MINUTES
OF MEETING
CORAL
SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
A
meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was
held on
Present and constituting a quorum were:
Robert Fennell President
Sharon Zich Vice President
Glenn Hanks Secretary
Also present were:
Kenneth Cassel District
Manager
Edward Goscicki Co-Manager
-
Dennis Lyles District Counsel
Cory Johnson CH2M Hill
Sean Skehan CH2M Hill
Daniel Bohorquez CH2M
Hill
Dan Daly CSID
Jim Aversa CSID
Doug Hyche CSID
Randy Fredericks CSID
Drainage Supervisor
Kay Woodward CSID Accountant
Jan Zilmer CSID Human
Resources
Pamela Rower
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr.
Cassel called the meeting to order and called the roll.
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the April 14, 2008 Meeting
Mr.
Cassel stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr.
Daly stated on page 10, “IT Department” should be “UB Department”. The third paragraph on page 35 should read,
“Ms. Woodward stated because we are in the capitalized interest period on the
2007 Bonds we are not allowed to report income in excess of the expense. If you look at the revenue you will see
$494,539 as a separate line item and when you go down to the debt service you
will see interest expense in the same amount.
Any differential between actual interest earned and interest paid is
charged to Construction in Progress.” On
the top of page 36, ‘descent’ should be ‘percent’.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in
favor the minutes of the
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’
Requests and Audience Comments
There
not being any, the next item followed.
FOURT
ORDER OF BUSINESS Distribution
of the Proposed General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2009 and Consideration of
Resolution 2008-4 Approving the Proposed Budget and Setting the Public Hearing
Ms. Zich asked are we getting our raise?
Mr.
Daly responded that is a question for Mr. Lyles.
Ms.
Zich stated you put it in the budget so I thought you knew something.
Mr.
Lyles stated that is a question for the legislature. While they did approve it, it was the
Governor’s veto which took it away. At
this point there is nothing staff can put before the Board to accomplish this
short of going through the amendment process again with the legislature.
Mr. Hanks MOVED to adopt Resolution 2008-4 which approves
the proposed budget and sets the public hearing to adopt the general fund
budget for July 21, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. and Mr. Fennell seconded it.
Ms.
Zich asked did you look at the assessments?
The prior year it was $187.70 and they are proposing it goes down, which
I think is great because the price of gas and everything else is going up. I just want to make sure you guys noted that.
Mr.
Daly responded the assessment level of $169.52 is staff’s idea of the minimum
we should charge based on the known expenses we are going to have. The difference between $169.52 and $187.70 is
where the Board has some leeway with regard to projects they may see coming
up. We identified projects coming up we
will need money for. Some of the things
we budgeted for in the past we have not used.
This year we brought about $200,000 worth of budgeted items, which went
unused. The most prudent thing to do is to
have a designated reserve category with a multiple list of items we are
building a fund for; whether it be a new fleet or the rehabilitation of our
pump stations in the next ten years again.
Our budget this year was about $580,000 for the rehabilitation of two
pump stations. With this and a few other
items which would be in there, we suggest keeping the assessment level the
same. It will give ample monies for the
Board to direct some projects such as widening the canal, dredging some areas
or canal bank maintenance if necessary.
Mr.
Fennell asked how much reserve do we have now?
Ms.
Woodward responded the reserve you have now is $874,499.
Mr.
Fennell stated I think our goal is to have this amount of reserve in case we
run into a hurricane. We know there are
some issues as far as drainage out of these basins and we have been looking at
this. There have been a few proposals
for digging a new canal from one canal to another so we can drain from one area
to another. Are you prepared to talk
about this today? This may be the right
time to talk about the canal issues. Let
us hear what you have to say before we approve the budget.
Ms.
Woodward stated $169.52 is the number on the bottom of page two of the proposed
budget in your agenda package. Staff has
identified several items we think might be considered by the Board and need to
be a part of the fiscal year 2009 budget.
These are items one, two and three.
We have attempted to show you what we think the total will be for each
of these projects and to give you a comparison as to how much this means per
unit as far as the actual assessment level.
We left a portion where it says Board directive and projects. This is the portion we have not identified
any needs we think are critical. There
is a differential between what is shown in the proposed budget and what last
year’s budget was of $17.09 per unit.
This is roughly $200,000 which needs to be entered into these proposed
numbers.
Mr.
Fennell stated there are already capital improvements budgeted.
Ms.
Woodward stated that is correct. The
$250,000 line item represents the items which were not part of what went out to
bid on the two pump stations. It was not
included in any of the items we have listed here.
Mr.
Fennell asked what is it for?
Mr.
Daly responded the two pump stations were big items in the initial engineer’s
report. We put a lot more in last year’s
budget. They both need some work.
Mr.
