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:
Dan Daly Interim Manager
Edward Goscicki Co-Manager
-
Dennis Lyles District Counsel
Ken Cassel
Brenda Schurz
Sean Skehan CH2M Hill
Cory Johnson CH2M Hill
Jim Aversa CSID
Doug Hyche CSID
John McKune District Capital
Improvement Coordinator
Randy Fredericks CSID
Drainage Supervisor
Kay Woodward CSID Accountant
Jan Zilmer CSID Human
Resources
Bill Benson Keefe,
McCullough & Co., LLP
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr.
Goscicki called the meeting to order and called the roll.
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the February 25, 2008 Meeting
Mr.
Fennell stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the
On
page three, under the third order of business, it should be 80% of the salary
less social security.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in
favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Fiscal Year 2007
Audit
I.
Presentation by Keefe, McCullough &
Co., LLP
II.
Acceptance of Audit for Fiscal Year 2007
Mr. Benson stated I am one of the partners at Keefe,
McCullough & Co., LLP. I would like
to briefly mention two of the items, which are noteworthy in this year’s audit
report. On pages one and two of our report
is our audit opinion. It is what they
call a qualified report. This is how we
satisfy ourselves about all of the inquiries we made throughout the audit and
it reflects the operation by staff for the District so that in fact, we believe
the financial statements attached accurately represent what the District’s
status is. I would like to tell you
about few of the items and give you an overview so you can look at this and
decide how you feel about the statements.
I
am going to point out page five. I do
not know if you remember from last year, but this is kind of new;
government-wide financial analysis. I am
looking at the top right corner. There
are two columns where it is 2006 versus 2007.
Two items fluctuated the most. Restricted
assets went from $2.6 Million to $44 Million and non current liabilities went
from $11.6 Million to 52.6 Million. As
you know this is the result of the bond closing, which is probably the most
substantial transaction we have done in the last two years with the District. Most of those bonds sit unexpended as of year
end.
In
the bottom half of this page you can see we had an increase in net assets of
$1,005,959 in the current year versus $611,178 in the year before. As I pointed out in the past; although we
show an increase in net assets of $1,005,959, we have approximately $2.3
Million in depreciation in that number. We
meet our obligations, which are our principal payment requirements,
etcetera.
If
you look on page 14, the operating revenues were $8.6 Million and our expenses
were $9.2 Million. Our net operating
income or loss was a $527,957 deficit.
The expense line item above that, provisions for depreciation and
amortization, is $2.8 Million. I believe
you have to give some consideration to this when you are evaluating the
financials. There is an aggressive
principal payment requirement with all of our debts, yet we still meet all of
our obligations. I think you are
actually doing rather well.
The
other item I wanted to mention is on pages 30 and 31 where we talk about
internal control and compliance. We
spent a great deal of our auditing time looking at compliance with the internal
control system. If you look at page 31
where it talks about compliance and other matters, the last sentence states,
“The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other
matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.” Last year we mentioned four comments, which
were significant in our opinion. We
issued a management letter this year to let you know, although we did not have
any new comments, we feel things have gone 100% better this year.
All
of the management comments mentioned in the prior year we tested specifically
for them. We feel they are much better
and things are running smoothly now. I
am not talking about just the little things such as the cooperation we received
during the audit, but also the state of the union. It appears as if everything was being
reconciled monthly. Everybody was on top
of it. When we made inquiries they knew
the answers right off because they had been on top of it each month during the
year as opposed to waiting until the end of the year to fix it. We had a much better experience. I feel more comfortable. We were a bit concerned last year. Many improvements were noted over the past
year. I feel good about it. These are the things I wanted to mention
briefly. We will answer any questions
you might have about the report. I know
last year we talked about timing and we needed to bump it up by two months.
Ms.
Zich stated I think last year you gave it to us in August or September. That is why I was horrified.
Mr.
Benson stated we were working to have this at your February meeting, but if
were working on some things with your staff.
We were both working on trying to get it done, but sometimes it does not
happen as quickly as you would like. I
see now the reason why we will not continue to try to move it up closer.
