluation factor in this qualification based RFP. Pursuant to Section (4), Florida Statutes, the costs will be provided to the District s Governing Board or its designee, for for final selection purposes and negotiations. A cost proposal must be submitted with the Respondent s proposal in a separate sealed envelope with the following details included: Total All-Inclusive Maximum Price, (Attachment D) The Schedule of Professional fees and Expenses should contain all pricing information relative to performing the audit engagement as described in this request for proposals. The total all-inclusive maximum price is to contain all direct and indirect costs including all out-of-pocket expenses Quoted Hourly Rates The cost proposal must include a schedule of professional fees, presented in a format similar to that provided in Attachment D that supports the total all-inclusive maximum price. Expenses, including but not limited to: travel, in accordance with Section , F.S., as may be amended from time to time; printing; courier services; telecommunications; etc., are to be included in the quoted hourly rates. The District will not pay for surcharges added to third party expenditures Price Escalation/De-Escalation The quoted hourly rates will be firm through July 31, Price escalation/de-escalation will be considered by the District for each subsequent year of the Agreement. The Respondent must provide the DISTRICT with price escalation or de-escalation documentation (whichever is applicable) by March 31 st of each year of the Agreement. The price escalation percentage change must not exceed the previous twelve months percentage change of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), for the month of January, population coverage - All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), area coverage - South Region, series title - All items and index base period = Rates for Additional Professional Services If it should become necessary for the District to request the Auditor to render any additional services to either supplement the services requested in this RFP or to perform additional work as a result of the specific recommendations included in any report issued on this engagement, then such additional work shall be performed only if set forth in an addendum to the contract between the District and the Auditor. Any such additional work agreed to between the District and the firm shall be performed at the same rates set forth in the quoted hourly rates included in the cost proposal The District is exempt from federal excise tax (exemption number ) and state sales tax (exemption number C-6). Costs must include Florida State sales and any other taxes, except federal excise tax, applicable to materials purchased by the Respondent in accordance with Florida and federal law Additional Data - Since data not specifically requested should not be included in the previous sections of the proposal, give any additional information which you feel is pertinent for consideration Oral Presentations The District may request the highest ranked Respondents to make an oral presentation of their proposal. These presentations provide an opportunity for the Respondent to clarify the proposal for the District. Pursuant to Section , Florida Statutes (F.S.), oral presentations are exempt from Section and Section 24(b), Article I of the State Constitution. A complete recording shall be made of any portion of an exempt meeting. No portion of the exempt meeting may be held off the record. Any Respondent deciding to appeal any decision made by the District with respect to any matter considered at such meeting, will need a record of the proceedings and for such purpose may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which record includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal may be based. 1.8 PROPOSAL OPENING. Proposal opening will be public, on the date and at the time specified on the proposal form. It is the Respondent's responsibility to assure that his/her proposal is delivered at the proper time to the specified location. Proposals which for any reason are not so delivered will not be considered. Proposals MUST be identified with the RFP number and "Sealed Bid - Do Not Open" marked on the sealed envelope. If proposals are sent via Express Mail, proposal pages MUST be placed in a sealed envelope properly identified within the Express Mail envelope. No responsibility will attach to the District or any official or employee thereof for the preopening of, post opening of, or the failure to open a proposal not properly addressed and identified as required. Offers by telegram, telefax or telephone are not acceptable. The SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/12 5 8

146 District reserves the right to retain all proposals submitted The District may make an award within ninety (90) days after the date of the opening, during which period responses shall remain firm and shall not be withdrawn. If award is not made within ninety (90) days, the response shall remain firm until either the District awards the Contract or the District receives from the Respondent written notice that the response is withdrawn. Any response that expresses a shorter duration may, in the District s sole discretion, be accepted or rejected. By submitting a Proposal, Respondent agrees to all the terms and conditions of this RFP and those included in the sample agreement attached as Attachment D. Any changes offered by a Respondent in a Proposal will not be considered by the District. The submittal of a Proposal shall constitute Respondent s acknowledgement of all terms and conditions of this RFP and the District will construe the Proposal as though no proposed changes were presented. If a Respondent desires to propose a change to a term or condition of this RFP or sample agreement, Respondent must submit its request under the procedure set forth in Section 1.9, Technical Questions. 1.9 TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. All questions should be presented in writing to the Contracts Administration Section at Procurement@swfwmd.state.fl.us, the address as stated in the paragraph named "Correspondence," or faxed, followed by a written confirmation, to the Contracts Administration Section FAX number at for receipt no later than ten (10) working days prior to the proposal opening. Inquiries must reference the date of proposal opening, and proposal title and number. Respondents are responsible to check the District s web site as specified in Section 1.4 of this RFP, for the District s responses to the questions presented CONFLICT OF INTEREST. The award hereunder is subject to the provisions of Chapter 112, Part III, F.S., as amended, governing conflicts of interest. All Respondents must disclose with their proposal the name of any officer, director, or agent who is also a public employee. Further, all Respondents must disclose the name of any public employee who owns, directly or indirectly, an interest of five percent (5%) or more in the Respondent's firm or any of its branches. The Respondent hereby agrees that, at the time of execution of an agreement, the Respondent will not be involved in any matters which adversely affect any interest or position of the District, and that the Respondent has no relationship with any third party relating to any matters which adversely affect any interest or position of the District. The Respondent will not accept during the term of the agreement, or any renewal thereof, any retainer or employment from a third party whose interests appear to be conflicting or inconsistent with those of the District PROPOSAL WITHDRAWAL. Proposals may be withdrawn by written notice signed by the same person who signed the RFP form and if received at any time prior to the opening. Proposals may be withdrawn in person by Respondent or its authorized representative, provided the authorized representative's identity is made known and a signed receipt for the proposal is received. No Respondent may withdraw its proposal except as described in this Section and Section PUBLIC AVAILABILITY OF RECORDS. Once opened, all proposals will become the property of the District and, at the sole discretion of the District, may not be returned to Respondent. Any information, reports or other materials given to, prepared or submitted in response to this RFP will be subject to the provisions in Chapter 119, F.S., commonly known as the Florida Public Records Act. Any Respondent claiming that its response contains information that is exempt from the public records law must clearly segregate (separate binder and CD preferred) and mark that specific information and provide the specific statutory citation for such exemption (i.e., Section , F.S.). The Florida Public Records Act, Section (1)(b), F.S., as amended, exempts sealed proposals from inspection, examination, and duplication until such time as the District issues a notice of decision or intended decision pursuant to Section (3)(a), F.S., or within thirty (30) days after the proposal opening, whichever comes firm. This exemption is not waived by the public opening of the proposals RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR REJECT PROPOSALS. Proposals which are incomplete, conditional, obscure, or contain additions not contemplated by the RFP or irregularities of any kind, or do not comply in every respect with the RFP may be rejected as nonresponsive at the option of the District. The District does not bind itself to accept the minimum specifications stated in the RFP, but reserves the right to accept any proposal which in the judgment of the District will best serve the needs and the interests of the District. The District reserves the right to reject all proposals and not grant any award resulting from the issuance of this RFP. If awarded, no contract will be formed between the Respondent and the District until the contract is executed by both parties NOTICE OF DECISION. The notice of decision will be posted for review by interested parties on the District s Internet web site ( at and at 2379 Broad Street, Building No. 2, Room 242, Brooksville, Florida PROTESTS. Any Respondent who protests the specifications, decision, or intended decision, must file with the District a notice of protest and formal protest in compliance with Chapter , Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and applicable provisions in Section , F.S. Failure to file a protest within the time prescribed in Section (3), F.S., will constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter 120, F.S. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/12 6 9

147 1.16 CONTRACT INFORMATION. The contents of the proposal of the successful Respondent will be incorporated into a written contract document in terms acceptable to the District at its absolute discretion and will be binding on all parties to the executed contract. Failure of Respondent to accept this condition will result in the cancellation of any award. The laws of the State of Florida will govern any contract resulting from this RFP and venue will lie in Hernando County, Florida. The District will have the right to examine and audit the successful Respondent's Project-related books, records, documents and papers during the Project and for at least five (5) years following completion date. The selected Respondent will also be required to comply with all applicable laws, rules, regulations and contract provisions or conditions necessary in the judgment of the District to constitute a sound and complete contract. A sample agreement is attached as Attachment E INDEMNIFICATION. The Respondent agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the District and all District agents, employees and officers from and against all liabilities, claims, damages, expenses or actions, either at law or in equity, including attorney fees and costs and attorney fees and costs on appeal, caused or incurred, in whole or in part, as a result of any act or omission by the Respondent, its agents, employees, subcontractors, assigns, heirs or anyone for whose acts or omissions any of these persons or entities may be liable during the Respondent's performance under any contract resulting from this RFP. The Respondent agrees to be solely liable for claims arising from the Respondent s performance of the project services. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event will Respondent indemnify or hold harmless the District (or any District agents, employees and officers) for any claims arising out of or relating to inaccurate information in the District s financial statements WITHHOLDING PAYMENT. The DISTRICT may, in addition to other remedies available at law or equity, retain such monies from amounts due the Respondent under any resulting contract as may be necessary to satisfy any claim for damages, penalties, costs and the like asserted by or against the DISTRICT. The DISTRICT may set off any liability or other obligation of the Respondent or its affiliates to the DISTRICT against any payments due the Respondent under any contract with the DISTRICT TERMINATION. Unless otherwise agreed to by the District, any contract resulting from this RFP may be terminated by the District without cause upon ten (10) days written notice. Termination is effective upon the tenth (10th) day as counted from the date of the written notice. In the event of termination under this paragraph, the contractor or consultant will be entitled to compensation for all services provided to the District up to the date of termination on a pro-rated basis and which are within the Statement of Work, are documented in the budget, and are allowed under the Agreement LAW COMPLIANCE. The Respondent will abide by and assist the District in satisfying all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations and guidelines (including but not limited to the Americans with Disabilities Act) relative to performance under this RFP. The Respondent will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, disability, marital status or national origin. Respondent will obtain and maintain all permits and licenses necessary for its performance under this RFP AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA). The District does not discriminate upon the basis of any individual's disability status. This non-discrimination policy involves every aspect of the District's functions including one's access to, participation, employment, or treatment in its programs or activities. Anyone requiring reasonable accommodation as provided for in the Americans With Disabilities Act, should contact the Finance Administrative Supervisor at or (Florida Only), extension 4121; TDD ONLY ; FAX PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES. Pursuant to Subsections (2) and (3), F.S., a person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for a public entity crime may not submit a proposal on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity, may not submit a proposal on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work, may not submit proposals on leases of real property to a public entity, may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under a contract with any public entity, and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in Subsection , F.S., for CATEGORY TWO, for a period of thirty-six (36) months from the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list. By submitting a proposal to this RFP, the Respondent certifies that it is not on the convicted vendor list DISCRIMINATION. Pursuant to Subsection (2)(a), F.S., an entity or affiliate who has been placed on the discriminatory vendor list may not submit a bid on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity, may not submit a bid on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work, may not submit bids on leases of real property to a public entity, may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under a contract with any public entity, and may not transact business with any public entity. By submitting a proposal to this RFP, the Respondent certifies that it is not on the discriminatory vendor list CORRESPONDENCE. Unless otherwise stated or notified in writing by the District, correspondence pursuant to this RFP must be sent to the District at the following address: Contracts Administration Office (PRO), Building 2 Southwest Florida Water Management District 2379 Broad Street (U.S. Hwy. 41 South) Brooksville, Florida SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/

148 Unless otherwise stated or notified in writing by the Respondent, correspondence pursuant to this Request for Proposals will be sent to the Respondent at the address listed on the Proposal Response form EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION. The Respondent must utilize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security s Employment Verification (E-Verify) Program to verify the employment eligibility of Respondent employees performing work directly associated with the Agreement resulting from this RFP, in accordance with the terms and conditions applicable to the E-Verify Program. If the Respondent uses subcontractors to furnish services directly associated with the Agreement, performed in the United States, in an amount greater than $3,000, the Respondent must include the requirements of this provision (appropriately modified for identification of the parties) in each subcontract. Information on registration for and use of the E-Verify Program can be obtained via the Internet at the Department of Homeland Security Web site: SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/

149 PART II - INTRODUCTION 2.1 GENERAL INFORMATION. The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) hereby solicits offers for the services of qualified Respondents for the following purpose: Section , Florida Statutes, requires each local government entity to have completed, within twelve months of the fiscal year-end, an annual financial audit of its accounts and records. The Southwest Florida Water Management District (District) is requesting proposals from qualified certified public accounting firms for the audit of the District s financial statements and single audits for one fiscal year ending September 30, 2012, with an option for four additional one year periods. To be considered, one (1) original and three (3) copies of a proposal must be received by the Contracts Administration Office (PRO), Building 2, at Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2379 Broad Street (U.S. Hwy. 41 South), Brooksville, Florida , by 2:30 p.m., Eastern Time, on Thursday, July 26, All visitors must report to the lobby of Building 4 to sign in and be issued a visitors badge. During the evaluation process, the District reserves the right, where it may serve the District s interest, to request additional information from Respondents for clarification purposes. At the discretion of the District, Respondents submitting proposals may be requested to make oral presentations as part of the evaluation process. 2.2 TERM OF CONTRACT. The expected term of the contract resulting from this Request for Proposals will be through July 31, The District has the option, in its sole discretion, to renew this Agreement for four (4) additional one (1) year periods pending negotiation of terms acceptable to the District and annual appropriation of funds. 2.3 PROPOSAL CALENDAR. The following is a list of key dates up to and including the date proposals are due to be submitted: Request for Proposals issued by the District June 29, 2012 General Request for Proposals questions will be answered by telephone Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time. Technical questions must be submitted in writing, by mail, , or fax no later than ten (10) working days before the opening date. The District will attempt to answer all submitted questions in a timely manner, but accepts no responsibility for response delays. All District contact must be through the Contracts Administration Office, Southwest Florida Water Management District, 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida , telephone number or (Florida only) extension 4132; fax number ; Procurement@swfwmd.state.fl.us. Due date for Respondents to submit proposals (2:30 p.m.) July 26, 2012 Oral Presentations, if required, (10:00 a.m.) August 22, 2012 Evaluator's Meeting, if required, (10:00 a.m.) August 22, 2012 Notice of Decision, anticipated posting date August 31, 2012 Notice of decisions are posted on the District s Internet web site ( ) and at 2379 Broad Street, Building No. 2, Room 242, Brooksville, Florida Contract date As soon as practicable SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/

150 PART III STATEMENT OF WORK 3.1 SCOPE OF WORK The successful Respondent, hereinafter Auditor, shall audit all funds of the District in accordance with the auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America; the standards for financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; the provisions of the OMB Circular A133, Audits of States, Local Governments and Non-Profit Organizations; and Chapter , Rules of the Auditor General for the State of Florida. The Auditor will express an opinion on the fair presentation of the District s basic financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The Auditor s opinion shall be unqualified unless the Auditor furnishes the District, on a timely basis, the reasons for qualifying the opinion, disclaiming an opinion, or rendering an adverse opinion The Auditor is not required to audit the supporting schedules contained in the comprehensive annual financial report. However, the Auditor is to provide an "in-relation-to" opinion on the supporting schedules based on the auditing procedures applied during the audit of the basic financial statements. The Auditor is not required to audit the introductory section of the report or the statistical section of the report The Auditor will be responsible for performing certain limited procedures involving required supplementary information required by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board as mandated by generally accepted government auditing standards In connection with the audit of the financial statements, the Auditor shall consider, test, and report on internal controls and perform tests and report on compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of American and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller general of the United States The Auditor will conduct a single audit of Federal awards as prescribed in the Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended, and OMB Circular A The Auditor will conduct a single audit of State awards as prescribed in the Florida Single Audit Act. 3.2 AUDITING STANDARDS. To meet the requirements of this Request for Proposals, the audit will be performed in accordance with: Auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America Standards applicable to financial audits set forth in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller general of the United States Provisions of the United States Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Circular Nos. A-87, A- 133 and any other applicable circular issued by OMB Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended Florida Single Audit Act, Section , Florida Statutes Rules adopted by the Auditor General for form and content of local governmental entity audits (Chapter Rules of the Auditor General). SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/

151 3.2.7 Any other applicable federal, state, local regulations or professional guidance not specifically listed above as well as any additional requirements which may be adopted by these organizations in the future. 3.3 WORK PRODUCTS REQUIRED. The Auditor will provide the following: Independent Certified Public Accountants report on the fair presentation of the basic financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles Single Audit Reports in accordance with the Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended, and the Florida Single Audit Act including: Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards Independent Auditors Report on Compliance with Requirements That Could Have a Direct and Material Effect on Each Major Program and on Internal Control Over Compliance in Accordance With OMB Circular A-133 and Chapter , Rules of the Auditor General Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and State Financial Assistance Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs A management letter as required by Section (4), Florida Statutes and defined in rule (1)(i), Rules of the Auditor General. The draft of the management letter is to be discussed with key staff members before its issuance in final form Completed U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census Data Collection Form (OMB No ) to be filed with Federal Single Audit Clearinghouse The Auditor will issue any additional reports deemed necessary as required by the auditing standards cited in Section The Auditor will deliver one original hard copy and one electronic version of Items #3.3.1 through above to be included in the District s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) All reports will be delivered based on a schedule as agreed to by the District and the Auditor Irregularities and illegal acts. The Auditor will be required to make an immediate written report of all irregularities and illegal acts, which they become aware of, to the following parties at the District: Chairman of the Governing Board Chairman, Finance and Administration Committee Executive Director General Counsel Inspector General SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/

152 3.3.9 Reporting to the District Governing Board. The Auditor will communicate verbally or in writing to the District Governing Board, the following: The Auditor's responsibility under generally accepted auditing standards Significant accounting policies Management judgments and accounting estimates/issues Significant audit adjustments Other information in documents containing audited financial statements Disagreements with management Consultation with other accountants Major issues discussed with management prior to retention Difficulties encountered in performing the audit Other services rendered 3.4 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS The District will submit its CAFR to the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada for the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting program. The Auditor may be required to provide special assistance/consultation to the District in order to meet the requirements of that program The schedules of federal and state financial assistance and related Auditor's reports, as well as the reports on the internal control structure and compliance, are to be issued as part of the CAFR The Management Letter is to be issued as part of the CAFR Electronic versions of all the required work products will be required, both in draft form for compiling an initial draft CAFR for review and a final version to be included in the final version of the CAFR which is presented and mailed to the Governing Board members prior to the board meeting in which the CAFR is being presented for approval The District may require the Auditor's assistance to comply with audit requirements which may include implementing and complying with any new reporting requirements recently mandated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), and assistance throughout the year to discuss different types of accounting or IT related issues prior to the year-end audit. Any fees charged will not exceed the quoted hourly rate set forth in Attachment D for the appropriate staff. 3.5 WORKING PAPERS RETENTION AND ACCESS TO WORKING PAPERS. All working papers and reports must be retained, at the Auditor's expense, for a minimum of five (5) years beyond the audit year, unless the firm is notified in writing by the District of the need to extend the retention period. The Auditor will be required to make working papers available, upon request, to the following parties or their designees: Southwest Florida Water Management District U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) State of Florida, Office of the Auditor General Other government entities from which the District receives funding Auditors of entities for which the District is a subrecipient of grant funds In addition, the Auditor will respond to the reasonable inquiries of successor auditors and allow successor auditors to review working papers relating to matters of continuing accounting significance. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/

153 PART IV - DESCRIPTION OF THE DISTRICT 4.1 NAME AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF CONTACT PERSON(S)/ORGANIZATIONAL CHART/LOCATION OF OFFICES. The Auditor's principal contact with the District will be Daryl F. Pokrana, Finance Bureau Chief, at (352) , extension 4122, or a designated representative, who will coordinate the assistance to be provided by the District to the Auditor. A District organizational chart (Attachment A) and a list of key personnel (Attachment B) are attached. 4.2 BACKGROUND INFORMATION. The Southwest Florida Water Management District is one of five regional districts charged by Chapter 373 of the Florida Statutes to preserve and protect the state's water resources. The District serves an area of approximately 10,000 square miles with a population of approximately 4.8 million. The District's fiscal year begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. The mission of the District is to manage the water and related natural resources to ensure their continued availability while maximizing environmental, economic and recreational benefits. Central to the mission is maintaining the balance between the water needs of current and future users while protecting and maintaining water and related natural resources which provide the District with its existing and future water supply. The fiscal year 2012 approved budget for salaries and benefits is $54.9 million. As of April 24, 2012, there are 622 positions consisting of 614 regular board-authorized and 8 temporary student positions. Out of all the positions, 31 are either on hold or vacant. The District is organized into seventeen departments that are supported by fifty-seven sections or organizational units. The accounting and financial reporting functions of the District are centralized. More detailed information on the District and its finances can be found in the CAFR for fiscal year ended September 30, This report is available on line at Business & Finance, Financial Reports, Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. 4.3 FUND STRUCTURE. The District uses the following fund types in its financial reporting and all funds are considered major funds: Number of Number With Individual Legally Adopted Fund Type Funds Annual Budgets General fund 1 1 Special revenue fund 1 1 Capital projects fund BUDGETARY BASIS OF ACCOUNTING. The District prepares its budgets on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. 4.5 FEDERAL AND STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. The schedules of Federal and State Financial Assistance for fiscal year ended September 30, 2011, are attached as Attachment C. 4.6 DEFINED BENEFIT PENSION PLAN. Employees of the District participate in the State of Florida Retirement System (FRS). FRS is a cost-sharing multiple employer defined benefit plan and a defined contribution investment plan, qualified under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code. Actuarial services for this plan are currently provided by Milliman, Inc. 4.7 REPORTING ENTITY. The District is defined for financial reporting purposes, in conformity with governmental accounting standards, as a component unit of the State of Florida. There are no component SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/

154 units to include in the District s financial statements. The District s financial statements as of each fiscal year end are incorporated into the State of Florida s financial statements for the following year, as a discretely presented component unit. 4.8 OVERVIEW OF FINANCE BUREAU. The Finance Bureau is headed by Daryl F. Pokrana, Finance Bureau Chief, and consists of thirty-nine employees. The principal functions performed and the number of employees assigned to each section is as follows: Function Number of Employees Administration (includes Finance Bureau Chief and all administration support personnel) 6 Accounting & Financial Reporting 15 (Accounting, Accounts Payable, and Property Control) Budget 5 Financial Systems 5 (Financial Systems and Payroll) Procurement 5 Real Estate Services COMPUTER SYSTEMS. Software Application Vendor Function Hardware Active Directory 2008 Microsoft Security Windows Server Adobe Acrobat Pro Adobe Scanning Desktop application Advantage Financial CGI Financial functions (GL, Application & Database Servers v3.7 AP, AR, etc.) Alchemy Open Text Document storage and archive Application Server & Desktop application (scanning) Business Objects XI SAP Financial Analysis and Reporting Application, Database & Web Servers Cash Receipts System Internally Receipt of Cash Application & Database Servers (CRS) Developed Crystal Reports SAP Financial Analysis and Desktop application Reporting InfoAdvantage CGI Financial Analysis and (only use BOXI universes) Human Resource Information System (HRIS) Pervasive Data Integrator Performance Budgeting (PB) v3.8 Workforce Central (WFC) v6.1 Planet Press Printing Software Collaboration Reporting NuView Payroll Desktop application Pervasive ETL tool Server Application CGI Budgeting Application & Database Servers Kronos Objectiflune Vignette (OpenText) Employee Time Accounting AP Check Printing, PO Printing, Invoice Printing AP Process Application & Database Servers Application Server Application Server SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/

155 Hardware Equipment Use Count Description Networked Application Server Advantage 2 IBM WebSphere/IBM HTTP Yes Server on Windows/Intel server Database Server - Advantage 2 Oracle 10g on Windows/Intel Yes sever Application Server - PDI 1 PDI ETL for Advantage Data Yes Warehouse (Virtual) Application Server Alchemy 1 Microsoft IIS v6 on Windows Yes 2003/Intel server Application Server BOXI 3 Tomcat on Windows/Intel Yes server (Virtual) Database Server BOXI 1 Oracle 10g on HP-UX server Yes Web Server BOXI 3 Microsoft IIS v6 on Yes Windows/Intel server (Virtual) Application Server CRS 3 Microsoft IIS v6 on Yes Windows/Intel server (Virtual) Database Server - CRS 2 Oracle 11g RAC Cluster on Yes Linux/Intel server Application Server HRIS 3 Tomcat and Microsoft IIS v6 Yes (Payroll Only) on Windows/Intel server (Virtual) Database Server HRIS 3 Microsoft SQL Server on Yes (Payroll Only) Windows/Intel server (Virtual) Application Server PB 2 IBM WebSphere/IBM HTTP Yes Server on Windows/Intel server (Virtual) Database Server - PB 2 Oracle 11g RAC on Yes Linux/Intel server Application Server WFC 2 JBoss and Microsoft IIS v6 on Yes Windows/Intel server (Virtual) Database Server - WFC 2 Oracle 11g RAC Cluster on Yes Linux/Intel server ECM Application Server AP 2 Tomcat on Windows/Intel Yes Process Server (Virtual) Production Printers 4 Invoices Printer (AcctgIKON Yes bkb1fincmfc06) Purchase Orders Printer (PurchIKON bkb2fincmfc01) AP Checks (ChecksAP bkb1xerlj-4) Payroll Checks (Check bkb1xerlj-3) Test Printers 2 Tampa Test Printer (Tampa tbp2irdcmfc01) Brooksville Test Printer (FinSysHall bkb1fincmfc08) Yes Databases Database Vendor Application Type Oracle 10g Oracle Advantage Financial Relational Oracle 11g Oracle Cash Receipts, Relational Performance Budgeting, Workforce Central SQL Server 2008 Microsoft HRIS Relational SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/

156 4.10 INTERNAL AUDIT FUNCTION. The District, by Florida Statute, has an Office of Inspector General (OIG) with the responsibility for the District s internal audit function. The OIG is staffed by an Inspector General and an Assistant Inspector General. To promote independence, the Inspector General reports functionally to the Governing Board and administratively to the District s Executive Director. An audit plan is developed each year by the OIG and approved by the District s Governing Board. The internal audit plan does not allocate resources to assist in external financial and compliance audits. OIG s staff are available to meet with the independent Auditors to discuss any pertinent matters, including the quality of management, financial, accounting, and auditing personnel, whether any restrictions have been placed by management on the scope of their examination, or any other matters that should be discussed with the Finance and Administration Committee. OIG s annual audit plan, audit reports, and workpapers are available for inspection by the external independent Auditors AVAILABILITY OF PRIOR AUDIT REPORTS AND WORKING PAPERS. Interested Auditors who wish to review prior years' audit reports and management letters should contact Lori Nissen, KPMG, 100 North Tampa Street, Suite 1700, Tampa Florida 33602, The District will use its best efforts to make prior audit reports and supporting working papers available to proposers to aid in their response to this Request for Proposals. PART V - TIME REQUIREMENTS 5.1 SCHEDULE FOR THE 2012 FISCAL YEAR AUDIT. (Schedule listed below is preliminary and may be modified. A similar schedule will be developed for audits of future fiscal years if the District exercises its option for additional audits. Each of the following will be completed by the Auditor no later than the dates indicated Interim Work. The Auditor will complete all interim work by September 30, The Auditor will provide the District a list of all schedules that need to be prepared, at least two weeks prior to the start of interim field work Detailed Audit Plan. The Auditor will provide the District by November 1, 2012, a detailed audit plan and a list of all schedules to be prepared by the District prior to the start of year end field work Date Audit May Commence. The District will attempt to have a trial balance and the basic financial statements ready for year-end audit work and all management personnel available to meet with the firm s personnel as of November 26, Field Work. The Auditor will complete all field work by January 11, Draft Reports. The Auditor will provide all recommendations, revisions and suggestions for improvement to the Finance Bureau Chief (or designee) by January 11, ENTRANCE CONFERENCES, PROGRESS REPORTING, AND EXIT CONFERENCES. (Schedule listed below is preliminary and may be modified. A similar time schedule will be developed for audits of future fiscal years if the District exercises its option for additional audits.) At a minimum, the following conferences will be held during the dates indicated on the schedule: Entrance conference with Finance Bureau Chief, all key Finance Department personnel and department heads of key offices or programs... To Be Determined SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/

157 The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss prior audit problems, to identify the key internal controls or other matters to be tested, and the interim work to be performed. This meeting will also be used to establish overall liaison for the audit and to make arrangements for workspace and other needs of the Auditor. Progress conference, if needed, with Finance Bureau Chief (or designees), key Finance Department personnel and other department heads of key offices or programs...to Be Determined The purpose of this meeting will be to discuss the year-end work to be performed. Entrance conference (if needed) with Finance Bureau Chief to commence year-end audit work...november 19-26, 2012 Exit conference with Finance Bureau Chief and department heads of key offices or programs..december 26, 2012 through January 11, 2013 The purpose of this meeting will be to summarize the results of the field work, to review significant findings, and to discuss any management comments. 5.3 DATE FINAL REPORT IS DUE. The Auditor will provide a draft of all reports required for inclusion in the CAFR to the District by no later than January 25, The District will provide a complete draft of the CAFR, including the Letter to the Citizens, financial statements, notes, and all required supplementary information, to the Auditors on or before February 8, The Auditor is expected to be available for meetings and phone consultation during the period following the end of field work until completion of the CAFR. The Auditor will complete their review of the draft CAFR and deliver a signed opinion letter Report of Independent Certified Public Accountants, single audit reports, and management letter to the District by no later than February 22, The Auditor will attend the meeting of the District s Audit Committee, when the District s CAFR is presented for acceptance. The Auditor will make the required disclosures to the Committee, review the audit process, present audit results, and be available to answer any questions the Board members may have. PART VI - ASSISTANCE TO BE PROVIDED TO THE AUDITOR AND REPORT PREPARATION 6.1 FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND CLERICAL ASSISTANCE. The Finance Department staff and responsible management personnel will be available during the audit to assist the Auditor by providing information, documentation (preferably in an electronic format) and explanations. The preparation of confirmations, any typing, and reproduction will be the responsibilities of the District. 6.2 INFORMATION/COMPUTER SYSTEMS. Information Technology personnel will be available to provide computer systems documentation and explanations. The Auditor will be provided computer time and use of the District's computer hardware and software. 6.3 PREPARATION OF CAFR REPORT. The Finance Department staff will prepare all financial statements, notes, schedules and other supporting information for the CAFR. These reports are itemized as follows: Basic Financial Statements: Statement of Net Assets Statement of Activities Balance Sheet Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances Governmental Funds SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/

158 Statements of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance - Budget and Actual Notes to the Financial Statements Management's Discussion and Analysis Other Supplementary Information Various Statistical Reports Schedules of Federal and State Financial Assistance Management Letter It is estimated that the above named reports will be completed by February 1, WORK AREA, TELEPHONES, PHOTOCOPYING, AND FAX MACHINES. The District will provide the Auditor s staff with reasonable work space, desks, chairs, access to telephone lines, photocopying facilities, and fax machines, subject to the following restrictions: Any charges for such services if not related to District business will be paid by the auditing firm. 6.5 REPORT PREPARATION. Report preparation, editing, and printing will be the responsibilities of the District. PART VII - INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 7.1 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Any contract resulting from this RFP will require the successful Auditor to maintain, during the entire term of the contract, insurance in the following kinds and amounts or limits with a company or companies authorized to do business in the State of Florida and will not commence work under the contract until the District has received an acceptable certificate or certificates of insurance showing evidence of such coverage: Liability insurance on forms no more restrictive than the latest edition of the Commercial General Liability policy (CG 00 01) of the Insurance Services Office without restrictive endorsements, or equivalent, with the following minimum limits and coverage: Minimum Limits... $1,000,000 per occurrence Vehicle liability insurance, including owned, non-owned and hired autos with the following minimum limits and coverage: Bodily Injury Liability per Person... $100,000 Bodily Injury Liability per Occurrence... $300,000 Property Damage Liability... $100,000 - or - Combined Single Limit... $500, Auditor must carry workers compensation insurance in accordance with Chapter 440, F.S. If Auditor does not carry workers compensation coverage, Auditor must submit to the District both an affidavit stating that Auditor meets the requirements of an independent contractor as stated in Chapter 440, F.S., and a certificate of exemption from workers compensation coverage Professional liability (errors and omissions) insurance in a minimum amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000). SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/

159 7.1.5 The Auditor must obtain certificates of insurance from any subcontractor otherwise the Auditor must provide evidence satisfactory to the District that coverage is afforded to the subcontractor by the Auditor s insurance policies Auditor must notify the District in writing of the cancellation or material change to any insurance coverage required by the Agreement resulting from this RFP. Such notification must be provided to the District within five (5) business days of the Auditor s notice of such cancellation or change from its insurance carrier. PART VIII - EVALUATION PROCEDURES 8.1 REVIEW OF PROPOSALS. Timely submitted proposals will be evaluated by the District s Audit Committee. Each representative will score each proposal by the criteria described in Section 8.2 below. 8.2 EVALUATION METHOD AND CRITERIA. Proposals will be evaluated by the following criteria: Organization Profile and Qualifications Category Point Range Expertise (ability) and Experience Qualifications of the firm (15) / Qualifications of the Partner, Manager, Senior, Staff Accountants and IT staff performing the audit (15) / Past experience and performance on comparable government engagements (10) / Past experience with specific state and Federal grant programs similar to the types of grants received by the District (5) / Utilization of current technology in performing the audit (5 ) Technical and Management Approach Understanding of the Scope of Work (25) / Adequacy of proposed staffing plan, sampling techniques, analytical procedures and compliance testing procedures (25) 8.3 FINAL SELECTION. Individual raw scores will be ranked with the top ranked Respondent receiving a rank of one (1). The individual rankings will be totaled. The highest ranked Respondent will be the Respondent with the lowest total score based upon the rankings. The District s Audit Committee will recommend in order of preference no fewer than three firms deemed to be the most highly qualified to perform the required services. If fewer than three firms respond to the RFP, the Audit Committee will recommend such firms as it deems to be the most highly qualified. The Audit Committee will decide on whether oral presentations are required. In the event the Audit Committee decides that oral presentations are required to finalize their rankings and recommendation to the Governing Board, the Audit Committee will request that the three (or more) highest-ranked firms make oral presentations. The Audit Committee will hear oral presentations on August 22, The initial rankings of the written proposals are subject to change based on consideration of the oral presentation. These scores will be tallied and ranked to determine the highest-ranked firms and a recommendation will be forwarded to the Governing Board for approval. In the event of a tie, the raw scores will be totaled and the successful Respondent will be the Respondent with the highest cumulative raw score. The District Governing Board, or its designee, will negotiate a contract with the highest ranked Respondent. If the District Governing Board is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the highest ranked Respondent negotiations with that Respondent will be terminated and the District will undertake negotiations with the Respondent having the second highest rank. Failing accord with the Respondent having the second highest rank, the District will terminate negotiations and undertake negotiations with the Respondent having the third highest rank. This process will continue with the next ranked firm until a satisfactory contract can be negotiated. The District Governing Board, or its designee, in negotiating with SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/

160 firms, may reopen formal negotiations with any one of the three top-ranked firms but it may not negotiate with more than one firm at a time. If the District Governing Board, or its designee, is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with any of the recommended firms, the Audit Committee will recommend additional firms, and negotiations will continue in accordance with this provision until a contract is reached. Cost will not be the sole or predominant factor used to select a firm. The District anticipates that on, or shortly after August 31, 2012, the Notice of Decision will be posted on the District s Internet web site ( ) and at 2379 Broad Street, Building No. 2, Room 242, Brooksville, Florida SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT/RFP /29/

161 24 Ombudsman Office Chief of Staff David T. Rathke Board & Executive Services Bureau Lou I. Kavouras Communications Bureau Michael O. Molligan Public Affairs Bureau Colleen J. Thayer DRAFT Organization Chart Electorate Governing Board (13 Members) General Counsel Office Executive Director Laura C. Donaldson Blake C. Guillory, P.E. Assistant Executive Director Robert Beltran, P.E. OffR Operations, Aerat Resource Management Maintenance na & Division Construction Division Mark A. Hammond, P.E. Michael L. Holtkamp, P.E.. Natural Systems & Restoration Bureau Eric C. DeHaven, P.G. Water Resources Bureau Kenneth R. Herd Operations & Land Management Bureau Roy A. Mazur, P.E. Data Collection Bureau Roberta Starks ATTACHMENT A Inspector General Office Bob R. Dunne, MS, MSA Regulation Division Alba E. Mas, P.E. Regulation Production Brian S. Starford, P.G. FTNatural Environmental Resource Resource Permit Management Bureau Bureau TAl Albert A. Gagne, Jr. FTns Michelle K. Hopkins Water Use Permit Bureau Darrin W. Herbst Regulatory Support Bureau Michelle L. Maxey As of March 19, 2012 Management Services Division Kurt P. Fritsch, CCSA, CIA, CIG, CIGI, CPA Information Technology Bureau Steven Dicks, PhD, GISP Human Resources & Risk Management Bureau Elaine M. Kuligofski, Esq., SPHR General Services Bureau Lloyd A. Roberts, P.E., CGC Finance Bureau Daryl F. Pokrana Page1of1

162 ATTACHMENT B List of Key Personnel Name and Title Blake C. Guillory, Executive Director Robert Beltran, Assistant Executive Director Laura C. Donaldson, General Counsel Kurt P. Fritsch, Director, Management Services Division Bob Dunne, Inspector General Daryl F. Pokrana, Finance Bureau Chief Linda R. Pilcher, Assistant Finance Bureau Chief Steve Dicks, Information Technology Bureau Chief Melisa J. Lowe, Accounting & Financial Reporting Manger Steve M. Long, Procurement Manager Noel R. Pioszak, Financial Systems s Manager Julie P. McClung, Accounting Lead Patricia Williams, Senior Revenue Compliance Coordinator Karen R. Frazier, Accounts Payable Lead Robin L. Morgan, Financial al Systems Lead Dale C. Thompson, Payroll Accountant Lead Kerri ri G. Meadors, Property Administrator Office Location Brooksville Brooksville Tampa Brooksville Brooksville Brooksville Brooksville Brooksville Brooksville Brooksville Brooksville Brooksville Brooksville Brooksville Brooksville Brooksville Brooksville Page1of1 25

