The "F" Word

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:

Video 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QifNIK7_Fhc

Video 2:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F48CiXSW4Pw

Video 3:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlCO6-jEAVk

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 1^st Public Hearing on special assessment was May 5, 2015 [assessment failed]

Date of 1^st 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