Fredericks stated there are some design flaws in the existing pump stations.
Mr.
Bohorquez stated we found out with our computer model that some potential areas
will have trouble if we receive ten inches or more of rain. Our task was to study if something can be
done to lower these levels. One of our
recommendations is to add pipes to the drainage system or change the size of
the drainage system. We can do it as a
trench lift or an open trench. Another
opportunity to help this area is to connect this area with this sub-basin. The 54 inch pipes will give us some relief. Our main concern is the east basin. There are other alternatives for the west
basin, but we do not consider it a major issue at this time. Some of the programs’ prices are from last
year.
Mr.
Skehan stated this is relative to water pipes.
I spoke with a contractor the other day.
Any interim price increase for 2008 went into effect in May and it was
18%. This is interim. It is not even a full year.
Mr.
Bohorquez stated something we consider important is to provide an alternative
route for water to run from north to south with the new piping you saw in the
previous slide. The cost for this
package will be almost $3 Million. The
total for the main improvements for the east basin will be approximately $17
Million.
Mr.
Hanks asked does this do anything to address improving storage or anything like
it?
Mr.
Bohorquez responded no. This is just to
improve the conveyance of the water.
Mr.
Hanks stated one of the things we are trying to get with the SFWMD is to try to
tap into their alternative water resource.
There are some funds available to provide this. One thing we have to keep in mind with the
increase in allocation for the nanofiltration, they are probably looking for us
to go to the Floridian. One way is to
increase the amount of storage. We may
be able to get a double bang for our buck in that we are able to provide
additional storage in the northeast area of the District. It will help to reduce the stages in that
neck of the woods. It will help to
provide additional storage for water use and help us stay out of going into the
Floridian Aquifer. The $17 Million is
just to address flooding. It does not
consider any of these other things. I
asked Mr. Daly to look at other ways to address some of these issues. One thing I think we can be faced with in the
east basin is, are we prepared to say to the city, “Listen, we cannot support
any additional increase in building square footage.” If you own a house out there, are we going to
say you cannot expand on it? Are we in
this position because we do not have any more storage to offer? One of the actions was to take a look at
digging out some of our canals to expand them.
We will have additional storage created.
If people still want to expand on their single-family homes, they have
the option of buying into and purchasing additional retention permits.
Mr.
Fennell asked where will we get more storage?
Mr.
Skehan responded what you will end up with in the eastern basin is the
availability of the interconnects to fully provide additional storage is not
possible. In the area of the Coral
Springs well fields, the canals go dry this time of the year. The water levels are low. Potentially, with some additional
interconnects, additional water can be moved which would otherwise be lost to
tide and discharged to the major canal systems like Hillsboro Canal or the
C-14. This will help keep more of the
water within the basin.
Certain
times of the year there is more water than is discharged. This is not the case during the dry
season. Last year the South Florida Water
Management District asked for NSID to be able to store more water before it was
pumped out to the canal. This water
could have potentially augmented better storage within the Coral
Springs/Parkland area, which is part of a more regional basin; this particular vicinity
working together will be able to store more water. What we will need is to potentially raise the
water levels by some increments in the canals so the water will be mounted in
the canal system within this small region.
Mr.
Fennell asked how does this relate to us splitting the difference?
Mr.
Skehan responded you have better connections and better flow to be able to move
the water from one place to another place.
With regard to the flooding situation, instead of holding the water it
will be going out into the discharge.
Mr.
Hanks stated it is not a question of storing it all in. We are going to be pumping; there is no
question about it. We are also looking
at the fact there will be head losses during a storm. If we make these changes, we will increase resistance
to the flow. You get better flow. The top edge of the system helps provide
additional protection to the existing facilities. The increase in the amount of storage we have
will give you two benefits. On the
smaller storms during the summer months it needs to go through the water rather
than up and down to provide additional water quality because you are providing
better treatment. You are able to hold
more.
Mr.
Fennell stated in order for us to increase our storage area we have to increase
the land area.
Mr.
Hanks stated there are some areas where we do have some right-of-way available.
Mr.
Bohorquez stated I was looking at aerials to determine what the cross section
of the canal is as well as the open area between the edge of the water and the
property line. We need to have at least
15 feet between the property line and the edge of the water level 14-1. If we do this exercise in the main canals, we
can get some storage area.
Mr.
Fennell stated we have to talk about three different things. One is interconnecting the areas, which is
desirable; particularly if we can do some kind of an agreement with the SFWMD
areas. We will have some bargaining
power. Two, we need to reduce our own
risk of flooding. Three is to increase
the storage and flooding capacity. Are
these three things going to cost us $1 Million?
Mr.
Goscicki responded in terms of today’s discussion staff has shown you from an
operational perspective you have the opportunity to drop your assessments a
little bit. Meanwhile, you are looking
at a $16 Million improvement program as well as other unquantified improvement
programs which can come up in the future.