163 ATTACHMENT C SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and State Financial Assistance Year ended September 30, 2011 CFDA, CSFA Federal/State Agency/Pass Through Entity Number Grant ID# Expenditures FEDERAL AWARDS U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Passed through Florida Department of Environmental Protection: Non Point Source Implementation Grants: Sawgrass Lake Restoration Project C & 1506 $ 276,015 Total U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 276,015 U.S. Department of Homeland Security - Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Direct Program: FY2006 Map Modernization Management Support EMA-2006-CA ,969 FY2007 Map Modernization Management Support EMA-2007-CA ,986 Total Program 8,955 Direct Program: Cooperating Technical Partners Mapping Activity Statement Citrus & Highlands Co EMA-2006-CA ,588 Cooperating Technical Partners Mapping Activity Statement DeSoto & Hardee Co EMA-2005-CA ,680 Cooperating Technical Partners Mapping Activity Statement Hernando Co EMA-2004-CA ,745 Cooperating Technical Partners Mapping Activity Statement Pasco & Sarasota Co EMA-2003-GR Cooperating Technical Partners Mapping Activity Statement ent Levy & Sumter Co EMA-2007-CA ,216 Cooperating Technical Partners Mapping Activity Statement - Districtwide EMA-2010-CA ,080 Total Program 1,019,359 Passed through Florida Department of Community Affairs: Hurricane Charley Disaster Assistance FEMA-DR-1539-FL 870 Total Program 870 Total U.S. Department of Homeland Security - FEMA 1,029,184 U.S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service Passed through Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission: Springs Coast Remote Sensing Pilot FWC ,200 Total U.S. Department of Interior 14,200 U.S. Department of Interior - U.S. Geological Survey Direct Program: ram: USGS S Topographical Mapping- Acquisition of Digital Orthoimagery G10AC ,000 Total U.S. Department of Interior 240,000 U.S.. Department of Transportation Passed through Florida Department of Transportation: Highway Planning and Construction Cluster: DRAFT T Efficient Transportation Decision Making ,701 DOT Mitigationtion SWWM1,5,7,8 229,198 Total U.S. Department of Transportation 402,899 Total Expenditures es of Federal Awards $ 1,962,298 (Continued) Page1of2 26

164 ATTACHMENT C SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and State Financial Assistance Year ended September 30, 2011 (Continued) CFDA, CSFA Grantor/Pass through Agency Number Grant ID # Expenditures STATE AWARDS Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Frost Freeze Event Drinking Water Wells FDACS $ 51,492 Total Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services 51,492 Department of Community Affairs Hurricane Charley Disaster Assistance n/a FEMA-DR-1539-FL 2,056 Total Department of Community Affairs 2,056 Department of Environmental Protection Florida Forever Trust Fund (FFTF) and Water Management Lands Trust Fund (WMLTF): Florida Forever - Preacquisition FFTFF 398,855 Florida Forever - Lake Hancock/Saddle Creek FFTFFTF 804,761 WMLTF - Pre-acquisition/Ancillary WMLTF 1,765,595 WMLTF - Land Management and Use WMLTF 4,547,4404 WMLTF - Payment in Lieu of Taxes WMLTF 130,913 WMLTF - Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) WMLTF 2,967,696 Total Program 10,615,260 Statewide Surface Water Restoration and Wastewater Projects: Alligator Creek Habitat Restoration W511 SWW51, ,388 Coral Creek Habitat Restoration W553 SWW71,81 42,214 Eagle Lake/Joe's Creek Stormwater Treatment & Wetlands Restoration W390 SWW71 16,250 Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) H017 SWW31,51,61,71,81,91 905,062 Holmes Beach Stormwater Retrofit W623 SWW71 41,115 MacDill AFB Phase W396 SWW71,81 64,756 Myakka River Watershed Evaluation H048 SWW71,81,91 426,209 Neal Preserve Environmental Restoration W602 SWW81 41,016 Palm River Restoration W367 SWW51 17,244 Peace Creek Canal Ecosystem Trust Fund H034 SWW71 2,460 Rock Pond Ecosystem Restoration W395 SWW61,71,81,91 6,893 Ruskin Inlet Habitat Restoration W374 SWW81 1,175 Sawgrass Lake Remediation and Restorationtion B085 SWW81 1,000,000 Sarasota Bay Spoil Island Restoration Project W611 SWW51, 71 19,050 Shore Acres Stormwater Vaults W271 SWW81 129,348 Terra Ceia Habitat Restoration W348 SWW51 108,642 Tropical Hills Drainage Improvements W280 SWW91 448,942 Upper Peace River Resource Development H024 SWW71 16,100 Upper Peace River/Lake Hancock Level Modification H008 SWW71,81 177,391 Total Program 3,625,255 DRAFT ansportatid T Water Protection and Sustainability Program Trust Fund: West-Central tral Florida Water Restoration Action Plan (WRAP) various SWW91 4,244,697 SWIM Restoration Projects various WPSPTF 712,511 Surface Water Restoration Projects various WPSPTF 16,158 Alternative Water Supply various WPSPTF 1,072,242 Total Program 6,045,608 Total Department of Environmental Protection 20,286,123 Department ent of Transportation (DOT) Mitigation Water Management Districts: DOT Mitigation SWWM1,5,7,8 674,203 Maintenance and Monitoring SWWM1,5,7,8 137,522 Total Program 811,725 Stormwater Retrofit: North Dale Mabry Hwy Stormwater Retrofit W259 A-O888 3,690 Palm River Restoration W367 A-OS06 30,808 River Tower Restoration W387 A-NZ90 23,096 Robles Park Water Quality W235 A-PJ34 41,654 Total Program 99,248 Total Department of Transportation 910,973 Total State Financial Assistance 21,250,644 Total Expenditures of Federal Awards and State Financial Assistance $ 23,212,942 See accompanying Note to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and State Financial Assistance. Page2of2 27

165 Name of Firm: Partners Managers Supervisory staff Staff Other (specify): Subtotal Out of pocket expenses Meals and lodging Hours Standard Hourly Rates ATTACHMENT D Schedule of Professional Fees and Expenses DRAFT Basic Financial Statements ial One Federal Single Audit One State Single Audit Quoted Hourly Rates Sub Total Hours Standard Hourly Rates Quoted Hourly Rates Sub Total Hours Standard Hourly Rates Quoted Hourly Rates Sub Total Total 28 Transportation Other (specify): Total all inclusive price for fiscal year 2012 audit Cost for each additional Federal Single Audit, if required Cost for each additional State Single Audit, if required Note:The rate quoted should not be presented as a general percentage of the standard hourly rate or as a gross deduction from the total all inclusive maximum price (not includingany additional Federal or state single audits). total all inclusive maximum price includingany ad Page1of1

166 ATTACHMENT E SAMPLE AGREEMENT AGREEMENT NO. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND AUDITOR FOR ANNUAL INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL AUDITING SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and between the SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, a public corporation of the State of Florida, whose address is 2379 Broad Street, Brooksville, Florida , hereinafter referred to as the "DISTRICT," and, whose address is, hereinafter referred to as the AUDITOR." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the DISTRICT desires to engage the AUDITOR for Fiscal Year 2012 independent auditing services, hereinafter referred to as the "PROJECT"; and WHEREAS, the AUDITOR represents that it possesses the requisite skills, knowledge, expertise and resources and agrees to provide the desired services to the DISTRICT; and WHEREAS, the DISTRICT and the AUDITOR have agreed on the type and extent of services to be rendered by the AUDITOR and the amount and method of compensation to be paid by the DISTRICT to the AUDITOR for services rendered. NOW THEREFORE, the DISTRICT and the AUDITOR, in consideration of the mutual terms, covenants and conditions set forth herein, agree as follows: 1. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The AUDITOR will perform as an independent contractor and not as an employee, representative or agent of the DISTRICT. 2. PROJECT MANAGER AND NOTICES. Each party hereby designates the employee set forth below as its respective Project Manager. Project Managers will assist with PROJECT coordination and will be each party's prime contact person. Notices and reports will be sent to the attention of each party's Project Manager by U.S. mail, postage paid, by nationally recognized overnight courier, or personally to the parties' addresses as set forth in the introductory paragraph of this Agreement. Notice is effective upon receipt. Project Manager for the DISTRICT: Project Manager for the AUDITOR: Any changes to the above representatives or addresses must be provided to the other party in writing. The DISTRICT'S Project Manager is hereby authorized to approve requests to extend a PROJECT task deadline set forth in this Agreement. Such approval must be in writing, explain the reason for the extension and be signed by the Project Manager and his or her Bureau Chief, or Director if the Bureau Chief is the Project Manager. The Page 1 of 9 29

167 DISTRICT'S Project Manager is not authorized to approve any time extension, which will result in an increased cost to the DISTRICT, or which will exceed the expiration date set forth in Paragraph 5, Contract Period. 3. SCOPE OF WORK. The AUDITOR agrees to perform the services necessary to complete the PROJECT in accordance with the DISTRICT S Request for Proposals No (RFP ), including all Addenda, and the AUDITOR S Response to RFP , incorporated herein by reference. Any changes to this Scope of Work and associated costs, except as provided herein, must be mutually agreed to in a formal written amendment approved by the DISTRICT and the AUDITOR prior to being performed by the AUDITOR, subject to the provisions of Paragraph 4, Compensation. The parties agree that time is of the essence in the performance of each obligation under this Agreement. 4. COMPENSATION. For satisfactory completion of the PROJECT, the DISTRICT agrees to pay the AUDITOR an amount not to exceed Dollars ($ ). Payment will be made to the AUDITOR in accordance with the percentage of completion as outlined in the Schedule of Proposed Progress Payments set forth in Exhibit "A" and the Local Government Prompt Payment Act, Part VII of Chapter 218, Florida Statutes (F.S.), upon receipt of a properly documented invoice. Invoices will be submitted as tasks are completed by the AUDITOR to the DISTRICT electronically at invoices@watermatters.org, or at the following address: Accounts Payable Section Southwest Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 1166 Brooksville, Florida All invoices must include the following information: (1) AUDITOR'S name, address and phone number (include remit address, if different than principal address in the introductory paragraph of this Agreement); (2) AUDITOR'S invoice number and date of invoice; (3) DISTRICT Agreement number; (4) Dates of service; (5) AUDITOR'S Project Manager; (6) DISTRICT'S Project Manager; (7) Progress Report with the AUDITOR Project Manager's assessment of the PROJECT'S actual progress as compared to the performance schedule in the Agreement (details must include any deficiencies and the recovery actions completed and planned); and (8) Supporting documentation, necessary to satisfy auditing purposes, for cost and project completion (based upon the cost and performance schedule in the Agreement). Invoices that do not conform with the requirements of this Agreement will not be considered a proper invoice. 4.2 By October 10 th of each year of the Agreement, the AUDITOR must provide the following documentation to the DISTRICT for all services performed through September 30 th : i) invoices for completed, accepted and billable tasks, ii) an estimate of the dollar value of services performed, but not yet billable. 4.3 Each AUDITOR invoice must include the following certification, and the AUDITOR hereby delegates authority by virtue of this Agreement to its Project Manager to affirm said certification: "I hereby certify that the costs requested for payment, as represented in this invoice, are directly related to the performance under the annual independent financial auditing services agreement between the Southwest Florida Water Page 2 of 10 30

168 Management District and the Auditor (Agreement No. ), are allowable, allocable, properly documented, and are in accordance with the approved project budget." 4.4 If an invoice does not meet the requirements of this Agreement, the DISTRICT S Project Manager, after consultation with his or her Bureau Chief, will reject the invoice in writing within twenty (20) business days after receipt of the invoice, specifying the deficiency and the action necessary to make the invoice proper. If a corrected invoice is provided to the DISTRICT, the corrected invoice will be paid or rejected within ten (10) business days after the date the corrected invoice is stamped as received by the DISTRICT. If the AUDITOR declines to modify the invoice, the AUDITOR must notify the DISTRICT S Project Manager in writing within five (5) business days of receipt of notice of rejection that the AUDITOR will not modify the invoice and state the reason(s) therefor. Within five (5) business days of receipt of such notice, if not informally resolved through discussion with the DISTRICT Project Manager, the dispute will be forwarded to the Division Director, and a final determination will be issued by the DISTRICT in accordance with the procedure set forth below. 4.5 In the event any dispute or disagreement arises during the course of the PROJECT, the AUDITOR will fully perform the project work in accordance with the DISTRICT S written instructions and may claim additional compensation. The AUDITOR is under a duty to seek clarification and resolution of any issue, discrepancy, or dispute by submitting a formal request for additional compensation, schedule adjustment or other dispute resolution to the DISTRICT S Project Manager no later than ten (10) business days after the precipitating event. If not resolved by the Project Manager, in consultation with his or her Bureau Chief, within five (5) business days the dispute will be forwarded to the Division Director. If the dispute is not resolved by the Division Director within five (5) business days, the dispute will be forwarded to the District s Office of General Counsel, which will issue a written decision within ten (10) business days of receipt. This determination will constitute final action of the DISTRICT. The AUDITOR will proceed with the project work in accordance with this determination; however, such continuation of work will not waive the AUDITOR S position regarding the matter in dispute. No project work will be delayed or postponed pending resolution of any disputes or disagreements. 4.6 The DISTRICT may, in addition to other remedies available at law or equity, retain such monies from amounts due AUDITOR as may be necessary to satisfy any claim for damages, penalties, costs and the like asserted by or against the DISTRICT. The DISTRICT may set off any liability or other obligation of the AUDITOR or its affiliates to the DISTRICT against any payments due the AUDITOR under any contract with the DISTRICT. 4.7 The Quoted Hourly Rates will be firm through July 31, Price escalation/deescalation will be considered by the DISTRICT for each subsequent year of the Agreement. The AUDITOR must provide the DISTRICT with price escalation or deescalation documentation (whichever is applicable) by March 31 st of each year of this Agreement. The price escalation percentage change must not exceed the previous twelve months percentage change of the Consumer Price Index (CPI), for the month of January, population coverage - All Urban Consumers (CPI-U), area coverage - South Region, series title - All items and index base period =100. Page 3 of 9 31

169 4.8 The DISTRICT'S performance and payment pursuant to this Agreement are contingent upon the DISTRICT'S Governing Board appropriating funds in its approved budget for the PROJECT in each Fiscal Year of this Agreement. 5. CONTRACT PERIOD. This Agreement will be effective upon execution by both parties and will remain in effect through July 31, The DISTRICT has the option, in its sole discretion, to renew this Agreement for four (4) additional one (1) year periods pending negotiation of terms acceptable to the DISTRICT and annual appropriation of funds. 6. PROJECT RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS. The AUDITOR, upon request, will permit the DISTRICT to examine or audit all PROJECT related records and documents, including working papers and reports, during or following completion of the PROJECT. The AUDITOR will maintain all such records and documents at AUDITOR S expense for at least five (5) years following the completion of the PROJECT, unless the firm is notified in writing by the DISTRICT of the need to extend the retention period. Each party will allow public access to PROJECT documents and materials made or received by either party in accordance with the Public Records Act, Chapter 119, F.S. The AUDITOR will be required to make working papers available, upon request, to the following parties or their designees: Southwest Florida Water Management District U.S. Department of Defense, Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) State of Florida, Office of the Auditor General Other government entities from which the District receives funding Auditors of entities for which the District is a subrecipient of grant funds In addition, the AUDITOR will respond to the reasonable inquiries of successor auditors and allow successor auditors to review working papers relating to matters of continuing accounting significance. This provision shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 7. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS AND OTHER MATERIALS. All deliverables purchased under this Agreement with DISTRICT funds or developed in connection with this Agreement are DISTRICT property. 8. REPORTS. The AUDITOR will provide the DISTRICT with any and all reports, and deliverables resulting from the PROJECT. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. The AUDITOR agrees to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the DISTRICT and all DISTRICT agents, employees and officers from and against all liabilities, claims, damages, expenses or actions, either at law or in equity, including attorneys fees and costs and attorneys fees and costs on appeal, caused or incurred, in whole or in part, as a result of any act or omission by the AUDITOR, its agents, employees, subcontractors, assigns, heirs or anyone for whose acts or omissions any of these persons or entities may be liable during the AUDITOR'S performance under this Agreement. The AUDITOR agrees to be solely liable for claims arising from the AUDITOR S performance of the PROJECT. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in no event will AUDITOR indemnify or hold harmless the DISTRICT, or any DISTRICT agents, employees and officers, for any claims arising out of or relating to inaccurate information Page 4 of 10 32

170 in the DISTRICT S financial statements. This provision shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 10. INSURANCE REQUIREMENT. The AUDITOR must maintain during the entire term of this Agreement, insurance in the following kinds and amounts or limits with a company or companies authorized to do business in the State of Florida and will not commence work under this Agreement until the DISTRICT has received an acceptable certificate of insurance showing evidence of such coverage. Certificates of insurance must reference the DISTRICT Agreement Number and Project Manager Liability insurance on forms no more restrictive than the latest edition of the Commercial General Liability policy (CG 00 01) of the Insurance Services Office without restrictive endorsements, or equivalent, with the following minimum limit and coverage: $1,000,000 per occurrence 10.2 Vehicle liability insurance, including owned, non-owned and hired autos with the following minimum limits and coverage: Bodily Injury Liability per Person $ 100,000 Bodily Injury Liability per Occurrence $ 300,000 Property Damage Liability $ 100,000 or Combined Single Limit $ 500, AUDITOR must carry workers' compensation insurance in accordance with Chapter 440, F.S., if applicable. If AUDITOR does not carry workers' compensation coverage, AUDITOR must submit to the DISTRICT both an affidavit stating that the AUDITOR meets the requirements of an independent contractor as stated in Chapter 440, F.S. and a certificate of exemption from workers' compensation coverage Professional liability (errors and omissions) insurance in a minimum amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) The AUDITOR must obtain certificates of insurance from any subcontractor otherwise the AUDITOR must provide evidence satisfactory to the DISTRICT that coverage is afforded to the subcontractor by the AUDITOR'S insurance policies AUDITOR must notify the DISTRICT in writing of the cancellation or material change to any insurance coverage required by this Agreement. Such notification must be provided to the DISTRICT within five (5) business days of the AUDITOR S notice of such cancellation or change from its insurance carrier. 11. TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE. This Agreement may be terminated by the DISTRICT without cause upon ten (10) days written notice to the AUDITOR. Termination is effective upon the tenth (10 th ) day as counted from the date of the written notice. In the event of termination under this paragraph, the AUDITOR will be entitled to compensation for all services provided to the DISTRICT up to the date of termination on a pro-rated basis and which are within Paragraph 3, Scope of Work, are documented in the Schedule of Proposed Progress Payments set forth in Exhibit "A," and are allowed under this Agreement. Page 5 of 9 33

171 12. DEFAULT. Either party may terminate this Agreement upon the other party's failure to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement, as long as the terminating party is not in default of any term or condition of this Agreement at the time of termination. To effect termination, the terminating party will provide the defaulting party with a written "Notice of Termination" stating its intent to terminate and describing all terms and conditions with which the defaulting party has failed to comply. If the defaulting party has not remedied its default within thirty (30) days after receiving the Notice of Termination, this Agreement will automatically terminate. In addition, the initiation, either by AUDITOR or against AUDITOR, of proceedings in bankruptcy, or other proceedings for relief under any law for the relief of debtors, or AUDITOR becoming insolvent, admitting in writing its inability to pay its debts as they mature or making an assignment for the benefit of creditors will constitute a default by AUDITOR entitling the DISTRICT to terminate this Agreement as set forth above. The parties agree that this Agreement is an executory contract. If, after termination by the DISTRICT, it is determined that the AUDITOR was not in default, or that the default was excusable, the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as if the termination had been issued for the convenience of the DISTRICT. The rights and remedies in this provision are in addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or this Agreement. 13. RELEASE OF INFORMATION. The AUDITOR agrees not to initiate any oral or written media interviews or issue press releases on or about the PROJECT without providing a minimum of three (3) days notice to the DISTRICT'S Project Manager and Communications Bureau Chief prior to the interview or press release. 14. ASSIGNMENT. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the AUDITOR may not assign any of its rights or delegate any of its obligations under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the DISTRICT. If the AUDITOR assigns its rights or delegates its obligations under this Agreement without the DISTRICT S prior written consent, the DISTRICT is entitled to terminate this Agreement. If the DISTRICT terminates this Agreement, the termination is effective as of the date of the assignment or delegation. Any termination is without prejudice to the DISTRICT S claim for damages. 15. LAW COMPLIANCE. The AUDITOR will abide by and assist the DISTRICT in satisfying all applicable federal, state and local laws, rules, regulations and guidelines, related to performance under this Agreement. The AUDITOR will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, handicap, disability, marital status or national origin. 16. EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY VERIFICATION. The AUDITOR must utilize the U.S. Department of Homeland Security s Employment Verification (E-Verify) Program to verify the employment eligibility of AUDITOR employees performing work directly associated with this Agreement in accordance with the terms and conditions applicable to the E-Verify Program. If the AUDITOR uses subcontractors to furnish services directly associated with this Agreement, performed in the United States, in an amount greater than $3,000, the AUDITOR must include the requirements of this provision (appropriately modified for identification of the parties) in each subcontract. Information on registration for and use of the E-Verify Program can be obtained via the Internet at the Department of Homeland Security Web site: CONFLICTING EMPLOYMENT. The AUDITOR certifies that it does not at the time of execution of this Agreement have any retainer or employment agreement, oral or written, with any third party that directly conflicts with any interest or position of the DISTRICT relating to the services provided by the AUDITOR under this Agreement. Page 6 of 10 34

172 The AUDITOR further agrees that it will not accept during the term of this Agreement any retainer or employment from a third party whose interests are in direct conflict with those of the DISTRICT regarding the work being performed under this Agreement. In the event the AUDITOR is faced with an employment opportunity that appears to be a direct conflict with the work the AUDITOR is performing under this Agreement, the AUDITOR will provide the DISTRICT with notice of the employment opportunity. If the DISTRICT determines that the employment would be a direct conflict with the work the AUDITOR is performing under this Agreement, the AUDITOR and the DISTRICT will have the opportunity to decide whether or not the AUDITOR will decline the employment opportunity or will accept the employment opportunity and terminate this Agreement. 18. VENUE AND APPLICABLE LAW. All claims, counterclaims, disputes and other matters in question between the parties to this Agreement, arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach of it will be decided in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida and by a court of competent jurisdiction within the State of Florida, and venue will lie in the County of Hernando. 19. REMEDIES. Unless specifically waived by the DISTRICT, the AUDITOR'S failure to timely comply with any obligation in this Agreement will be deemed a material breach of this Agreement and the expenses and costs incurred by the DISTRICT, including attorneys fees and costs and attorneys fees and costs on appeal, due to said breach will be borne by the AUDITOR. Additionally, the DISTRICT will not be limited by the above but may avail itself of any and all remedies under Florida law for any breach of this Agreement. The DISTRICT'S waiver of any of the AUDITOR'S obligations will not be construed as the DISTRICT'S waiver of any other obligations of the AUDITOR. 20. ATTORNEY FEES. Should either party employ an attorney or attorneys to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, or to protect its interest in any matter arising under this Agreement, or to recover damages for the breach of this Agreement, the party prevailing is entitled to receive from the other party all reasonable costs, charges and expenses, including attorneys fees, expert witness fees, fees and costs on appeal, and the cost of paraprofessionals working under the supervision of an attorney, expended or incurred in connection therewith, whether resolved by out-of-court settlement, arbitration, pre-trial settlement, trial or appellate proceedings, to the extent permitted under Section , F.S. This provision does not constitute a waiver of the DISTRICT'S sovereign immunity or extend the DISTRICT'S liability beyond the limits established in Section , F.S. 21. SUBCONTRACTORS. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to create, or be implied to create, any relationship between the DISTRICT and any subcontractor of the AUDITOR. 22. DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISES. The DISTRICT expects the AUDITOR to make good faith efforts to ensure that disadvantaged business enterprises, which are qualified under either federal or state law, have the maximum practicable opportunity to participate in contracting opportunities under this Agreement. Invoice documentation submitted to the DISTRICT under this Agreement must include information relating to the amount of expenditures made to disadvantaged businesses by the AUDITOR in relation to this Agreement, to the extent the AUDITOR maintains such information. 23. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed to benefit any person or entity not a party to this Agreement. Page 7 of 9 35

173 24. PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES. Pursuant to Subsections (2) and (3), F.S., a person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for a public entity crime may not submit a bid, proposal, or reply on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity; may not submit a bid, proposal, or reply on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work; may not submit bids, proposals, or replies on leases of real property to a public entity; may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under a contract with any public entity; and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in Section , F.S., for Category Two, for a period of 36 months following the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list. By signing this Agreement, AUDITOR warrants that it is not currently on a suspended vendor list and that it has not been placed on a convicted vendor list in the past 36 months. AUDITOR further agrees to notify the DISTRICT if placement on either of these lists occurs. 25. DISCRIMINATION. Pursuant to Subsection (2)(a), F.S., an entity or affiliate who has been placed on the discriminatory vendor list may not submit a bid, proposal, or reply on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity; may not submit a bid, proposal, or reply on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work; may not submit bids, proposals, or replies on leases of real property to a public entity; may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under a contract with any public entity; and may not transact business with any public entity. By signing this Agreement, AUDITOR warrants that it is not currently on the discriminatory vendor list and that it has not been placed on the discriminatory vendor list in the past 36 months. AUDITOR further agrees to notify the DISTRICT if placement on this list occurs. 26. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement, the incorporated documents, and the attached exhibits listed below constitute the entire agreement between the parties and, unless otherwise provided herein, may be amended only in writing, signed by all parties to this Agreement. 27. DOCUMENTS. The following documents are attached hereto, or incorporated herein by reference, and made a part of this Agreement. In the event of a conflict of contract terminology, priority will first be given to the language in the body of this Agreement, then to Exhibit "A," then to Exhibit "C," and then to Exhibit "B." Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Schedule of Proposed Progress Payments Engagement Letter DISTRICT S Request for Proposals RFP AUDITOR S Response to RFP The remainder of this page left blank intentionally. Page 8 of 10 36

174 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto, or their lawful representatives, have executed this Agreement on the day and year set forth next to their signatures below. SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT By: Date FULL NAME OF AUDITOR By: Name, Title Date Authorized Agent for Company AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT AND AUDITOR FOR ANNUAL INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL AUDITING SERVICES Page 9 of 9 37

175 AGREEMENT NO. EXHIBIT A SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED PROGRESS PAYMENTS FOR THE AUDIT OF THE SEPTEMBER 30, 201_ FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Total not to exceed amount $ 1) Basic Financial Statements Percentage e of Completion on Progress Payment Due Completion of Interim Audit 50% $ Completion of Year End Field Work 30% Issuance of Final Report 20% Total 2) Contingency for Federal and State Single Audits*: $ Up to single audits.$.$ Each federal single audit $ Each state single audit $ $ Completion of Year End Field Work 50% $ Issuance of Federal and State Single 50% $ Audit Reports * The number of required single audits varies from year to year depending on the level of expenditures incurred, total federal and state funds received, prior two years single audits performed and the nature of the funding source for those expenditures. DRAFTT Page 1 of 1 38

176 EXHIBIT B Auditor Selection Guidelines 2007 Prepared by the Auditor Selection Task Force 39

177 40

178 Acknowledgements The primary contributors to these guidelines were the members of the Auditor Selection Task Force as follows: Representing the Florida Government Finance Officers Association: Bill Bogan Alan Gaarder Eugene Schiller Representing the Florida League of Cities: George McGowan Francine Ramaglia Bill Underwood Representing the Florida Association of Counties: Eric Gassman Representing the Florida Association of Court Clerks and Comptroller: James B. Moye Representing the Florida Association of Special Districts: Chuck Haas Representing the Florida School Finance Officers Association: Olga Swinson Representing the Florida Association of Public Purchasing Officers: Rhonda Scott Elaine Walker Representing the Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants: Jeff Barbacci Jeanine Bittinger Richard Cristini David Dennis Jennifer Green Richard Law Kelly Leary Ed Leonard Alan Nast Tom Reilly Jack Rowell Jeff Tuscan Mary Young Representing the Legislative Committee on Intergovernmental Relations: Rip Colvin Representing the Joint Legislative Auditing Committee: Debbie White Representing the Auditor General Jim Dwyer Ted Sauerbeck A special thank you goes to Stephen Gauthier, Director of the Technical Services Center of the Government Finance Officers Association, who provided updated information related to the GFOA publications related to auditor selection. -i- 41

179 Table of Contents 1. Auditor Selection Law Audit Committee Composition and Size... 2 a. Legal Requirements... 2 b. Non-mandatory Guidance... 2 c. Small Government Considerations Audit Committee Responsibilities... 5 a. Legal Requirements... 5 b. Non-mandatory Guidance ) Establishment of the Audit Committee ) Audit Committee Responsibilities ) Communications with the Audit Committee... 8 c. Small Government Considerations Audit Proposal Evaluation Factors a. Legal Requirements b. Non-mandatory Guidance ) Audit Firm Qualifications ) Technical Qualifications Use and Elements of Request for Proposal a. Legal Requirements b. Non-mandatory Guidance ) Public Announcement for Audit Services ) Elements of the Request for Proposal Use and Elements of Audit Services Contract a. Legal Requirements b. Non-mandatory Guidance ) Engagement Letter ) Required Contract Elements ) Additional Contract Elements Appendices Appendix A Auditor Selection Law (Section , Florida Statutes) Appendix B Questions and Answers Appendix C Auditor Selection Resources Page ii 42

180 Auditor Selection Law Section , Florida Statutes, establishes required procedures for the selection of auditors to perform the annual financial audits required by Section , Florida Statutes. This section of law was amended by Chapter , Laws of Florida, effective July 1, 2005, to specify a consistent auditor selection process for all counties, municipalities, special districts, district school boards, charter schools, and charter career technical centers. Section , Florida Statutes, as amended, is included as Appendix A to these guidelines. Chapter , Laws of Florida, implemented recommendations made by the Auditor Selection Task Force established by the Auditor General for the purpose of providing recommendations to the Legislature for improvements in the auditor selection requirements. A basic premise of the Task Force Report, as stated in the report, was that the use of an adequate auditor procurement process helps ensure selection of a qualified auditor and satisfactory audit effort (i.e., audit effort sufficient to detect significant noncompliance, control deficiencies, or a lack of reasonable and necessary business practices). The Task Force included representatives of the Florida Institute of Certified Public Accountants, Florida Government Finance Officers Association, Florida Association of Counties, Florida Association of Court Clerks and Controller, Florida League of Cities, Florida Association of Special Districts, Florida School Finance Officers Association, and Florida Association of Public Purchasing Officers. Also included were a staff member of the Legislative Auditing Committee and individuals representing charter schools and citizens. The auditor selection law, as amended by Chapter , Laws of Florida, establishes an auditor selection process that requires the use of an audit committee, a request for proposal (RFP) for the solicitation of the necessary audit services, and a selection and negotiation process in which fees cannot be the sole or predominant reason for selecting a particular audit firm. The Task Force recommendations, as well as the resulting legislation, were based on the concept of establishing minimal mandatory legal requirements, with additional nonmandatory detailed guidance to be promulgated by the Auditor General or professional associations in the following areas: Use of audit committees Composition of audit committees Use and elements of an RFP for audit services Use and elements of audit services contracts The purpose of this document, which was prepared by the Task Force, is to provide additional non-mandatory guidance in the selection of auditors for performing the annual financial audit required by Section , Florida Statutes. Additional auditor selection topics are addressed in Appendix B to these guidelines, Questions and Answers. Appendix C provides a listing of resources used to prepare the guidelines. Page 1 43

181 Audit Committee Composition and Size Legal Requirements Section , Florida Statutes, requires that the governing body of each charter county, municipality, special district, district school board, charter school, and charter technical career center establish an audit committee. The composition of the audit committee is not specified, except that the composition for a noncharter county, at a minimum, must include each of the county officers elected pursuant to s. 1(d), Art. VIII, of the State Constitution, or a designee, and one member of the board of county commissioners or its designee. Non-mandatory Guidance While, as indicated above, the composition of an audit committee is not specified in the law (other than the required members for noncharter counties), the effectiveness of an audit committee in performing its assigned duties is certainly dependent on the qualifications and skills of its members and the relationship of the members to the governing body. In its Recommended Practice Audit Committees (1997, 2002, and 2006), the GFOA made the following recommendations on the composition of audit committees: Ideally, all members of the committee should possess or obtain a basic understanding of governmental financial reporting and auditing. The audit committee also should have access to the services of at least one financial expert, either a committee member or an outside party engaged by the committee for this purpose. Such a financial expert should through both education and experience, and in a manner specifically relevant to the government sector, possess 1) an understanding of generally accepted accounting principles and financial statements; 2) experience in preparing or auditing financial statements of comparable entities; 3) experience in applying such principles in connection with the accounting for estimates, accruals, and reserves; 4) experience with internal accounting controls; and 5) an understanding of audit committee functions. The AICPA Toolkit suggests that at least one member of the audit committee should have financial experience and provides guidance as to attributes that comprise financial experience, including an understanding of relevant accounting principles and auditing standards; experience in preparing, auditing, analyzing, or evaluating financial statements; an understanding of internal controls and procedures for financial reporting; an understanding of audit committee functions; and a general understanding of the government environment. The AICPA also suggests some alternative approaches to acquiring financial experience on the audit committee, including obtaining assistance from other government organizations or audit committees; engaging an independent financial professional; or providing a training program for audit committee members. Page 2 44

182 All members of the audit committee should be members of the governing body. To ensure the committee s independence and effectiveness, no governing body member who exercises managerial responsibilities that fall within the scope of the audit should serve as a member of the audit committee. This recommended practice suggests that the actual audit committee membership be composed of the governing board or a subset of the governing board. Under this approach, it is likely that the entity will need to engage an outside party to obtain the needed experience in governmental financial reporting and auditing. Additionally, the audit committee could be provided an orientation on the duties and responsibilities of the committee, including such topics as objectives of internal control, accounting, auditing and financial reporting to assist in making sound judgments. An audit committee should have sufficient members for meaningful discussion and deliberation, but not so many as to impede its efficient operation. As a general rule, the minimum membership of the committee should be no fewer than three. Another factor that could affect the size of the audit committee, particularly in small communities, is the availability of individuals who possess both the skills desired of an audit committee member and the willingness to make the commitment to perform effectively as a member. It is important that the entity not compromise these factors, as well as independence considerations, in establishing the size of the audit committee. Members of the audit committee should be educated regarding both the role of the audit committee and their personal responsibility as members, including their duty to exercise an appropriate degree of professional skepticism. This recommended practice suggests that training with regard to the audit committee function should be provided to the committee members. This is particularly critical where the committee members are governing board members who may not possess the needed experience in governmental financial reporting and auditing. At a minimum, such training might include making members familiar with these guidelines and the publications referenced herein. Small Government Considerations Smaller entities may experience difficulty in obtaining the necessary experience in governmental financial reporting and auditing from a source that is independent from financial management of the entity. Qualified persons willing to provide such experience may simply not be available within the community. In such instances, the small entity might consider consulting with larger entities in the area to identify employees or consultants of those entities who might be willing to work with their audit committee. Should the small entity opt to not establish an audit committee composed of governing board members, the small entity could seek to use the audit committee of the larger entity as their audit committee. While it would not be appropriate to simply engage an audit firm because it was Page 3 45

183 selected by another entity, the other entity s audit committee could conduct the auditor selection process on behalf of the small entity. Regardless of the method used to provide an audit committee function, ultimate responsibility for the selection of the auditor rests with the governing body. Page 4 46

184 Audit Committee Responsibilities Legal Requirements The primary purpose of the audit committee, as contemplated in Section , Florida Statutes, is to assist in the selection of an auditor to conduct the annual financial audit required by Section , Florida Statutes; however, Section (2), Florida Statutes, provides that the audit committee may serve other audit oversight purposes as determined by the entity s governing body. Additionally, the law provides that the public may not be excluded from the audit committee s proceedings. Section (3), Florida Statutes, establishes the duties of the audit committee to include: Establishment of factors to be used for the evaluation of audit services to be provided by the audit firm. Public announcement of an RFP. Provision of interested firms with the RFP. Evaluation of proposals provided by qualified firms. Ranking and recommendation in order of preference of no fewer than three firms deemed to be the most highly qualified to perform the required services. If fewer than three firms respond to the RFP, the committee shall recommend such firms as it deems to be the most highly qualified. Non-mandatory Guidance Establishment of the Audit Committee. Prior to the enactment of Chapter , Laws of Florida, entities subject to the annual audit requirement were required to establish auditor selection committees. As described above, Chapter , Laws of Florida, expanded the previous auditor selection committee to an audit committee that may be used for purposes other than auditor selection, as determined by the governing body. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Recommended Practice, Audit Committees (1997, 2002, and 2006), describes the audit committee as a practical means for a governing body to provide much needed independent review and oversight of the government s financial reporting processes, internal controls, and independent auditors. The GFOA s concept of an audit committee clearly encompasses functions beyond the selection of the auditor in stating An audit committee also provides a forum separate from management in which auditors and other interested parties can candidly discuss concerns. By effectively carrying out its functions and responsibilities, an audit committee helps to ensure that management properly develops and adheres to a sound system of internal controls, that procedures are in effect to objectively assess management s practices, and that the independent auditors, through their own review, objectively assess the government s financial reporting practices. The GFOA recommended procedure advises that the audit committee be formally established by charter, enabling resolution, or other appropriate means. In addition to addressing the composition of the audit committee (see the previous section, Audit Committee Composition and Size), the formal means can be used to establish the responsibilities of the audit Page 5 47