Ms.
Zich stated I have to really compliment Ms. Woodward because this is a real
turnaround and faster. I know it was
around August because I was horrified.
September is our year end and what can we do in August. You do not have a chance to do anything, but
this is a great turnaround. I love the
letter where we are now in compliance with everything. We should have been last year.
Mr.
Benson stated it is not our job as the auditor to compliment Ms. Woodward. She is a big part of what we experienced in
terms of cooperation, being on top of the monthly reconciliation and giving us
a much greater comfort level during the audit.
Mr.
Fennell stated just a philosophical question because of an appreciation for
things like this where there is governmental concern. Does this make any sense, a
depreciation? I can see the rationale. I just do not see it happening much under
government. It makes perfect sense to me
as this organization, but how does it depreciate its assets?
Mr.
Benson responded there was a pronouncement in the 2003 timeframe, and it was
made based on the size of your organization, but GASB 34 required all
governmental organizations to put their infrastructure on their books. There was a big uproar because people were
asking how they were going to put the
There
is a divergence of opinions as to whether or not it produces more meaningful
statements or not. This made your
financials, with the depreciation, look more comparable to a for profit
entity. In a historical governmental
context when people bought physical assets they went through the activity
statement. They were expensed as a
purchase. It did not give as good an
indication of where you were really at.
If you invested $20 Million in a plant, you had the asset to go forward
with. Now what we are doing is putting
the plant on your books and we are depreciating it, let us say $1 Million a
year over a 20 year period of time, and trying to match the expense with when
you would theoretically be getting the revenues from the asset.
The
City of
Mr.
Fennell asked is this with the actual life of the infrastructure?
Mr.
Benson responded I believe we do use engineering guidelines for the useful life
of what is out there. Even when we first
put them on your statement, which I think was in the 2004 timeframe, not only
did we put it on at the estimated cost, but also how far it was into the
life. We were 50% through the estimated
useful life. We depreciated 50% of it in
the first journal entry. We tried to
mirror where you were in the timeline of that asset. I am sure it is not perfect, but I think the
consensus of opinion in accounting was it was better than having it expensed in
the day you bought it. We are attempting
to mirror the true economic cost of the asset and then where we are with
expending these for the life of the asset.
Mr.
Fennell stated I think it is interesting.
I do not know if it so much as for profit, but it is for ongoing
business. It is going to be here forever. We could do a foiled depreciative reserve;
something which depreciates the asset. Essentially,
you use up everything you have. At the
end you are done, and that is not true with what our intention is. Our intention is for this to go on forever
which means we must, from time to time, redo the assets. We partially did that with the bond. I am trying to reconcile if this was
true. If I was collecting the amount of
money I should have from the appreciation and storing it somehow, then I
probably should not have had to go out for a bond. In the world of districts people would take
exception to that and say you did collect enough. You had the money, you constructed it and you
used it. You were able to make all the
payments on the bond over what I will call the first life of the plant. Had you made your depreciations, you are
charging the current owners twice. When
you get to the end of the first phase of the life and you have to get another
$40 Million bond, you will not charge the people who were just charged.
What
I am saying is you would not have included the bonds so the bonds are going to
be repaid with the revenues coming in over the next 20 years. When we take the $40 Million sitting in
restricted assets right now and let us say we built a brand new plant, I would
argue the people being charged for it are the people who are going to pay the
rates over the next 20 years and not the people who have been using the plant
for the past 25 years. From a
conservatism standpoint, I would think what you are suggesting is better. If we could get not only plant one, but the
cost of plant two from the people using it from 1980 to now, it would have been
great. I am not sure you are really
matching up the revenues coming in and the true cost of the plant.
Mr.
Benson stated instead of floating a bond many organizations have done impact
fees. You come into this area and you
are hit with a $3,000 fee to plug into the system because the system was built
by somebody for a purpose. There are
some people out there who are trying to match the ongoing cost. Out of all the districts we look at, we audit
approximately 100 districts, this is a well capitalized and well run District. It does run similar to an ongoing business
where some of them are more difficult to manage.