What you are looking at is whether you keep your assessments the way
they are. The next step is for the
Board, the engineer and staff to come back in a workshop format to look at the
wish list and compare it with the assessments as well as other financial
options. You can drop the assessments if
you wanted to and we appreciate your desire to do this. This is why staff showed you these
numbers. At the same time we also want
to make sure you have a huge upside and potential capital improvements which
you do not have the cash on hand for.
Mr.
Fennell stated that would probably go out for a bond issue eventually to do all
of this. Does any of this tie into
somehow using our existing wastewater?
Mr.
Goscicki responded not this piece of it.
Mr.
Skehan stated at this point Mr. Hyche and I looked into the water use
permitting. As part of the water use permit,
if you are looking for additional capacity being taken from the surficial
aquifer, the surficial storage might have an impact on some of this. We have been talking back and forth about
water the Water Management District will be requiring various districts to do
for their water use permits. We would
like to avoid going through the expense of going to the Floridian Aquifer,
which is more than a $ 1 Million effort.
There is potential for some offsetting costs between building a
Floridian Aquifer and something like this.
We
had a discussion with the City of Coral Springs and talked about how we can do
something cooperatively. A lot of this
will tie into what the impact is going to be on what the additional uses are
indicating right now when we are finished with the modeling. Coral Springs has indicated they will be apt
to participate in part of the modeling effort.
As Mr. Goscicki pointed out, a workshop arena is a good place to put a
lot of this stuff on the table. It is
fairly complicated as to what is on the table from reuse, what is offsetting
from a reuse standpoint with the Water Management District and how it all takes
place together.
Mr.
Fennell asked when are we going to have this workshop?
Mr.
Cassel responded we just have to pick a date.
Mr.
Fennell stated I think it is a good idea because the water issue is not going
away. We need to have as a Board a
comprehensive policy we all agree to. We
need to have a unified policy and we have to have good rational reasons for
what we want to do. It may not end up
this way, but we need to have a rational way to try to do this.
Mr.
Skehan stated the timing for a workshop should be tied to, it is a better idea
from a modeling standpoint, taking place with the groundwater. We need to have these dialogues with Coral
Springs. We had similar issues with NSID
because their water use permit is also on the docket with the Water Management
District.
Mr.
Hanks stated it is not like this is going to be impacting our general funds
budgeting discussions. If we are looking
at $1 Million or more for capital improvements, we are not looking at something
to be handled by assessments. We will
need to look at alternative financing.
Mr.
Fennell stated there is clear and present danger with regard to the flooding
issue.
Mr.
Bohorquez stated we know a couple of things.
We know what the potential areas are which can have flooding. We know how high the water can go. Why do we not evaluate those areas? We need to evaluate what the situation is and
then start evaluating some solutions.
Mr.
Hanks stated some of the risks we perceive may not be as severe as what is
actually out there. Keep in mind, this
is based on a comparison of the predicted model stages.
Mr.
Cassel stated under the NPDES program, in theory, the City of Coral Springs
should have been requiring finished floor elevation surveys on every house
built and elevation certificates in their files. You should be able to cross reference and
check without having to do a complete survey.
Mr.
Skehan stated we might be able to go to the plats and see when the floor plans
and seals were completed. We can go into
the files and see what the elevations are.
Mr.
Cassel stated NPDES was enforced from the late 1960s or early 1970s. They found some issues in Dade County where
the county was not enforcing it like they were supposed to up to 1991, which
made some major changes there. Before
doing a survey let us check the records because there may be enough sample
points within the existing records which already provide elevation information
for us that is accurate.
Mr.
Fennell asked when houses are sold are they surveyed again for elevation?
Mr.
Cassel responded not generally.
Mr.
Skehan stated they are generally surveyed for the corners of the property.
Mr.
Hanks stated most of your mortgage companies require flood insurance. That is where you are getting it. Those surveys, as far as I am aware, never
get filed with the city.
Mr.
Fennell asked do you want to take it on as a “to do” item to figure out how to
get this data before we go out and spend money on surveys?
Mr.
Cassel responded we will figure out the least expensive way to get the
information. What is on the table now is
for the Board to leave the assessment at the level it is, as we are working
through this information, which will provide you the ability to come back,
between now and the time you have to adopt the budget, how much, if any, we are
going to drop it as well as give us additional time to look at potential ways
of funding some of these projects. When
do you think you will have some of the information on the modeling done?
Mr.
Skehan responded because we had this meeting a couple of weeks ago with the
Water Management District we need an approval from the Board to move forward
with the modeling and the work authorization, which will be brought forward for
us to do this work.
Mr.