185 committee and avoid subsequent confusion or conflict over the authority of the audit committee. Should the audit committee be assigned responsibilities suggested by the GFOA that are in addition to the statutorily prescribed auditor selection function, the GFOA recommends that the audit committee be made directly responsible for the appointment, compensation, retention, and oversight of the work of any independent accountants engaged for the purpose of preparing or issuing an independent audit report or performing other independent audit, review, or attest services. GFOA further recommends that, under such circumstances, the audit committee be established in such a manner that all accountants thus engaged report directly to the audit committee. If the audit committee is assigned oversight responsibilities with respect to the independent audit and the establishment of internal controls and adequate management processes, the GFOA Recommended Practice, Audit Committees (1997, 2002, and 2006) should be consulted for additional guidance. Audit Committee Responsibilities. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) has recently established an Audit Committee Effectiveness Center ( that addresses many of the responsibilities that might be performed by an audit committee and presents the guidance and tools to make audit committee best practices actionable. The Center includes, among other resources, an AIPCA Audit Committee Toolkit: Government Organizations that is available on the web site or by purchase in book form from the AICPA. The Toolkit provides guidance in establishing and staffing an audit committee, as well as accomplishing the objectives of the audit committee. An Audit Committee Charter Matrix, included in the AICPA Toolkit, suggests steps to be taken to accomplish the objectives, deliverables to be provided, and frequency or due dates for the various steps. The AICPA Toolkit also includes guidelines for conducting an audit committee self-evaluation. The GFOA Handbook indicates that the scope of the audit committee s responsibilities should be established by formal action of the governing body and the audit committee should be directly responsible for all aspects of audit management. The GFOA publication, Governmental Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting (GFOA Blue Book), states: The audit committee s primary responsibility should be to oversee the financial reporting and disclosure process, including all aspects of the independent audit, from the selection of the auditor to the resolution of audit findings. The audit committee should have access to the reports of any internal auditors, as well as access to any annual internal audit work plans. The audit committee should present to the governing board and management an annual written report of how the committee has discharged its duties and met its responsibilities. With respect to auditor selection, the GFOA Handbook states that the audit committee should perform the following functions in addition to those required by law: Plan the procurement process Determine the appropriate scope of the audit Prepare the RFP Planning the procurement process would involve planning and coordinating the auditor solicitation process including performance of the specific functions indicated in Section (3), Florida Statutes. Page 6 48

186 As previously indicated, Section , Florida Statutes, requires the establishment of an audit committee by each entity required to procure an annual financial audit pursuant to Section , Florida Statutes. The law authorizes, but does not require, use of the audit committee for other purposes. Audit committee responsibilities recommended by the GFOA Handbook, which are in addition to the statutorily prescribed auditor selection responsibility, include: Monitoring the audit The GFOA Handbook indicates that concerns of interest to the audit committee during the audit would include whether the audit is progressing on schedule and whether potential problems are identified and immediately corrected, if appropriate. Potential problems might include difficulties in gathering information or contacting key personnel, discovery of instances or indications of irregularities or illegal acts that require immediate attention, and circumstances that could result in less than an unqualified opinion. Monitoring can be accomplished through periodic progress reports or meetings. Review of the financial statements prior to completion of the audit The GFOA Handbook recommends that this review place special emphasis on changes that have occurred since the issuance of the previous period s financial statements and on amounts in the financial statements that involve the use of estimates or judgment. Review of the results of the audit The GFOA Handbook recommends that the audit committee review each of the auditor s reports to gain a thorough understanding of problems identified by the auditor and provide the background needed to address resolution of the problems. In view of the emphasis placed on management letters in Florida law and the Rules of the Auditor General, the audit committee review should encompass the management letters required to be submitted as a part of the audit report. For the audit committee to effectively review the results of the audit, the results must be communicated in a manner that assures a thorough understanding by the audit committee members. In lieu of relying solely on the delivery of a written audit report, this might be accomplished at a meeting in which audit committee members have an opportunity to ask questions of the auditors. This could be done either in addition to, or in conjunction with, a public meeting of the entity s governing board at which governing board members would also have an opportunity to question the auditors. If the findings are presented at a governing board meeting, consideration should be given to a meeting convened solely or predominantly for this purpose to assure that the findings are adequately communicated. Page 7 49

187 Evaluating management s proposed corrective action plans Specified entities are required by Auditor General Rule (1) to provide the Auditor General with responses to all audit findings included in their annual financial audits. The responses are required to include corrective action to be taken to resolve each finding. Monitoring corrective action taken The GFOA Handbook points out that while it is management s responsibility to implement corrective action related to audit findings, the audit committee should be responsible for monitoring management s implementation. The GFOA Handbook suggests that governing bodies may wish to consider requiring management to answer to the governing body for any failure to implement corrective action plans in a timely manner and to the satisfaction of the audit committee. In monitoring implementation of corrective actions, the Audit Committee should consider and evaluate any management disagreement with auditor recommendations or concerns as to the costliness of implementation. Evaluating auditor performance The GFOA Handbook views auditor evaluation as the first step of the subsequent year s audit procurement or, if audit procurement is not scheduled for the subsequent year, a process for identifying and recommending needed improvements in the auditor s performance. The GFOA Handbook recommends that the audit committee meet with management to discuss matters pertaining to the auditor s performance including: ability to meet deadlines; compliance with other provisions of the audit contract; competence and cooperativeness of the audit staff; and thoroughness and reasonableness of audit adjustments, findings, and recommendations. The AICPA Toolkit includes a questionnaire that can be used to evaluate the independent auditor. The questionnaire includes questions for audit committee members, key government executives, and the independent auditor. In performing these responsibilities, the Audit Committee may determine a need for audit procedures that are in addition to the minimum procedures necessary to issue an opinion on financial statements. Such information would be useful in preparing future requests for proposals. Communications with the Audit Committee. To the extent that the audit committee has responsibilities beyond the auditor selection responsibility, effective communication between the auditors and the audit committee is necessary. The AICPA establishes generally accepted auditing standards to which auditors of entities in Florida are subject, together with Government Auditing Standards promulgated by the Comptroller General of the United States. Generally accepted auditing standards require that auditors communicate certain matters with persons having responsibility for oversight of the financial reporting process and define the recipient of such communications as the audit committee (AU para , Page 8 50

188 AICPA Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards). Matters required to be communicated to the audit committee include: the auditor s responsibility under generally accepted auditing standards significant accounting policies and implementation management judgments and accounting estimates audit adjustments that could, either individually or collectively, have a significant effect on the entity s financial statements judgments about the quality of the government s accounting principles other information included with financial statements disagreements with management consultation with other accountants major issues discussed with management prior to retention of the audit firm difficulties encountered in performing the audit Additionally, generally accepted auditing standards require that the auditor communicate with the audit committee regarding internal control-related matters (AU Section 325, AICPA Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards) and illegal acts (AU Section 317, AICPA Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards). Government Auditing Standards (para. 4.07) provide that information such as potential restrictions of the auditor s reports, such as inclusion of any material that is classified for security purposes or not releasable to particular parties or the public for other valid reasons, be communicated and that written communication is preferred. The auditor s communication of information to the audit committee will assist the audit committee in reviewing the financial statements and monitoring the audit. The AICPA Toolkit describes, and provides an example of, an Issues Report from Management, that can be used to document any significant issues, judgments, and estimates that may have a material impact on the financial statements, for discussion with the audit committee. The AICPA Toolkit also provides further guidance and examples regarding the types of information the auditors are required to communicate to the audit committee. Small Government Considerations While smaller entities may lack the resources to expand the use of the audit committee to accommodate all or many of the non-mandatory functions described above, all entities, regardless of size, are required to use the committee for auditor selection. The entities are encouraged to use the audit committees for the other functions to the extent available in their particular circumstances. Additional discussion regarding the establishment of audit committees by small governments is included in the Audit Committee Composition and Size section. Page 9 51

189 Audit Proposal Evaluation Factors Legal Requirements Section (3)(a), Florida Statutes, requires that the audit committee establish the factors to be used for the evaluation of audit services to be provided and that such factors include, but not be limited to, ability of personnel, experience, ability to furnish the requested services, and such other factors as may be determined by the committee to be applicable to the particular requirements. Section (3)(d), Florida Statutes, prohibits the use of compensation as the sole or predominant factor for evaluating proposals. Non-mandatory Guidance Consistent with Florida law, the GFOA Recommended Practice Audit Procurement (1996 and 2002) states: The audit procurement process should be structured so that the principal factor in the selection of an independent auditor is the auditor s ability to perform a quality audit. In no case should price be allowed to serve as the sole criterion for selection of an independent auditor. Audit Firm Qualifications. While Florida law prescribes minimal audit firm qualifications that must be considered, the GFOA Handbook describes an evaluation process that includes both criteria that must be met in order to qualify for a more detailed review and a method for rating the technical qualifications of proposers. The criteria listed by the GFOA include: Meeting applicable independence criteria. License to practice as a CPA in the state. Receipt of adequate continuing professional education by key personnel. Completion of a quality control review within the past three years. A history of performing quality audits. The GFOA Handbook considers these to be criteria, the absence of which cannot be compensated by other credentials. Technical Qualifications. The GFOA Handbook establishes two categories for technical qualifications of proposers: (1) expertise (ability) and experience, and (2) audit approach. Ability and experience qualifications include: Past experience and performance on comparable government engagements. Quality of the professional personnel to be assigned to the engagement and quality of the firm s management support personnel to be available for technical consultation. Experience with specific state and Federal grant programs. Information technology ability Page 10 52

190 Audit approach qualifications include: Approach to documentation and review of the comprehensive framework of internal control. Adequacy of proposed staffing plan (hours and level) for the various segments of the engagement. Adequacy of sampling techniques. Adequacy of analytical procedures. The GFOA Handbook points out that technical qualifications should be tailored to meet each government s unique environment and specific audit requirements and cites as an example a government that sponsors its own pension plan for employees, which might require actuarial expertise. The GFOA Handbook recommends assignments of ranges of point values to each criterion to aid in the evaluation of the technical qualifications of proposers. The use of ranges of point values allows the entity to reflect the relative importance of the qualifications for that government and engagement and allows the evaluator the flexibility to reflect qualitative differences in the qualifications presented in the proposals. Page 11 53

191 Use and Elements of Request for Proposal Legal Requirements As indicated previously, Section (3)(c), Florida Statutes, requires that the audit committee provide interested audit firms with an RFP. The RFP is required to include information on how proposals are to be evaluated and such other information as the committee determines is necessary for the firm to prepare a proposal. Non-mandatory Guidance The GFOA Blue Book describes the purpose of the RFP as follows: A sound RFP should obtain from proposers all information needed to evaluate their technical qualifications to perform the audit. The RFP also should provide proposers with a detailed description of the government, its specific audit needs, and the government s audit procurement process. Public Announcement for Audit Services. As previously indicated, Section (3), Florida Statutes, provides that the audit committee s duties shall include public announcement of an RFP and provision of interested firms with the RFP. To achieve the benefits of a competitive selection process, it is critical that there be sufficient responses by qualified audit firms to the RFP to assure an opportunity for competition. The GFOA Handbook states that a well-planned solicitation effort is needed to identify a sufficient number of qualified audit firms. This can be accomplished in a variety of ways and the law does not mandate any specific method. The method selected should provide sufficient time for the potential responders to prepare an appropriate response. The GFOA Handbook identifies several methods of identifying qualified audit firms, including advertisement in local newspapers, notice in a publication of the state society of certified public accountants, inquiries of other entities in the same region, and direct mailing to audit firms. In Florida, all local government audit reports are required to be filed with the Auditor General who maintains a database of audit reports received, including the names of the audit firms that conducted the audits. To promote competition, the method of noticing the RFP should be designed to reach as many potential providers of audit services as possible. For example, if the entity opts to advertise in a newspaper, the newspaper selected should have adequate coverage to assure an opportunity for a sufficient number of responses. Elements of the Request for Proposal. The GFOA Handbook includes a list of 24 information elements that should be considered in designing an RFP for audit services. These elements generally either provide information to the prospective proposers regarding the RFP evaluation process or assure that adequate information is provided by the proposers to allow for an informed decision by the entity. The RFP might not include all of these elements, but they should be considered and those elements considered to be appropriate for the given circumstances should be incorporated into the RFP. The elements listed in the GFOA Handbook, supplemented by additional guidance found in the AICPA Toolkit, consist of: Page 12 54

192 1. How proposals will be evaluated. The RFP should clearly state the factors upon which the selection will be based and could provide: a. The relative weights of the evaluation factors, particularly with respect to qualifications and price, when price is considered as one of the evaluation factors. b. A statement that price will not be the sole or predominant factor to assure that highly qualified firms will receive appropriate consideration and to discourage the submission of proposals with unrealistically low prices by less qualified firms. c. Auditor qualifications that are mandatory for all proposers. d. Particular qualifications that will be considered most favorably (e.g., experience with particular grant programs). 2. Procedures to be followed in the proposal process. The prospective proposers who will be incurring the cost of preparing and presenting a proposal will need specific information as to how to respond to the RFP. Such information might include: a. The appropriate format to use in making the proposal. b. Identification of a contact person. c. Whether there will be a proposal conference or on-site inspections. d. Information regarding the submission of prices. e. Other aspects of the proposal process, including submission deadlines, consideration of late proposals, and notification of results. 3. Brief description of the government and its accounting systems and financial reporting structures. Prospective proposers require information that will provide a basis for determining the type and amount of resources that will be needed to perform the audit. This information might include: a. General description of the government. b. Organizational chart and key personnel. c. Size of the government (e.g., geographic area, number of employees, total budget or payroll). d. Reference to documented policies and procedures. e. Fund structure and basis of accounting. f. Involvement in Federal and state assistance programs. g. Description of pension plans. h. Information regarding component units and joint ventures. i. Magnitude of financial operations. Page 13 55

193 j. Scope of electronic data processing operations including types of computers in use (e.g., mainframes and personal computers), networking, software vendors, and major applications). k. Existence, size, and scope of the internal audit function. l. Contact person for access to prior audit information. The AICPA Toolkit also includes guidelines for describing the government organization, which include, in addition to the items listed above: a. Year of incorporation b. Charter date c. Form of government d. Term length and term limits for elected officials e. Composition of governing body f. Composition of audit committee g. Activities and services provided by the government to its citizenry h. Component units and joint ventures 4. Known weaknesses in the government s internal control structure Prospective proposers will want to be made aware of significant known internal control deficiencies. This could be accomplished by providing the proposers with a copy of the prior year audit report (including financial statements, auditor s reports, and management letters), prior year adjusting entries, and evidence of corrective actions. 5. Anticipated implementation problems arising from new authoritative pronouncements. The classic example of a new authoritative pronouncement that could impact the RFP response was the implementation of GASB Statement 34. While all entities should have implemented GASB Statement 34 by now, an entity s readiness to implement other new pronouncements, as well as new laws or regulations having a significant impact on the entity s financial operations and reporting could impact the auditor s consideration of the resources needed to perform the audit. 6. Principal contacts inside and outside the government. Examples of contacts that proposers might want to be aware of as individuals with whom they will be expected to interact during the engagement include: a. Chief executive officer b. Chief financial officer c. Audit committee members d. Director of internal audit e. Grants management personnel f. Legal counsel Page 14 56

194 7. Level of assurance to be required of the auditor for each type of information contained within the report. The auditor will need to be made aware of circumstances that might impact the scope of the audit. Such circumstances might include the audit of the financial statements of a component unit by another audit firm, and specific legal requirements that will require a statement in the auditor s management letter regarding compliance. 8. Auditing standards required for the engagement. Pursuant to Florida law and the Rules of the Auditor General, all required annual financial audits of entities in Florida are to be performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards promulgated by the Comptroller General of the United States. The RFP might include a statement to this effect to avoid any misunderstanding. 9. The auditor s specific reporting responsibilities. Although the auditor s reporting responsibilities are described in the auditing standards and the Rules of the Auditor General, the GFOA Handbook recommends listing the reporting responsibilities in the RFP. This could be most easily accomplished by reference to the Rules of the Auditor General, Chapter (Local Governmental Entity Audits), Chapter (Audits of District School Boards), or Chapter (Audits of Charter Schools and Similar Entities), as appropriate. The AICPA Toolkit includes guidance for addressing the scope of the work to be performed by the auditor, including: a. A general description of the services being solicited b. Expected deliverables, such as: 1) Expression of opinion in conjunction with a full-scope audit of a comprehensive annual financial report (CAFR) (optional under Florida law and Rules of the Auditor General) or a report on basic financial statements only (minimum requirement for all local government audits) 2) Federal or state single audit reports (required if certain thresholds are met) 3) Management letter (required for all local government audits) Expected deliverables should also include any requirement for separate opinions for any debt issues or to meet any other reporting requirements. 10. The type and amount of assistance available from the government. Entities can sometimes reduce the cost of their audits by providing certain assistance to the auditor. To formulate the type and amount of resources to be applied to the audit, the auditor needs information as to the type and extent of assistance that will be available from the entity. The GFOA Handbook refers to various types of assistance including internal audit, clerical, and electronic data Page 15 57

195 processing. A statement might be included acknowledging that the government is responsible for preparing draft financial statements. Any anticipated concerns regarding the ability of the government to do so should be disclosed. 11. Required audit timetable and deliverables. The GFOA Handbook recommends that the RFP include the latest acceptable dates for the following, assuming that information needed to meet these dates, is provided to the auditor on a timely basis: a. Entrance conference. b. Completion of interim audit work. c. Completion of year-end field work. d. Submission of audit adjustments and draft findings. e. Exit conference. f. Issuance of reports. 12. Additional services to be required of the auditor. Auditors have often provided additional services beyond audit services in the past; however, the ability of auditors to provide nonaudit services to an audit client has been severely limited by Government Auditing Standards. Careful consideration should be given to the restrictions on such services prior to including them in the RFP. The GFOA Blue Book includes a discussion on the types of consulting (or nonaudit) services that may be performed by independent auditors, referring to the two overarching principles provided in Government Auditing Standards: Auditors should not perform management functions or make management decisions Auditors should not audit their own work or provide non-audit services in situations where the amounts or services involved are significant/material to the subject matter of the audit The GFOA Blue Book provides examples of specific services that the independent auditor firm may or may not provide. 13. Information on auditor workspace and access to telephones, copiers, FAX machines, and computers. As a practical matter, the GFOA Handbook suggests that information on the location and type of workspace that will be made available to the auditor, as well as availability of telephones, internet access, copy machines, FAX machines, and computer hardware, might be included in the RFP. Page 16 58

196 14. Procedures to be followed to determine if additional audit work is necessary and the fee basis applicable to such work. Circumstances sometimes arise in which the scope of the audit may need to be expanded beyond what was anticipated in the RFP. For example, an entity might request the auditor to perform additional work in an area where certain control weaknesses have been discovered by the auditor. For any scope expansion anticipated in the RFP, the auditor should be provided with sufficient information to allow the determination of a proposed fee. The GFOA Handbook recommends that the RFP include a provision that the scope of the audit may only be broadened with the consent of the government and a request that proposers indicate how the fee for additional work related to a scope expansion would be determined. 15. Information needed from proposers to evaluate their qualifications. A primary purpose of the RFP is to provide the government with information needed to assess the professional skill and experience of the auditors who will perform the engagement. The GFOA Handbook recommends that the RFP ask for the following information regarding the proposer: a. Overall size of the audit firm. b. Location and number of professional staff who will perform the engagement. c. Identification and qualifications of personnel to be assigned to the engagement, including: i. Names and government audit experience of the partner in charge of the audit and other partners who will be assigned review or quality control functions. ii. Names and government audit experience of the manager and other supervisory personnel. iii. Information on certification, licensure, and CPE training of each of the above. iv. Information on membership in professional societies (e.g., AICPA, FICPA, FGFOA, GFOA, AGA) of each of the above. v. Background and qualifications of all other professional audit or other staff assigned to the engagement. The GFOA Handbook also recommends that the RFP clearly set forth: (1) the circumstances in which the audit staff may be changed; (2) the need for new staff to meet the same level of qualifications; and (3) the government s right to reject or approve replacements. 16. Requirement for auditors to furnish a statement that they meet the appropriate criteria for independence. Auditors are required to maintain independence, both in fact and appearance, with regard to audit clients. The GFOA Handbook suggests that the RFP require a Page 17 59

197 formal statement from the proposers that they meet all appropriate guidelines for independence 17. Request for references from other government clients. The GFOA Handbook suggests that the RFP include a request for references asking proposers to furnish the names of similar governments for which they have recently performed similar audits, together with contact information. 18. Request for information on the results of peer reviews. Government Auditing Standards require that auditors performing audits in accordance with those standards (this includes all required annual financial audits for entities in Florida) undergo external quality control, or peer, reviews of their policies and procedures every three years. The GFOA Handbook recommends that the RFP ask auditors to state whether their most recent peer reviews included a review of the quality of specific government audits. The RFP should also ask for the results of desk or field reviews of their audits by Federal or state grantor agencies. 19. Request for information on the status of any disciplinary actions undertaken against the firm. The GFOA Handbook recommends that the RFP request information on whether any disciplinary action has been taken against the firm at the Federal or state level and, if such action has been undertaken, the current status of the action. Under Florida law (Section , Florida Statutes), complaints against certified public accountants are subject to a probable cause determination prior to a disciplinary action. 20. Request for detailed information on the proposer s anticipated audit approach. The GFOA Handbook points out that, in addition to information regarding the qualifications of the proposer, the proposer s audit approach should be evaluated to determine that the proposer has a sound understanding of the scope of the engagement and the government s environment. Additionally, the government needs assurance that the proposer will apply the appropriate level of effort needed to perform the engagement satisfactorily. The GFOA Handbook recommends that the RFP ask for the following types of information: a. The extent to which the firm proposes to employ statistical sampling techniques. b. The extent to which the firm proposes to employ analytical procedures. c. The manner in which the firm intends to segment the engagement. d. The hours of staff time at each level that will be devoted to each segment. e. The approach proposed for gaining and documenting the auditor s understanding of the government s internal controls. f. The approach proposed for determining which laws and regulations should be tested for compliance. g. The method of drawing samples for tests of compliance. Page 18 60

198 21. Requirements applicable to working papers and cooperation with other auditors. The GFOA Handbook recommends that the RFP establish clearly the period for retention of the auditors working papers by the auditor and the parties who are allowed access to the working papers. In establishing the retention period, the government should consider that the working paper retention period established by the Florida Department of State for all independent audits of local governments is three years. This should be considered a minimum retention period in drafting an audit services contract. As to accessibility, the GFOA Handbook recommends that the RFP include provisions providing accessibility to: Federal cognizant agencies; principal auditors, where component units are audited by other auditors; parties designated by the government as part of an audit quality control review; and successor auditors for matters relating to continuing accounting significance. 22. Policy toward joint proposals or the use of subcontracting. The use of subcontracting or joint ventures on the part of auditors can be a means for encouraging participation by smaller firms. The GFOA Handbook recommends that any subcontracting after the audit contract is awarded be subject to the government s right to approve or reject subcontracting firms. Further, if joint proposals or subcontracting is allowed, the RFP should request proposers to identify the firm that will serve as the principal auditor, unless a special consortium is formed to conduct the engagement. 23. Right to reject proposals, demand additional information, and use unsuccessful proposals. The GFOA Handbook recommends that the RFP indicate that: a. The government retains the right to reject any or all proposals. b. The government retains the right to request additional information from proposers and failure to provide the information could result in rejection of a proposal. c. The government reserves the right to retain proposals and use ideas from them. d. The government is not obligated in any manner to reimburse firms for costs incurred in connection with responding to the RFP. 24. Any additional language to meet the requirements of applicable laws and regulations. The GFOA Handbook suggests that the government be aware of and include any specific language required by law or regulation. The entity should exercise its judgment to determine which elements best fit its circumstances and should be included in the RFP. Page 19 61

199 Use and Elements of Audit Services Contract Legal Requirements Section (7), Florida Statutes, requires that every procurement of audit services be evidenced by a written contract embodying all provisions and conditions of the procurement of such services. An engagement letter signed and executed by both parties constitutes a written contract. The written contract shall include, at a minimum, the following: A provision specifying the services to be provided and fees or other compensation for such services. A provision requiring that invoices for fees and other compensation be submitted in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with the terms of the contract. A provision specifying the contract period, including renewals, and conditions under which the contract may be terminated or renewed. Section (8), Florida Statutes, provides that written contracts may be renewed without the use of auditor selection procedures and that such renewals shall be in writing. Non-mandatory Guidance The audit services contract is a legally binding agreement that should be prepared and reviewed with the advice of legal counsel. In its publication, How to Avoid a Substandard Audit: Suggestions for Procuring an Audit, the National Intergovernmental Audit Forum (NIAF) recommends that the RFP be incorporated into the contract by reference. Engagement Letter. While Section (7), Florida Statutes, authorizes the use of an engagement letter as an audit services contract, if it is signed by both parties, the use of an engagement letter does not relieve the need to include all provisions that would constitute a good contract and protect both the government and the auditor. Required Contract Elements. As indicated above, there are certain legally required elements that must be included in the audit services contract. Additional guidance for each of these elements follows: Services to be provided and fees or other compensation (Section (7)(a), Florida Statutes). The Practitioners Publishing Company (PPC) Guide to Audits of Local Governments advises that the contract clearly describe the nature of the services to be performed, including whether such services include Single Audits (Federal and/or State). The PPC also recommends that the contract clearly identify the financial statements to be audited and the period covered. Statement on Auditing Standards No. 74 recommends that the contract include a statement about specific audit requirements. Florida law and the Rules of the Auditor General include several such requirements in addition to the auditor s reports on the financial statements and State and Federal programs. Specifically addressing these requirements in the contract helps to preclude any subsequent misunderstandings regarding the auditor s responsibilities. Page 20 62

200 Invoices for fees and other compensation in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with the contract (Section (7)(b), Florida Statutes). The PPC recommends that the basis for determining fees and the method of payment be included in the contract. The basis for payment may vary from a lump sum arrangement to specific rates to be paid for the services of specific employees or categories of employees of the audit firm and reimbursement for specific costs, such as travel, incurred in connection with the engagement. The level of detail on the invoice sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the terms of the contract will vary according to the basis for payment. In the case of a fixed fee contract, the basis for payment should be clearly defined within the audit services contract. If the contract identifies certain employees for which the firm will be paid at specified hourly rates, the contract should require invoices that indicate the numbers of hours worked by each employee and application of the appropriate rates. If the contract provides for reimbursement for certain actual costs, the contract should require invoices that demonstrate the amounts actually incurred by the firm in the form of receipts or similar documentation. Contract period, renewals, and termination (Section (7)(c), Florida Statutes). The contract must specify the number of years for which it will be in effect, including any options for renewal on the part of the government. The law does not prescribe a maximum term for an audit services contract or a maximum number of renewal periods. Once the contract period, including renewals, has expired, any further required annual audit services must be subjected to the auditor selection law as required by Section , Florida Statutes. The GFOA, in its 2002 Recommended Practice - Audit Procurement, recommends that governmental entities enter into multiyear agreements of at least five years in duration when obtaining the services of an independent auditor. The GFOA points out that such agreements allow for greater continuity and help to minimize the potential for disruption in connection with the independent audit. The GFOA recommended practice further states that multiyear agreements can also help to reduce audit costs by allowing auditors to recover certain start-up costs over several years, rather than a single year. The appropriate length for the audit services contract is left to the judgment of the government. Additional Contract Elements. Additional elements recommended by the NIAF for inclusion in an audit services contract, include: 1. Audit scope, objective, and purpose. 2. Deadlines for work to be performed. 3. Audit cost. 4. Report format. 5. Type and timing of support to be provided to the auditor by the government. 6. Professional auditing standards to be followed in performing the audit. 7. Independent contractor status of the auditor with respect to the government. 8. Changes made by written notice by the government within the general scope of the agreement, together with equitable adjustments to the cost of the audit using rates specified in the agreement. Page 21 63

201 9. Prior notification to the entity by the auditor, within a specified time and prior to beginning the related work, regarding changes in, or additions to, the scope of the engagement. 10. Auditor ownership of working papers prepared by the auditor during the audit, a designated retention period for the working papers, and availability of the working papers to the entity and governmental auditors upon request. The GFOA Handbook suggests, by way of examples, that access to the working papers during the retention period might include personnel of the audited government, Federal cognizant agency, State coordinating agency, Government Accountability Office, quality control reviewers, other governments providing assistance to the audited government, and successor auditors). 11. Ownership, use and control of all reports rendered to the government by the auditor, according to applicable laws and regulations. Additional elements that are recommended by the GFOA Handbook to be made a part of the audit services contract include: 1. An independence assertion by the auditor. 2. Language describing the actions to be taken in the event of a disagreement as to whether certain procedures are within the scope of the agreement. 3. Legal provisions to assure the availability of the auditor s services to aid the government in the defense of claims that may arise as the result of audit work. 4. Legal language concerning opportunities for socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. Such language may be required by law or regulation. 5. Clarification of the auditor s duty to maintain the confidentiality of certain sensitive information. 6. Provisions establishing the government s rights to terminate the contract and the procedures for doing so. 7. Stipulation as to how the value of the auditor s work is to be determined if the engagement is terminated prior to completion. 8. Language establishing the auditor s sole liability for claims arising from the auditor s performance of the engagement. 9. Language requiring both the government and the auditor to resolve disputes amicably. 10. Requirement for formal notification to the other party to the agreement (e.g., a disagreement over the scope of the audit) and language indicating what is to be considered notification in such instance (e.g., registered mail). 11. Language specifying how the terms of the contract can be waived or modified. 12. Language to clarify that the contract s separate provisions are to stand alone, so that a failure to meet one provision does not nullify the entire contract. 13. A requirement for the auditor to obtain insurance coverage. 14. A prohibition against the auditor s delegating or subcontracting audit work without the government s permission. As can be seen, different professional organizations have placed varying emphasis on the contents of the contract for audit services. Government management must determine the most appropriate provisions for a contract in a given set of circumstances and the specific elements and language to be included will ultimately be a matter of agreement between the entity and the audit firm. Page 22 64

202 APPENDIX A Auditor Selection Law Auditor selection procedures.-- (1) Each local governmental entity, district school board, charter school, or charter technical career center, prior to entering into a written contract pursuant to subsection (7), except as provided in subsection (8), shall use auditor selection procedures when selecting an auditor to conduct the annual financial audit required in s (2) The governing body of a charter county, municipality, special district, district school board, charter school, or charter technical career center shall establish an audit committee. Each noncharter county shall establish an audit committee that, at a minimum, shall consist of each of the county officers elected pursuant to s. 1(d), Art. VIII of the State Constitution, or a designee, and one member of the board of county commissioners or its designee. The primary purpose of the audit committee is to assist the governing body in selecting an auditor to conduct the annual financial audit required in s ; however, the audit committee may serve other audit oversight purposes as determined by the entity's governing body. The public shall not be excluded from the proceedings under this section. (3) The audit committee shall: (a) Establish factors to use for the evaluation of audit services to be provided by a certified public accounting firm duly licensed under chapter 473 and qualified to conduct audits in accordance with government auditing standards as adopted by the Florida Board of Accountancy. Such factors shall include, but are not limited to, ability of personnel, experience, ability to furnish the required services, and such other factors as may be determined by the committee to be applicable to its particular requirements. (b) Publicly announce requests for proposals. Public announcements must include, at a minimum, a brief description of the audit and indicate how interested firms can apply for consideration. (c) Provide interested firms with a request for proposal. The request for proposal shall include information on how proposals are to be evaluated and such other information the committee determines is necessary for the firm to prepare a proposal. (d) Evaluate proposals provided by qualified firms. If compensation is one of the factors established pursuant to paragraph (a), it shall not be the sole or predominant factor used to evaluate proposals. (e) Rank and recommend in order of preference no fewer than three firms deemed to be the most highly qualified to perform the required services after considering the factors established pursuant to paragraph (a). If fewer than three firms respond to the request for proposal, the committee shall recommend such firms as it deems to be the most highly qualified. (4) The governing body shall inquire of qualified firms as to the basis of compensation, select one of the firms recommended by the audit committee, and negotiate a contract, using one of the following methods: Page 23 65

203 (a) If compensation is not one of the factors established pursuant to paragraph (3)(a) and not used to evaluate firms pursuant to paragraph (3)(e), the governing body shall negotiate a contract with the firm ranked first. If the governing body is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with that firm, negotiations with that firm shall be formally terminated, and the governing body shall then undertake negotiations with the second-ranked firm. Failing accord with the second-ranked firm, negotiations shall then be terminated with that firm and undertaken with the third-ranked firm. Negotiations with the other ranked firms shall be undertaken in the same manner. The governing body, in negotiating with firms, may reopen formal negotiations with any one of the three top-ranked firms, but it may not negotiate with more than one firm at a time. (b) If compensation is one of the factors established pursuant to paragraph (3)(a) and used in the evaluation of proposals pursuant to paragraph (3)(d), the governing body shall select the highest-ranked qualified firm or must document in its public records the reason for not selecting the highest-ranked qualified firm. (c) The governing body may select a firm recommended by the audit committee and negotiate a contract with one of the recommended firms using an appropriate alternative negotiation method for which compensation is not the sole or predominant factor used to select the firm. (d) In negotiations with firms under this section, the governing body may allow a designee to conduct negotiations on its behalf. (5) The method used by the governing body to select a firm recommended by the audit committee and negotiate a contract with such firm must ensure that the agreed-upon compensation is reasonable to satisfy the requirements of s and the needs of the governing body. (6) If the governing body is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with any of the recommended firms, the committee shall recommend additional firms, and negotiations shall continue in accordance with this section until an agreement is reached. (7) Every procurement of audit services shall be evidenced by a written contract embodying all provisions and conditions of the procurement of such services. For purposes of this section, an engagement letter signed and executed by both parties shall constitute a written contract. The written contract shall, at a minimum, include the following: (a) A provision specifying the services to be provided and fees or other compensation for such services. (b) A provision requiring that invoices for fees or other compensation be submitted in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with the terms of the contract. (c) A provision specifying the contract period, including renewals, and conditions under which the contract may be terminated or renewed. (8) Written contracts entered into pursuant to subsection (7) may be renewed. Such renewals may be done without the use of the auditor selection procedures provided in this section. Renewal of a contract shall be in writing. History.--s. 65, ch ; s. 1, ch Page 24 66

204 Appendix B Questions and Answers 1. Question: Are the auditor selection requirements of Section , Florida Statutes, to be applied whenever an entity contracts with a CPA firm for any audit or other services? Answer: No. Section , Florida Statutes, applies only to contracting for the annual financial audit required by Section , Florida Statutes. However, the use of selection procedures such as those provided for in Section , Florida Statutes, and other Federal, State, or local laws is generally advisable when contracting for any services, audit or otherwise. 2. Question: Is there a legal requirement or recommendation for mandatory rotation of auditors after a specified number of years or at the end of an audit services contract? Answer: No. Unless the entity has established its own mandatory auditor rotation requirement, there is no legal requirement for the mandatory rotation of auditors. The current auditor may be included in the auditor selection process at the end of the current audit services contract. The GFOA Recommended Practice Audit Procurement (1996 and 2002) provides that auditor independence would be enhanced by a policy requiring that the independent auditor be replaced at the end of the audit contract, as is often the case in the private sector. The Recommended Practice further states: Unfortunately, the frequent lack of competition among audit firms fully qualified to perform public-sector audits could make a policy of mandatory auditor rotation counterproductive. In such cases, it is recommended that a governmental entity actively seek the participation of all qualified firms, including the current auditors, assuming that the past performance of the current auditors has proven satisfactory. The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), in a report titled, Public Accounting Firms Required Study on the Potential Effects of Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation, issued in November 2003, concluded that such rotation may not be the most efficient way to strengthen auditor independence and improve audit quality considering the additional financial costs and the loss of institutional knowledge of the previous auditor. GAO further concluded that the potential benefits of mandatory audit firm rotation are hard to predict and quantify, but there is a fair certainty that there will be additional costs. 3. Question: If the entity is satisfied with the existing auditor and can negotiate acceptable fees, can the contract for annual financial audit services be renewed without ever going through the auditor selection procedures required by Section , Florida Statutes? Page 25 67

205 Answer: A contract for annual financial audit services can be renewed only as provided in the contract which is required to include a provision specifying the contract period, including renewals. 4. Question: Is an entity with an audit services contract that was in effect on the effective date of the revised auditor selection law, July 1, 2005, required to implement the revised auditor selection requirements on its first occasion for a need for audit services, or can that contract be continued? Answer: An audit service contract that was in effect at July 1, 2005, can remain in effect through the end of the original contract term. However, if there was no contract in effect at July 1, 2005, the entity must apply the revised auditor selection procedures prior to the next need for an annual financial audit required by Section , Florida Statutes. Section (7), Florida Statutes, requires that a contract specify the contract period, including renewals, and conditions under which the contract may be terminated or renewed. If the contract in effect at July 1, 2005, is not in compliance with the requirements of Section , Florida Statutes, the entity must comply with the auditor selection and contractual provisions of the law prior to the next need for the entity to provide for an annual financial audit required by Section , Florida Statutes, unless such compliance cannot be achieved without violating the terms of the existing contract. 5. Question: Is it necessary to include renewal option provisions in audit services contracts entered into after July 1, 2005? Answer: No. The contract is not required to include a renewal provision; however, a contract cannot be renewed in the absence of such a provision. 6. Question: Are the revised auditor selection procedures required to be used only when an entity decides to change auditors or initiate a request for proposals process? Answer: No. The revised auditor selection procedures are required to be followed when an audit contract period expires. The audit contract is required to include a provision specifying the contract period, including renewals. 7. Question: If an existing contract is not in compliance with Section , Florida Statutes, may the governing body sign a new contract that is in compliance? Answer: Yes, but the contract cannot be extended beyond the period specified in the existing contract, including renewals, without going through the auditor selection process required by Section , Florida Statutes. 8. Question: If the governing body of an entity chooses to select a firm other than the audit committee s highest recommended firm and documents the reason for not selecting the highest ranked firm as required by Section (4)(b), Florida Statutes, does the next ranked firm become the highest Page 26 68