Mr.
Hanks asked what information should we take away?
Mr.
Benson responded one of the things I always do is try to say ok, we have an
accrual basis statement we are showing with a depreciation and now we have to
run a check book. When I look at your
net change in assets, which is a $1,005,959 loss, you have to look at two
things. You have to add back in your
depreciation, which was $2.8 Million and you have to take off your debt service
requirements. You are not spending
them. You are paying liability, but they
are not in that number. One is not a use
of cash, the depreciation. One is a use
of cash, but is not in the number. Does
this make sense? What I am doing in my
head as an accountant is saying we are $1 Million minus. I add back $2.8 Million, which is now $1.8
Million to the better. The principal is
approximately $1.5 Million a year. I
take those off and it will tell me where I am going to come in. I am saying you guys have done a very good
job in terms of managing this over the years to have cash be sufficient not
only for your current expenditures, but also for your upcoming principal
payment requirement. I do not know if I
am answering your question. I am trying
to take the net surplus or deficit and adjust it in my mind for how it would be
on a cash basis in my check book.
Mr.
Hanks stated we are trying to build up reserves in case another hurricane comes
through, which will happen one day. We
just do not know when. We are trying to
build up the reserves so we can act quickly to restore things rather than
having to go off and issue another bond.
Is it a concern that we are operating at a loss?
Mr.
Fennell responded yes and no. We are
actually the stockholders. We could have
actually written everybody a check at one time.
If we were really stockholders we would want to see the net asset
increase. On the other hand he is saying
it is not so bad because in order to get the extra $1 Million you would have
had to charge another $1 Million in fees.
We actually saved that money by not charging people, but we really took
the money out of the assets.
Mr.
Benson stated that is correct.
Mr.
Fennell stated from an operating standpoint we always want to at least have
some reserve we are retiring. If we are
not at least paying our expenses with our income every month, we are in deep
trouble. That is a real danger point if
we ever get to that point. Secondly, we
should be putting some kind of reserves in because assets do decrease. Frankly, for the period I have been on the
Board we have been able to fund out of the reserves from the money we do
get. We have some new plants out
there. We could not just fix them
anymore. We declared these assets were
no longer useable. At that point we did
not have enough money to do it and we had to borrow.
Mr.
Benson stated when you get to an entire water treatment plant, it is something
so large it would be a drain on your current cash flow. I actually think the bond refinancing looked
good. I think the thought process you
have about building reserves is great.
You do need to think like this when you are looking at rates and rate
increases. It is not just getting by to
pay the bills. There are other things to
think about, but overall it looks like you are at least on target with that
analysis.
Mr.
Fennell stated there is one page I want to point out, which is page 15. One of the things I would like to push
forward is the cash flow analysis. Ms.
Woodward, did you do this?
Ms.
Woodward responded no. I did not.
Mr.
Fennell stated this is one of the things we really need on a yearly basis for
ourselves. Where does our operating cash
come from? Where is it spent? This takes in all of the different areas such
as the money we do set aside. If you go
from the top you will see we have $8.6 Million in operating activities. Basically we have net cash provided by
operating activities. We have $3,246,193
after we paid for employees, goods and services. Out of that we had to pay bonds, cash flow
out, as well as other kinds of things. Part
of the money we get it in depreciation expenses also goes to pay for additional
other expenses.
Mr.
Benson stated this year, with the bond refinancing, looks a bit out of
sorts. We generated a tremendous amount
of cash flow through the borrowing function, but this is an important
schedule.
Mr.
Fennell stated the cash flow is always important to us because it decides
whether or not you will be able to pay people’s bills the next month. This is why I like to see cash flow because
it is like the checkbook account at home.
Obviously we have many restrictions on how we spend the money. What happens to the money from the
depreciation expenses? What account does
it flow into? Does it flow into renewal
accounts? Does it flow into general
accounts?
Mr.