Fennell asked is the elevation of the wet asphalt in the North Springs area a
problem?
Mr.
Goscicki asked do you mean SWCD?
Mr.
Fennell responded from SWCD. Will they
run into us or not?
Mr.
Goscicki responded no.
Mr.
Bohorquez stated the elevation of the berm is high enough when the canal goes
through the 100 year flood elevation.
Mr.
Fennell asked on the SWCD east outfall canal, forget the flood elevation for
the CSID, is it higher or lower than the in water elevations for that canal?
Mr.
Bohorquez responded according to the information we received from SFWMD, we are
going to take the cross section of the east canal from SWCD to the C-14.
Mr.
Fennell asked what happens when the C-14 is 10.5?
Mr.
Bohorquez responded the actual condition of that berm is 11.6. The water can go up to 11.52.
Mr.
Hanks asked what is the corresponding flood elevation?
Mr.
Goscicki responded 12.4
Mr.
Hanks asked what will happen if that berm was a 10? What will happen in that location?
Mr.
Bohorquez responded the water will start coming in.
Mr.
Hanks asked will it start coming into the District or will it start pulling out
of the District?
Mr.
Goscicki responded in this scenario it will be pulling out of the District.
Mr.
Fennell stated there is one other aspect of this. As I understand there are other areas within
the C-14 which are not pumped. Is this
correct?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes, in Margate and Tamarac.
Mr.
Fennell stated what can unfortunately happen to them is the water can flow back
from the C-14. The only issue I saw, is
the little bit of data we received out of SFWMD did show during the 1979 storm,
the C-14 canal was 40% to 50% higher than the design flow. Has SFWMD ever decided to do anything about
this issue?
Mr.
Hanks asked what do they mean by design flow?
Mr.
Fennell responded I think there was a maximum design flow they thought they
were going to get and they went above it.
Mr.
Hanks asked does “design flow” have a similar connotation to “design discharge”?
Mr.
Bohorquez responded I will have to check.
Mr.
Hanks asked has any time cap been made or information requested from SFWMD on
how they are operating or how they plan to operate the C-14 canal under a 100
year storm condition?
Mr.
Goscicki responded I had some conversations with the Broward County DEP on this
issue. All the flood maps the county has
configured, which dictate these elevations, is based upon the SFWMD’s statute. They start with their source point in terms
of what the control elevations are that SFWMD intends to use on the control
structures for those major canals. They
look at the rainfall events. They look
at the modeling which has been done in the individual regions and then they
come up with these plans.
Mr.
Fennell asked does SFWMD have a model on the computer for these types of things?
Mr.
Goscicki responded not that I am aware of.
Mr.
Fennell stated so these are the same plans they had 20 years ago.
Mr.
Goscicki stated this is the county flood map which was compiled using
information on control systems of the SFWMD.
Mr.
Fennell stated you had a meeting with SFWMD.
I saw the notes in here. To be
honest, I am not sure I understand what the result of the meeting was.
Mr.
Skehan stated Mr. Hyche, Mr. Peters and I went to the meeting. We were looking for approval from SFWMD to
use a part of their regional model and use it for the work we are going to do
here. This would incorporate CSID, NSID
and Coral Springs. Before we even
started with our presentation, SFWMD told us they were reluctant for us to use
this model because it is a large complex model which extends from Fort Pierce
all the way down to southern Dade County.
It incorporates many different parameters than what would typically be a
small localized model. The model that is
there is a planning model. The
difference between a planning group and a permitting group is a planning group
does not communicate closely with the permitting group. The permitting group prefers we do not use
this large complicated model. They
prefer we develop a different model using a known model base, but it is
specifically for this region between NSID, Coral Springs and CSID. This is what we left with. They said we can use this large model if we
want to, but we have to update the data which is in their model from 1989. This means updating data which would
incorporate places of Florida as far as Fort Pierce and as far south as Dade
County. This does not seem to make sense. They are strongly against doing this.
Mr.
Hanks stated they are responding to a lot of political pressure.
Mr.
Skehan stated Coral Springs has agreed to participate in running the overall
model. Developing a model is approximately
$75,000. We think we should be able to
have the information after running the model to be able to have us understand
what the big picture is between all three of these areas. It boils down to about $25,000 for each
participant in the share of costs.
Mr.
Fennell stated we only have a surface water model for our area and NSID has one
too. Does Coral Springs have one?
Mr.
Skehan responded I am sure they do.
Mr.
Fennell stated so we have some kind of model which as far as I know is the most
advanced surface water model in the county.
You went to SFWMD to find out what the water flow looks like
underneath. They did say they want you
to do your own. This implies if we do
the data we can go back and tell them what we have. It is our data so we can make a good
argument. It is not bad in that we can actually
understand the model ourselves. I guess
we can draw a line around our area.