206 ranked firm, requiring documentation as to the reason for non-selection, before a firm ranked lower than that firm can be selected? Answer: The law does not specifically address this circumstance; however, it would be reasonable to assume that justification is necessary and should be documented for the selection of any firm over a higher ranked firm. 9. Question: If compensation is used as one of the factors to evaluate firms and the auditor selection is made in accordance with Section (4)(b), Florida Statutes, what documentation is required to justify selection of a firm other than the highest ranked firm? Answer: Required documentation as to the reason for not selecting the highest ranked firm under Section (4)(b), Florida Statutes, is not described in the law. Such documentation could include a statement made by the governing board, possibly in the form of a resolution and included in the minutes of the governing board, describing the factors that caused the governing board to decide that selection of the next ranked firm was in the best interest of the entity. Those factors might include inability to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the highest ranked firm or information that has come to the governing board subsequent to the ranking process. However, as specified in Section (4)(c), Florida Statutes, the decision to select a firm cannot be based on compensation as the sole or predominant factor. 10. Question: If an auditor selection committee uses compensation as a ranking factor, may the governing body also use the alternative method to select the audit firm or must they use the method prescribed by Section (4)(b), Florida Statutes? Answer: The alternative methodology referred to in Section (4)(c), Florida Statutes, refers to negotiation only. An alternative methodology for selection is not authorized in the law. 11. Question: If compensation is 20% of the ranking criteria and all other factors are each less than 20%, is compensation then the predominant factor, or must it be predominant of all factors combined, i.e., greater than 50% of all combined? Answer: Predominant is not defined in the law with respect to auditor selection. Certainly, weighting compensation at greater than 50% of all combined factors, would constitute predominant. Black s Law Dictionary defines predominant as Something greater or superior in power and influence to others with which it is connected or compared. 12. Question: Is there a minimum or maximum number of years that an audit contract must cover? Answer: No. The audit services contract must specify a contract period including renewals, but the law does not specify a minimum or maximum number of years that an audit services contract must cover. This is left to the discretion of the Page 27 69

207 entity and is a matter of agreement between the entity and the audit firm. The entity should use prudent business practices in establishing the contract period. 13. Question: Section (4)(c), Florida Statutes, provides that a governing body may select a firm recommended by the audit committee and negotiate a contract with one of the recommended firms using an appropriate alternative negotiation method. Which specific provisions of the law may be considered non-mandatory under this provision by the application of an alternative methodology? Answer: Regardless of the negotiation method used, a governmental entity must establish an audit committee pursuant to Section (2), Florida Statutes, and the audit committee must perform its functions in accordance with the requirements of Section (3), Florida Statutes. The authorization to use alternative procedures is in reference to the auditor negotiation procedures set forth in Section (4)(a), Florida Statutes. Regardless of the negotiation method used, compensation may not be the sole or predominant factor used to select the firm (Section (4)(c), Florida Statutes) and, if compensation is one of the factors used by the audit committee to evaluate the firms, the governing body must select the highest-ranked firm or document the reason for not selecting that firm (Section (4)(b), Florida Statutes). Page 28 70

208 Appendix C Auditor Selection Resources AICPA Audit Committee Toolkit: Government Organizations, American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, 1995 ( Audit Management Handbook, Stephen J. Gauthier, Government Finance Officers Association, 1989 (Note: Publication of this Handbook was discontinued several years ago as a result of 1996 changes to the Federal Single Audit Act and changes on GFOA policy; however, the references in these guidelines are consistent with current GFOA policy.) Choosing an External Auditor Guide for Making a Sound Decision, Mid-America Intergovernmental Audit Forum, March 2000 ( GFOA Recommended Practice - Audit Procurement (1996 and 2002), Government Finance Officers Association, 2002 ( GFOA Recommended Practice Audit Committees (1997, 2002, and 2006), Government Finance Officers Association, 2002 ( Government Accounting, Auditing, and Financial Reporting, Stephen J. Gauthier, Government Finance Officers Association, 2005 Guide to Audits of Local Governments, Carmichael, Douglas R., and Holder, William W., Practitioners Publishing Company, 20 th Ed., January 2005 How to Avoid a Substandard Audit: Suggestions for Procuring an Audit, National Intergovernmental Audit Forum, May 1988 ( Public Accounting Firms Required Study on the Potential Effects of Mandatory Audit Firm Rotation, United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), November, 2003 ( Page 29 71

209 Item 22 Finance and Administration Committee June 26, 2012 Discussion Item Fiscal Year Recommended Annual Service Budget Purpose Submit the FY Recommended Annual Service Budget (RASB) for consideration by the Governing Board as required by statute; and authorize staff to prepare the Standard Format Tentative Budget Submission based on the RASB, adjusted for any modification made by the Governing Board on June 26 and changes in estimated ad valorem revenue based on the July 1 certifications of taxable value. Staff will provide an overview of the RASB for FY , and an update on the changes that have been made since the May 22, 2012 meeting. An electronic copy of the RASB will be placed on the District s web site in advance of the meeting. Background In preparation for submission of the RASB, staff has presented components of the draft budget to the Governing Board. The District s expenditure budget is divided into two major components: operating or recurring expenses and projects or non-recurring expenses. On April 24, the Governing Board reviewed the operating component of the District s draft FY budget including salaries and benefits, operating, operating capital outlay, and contracted services for operational support and maintenance. On May 22, the Governing Board reviewed the projects component of the District s draft FY budget. This included District Projects and Cooperative Funding Initiative (CFI) projects, as recommended for funding by the Regional Subcommittees of the Governing Board. On June 26, staff will present the complete RASB to the Governing Board. After that date, all changes will be presented to the Governing Board for approval to include in the tentative budget. The District is required by August 1, pursuant to Section (5)(d), Florida Statutes, to submit for review a tentative budget; and new this year, a description of any significant changes from the preliminary budget submitted to the Legislature in January 2012, to the Governor, President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, the chairs of all legislative committees and subcommittees having substantive or fiscal jurisdiction over water management districts, the secretary of the department, and the governing body of each county from which the water management districts derive funds. Discussion Staff will provide an overview of the FY RASB including a review of proposed revenues and expenditures. Expenditures will be reviewed by expenditure category, program and area of responsibility. The RASB for FY totals $168.2 million, an increase of $12.7 million from the FY budget of $155.5 million. Ad valorem revenue has decreased by $3 million from $103.4 million for FY to $100.4 million for FY Since the May 22 presentation, ad valorem revenue was adjusted upward by $0.6 million to reflect the June 1 estimates of property values from the 16-county Property Appraisers. The June 1 estimates indicate property values will decrease by 3 percent from 2011; the draft budget was based on a decrease of 3.5 percent. There is no anticipated change in the millage rate. On July 1, the Property Appraisers will certify the property values. Historically, the June 1 estimates have been within 1-2 percent of the certified values. The operating component of the budget for FY has decreased by $17.7 million or 19 percent, from $94.5 million in FY to a recommended budget of $76.8 million for FY Although this is a significant reduction, staff continues to look for opportunities to reduce operating costs where possible. 72

210 Item 22 The recommended overall budget increase relates to the projects component of the budget. The recommended budget for contractual services for District Projects is $13.7 million, a decrease of $0.8 million from the FY budget of $14.5 million. In general, this category of projects is sponsored and managed by the District. Subcategories include the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) program, Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area (WUCA) Meters, Watershed Management Program, Structures Levee Safety Rehabilitation program and other District initiatives. The RASB includes a summary chart of all contractual services for District Projects by category and the detailed descriptions of all projects. The recommended budget for Cooperative Funding / Grants is $65.2 million, an increase of $27.9 million over the FY budget of $37.3 million. This includes $56.6 million for the CFI projects and $8.6 million in grants for District sponsored projects such as Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems (FARMS) projects. The CFI projects are all recommended by the Regional Subcommittees and are ranked 1A, High or Medium. The RASB contains a summary chart of all CFI projects followed by District Grants by category and the detailed descriptions of all projects. At the July 31 Governing Board meeting, staff will present the Certifications of Taxable Value and the proposed FY millage rate, in compliance with s (4) and s , F.S. The Governing Board will adopt the proposed FY millage rate for certification to the county Property Appraisers by August 4. The proposed millage rate is the rate that will be used for Truth in Millage (TRIM) Notices of Proposed Property Taxes. Staff will also provide the Governing Board a copy of the Standard Format Tentative Budget Submission for FY with a request for approval to submit as required by statute. The District s Standard Format Tentative Budget Submission for FY will be submitted to the Executive Office of the Governor and the Florida Legislature and other parties, as required by statute, for receipt on August 1, The District s FY budget will be adopted in September following two public Truth in Millage hearings. The first hearing is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. at the Tampa Service Office on September 11, Written disapproval of any portion of the budget must be received from the Executive Office of the Governor or the Legislative Budget Commission at least five business days prior to the final budget adoption hearing. The second and final hearing is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. also at the Tampa Service Office on September 25, Staff Recommendation: See Exhibits (separate electronic file provided prior to the meeting) Authorize staff to prepare the Standard Format Tentative Budget Submission for FY based on the recommended annual service budget as presented, adjusted for any modification made by the Governing Board on June 26, and changes in estimated ad valorem revenue based on the July 1 certifications of taxable value. Presenter: Kurt P. Fritsch, Director, Management Services Division 73

211 Item 23 Finance and Administration Committee June 26, 2012 Discussion Item Board Travel District policy states that in accordance with Chapters 112 and 373, Florida Statutes, travel expenses may be incurred for official District business or for a public purpose beneficial to the District. Travel to any conference or convention requires prior approval. Within the geographic boundaries of the District, Governing Board members may incur travel expenses to attend Governing Board meetings or for other purposes beneficial to the District, excluding conferences and conventions. Scheduled travel for Governing Board members outside the District or to attend conferences or conventions requires prior approval through the consent agenda of a regular monthly Governing Board meeting. Non-scheduled travel outside the District or to attend any conference or convention requires prior approval of the Governing Board Chair, or in his absence, the Vice Chair. As of June 14, 2012, the following travel outside the geographic boundaries of the District is scheduled: Name(s) Purpose Estimated Cost Registration $ 515 Jennifer Closshey Albert Joerger Paul Senft Staff Recommendation: 26 th Annual Environmental Permitting Summer School Marco Island July 17-20, 2012 Approve Governing Board travel as designated above. Presenter: Lou Kavouras, Bureau Chief, Board and Executive Services Early Bird Session 75 Hotel (3 x $144) 432 Per Diem 90 Mileage varies Parking ($12 x 3) 36 Total $1,148 74

212 Item 24 Finance and Administration Committee June 26, 2012 Routine Report Treasurer's Report, Payment Register, and Contingency Funds Report Purpose Presentation of the Treasurer's Report, Payment Register, and Contingency Funds Report Background In accordance with Board Policy 130-3, District Investment Policy, a monthly report on investments shall be provided to the Governing Board. Attached is a copy of the Treasurer's Report as of May 31, 2012, which reflects total cash and investments at a market value of $641,834,232. As reflected on the May 31, 2012, Treasurer's Report, the investment portfolio had $131.7 million or 20.6 percent invested with the State Board of Administration (SBA) of which $125.8 million is invested in the Florida PRIME (formerly the Local Government Investment Pool) and $5.9 million in the Fund B Surplus Funds Trust Fund (Fund B). The District has received $248,117 of Pool A interest earnings during the first eight months of fiscal year (FY) Fund B is not distributing interest earnings. The District is managing its short-term and daily liquidity needs through the use of the Florida PRIME and the Federated Government Obligations Fund/Institutional money market fund and U.S. Treasury bills. Consistent with Board Policy 130-3, the maximum percent of the portfolio that will be invested in any one money market fund is 25 percent. Fund B consists of assets that had defaulted on a payment, paid more slowly than expected, or had any significant credit and liquidity risk. Fund B cash holdings are being distributed to participants as they become available monthly from maturities, sales and received income. The investment objective for Fund B is to maximize the present value of distributions. At May 31, 2012, the District's investment in Fund B was $5.9 million, down from the initial investment of $40.7 million. The market value of the Fund B investments is estimated at $4.9 million or approximately 82.7 percent of cost, reflecting $1 million at risk. District staff is not aware of any plans by the SBA to liquidate Fund B investments below cost. On June 6, 2012, the SBA released another $146,464 from Fund B. Therefore, subsequent to May 31, 2012, the balance of $5.9 million has been reduced by $146,464 which further reduces the $1 million at risk. Staff will continue to monitor the SBA activities to determine how this will impact the District's current investment in the Florida PRIME, and affect the District's investment strategy going forward. In accordance with Board Policy 130-1, Disbursement of Funds, all general checks written during a period shall be reported to the Governing Board at its next regular meeting. The Payment Register listing disbursements since last month's report is available upon request. The Payment Register includes checks and electronic funds transfers (EFTs). The FY2012 Contingency Funds Report (District only) follows: 75

213 Item 24 ORIGINAL BUDGET AMOUNT: $7,100,000 Less Approved Transfers Date of Board Action Information Technology Analysis and Review 200,000 December 20, 2011 BALANCE: $6,900,000 Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit These items are provided for the Committee's information, and no action is required. Presenter: Daryl F. Pokrana, Chief, Finance Bureau 76

214 77 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TREASURER'S REPORT TO THE GOVERNING BOARD May 31, 2012 AGENCY SECURITIES EFFECTIVE CUSIP INTEREST CALLABLE/ PURCHASE MATURITY DURATION (YRS) DAYS TO PURCHASE MARKET ACCRUED % OF NUMBER RATE BULLET DATE DATE OF SECURITY MATURITY COST VALUE INTEREST PORTFOLIO FEDERAL FARM CREDIT 31331kpn Callable 06/27/ /27/ $20,000,000 $20,008,000 $89, kzm Callable 09/29/ /29/ ,000,000 20,000,800 21, eajw Callable 04/02/ /02/ ,000,000 20,038,200 24, eakr Callable 04/09/ /09/ ,000,000 20,038,600 18, ealp Callable 04/20/ /16/ ,947,918 5,978,376 4, ealp Callable 04/23/ /16/ ,622,331 7,608,842 5,719 TOTAL FEDERAL FARM CREDIT $93,570,249 $93,672,818 $164, FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK h Bullet 04/15/ /15/ $20,000,000 $20,446,000 $13, rp Bullet 07/18/ /18/ ,000,000 20,258,000 73, r Callable 04/09/ /09/ ,994,000 20,078,400 20, ud Callable 04/17/ /17/ ,000,000 19,995,200 13, c Callable 05/14/ /14/ ,994,000 20,008,600 5,572 TOTAL FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK $99,988,000 $100,786,200 $126, FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION 3134g3nz Callable 04/20/ /27/ $20,000,000 $20,012,800 $28, g3pd Callable 04/20/ /27/ ,288,748 9,206,624 13, g3pd Callable 04/20/ /27/ ,713,019 10,807,776 14, g3uu Callable 05/22/ /22/ ,000,000 19,995,800 3,000 TOTAL FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION $60,001,767 $60,023,000 $60, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 31398a4s Callable 12/08/ /22/ $20,000,000 $20,191,600 $22, g0dy Callable 10/17/ /17/ ,009,375 20,037,400 18, g0ef Callable 10/24/ /24/ ,000,000 20,030,200 16, ftfz Callable 10/24/ /24/ ,000,000 20,011,000 13, g0em Callable 11/07/ /07/ ,000,000 20,044,000 13, g0lc Callable 05/29/ /29/ ,000,000 19,984, TOTAL FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION $120,009,375 $120,298,600 $84, TOTAL AGENCY SECURITIES $373,569,391 $374,780,618 $436,

215 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TREASURER'S REPORT TO THE GOVERNING BOARD May 31, 2012 CASH EQUIVALENTS EFFECTIVE CUSIP INTEREST PURCHASE MATURITY DURATION (YRS) DAYS TO PURCHASE MARKET ACCRUED % OF NUMBER RATE DATE DATE OF SECURITY MATURITY COST VALUE INTEREST PORTFOLIO UNITED STATES TREASURY BILLS t /22/ /21/ $19,996,967 $19,996,967 $2, u /05/ /05/ ,994,944 19,994,944 4, y /03/ /02/ ,991,453 19,991,453 5, y /04/ /23/ ,992,911 19,992,911 4, y /15/ /23/ ,986,278 19,986,278 7, c /20/ /20/ ,992,361 19,992,361 4,556 TOTAL UNITED STATES TREASURY BILL $119,954,914 $119,954,914 $29, STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION (SBA) & OTHER INVESTMENT ACCOUNTS EFFECTIVE ACCOUNT ACCOUNT INTEREST PURCHASE MARKET ACCRUED % OF NUMBER DESCRIPTION RATE COST VALUE INTEREST PORTFOLIO STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION Florida PRIME (Formerly Local Government Investment Pool) SBA General Investments 0.32 $89,012,994 $89,012, SBA Workers' Compensation ,469,807 $1,469, SBA Land Resources ,890,986 $6,890, SBA Advanced State Funding (Eco System Trust Fund) ,609,040 $6,609, SBA Advanced State Funding (FDOT) ,929,451 $11,929, SBA Advanced State Funding (WRAP) ,949,020 $5,949, SBA Advanced State Funding (WPSTF AWS) ,926,062 $3,926,062 $125,787,360 $125,787,360 Fund B Surplus Funds Trust Fund (1) SBA General Investments 0.00 $5,383,843 $4,454, SBA Advanced State Funding (Eco System Trust Fund) , ,895 $5,916,776 $4,894,949 TOTAL STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION (SBA) ACCOUNTS $131,704,136 $130,682, (1) Fund B commingles investments from participants in a portfolio of securities with the objective to maximize the present value of distributions to participants, to the extent reasonable and prudent, net of fees. This objective emphasizes both the timeliness and extent of the recovery of participants' original principal. This is according to Investment Policy Guidelines, Local Government Investment Fund B, Part III. Investment Objective (effective 12/21/07). The District is not receiving interest earnings distributions from the SBA-Fund B accounts.

216 SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT TREASURER'S REPORT TO THE GOVERNING BOARD May 31, 2012 EFFECTIVE ACCOUNT ACCOUNT INTEREST PURCHASE MARKET ACCRUED % OF NUMBER DESCRIPTION RATE COST VALUE INTEREST PORTFOLIO FEDERATED GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS FUND / INSTITUTIONAL ,769,950 15,769, TOTAL INVESTMENTS CASH, SUNTRUST DEMAND ACCOUNT TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS $640,998,391 $641,187, , ,441 $641,644,832 $641,834,232 Weighted average yield on portfolio at May 31, 2012 is 0.53%. EQUITY - CASH AND INVESTMENTS 79 DISTRICT AND BASINS District General Fund $331,232, % Alafia River Basin 17,317, % Hillsborough River Basin 81,100, % Coastal Rivers Basin 12,095, % Pinellas-Anclote River Basin 111,828, % Withlacoochee River Basin 12,381, % Peace River Basin 20,636, % Manasota Basin 39,383, % FDOT Mitigation Program 11,481, % Florida Forever Fund 4,186, % TOTAL EQUITY IN CASH AND INVESTMENTS $641,644, %

217 Item 25 Finance and Administration Committee June 26, 2012 Routine Report Monthly Financial Statement Purpose Presentation of the May 31, 2012, monthly financial statement. Background In accordance with Sections (4)(d) and (12), Florida Statutes, relating to state financial information with certain financial transparency requirements, the District is submitting a Statement of Sources and Uses of Funds for the Eight Months Ended May 31, Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit This item is provided for the Committee s information, and no action is required. Presenter: Daryl F. Pokrana, Chief, Finance Bureau 80

218 Statement of Sources and Uses of Funds For the Eight Months Ended May 31, 2012 The attached Statement of Sources and Uses of Funds statement is provided for your review. This report provides a summarized snapshot of high level District financial activity of revenue by sources and expenditure summaries (uses) by program. This unaudited financial statement is provided as of May 31, with 66.7 percent of the fiscal year completed. This financial statement compares revenues recognized and encumbrances/expenditures made against the District s FY2012 available budget of $509.2 million. Encumbrances represent orders for goods and services which have not yet been received. Revenues (Sources) Status: Overall, as of May 31, 2012, 89 percent (including fund balance) of the District s budgeted revenue has been recognized. As of May 31, 2012, the District has received $99.1 million of ad valorem tax revenue representing 96 percent of the budget, which is typical for the first eight months of any fiscal year as the majority of the ad valorem tax revenue is collected in the months of December and January. The budget represents 96 percent of the tax levy based on the historical collection rate. Intergovernmental Revenues are recognized at the time related expenditures are incurred. For FY2012, $19.4 million in revenues have been recognized, representing 28 percent of the budget. From year to year, the budgeted amount of intergovernmental revenue compared to the recognized amount can fluctuate for various reasons; projects can be in the planning stages and have not incurred a significant amount of expenditures, or anticipated projects may be canceled (e.g., cooperative funding projects). The FY2012 interest earnings budget was based on a 0.5 percent expected rate of return. The District s investment portfolio was generating 0.53 percent at May 31, Due to the higher than budgeted interest rate (for seven of the eight months completed) and varying cash balances related to project timing, interest earnings on invested funds in the amount of $2.6 million have been recognized representing 101 percent of the budget. The District historically budgets investment earnings conservatively. License and Permit Fees consist of revenue from water use permits, environmental resource permits, water well construction permits, and water well construction licenses. Revenue recognized is 58 percent of the budget as of May 31, As of May 31, 2012, other revenue collected is 112 percent of budget. Each year, items that fall within the Other revenue category are budgeted conservatively due to the uncertainty of the amounts to be collected. Fund Balance represents funds carried over from prior years that are allocated for expenditures, or are reserved or designated to fund outstanding encumbrances or board designations that were re-appropriated for expenditure in FY

219 Statement of Sources and Uses of Funds For the Eight Months Ended May 31, Expenditures (Uses) Status: Overall, as of May 31, 2012, at the time this report was prepared, the District had obligated 84 percent of its total budget. This indicates that most major projects are in progress and will be accomplished. Summary of Expenditures by Program This financial statement illustrates the effort to date for each of the District s six statutory program areas (Section (5)(d)4, Florida Statutes). Provided below is a discussion of the expenditures by program. The Water Resources Planning and Monitoring Program includes all water management planning, including water supply planning, development of minimum flows and levels, and other water resources planning; research, data collection, analysis, and monitoring; and technical assistance (including local and regional plan and program review). Of the $60.5 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 78 percent of the budget (27 percent expended and 51 percent encumbered). The Acquisition, Restoration and Public Works Program includes the development and construction of all capital projects (except for those contained within the Operation and Maintenance of Lands and Works Program), including water resource development projects/water supply development assistance, water control projects, and support and administrative facilities construction; land acquisition; and the restoration of lands and water bodies. Of the $353.4 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 92 percent of the budget (12 percent expended and 80 percent encumbered). The Operation and Maintenance of Lands and Works Program includes all operation and maintenance of facilities, flood control and water supply structures, lands, and other works authorized by Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. Of the $21.3 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 61 percent of the budget (39 percent expended and 22 percent encumbered). The Regulation Program includes water use permitting, water well construction permitting, water well contractor licensing, environmental resource and surface water management permitting, permit administration and enforcement, and any delegated regulatory program. Of the $18.7 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 63 percent of the budget (52 percent expended and 11 percent encumbered). The Outreach Program includes all environmental education activities, such as water conservation campaigns and water resources education; public information activities; all lobbying activities relating to local, regional, state, and federal governmental affairs; and all public relations activities, including public service announcements and advertising in any media. Of the $6.2 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 67 percent of the budget (32 percent expended and 35 percent encumbered). 82

220 Statement of Sources and Uses of Funds For the Eight Months Ended May 31, The Management and Administration Program includes all governing board support; executive support; technology and information services; general counsel, ombudsman, human resources, finance, audit, risk management, and administrative services; annual contingency funds; and 16-county property appraiser and tax collector fees. Of the $49.1 million budgeted for this program, the District has obligated 55 percent of the budget (43 percent expended and 12 percent encumbered). Of the $49.1 million budgeted, $7.1 million was budgeted as annual contingency funds; a balance of $6.9 million remains as of May 31, For this financial report, the Management and Administration Program s costs are inclusive of all costs. For other financial reports that relate to performance metrics, certain costs of this program area are allocated to direct program areas as appropriate. Based on the financial activities for the eight months ended May 31, 2012, the financial condition of the District is positive and budget variances are generally favorable. There are no reported or identified major trends, conditions or variances that warrant additional management attention. 83

221 Southwest Florida Water Management District Statement of Sources and Uses of Funds For the Eight Months Ended May 31, 2012 (Unaudited) Actuals Variance Current Through (under)/over Actuals As A Budget 5/31/2012 Budget % of Budget Sources Ad Valorem Property Taxes $ 103,449,973 $ 99,143,338 $ (4,306,635) 96% Intergovernmental Revenues 68,865,594 19,444,608 (49,420,986) 28% Interest on Invested Funds 2,615,000 2,644,071 29, % License and Permit Fees 1,900,000 1,094,426 (805,574) 58% Other 752, ,017 90, % Fund Balance 331,622, ,622, % Total Sources $ 509,205,848 $ 454,792,372 $(54,413,476) 89% 84 Current Available Budget Expenditures Encumbrances 1 Budget %Expended %Obligated 2 Uses Water Resources Planning and Monitoring $60,542,560 $16,463,398 $ 30,920,987 $ 13,158,175 27% 78% Acquisition, Restoration and Public Works 353,423,992 44,078, ,207,048 27,138,658 12% 92% Operation and Maintenance of Lands and Works 21,294,731 8,332,447 4,585,331 8,376,953 39% 61% Regulation 18,727,306 9,800,993 2,018,780 6,907,533 52% 63% Outreach 6,171,830 1,978,650 2,174,364 2,018,816 32% 67% Management and Administration 3 49,045,429 21,274,301 5,942,463 21,828,665 43% 55% Total Uses $ 509,205,848 $ 101,928,075 $ 327,848,973 $ 79,428,800 20% 84% 1 Encumbrances represent unexpended balances of open purchase orders and contracts. 2 Represents the sum of expenditures and encumbrances as a percentage of the available budget. 3 Management and administration costs are inclusive of all costs; for performance metrics certain costs are allocated to direct program areas as appropriate. This unaudited financial statement is prepared as of May 31, 2012, and covers the interim period since the most recent audited financial statements.

222 Item 26 Finance and Administration Committee June 26, 2012 Routine Report Monthly Cash Balances by Fiscal Year Purpose To provide a schedule of monthly cash balances by fiscal year, updated to reflect the cash balance as of May 31, Background This routine report has been developed to allow the Governing Board to easily monitor the District s cash balances at each month-end and in comparison with cash balances for the last four fiscal years. This trend information will become more important as the District s budget declines and reserves are utilized for projects. Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit This item is provided for the Committee s information, and no action is required. Presenter: Daryl F. Pokrana, Chief, Finance Bureau 85

223 Southwest Florida Water Management District Monthly Cash Balances by Fiscal Year (FY FY and FY To-Date) $800M FY $750M FY $700M FY $650M 86 FY $600M FY $550M $500M September of Previous Fiscal Year October November December January February March April May June July August September

224 D. Outreach & Planning

225 Governing Board Meeting June 26, 2012 OUTREACH &PLANNING COMMITTEE Discussion Items 27. Water Resources Education Update... (10 minutes)... 2 Submit & File Reports None Routine Reports 28. Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews Report Development of Regional Impact Activity Report Significant Activities... 16

226 Item 27 Outreach and Planning Committee June 26, 2012 Discussion Item Water Resource Education Update Purpose Provide staff proposals to further streamline or eliminate funding for several projects budgeted under Water Resources Education Grants and Contracted Services. Discussion At the Governing Board s May meeting, staff proposed funding $1.3 million in Water Resource Education Grants and Contracted Services, a reduction of 18 percent from the current year. Following discussion by the Board, District staff continued to look for opportunities to reduce costs in the program. As a result of those efforts, staff is recommending eliminating two programs and reducing a third program, and is requesting direction from the Board on funding in a fourth area, Florida-Friendly Landscaping (FFL). Proposed Reductions B726 Adopt-A-Pond Hillsborough County ($37,500) is a program that enlists citizen volunteers to help restore stormwater ponds, reduce litter, mark storm drains and increase citizens' awareness of their impact on stormwater ponds. The District has shared funding of the program with Hillsborough County since FY2001. Staff believes this program can continue without District funding. P268 Public Water Resources Education funds several educational projects including Community Education Grants (CEG), decision-maker water schools, special event support and Spanish translations for materials. The Community Education Grant program constitutes $100,000 of the $111,251 funding for this line item. Since 1998, the CEG program has offered reimbursement to help residents create hands-on, educational experiences in their communities that lead to the protection and conservation of Florida s water resources. Staff is proposing to eliminate the CEG program to streamline District education efforts. P259 Youth Water Resources Education ($608,525) partners with School Boards in 15 counties to provide students, teachers and families with classroom materials and opportunities for hands-on learning experiences that equip them to make informed decisions about water resources and instill a sense of environmental stewardship. In FY2011 the Youth Education program reached 453,646 students and teachers, more than half of the 817,644 students and teachers in the District. The major program components include curricula development, teacher training, field trip programs (including grade-level programs in 10 counties) and Splash grants (provide funding to teachers for classroom projects on water quality, water conservation, water supply and/or watersheds for hands-on water education that teaches students about their local watersheds and the freshwater resources within them). In FY2011 Splash grants generated an average of 9 hours of classroom instruction on water resources for 128,233 students. Staff is proposing to reduce funding for Splash grants by $60,000, from $200,000 to $140,000, to streamline the program. Staff Strategy: (1) Eliminate funding for B726 Adopt-A-Pond Hillsborough County ($37,500). (2) Reduce funding in P268 Public Water Resources Education from $111,251 to $6,000 by eliminating the Community Education Grant Program ($100,000), but still providing funding for decision-maker water schools, special event support and Spanish translations for materials. 2

227 Item 27 (3) Reduce funding in P259 Youth Water Resources Education by $60,000, from $608,525 to $548,525, for programs covering 15 counties. Total recommended savings from these reductions is $202,751. Background: Florida-Friendly Landscaping Ensuring adequate water supply and protecting water quality are part of the core mission for the District. With approximately half of the water in a typical single-family home being used on landscapes, the District identified outdoor water use as a potential area of significant water savings. Initially the District promoted Xeriscape principles, a program created in the southwest United States and adapted for Florida. However, the public was resistant to accepting these principles because of the perception that the program promoted yards that were rocks and cactus. Also, the name leant itself to negative mispronunciations such as Zeroscape. In 2001, the Governing Board directed staff to stop promoting Xeriscape and to look for a similar program that could save water, protect water quality and be accepted by the public. FFL was designed by the University of Florida, providing the credibility of the university s experts with a program designed specifically for this state. Florida residents who design, install and maintain their landscapes according to the nine FFL principles can reduce environmental impact from landscaping by properly applying water, fertilizer and pesticides, and preventing stormwater runoff. Additionally, the program had an existing way of delivering information to the public through the county Extension offices. To achieve results with maximum efficiency and effectiveness, in 2001 the District began partnering with county governments to support the FFL program through the University of Florida s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) county Extension offices. The District s FFL program is designed to achieve conservation and protection of water resources through landscaping practices. The District currently funds portions of 13 FFL positions in partnership with 11 county governments (Charlotte, Citrus, Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota and Sumter). In May, $508,298 was the proposed Fiscal Year budget for support for Grants and Contract Services. At the May Governing Board meeting, some concerns were expressed about funding these education programs. Additionally, there are concerns about the appropriateness of funding positions at other agencies. Staff has re-evaluated the program to look at both the level and the type of funding support being provided to promote FFL. Four potential alternative options for promoting FFL were created and are included for consideration by the Governing Board. Funding Options: The following are four alternative options for promoting Florida-Friendly Landscaping. 1. Eliminate All Program Funding a. Promote FFL through news releases, social media, website and other unpaid media as appropriate b. Distribute materials through online ordering c. Estimated costs: None additional, part of existing District public information efforts d. Estimated reduction: $508, Public Information Campaign Only a. Promote FFL through public service paid advertising campaign for one month in early spring (planting season) b. Drive people to website for more information c. Distribute materials through online ordering d. Estimated costs: $100,000 e. Estimated reduction: $408,298 3

228 Item Outsourced Targeted Education for Communities/Homeowner Associations (HOA) Only a. Procurement process to solicit two regional coordinators i. Region 1 Levy, Citrus, Marion, Hernando, Pasco, Pinellas, Lake, Sumter ii. Region 2 Hillsborough, Polk, Manatee, Sarasota, Highlands, Hardee, DeSoto, Charlotte b. Outsource regional coordination modeled after FY2012 HOA FFL programs scope of work i. Select communities with high water use ii. Meet with HOA boards/committees iii. Evaluate common areas for water savings and water quality benefits iv. Promote adoption of FFL standards in community v. Work with boards/committees to promote FFL to residents c. Track water savings when possible through partnerships with utilities d. Track HOA formal adoption of FFL standards e. Promote FFL through news releases, social media, website and other unpaid media as appropriate f. Distribute materials through online ordering g. Estimated costs: $180,000 for outsourced services, travel and program supplies h. Estimated reduction: $328, Current Program Funding Reduced 50 Percent Per County a. FFL positions in partnership with 11 county governments that choose to continue with reduced funding (Charlotte, Citrus, Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota and Sumter) b. Promote FFL through news releases, social media, website and other unpaid media as appropriate c. Distribute materials through online ordering d. Estimated costs: $254,149 e. Estimated reduction: $254,149 Staff Recommendation: Staff is requesting direction and action from the Board on funding Florida-Friendly Landscaping (FFL). Presenter: Michael Molligan, Bureau Chief, Communications 4

229 Item 28 Outreach and Planning Committee June 26, 2012 Routine Report Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews Report Purpose This report is provided for the Committee s information and shows District activity in the review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Amendments. Staff updates the report monthly. Background/History The District provides technical and policy information on water resources and water resource management to local governments as they prepare amendments to their local government comprehensive plans. This information encompasses all aspects of water resource management, including water supply, flood protection, water quality and natural systems, and is intended to support sound land use decisions. A number of statutory provisions direct the District in the provision of this assistance, particularly Section , Florida Statutes (F.S.), Technical Assistance to Local Governments. As a part of the District's efforts to ensure that appropriate water resource information and policy direction is reflected in local government comprehensive plans, the District conducts reviews of local government proposed plan amendments. The state land planning agency, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), administers this review process. Comments submitted by the District typically become a part of DCA's "objections, recommendations, and comments" report to the local government. In addition, the District will often perform informal reviews of draft plan updates working directly with local governments. Benefits/Costs The benefits of the District's local government technical assistance program are to ensure local government elected officials has sound water resource technical and policy information as they amend their local government comprehensive plans. This helps to ensure local plans are compatible with the District's plans, programs and statutory direction. Costs for this program primarily include staff time and are budgeted in Fund 10 (Governing Board). Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit This item is provided for the Committee's information, and no action is required. Presenter: Colleen Thayer, Bureau Chief, Public Affairs 5

230 6 Local Government Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Related Reviews Report May 31, 2012 Project Amendment Type Assigned Completed Description 10YWSFWP Anna Maria 12-1ESR ESR 11/23/ /22/2011 No substantive comments. Arcadia 12-1ER EAR-based 1/27/2012 2/13/2012 Text and FLU map amendments. Auburndale 11-1ACSC Regular 8/24/2011 9/6/2011 Text amendment to make EAR process consistent with recent legislative changes. No comment letter. Auburndale 12-1ESR ESR 12/15/2011 1/11/2012 FLU Map changes near the Polk Parkway and US 92 for "ecotourism" site. Avon Park 12-1ESR ESR 3/19/2012 4/9/2012 FLU change County MDR & HDR to City MDR. 65 acres near Lakes Anoka and Lelia. Avon Park 12-2ESR ESR 4/27/2012 5/17/2012 Text amendments for compatibility with Avon Park Air Force Range JLUS. Bowling Green 11-1ER EAR-based 8/26/2011 9/22/2011 Various text amendments identified in EAR. Bushnell 11-1ESR Regular 10/12/2011 Rewrite of Comprehensive plan, adding two new FLUM categories, amending and updating various elements. Center Hill 12-1ESR ESR 5/15/2012 Charlotte 11-2ESR ESR 9/2/2011 9/22/2011 FLUM change acres Low Density Residential to Commercial. Charlotte County 11-3ESR ESR 11/4/2011 The County is proposing to several FLUM related changes. Citrus 11-1ESR ESR 6/7/2011 6/30/2011 Proposed FLUM change from Agricultural to Recreation for a 40- acre site to accommodate church recreational facilities. Citrus 11-2ESR Regular 8/4/2011 8/31/2011 Proposed FLUM change Low Intensity Coastal Lakes (CL) to Recreational Vehicle Park (RVP); approximately 206-acre site south of SR44 adjacent to Lake Tsala Apopka; provided comments related to potential impacts to OFW waterbody. Citrus 11-3ESR CIE 9/29/ /3/2011 Text amendments to remove concurrency language from Transportation, Future Land Use and Capital Improvements Elements; annual update of Capital Improvements Element; no comments on proposed amendments.