Benson responded we do not match it up because it is a non-cash
expenditure. We do not fund it into a
bank account. We take the entry, which
in effect lowers. If we have the plant
on the books for $20 Million at the beginning of the year and let us say we
depreciate it for $1 Million, at the end of the year it is going to be on the
books at $18 Million. We did not necessary
fund it in cash. Some boards do this. Some boards say they would like to have sinking
fund account and they transfer an amount each month.
Mr.
Goscicki stated it goes back to your earlier comments. We do not set up a sinking fund, but we do
set up a renewal/replacement fund. We
are not matching the depreciation as the source of the renewal/replacement
fund, but we do have a renewal/replacement fund set up as a percentage of the
total debt. Part of it is a requirement
of the bond program, which says you can set up a certain amount as a
reserve. We actually exceed it to take
care of the routine renewal and replacement.
What we are trying to do, and the reason why you have such a good
financial position, this Board has always been in the position of making sure
you set aside enough money so the asset would absolutely last the 20 or 30
years of your bond. Also, that you did
not wind up in a situation other governments end up in. You put out a debt and you are still paying
debt. It is like a car payment where you
are still paying your car payment, but your car is now a piece of garbage that
does not work anymore. This Board has
never been in that position.
Mr.
Fennell asked does it go under our general fund or unrestricted funds?
Mr.
Goscicki stated it is just an accounting entry.
It is not cash at all. There is
no cash involved in the depreciation because we did not set it up to be a
sinking fund. It is an accounting
activity you go through to show the values.
Ms.
Woodward stated if you have a plant which cost you $40 Million and your saying
it is going to last you for 20 years, you actually expensed it for $40 Million
12 years ago. All you are actually
expensing each year is you are saying this plant should last us 20 years so we
are going to expense it $2 Million per year to show the life expectancy and the
years over which the plant will actually generate revenues for you. When you see the depreciation expense, it is
an expense we are taking this year. The
cash was actually expended in a prior year.
Ms.
Zich stated last year I was amazed when we did the audit. It was so late when we got it and then there
were so many problems with it. Those are
problems, which should have never existed.
I do not know how to say this nicely, but they should not have existed. Now they are all cleaned up. It looks great. I was not on the Board prior so I did not
know to complain. This is great. I compliment Ms. Woodward and whoever helped
her with it.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we need a motion to accept the financial audit for fiscal year
2007.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in
favor the financial audit for fiscal year 2007 was accepted.
Mr.
Fennell stated I would like to put forward a commendation to Ms. Woodward for
the effort she has put in over the last year in helping to clean up many of the
different problems we have had and the special attention she has paid. I do not think this would have been as good
without her.
Ms. Zich stated I second that.
FOURTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’
Requests and Audience Comments
There not being any, the next item
followed.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion of
Pension Plan Options
Mr. Daly stated Mr. Zilmer and I had a discussion with the
pension plan organizers. They have yet
to supply some information.
Mr.
Fennell stated but we are still looking at switching to a 401K or some type of
matching plan.
Mr.
Daly stated we hope to bring this to the meeting next month. It will be the seventh month of the year and
you will have six months worth of financials, which means we can tie down many
of these numbers as we go into budget season.
We have not even tied down this year’s pension number. It got approved at 8%, but I think it is
still at 6% in the minds of the Board members.
We also expect to bring to you a state of the District discussion item
so we can make sure we are on target for next year with some of the budget
numbers we have.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Permit Request from FPL to Replace Underground Cables at Ramblewood and
Riverside Drive, Adjacaent to Canal L-103 and C-1
Mr.
Fennell asked are they asking for it or are they already doing it? What is going on?
Mr.
Skehan responded this is a typical permit application. We went through the process of reviewing and
going through it. There is nothing
unusual here. Ms. Early’s group is going
through and doing their standard review of this.
Mr.
Goscicki stated there is nothing unusual and the engineer is recommending approval.
Ms.
Zich asked is this at the
Mr.
Fennell responded I did not know that.
Ms.
Zich stated well I live by the east one and he lives by the west one. So this is the east one.
Mr.
Fennell stated this says
Mr.
Skehan stated the set is east of
Mr.