Mr.
Skehan stated we have fairly well defined boundaries we can use for the
model. We have the Hillsborough Canal, the
Everglades and the C-14. There are three
known water users in this particular vicinity and this is what the interest of
this model would be.
Mr.
Fennell asked do you have the background to define the underground flow that
easily?
Mr.
Skehan responded yes. Data is available
in the SFWMD data bases. We will have to
go in and calibrate this new model we will pull together. There will have to be certain places where it
will validate making known withdrawals from the aquifer or wells, taking those
specific points and they will be part of the calibration of how the model is
pulled together.
Mr.
Fennell stated we essentially have a dam here.
If we store water in our canals as opposed to not storing it, there has
to be tens of millions of gallons of water.
Mr.
Skehan stated one of the amazing statements in the meeting was when we
suggested this may be beneficial to the residents of the Parkland/Coral Springs
area as well as to SFWMD for storing water; their comment was this may not be
what they are interested in. If we are
not putting water out into the Hillsborough Canal for discharges or into the
C-14, it is affecting someone else downstream between here and the
Intercoastal.
Mr.
Hanks stated you do not have anybody pulling out of the C-14 from here to the
ocean.
Mr.
Skehan stated there is not anyone pulling out directly. The impact may have some impact on the
Pompano well field just by incident.
Mr.
Hanks asked are we in a situation of what happens if a butterfly flaps its
wings, does it cause a hurricane?
Mr.
Hyche responded the only time we pump into these major canals is during storm
events or rain events.
Mr.
Fennell stated it sounds like we need to keep pushing forward on this.
Mr.
Hanks stated it is time we start talking back to SFWMD. What is their mission?
Mr.
Goscicki responded their mission is to curtail any further increases in
consumptive use at the Biscayne Aquifer.
Mr.
Hanks stated NSID has to provide 50% additional water quality treatment or 50%
additional storage because they are within the Everglades restoration area. They approved a bond issue for SFWMD where
they are purchasing all sorts of land and abut the conservation areas. They are doing pump stations in the
Everglades and we are paying to help preserve the Everglades. I understand this, but what is this money
being spent for? Why has it not worked?
Mr.
Fennell responded I do not know, but there is obviously a rational approach we
have to find with our own interest at heart.
We have to become active in the overall political aspect of this. Decisions are being made, which are not
necessary, on balance rational. There is
conservation rationale, farmers’ interest rationale and our rationale. We need to have rational reasons to support
what we want and then we go forward to push those things. We do need to do some improvements and figure
out what we are going to do with the assessments. We need to put together a plan of
action. We need to prioritize a plan on
what is the most important things for us to do.
Above and beyond that there is the rationale about the overall plan for
the entire area, which is a strategic long term plan we need. We need to look at the things we need to do
right away and then we need to look at the long term plan.
Mr.
Skehan stated the unfortunate situation NSID has is they have an ample number
of wells in the ground. They show they
need approximately another 3 to 3½ MGD by 2025.
Because their base is going to be established on what was used in April
of 2006, they will potentially have to change their entire system.
Mr.
Fennell stated let us get a solid rationale of what we need and what we
want. Are there any other questions or
comments on this?
Ms.
Zich asked are we going to have a workshop?
Mr.
Cassel responded yes. We need to have
your modeling ready. You do not want to
have a workshop prior to having the information to work with.
Mr.
Skehan stated we can work out something so we can start the work in the near
future without having to wait for the work authorization.
Mr.
Cassel asked are we talking late July or August for a workshop?
Mr.
Skehan responded that is probably appropriate.
Mr.
Goscicki stated you have a motion and a second on the table to approve the
proposed budget and set the public hearing. I think you will want to clarify for the
record that the proposed budget is at the same level of assessment as the
current fiscal year. As you go through
the public hearing process you always have the option to reduce the assessment,
but you cannot raise it once you set the public hearing date.
On VOICE vote with all in favor the motion as previously
outlined was approved.
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Change Order No. 1 for Project No. IH-2008-W, Potable Water Well
Rehabilitation for a Net Increase in the Amount of $25,247
Mr.
Hanks asked how are we finding out about these problems?
Mr.
Hyche responded these are wells #6 and #7.
They are the last two wells to be rehabilitated.
Mr.
Hanks asked will we get this back to some kind of well maintenance
program?
Mr.
Hyche responded yes.
Mr.
Hanks stated this way we are not caught by surprise. How much is this change order for?
Mr.
Cassel responded $25,247. Because of
past history staff anticipated and put into the budget $67,000 for this
project.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in
favor Change Order No. 1 for Project No. IH-2008-W, potable water well
rehabilitation for a net increase in the amount of $25,247 was approved.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion of Pension
Plan Options
Mr. Cassel stated the Board had asked staff to bring this
back at this meeting. Mr. Zilmer
reviewed the information and, based upon discussions with staff, staff feels
this time, with the economy the way it is, is not the time to address
this. It is time to shelve this for a
period of time until we start looking at the economy as a little bit better and
bring it back at a future date.