231 7 Project Amendment Type Assigned Completed Description 10YWSFWP Citrus 12-1ESR, 12-2ESR, 12-3ESR ESR 1/24/2012 2/21/2012 Text and map amendments. Comments included support for the implementation of lead BMPs for a proposed shooting range and coordination on activities for port siting and planning. Citrus 12-6 ESR 4/6/2012 5/2/2012 Map amendment for 27.5 acres. No substantive comments provided. Citrus County 11-2ESR ESR 8/1/2011 Proposed FLUM change for an approximately 200-acre site from Coastal and Lakes to RV Park to accommodate 439 lot RV park facility. Clearwater 11-2ESR ESR 9/21/ /18/2011 This city is proposing to amend the present Future Land Use Map designations from Residential Medium (RM) and Residential/Office/Retail (R/O/R) to Residential/Office Limited (R/OL) on acres. Dundee 12-1ESR ESR 3/20/2012 4/9/2012 FLU LDR to MDR. 77 acres near Lake Marie. Dunedin 12-1ESR ESR 12/19/2011 This amendment proposes to revise Policy G-5 of the FLUE to include reference to the most recently adopted Countywide Plan and the City's land development regulation. Dunnellon 11-1ESR ESR 6/10/2011 7/12/2011 Proposed FLUM change for 986 acre site from Agricultural to Residential. Fort Meade 12-1ER EAR-based 11/4/ /22/2011 Text and map amendments identified in EAR. Fort Meade 12-2ESR ESR 5/15/2012 FLUM amendement on 1,163 acres (recently annexed) from unassigned to Industrial. Frostproof 12-1ESR ESR 4/27/2012 5/17/2012 Text amendments for compatibility with Avon Park Air Force Range JLUS. Hernando 11-1ESR Regular 7/26/2011 8/10/2011 FLUM land use designation amendment. Highland Park 11-1ESR ESR 11/10/ /22/2011 FLUM request to change several properties (<2 acres) to Historic Multi-family, consistent with actual existing use. Highland Park 12-1ESR ESR 12/15/2011 1/12/2012 Text amendment clarifying that the Estate Residential FLU category pertains only to single-family residences. Hillcrest Heights 11-1ER EAR-based 7/21/2011 8/17/2011 Text amendments. No 10YWSFWP adopted. Proposed potable water LOS 210 gpcd. Hillsborough 11-2ESR Regular 8/9/2011 9/2/2011 Plan amendment for Lutz community plan update. Amendment included a number of text changes. No substantive comments were made.

232 Project Amendment Type Assigned Completed Description 10YWSFWP Hillsborough County 12-1ESR ESR 2/27/2012 3/21/2012 Hillsborough County is proposing amendments to the "Future of Hillsborough" Comprehensive Plan. Inglis 12-1ESR ESR 2/21/2012 3/6/2012 Two text amendments. No substantive comments provided. Inglis 12-2 ESR 3/22/2012 Proposed land use change. No substantive issues identified. Lakeland 11-2ESR ESR 10/4/ /25/2011 FLU change on 95.2 acres near Linder Airport. Recently annexed into the city, propose changing county land use to city land use. Lakeland 12-1ESR ESR 4/27/2012 5/21/2012 FLUM amendment on acres from Residential Low-4 to Industrial. Improved pasture with no wetlands. Change allows for the construction of an organic fertilizer processing plant that will reduce waste spreading and associated water quality impacts. Largo 11-2ESR ESR 7/7/2011 8/3/2011 The City of Largo proposes to amend their comprehensive plan by updating 4 school facilities maps. Largo 11-3ESR ESR 10/31/ /22/2011 The City of Largo proposes to update the level of service standards for the sanitary sewer system that are contained in the Public Facilities and Capital Improvements elements. 8 Largo 11-4ESR ESR 11/16/ /16/2011 The City annexed 90 parcels ( acres) and portions of right of way along Ulmerton Rd. into the City limits and is updated the FLUM to reflect the changes. Longboat Key 12-1ESR, 12-2ESR (proposed) ESR 11/28/ /27/2011 Provided comments for development of the 10-year water supply facilities work plan and promoted LID implementation in a proposed redevelopment area. Manatee 12-1ESR ESR 12/9/2011 1/6/2012 Encouraged limited, if any, encroachment in Myakka River's wetland/floodplains and the implementation of LID practices when possible. Manatee 12-2ESR ESR 2/13/2012 2/21/2012 Text amendment to add dormitories as an allowable use in RES-9 & RES-12 Marion 12-1ESR ESR 5/11/2012 5/29/2012 Coordinated w/ SJRWMD on 150-acre plan amendment proposed close to our boundaries. Also reviewed future land use text amendments creating new land use category and a 25-acre commercial plan amendment. No issues were identified for 2 amendments.

233 Project Amendment Type Assigned Completed Description 10YWSFWP Mascotte ESR 4/2/2012 5/15/2012 Land use map change. Amendment is not within District boundaries. Mulberry 12-1ER EAR-based 11/23/ /22/2011 Text amendments. Ocala 12-1 ESR 3/21/2012 4/11/2012 Property situated outside Southwest Florida Water Management District. No comments submitted. Pasco 11-2ESR-CPA 11(04); 11-3ESR-CPA 11(05); 11-4ESR- CPA11(06); 11-5ESR-CPA11(07) Regular 10/18/ /14/2011 Proposed changes to market overlay areas. Made comments relating to wetlands, water supply and flood prone areas. 9 Pasco 12-1ESR ESR 11/29/ /22/2011 No substantive comments Pasco 12-2ESR ESR 12/22/2011 Pasco 12-2ESR ESR 12/22/2011 1/17/2012 No substantive comments made. Pasco County 12-3ESR ESR 3/7/2012 4/6/2012 Proposed amendment to add ~ 5460 acres to the South Market Area. Pasco County 12-4ESR ESR 4/30/2012 Pinellas County 12-1ESR ESR 12/30/2011 Through this amendment, the County proposes to revise several Objectives and Policies of the Transportation Element related to the St. Petersburg Clearwater International Airport. Pinellas Park 11-1ESR ESR 11/2/ /17/2011 The City is proposing to redifine the "Coastal Storm Area" of the City. Pinellas Park 12-3ESR ESR 3/6/2012 4/5/ Yr Water Supply Facilities Work Plan Plant City 12-1ESR ESR 12/29/2011 Plant City 12-1ESR ESR 12/29/2011 1/24/2012 Commented on historical flooding and encouraged the incorporation of LIDs in development proposals. Plant City 12-1ESR (proposed) ESR 12/29/2011 Polk 11-2ESR ESR 8/19/2011 9/6/2011 CF Industries FLUM change from PM to IND. Text amendments relating to solar power generation, transit supportive development area and scenic highways. Polk 11-3ACSC Regular 8/19/2011 9/6/2011 FLUM change from Ag-Rural to Commercial Enclave on 2.53 acres in the Green Swamp to correct non-conforming land use for an existing structure.

234 10 Project Amendment Type Assigned Completed Description 10YWSFWP Polk 12-1ESR ESR 3/2/2012 3/27/2012 Text amendments to the FLUE revising A/RR, defining PD and deleting RCC-R. Sarasota County 11-1ESR ESR 9/28/ /20/2011 This Amendment consists of the functional reclassification of Lockwood Ridge Rd from a major collector to a minor collector. St. Petersburg 11-1ESR ESR 6/17/2011 7/17/2011 This comprehensive plan amendment proposes to update the Future Land Use Map and Official Zoning Map. Tampa 12-1ESR ESR 4/25/2012 Text amendments to the City of Tampa's Comp Plan, FLUE to facilitate the implementation of the Seminole Heights Flex Provision. Tarpon Springs 11-2ESR ESR 11/8/ /5/2011 The City is proposing to amend the FLUM from R/OS to RL on.23 acres of unused area on the City's golf course. Tarpon Springs 12-1ESR ESR 4/17/2012 Proposed amendments to the City of Tarpon Springs' FLUM for acre from Industrial Limited, Preservation, and Transportation Utility Overlay districts to Res Low Medium, Preservation, and Transportation Utility Overlay districts. Treasure Island 12-1ESR ESR 2/29/2012 The City is proposing changes to the FLUE text and the FLUM to provide for a Planned Reredevelopement Mixed Use category. Treasure Island 12-1ESR ESR 2/29/2012 3/29/2012 FLUM change to provide for a Planned Redevelopment-Mixed Use category. Venice 11-1ESR ESR 11/4/2011 The City proposes to revise several text related amendments. Venice 12-2ESR ESR 5/8/2012 5/17/2012 Text amendments relating to regional airport. Wauchula 12-1ESR ESR 1/5/2012 2/1/2012 Capital Improvement Element update. Wildwood 12-1ESR ESR 4/2/2012 5/2/2012 Proposed text amendments. Provided water supply planning information. Williston 11-1ESR Regular 9/19/ /19/2011 Proposed FLUM change from COM, MDR and R/OS to HDR and R/OS for RV park expansion; project currently in for ERP permitting; staff had no comments on proposed amendment. Williston 12-1ESR ESR 1/24/2012 2/21/2012 No substantive comments to be provided. Winter Haven 12-1ESR ESR 3/1/2012 3/27/2012 FLU County RES LOW 1 to City RES-Low Density. Near Lake Dexter in the Peace Creek watershed. Zephyrhills 11-1ESR ESR 10/25/ /22/2011 Land use change involving 17.5 acres. Commented on flood hazard areas.

235 Project Amendment Type Assigned Completed Description 10YWSFWP Zolfo Springs 11-1ER EAR-based 9/27/ /25/2011 Various text amendments and map series update based upon 2009 EAR. 11 AR ACSC CIE DRI EAR ESR PSFE Remedial WSFWP Alternative Area of Critical State Concern Capital Improvement Element Development of Regional Impact Evaluation and Appraisal Report Expedited State Review Public School Facilities Element NOI-Not In Compliance Water Supply Facilities Work Plan

236 Item 29 Outreach and Planning Committee June 26, 2012 Routine Report Development of Regional Impact Activity Report Purpose This report is provided for the Committee's information and shows District activity in the review of Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs). Staff updates the report monthly. Background/History The District participates in the review of Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs) pursuant to Section , Florida Statutes. DRI's are large-scale development projects that exceed statutorily specified thresholds such that the project is assumed to have potential impacts that transcend multiple local government jurisdictions. The District is one of several agencies that are required to participate in the review process, which is administered by the regional planning councils. The District has also entered into memoranda of agreement with the Central Florida, Southwest Florida, Tampa Bay and Withlacoochee regional planning councils to more specifically outline the District's DRI review responsibilities. The District provides water resource management technical and policy information to the regional planning councils and local governments to assist them in making well-informed growth management decisions. Benefits/Costs The benefits of the District's DRI review program are to ensure regional planning councils and local government elected officials have sound water resource technical and policy information as they consider large scale development proposals. This helps to ensure these developments are compatible with the District's plans, programs and statutory directives. Costs for this program primarily include staff time and are budgeted in Fund 10 (Governing Board). Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit This item is provided for the Committee's information, and no action is required. Presenter: Colleen Thayer, Bureau Chief, Public Affairs 12

237 DRI Activity Report May 31, 2012 Project DRI Location DRI App Type Date Assigned Date Completed Description CF Industries South Pasture Mine Extension Hardee SD - 1st Sufficiency 5/20/2011 7,513 acre addition to existing phosphate mine. CF South Pasture Mine Extension Hardee SD 8/20/2010 4/14/2011 Additional land to be added to CF Industries' existing South Pasture Phosphate Mine in Hardee County. 7,513 acres. CF South Pasture Mine Extension Hardee SD - 2nd Sufficiency 1/18/2012 2/13/2012 Additional land to be added to CF Industries' existing South Pasture Phosphate Mine in Hardee County. 7,513 acres. 13 Cooper Creek Manatee County NOPC 8/30/2011 9/27/2011 Application proposes several changes to the existing development scenario. No substantive issues were identified made due to close coordination with developer during the development review process. Equity Southbend Hillsborough NOPC 4/27/2010 5/19/2011 Mixed Use. Proposal includes the addition of land for surface water management, build-out extension and changes to the location of office development. Four Corners Mine Addition S/D (aka G&D Farms) Manatee County ADA - 1st Sufficiency 2/2/2011 3/3/2011 Application review. Four Corners Mine Addition S/D (aka G&D Farms) Manatee County ADA - 2nd Sufficiency Heron Creek North Port NOPC - 2nd Sufficiency 8/1/2011 8/26/2011 Examined materials. Review completed 8/26/11. No substantive comments made. 3/11/2010 8/5/2010 Mixed Use. Conversion matrix changes - housing trade offs - no comments. Formerly Marsh Creek. 2nd suff - conversion matrix changes - housing trade offs. Lake Hutto Hillsborough County NOPC - 4th Sufficiency 10/4/2011 No substantive comments. Application dealt with a number of transportation issues. Lake Hutto Hillsborough County NOPC - 3rd Sufficiency 7/22/2011 8/12/2011 No substantive comments made. Made earlier comment re: reclaimed water availability. Lake Hutto Hillsborough County NOPC - 1st Sufficiency 11/10/ /7/2010 Mixed Use Development: 1,856 residential units; 207,500 sf retail; 219,000 sf office; 36,000 sf medical and school.

238 Project DRI Location DRI App Type Date Assigned Date Completed Description Lake Hutto Mosaic Fertilizer Hillsborough County Mines Hillsborough County NOPC - 2nd Sufficiency 4/7/2011 4/21/2011 No substantive comments. Hillsborough NOPC 9/25/ /20/2009 Mining. Proposes addition of 77 acres to existing DRI. Mosaic Fertilizer, Wingate (DRI 273) Manatee County ADA 2/9/2011 3/10/2011 Initial review of material, processing for submittal to review team. Application proposes to reclassify 705 acres within the existing mine to "approved for mining." Mosaic Fertilizer, Wingate Creek Mine Manatee County ADA - 1st Sufficiency 7/15/2011 8/3/2011 No substantive comments. Mosaic Fertilizer, Wingate Extension (DRI 272) Manatee County ADA 2/9/2011 3/10/2011 Initial review of material, processing for submittal to review team. Application proposes the addition of 661 acres to existing mine. 14 Mosaic Riverview Phosphogypsum Stack Expansion Hillsborough NOPC 10/14/ /29/2009 Mining. Proposes construction of a process-water loading station and transport of process water to Polk County facility. Oakbridge Lakeland SD 2/27/2012 3/26/2012 Additional 550,000 sq. ft. Regional Mall. Additional 98 dwelling units. Changes affect southeast quadrant (south of Polk Parkway) only. Old Florida Plantation Bartow NOPC 6/14/2010 6/14/2010 District Project/Not Reviewed. Ona Mine Hardee Pre App 10/16/2009 Phosphate Mining. 20,676 acres. Re-submittal of previous DRI in Hardee County. Next major project for Mosaic. Still no application submittal as of Paddock Park Ocala Abandonment 8/13/2010 9/2/2010 Abandonment of substantially completed commercial/office/residential mixed use project. 272 acres. Palmer Ranch Sarasota County ADA 4/2/2012 4/30/2012 Increment XX - Application for Increment Development Approval. 267 single family residential units on 217 acres. Palmer Ranch Isles of Sarasota Phase 3 Sarasota County NOPC 7/11/2011 Increment XVII NOPC to add 38.4 acres with no increase in density.

239 Project DRI Location DRI App Type Date Assigned Date Completed Description Parrish Lakes Manatee County ADA - 2nd Sufficiency Parrish Lakes Manatee County Final DRI Review Robinson Gateway Manatee County ADA - Initial Review Robinson Gateway Manatee County ADA - 1st Sufficiency 1/7/2011 2/8/2011 No substantive comments made. 2/28/2011 3/22/2011 Final Recommended Comments for development - Mixed Use - 1,155 acres. Proposes 3300 residential units, 400,000 sf of retail and office and a mixed-use town center. 12/29/2010 1/21/2011 Conducting ADA review. 7/11/2011 Packet incomplete; waiting for additional materials. This was the first review of materials on file to date. 15 Southbend Hillsborough NOPC 5/4/2010 6/1/2011 Mixed use. Tampa Bay Center Hillsborough NOPC 5/13/2010 6/9/2011 Commercial. The Villages of Sumter Sumter NOPC 9/12/2010 1/5/2010 Mixed Use. 13,489 acres. Reduction in retail and office uses; increase in residential based on land use matrix exchange. The Villages of Wildwood Sumter NOPC 9/15/ /8/2010 Mixed Use. 13,477 acres. Addition of 4.71 acres to Town Center. Villages of Wildwood - 3rd NOPC Sumter County NOPC 5/3/2011 Several proposed changes to Map H and Map H-1 regarding land use types and intensities. ADA DRI NOPC Pre-App SD Application for Development Approval Development of Regional Impact Notice of Proposed Change Pre-Application Meeting Substantial Deviation

240 Item 30 Outreach and Planning Committee June 26, 2012 Routine Report Significant Activities Water Conservation Activities The District promotes water conservation and protection year-round using a variety of methods including public service advertising, news media outreach, the District s website, special events, utility bill inserts, outreach to existing partners and social media efforts such as the online WaterMatters.org Newsletter, Facebook and Twitter. New Activities Since Last Meeting Staff launched the Watch the weather, wait to water! campaign, which will be promoted June through September. The campaign informs residents that during these summer months, yards need no more than ¾ inch of rain every 2 to 3 days. The campaign reminds people that if their lawn has received enough water from rainfall, they can turn off their irrigation system and turn it back on when needed. The campaign features a website and tip card. The campaign will be promoted through traditional and social media, WaterMatters Magazine and the WaterMatters.org Newsletter. Research The Communications Bureau uses research to enhance education program design, plan communications strategies and evaluate programs. For example, focus groups have been used in the development of campaigns, and public opinion surveys have been used to evaluate these campaigns. A database of the District s social research is available at WaterMatters.org/SocialResearch/. New Activities Since Last Meeting WaterReuse Research Foundation Advisory Committee: Staff will serve as a project advisor for the WateReuse Research Foundation on its upcoming project, Public Acceptance Clearinghouse of Information for Website. In this capacity, the staff member will serve as an advisor and reviewer during an RFP process that will result in an online clearinghouse of research and data on public acceptance of alternative water supplies (e.g., reclaimed water, desalination). Water Quality/Springs Protection Focus Group Results: A series of focus groups was conducted Nov Jan in Marion, Citrus and Hernando counties. Groups of homeowners, landscape company owners and landscape company employees were selected to determine their knowledge, attitude and behavior regarding proper fertilizing practices and how fertilizer affects water quality in springs. Significant findings from the research company s report are as follows: (1) Landscape company owners, managers and employees already believe they are utilizing proper fertilizing techniques. They do not believe that the springs and other water bodies will benefit from increased communication between themselves and homeowners. (2) People who do not live near a water body are less likely to understand and believe that their fertilizing activity can harm the springs and other water bodies in the area. (3) Homeowners do not necessarily see the relationship between increased and enhanced communication with their lawn services and the health of the springs and other water bodies. (4) Homeowners do not know the qualifications of their landscape companies and their employees. (5) Homeowners trust the University of Florida and, to a lesser extent, the District regarding fertilizing techniques and preservation of water bodies. Water Conservation Hotel and Motel Program (Water CHAMP SM ) and Water Program for Restaurant Outreach (Water PRO SM ) Water CHAMP SM promotes water conservation in hotels and motels by encouraging guests to use their towels and linens more than once during their stay. Participating hotels and motels receive program materials free of charge. In 2008, the Districtwide five-year water audit confirmed Water CHAMP participants saved an average of 17 gallons of water per occupied room per day. Based on these audit findings, the cost benefit for the program, using the total cost amortized over five years, is $0.47 per thousand gallons of water saved. Water PRO SM educates both restaurateurs and guests through free materials such as table tents, children s 16

241 Item 30 coloring sheets, coasters and self-audit checklists. We serve water only upon request buttons are also available for wait staff. The program is being promoted through one-on-one visits with restaurant managers, partnerships with utility companies, networking at industry meetings and direct mail. New Activities Since Last Meeting The March/April issue of Florida Restaurant & Lodging magazine featured an ad promoting the use of Water CHAMP and Water PRO materials. The magazine is the official publication of the Florida Restaurant & Lodging Association. Florida Water Star SM (FWS) Certification Program FWS is a voluntary certification program for builders, which encourages water efficiency in appliances, plumbing fixtures, irrigation systems and landscapes, as well as water quality benefits from best management practices (BMPs) in landscapes. The program includes certifications for new homes, existing homes, commercial properties and communities. This is the program s fourth year in the District; the first house was certified March 25, New Activities Since Last Meeting Agreements: Builders who intend to incorporate FWS criteria in current or future projects sign nonbinding participation agreements with the District. To date, 26 agreements have been signed, representing approximately 544 properties. Certifications: As of June 3, this District has certified 205 properties. Florida-Friendly Landscaping Recognizing the potential of water conservation and water quality protection through promotion of Florida-Friendly Landscaping (FFL) practices, the District began partnering with the University of Florida in FY2001 to support FFL education. Education on landscaping best management practices in 15 counties is provided to audiences that include homeowners, students, builders, landscape and irrigation professionals, property managers, and members and boards of community associations. New Activities Since Last Meeting (1) Hernando: The FFL program reports that seven short videos were filmed featuring different aspects of FFL principles including micro-irrigation, rain gardens and Florida-friendly fertilizing. These videos will air on the Hernando County government broadcast station as a conservation television special. An estimated 15,000 viewers per episode will potentially see these videos. The videos will also be placed on Hernando County s FFL website and Facebook page. In addition, the FFL coordinator received a 60 percent return rate on a follow-up survey from a rain barrel class. More than 90 percent of respondents state they have installed their rain barrels and are using them for supplemental irrigation. (2) Citrus: The FFL program reports that 64 residents responded to its Citrus County Chronicle news article about natural forms of pest control. These residents called to request the larraflower seed because it helps control mole crickets, an invasive pest that can damage vegetables, plants and turf grass. This non-toxic method of biological control helps prevent groundwater pollution that could otherwise occur through the use of pesticides. (3) Manatee County: The FFL program reports it is working with local aquatic plant growers and Manatee County to allow growers to install plant material and maintain county ponds in exchange for harvesting plant material on a biannual basis. Through this partnership, the county has lower maintenance costs and the grower has free space to grow plants. Watershed/Water Quality Education The District s watershed education efforts focus on water quality, stormwater runoff, water conservation and natural systems. Through these efforts, the District encourages specific behaviors such as reducing fertilizer and pesticide use, maintaining septic systems, conserving water, disposing of trash appropriately and picking up and properly disposing of pet waste. New Activities Since Last Meeting Lakes Education/Action Drive (LE/AD) held its Project EAGLE event on April 28. Volunteers removed more than two tons of trash from lakes in Lakeland and Winter Haven. Staff is also working with LE/AD on language for three signs. (2) Based on survey and focus group research results pertaining to fertilizer use and how it impacts water quality in springs, staff is creating an education plan targeting the District s northern counties. The goal of the program is to minimize further water quality impacts that result from inappropriate fertilizer use. 17

242 Item 30 Community Education Grant Program The Community Education Grant (CEG) program is in its fifteenth year and is funded through Initiatives for Public Education (P268). The CEG program offers reimbursement grants up to $7,500 for individuals, service groups, community associations and others to implement water resources education projects. New Activities Since Last Meeting The twelve projects approved for FY2012 are under way and will be completed by July 31, One of these May 16. At the event, more than 70 participants canoed down the Rainbow River and learned about actions they can take to preserve and protect water resources. Outreach/Special Events Public outreach is an important part of the District s education efforts. Special events provide an opportunity for District staff to meet residents, answer questions and present educational materials. More than 100 District staff members, representing several bureaus and all service offices, have joined two special event outreach teams coordinated by the Communications Bureau. New Activities Since Last Meeting The District hosted a booth at Pasco County Parks Earth Day event at Crews Lake Wilderness Park on April 28, where approximately 240 people received water resources information. The District also hosted a booth at Earthfest in Ocala on April 28, attracting approximately 145 visitors. Youth Education More than half the students and teachers in the District are reached through the Youth Water Resources Education program in a typical year. For FY2013, the staff's proposed Youth Water Resources Education Program has been streamlined to eliminate potential duplication and to enhance efficiency. Planned changes retain but limit the program's major components: school board agreements, grants for classroom projects, teacher training workshops, curriculum tools and publications for students and educators. For the FY school year, the following changes are being planned: (1) While educational resources and teacher training will continue to be offered to county school districts, charter schools, private schools, homeschool groups and nonformal educators, Splash! school grants and field studies programs will be offered only to school districts and charter schools. (2) The Splash! school grant process has been revamped to reduce staff time. (3) The types of teacher training workshops coordinated by staff throughout the District s 16 counties will be limited to Project WET (Water Education for Teachers) and The Great Water Odyssey SM. Kindergarten through twelfth-grade educators attending workshops will continue to receive curricula as well as District materials. (4) About half of the youth publication titles will be phased out. New Activities Since Last Meeting During May, members of the District s Youth Education Team presented at 4 schools and one community event, educating 2,218 students about the District, water resources and conservation. The Youth Education Team consists of more than 60 staff members from the four District service offices who have been trained by the Communications Bureau to provide classroom speaking engagements. Water Conservation Classroom Challenge: The online Conservation Challenge was promoted to youth audiences, offering K 12 teachers the opportunity to implement various water conservation activities in their classrooms. Each participating student also completed a water conservation pledge, promising to save 10 gallons of water per day. Approximately 1,531 teachers and 3,360 students participated this year. Splash! School Grants: This competitive grant program provides funding up to $3,000 per school to enhance student knowledge of freshwater resources issues. The District awarded 157 grants to teachers for the school year The grant cycle closed on June 1. Teachers are submitting their final documentation. Teacher Training: (1) A Great Water Odyssey workshop on May 2 educated 13 Marion County elementary teachers from Title 1 schools. (2) A May 15 Project WET workshop educated 16 Girl Scout leaders and staff members about water resources and water conservation. The workshop was held at Nature s Classroom in Hillsborough County. School District Coordination: (1) The District provides funding through school board agreements to implement water resources education programs for K 12 students and educators. During this school year ( ), agreements are in place for Charlotte, Citrus, DeSoto, Hardee, Hernando, Highlands, Hillsborough, Levy, Manatee, Marion, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota and Sumter school districts. (2) On May 4, the District hosted a handson field trip for 20 future Advanced Placement high school students from Sumter County. 18

243 Item 30 Students visited the District s Brooksville headquarters to learn about water resources and water-related STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) careers. (3) Staff from the District, the Polk County School Board and the Polk County Parks and Natural Resources Division participated in three teleconferences in May to establish a partnership for the school year. Publications: More than 287,720 copies of youth education publications and other materials have been distributed thus far during FY2012. Strategic Communications Planning The Media & Outreach Section works with staff from various bureaus to plan outreach efforts related to projects and programs that directly impact residents. This is done by analyzing any communications challenges that may exist and creating plans to address those challenges. Media & Outreach staff assist with the planning, execution and evaluation of these efforts. New Activities Since Last Meeting (1) Staff is working with the Water Resources Bureau to plan public outreach to residents living in Polk, Pasco and Hillsborough counties and the cities of Winter Haven and Clearwater in response to the five cooperatively funded reclaimed water aquifer recharge projects. Staff is also attending regular project meetings with the cooperators to discuss the communications plan and implementation. The public outreach survey planning started in April and staff is currently working with Kerr & Downs Research to finalize survey questions. Survey implementation is planned for June. (2) Staff is working with the Public Affairs Bureau to assist with planning a public open house kick-off meeting for the Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) planning process. Staff is currently assisting with the creation of a strategic communications plan and meeting invitation. Visual Communications Print The print team provides prepress layout, illustration and design of publications and displays for the Communications Bureau and Districtwide support. New Activities Since Last Meeting Regulation: Water restrictions emergency order ad for The Tampa Tribune; service office maps. Human Resources: Personalized certificates for bureau meeting; presentation graphics. Information Technology: Videoconferencing how-to posters and table tents. Communications: SPLASH! grant certificates; "Where's the Water?" illustration; Florida Water Star certificates; WaterMatters signup and Q&A sheets; City of Frostproof Toilet Rebate program flier and postcard; water conservation bus banners; species poster plots and mounting; species cards; Cockroach Bay posters for event; Cockroach Bay award submission materials; Watch the weather, wait to water campaign ad. Water Resources: Tampa Bay Water Regional Interconnected System graphic; 2010 Estimated Water Use cover; Water Use Assessment Program training certificates (70); ROMP 41 report draft layout. Natural Systems Restoration: Edward Chance Reserve and Myakka State Forest report covers for FDEP & USAC. Public Affairs: Rainbow River aerial poster plot, mount and laminate; FSAWRA meeting Thank You sponsors poster. Operations: Trail maps for kiosks (Lower Hillsborough Wilderness Preserve/Oak Ridge Equestrian Area, Starkey Wilderness Preserve/Serenova Tract); board member table tents for committee meeting; EOC cards; Emergency Operations Directory cover; hog hunt draft materials for web and print. Executive: Drafts of Activities Dashboard. Visual Communications Web The web team designs and develops website content and code. New Activities Since Last Meeting Water restrictions web data updated; watersheds micro-site launched; low-flow toilet rebates webpage created; Chief of Staff Intranet webpage launched. Monthly Web Trends: Overall site visits were up 13% from last month and up 20% from same period last year. Most popular webpages: Recreation (39,701 page views; down 10% from last month, up 39% from same period last year); Water Conservation (32,073 page views; up 22% from last month, up 49% from last year); Education (28,117 page views; up 17% from last month, up 25% from same period last year. Most increased traffic (excluding most popular webpages ): Water Restrictions (22,579 page views; up 107% from last month, up 140% from same period last year); epermitting (16,750 page views; up 14% from last month, up 41% from same period last year); Sinkholes (14,211 page views; up 131% from last month, up 153% from same period last year); Youth Education (11,309 page views; up 10% from last month, up 149% from same period last year. 19

244 Item 30 Public Affairs Bureau The Public Affairs Bureau supports the District s mission through a broad range of activities. Staff serves as liaisons with local, state and federal government officials and represents the District with a number of community organizations. Staff also advocates the District s legislative priorities and develops and implements strategies to acquire state and federal appropriations. Further, staff provides government and agency assistance, economic and demographic analysis, Board and Advisory Committee support, and outreach and strategic planning for the District. Legislation and Policy The Public Affairs Bureau acts as the District s day-to-day representatives before the Florida Legislature and U.S. Congress. This includes educating officials and staff regarding the mission of the District, providing information on issues and legislation, and coordinating our legislative program with other state and federal agencies. The department recommends, develops and executes the District s legislative program based on Governing Board and executive staff direction. Public Affairs staff works with executive, legal and other departments to develop and manage internal District legislative procedures and policies. New Activities since Last Meeting: The 2012 Legislative Session concluded March 12. All legislation passed and approved by the Governor took effect either upon approval or will take effect July 1. Campaign season is underway with the qualifying period for state and congressional races the week of June 4. The redistricting efforts have led to a number of current legislators making the choice between moving to a new district or running against another incumbent. District staff continue to meet with legislators during the interim on various budgetary and policy issues. The District hosted Representative Dana Young for a workgroup she initiated to begin discussion on water-related issues between agriculture and utilities. Additionally staff has begun the process of preparing legislative issues, in conjunction with the other districts and DEP, for the 2013 Legislative Session. Local Government Efforts As part of the District s community and legislative affairs program, the Public Affairs Bureau is responsible for (1) developing effective relationships with local elected and public officials and their staff, (2) serving as the District s day-to-day liaison with local officials, (3) facilitating coordination of District programs to assist local government entities, (4) promoting the mission of the District and (5) helping to develop and foster sound public policy on water resource related issues. To meet these responsibilities, PAB has developed long-standing programs and tactics, including but not limited to, project tours, the e-resource newsletter, alerts and one-on-one meetings. New Activities Since Last Meeting: Marion County Board of County Commissioners (5/1/2012) The BOCC approved a contract with the FDEP to provide facilitation and technical services for the development of the Basin Management Action Plan (BMAP) for Silver Springs. Marion County will provide BMAP facilitation support and project data collection support in collaboration with FDEP staff. The agreement will be for $34,357 and will be reimbursed by FDEP. Hernando County Board of County Commissioners (5/8/2012) The BOCC received a letter requesting the BOCC to send a letter to the District supporting the renaming of the Weekiwachee Preserve to the Weekiwachee Arline Erdrich Preserve. After a brief discussion the Board decided to not only send a letter but also a resolution to the District supporting the proposed name change. The Board also approved a resolution notifying the Secretary of State that Hernando County will opt-out of the new statutory requirement to implement local sewage treatment and disposal system evaluations commonly called septic tank inspections under HB This required a supermajority vote which passed 5-0. Bay Area Legislative Delegation Meeting (5/8/12) Marty Tanner, president of the Florida Aquaculture Association voiced his concerns over the District's regulatory process noting that it took over a year to receive his permit and that the District reduced his water quantities. He said this negatively affects the aquaculture industry that represents one of the largest exports from the Tampa area. Senator Bennett expressed his concerns that he had not heard of any consumptive use complaints for more than two years and encouraged Mr. Tanner to bring 20

245 Item 30 concerns to the delegation. Representative Dana Young stated she would be creating a workgroup between agriculture, public supply and the water management districts to address issues such as Mr. Tanner described. Public affairs staff reviewed Mr. Tanner's permits with regulatory staff. Mr. Tanner has two permits with the District, both renewed with no decrease in quantities and not in the time-frame Mr. Tanner claimed. Charlotte County Agricultural & Natural Resources Advisory Committee ( ) Charlotte County staff discussed the ongoing revisions to the County s Earthmoving Ordinance with the committee members. Members of this committee include representatives for various agricultural commodity groups including citrus, vegetable, livestock and other agricultural interests. District FARMS staff has provided comments to County. Ed Craig, FARMS manager, further expressed the District s interests in this ordinance and how it impacts the FARMS program. County staff said the ordinance fees are being tweaked and therefore, staff has postponed presentation to the County s Planning and Zoning Commission and County Commission so they can present both the ordinance and fee schedule at the same time. During public comment, Chairman Michael Jones asked if the District s reorganization is complete and do we anticipate any further changes. Public affairs staff said there may be further small adjustments and encouraged the committee members to contact District staff if they encounter any issues. Citrus County Task Force (5/14/2012) The CCTF received an update on the Withlacoochee River Watershed Initiative from District staff and its consultant, Atkins Global, Inc. The presentation focused on the Withlacoochee River Model and its capabilities. The CCTF also received an update on the Dead River Plains by District staff. The Dead River Plains consists of 200 acres of marsh adjacent to the Withlacoochee River that is dominated by woody vegetation. Some members of the CCTF have suggested that this area impedes flow from the river to the Tsala Apopka chain of lakes and has requested that the area be maintained. Staff provided a presentation on who is responsible for maintaining the area and some of the options for maintaining it. Currently the District is maintaining the area with prescribed burns. The FDEP also has management responsibilities on this parcel. Crystal River City Council (5/14/2012) The Council had a brief discussion on HB 1263 Septic Tank Legislation. The Council was informed that Hernando County has opted out and that Citrus County has taken no action to date. Andy Houston, city manager, informed the Council that Crystal River has only about 12 septic tanks within its city limits. Mr. Houston informed the Council that they have until January 2013 to decide if they will opt out or implement a septic tank ordinance. The Council took no action on the matter. City of Sarasota Commission Meeting (5/11/12) During this meeting the Commission selected a Mayor for and Mayor Suzanne Atwell was chosen to serve again in that capacity. Commissioner Willie Shaw was selected as Vice Mayor. FWC/SWFWMD/Polk County Joint Meeting (5/15/12) At the request of the county, District and FWC staff met to discuss a boat ramp for public access on Lake Hancock. Mike Callender County Parks Director provided an overview and history in trying to determine a location as well as the economic impact commercial fishing and gator hunting provides the county. District staff then reviewed the proposed sites identified by the county explaining how they would be either impossible or more difficult to construct than a location on the Hampton Track. Mr. Callender felt the Hampton Track would pose more issues due to a low lying shoreline which would require the need to construct a canal to gain access to the lake. He believed the cost to design, permit and build may be prohibitive. FWC reviewed their grant program and how it not only helps in the construction of public access boat ramps but also helps pay for design/engineering. They will work with the county to ensure all the requirements are met when submitting an application. The District will commit to allowing the county to use a location on the Hampton Track, potentially help with mitigation and permitting. Grant applications are due to FWC beginning in November for grant awards in August. Withlacoochee Regional Water Supply Authority (5/16/2012) The WRWSA Board interviewed the final three candidates for the executive director position. The Board selected Richard Owen for the position, pending contract negotiations. The Board briefly discussed the Adena Springs Ranch CUP and correspondence it received from the SJRWMD informing the Board that they will be copied on correspondence related to that permit. 21