Fennell stated the one by
Mr.
Skehan stated there is a lift station there and many properties.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in
favor the permit request from FPL to replace underground cables at two
different locations located at
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Architectural Concept of Water Treatment Plant Improvements
Mr.
Hanks asked where is this going to be built?
Do you have a spot picked out for it?
Mr.
Skehan responded out on the back 40.
There is a general location.
Mr.
Goscicki stated it will be very visible to anyone coming into the
facility. When you look at these
renderings the front of this building will face the entryway. We will position the full front of the
building with the architectural features facing outwards so it is something the
public will see rather than seeing the back end of an industrial building.
Mr.
Skehan stated this is the east phase. There
are two basic concepts. One is more
residentially appealing with the pitched roof line. The other has the look without a pitched roof
line and is more of an industrial look.
Ms.
Zich asked what is the difference in cost?
Mr.
Skehan responded it is an insignificant difference. Correct me if I am wrong Mr. Johnson, but I
believe it is approximately $200,000.
Mr.
Johnson stated it was approximately $100,000.
Mr.
Skehan stated the one with the pitched roof is more expensive.
Ms.
Zich stated the hip roof looks much better.
Mr.
Johnson stated based on our experience with these types of buildings, the flat
roof versus the pitched roof, the life cycle cost justifies the pitched roof
rather than the flat roof. It is more
maintenance friendly.
Ms.
Zich stated I was thinking the same thing because I have lived down here for so
long. The water sits on them and it is
not good.
Mr.
Skehan stated one of the things we are looking at for the roofs is perhaps a
metal roof that would have a long term life expectancy also. It will be much better than any flat
roof. Our architect has been here and
has talked with the planning people at
Mr.
Hanks asked will there be offices associated with this?
Mr.
Skehan responded there is limited office space here. There is an operator’s room. There is additional office space. There is some limited locker room space. It is mostly a plant with an electrical room.
Mr.
Johnson stated maybe 20% of it is people space and the other 80% is processing
and electrical space.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we did go through the people space in detail. We went through what we really need to put in
here. Originally in the conceptual
design we had a laboratory. We removed
the laboratory recognizing we have one in adjacent buildings, which are close
enough to do the operation on these. What
we did not have was locker room space. We
did need locker room space and actually expanded it beyond the original
concept. Beyond that there is a control
room/office where the operators will work out of. It is nominal in the amount of new personnel
space.
Mr.
Hanks asked how is this built out for the plank capacity as we are anticipating
right now under our current structure or is there extra space within the
building envelope to accommodate additional extension of the membrane?
Mr.
Skehan responded the envelope captures the expected capacity for build out, but
we went back and forth in discussions.
What we made provisions for is should another addition be needed or more
capacity be needed at some time in the future the provisions we are allowing
for is to be able to have piping connections, which will be easy as well as
making it so you do not have to rip up certain things. There will not be anything destructed or put in
the ground on the north side, which would be the direction and the expansion
that would take place. Nothing will be
put in the ground there. Some of those
provisions are being provided for now.
Mr.
Hanks stated right now it is sized for our current filtration capacity.
Mr.
Johnson stated there is a maximum capacity of 7.4 MGDs.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we did provide for some space within the building for auxiliary
equipment. We did look at this and there
was a good bit of back and forth in looking at the design and how to keep the
cost down without over sizing everything.
At the same time we recognize this is
Mr.
Hanks asked what is our total plank capacity these days for water?
Mr.
Johnson responded 7.2 MGDs.
Mr.
Fennell asked was there any input from the city?
Mr.
Goscicki responded that is the next level of discussion as we get into the
water use permitting issue. I think it
is more likely the city may want some of our reclaimed water. I think they will need reclaimed water
credits in order to get consumptive use permits. It is the same thing we may need. The big issue will be whether we can take
what is now a waste product and turn it into portable fuel.
Mr.