Ms.
Zich stated this is how I feel about it too.
It is always nice, but sometimes you cannot afford to be too nice. With this economy I was concerned about it.
Mr.
Cassel stated we will shelve it for now.
Staff and management will look at it as economic conditions look better. We will come back with a plan, which really
lays out where we think we can go.
Mr.
Fennell stated what you can do is explain the 6% contribution because when I
did my calculations it was not bad. I am
not sure that we have actually gone through and said, “this is what you are
getting.”
Mr.
Zilmer stated I think we have. The plan
the District had prior to 2000 was just money we pooled into a First Union
account. It really was not looked at or
addressed properly. There were many
years where it really lost a lot of money.
You have a lot of long term employees working here who feel they should
have more money after so many years, which in theory is true. I think over a period of time the employees
should see the plan is doing much better than previously.
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Award of Bid for FMC Spray Pump Package
Mr. Cassel stated only one qualified
bid was received.
Mr.
Frederick stated the bid has been changed.
The amount he gave in the bid included the shipping and handling
charge. The amount of $7,459.99 is the
actual price.
Ms.
Zich asked is it normal to only have one bid?
Mr.
Cassel responded it does happen.
Mr.
Hanks asked did it meet the noticing requirements?
Mr.
Cassel responded it met the noticing requirements. It happens many times with small
districts. You can put out a notice for
several weeks, do direct mails and still only end up with one bid.
Mr.
Fennell asked does this look reasonable?
Mr.
Cassel responded yes.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in
favor the bid for the FMC spray pump package was awarded to Sprayer Parts Depot
in the amount of $7,459.99.
EIGHTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Settlement Agreement with Susan Walker
Mr.
Lyles stated I believe we can advise the Board today we have a resolution to
the lawsuit. You did provide us with the
suit papers. We in turn transmitted them
to our insurance carrier so we can comply with the policy requirements. They knew this was coming because we had to
notice it in writing prior to the suit being filed. There have been some negotiations over the
past few weeks.
You
have a $25,000 deductible on your insurance policy which is applicable to an
employment claim such as this one. As
you can tell from the summons and complaint, the suit was also filed against
NSID. They have a $15,000 deductible on
their policy similar to yours. It is a
different carrier, different petitions and a different deductible, but they
also have insurance coverage for employment claims. In a series of discussions involving Mr.
Cassel and Mr. Daly we all reviewed the situation. You may recall from a year or so ago there
was some discussion of a severance package.
After reviewing all of your rules as well as everything you adopted in
terms of personnel policies and provisions, there was no authorization for a severance
package.
What
has transpired since this was filed is we have gone back and forth with the
plaintiff’s counsel as well as our insurance carrier. Once this goes to full litigation, you will
quickly go through your $25,000 deductible and after that you will be involved
in this case as well as staff. There
will be a great deal of expenses associated with the discovery process. The claims are for discrimination and violation
of Florida Statutes for both districts. With
management’s direction and after a couple of additional discussions with
plaintiff’s counsel, we finally said we would take to both boards a settlement
in a total amount of $40,000, which will result in general releases for the two
districts and anyone associated with the management of the districts.
It
was rejected. We sent it on and notified
the insurance carriers to assign this to counsel, which they had done. Suddenly within a week we received a follow
up communication indicating if we could get authority for the settlement, the
case would be settled. We are here today
outlining in summary form what has been a series of written and verbal
communications at staff level. We are
here today to tell you we think this is a settlement we can live with and
recommend to you.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we have gone back and forth.
The original claims they were looking for double, triple and quadruple
this amount. We had an earlier offer on
the table for something significantly less, in the order of $25,000. We came to a much lower number than the
middle. We came to a number that we as
your management firm believe is a good business decision for this District to
make. Do we owe the individual anything? No, we do not think we do. We think this District has done everything
properly in the proceedings. You are at
a point where this Board was considering a severance package in the past. We could not do it. We are looking at what the cost will be to
litigate this and what the impact would be on the District.
Severn
Trent can tell you it has been through a similar situation recently in another
part of the United States. We went
through litigation like this. It ended
up going all the way to court even though we attempted to settle at numerous
times. We won 100% in court. The plaintiff was given a $0 judgment and it
still cost $300,000. We think it is a
good business decision to settle this.
We are looking at $25,000 from this District. We think NSID will be agreeable to paying
$15,000 to clear this out.
Mr.
Hanks stated this sounds like extortion.