246 Item 30 Sumter County Leadership Tour (5/17/2012) District staff gave a presentation on the restoration efforts on Lake Panasoffkee followed by a tour of the lake. The group consisted of approximately 20 individuals that are going through the Leadership Sumter County program. Hernando County Groundwater Guardians (5/17/2012) The HCGG members include stakeholders affiliated with the groundwater resources in Hernando County as well as representatives from regional and local government agencies. Public affairs staff provided a hydrologic update and briefly discussed the selection of a new executive director for the WRWSA. The group took a tour of area lakes to see first-hand the effects of declining water levels related to the drought. Marion County Farm Bureau (5/18/2012) The Marion County Farm Bureau hosted the 2012 Legislative Farm Tour. The bus tour included stops at a cattle operation, citrus grove and blueberry farm in Marion County. The purpose of the tour was to showcase the County s diversity in agriculture and give farmers a direct line of communication with their elected officials. The primary topic of discussion with elected officials had to do with legislation that affects the ability of farmers to hire the necessary seasonal work-force. The discussion included the requirements of E-verify. Participants included Senators Evelyn Lynn and Alan Hays along with Marion County Commissioners Mike Amsden, Stan McClain, Carl Zalak and Charlie Stone. Highlands County BOCC (5/22/12) - District staff provided and update on the study, results and any future actions for Lake Jackson Minimum Level. Keith Kolasa provided an overview of the District's lake level programs and guidelines. He reviewed the data used in analyzing Lake Jackson, dating back to The data prior to 1966 could not be used to set guidelines due to the construction of the Jackson/Josephine Canal after MFL's allow for and consider structural alterations in setting these levels. Dr. Gary Williams shared the results of a study illustrating where the water is going and whether or not a recovery strategy was economically feasible. Gary also discussed the decline in rainfall since He then reviewed the model used in the watershed to determine what, if any, can be done to raise the level with simulations including adding additional structures to the Jackson/Josephine Canal. The model showed "no significant" increase to lake levels by adding one or even two structures to the canal. Bottom line, rainfall is and continues to be a significant reason for low lake levels. The County Commissioners supported the District s findings, but had a few questions on the modeling. District staff answered their questions. Polk County Farm Bureau Meeting (5/24/12) Public affairs staff met with Farm Bureau's Executive Director and President Les Dunson and member Jerry Mixon. Staff provided an update on the District's re-organization and discussed the FARMS program. Primarily, they wanted to hear more about the Central Florida Water Initiative and the District's Peace Creek Watershed Management Plan and how it relates to the City of Winter Haven's Sustainable Water Resources Plan. Staff provided proposed timelines for each initiative and explained the FEMA DFIRM process. Planning Regional Planning Councils o Central Florida Regional Planning Council (5/9/2012) - The majority of this meeting was dedicated to considering the Application for Development Approval for CF Industries South Pasture Extension Mine DRI. The applicant has requested to mine an additional 7,513 acres adjacent to their existing operations in Hardee County. CF Industries proposes to protect 1,095 acres predominately on the western side of the property. This area encompasses Brushy Creek and Lettuce Creek, both of which are tributaries to Horse Creek and ultimately the Peace River. The proposal does not include any additional water use permit quantities. During the public comment some concerns regarding flooding (associated with Troublesome Creek) and the neighboring Florida Institute of Neurological Research were expressed; however the Council unanimously approved the application. The DRI still needs to be approved by the Hardee County BoCC. o Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (5/14/12) - The Council s Executive Budget Committee met prior to the full meeting to discuss funding changes and to approve the 2011/2012 Mid Year Budget Amendment. At the Council meeting, Ms. Huiwei Shen, Intergovernmental Programs Administrator for FDOT provided a status report on the Florida s Future Corridors Program, which is a cooperative effort with the Florida 22

247 Item 30 Transportation Commission to work with statewide, regional, and local partners in identifying statewide transportation corridors that can be improved or developed over the next 50 years. The Program will be focused on expanding connectivity between major economic centers, developing rail and water transportation options, adding capacity to existing facilities, and developing new infrastructure to fill major gaps. The Council passed Resolution # declaring the month of June as Hurricane Awareness Month in the Tampa Bay region. o Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council (6/4/2012) -The Tampa Bay Regional Collaboration Committee consisting of 13 appointed Council members was created three months ago to explore and identify regional collaboration opportunities including port development, transportation and increasing connectivity between cities. The Committee will hold its first public meeting on June 18, from 1:30 3:30 pm at the TBRPC office to discuss airports. The directors from the three (TPA, SRQ and PIE) Tampa Bay area international airports will be in attendance to discuss regional collaboration opportunities. Chuck Warrington, Managing Director for Clearwater Gas Systems and Leroy Sullivan, Regional Manager for TECO Peoples Gas provided an overview of natural gas uses, benefits and opportunities for central Florida. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the politics of supporting natural gas and potential strategies for maximizing natural gas use in the Tampa Bay area. The 2012 Official Hurricane Guide is now available for seven counties: Citrus, Hernando, Hillsborough, Manatee, Pasco, Pinellas and Sarasota. The Council is hosting the 46 th Annual National Association of Regional Councils Annual Conference at the Renaissance Vinoy, June 10 through June 14. This national conference will bring in over 400 elected officials and regional planning professionals from across the nation. There is no scheduled TBRPC meeting for July. o Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council (5/17/12) - The Council heard a presentation from Dr. Lisa Beever of the Charlotte Harbor National Estuary Program and had a lively discussion on topics ranging from numeric nutrient criteria, fertilizer ordinances and legislation, the Bone Valley phosphate mining EIS, and the Mosaic South Fort Meade Mine Settlement Agreement/Peaceful Horse Ranch acquisition. The Council also debated the appropriateness of contracting with the City of Bonita Springs to provided technical assistance regarding the site selection and operation of homeless shelters. Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) Population and Demand Subcommittee - The group concluded its third of three meetings to address concerns expressed by Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS) officials over agricultural water demands. The water management districts presented data demonstrating that estimated agricultural water use is generally less than either permitted or projected use. While indicating that several issues should be considered, such as intensification (double cropping), in the future, DACS is sufficiently comfortable with the acreage projections prepared by the three water management districts to move forward. They continue to have concerns about the translation of acreage to quantities for modeling purposes. Another meeting may be held on June 6 if these concerns persist. It was also noted that the issue paper requested by DEP on the sufficiency of DEP monthly operating reports (MORs) for estimating public supply service area population and use has been reviewed by four of the five water management districts and has been forwarded to DEP. CFWI Public Involvement Subcommittee - The CFWI Regional Water Supply Plan (RWSP) Team has selected Parsons Corporation to assist with the technical editing and writing of the RWSP. Staff from each water management district are working closely with the consultant to develop a scope of work and schedule of deliverables. The CFWI RWSP Public Involvement Team will hold a public meeting to provide stakeholders with information on the development of the RWSP. The meeting will be an informal, open house format on June 28, from 4-7 p.m., at the Lakefront Marina Building, 1104 Lakeshore Blvd., St. Cloud, FL The Public Involvement Team has also finalized the Communications Plan and submitted it to the Management Oversight Committee for review. Polk Vision Infrastructure Task Force (5/18/12) - The Infrastructure Task Force met at Circle B Bar Ranch on Lake Hancock to discuss implementation of several efforts relating to water resources and natural systems. The group heard a presentation from Gaye Sharpe of Polk County Natural Resources Department on the County s effort to complete a Habitat Conservation Plan. The plan is part of a federal permitting process to ensure that species 23

248 Item 30 such as the sand skink, scrub jay and indigo snake are protected from adverse impacts associated with development. Essentially, the HCP will establish mitigation banks for these protected species. The HCP is expected to streamline lead times and offer regulatory certainty for new development. The group also heard a presentation from Mike Britt of the City of Winter Haven on the Water Resource Sustainability Plan and discussed several possible strategies for implementation, including land development code revisions. Community Services In addition to acting as the District s liaison to local government, the Public Affairs Bureau is responsible for the primary grassroots and grasstops efforts with local community organization and groups. These include the agricultural community, environmental groups, business associations and others. These relationships provide a pivotal component of the District s legislative program and allow for opportunities to communicate the District s mission, policies and the goals. New Activities Since Last Meeting: Withlacoochee Gulf Preserve Advisory Committee (5/4/2012) - The WGP is a 413-acre property purchased by Yankeetown with a Florida Communities Trust (FCT) Grant. The WGP is in the process of developing a management plan in accordance with the FCT Award Agreement. The WGP Board of Trustees has assembled an advisory committee consisting of representatives from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, US Fish and Wildlife Services, Mote Marine Laboratory, Florida Forest Service, USGS, and several stakeholder groups. Janie Hinson, Mayor of Yankeetown, requested a District representative for the WGP Advisory Committee. The first meeting of the Advisory Committee included a tour of the facilities and involved a group discussion on management strategies for the WGP. I provided information regarding possible funding opportunities available to the WGP such at the Community Education Grants and the Cooperative Funding Initiative. East Polk Republican Club (5/7/12) - Governing Board Member Neil Combee provided a presentation on the District at the Club s monthly meeting. Approximately 20 members attended the meeting and asked questions related to Peace Creek restoration, current drought conditions and sludge application in the county. Southwest Florida Water Workshop (5/17/12) - Approximately 19 growers attended the workshop that was organized by Florida Farm Bureau, Florida Fruit and Vegetable Association and FDACS Office of Ag Water Policy. Speaking topics included: numeric nutrient criteria, statewide permitting consistency efforts, incentives for water conservation and IFAS research. The discussion on compensating growers to hold water on their land seemed to interest several attendees. Rich Budell, FDACS, stated that there are currently eight contracts for this type of program in the northern Everglades area of the SFWMD. Legislation was passed last session to move forward with additional projects statewide. Ann Shortelle, FDEP, encouraged attendees to bring forth any ideas on incentivizing conservation in agriculture. Other questions pertained to water use permitting length and the reduction of permitted quantities. Staff Recommendation: This item is provided for the Committee's information, and no action is required. Presenter: David T. Rathke, Chief of Staff 24

249 E. Regulation

250 Governing Board Meeting June 26, 2012 REGULATION COMMITTEE Discussion Items 31. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion 32. Denial(s) Referred to the Governing Board... 2 Submit & File Report None Routine Reports 33. Southern Water Use Caution Area Quantities Overpumpage Report E-Permitting Metrics: Online vs. Paper Applications Individual Permits Issued by District Staff Resource Regulation Significant Initiatives Report... 11

251 Item 32 Regulation Committee June 26, 2012 Discussion Item Denials Referred to the Governing Board District Rule 40D , Florida Administrative Code, provides that if District staff intends to deny a permit application for incompleteness, the applicant will be advised of the opportunity to request referral to the Governing Board for final action. Under these circumstances, if an applicant or petitioner requests their application or petition be referred to the Governing Board for final action, that application or petition will appear under this agenda item for consideration. As these items will be presented at the request of an outside party, specific information may not be available until just prior to the Governing Board meeting. Staff Recommendation: If any denials are requested to be referred to the Governing Board, these will be presented at the meeting. Presenter: Alba E. Más, P.E., Director, Regulation Division 2

252 1,800 1,600 SOUTHERN WATER USE CAUTION AREA TOTAL AND FLORIDAN AQUIFER PERMITTED ANNUAL AVERAGE QUANTITIES AND ESTIMATED ANNUAL AVERAGE GROUNDWATER QUANTITIES USED 1, ,200 1, Year

253 Overpumpage Report April 2012 Preparing for Legal (1) Permit No. Permit Holder Use Type Permitted Quantity Original Report Date Annual Avg. Use Percent Over Current Report Date Annual Avg. Use Percent Over Service Office Glen Lakes Partnership, Inc. Recreational/ Aesthetic 402,200 gpd 02/01/ ,429 gpd 22.19% 05/01/ ,333 gpd 41.06% Brooksville Kasmark, Inc. Recreational/ Aesthetic 192,440 gpd 02/01/ ,169 gpd 39.35% 05/01/ ,156 gpd 28.43% Brooksville Leffie M Carlton LII & Charles D Carlton Agriculture 248,100 gpd 02/01/ ,944 gpd 12.43% 05/01/ ,273 gpd 22.84% Bartow South Property Holdings LLC Agriculture 124,600 gpd 2/01/ ,871 gpd 33.12% 05/01/ ,926 gpd 33.17% Bartow Princess Grove LLC Agriculture 194,500 gpd 2/01/ ,803 gpd 18.15% 05/01/ ,318 gpd 20.99% Bartow Growers Investment Group LLC Agriculture 171,000 gpd 2/01/ ,868 gpd 58.99% 05/01/ ,038 gpd 53.24% Bartow Ray Bob Groves, Inc. Agriculture 194,700 gpd 02/01/ ,603 gpd 14.84% 05/01/ ,016 gpd 29.44% Bartow (1) Preliminary determination is that permits are in non-compliance; file is being prepared for OGC or is under review by Regulation staff.

254 Overpumpage Report April Preparing for Legal (1) Continued Permit No. Permit Holder Use Type Royal Oaks of Citrus HOA Thelma C. Raley Inc. Recreational/ Aesthetic Agriculture Permitted Quantity 68,000 gpd 420,200 gpd Hunt Bros Inc. Agriculture 158,400 gpd Laman Land Development LLC Recreational/ Aesthetic 222,200 gpd Hunt Bros Inc. Agriculture 111,200 gpd Florida Governmental Utility Authority Public Supply 2,040,000 Original Report Date Annual Avg. Use Percent Over 12/28/ ,244 gpd 28.30% 12/28/ ,710 gpd 11.31% 12/28/ gpd 48.36% 12/28/ ,704 gpd 34.88% 12/28/ ,893 gpd 11.41% 12/28/2011 2,638,879 gpd 29.36% Current Report Date Annual Avg. Use Percent Over 05/01/ ,162 gpd 16.41% 05/01/ gpd 14.60% 05/01/ ,013 gpd 51.52% 05/01/ gpd 22.51% 05/01/ ,144 gpd 22.40% 05/01/2012 2,375,958 gpd 16.47% Service Office Brooksville Bartow Bartow Bartow Bartow Brooksville (1) Preliminary determination is that permits are in non-compliance; file is being prepared for OGC or is under review by Regulation staff.

255 (1) Preparing for Legal Permit No. Permit Holder Use Type Continuing From Previous Report Overpumpage Report April 2012 Permitted Quantity Original Report Date Annual Average Use Percent Over Current Report Date Annual Avg. Use Percent Over Service Office Premier Citrus LLC Agriculture 752,400 gpd 06/28/2011 1,125,129 gpd 49.54% 5/1/ ,962 gpd 15.49% Sarasota Seville LLC Recreational/ Aesthetic 307,000 gpd 10/27/ ,674 gpd 33.44% 5/1/ ,289 gpd 12.15% Brooksville MJS Golf Group LLC Recreational/ Aesthetic Golf Course 76,607 gpd 11/28/2011 1,162,744 gpd 1,417.80% 5/1/ ,523 gpd % Brooksville Escalante Black Diamond Golf Club, LLC Recreational/ Aesthetic Golf Course 757,080 gpd 8/29/ ,650 gpd 30.32% 5/1/ ,547 gpd 22.11% Brooksville Association of Marion Landing Owners, Inc. Public Supply 179,400 gpd 12/28/ ,027 gpd 20.42% 5/1/ ,158 gpd 7.11% Brooksville Stony Pointe LP Agricultural 127,300 gpd 12/28/ ,630 gpd 34.04% 5/1/ ,633 gpd 84.32% Brooksville Waverly Growers Cooperative Agricultural 158,900 gpd 12/28/ ,579 gpd % 5/1/ ,290 gpd 28.57% Bartow (1) Preliminary determination is that permit is in non-compliance; file is being prepared for OGC or is under review by Regulation staff.

256 Active Files in Legal Overpumpage Report April 2012 (2) (3) and Consent Order Monitoring Permit No. Permit Holder Use Type Permitted Quantity Original Report Date Annual Avg. Use Percent Over Current Report Date Annual Avg. Use Percent Over Service Office GB Approved CO Date Continuing From Previous Report Country Club Utilities 2 Public Supply 183,000 gpd 06/28/ ,063 gpd 41.56% 4/1/ ,576 gpd % Bartow Citrus County Sugarmill Woods* 3 Public Supply 2,211,000 gpd 06/28/2006 2,783,803 gpd 25.91% 5/1/2012 2,414,305 gpd 9.20% Brooksville AUG MILMACK INC. 3 Aesthetic Recreation/ Golf Course 282,700 gpd 11/28/ ,678 gpd 20.15% 5/1/ ,103 gpd 28.79% Bartow FEB 12 (2) Regulation staff concurs with non-compliance and file is in Legal for enforcement. No reported data available for April (3) Legal pursued enforcement action and a Consent Order has been signed; corrective actions are now being monitored for compliance. *WUP 9791 Citrus County had a Permitted Annual Average of 2,010,000 gpd until February 24, 2009 (new revision issued)

257 E-Permitting Performance Metrics May 2012 PERMIT APRIL 2012 MAY 2012 SIX MONTH AVERAGE ONE YEAR AVERAGE Well Construction Permits Public on-line use for applications and completion report submission 91% (738) 94% (832) 92% (4,727) 91% (7,654) 8 Water Use Permits Public on-line use for applications 45% (45) 41% (47) 35% (265) 33% (437) Environmental Resource Permits Public on-line use for applications 33% (69) 35% (72) 28% (429) 22% (580) GOAL: Reach online utilization of 80% for each category by October 1, This will be based on the annual average.

258 INDIVIDUAL PERMITS ISSUED: ERPS MAY 2012 PERMIT NUMBER PROJECT NAME Fruitville Initiative Parcels & FDOT Fill / Celery Fields Compensation COUNTY Sarasota Fox Chase Centre Pinellas DESCRIPTION Conceptual approval of surface water management system Conceptual approval; permit application submitted in response to compliance issue tracked under CT TOTAL PROJECT ACRES WETLAND ACRES WETLAND ACRES IMPACTED WETLAND MITIGATION ACRES , Independence Park Hillsborough Authorizes construction of 42.3 acre commercial redevelopment project, including modifications to existing parking lot, asphalt drives and surface water management facilities Del Webb Orlando Mass Grading Construction Plans Polk Authorizes construction of new surface water management system to serve a acre mass grading project for a future residential subdivision Lake Meade Water Quality Improvements CIP Hillsborough Authorizes construction of new surface water management system to alleviate flooding in the Brandon area of Hillsborough County, generally located in the area surrounding the Larson Avenue and North Parsons Avenue intersection Villages of Sumter Belle Glade Golf Course Sumter Modification of surface water management system under ERP Wetland Mitigation Acres may be zero or less than Wetland Acres Impacted for a variety of reasons. Some of those reasons are: impacted wetlands require no mitigation by rule (e.g., upland cut manmade ditches, etc.); quality of the impacted wetlands is less than the quality of proposed mitigation; or mitigation is provided through a different permit or a mitigation bank.

259 INDIVIDUAL PERMITS ISSUED: WUPS MAY 2012 PERMIT NUMBER PROJECT NAME COUNTY DESCRIPTION USE TYPE PREVIOUS PERMITTED QUANTITY NEW PERMITTED QUANTITY DURATION (YEARS) Fort Meade Chemical Plant Polk Renewal with decrease in quantities due to reduction of the total catchment area with the volume of process water remaining to be treated for closure of the gypsum stacks Industrial & Commercial 9,150,000 6,242, Busch Gardens Tampa & Adventure Island Hillsborough Renewal with modification to reflect incorporation of any new alternative sources of water, continue to implement the District-approved water conservation plan and submit a report on water conservation efforts along with progress son utilizing District ID No. 22 in 2017 Recreation / Aesthetic 1,810,000 1,810, City of Port Richey Service Area Pasco Renewal; quantities decreased because of a lower per capita rate due to enhanced water conservation measures Public Supply 1,165,000 1,050, County Line Farm DeSoto Renewal (tomatoes) Agricultural 2,259,100 2,259, H D Budd Farms, Inc. Manatee Renewal with no changes Agricultural 750, ,000 10

260 Item 37 Regulation Committee June 26, 2012 Routine Report Resource Regulation Significant Initiatives Report This report provides information regarding significant activities within the Resource Regulation Division. Recent activity within each of the District's major permitting programs is provided, followed by information regarding other significant activities. Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) The District continues to coordinate with the St. Johns River and South Florida Water Management Districts, the Florida Departments of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Agriculture and Consumer Services (DACS), and public water supply utilities on the assessment of groundwater sustainability and development of water supply solutions, including regulations, for the Central Florida Coordination Area (CFCA). The initiative, now known as the Central Florida Water Initiative (CFWI) to reflect the emphasis on stakeholder involvement, is focused on a single model solution, creating a consistent definition of environmental impact/harm, agreement on the baseline reference condition and a basis of review for all technical decisions. Once these milestones are achieved, the emphasis will shift to determining groundwater availability and the potential necessity of alternative water supplies to meet the regional water supply demand. A decision-making process has been established featuring an Executive Steering Committee comprised of one Governing Board member from each district, senior level staff representatives from DEP and DACS, and a public water supply utilities representative. A Management Oversight Committee and a Technical Oversight Committee form the next level of governance. These committees supervise the technical teams that perform hydrologic modeling, environmental assessments, planning and analysis and development of resource management options for consideration by the Steering Committee. Further information on the CFWI can be found at the website New activities since last meeting: The CFWI Steering Committee met on May 18, 2012 in Kissimmee. The Committee approved standards for MFL peer review in the CFWI and an updated draft of the CFWI Guidance Document. Presentations were made on the groundwater model, the Regional Water Supply Plan for CFWI, and the Groundwater Availability Team s schedule and methodology. The Steering Committee is tentatively scheduled to meet on June 29 th in Kissimmee. Assistant Executive Director Robert Beltran is now representing the District on the Management Oversight Committee. Establishment of Numeric Water Quality Standards for Nutrients Under the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303, states are required to establish water quality standards, which define the amounts of pollutants (in either numeric or narrative form) that waters can contain without impairment of their designated beneficial uses. Florida currently uses a narrative nutrient standard to guide the management and protection of its waters. In July 2008, the Florida Wildlife Federation and other environmental groups sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in an attempt to compel the prompt adoption of numeric nutrient criteria in Florida. EPA signed a consent decree (subsequently revised) which obligates them to adopt final numeric nutrient standards for Florida s fresh water lakes and streams by November 2010 and estuaries and coastal systems by November The final rule for lakes and flowing waters was published in the Federal Register on December 6, The rule takes effect 15 months after publication except for the Site-Specific Alternative Criteria (SSAC) provision, which was effective starting March In April 2011, the FDEP filed a petition requesting the EPA withdraw its January 2009 determination, that numeric criteria are necessary in Florida, and restore to the state its responsibility for the control of excess nutrients. In a June 2011 response, EPA did not grant or deny the petition. EPA noted they will repeal the existing federally promulgated freshwater numeric criteria if FDEP adopts and EPA approves of protective criteria. EPA also noted they will not propose or promulgate criteria for any as yet unaddressed waters (estuarine, coastal, 11

261 Item 37 south Florida canals) if FDEP adopts legally effective criteria under Florida law. EPA stated they would seek an extension to the deadlines in the consent decree so that Florida can continue to focus on completing its own rulemaking provided FDEP has made substantial progress toward adoption of approvable standards. As a result of the EPA response, FDEP pursued rule development of criteria for fresh water lakes, springs and streams. In October 2011, FDEP published a Statement of Estimated Regulatory Costs (SERC) related to their water quality standards rulemaking. The SERC concludes that the rules are not likely to impact economic growth, private-sector employment or have an adverse impact on business competitiveness. It also states the rule is likely to increase regulatory costs and may impact greater than 5,000 small businesses. It states the cost to implement the rules will likely be borne by large entities, such as wastewater dischargers, agricultural and urban stormwater dischargers. In December 2011, the Florida Wildlife Federation and other environmental groups filed suit against FDEP to invalidate the existing and proposed rules relating to nutrient criterion in Chapter , Florida Administrative Code. The petitioners claim the rules are not designed to protect state waters from nutrient over-enrichment. On December 6, 2011, Floridan State University published The Economic Impact of the FDEP Proposed Numeric Nutrient Criteria in Florida. The report estimates the final median annual costs associated with the FDEP rule are $80,523,041. No costs were calculated for facilities discharging in the South Nutrient Watershed Region. On December 8, 2011, the State s Environmental Regulation Commission (ERC) approved FDEP s proposed rules with additional amendments. Legislation ratifying FDEP s rules was signed into law on February 16, FDEP formally transmitted the rules to EPA for approval the following week. EPA is not able to officially act on the FDEP rules until they have been upheld by the Administrative Law Judge in Tallahassee. The US District Court, Judge Hinkle, issued an initial ruling on several of the pending legal challenges. The order upheld EPA s determination that numeric criteria are necessary, upheld the lake and springs criteria, but rejected the streams criteria. The Court also approved a motion to extend the deadline to propose coastal and estuarine criteria from May 2012 to November A separate motion to extend the effective date of the rules (lakes and springs) from March 2012 to July 2012 was approved. New activities since last meeting: On May 17, 2012, EPA published a request for comments regarding a proposed delay of the implementation date of their inland waters rule. EPA is proposing extending the implementation date by either three months (to October 2012) or one year (to July 2013). The extension will allow time for the administrative challenge to the validity of the FDEP NNC rules to be resolved. On May 30, 2012, Judge Hinkle granted a motion to extend the deadlines for filing draft and final coastal, estuarine and South Florida flowing waters criteria to July 2012 and May 2013 respectively. The motion to extend the deadline for setting draft and final criteria for streams to November 2012 and August 2013 was also granted. The order noted that the defendants should not expect further extensions. This motion was opposed by the plaintiffs. Conserve Florida Statewide Public Supply Water Conservation Initiative Conserve Florida is the name of the collaborative effort to fulfill the requirements of Chapter , Florida Statutes to develop a comprehensive statewide water conservation program for public suppliers that provides them with utility-specific options. The main product of this initiative, to date, is a tool for utilities to use when developing or updating their water conservation plans; the current version is a web-based computer application known as EZ Guide 2.0 that helps identify optional elements to include in a water conservation plan based on each utility's service area characteristics. To use this tool, the utility needs a GIS shapefile of its service area and a list of the potable water system identification numbers that it uses to report data to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The tool combines that information with parcel-specific data from the Florida Department of Revenue, county tax collector and other public databases to develop a water use profile unique to the utility. That uncalibrated profile can be refined with optional utility-provided data, such as the results of a recent system water audit or an inventory of automatic irrigation systems and commercial accounts. The tool then uses the refined profile and goals set by the utility, such as a per capita requirement or a limited water conservation program budget, to select the appropriate water conservation best management practices (BMPs) and identify the optimal number of units of implementation for each BMP (such as how many toilet rebates to offer). A Steering Committee provides 12

262 Item 37 policy-level oversight and a Technical Advisory Group provides draft product review and other as-needed technical input to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) staff that manage the Conserve Florida Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse, currently hosted by the University of Florida (UF) under contract from DEP, provides technical support for the EZ Guide, an on-line water conservation library, and other core services. The District's financial contribution to DEP s current $325,000 two-year contract with UF is $75,000, all of which is from Fiscal Year 2011, for a scope of work that focuses on keeping basic Clearinghouse services available while also making targeted fixes and adding priority functions to the EZ Guide so that more public suppliers will use it for permitting, compliance and planning processes. The District budgeted an additional $75,000 for Fiscal Year 2012 to fund the programming associated with additional BMPs and other features which would only benefit public suppliers within the District, such as calculations consistent with rule-required per capita formulas. In October 2011, public suppliers from three water management districts attended a hands-on workshop regarding the EZ Guide that was held at the Tampa Service Office. This workshop was taught by UF staff and graduate students; it resulted in each utility participant leaving with access to pre-populated profiles for their service areas, so that they can refine the profiles and use them to develop a water conservation plan for each water use permit or combination of permits, and UF representatives receiving valuable feedback regarding how to continue improving the EZ Guide. On November 9, 2011, District staff and the DEP contract manager had a conference call to discuss priorities for the District-specific Fiscal Year 2012 funding. The contract manager agreed to seek clarification from UF regarding the cost and effort associated with these priorities. This has evolved into an ongoing broader statewide discussion as part of the Central Florida Water Initiative and statewide permitting consistency efforts. New activities since last meeting: Statewide discussions to identify features from each water management district s conservation planning tool that needs to be added to the EZ Guide continued. The goal is to have one tool (EZ Guide) for all parties to use. This will eventually involve corresponding changes to DEP s contract with UF for hosting the EZ Guide and other Clearinghouse services. Water Shortage Plan Update Revisions to previously-approved amendments to Rule 40D-21, F.A.C. were approved by the Governing Board during its October 2011 meeting and were published for adoption on March 9, 2012 in Florida Administrative Weekly. New activities since last meeting: As of May 24, 2012, no legal challenges were received in response to the change notice that was published to resolve four relatively minor comments from the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee regarding the March 9, 2012 amendments. The rule language went into effect on May 29, Water Shortage Order Implementation Each time water shortage restrictions are declared, extended, modified or rescinded, certain implementation activities occur. An advertisement must be published in applicable newspapers. Notices must be mailed to affected Water Use Permit holders. Local government officials must also be apprised and efforts by the Communications Bureau to inform the general public must be supported by Demand Management staff. New activities since last meeting: Staff reviewed system status reports that must be submitted by public suppliers in the five counties under the current Modified Phase III order. Staff published the newspaper ad announcing implementation of Executive Director Order No. SWF (Modified Phase II restrictions) in Hillsborough, Pasco and Pinellas counties. As of May 10, 2012, website materials had already been updated and a news release had been published by the Communications Bureau. Water Restriction Hotline Demand Management staff continues to maintain a toll-free telephone number ( ) and address (water.restrictions@ watermatters.org) that citizens and local officials can use to ask questions, report possible violations, and request information about water shortage restrictions, year-round water conservation measures and associated local government ordinances. New activities since last meeting: The hotline answered 807 calls during the four-week period that ended May 25, 2012; this equates to about 202 calls per week. During that same period, the hotline also answered 212 s; this equates to about 53 s per week. Hotline activity resulted in 13

263 Item first-time violation letters being sent to a property owner or manager, and 2 repeat-violation situations were referred to a local enforcement agency for investigation. In addition, 19 variances (requests for a special watering schedule that abides by the basic intent of current restrictions) were also approved or otherwise resolved. Staff Recommendation: This item is provided for the Committee s information, and no action is required. Presenter: Alba E. Más, P.E., Regulation Division Director 14

264 ENV RES PERMITS ISSUED TYPE OF PERMIT APRIL 2012 MONTHLY TOTAL 6-MONTH AVERAGE 12-MONTH AVERAGE General Minor System Noticed General General Individual Exemption Formal Wetland Determination ERP Conceptual ERP Site Condition Letter Modification ENV RES ACRES PERMITTED TOTALS MONTHLY TOTAL 6-MONTH AVERAGE 12-MONTH AVERAGE General Minor System Noticed General General Individual Exemption Formal Wetland Determination ERP Conceptual ERP Site Condition Letter Modification 1, ,765 2,296 WATER USE PERMITS ISSUED TOTALS 3, ,036 6,911 MONTHLY TOTAL 6-MONTH AVERAGE 12-MONTH AVERAGE Small General General Individual Letter Modification WELL CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ISSUED TOTALS MONTHLY TOTAL 6-MONTH AVERAGE 12-MONTH AVERAGE Well Construction COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES MONTHLY TOTAL 6-MONTH AVERAGE 12-MONTH AVERAGE Water Use Inspection (includes Well Tag Installations) ERP/WUP Permit Condition Violation ERP/WUP Expired/Expiring ERP/WUP Permit Ownership Trnsfr ERPs Re-certification Received ERP/WUP Complaints Received ERP Construction Inspection ERP As-Built Activities ERP Transfer to Operation Well Abandonments/Grouting Other Well Construction Inspections AGRICULTURAL GROUND & SURFACE WATER MGT PROJECT DESIGNS (AGSWM) TOTALS 2,000 1,711 1,869 MONTHLY TOTAL 6-MONTH AVERAGE 12-MONTH AVERAGE Ordinary Farming Temporary Farming Permanent Farming TOTALS Item 37 15

265 F. Resource Management

266 Governing Board Meeting June 26, 2012 RESOURCE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Discussion Items 38. Consent Item(s) Moved for Discussion 39. Funding Request Hillsborough County and City of Tampa Duck Pond Best Management Practices Implementation Second Amendment... (10 minutes)... 2 Submit & File Report 40. Lower Hillsborough River Recovery Strategy Implementation Annual Update... 5 Routine Reports 41. Minimum Flows and Levels Watershed Management Program and Federal Emergency Management Agency Map Modernization Significant Water Supply and Resource Development Projects... 17

267 Item 39 Resource Management Committee June 26, 2012 Discussion Item Funding Request Hillsborough County and City of Tampa Duck Pond Best Management Practices Implementation Second Amendment (L423) Purpose To request the Board s authorization to amend the cooperative funding agreement with Hillsborough County (County) and the City of Tampa (City) to increase District funding from $7,100,000 to $8,722,168, which includes $300,000 of state funding from the Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Fund (WPSTF), and extend the agreement expiration date from November 1, 2012 to November 1, Upon Board approval, the additional funds will be provided in the fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget from the Hillsborough River Basin reserves. Background/History This is a multiyear cooperatively funded project with the County and City for implementation of best management practices (BMPs) within the Duck Pond watershed. The Original Agreement became effective on January 1, 2006, and a first amendment to the Original Agreement became effective on September 1, The project includes design, development of construction documents, construction permitting, land acquisition, bidding and contractor selection, construction of BMPs, and construction engineering and inspection. The Duck Pond watershed encompasses 2,243 acres within the County and 617 acres within the City that were significantly impacted by flooding over time, most recently during Hurricane Frances. To address the level of service (LOS) issues, the BMPs construction includes stormwater pumping facilities, a stormwater management storage area, erosion/sedimentation controls, and conveyance improvements. Based on an updated construction cost estimate, the City has requested a funding increase to incorporate the relocation of the Donut Pond pump station site and associated engineering fees. In addition, the County has requested additional funding due to an increase in engineering and construction cost of the Duck Pond pump station and 36-inch force main. These cost increases, along with cost increases for project components that are already completed, result in the overall project budget change from $18,000,000 to $27,230,864. The project involves six components (County has three and City has three) of which four components are completed. The County has completed the regional detention pond and the Duck Pond equalizer pipe components. The City has completed the shared force main and the 113th Avenue force main components. The remaining components of the project that have not been constructed include the Duck Pond pump station/36-inch force main (County), and the Donut Pond pump station (City). These remaining components of the project are ready to start construction and are scheduled to be completed by June Funding Options The following funding options are provided for the Board s consideration: 1. District provides $3,995,432 of additional funding ($650,000 to the County and $3,345,432 to the City). This option represents the additional District funding requested by the County and the City. Funding to be allocated as follows: 2

268 Item 39 ORIGINAL BUDGET BUDGET INCREASE TOTAL FUNDING District $6,800,000 $3,995,432 $10,795,432 WPSTF (District Pass Thru) 300, ,000 City of Tampa 3,140,000 4,585,432 7,725,432 Hillsborough County 4,260, ,000 4,910,000 DEP 3,500, ,500,000 Total $18,000,000 $9,230,864 $27,230, The District does not provide any additional funding. As per the existing cooperative funding contract, the County and City are responsible for all costs in excess of the anticipated costs for each phase. Funding to be allocated as follows: ORIGINAL BUDGET BUDGET INCREASE TOTAL FUNDING District $6,800,000 $0 $ 6,800,000 WPSTF (District Pass Thru) 300, ,000 City of Tampa 3,140,000 7,930,864 11,070,864 Hillsborough County 4,260,000 1,300,000 5,560,000 DEP 3,500, ,500,000 Total $18,000,000 $9,230,864 $27,230, District provides $1,622,168 of additional funding ($500,000 to County and $1,122,168 to City). This option represents staff recommendation and is based upon the District providing 50 percent of the eligible construction cost increase for only those BMP elements that are not yet under construction. Funding to be allocated as follows: ORIGINAL BUDGET BUDGET INCREASE TOTAL FUNDING District $6,800,000 $1,622,168 $8,422,168 WPSTF (District Pass Thru) 300, ,000 City of Tampa 3,140,000 6,808,696 9,948,696 Hillsborough County 4,260, ,000 5,060,000 DEP 3,500, ,500,000 Total $18,000,000 $9,230,864 $27,230,864 If the Board approves Option 1 or Option 3, the additional funds could be included in the FY2013 budget from the Hillsborough River Basin reserves which currently have a balance of approximately $27 million. Benefits/Costs The proposed total estimated cost for project design and implementation is $27,230,864. Based upon staff s recommendation, the District will be providing $8,722,168, including the $300,000 state funding from the WPSTF. Proposed District funding is less than the proposed combined County/City share of $15,008,696. The remainder of the existing project budget is supplied by a $3,500,000 grant from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). Benefits include improving LOS deficiencies based on a 25-year design storm and protecting areas along Fowler Avenue from flooding. 3

269 Item 39 Staff Recommendation: Approve the second amendment to the agreement with Hillsborough County and the City of Tampa for the Duck Pond BMPs Implementation to increase the total project budget to $27,230,864, increasing the District s share by $1,622,168 to the total amount of $8,722,168 which includes $300,000 of state funding from the WPSTF (Option 3), and extend the agreement expiration date from November 1, 2012 to November 1, 2013; and authorize the Resource Management Division Director to execute the amendment. The additional funding to be included in the FY2013 budget from the Hillsborough River Basin reserves. Presenter: Kenneth R. Herd, P.E. Bureau Chief, Water Resources, Resource Management Division 4

270 Item 40 Resource Management Committee June 26, 2012 Submit & File Report Lower Hillsborough River Recovery Strategy Implementation Annual Update Purpose To provide an annual update to the Governing Board regarding the implementation of projects outlined in the recovery strategy needed to meet the adopted minimum flows for the Lower Hillsborough River (LHR). Background/History As required by statute, if the actual flow of a water course is below the proposed minimum flow or is projected to fall below the minimum flow over the next 20 years, a "recovery strategy" is developed as part of the minimum flow development process. In the case of the LHR, a recovery strategy was needed. At its August 2007 meeting, the Governing Board incorporated into Rule 40D , Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), a recovery strategy for the LHR which outlined a number of proposed projects and a timeline for their implementation. Four projects were to be jointly funded by the District and the City of Tampa (COT) and two are to be implemented by the District. Implementation of specific projects is subject to applicable diagnostic/feasibility studies and contingent on obtaining any required permits. As outlined in the recovery strategy and/or joint funding agreement, projects to be jointly funded by the District and the COT are as follows: 1) Sulphur Springs lower weir modifications 2) Sulphur Springs Pool upper weir and pump station modifications 3) Blue Sink Project, and 4) Investigation of Storage or Additional Supply Options. In addition, the District was to implement the two projects listed below. However, the COT would eventually assume the operation of pumping facilities on the Tampa Bypass Canal (TBC) middle pool and Hillsborough Reservoir, both of which would be considered for future cooperative funding. The District would continue to operate the pumping facility on the TBC lower pool and implement the Morris Bridge Sink project. 5) Tampa Bypass Canal and Hillsborough Reservoir Diversions, and 6) Morris Bridge Sink Project Discussion This report reviews progress on the individual projects and summarizes the status of the LHR Recovery Strategy. 1) Sulphur Springs Lower Weir Modifications The COT has been supplying 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) of flow from Sulphur Springs to the base of their dam when required to meet the minimum flow ever since the Minimum Flows and Levels (MFL) rule went into effect on November 25, In addition, the COT and the District entered into a cooperative agreement to perform modifications to the lower weir on Sulphur Springs Run. A previous study of weir modifications was conducted by the COT with District cooperation in conjunction with the establishment of minimum flows for Sulphur Springs. This study indicated that if the weir was modified at the mouth of the spring run, the run could be better protected against salinity incursions from the river. This weir would need to be low enough to allow fish passage during periods of high tides, but high enough to reduce salinity incursions. The COT proposed to install an operable weir so that adjustments can be made to protect the spring run during times of low flow. The weir could also be lowered 5