Hanks stated that is one of the meetings Mr. Johnson and I had with SFWMD. There is another meeting coming up in early
April as it relates to water consumption, conservation, etcetera. It would be with the City’s consulting
engineer as well. We are starting a
dialogue with them as far as what are we really going to be pursuing because of
the issue with regards to the incremental increase for the filtration.
Mr.
Skehan stated at the last meeting one of the things we had talked about is if
within the District we are able to demonstrate the consumption of water levels
from the Biscayne Aquifer is not going to be affecting water levels outside of
the District such as the Everglades and canal levels so that recharge within
the District is particularly important to be able to demonstrate. One of the things we also talked about is
some regionalization. Some of the
discussion last Friday was to try to go in this direction as well the purpose
of being able to sit and meet with the City and NSID to see how cooperatively
something can take place. This is
building out some of the discussions that Mr. McKune and Mr. Hyche had in the
past and trying to move this forward.
Right now we are in the middle of the water use permitting process. NSID is in the middle of the process and the
city is there also. This goes back to
some of the evolving discussions we have had out there and we are looking to
see if there is some cooperativeness that can be put on the table. Are there ways to be able to hold water
levels in the canal system and how all of these things can be pulled together
as a regional concept rather than an individualized concept.
Mr.
Hanks stated there are some funds available from the SFWMD for some of these
programs. There is an aggressive
schedule on the timing for the application.
I do not know what we will be able to consider for this year, but we
know the program is out there. If not
this year, we should be working towards application for fiscal year 2009.
Mr.
Johnson stated there are two pools of funding and they both have been
significantly decreased due to budget cuts at the state level. There are grants for conservation type
projects.
Mr.
Hanks stated there are different ways of demonstrating you are not discharging,
you are not losing the water and you are in deed recharging the Biscayne
Aquifer.
Mr.
Fennell asked so what does it take for us to earn these grants?
Mr.
Skehan responded it means identifying specific projects.
Mr.
Fennell stated we want an overall project, which talks about how we conserve
water all over the
Mr.
Johnson stated you probably have to earn your own bids for construction
only. Not for studies and not for
modeling.
Mr.
Fennell asked how do you do anything constructive if you have not modeled them?
Mr.
Hanks responded it has to be funded regardless of whether the grant is
received. If we are going to be pursuing
it file the grant for additional stations to increase storage and they do not
grant it to us, we still have to go forward with it and pay the bill. We want to be careful as to what we are
pursuing.
Mr.
Skehan stated part of where we are going with the water use permitting is using
the model where the modeling and the process for water use permitting is we are
identifying what can or may not take place.
If we can see additional storage will be beneficial, we can come up with
a project to say we will increase the level in the canal and we will construct a
barrier to help facilitate it, or maybe a pump station to take some water from
NSID and put it into the canals here. I believe
at the last meeting Ms. Early mentioned there were two billion gallons which
went out. These are the kinds of
concepts she will come up with in the process for the water use permitting and
just by sitting down to meet with these people, discuss these projects as well
as what options are out there.
Mr.
Fennell asked do they have models, which show what will happen?
Mr.
Skehan responded models for those types of things you have to do yourself.
Mr.
Johnson stated it is much more involved.
This is a three dimensional model where you have different parameters, different
controls and the variability of a number of unknowns. You know the classic number of equations
should equal the number of unknowns. In
this situation you are lucky if half of the number of equations satisfy the
number of unknowns. You have to start
picking and choosing what you are taking and what you are not.
Mr.
Fennell stated I would talk to their engineer before doing it.
Mr.
Skehan stated there is an upcoming meeting scheduled in early April. Something will potentially come from the
meeting as to what can be evaluated, what is of mutual interest to the
different permittees out there trying to get their water use permits.
Mr.
Hanks asked if we have to develop a new source from the Floridian Aquifer, what
are the potential cost implications?
Mr.
Skehan responded if we have to go to the Floridian Aquifer, it will probably be
another $2 Million; $1 Million for the well and another $1 Million because the
concentrate coming from the Floridian Aquifer would need some modification to
the injection well system. The
implications are approximately $2.5 Million.
Mr.