We had concerns about how that position was being performed. We had suppliers come in to our Board
meetings and represent that they had posted invoices, provided them to us and
they were not being paid. The person was
not performing their job and we get hit with a lawsuit. It is appalling.
Ms.
Zich stated it is terribly appalling, but it happens too often. The thing is if you fight it, you know what
happens.
Mr.
Hanks stated I understand this reality.
Ms.
Zich stated $300,000 is terrible.
Mr.
Lyles stated let me remind the Board your situation is somewhat different than
what was described. We have
insurance. Essentially, the financial
bleeding is not going to be as severe; however, with everything else which goes
along with this management thought the prudent recommendation to make was to
cut our losses in terms of money, time and effort. I am not here telling you that you have a
weak or indefensible position. I am
telling you this is what is referred to in the litigation world as a business
decision and not a confession of inadequacies in the part of the personnel
policies or the reviews and the effort which went into the ultimate employment
decision in this case. It is purely and simply
a business decision if you want to approve it.
I am also not suggesting you restrain in any way from exercising your
judgment and discretion in this regard.
Ms.
Zich stated Mr. Hanks I agree with you wholeheartedly, but I have seen this
happen too many times. If we fight it,
it will take a great deal of money to fight it.
Mr.
Daly stated you are correct in there is evidence Ms. Walker was not doing her
job. That is not the reason she was let
go. It is hard to defend yourself when
our position is she was not doing a good job, but we fired her because there
was a lack of employment here.
Mr.
Hanks asked are there ways we can change how we are handling ourselves in
personnel decisions that we can take forward so we can protect ourselves better
in the future?
Mr.
Lyles responded there is now.
Mr.
Fennell stated we brought on more staff and because of the way we rearranged
things, there was less work for her to do.
Mr.
Hanks asked if we would have fired her with cause, would it have avoided any
motion against us?
Mr.
Daly responded I do not believe so. She
is a woman in her 40s and she has a great deal of protection.
Mr.
Lyles responded she is in a federally protected group and those cases are
difficult to defend. The vast majority
of them are settled and of the cases settled they are generally settled at a
figure higher than what we are suggesting to you.
Mr.
Hanks stated so every unit within this District just kicked in $2.50.
Ms.
Zich stated yes.
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Ms. Zich with Mr.
Fennell and Ms. Zich voting aye and Mr. Hanks voting nay the settlement
agreement with Susan Walker was approved.
Ms.
Zich asked could we not do a severance package because we are a unit of
government and not because of our policies and procedures?
Mr.
Lyles responded no. It is because of
your policies and procedures. It is
something which may come forward later once the litigation is resolved as I
understand it from management.
NINTH ORDER OFBUSINESS Staff Reports
A.
Manager
i.
Monthly Water and Sewer Charts
Mr. Hanks stated help me out on the water loss chart.
Mr.
Hyche stated the red line is produced water.
ii.
Utility Billing Work Orders
This
item is for informational purposes only.
iii.
Project Status Report
Mr. Hanks asked do we know where we are at with the project
status report?
Mr.
Cassel responded it is in front of you.
There is also one other issue.
The Board will remember from last month we were supposed to meet with
Mr. Daly to discuss the parameters of how we are going to function. We met and have gone through a number of
issues. We narrowed some things
down. They are specific enough to have
certain things done, yet broad enough to be able to work together in a positive
way. We will bring this back with a
spelled out version at the next meeting for you to consider.
Mr.
Daly stated there will be a staff meeting every Tuesday, which is great. We see eye to eye on many things. He has been really easy to work with. I think he is a great addition.
Mr.
Cassel stated I would like to compliment the staff the department has. They are picking up on a lot of
information. In front of you on the
table is one of them that Mr. Daly and I had talked about. I believe Mr. Frederick was the first one who
came up with it. We are going through asset
management and insurances to make sure they have logs and tables cataloging all
of the assets of the District so we know what we have, what was put in place
and how long it will last. Again, this
is part of the long range strategic planning for the District to make sure we
know what has to be replaced. The fact
your staff is taking ownership of this in a big way is encouraging to me as I
am coming into the District. They are
doing a great job.
One
of the things we are going to be putting together, for Mr. Daly’s use on a daily
basis and my use overall, is we will create a compliance sheet so we can put
all of these projects in boxes so we know exactly where we are; both on
engineering costs and job costs. We can
use it as a planning tool to make sure we are getting done what we said we were
going to get done in a timely fashion.
Some of this stuff I am trying to wrap my hands around . It is a little disjointed. People who have been dealing with the
projects overall have a better sense for them.
We are trying to consolidate it into something we can pick up as a
couple of sheets and know exactly where we are with these projects. Mr. Skehan, do you have anything on these
projects? I do not see anything serious
or significant on your report at this point in time. They are all progressing well.