271 Item 40 to allow full access to the spring run during times of high flow. These modifications would allow for greater management flexibility by the COT to use flow from the spring to meet the minimum flow needs of both the LHR and Sulphur Springs Run. The Lower Weir project was completed in October, 2011 and the structure is now fully operable. Data collection in the spring run has confirmed that this project is very effective at reducing salinity incursions from the river into the spring run, thus allowing greater flexibility for using Sulphur Springs to provide minimum flows to both the spring run and the LHR. 2) Sulphur Springs Pool Upper Weir and Pump Station Modifications In November 2008 the COT and the District entered into a joint funding agreement to design and construct improvements to the upper weir and pump station at Sulphur Springs Pool. This project was to modify the existing pump station at Sulphur Springs to increase reliability and efficiently provide variable pumping rates; replace and or modify the Sulphur Springs upper weir and gates that control flow between Sulphur Springs Pool and Sulphur Springs Run; install provisions to control Sulphur Springs Pool pumping rates based on the temperature and salinity of adjacent monitoring stations; and modify and/or replace the Sulphur Springs pump station intake to allow for the range of anticipated water levels in Sulphur Springs Pool. The upper weir and pump station project was completed in March The system is now fully operable and has proven to be very effective at providing variable rates of flow to both the spring run and the LHR. Using these facilities, variable rates of minimum flows to Sulphur Springs Run are now being tested to see what rate of flow is needed to prevent salinity incursions into the spring run, thus making more water available for diversion to the base of the Hillsborough River Dam to provide minimum flows to the LHR. 3) Blue Sink Project In March-April 2009 the District completed a pump test that determined that a sustainable yield of 3.1 cfs could be pumped from Blue Sink to help supply minimum flows to the LHR. In October 2009 the COT completed a feasibility analysis to investigate moving 3 cfs of flow from Blue Sink to help meet the minimum flow for the LHR. This study recommended a pumping station and pipeline to achieve this objective. Based on these findings, the COT and the District entered into a cooperative funding agreement in October 2010 to fund the Blue Sink project to help provide minimum flows to the LHR. The COT has selected an engineering firm to design and submit the permit application for the pumping station. City staff has completed the pipeline design. The COT will also need to obtain applicable permits for construction of this project, which will run along various right-of-ways within the city. The COT must also obtain a water use permit from the District in order to pump the MFL quantities from Blue Sink. The COT requested that the timeline for completion of the Blue Sink project be extended from the existing date of October 1, 2011 to sixteen months after receiving all necessary permits for the project, which have yet to be issued. Considering these factors, the Board approved a variance to Chapter 40D-80, F.A.C. on June 28, 2011 to extend the deadline for the Blue Sink project to October 31, ) Investigation of Storage or Additional Supply Options Consistent with the adopted recovery strategy, the COT and the District entered into a joint funding agreement to investigate other storage and supply options to meet recovery plan objectives for the LHR. This investigation will identify other potential projects that may be needed to help meet the MFL for the LHR. The first three phases of this project have been completed, and the COT s consultant submitted a final report to the District. However, this agreement was extended to April 2013 to allow for any further assessments that may be needed pending the success of other elements of the recovery strategy that have yet to be implemented. Pending the completion and success of those projects, the District and the COT will continue to assess if any additional water is needed to fully meet the MFL for the LHR. 6

272 Item 40 5) Tampa Bypass Canal and Hillsborough Reservoir Diversions - In order to get the MFL s into effect as soon as practical, the recovery strategy required the District to divert up to 7.1 million gallons (equivalent to a flow rate of 11 cfs) of water on any given day from the District s Tampa Bypass Canal (TBC) to the Hillsborough River (at Structure 161), and then deliver water from the Hillsborough River to the base of the COT s dam. Using temporary pumping facilities, water has been supplied from this source as needed since January 1, However, as part of the recovery strategy, the COT is to assume operation of pumping facilities that provide MFL water from the TBC middle pool to the reservoir and from the reservoir to the lower river. The City submitted a Cooperative Funding Initiative (CFI) application for FY2013 to the District to fund the construction of permanent pumping facilities at these two locations. The total cost of the project requested in the CFI is $4,829,690, with the District s share totaling $2,366,238. The District has ranked this CFI application as high, contingent on the COT performing an assessment of whether existing pumps on the TBC operated by Tampa Bay Water that are used to augment potable water supplies in the Hillsborough River Reservoir can also be used to provide MFL water from the TBC to the reservoir. Pending the findings of that assessment and Governing Board authorization, the District will cost-share the construction of one or two pumping facilities that are needed to transfer water from the TBC to the lower river for MFL purposes. The recovery strategy also specifies that under certain hydrologic conditions, the District will pump water from the TBC lower pool to the middle pool to replace waters transferred from the middle pool to the reservoir for MFL purposes. The pumping facility on the lower pool has been operated by the District since January 2008 and continues to be used to meet the MFLs of the lower river. However, the recovery strategy stipulates that flows from the TBC will be discontinued when water levels in the lower pool fall below 6.0 feet and not resume until water levels in the lower pool rebound to 9.0 feet and remain above that value for 20 days. For the first time since the MFL was implemented, water levels fell below 6.0 feet on April 12, 2012 and rebounded to 9.0 feet on May 17, MFL diversions from the TBC were discontinued during that period and for the following 20 days to comply with the recovery strategy. 6) Morris Bridge Sink Project According to the recovery strategy, the Morris Bridge Sink Project will be funded, owned, and operated by the District to help meet the MFLs for the LHR. Due to severe drought conditions in 2009, staff was directed by the Board to expedite, to the extent possible, the Morris Bridge Sink Project. As a result, staff began a 30-day pump test of the sink on April 9, 2009, to determine the potential of the sink to deliver 6 cfs of flow to the TBC on a sustainable basis. The pump test found that the sink can provide hydraulically 6 cfs, but recommended that an analysis of potential wetland impacts also needed to be conducted. The District will need to obtain a water use permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to pump water from Morris Bridge Sink to use for MFLs. The District is currently performing analyses to support a permit application, including an assessment of potential wetland impacts that could result from pumping water from the sink as specified in the recovery plan. That assessment should be completed in June Pending the findings of that assessment, the District will determine what quantities of pumping from Morris Bridge Sink should be requested in a water use permit application to the FDEP. The purpose of the proposed projects discussed above is to provide a sufficient flow of fresh and low salinity water below the COT s dam to restore a zone of low salinity habitat to the LHR. Water on average does not flow over the COT s dam for 176 days each year (based on data from 1995 through 2011). Without this flow, the salinity below the dam is high and no desirable low salinity habitat exists for much of the year. 7

273 Item 40 Figure 1 was constructed using salinity data collected in the Hillsborough River in the vicinity of Rowlett Park, located immediately downstream of the COT s dam. This figure contrasts the salinity in near surface water for six different years (2000, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011). In 2000, no water was supplied to the base of the dam to meet a minimum flow in the LHR. In 2007, 10 cfs of low salinity water from Sulphur Springs was routed to the base of the dam to help provide low salinity habitat immediately below the dam. Beginning in 2008, water from the TBC was also routed to the Hillsborough River to help meet the newly adopted MFL for the LHR. Once in the river above the dam, 8.3 cfs of water was delivered to the base of the dam. Using 8.3 cfs from the TBC and 10 cfs of water from Sulphur Springs, a total of 18.3 cfs of water was delivered to the base of the dam in 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 whenever flow over the dam was not sufficient to meet minimum flow requirements. The figure demonstrates the benefits of supplying 10 cfs in 2007 (approximately 50 percent of the currently adopted MFL) and 18.3 cfs (approximately 75 percent of the MFL) in 2008 through 2011, as compared to conditions that existed in the absence (0 percent) of a minimum flow in the year In summary, all activities and projects proposed in the adopted recovery strategy are underway. The acquisition of necessary permits has delayed construction and full implementation of some projects in the recovery strategy and variances to the timelines in the recovery strategy have been approved. However, some components of the recovery strategy are currently in operation and results from the last four years suggest that the desired goal of creating low salinity habitat below the dam can be sustained by the MFL even under drought conditions. Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit This item is submitted for the Committee's information, and no action is required. Presenter: Sid Flannery, Chief Environmental Scientist, Natural Systems and Restoration Bureau, Resource Management Division 8

274 Budgeted and Pending Cooperative Funding Projects with the City of Tampa for the Lower Hillsborough River Minimum Flows Recovery Strategy Budgeted Sulphur Springs Lower Weir (H401) Sulphur Springs Upper Weir and Pump Station (H400) Total Cost District Share of Total Cost District funds expended to date Balance District funds $493,546 $232,303 $175,612 $56,691 $5,276,759 $2,627,729 $2,410,193 $217,536 Blue Sink Pipeline (H400) $10,785,500 $5,347,000 $51,965 $5,295,035 Additional Storage/Supply Options Analysis (H400) Pending $100,000 $50,000 $13,696 $36,304 Pumping Facilities on TBC and Hillsborough Reservoir (N492) $4,829,690 $2,366,238 0 NA S A L I N I T Y Mean Daily Salinity at Rowlett Park for Six Years Day of the Year _2000 _2007 _2008 _2009 _2010 _2011 Figure 1. Comparison of salinity at Rowlett Park on the LHR for six one-year periods. Year 2000, no MFL supplied. Year 2007, 10 cfs minimum flow supplied from Sulphur Springs. Years 2008 through 2011, 10 cfs from Sulphur Springs and 8.3 cfs from TBC for a combined 18.3 cfs minimum flow. LHR Recovery Strategy Implementation RMC MSF.doc 6/14/2012 2:40 PM chackney 6 9

275 Item 41 Resource Management Committee June 26, 2012 Routine Report Minimum Flows and Levels District staff continues to work on various phases of Minimum Flows and Levels (MFLs) development for water bodies on the District's MFLs priority list. Attached for the Board's use and information is the current Minimum Flows and Levels Priority List and Schedule Water Body Timelines report that identifies the status of each water body with regard to the District s five-phase process of MFLs establishment. Phase 1 of the MFLs development process, which includes data compilation and collection, was recently completed on-schedule for lakes Hanna, Keene, Kell, Tooke and Whitehurst. Phase 2 of the MFLs development process, which consists of data analysis and internal draft report development, will be delayed for Brooker Creek, Crystal River System and Kings Bay Springs, Lower Withlacoochee River System, North Prong Alafia River, Pithlachascotee River System, South Prong Alafia River, and Upper Peace River Middle and High Minimum Flows due to staffing changes and time requirements for other priority minimum flow projects. Delayed completion of subsequent phases of the process for these water bodies is also anticipated. Completion of Phase 2 and Phase 3, which involves presentation of a draft MFLs report and a report of peer-review to the Board, will be delayed for the Manatee River System to allow time for additional data analyses, discussions with water-supply stakeholders and public comment. Completion of Phase 2 and subsequent phases of the process will be delayed for the Rainbow River and Springs to allow time for additional analyses, public comment and coordination with the St. Johns River Water Management District. This coordination supports both the development of MFLs for the Rainbow River System and the Silver River System within the St. Johns River Water Management District. Completion of Phase 2 and subsequent phases of the process will be delayed for the Little Manatee River based on the need to develop a report for the estuarine portion of the river and to discuss proposed MFLs with a major user of water from the river. Progress on development of minimum flows for the freshwater portion of the Little Manatee River continues; a draft report on these MFLs was presented to the Board in December 2011 and has been subjected to peer-review. Rule adoption, the final phase (Phase 5) in the MFLs establishment process, will be delayed for the Chassahowitzka River System and Springs; Gum Springs Group; Homosassa River System and Springs; Upper and Middle Withlacoochee River System; and lakes Hooker, Bonable, Little Bonable and Tiger to allow time for additional data analysis and public comment on the proposed minimum flows or levels. Phase 5 will be delayed for Lake Hancock pending completion of land acquisitions associated with the upper Peace River MFLs recovery strategy. Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit This item is provided for the Committee's information, and no action is required. Presenter: Doug Leeper, Chief Environmental Scientist, Water Resources Bureau, Resource Management Division 10

276 Board Adopted 2012 Priority List Schedule and Timeline Exhibit A RIVERS, SPRINGS and ESTUARIES Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3* Phase 4** Phase 5*** Data Collection Data Analysis & Report to Board / Recovery Rule Adoption Internal Draft MFL Report Peer Review Strategy 2011 Chassahowitzka River System and Springs completed completed completed NN Jan 2012 Gum Springs Group completed completed completed TBD Dec 2011 Homosassa River System and Springs completed completed completed NN Jan 2012 Lower Myakka River System completed completed completed NN completed 2012 Brooker Creek completed May 2012 Jul 2012 / Oct 2012 TBD Nov 2012 Crystal River System & Kings Bay Springs completed May 2012 Jul 2012/ Oct 2012 TBD Dec 2012 Lower Withlacoochee River System completed May 2012 Jul 2012/ Oct 2012 TBD Dec 2012 Little Manatee River System completed April 2012 May 2012/ Aug 2012 TBD Oct 2012 Manatee River System completed Feb 2012 Apr 2012/ Jul 2012 TBD Sep 2012 North Prong Alafia River completed May 2012 Jul 2012 / Oct 2012 TBD Nov 2012 Pithlachascotee River System completed May 2012 Jul 2012 / Oct 2012 TBD Nov 2012 Rainbow River and Springs completed Mar 2012 Apr 2012/ Jul 2012 TBD Aug 2012 Shell Creek Estuary completed completed completed Recovery Nov 2012 South Prong Alafia River completed May 2012 Jul 2012 / Oct 2012 TBD Nov 2012 Upper and Middle Withlacoochee River System completed completed completed NN Apr 2012 Upper Peace River completed Jun 2012 Jul 2012 / Oct 2012 TBD Dec 2012 "Middle" and "High" Minimum Flows 2013 Charlie Creek (Peace River drainage) Jan 2013 May 2013 Jul 2013 / Oct 2013 TBD Nov 2013 Horse Creek (Peace River drainage) Jan 2013 May 2013 Jul 2013 / Oct 2013 TBD Nov 2013 Prairie Creek (Peace River drainage) Jan 2013 May 2013 Jul 2013 / Oct 2013 TBD Nov 2013 Shell Creek (Peace River drainage) Jan 2013 May 2013 Jul 2013 / Oct 2013 TBD Nov Cypress Creek Jan 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014/ Oct 2014 TBD Nov 2014 Bullfrog Creek Jan 2014 May 2014 Jul 2014/ Oct 2014 TBD Nov Lower Peace River (reevaluation) Jan 2015 May 2015 Jul 2015/ Oct 2015 TBD Nov 2015 * At the Board's direction, staff has added projected dates on which we: expect to have internal draft reports complete; present draft reports to the Board; present reports of peer review to Board; and return for rule establishment. ** NN = not needed; TBD = to be determined; Recovery = recovery strategy needed *** Water bodies completed through Phase 5 will be removed from this list and added to the Minimum Flows and Levels Already Adopted list when the Priority List and Schedule is updated each year. Updated May 6,

277 Board Adopted 2012 Priority List Schedule and Timeline Exhibit A LAKES Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4* Phase 5** Data Collection Data Analysis Peer Review Recovery Rule Adoption & Draft MFL Report Strategy 2011 Hillsborough County Lakes Carroll completed completed NA TBD completed Hooker completed completed NA TBD Feb 2012 Wimauma completed completed NA TBD completed Marion County Lakes Bonable completed completed NA TBD Feb 2012 Little Bonable completed completed NA TBD Feb 2012 Tiger completed completed NA TBD Feb Hillsborough County Lakes Hanna completed Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 Keene completed Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 Kell completed Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 Raleigh completed Aug 2012 completed completed Dec 2012 Rogers completed Aug 2012 completed completed Dec 2012 Starvation completed Aug 2012 completed completed Dec 2012 Hernando County Lakes Tooke completed Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 Whitehurst completed Aug 2012 NA TBD Dec 2012 Polk County Lake Hancock completed completed NA completed Jun Highland County Lakes Damon June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 Pioneer June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 Pythias June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 Viola June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 Polk County Lakes Amoret June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 Aurora June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 Bonnet June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 Easy June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 Effie June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 Little Aurora June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 Josephine June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 Lowery June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec 2013 Trout June 2013 Aug 2013 NA TBD Dec Polk County Lake Eva June 2015 Aug 2015 NA TBD Dec 2015 * NN = not needed; TBD = to be determined ** Water bodies completed through Phase 5 will be removed from this list and added to the Minimum Flows and Levels Already Adopted list when the Priority List and Schedule is updated each year. Updated May 6,

278 Board Adopted 2012 Priority List Schedule and Timeline Exhibit A Minimum Flows and Levels Already Adopted Alafia River (upper freshwater segment) Alafia River Estuary (includes Lithia and Buckhorn Springs) Anclote River (estuarine and freshwater segments) Braden River (freshwater segment) Citrus County Lakes Ft. Cooper, Tsala Apopka Floral City, Inverness and Hernando Pools Dona Bay/Shakett Creek System Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area Minimum Aquifer Level Hernando County Lakes Hunters, Lindsey, Mountain, Neff, Spring and Weekiwachee Prairie Highland County Lakes Angelo, Anoka, Denton, Jackson, Little Lake Jackson, June-in-Winter, Letta, Lotela, Placid, Tulane and Verona Hillsborough County Lakes Alice, Allen, Barbara, Bird, Brant, Calm, Charles, Church, Crenshaw, Crescent, Crystal, Cypress, Dan, Deer, Dosson, Echo, Ellen, Fairy [Maurine], Garden, Halfmoon, Harvey, Helen, Hobbs, Horse, Jackson, Juanita, Little Moon, Merrywater, Mound, Platt, Pretty, Rainbow, Reinheimer, Round, Saddleback, Sapphire, Stemper, Strawberry, Sunset, Sunshine, Taylor and Virginia. Hillsborough River (lower segment) Hillsborough River upper segment (including Crystal Springs) Levy County Lake Marion Peace River (middle segment) Peace River (three upper segments "low" minimum flows) Lower Peace River Northern Tampa Bay 41 Wetland sites Northern Tampa Bay 7 Wells Floridan Aquifer/Saltwater Intrusion Pasco County Lakes Bell, Big Fish, Bird, Buddy, Camp, Clear, Green, Hancock, Iola, Jessamine, King, King [East], Linda, Middle, Moon, Padgett, Parker aka Ann, Pasadena, Pasco, Pierce, and Unnamed #22 aka Loyce Polk County Lakes Annie, Bonnie, Clinch, Crooked, Crystal, Dinner, Eagle, Lee, Mabel, McLeod, North Lake Wales, Parker, Starr, Venus and Wales Myakka River (upper freshwater segment) Sulphur Springs (Hillsborough County) Sumter County Lakes Big Gant, Black, Deaton, Miona, Okahumpka and Panasoffkee SWUCA Floridan Aquifer Tampa Bypass Canal Weekiwachee River System and Springs (includes Weeki Wachee, Jenkins Creek, Salt, Little Weeki Wachee and Mud River springs) Updated May 6,

279 Item 42 Resource Management Committee June 26, 2012 Routine Report Watershed Management Program and Federal Emergency Management Agency Map Modernization Status Report District staff continues to work on various steps of the District s Watershed Management Program and Federal Emergency Management Agency Map Modernization. Attached for the Board s information is the current schedule that identifies the status of each watershed for the topographic information, watershed evaluation, watershed management plan, and Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit This item is provided for the Committee's information, nd no action is required. Presenter: Kenneth R. Herd, P.E., Bureau Chief, Water Resources, Resource Management Division 14

280 Exhibit Watershed Management Program and FEMA Map Modernization Schedule June 2012 Year County Watershed 2009 Hernando Topographic Information Watershed Model Public Meetings Present to Board Submit Preliminary DFIRMs to FEMA Blue Sink complete complete complete complete complete Bystre Lake complete complete complete complete complete Centralia complete complete complete complete complete Chassahowitzka River complete complete complete complete complete Croom complete complete complete complete complete Little Withlacoochee complete complete complete complete complete Lizzie Hart Sink complete complete complete complete complete McKethan complete complete complete complete complete Oman Quarry/Indian Creek complete complete complete complete complete Powell complete complete complete complete complete Spring Hill Lakes/Aripeka complete complete complete complete complete Toachodka complete complete complete complete complete Tooke complete complete complete complete complete Weeki Wachee Prairie complete complete complete complete complete Willow Sink complete complete complete complete complete Wiscon complete complete complete complete complete Eastern Hernando complete complete complete complete complete Pasco Sarasota Anclote - E. of Suncoast complete complete complete complete complete Cypress Creek complete complete complete complete complete East Pasco complete complete complete complete complete Trout Creek complete complete complete complete complete Island Of Venice complete complete complete complete complete Whitaker Bayou complete complete complete complete complete Hudson Bayou complete complete complete complete complete Roberts Bay complete complete complete May 2012 June 2012 Alligator Creek complete complete complete complete complete Big Slough - Northport complete complete complete May 2012 June 2012 Note: FEMA will start their formal appeals period for adoption after the District submits the preliminary DFIRMS to FEMA. 15

281 Exhibit Watershed Management Program and FEMA Map Modernization Schedule June 2012 Year County Watershed 2010 Polk Topographic Information Watershed Model Public Meetings Present to Board Submit Preliminary DFIRMs to FEMA Upper Peace River complete complete Jun 2012 Aug 2012 Dec 2012 Christina complete complete complete complete Dec 2012 Peace CreekCanal complete complete Sep 2012 Nov 2012 Dec 2012 Polk City complete complete complete July 2012 Dec 2012 DeSoto Hardee Highlands Citrus Manatee Thornton Branch complete complete complete complete complete Deep Creek Gully complete complete complete complete complete Buzzards Roost Run complete complete complete complete complete City of Wauchula complete complete complete complete complete Horse Creek complete complete complete complete complete Alligator Branch complete complete complete complete complete Thompson Branch complete complete complete complete complete Limited Detailed Studies complete complete complete complete complete East Citrus complete complete Dec 2012 Mar 2013 Mar 2013 Crystal River complete complete complete complete Mar 2013 Tsala Apopka complete complete complete complete Mar 2013 Cardinal Lane complete complete complete July 2012 Mar 2013 Homosassa River complete Jun 2012 Nov 2012 Jan 2013 Mar 2013 Center Ridge complete complete complete complete Mar 2013 Buffalo Canal/Frog Creek complete complete completed complete complete Note: FEMA will start their formal appeals period for adoption after the District submits the preliminary DFIRMS to FEMA. 16

282 Item 43 Resource Management Committee June 26, 2012 Routine Report Significant Water Supply and Resource Development Projects This report provides information on significant Resource Management projects and programs in which the Governing Board is participating in funding. The report provides a brief description and status of significant activities associated with the project that have recently occurred or are about to happen. For greater detail, refer to the Project Information Management System (PIMS) write-ups or request information directly from the project manager identified with the project. Lake Hancock Lake Level Modification Project This project is being implemented as part of the adopted Southern Water Use Caution Area (SWUCA) Recovery Plan for restoring minimum flows in the upper Peace River. The project began in 2002 with preliminary feasibility and development of a scope of work to raise the water level in the lake. The District received the conceptual environmental resource permit (CERP) for the project from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in June 2007 with an operating level of up to 100 feet (currently the District operates the P-11 structure at an elevation of 98.7 feet). In response, the Governing Board in September 2007 authorized the project to go forward with final design, permitting, and construction; adopted the Resolution Authorizing Proceedings in Eminent Domain, including a Declaration of Taking; amended the 2007 Update to the Florida Forever Work Plan to include all lands identified as necessary for the project, designating $41 million in Florida Forever Trust Funds; and encumbered $79 million in General Fund Water Supply and Resource Development Reserves for the project. Seventythree parcels were identified as necessary to acquire in fee (40 parcels) or a lesser interest (33 easement parcels). The Governing Board instructed staff to exhaust all negotiations prior to filing eminent domain proceedings. All property owners have been contacted and offers made. On June 12, 2009, DEP approved the District s request to extend the CERP commence construction deadline to June 14, In September 2010, the District received eight bids for construction of the new P-11 structure. The District rejected all bids based upon ambiguities in the bid documents and issued a new request for bid on April 15, The District awarded the bid on October 18, 2011, and provided the notice to proceed for the construction of the P-11 water control structure to CenState Contractors, Inc. The ERP for the SR540/Jacque Lee Lane mitigation project was approved and issued by the District s Bartow Service Office on December 22, The City of Lakeland awarded the contract for the Oak Hill Burial Park mitigation project to QGS Development, Inc., and construction commenced on March 13, The U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (USACOE) issued the permit for the mitigation project on Coscia and Old Florida Plantation properties on March 6, New Activities Since Last Meeting: The District s construction contractor, CenState, has completed the first few concrete pours on the P-11 water control structure, which consists of the floor and walls. The next concrete pours will be the bridge deck and operation platform. Construction is on schedule. The City of Lakeland s contractor, QGS Development, has completed grading/earthwork activities and stormwater infrastructure installation on the Oak Hill Burial Park mitigation project, and is currently ahead of schedule. Acquisition Status: Of the 73 parcels necessary for the project, 69 parcels (8,337 acres) have been acquired. The remaining parcels involve four owners (36 acres) and are comprised of partial easement acquisitions. District staff has made offers on all acquisitions necessary for the project. All of the acquisitions that remain are being handled through the District's special counsel who has initiated legal proceedings. District staff and the special counsel continue to evaluate opportunities for settlement that would avoid litigation. As of October 25, 2011, Resolution for the project was supplemented by Resolution to modify the easement language related to the remaining acquisitions. On March 27, 2012, the Governing Board, with the concurrence of DEP, approved settling with the Rogers. An Order of Taking Hearing for the Hancock Lake Ranch property (Lewis King) was held May 8, The 17

283 Item 43 District has maintained the Old Florida Plantation Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and made changes to the Development Order, as necessary, through the City of Bartow, Central Florida Regional Planning Council, and the Department of Community Affairs. The changes to the DRI allow the proposed development to accommodate the District s Lake Hancock minimum flows and levels (MFLs) and other proposed land use projects. Those portions of the DRI not needed for District projects will be considered surplus. Before proceeding with the disposition of property, the District will prepare a DEP application for their approval. Old Florida Plantation surplus activities to date have involved the conveyance of approximately 12 acres necessary for right-of-way to construct the Bartow Northern Connector Road. Project Managers: Scott Letasi/Michael Peck/ Steve Blaschka Lake Hancock Outfall Treatment Project The intent of the Lake Hancock Outfall Treatment project is to improve water quality discharging from Lake Hancock to the Peace River and Charlotte Harbor. At their February 2006 meeting, the Governing Board approved the staff recommendation to adopt a 27 percent nitrogen load reduction goal and to utilize wetlands as the primary treatment component. The selection of wetlands as the treatment option was based on a comprehensive consultant investigation into alternative treatment technologies. In 2011, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rescinded all special appropriations allocated in EPA s fiscal year (FY) 2008 and earlier. A grant agreement for FY2009 funds totaling $485,000 was executed in March While the grant agreement was being finalized, the EPA discovered that a total of $288,700 in addition to the $485,000 was available in grant funding due to an error in the rescission total. District staff revised the grant application to apply for a total of $773,700. EPA is currently processing the District s application for these funds. EPA funds will offset District Save Our Rivers (Water Management Lands Trust Fund) funding. Project construction commenced on September 26, New Activities Since Last Meeting: Construction activities continue. Earthwork to level the interior of the wetland cells is over 40 percent complete. Power and communication conduit from the P-11 Control Structure to the pump station was completed. Work continues on the pump station structure, discharge structure, aeration structure and discharge channel. Project Manager: Janie Hagberg Watershed Management Program/Federal Emergency Management Agency Map Modernization The District initiated a partnership with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to modernize Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) as part of its Watershed Management Program (WMP). Flood protection and floodplain information has been a priority at the District since the inception of the organization, and that priority was renewed following the El Niño weather event in In addition to studies conducted by the District and others, information on floodplains (elevations) is available through the FEMA FIRMs. However, many of the existing maps do not accurately represent the flood-prone areas, either because the initial studies were technically limited or the maps are outdated due to significant land use changes. Accurate floodplain information is vital to local government planning and zoning, and to the District s regulatory program and the land owners. To improve the floodplain information, develop regional scale flood routing models for alternative analysis, and improve local governments understanding of their flood protection level of service, the District reached out to local governments and initiated the WMP in the late 1990s. Additionally, the District and FEMA executed a Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP) Memorandum of Agreement on September 14, 2001, to formalize the relationship and to improve the existing FIRMs to better identify risks of flooding within the District. As a CTP, the District is eligible for federal funds to act as FEMA's partner in modernization of the FIRMs. Federal funds have allowed the District and local governments to accomplish significantly more than would have otherwise been possible. To date, the District has received $12.1 million in federal funds from FEMA for countywide map modernization projects for Pasco, Sarasota, Hernando, Marion, Polk, Hardee, DeSoto, Citrus, Sumter, Levy, and Highlands counties. The Map Modernization Program also includes federal funding for management support. FEMA began FIRM updates for Hillsborough and Marion counties before the District became a CTP. FEMA issued its letter of determination finalizing the FIRMs for Hillsborough and Marion counties, and the FIRMs became effective on August 28, Typically, the map modernization process includes the following steps: The community 18

284 Item 43 and District assess the mapping needs, the project is scoped, topographic data is acquired and watershed modeling is completed. The District and an independent peer reviewer analyze the data, which is then provided to the public for their verification. Updates are made incorporating the input from the public and peer reviewer, and the information is presented to the Governing Board for approval. After the approval, data is forwarded to FEMA and mapping is initiated. New Activities Since Last Meeting: Hernando County: The FEMA FIRMs became effective on February 2, Pasco County: The countywide preliminary maps and Flood Insurance Study reports have been submitted to FEMA for post-preliminary processing. Sarasota County: Roberts Bay and North Port/Big Slough watersheds were presented to the Governing Board in May Polk County: Work continues in the county; Polk City, Peace Creek and Upper Peace River were reviewed and refined, and provided to the FIRM mapping consultant. Hardee County: The preliminary DFIRM and community coordination (PDCC) meeting and open house were held March 20, DeSoto County: Preliminary maps were delivered to DeSoto County February 29, PDCC and public open house was held May 3, Sumter County: The preliminary FIRM date was January 21, FEMA is now lead party in the project. PDCC and public open house meetings were held March 21, The preliminary firm notice was published in the Federal Register on May 18, Citrus County: Watershed models are being developed for Cardinal Lane, East Citrus/Withlacoochee and Homosassa River by consultants. Tsala Apopka watershed was presented to the Board for approval in December 2011 and was provided to the FIRM mapping consultant in May Cardinal Lane watershed is scheduled to be presented to the Board for approval in July Levy County: Maps are scheduled to become effective November 2, Letters of final determination were issued May 2, Marion County: Modernized FIRMs were adopted in August Watershed models are being developed for the Lake Stafford East, Priest Prairie Drain, West Ocala and West Marion watersheds. Manatee County: Buffalo Canal/Frog Creek has been approved by the Board and provided to the FIRM mapping consultant. Braden River watershed model revisions are ongoing. FEMA will manage the production of the FIRMs and the map adoption process. Highlands County: The PDCC meeting and open house were held on March 22, Project Manager: Ken Herd Myakka River Watershed Initiative and Flatford Swamp Hydrologic Restoration The Myakka River Watershed Initiative (MRWI) is a comprehensive project that will illustrate the effects of land use conversions and alterations and evaluate best management practices for environmental restoration alternatives. A primary focus of the initiative is the Flatford Swamp area. The overall objective of this initiative is to restore historic water quantity regimes, improve water quality, natural system, and reduce floodplain impacts in the watershed in ways that can also provide a benefit to water supplies in the SWUCA. In February 2006, the Governing Board allocated $500,000 to hire a consultant team to perform elements of the WMP and for the collection of topographic information in eastern Manatee County using light detection and ranging (LiDAR) mapping technologies. Several outreach meetings were held to solicit stakeholder input and gather data. A water budget model comparing existing and historic conditions within Flatford Swamp was developed to determine the amount of excess water that could be captured for a beneficial use. This information was provided to the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority (Authority) for use in its latest water supply master plan. Several preliminary scenarios for removal of excess water from the swamp have been evaluated and, as a result, a Memorandum of Understanding that outlines the development of a scope of work for a feasibility study to determine Mosaic s potential uses for excess water from Flatford Swamp received Governing Board approval in November A subsequent revenue agreement with Mosaic has been executed. The District will act as the lead party in the feasibility study, and a consultant services contract with Ardaman & Associates for the study was executed on September 20, New Activities Since Last Meeting: The technical memorandum on water quality, storage and proposed transmission infrastructure to Wingate mine was delayed by additional water quality evaluations, but is now under review by the District and Mosaic. Issues with ICPR4 for the hydraulic event modeling have been resolved and that portion of the project is moving forward. Mosaic and the District presented a status on the Flatford Feasibility Study to the Myakka River Coordinating Council on June 22, Project Managers: Lisann Morris/Mary Szafraniec 19

285 Item 43 Tampa Bay Water Surface Water Expansion Project: This is a four-year feasibility study to determine the availability of surface water withdrawals from surface water supply sources (including the Alafia River and Bullfrog Creek), evaluate expanding Tampa Bay Water s (TBW) reservoir, and perform cost analyses. Ongoing activities include surface water modeling, analyses and cost estimating. Due to TBW s decision to expand their reservoir, the modeling runs and assessments have been reduced to include Bullfrog Creek and alternative treatment locations only. This will allow TBW to evaluate the possibility of withdrawing additional surface water from Bullfrog Creek as part of their long-term planning efforts. District staff met with TBW on February 13, 2012, to finalize the project modeling configurations. New Activities Since Last Meeting: The consultant is currently performing hydraulic modeling and system analyses. The analyses will include evaluating potential effects that the new supply project configurations would have on the operations, hydraulics and water quality of TBW s existing system. The analysis has been delayed due to TBW s decision to not expand the C.W. Bill Young Reservoir. The analysis will be updated using two scenarios: (1) an assessment with the assumption of the existing reservoir, and (2) an assessment with an assumption of a second reservoir (future scenario). The project is ahead of schedule and is anticipated to be completed by the end of The next status meeting will be held in August Project Manager: Mike Hancock Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority Regional Integrated Loop System Project: The Integrated Loop System Feasibility and Routing Study recommended four main phases to interconnect the water supply and distribution systems of Authority members and non-member customers. Phases 1 and 1A connect the Peace River Water Treatment Plant (WTP) to the City of Punta Gorda s Shell Creek WTP. Phase 1 would extend the Authority s existing transmission line in DeSoto County along US 17 southward. Design was completed in 2007, but the project has been indefinitely postponed in favor of constructing Phase 1A. The Authority has submitted a FY2013 cooperative funding request for the Phase 1 project. District staff currently has the project ranked low due to the lack of funding match from the cooperator. Phase 1A will provide additional service to developed portions of Charlotte County near I-75. The project includes approximately 12 miles of pipeline with a capacity of 6 mgd and a subaqueous crossing of the Peace River. A cooperative funding agreement between the District and Authority for Phase 1A was executed in September Design was completed in October A construction contract was awarded to Garney Companies in August Construction commenced in March 2011 and is scheduled for completion by June Total cost is estimated at $19,015,000 with the District providing up to $12,029,270, which includes $5 million in West-Central Florida Water Restoration Action Plan funding and $43,541 in Water Protection and Sustainability Trust Funds (WPSTF). On April 20, 2012, the District received a request from the Authority to extend the Phase 1A funding agreement contract period and completion schedules due to modifications and additional permitting from the DEP, USACOE, and the United States Coast Guard for the river crossing. The Phase 2 interconnect will run from the Peace River WTP to a connection with the City of North Port near Serris Boulevard. Future sub-phases may extend to the City s WTP, then branch westward to the Englewood Water District and northward to establish a rotational link with the Carlton WTP. The first 7-mile, 42-inch diameter segment is being developed to deliver the City s allocated share from the Peace River WTP. The City and the Authority executed an Interlocal Agreement to develop Phase 2 in June The cooperative funding agreement for Phase 2 was executed in May The construction contract was awarded in May On February 7, 2012, the Authority awarded a second construction contract for a 0.3-mile segment extending into Charlotte County. The total project cost provided in the funding agreement is $15,400,000. The District s share of eligible costs is $7,783,015 and includes $166,031 in WPSTF. Phases 3 and 4 will eventually interconnect the Carlton WTP to water supply systems in Manatee County. Preliminary engineering for Phase 3 was completed in March The first portion of this pipeline, Phase 3A, extends the Authority s existing regional transmission line that currently terminates at the Carlton WTP. Phase 3A provides an 20

