Yes… the “F” word. But, probably not the one you’re thinking
of… but then again, it indeed may be. However, in this case, the “F” stands for
alleged “flooding.”
After several delays we finally heard the explanation of the
storm water master plan from the engineering firm of Craig A. Smith &
Associates. Resident turnout was meager, which pretty much matched the number
of residents that bothered to complete and return the storm water survey….about 20ish for each. There was a repeated battle cry issued
from the president of Craig A. Smith to “keep the survey alive.” I’ll assume
that his thinking was that additional surveys would somehow change the results from
those already obtained. At least that’s my best guess. A more logical
conclusion would simply be the lack of interest shown towards this project from
our residents.
Of the 20ish surveys that were completed, only four residents
claimed to have had any water intrusion. And based on the data found within the
master plan, those appear to have been in lower elevation level garages. It is
also of interest to note that some of those four properties claiming water
damage may have been due to improper land elevation or grading on their personal
property. Something that this master
plan wouldn’t fix or address. As stated from the engineers themselves, “these retro-fit drainage systems are not a
cure all, end all.” Further, we also discovered that these four claims weren’t
even verified by those preparing the survey. Nope, it was based only on trust. But
in truth it is irrelevant if the four cases were legitimate or not. Meaning,
we’re now having a $13M conversation over four alleged properties claiming water
intrusion. This speaks volumes as to the entire hypothesis.
In researching this topic since inception, I have had
questions and concerns regarding the very premise of this action. And these
question and concerns are vital ones. For all of us.
Please see below the video links from the meeting:
Please go to video 1
(6:30 time mark) to see the before and after pictures of the areas where water
pooling/puddles in our Village were observed after heavy rains. The time frames
for these photos are 2 hours, 4 hours,
and 6.5 hours apart. Based on this
photographic evidence, clogged drains and all, natural percolation and
evaporation effectively clears the water from our streets in less than 7 hours.
I found it telling that most everyone in attendance tap
danced around the “F” word. And this is due to the fact that we have provided
photographic evidence that proves otherwise. This is not in dispute; it is a
matter of record. A fact… and facts have no moral judgement. They merely state
what is. Not what we feel… they just are.
Only the facts
matter.
We have received 50+ comments from various residents and none
have been supportive of this master plan survey for storm water flooding. So,
who then is pushing this? As we’ll now discuss, this was really never about the
“F” word in the first place.
What this was however, was a poorly conceived effort of
misdirection, attempting to create a problem (where there is none) to further
another “want” from a small group of people. Namely, a Hail Mary end around
play for new streets. Here is how the story went…
Our previous Village Manager pitched that there is some
supposed “pot of gold” of money sitting in the States storm water fund and that
we could (somehow) access that money for street replacement. And how do I know
this? Because, I was pitched this very concept from her directly. After
listening my first question was, “ok, so please
explain how we can get money from the storm water department for street
replacement when we don’t have the need (or could prove a need) for any large scale storm water drainage system?”
And the answer I got back was…wait for it…crickets.
Below are several news clippings regarding the cutbacks in State
storm water funding over the past two years:
6/2015: While cutting a record $461 million from the
state’s $78.7 billion budget, Scott axed millions of dollars for storm water
projects to include $750,000 budgeted for Miami Beach’s storm water drainage
plan to safeguard the city from sea-level rise. According to Scott’s veto
message, the project “does not provide a
clear statewide return for the investment.”
3/2016: The budget included almost 200 local water
projects and Scott is proposing cutting 60 of these — a sharp contrast from
last year, when nearly all of these projects were wiped off the budget. Many
South Florida storm water improvements are being cut.
So the “pot of gold” theory doesn’t seem to hold much water
in reality. And none of the bids recently awarded were close to the money we
would need based on the master plans cost estimate.
BP Storm Water Concept Time Line
Date of the
application submittal was February 15, 2015.
Notice of 1st
Public Hearing on special assessment was
May 5, 2015 [assessment
failed]
Date of 1st
Community Storm Water Workshop was September 19, 2015
Date of
letter to Village Manager citing Exaggerated Language in Resolution #2015-51
was November 8, 2015 [Excerpt]
“I
would caution you regarding the exaggerated wording found in paragraph three of
Resolution No. 2015-51. It reads as follows: "Whereas, with no positive outfall, the Village relies on percolation
and evaporation and, as a result, much of the Village experiences flooding
after even minor storm events."
There is absolutely no factual evidence to support this
claim.
SECTION 8: DEFAULT/ TERMINATION/ Force Majeure
[Excerpt]
The Department may terminate this Agreement at any time if warranty or
representation made by the Grantee in this Agreement or in its application for
funding shall at any time be false or misleading in any respect.
The
representation of "much of the
Village experiences flooding after even minor storm events" is both
false AND misleading.
November 9, 2015: Village Attorney verification that
the application language was “taken from
the description provided
by our engineers, Craig A. Smith & Associates (CAS). CAS was hired to review the condition of the Village's
storm water and provided that information to the state.”
[ASIDE] the fact that an “interested
party” (i.e. one with a potential financial gain) provided the language used in
the application could be considered a Conflict of Interest. Also and more to
the point, this language was submitted for funding nearly one full year before their survey started [END ASIDE]
So, my question remains, how did
Craig A. Smith come to the conclusion of “much of the Village experiences flooding after even
minor storm events" before they had collected any information or even
started their survey? Think about that for a minute…
Odds and Ends
On video 2 (38:53 time mark) Gene (CAS) states (and he’s said this
before) that if we proceed with any of this work “you’ll get new roads.”
He was immediately corrected by one of his staff explaining that this is not
true, and that only a street “patch” is offered for the price.
On video 3 (40:27 time mark) there was a discussion about if this drainage
system would possibly reduce flood insurance premiums, insinuating that the
savings in flood insurance would be substantial vs. the special tax assessment needed
to pay for it. This is also factually incorrect. Flood insurance premiums are
based on individual property ground elevations- not the water table. The suggestion that by improving drainage
flood insurance premiums would be reduced is inaccurate. Improving drainage
does not change the properties elevation. Biscayne Park would still remain in a
Government flood zone.
So, to recap we’ve seen a possible
Conflict of Interest in having an interested party provide language in the
grant application to the State. Language that could be considered to be in
violation of the applications Section 8 Default guidelines. A last minute
“sneak attack” (opinion from one angry resident) attempt of a special tax
assessment to fund the $200,000 master plans sought (an end run around our
existing millage). Possible violations of our Citizens’ Bill of Rights (Part 1
section 2) of knowingly misleading the public by city officials and/or employees
on the unsubstantiated realities of our purported street flooding. As
previously mentioned, this was never really about street flooding. Exaggerated
and misleading statements found within the master plan report itself. And who
knows how much time and tax dollars spent towards this matter to date.
Neighbors, we all need to open our
eyes and ears and pay attention to what is happening around us. If not, we have
only ourselves to blame.
Standing Watch,
Milton Hunter
The Biscayne Parker