Mr.
Skehan responded I think that is fairly accurate. There are brief updates on a couple of items. I already talked about the water use
permitting. One significant item is the
landscaping. The landscaping project is
out for bids. It went out for bids last
Friday. There is a two week period on
this. We should be receiving bids by
June 2, 2008. The city is tough to get
information from when you want to get information from them. I am trying to make sure we are getting this
landscaping done. We want to get
confirmation on the trees we have selected.
They said they want Live Oak in a specific area and they will accept
alternatives in other areas.
Mr.
Cassel stated getting up to that decision was probably over a four week period
of time after they agreed on a site meeting.
Mr.
Hanks stated the city will ask to have a lot of different stuff out there which
is not required by code or is really not the right tree for the location. I have been in situations where they insisted
on having Live Oaks in the bottom of retention areas. Are you comfortable with the selection and
the places?
Mr.
Skehan responded we are comfortable with where they are going. They are not on top of the berm. They are going to be facing the berm. The Arecas which will go along the top of the
berm are the best for coverage. They are
not allowing Fichus.
Mr.
Fennell stated at the last meeting we talked about a $60,000 item on the
landscaping plan for an irrigation system.
Mr.
Skehan stated it is broken into three different components; the landscaping
itself, the irrigation and an alternative for reshaping the berm which is out
there now so it is tied into where the pipelines are as well as bringing the
elevation down.
Mr.
Fennell stated I could be wrong, but my memory is there was $60,000 and there
was a question at the end as to why we would spend $60,000 if we are going to
abandon it 60 days down the road. I was
under the impression this $60,000 would go away or be greatly reduced.
Mr.
Cassel stated I went through a number of emails regarding this after our
discussion trying to figure out ways so we do not have to spend this
money. There is a Catch-22 in the
permitting process and in the city’s requirements. If you had xeriscape, you would not have
to. The problem is they would not let us
xeriscape so you are forced to put in an irrigation system. It cannot be a temporary system. It has to be a permanent system. It is one of those loops they ended up
waltzing us into as a District. Again, I
understand your thing. Believe me; from
now there will be tons of pushback to any regulatory agency. I instructed Mr. Skehan to find the
alternative which meets it at a better price for us. We will be finding ways to not have to do
what is not good common sense for the District and our rate payers.
B. Attorney
There being
no further items to address, the next item followed.
C. Engineer
i. FPL Transformer Schedule
ii. Water Use Permit Update
iii.
Landscape Update
iv.
Summary of Alternative Water Supply
Meeting with SFWMD
v.
Summary of Monitor Well Permitting Issue
with FDEP
vi.
Bond Issuance Engineering Report
Amendment
Mr.
Skehan stated in the next two to three weeks it looks like the new standby
generator will be coming online. We will
be load testing it. Once the load
testing is completed FPL will come back to us with a schedule for transformer
replacement. The plan is to use the
standby generator to be able to power the building as well as the facilities
needed when the transformer work is being done.
The transformer is currently not adequate for everything out there.
Mr.
Fennell asked what about the monitor well permitting issue?
Mr.
Skehan responded this is the ongoing work for the retention well system. The permitting and design work is moving forward. There is a minor permit law which is going to
be requested that the DEP has approved. This
will move forward fairly quickly. A
design package will be submitted to them within the next two weeks.
Mr.
Fennell stated bond issuance engineering report amendment.
Mr.
Skehan stated when we did the bond report in the fall there were a certain
number of reiterations we had defined in the original work authorization. There were three reiterations in the bond report
we said would be generated recreating the bond report. Additional money was spent due to the
additional effort which went into this. It
is all tied to fine tuning the bond report every time the numbers changed. There were nine revisions to the original
draft.
Mr.
Goscicki stated nine reiterations of a bond feasibility report is not a usual
number. One of the issues I recall is we
were originally looking at doing a short term financing followed up by a long
term financing. We had one hold set of
work done around that scenario. We
realized then we could combine the two and get it out quickly enough, which
created another set of scenarios. There
were a number of scenarios. It was a
very dynamic process. The issue to the
Board is whether or not the Board is willing to entertain approving this amendment today and
the work authorization for an additional $15,000.
Mr.
Hanks asked what was the original work authorization for?
Mr.
Daly responded $35,000 and it came out to $36,522.
Mr.
Skehan stated there were a number of meetings held. There were a number of reports
generated. A number of different people
were involved to be able to regenerate those reports.
Ms.
Zich asked how long ago was all of this done?
Mr.
Skehan responded it was last fall.
Ms.
Zich asked why are we getting these late bills?
Mr.
Skehan responded this had been on the agenda a number of times.
Mr. Goscicki stated we had pulled it off the agenda a couple of times because of other more pressing issues the Board had. Do not fault your engineer.