286 Item 43 additional water delivery point to Sarasota County and creates a potential intertie to the City of Venice. This project includes 8.5 miles of 48-inch diameter pipeline with a design capacity of 37 mgd and includes a subaqueous crossing of the Myakka River. The cooperative funding agreement for Phase 3A was executed in November Construction commenced in February 2010 and was substantially completed in November The total project cost is estimated to be $31,879,240. The District s share of eligible costs is $13,825,135 and includes $166,031 in WPSTF. The future expansion of Phase 3B northward will join long-term components of Phase 4 in Manatee County and will connect to the surface water treatment facility on Lake Manatee and a WTP on University Parkway. New Activities Since Last Meeting: The Phase 1A marine wet-trench construction and segments near the Shell Creek WTP are under construction. The Phase 2 pipeline installation is ongoing and on schedule. Construction has begun on line segments that extend into Charlotte County and were bid separately. The Phase 3A interconnect has been in operation since July 2011, but corridor revitalization and other closing activities have taken several months to complete. Approximately 95 percent of the District s Phase 3A project funding has been disbursed and the final pay request is expected by the end of June Project Manager: John Ferguson Aquifer Storage and Recovery Arsenic Research This project is investigating methods for controlling the mobilization of arsenic occurring during aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) activities. Beginning in 2008, the District initiated a pilot project with the City of Bradenton for the design, permitting, and construction of a degasification system to remove dissolved oxygen (DO) from water for potable supply prior to injection and storage in the aquifer. The project is co-funded by the Southwest Florida, South Florida, and St. Johns River water management districts, and the Peace River Manasota Regional Water Supply Authority and City of Bradenton. The pilot project is being performed at the City of Bradenton's ASR site and is capable of processing water at 700 gallons per minute with percent removal of DO. Construction of the degasification system was completed in June 2008 at a cost of $700,000. Preliminary operation cost is estimated at approximately 10 cents per thousand gallons. The first attempt at running a full-cycle test with deoxygenated water began on December 2, The system, however, was shut down on December 17, 2008, due to equipment failure. Repairs to the degasification system were made in January 2009 and the test was restarted in August The recharge portion of the test was completed in May 2010 with an optimal storage volume of 160 million gallons (mg) of treated water having been injected, exceeding the minimum goal of 140 mg. Recovery of the stored water started on September 7, The 160 mg cycle test with pre-treated water was successfully completed on February 23, 2011, and all the recovered water was well within the arsenic drinking water standard of 10 ug/l. The results showed that the pre-treatment process of removing dissolved oxygen does control arsenic mobilization. The system is now being operated by City staff as climatic conditions dictated and is no longer constrained to strict cycle testing schedules required under the DEP UIC permit. New Activities Since Last Meeting: The City is continuing successful recovery of arsenic free water from the second cycle performed with low DO water. The City started the recovery of water for potable use in April 2012 and has recovered approximately 15 mg of the 40 mg recovery planned this cycle. Recovery will continue until early July. For the next cycle, the City plans to inject between 90 to 230 mg to create a stored volume of up to 330 mg. The City is preparing a final report documenting the pre-treatment system performance during the last and current cycle tests. DEP has notified the City that they would like to see up to one more cycle of operation before they will issue an operation permit. Under the current cycle testing plan, the next cycle test will be completed between August and October Based on this projected schedule, the operation permit would be issued in January The District is working with the City to develop a scope of work to research and implement methods to improve the performance of the de-oxygenation system. The scope of work will be ready in June 2012 and the contract will be finalized by September Project Manager: Don Ellison Lower Hillsborough River MFL Recovery Strategy Implementation At the August 2007 meeting, the Governing Board established the minimum flow for the lower Hillsborough River (LHR). As required by statute, if the actual flow of a water course is below the proposed minimum flow or is projected to fall below the proposed minimum flow over the 21

287 Item 43 next 20 years, a "recovery strategy" must be developed as part of the minimum flow development process. In the case of the LHR, a recovery strategy was needed. The proposed recovery strategy was approved by the Governing Board at the August 2007 meeting. The recovery strategy includes a number of projects to divert water from various sources to help meet the minimum flow. Projects that are planned under the recovery strategy include diversions of water from Sulphur Springs, Blue Sink, the TBC, and Morris Bridge Sink. Pursuant to the recovery strategy, 75 percent of the 11 cubic feet per second (cfs) (8.2 cfs or 5.3 mgd) transferred to the reservoir from the TBC is being pumped to the base of the dam. This amount of fresh water, in combination with 10 cfs supplied from Sulphur Springs to the base of the dam by the City of Tampa (COT), indicates an actual minimum flow of 18.2 cfs (11.8 mgd) or 70-to-80 percent of the adopted minimum flow is now being supplied to the LHR, depending on season. A COT request for a variance to deadlines for completion of recovery strategy projects was approved at the June 2011 Governing Board meeting. The deadlines for project completion were extended as follows: Lower Weir December 1, 2011; Upper Weir and Pump House October 1, 2012; Blue Sink Project December 31, The District received notification from the COT on November 7, 2011, that the Sulphur Springs Run Lower Weir project is complete. New Activities Since Last Meeting: Staff continues with permitting on the Morris Bridge Sink permanent pumping facility with the water use permit technical analysis proceeding and submittal to DEP scheduled for July The COT and the District have diverted water from Sulphur Springs and the TBC to the base of the dam to meet minimum flows since mid-december The pumping facilities on the Upper Weir at Sulphur Springs have been completed and are operating. The District has evaluated and ranked as high a cooperative funding request submitted by the COT to cost share pumps on the Harney Canal and the Hillsborough River reservoir to provide water from the TBC to the lower river to meet minimum flows. Project Managers: Sid Flannery/David Crane TECO s Polk Power Station Reclaimed Water Interconnects to Lakeland/Polk County/ Mulberry Reuse Project: This project, consisting of transmission pipelines and a deep injection well, will provide reclaimed water from several domestic wastewater treatment facilities to Tampa Electric Company s (TECO) power facility in southwest Polk County. TECO will be expanding the power generation capacity at its Polk Power Station with the addition of Unit 6. Phase I of the project was anticipated to provide 6 mgd of reclaimed water from the City of Lakeland for the first TECO expansion. TECO entered into a Reclaimed Water Supply Agreement with Polk County after it was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on October 25, Once the Reclaimed Water Supply Agreement between TECO and Mulberry is finalized, District staff with prepare an amendment to the cooperative funding agreement to incorporate both the Mulberry and Polk County portions of the project. With the additional quantities that will be provided by Polk County and the City of Mulberry, approximately 7 mgd will now be available. Phase I of the project was expected to utilize reclaimed water by Due to the economic downturn and reduced demands, TECO has delayed the addition of Unit 6. However, TECO intends to replace, to the greatest extent possible, existing groundwater uses with reclaimed water before the expansion is complete, as required by the cooperative funding agreement. While the reclaimed water infrastructure and deep injection well are still expected to be complete by 2013, the project will not use the full 7 mgd until Unit 6 is operational. In order to utilize the reclaimed water, additional treatment is necessary, consisting of filtering and possible reverse osmosis to reduce dissolved solids to an acceptable level. The reverse osmosis reject water (concentrate by-product) will be mixed with other facility discharge water and pumped to one of two proposed deep injection wells for final disposal. While the wells are being drilled as part of this project, only one will be eligible for cooperative funding. Phase I is estimated to cost $72,686,800 which includes the portion of the project that will provide TECO with reclaimed water from the City of Mulberry. Plans for Phase II, originally estimated to be underway by 2012, have also been delayed. Initial estimates indicate that 6 mgd of reclaimed water will be needed for TECO's second phase of expansion, although the source has not been identified. New Activities Since Last Meeting: MWH has drafted a technical memorandum for the precipitation and plugging study and delivered it to TECO in April. TECO staff continues to analyze lab samples. While not included in the scope of work for the 22

288 Item 43 cooperative funding agreement, construction at the second injection well site continues. The pipeline, pump station and treatment system are in the final stages of design. There has been an issue obtaining access to a property along the planned pipeline route. An alternate route, as well as property condemnation, is being pursued concurrently in order to complete the pipeline design. The property in question will be parceled out so that design and permitting can proceed. Equipment procurement for the treatment system and pump station continues with TECO releasing several Request for Proposal (RFP) packages. Several purchase orders have now been issued as well. The responses to the RFP for pipeline construction were due May 25, Project Manager: Alison Ramoy Aquifer Recharge Projects: In 2009, the District funded a study (H076) as part of the Regional Reclaimed Water Partnership Initiative to assess the feasibility of using highly treated reclaimed water to recharge the Upper Floridan aquifer (UFA) in the southern Hillsborough and Polk County areas. Findings from the study indicate that it is possible to develop direct and indirect aquifer recharge projects to improve UFA water levels and provide opportunities for additional groundwater withdrawals. The costs associated with developing these projects were found to be comparable to costs of other planned alternative water supply projects. Since completing the study, several local governments have expressed interest in assessing the applicability of aquifer recharge in their areas. District staff is working with these entities to develop and implement project plans to assess the site specific feasibilities of implementing aquifer recharge projects to address their individual needs. Prior to initiating work, District staff also reviews project tasks to avoid as much duplicative efforts as possible between cooperators. District staff is visiting active recharge projects to identify positive results or issues requiring further investigation. Currently-Funded Aquifer Recharge Projects FY2010/2011/2012 Cooperative Funding City of Clearwater - Groundwater Replenishment Project This is an indirect potable reuse desktop feasibility study and pilot testing project to evaluate the viability of using 3 mgd of highly treated reclaimed water to increase water levels within the northeast portion of the City and provide possible future water supplies at their existing wellfield. The feasibility study was completed in May 2011 at a cost of $450,000 ($225,000 from the City; $225,000 from the District). The results showed that water level improvements from direct recharge into the brackish zone of the UFA can potentially provide additional water supplies to the City and that water treatment requirements could be met with current available technologies. The study also showed that preliminary cost estimates for the full-scale facility would be $4.07 per thousand gallons. Therefore, the City is moving forward with pilot testing to confirm the findings. The pilot testing program includes permitting, installing a recharge well and associated monitor wells, evaluating aquifer characteristics, testing water treatment and recharge, and conducting public outreach. The project began on November 14, 2011, and will be completed by February 28, 2014, at a total cost of approximately $1.5 million ($770,000 each). The City s consultant submitted the well construction permit application to DEP on February 7, New Activities Since Last Meeting: The consultant submitted their responses to DEP s request for additional information (RAI) on the permit application submitted to DEP in mid-february DEP s RAI addressed relatively minor issues such as well design and water quality analysis. The permit will allow the City to install a test recharge well and monitor wells, and perform pilot treatment testing. The consultant submitted the 90 percent design documents for the pilot treatment system and also submitted the geochemical core analysis plan. The District has reviewed the technical specification for the recharge well/monitor well installation, the pilot plant construction/operation sampling protocol and proposed geochemical leaking analysis procedure and has provided comments to the City for their consideration. A meeting was held June 1, 2012, to go over the District s comments and questions regarding these reports. The first public meeting was held in May and the project is on schedule to start well construction in June The next status meeting is scheduled for July 6, Project Manager: Robert Peterson City of Winter Haven - Reclaimed Water for Recharge Feasibility Study This is a desktop feasibility study to evaluate using 4 mgd of highly treated excess reclaimed water for indirect aquifer recharge to benefit water levels in the area. The consultant submitted the first technical memorandum that summarized the results of the background 23

289 Item 43 screening of potential recharge locations on January 9, The City selected properties for further evaluation on February 1, 2012, and initiated development of a sub-regional groundwater flow model to perform the analysis using the Districtwide Regulation Model. New Activities Since Last Meeting: The District reviewed the consultant s second technical memorandum summarizing the modeling activities and results and provided comments/recommendations to the City. The memo was finalized and submitted by June 15, The next status meeting is scheduled for June 27, Project Manager: Robert Peterson Pasco County - Reclaimed Water Natural Systems Treatment and Restoration Project A desktop feasibility study to assess using 10 mgd of highly treated reclaimed water to indirectly recharge the UFA via constructed wetlands and/or rapid infiltration basins (RIB) in the Crews Lake and central Pasco areas was completed in January The study showed that indirect aquifer recharge is a viable option for Pasco County. A Phase II feasibility study and report was completed in February 2012 and includes a screening analysis for potential RIB locations, as well as cost analyses refinements for potential future phases. Phase III will include field testing and modeling once a potential property has been identified. The Phase III scope of work is now complete and the agreement is being routed. A follow-up meeting was held March 19, 2012, to develop a plan to contact land owners identified in the Phase II report to determine which lands are available for field testing and potential purchase for a RIB. New Activities Since Last Meeting: It is anticipated that work will begin on Phase III by the end of June Property owners are being contacted and initial meetings with interested owners are being scheduled. Project Manager: Mike Hancock Polk County - Groundwater Recharge Investigation This is an indirect aquifer recharge desktop feasibility study and pilot testing project to evaluate improvements to UFA water levels from applying varying quantities of reclaimed water flows into existing RIB systems in the County's Northeast Regional Utilities Service Area. Sites being evaluated include the Northeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility and Polo Davenport. Tasks include performing a site characterization, installing monitoring wells, performing aquifer and RIB characterization activities, and conducting recharge testing for one year. The County s consultant completed the preliminary site assessment report and detailed testing plan on December 15, It was determined that the Northeast Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility would be the primary focus for the study; and the plan includes specifics on the well installations, soil borings, and aquifer and RIB testing. Water level monitoring and soil characterization will also be performed at Polo Davenport. New Activities Since Last Meeting: District staff attended a status meeting on June 2, The consultants have completed installation of monitoring wells, collection of soil borings, evaluation of surface geophysics, performance of soil infiltration tests, aquifer testing, and the 30-day load test of the RIB system. The consultant is currently preparing to conduct the load test of the RIB system which is scheduled to start on May 25, The next status meeting is scheduled for July 5, Project Manager: Ron Basso South Hillsborough County Aquifer Recharge Program (SHARP) This is a direct aquifer recharge pilot project to evaluate directly recharging the non-potable zone of the UFA with up to 2 mgd of highly treated reclaimed water at the County s Big Bend facility near Apollo Beach in southern Hillsborough County. The goal of the project is to improve water levels within the Most Impacted Area of the SWUCA and possible slow the rate of inland movement of saltwater intrusion in the area. The pilot testing program includes permitting, installing a recharge well and associated monitor wells, assessing aquifer characteristics, performing recharge testing, evaluating water level improvements, migration of the recharge water and metals mobilization, and conducting public outreach. The County s consultant submitted the well construction permit application for authorization to install the test recharge well and monitoring wells on December 20, New Activities Since Last Meeting: DEP issued a permit to construct and test the recharge well on May 8, The project team is continuing with the design of the system and preparation of construction bid documents. The next status meeting will be held with District Regulatory staff in June 2012 to discuss obtaining additional groundwater supply based on the Net Benefit provision of the water use permitting rules. Project Manager: Mark Barcelo 24

290 Item 43 Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area Flow Meter and Automatic Meter Reading Equipment Implementation Program At the June 2011 Governing Board meeting, the Board reviewed the Dover/Plant City Water Use Caution Area (DPCWUCA) Flow Meter and Automatic Meter Reading (AMR) Equipment Implementation Program (program) and authorized staff to encumber $1,394,980 from FY2011 into FY2012 to implement the program. The program administration will be guided by a District procedure that is divided into two distinctive steps: (1) installation of flow meters, and (2) installation of AMR equipment. The program is being implemented as a result of several groundwater drawdown events related to frost/freeze protection of agricultural commodities in the Dover/Plant City area. In January 2010, this area experienced a record number of well failures (760) related to groundwater drawdown associated with irrigation used for crop frost/freeze protection. The magnitude of the 2010 frost/freeze event brought into focus the need to further enhance the collection of hydrogeological data, including water use information, to better understand and manage the relationship between pumping and groundwater drawdown. As part of the District s response to these events, a series of Stakeholder and Technical Work Group meetings were held to develop management strategies. Potential management strategies were also discussed by the Governing Board at several Board meetings in spring At their June 2010 meeting, the Governing Board directed staff to proceed with the establishment of the DPCWUCA and a recovery strategy that included the expansion of data collection activities through the installation of flow meters and AMR equipment. The Board also authorized the use of $50,000 in contingency funds to begin AMR implementation. At their December 2010 meeting, the Board adopted a minimum aquifer level in the DPCWUCA (Rule 40D-8.626, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.)), as well as a recovery strategy (Rule 40D , F.A.C.) that incorporated flow meters and AMR installations to reduce resource impacts from future frost/freeze pumping events. The rules went into effect on June 16, Meter information in the Dover/Plant City area will be used by the District to: (1) improve the allocation of well mitigation responsibilities among permit holders, (2) allow District staff to better identify permit compliance issues resulting from pumping during frost/freeze events, (3) improve the modeling of impacts resulting from pumping during frost/freeze events, (4) allow the monitoring of performance and track the progress of management actions implemented, and (5) provide for the overall assessment of the recovery strategy goal of reducing frost/freeze protection quantities by 20 percent in ten years. It is estimated that 626 flow meters and 961 AMR devices will need to be installed within the 256-square mile DPCWUCA. Total costs of the program are estimated to be $5.5 million for flow meter and AMR equipment installation with approximately $300,000 required annually to support the program. The implementation schedule is to complete all flow meter installations within three years (September 2014) and AMR installations within five years (September 2016). A Request for Proposal was advertised on December 30, 2011, to obtain a qualified consultant to install AMR equipment. On March 8, 2012, the District elected to reject all proposals from a group of seven respondents. The solicitation of the Request for Proposal is expected to be reissued in June 2012, and installations are anticipated to begin by late New Activities Since Last Meeting: As of May 18, 2012, a total of 41 flow meters have been installed. Staff is continuing to work with 77 permittees identified to date that are eligible to participate in the flow meter reimbursement program. As permit renewals or modifications are issued that qualify for the reimbursement program, permittees are contacted with instructions on how to participate. In addition, it is anticipated that approximately 35 additional permittees will be contacted by mail each quarter to participate in the program over the next three years. Project Manager: Paul Yosler Staff Recommendation: This item is provided for the Committee s information, and no action is required. Presenter: Mark A. Hammond, Division Director, Resource Management 25

291 G. Operations & Land Management

292 Governing Board Meeting June 26, 2012 OPERATIONS &LAND MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE Discussion Items 44. Hydrologic Conditions Status Report... (10 minutes)... 2 Submit & File Reports 45. Surplus Lands Assessment Update Flying Eagle Nature Center Update... 5 Routine Reports 47. Structure Operations Significant Activities... 21

293 Item 44 Operations and Land Management Committee June 26, 2012 Discussion Item Hydrologic Conditions Status Report This routine report provides information on the general state of the District's hydrologic conditions, by comparing rainfall, surface water, and groundwater levels for the current month to comparable data from the historical record. The data shown are typically considered final, fully verified monthly values, but occasionally, due to timing of publication, some data are identified as "provisional," meaning that the values shown are best estimates based on incomplete data. The information presented below is a summary of data presented in much greater detail in the Hydrologic Conditions Report published the week before the Governing Board meeting, which also includes an updated provisional summary of hydrologic conditions as of the date of publication. It is available at Rainfall Provisional rainfall totals for May were above-normal in the northern region of the District and within the normal range in the central and southern regions. The normal range is defined as rainfall totals that fall on or between the 25 th to 75 th percentiles derived from the historical data for each month. Northern region rainfall averaged 6.48 inches, equivalent to the 87 th percentile Central region rainfall averaged 3.28 inches, equivalent to the 60 th percentile. Southern region rainfall averaged 3.01 inches, equivalent to the 46 th percentile. District-wide, average rainfall was 4.07 inches, equivalent to the 69 th percentile. Streamflow May streamflow data indicates that flow in regional index rivers decreased in all three regions of the District, compared to the previous month. Streamflow conditions ended the month belownormal in all three regions. Normal streamflow is defined as falling on or between the 25 th and 75 th percentiles. The monthly average streamflow in the Withlacoochee River near Holder in the northern region was at the 1 st percentile. The monthly average streamflow measured in the Hillsborough River near Zephyrhills in the central region was in the 4 th percentile. The monthly average streamflow measured in the Peace River at Arcadia in the southern region was in the 2 nd percentile. Groundwater Levels May groundwater data indicate levels in the Floridan/Intermediate aquifer increased in the northern and southern regions of the District, while they decreased in the central region, compared to last month. Groundwater conditions ended the month below-normal in all three regions. Normal groundwater levels are defined as those falling on or between the 25 th and 75 th percentiles. The average groundwater level in the northern counties was in the 13 th percentile. The average groundwater level in the central counties was in the 22 nd percentile. The average groundwater level in the southern counties was in the 18 th percentile. 2

294 Item 44 Lake Levels Water-level data for May indicates average lake levels decreased in all four regions of the District. All regions ended the month below the base of the annual normal range. Normal lake levels are generally considered to be levels that fall between the minimum low management level and the minimum flood level. Average levels in the Northern region decreased 0.50 foot and were 5.98 feet below the base of the annual normal range. Average lake levels in the Tampa Bay region decreased 0.54 foot and were 1.03 feet below the base of the annual normal range. Average lake levels in the Polk Uplands region decreased 0.29 foot and were 2.17 feet below the base of the annual normal range. Average lake levels in the Lake Wales Ridge region decreased 0.32 foot and were 4.53 feet below the base of the annual normal range. Issues of Significance May was the last month of the eight-month dry season (October-May) and rainfall during the first three-weeks of the month saw scattered showers/thunderstorm activity, while the last week saw abundant rainfall in the northern region from Tropical Storm Beryl. Localized rainfall provided some improvement to hydrologic conditions, although most hydrologic indicators remain belownormal throughout the District in response to the long-term dry conditions. Analysis of provisional rainfall data for the dry-season shows District-wide totals to be about 6.6 inches below the long-term historic average. District-wide, the provisional twelve-month rainfall deficit improved during May, ending the month approximately 9.6 inches below the long-term historical average, while the 24-month deficit improved to 16.3 inches below the long-term average. Groundwater levels remain at below-normal conditions throughout the District. Five ground water monitor wells, three lakes, three streamflow sites and one springflow site set new record low levels in May. Streamflow on the District s major river systems remain at extremely low levels, limiting their use as water supply sources. Regional lake levels are below-normal in all regions and continue to decline. The US Drought Monitor, as of May 29, 2012, indicates severe or extreme drought conditions in all regions of the District. The risk of wildfire throughout the District is high. NOAA climate forecasts continue to indicate uncertainty (i.e., equal chances for below-normal, normal or above-normal) for rainfall conditions from June through August. Updated weather forecasts will be available in mid-june. Staff will continue to closely monitor conditions in accordance with the District's updated Water Shortage Plan, including any necessary supplemental analysis of pertinent data. Staff Recommendation: This item is presented for the Committee's information, and no action is required. Presenter: Granville Kinsman, Manager, Hydrologic Data Section, Data Collection Bureau 3

295 Item 45 Operations and Land Management Committee June 26, 2012 Submit & File Report Surplus Lands Assessment Update Staff has completed the land assessment process for Evaluation Area 3 (parcels in Pasco, Lake and Polk Counties including the Green Swamp) and will be presenting recommendations to the Governing Board Subcommittee at their August meeting at the Tampa Service Office. Staff has submitted the surplus evaluation forms for the Frog Creek parcel (recommended from Evaluation Area 1) to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for their review and approval and is producing the evaluation forms for the Tampa-By Pass Canal (4 parcels, 17.5 acres total) and Chito Branch parcels (2 parcels, 126 acres total) from Evaluation Area 2. Staff anticipates bringing the Frog Creek parcel to the Governing Board for its surplus consideration at either the August or September meeting. Staff Recommendation: This item is submitted for the Committee's information, and no action is required. Staff welcomes any input or direction on this item. Presenter: Roy Mazur P.E., AICP, Bureau Chief, Operations and Land Management 4

296 Item 46 Operations and Land Management Committee June 26, 2012 Submit & File Report Flying Eagle Nature Center Update The Flying Eagle Nature Center is located within the Flying Eagle Preserve in Citrus County. Pending the dissolution of the lease with the Gulf Ridge Council of the Boy Scouts of America in May 2012 and with no other willing state agency partners, the Governing Board directed staff to seek other joint ventures to explore the recreational potential for the site while also providing the maintenance and security for the property. District staff has formed a multi-disciplinary project team that is developing a marketing plan and website, researching organizations to target, scheduling site visits with interested parties, preparing the facilities for marketing, and drafting a Request for Proposal (RFP) for eventual release to the marketplace. Staff has also engaged the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to patrol the property through the end of the fiscal year or until a partner has been retained. A project timeline is included in the Board packet as an exhibit to this item. Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit This item is submitted for the Committee s information, and no action is required. welcomes any input or direction on this item. Staff Presenter: Cheryl Hill, Land Program Coordinator, Operations and Land Management Bureau 5

297 Flying Eagle Nature Center RFP Timeline May June July August September October November December January Establish Project Team Initial Site Visit/Kick-off Meeting Review Zoning/Future Land Use Estimate Cost for Clean-up Clean-up Marketing Plan and Materials Develop Marketing Plan Single-page Flier Webpage Prospectus Request for Proposal (RFP) 6 Draft RFP Develop Sample Lease Internal Review Finalize RFP Send Ads to Newspapers Direct Mail Potential Respondents Advertisement Period Proposal Deadline Evaluate Proposal Selection Committee Meeting Governing Board Approval of Proposal Team Status Meetings Governing Board Status Report Advertise Lease (per ss (2)) Governing Board Status Report Governing Board Execution of Lease

298 Item 47 Operations and Land Management Committee June 26, 2012 Routine Report Structure Operations May was the last month of the eight-month dry season (October-May) and rainfall during the first three-weeks of the month saw scattered showers/thunderstorm activity, while the last week saw abundant rainfall in the northern region from Tropical Storm Beryl. Localized rainfall provided some improvement to hydrologic conditions, although most hydrologic indicators remain belownormal throughout the District in response to the long-term dry conditions. Analysis of provisional rainfall data for the dry-season shows District-wide totals to be about 6.6 inches below the long-term historic average. District-wide, the provisional twelve-month rainfall deficit improved during May, ending the month approximately 9.6 inches below the long-term historical average, while the 24-month deficit improved to 16.3 inches below the long-term average. Groundwater levels remain at below-normal conditions throughout the District. Five ground water monitor wells, three lakes, three streamflow sites and one springflow site set new record low levels in May. Streamflow on the District s major river systems remain at extremely low levels, limiting their use as water supply sources. Regional lake levels are below-normal in all regions and continue to decline. The US Drought Monitor, as of May 29, 2012, indicates severe or extreme drought conditions in all regions of the District. The risk of wildfire throughout the District is high. NOAA climate forecasts continue to indicate uncertainty (i.e., equal chances for below-normal, normal or above-normal) for rainfall conditions from June through August. Updated weather forecasts will be available in mid-june. Staff will continue to closely monitor conditions in accordance with the District's updated Water Shortage Plan, including any necessary supplemental analysis of pertinent data. Rainfall Provisional rainfall totals for May were above-normal in the northern region of the District and within the normal range in the central and southern regions. The normal range is defined as rainfall totals that fall on or between the 25 th to 75 th percentiles derived from the historical data for each month. Northern region rainfall averaged 6.48 inches, equivalent to the 87 th percentile Central region rainfall averaged 3.28 inches, equivalent to the 60 th percentile. Southern region rainfall averaged 3.01 inches, equivalent to the 46 th percentile. District-wide, average rainfall was 4.07 inches, equivalent to the 69 th percentile. A summary of the operations made in May is as follows: Inglis Water Control Structures: The Inglis Bypass Spillway was operated during the month of May in order to maintain water levels in Lake Rousseau and provide flow to the lower Withlacoochee River. The average monthly water level for Lake Rousseau was NGVD. The recommended maintenance level for the reservoir is NGVD. 7

299 Item 47 Withlacoochee River Basin: During the month of May all water conservation structures in the Tsala Apopka Chain of Lakes were closed with the exception of the Moccasin Slough Structure. The Moccasin Slough Structure remains open allowing for the natural flow of the slough between the Inverness and Floral City Pools. As the result of no flow from the Withlacoochee River into the Tsala Apopka Chain of Lakes the Leslie Heifner Structure was closed during the last week in May. The Wysong-Coogler Water Conservation Structure main gate was fully inflated to NGVD aiding in the regulation of the Lake Panasoffkee water level. The low flow gate was inflated to NGVD providing minimum flow requirements to the Withlacoochee River downstream of the structure. The average monthly water level for Lake Panasoffkee was NGVD. Alafia River Basin: There were no structure operations during the month of May. The average monthly water level for the Medard Reservoir was NGVD compared to the recommended maintenance level of NGVD. Hillsborough River Basin: There were no structure operations during the month of May. The average monthly water level for Lake Thonotosassa was NGVD compared to the recommended maintenance level of 36.50' NGVD. Pinellas-Anclote River Basin: The Sawgrass Lake Structure was operated during the month of May. A water level of 4.50 NGVD will be maintained on Sawgrass Lake in order to facilitate the dredging portion of the Sawgrass Lake Restoration Project. The average monthly water level for Lake Tarpon was 2.84 NGVD compared to the recommended maintenance level of 3.20' NGVD. Peace River Basin: There were no structure operations during the month of May. The average monthly water level for Lake Hancock was NGVD compared to the recommended maintenance level of NGVD. Work on the P-11 replacement structure is progressing. The scheduled completion date is May The average monthly water level for Lake June-in-Winter was NGVD compared to the recommended maintenance level of NGVD. Green Swamp Basin: There were no structure operations made during the month of May. The average monthly water level for Lake Gibson was NGVD. The recommended maintenance level for the Lake Gibson is NGVD. Staff Recommendation: See Exhibit This item is provided for the Committee's information, and no action is required. Presenter: David P. Crane, P.E., Manager, Structure Operations Section, Operations and Land Management Bureau 8

300 STRUCTURE OPERATIONS SECTION HYDROLOGIC REPORT June 4, 2012 STRUCTURE ELEVATION ELEVATION CURRENT POSITION OF ELEVATION ELEVATION CURRENT POSITION OF LEVELS DIFFERENCE LEVEL STRUCTURE STRUCTURE LEVELS DIFFERENCE LEVEL STRUCTURE FLINT CREEK Gate 1 Closed FLORAL CITY POOL HIGH LEVEL Gate 2 Closed HIGH GUIDE LEVEL Leslie Heifner Fully Open MAXIMUM DESIRABLE All drop gates: 36.00' MSL HIGH MIN LEVEL Floral City Fully Closed LOW LEVEL invert 32.9' MIN LAKE LEVEL Golf Course Golf Course All Gates Closed LOW GUIDE LEVEL invert 38.0' Moccasin Slough Open KELL HIGH LEVEL Open (No Boards) INVERNESS POOL Brogden Bridge Gate 1 Closed MAXIMUM DESIRABLE HIGH GUIDE LEVEL Brogden Bridge Gate 2 Closed LOW LEVEL invert 64.66' HIGH MIN LEVEL Brogden Bridge Brogden Culvert Closed MIN LAKE LEVEL invert 34.25' Bryant Slough gates Closed KEENE Keene 1: Closed 12" of Board LOW GUIDE LEVEL HIGH LEVEL Keene 2: Closed 12" of Board MAXIMUM DESIRABLE invert 61.6' Keene 3: Open (No Boards) HERNANDO POOL (S353) LOW LEVEL invert 61.6' Sherry Brook: Closed 18" of Board HIGH GUIDE LEVEL HIGH MIN LEVEL S-353 Van Ness Closed STEMPER MIN LAKE LEVEL invert 36.5' S-353 Gates Closed HIGH GUIDE LEVEL Open 8" of Tapered Board LOW GUIDE LEVEL HIGH MIN LEVEL Two Mile Prairie (max) MIN LAKE LEVEL invert 60.25' LOW GUIDE LEVEL LESLIE HEIFNER Upstream (RIVER level) UPSTREAM Downstream (POOL level) HANNA DOWNSTREAM Gate Fully Closed HIGH LEVEL Closed 18" of Boards invert 35.0' MAXIMUM DESIRABLE LOW LEVEL invert 60.28' WYSONG-COOGLER UPSTREAM Main Gate Fully Up CYPRESS CREEK Flood Stage DOWNSTREAM Independent gate at WORTHINGTON GARDENS Drop Gate Open 3.0'. total cfs 9.1 INGLIS SAWGRASS LAKE HIGH LEVEL By-pass Gates Open 0.88' HIGH LEVEL Gate 1 Closed MAXIMUM DESIRABLE Main Gates Closed LOW LEVEL Gate 2 Closed LOW LEVEL invert 11.3' 331 Total Bypass cfs flow Gate 3 Closed TARPON (S551) 3.14 LAKE BRADLEY HIGH LEVEL Main Gates 1, & 4 Closed MAXIMUM DESIRABLE MAXIMUM DESIRABLE Main Gates 2, & 3 Closed Gate Open 1.00' LOW LEVEL Drop Gates 1,2,3,4 Open to 3.3' LAKE CONSUELLA MAXIMUM DESIRABLE ANNE PARKER All Logs in Closed HIGH LEVEL " of Board Installed MEDARD RESERVOIR MAXIMUM DESIRABLE MAXIMUM DESIRABLE Gate Closed LOW LEVEL invert 46.40' HANCOCK (P11) Gauge at structure WHITE TROUT HIGH LEVEL Gauge on lake HIGH LEVEL MAXIMUM DESIRABLE MAXIMUM DESIRABLE " of Board Installed LOW LEVEL invert 91.7' All Gates Closed LOW LEVEL invert 32.94' HENRY (P5) HIGH LEVEL Gate Closed KEYSTONE MAXIMUM DESIRABLE HIGH LEVEL Gate 1 Closed LOW LEVEL invert 122.0' MAXIMUM DESIRABLE Gate 2 Closed LOW LEVEL invert 37.2' SMART (P6) HIGH LEVEL Gate Closed CRESCENT MAXIMUM DESIRABLE HIGH GUIDE LEVEL Gate Closed LOW LEVEL invert 127.2' HIGH MIN LEVEL MIN LAKE LEVEL invert 38.5' FANNIE (P7) LOW GUIDE LEVEL HIGH LEVEL Gates Closed MAXIMUM DESIRABLE ISLAND FORD LOW LEVEL invert 119.5' HIGH LEVEL All Gates Closed MAXIMUM DESIRABLE invert 35.0' HAMILTON (P8) LOW LEVEL crest 41.25' HIGH LEVEL Gates Closed MAXIMUM DESIRABLE PRETTY LOW LEVEL invert 113.0' HIGH GUIDE LEVEL Lift Gate 2&3 Closed HIGH MIN LEVEL Drop 1&4 Closed LENA (P1) MIN LAKE LEVEL invert 38.0' HIGH LEVEL Gate closed LOW GUIDE LEVEL MAXIMUM DESIRABLE LOW MANAGEMENT invert ' MAGDALENE Lake gauge HIGH LEVEL Structure gauge JUNE-IN-WINTER (G90) MAXIMUM DESIRABLE HIGH GUIDE LEVEL Gates Closed LOW MANAGEMENT invert 45.6' Gates Closed HIGH MIN LEVEL Overflow at 75.00' NGVD MIN LAKE LEVEL invert 65.37' BAY LOW GUIDE LEVEL HIGH LEVEL Gates Closed ARIETTA (P3) MAXIMUM DESIRABLE HIGH LEVEL Gate Closed LOW LEVEL invert 44.0' MAXIMUM DESIRABLE LOW LEVEL invert 137.4' ELLEN-LIPSEY Structure Gauge HIGH LEVEL Lake Gauge GIBSON MAXIMUM DESIRABLE Both Gates Closed HIGH LEVEL Gate Closed LOW LEVEL invert 37.6' Drops: At 41.00' MAXIMUM DESIRABLE Stop log bays at ' crest Low Level invert 141.4' CARROLL HIGH LEVEL " of Board Installed PARKER MAXIMUM DESIRABLE HIGH LEVEL Gate Closed LOW LEVEL invert 34.17' MAXIMUM DESIRABLE LOW LEVEL invert ' ARMISTEAD HIGH LEVEL Gate Closed PEACE RIVER Flood Stage MAXIMUM DESIRABLE BARTOW LOW LEVEL ZOLFO SPRINGS ARCADIA HILLSBOROUGH RIVER Flood Stage MORRIS BRIDGE S-155 is open LITTLE MANATEE RIVER Flood Stage FOWLER WIMAUMA WITHLACOOCHEE R. Flood Stage ALAFIA RIVER Flood Stage TRILBY LITHIA CROOM HIGHWAY MYAKKA RIVER Flood Stage LAKE PANASOFFKEE MYAKKA STATE PARK HOLDER MANATEE RIVER Flood Stage ANCLOTE RIVER Flood Stage MYAKKA HEAD ELFERS

301 FLAGLER LEVY #* ROUSSEAU CITRUS #* INVERNESS POOL HERNANDO POOL #* MARION District Structure Sites VOLUSIA CONSUELLA BRADLEY FLORAL CITY POOL #* #* #* LESLIE HEIFNER SUMTER LAKE SEMINOLE HERNANDO ORANGE PASCO ISLAND FORD KEYSTONE CRESCENT TARPON PINELLAS #* #* ANN-PARKER #* #* #* #* PRETTY ARMISTEAD SAWGRASS #*#* #* #* #* #* KELL HANNA KEENE STEMPER #* THONOTOSASSA MAGDALENE BAY ELLEN-LIPSEY CARROLL WHITE TROUT #* MEDARD HILLSBOROUGH LOWERY GIBSON ARIETTA (P-3) #* HAINES #* #* #* #* HENRY (P-5) PARKER#* #* #* #* SMART (P-6) LENA (P-1) #* FANNIE (P-7) POLK HAMILTON (P-8) #* HANCOCK (P-11) OSCEOLA MANATEE HARDEE HIGHLANDS #* SARASOTA DESOTO JUNE-IN-WINTER (G-90) 10