Goscicki stated it is compared to if you have to go to reuse, you are into phase
two of the bond issue program, which was put on hold. The reason we put it on hold is because if we
are going to go that way, we will need to look to other people to help pay for
it.
Mr.
Skehan stated what we are hoping to be able to demonstrate now with the
modeling we are doing as part of the water use permit, one of the amendments we
did at the last Board meeting, is to evaluate the current planning model the
SFWMD has. We are trying to use it
instead of generating a brand new model.
If it is acceptable, we hope to be able to show that by use of this
model we will not be affecting the water levels in the
Mr.
Fennell asked what do you want us to do here?
Mr.
Goscicki responded we are looking to see which one you like better. It costs approximately $100,000 more if we go
with the hip roof design. If we stay
with a more institutional flat roof as we have in some of the other facilities,
it will save you some money. We will
build some good will with the city by going with the hip roof design. They made it clear it is satisfactory at the
city level.
Ms.
Zich asked have we had any problems with the roofs out there? Those are flat roofs.
Mr.
Skehan responded not thus far, but this building is going to be much closer to
the edge of the property.
Mr.
Fennell stated this has to blend in with the other structures too.
Mr.
Goscicki stated it will be close to the gate where you came in.
Mr.
Skehan stated this also ties into one of the other plans we will want to
discuss later in the meeting, which is landscaping. We discussed landscaping last week with the
city. The east side will be offset for a
decision and planning purposes until later.
They know right now this new structure is coming along and there will be
some landscaping features, which will be what they will be looking at in the
future.
Mr.
Fennell asked is there any reason why we would not have an office down there
for people coming in to drop off their money?
Mr.
Skehan responded part of the concept for the turnaround out there was a drop
box.
Mr.
Fennell stated at one time we had a big discussion about a gate and putting
some place out there with a bathroom for a guard. We are actually going to have a building
there now. Can we move the gate by the
office?
Mr.
Goscicki stated this needs to be secured inside our fenced facility. This is the water treatment plant. You are getting into all of the federal
security requirements.
Mr. Fennell stated we put
fences around the current one. Is there
going to be a fence around this one?
Mr.
Skehan responded the fence already exists down the property line.
Mr.
Fennell stated we usually had two layers.
We had the outer layer and we did not want anyone getting into that
facility so we built a stronger fence there.
At one time we thought we needed it for security of the facility.
Mr.
Johnson stated you are now dealing with something enclosed entirely within a
building.
Mr.
Skehan stated the hip roof is going to have better potential. You can insulate it whatever way you want
to. The hip roofs have many different
features you can add to it. The
resilience to the weather in a metal roof helps; the reflectiveness, the
insulation, and the ventilation provided in the pitch area. There is some greenness to this.
Mr.
Hanks asked will the plant area be air conditioned?
Mr.
Skehan responded no.
Mr.
Fennell asked what hurricane level can this take?
Mr.
Skehan responded 140 mph winds, which is category four. That is the
Ms.
Zich asked do you have any buildings here with a hip roof?
Mr.
Skehan responded no.
Ms.
Zich stated as I look out, every one of them has a flat roof. We already have all flat roofs. This would be the only hip roof.
Mr.
Fennell asked is there any kind of bunker?
Mr.
Skehan responded the central operation is geared towards being able to maintain
operations in a category five or category four hurricane. The central part of the structure will meet
these standards. When Hurricane Andrew
blew through, the FKAA was right in the eye of the storm. It took the full shot. I was down there the day after the storm and
was pleasantly surprised because the plant was operating. There was manual operation. They had 80% of the plant, which was still
functioning and it was a category five storm.
Mr.
Fennell asked what would happen to the residential stock here in
Mr.
Goscicki responded you would not have many customers to serve.
Mr.
Skehan stated
Mr.
Fennell stated it sounds like they built it right. Are we building it right?
Mr.
Skehan responded yes.
Mr.
Johnson stated we internally discussed what it would take to go from category
four to category five. In this situation
you build a concrete bunker and it goes up; not $100,000 to $200,000, but
closer to $500,000 or more.
Mr.
Fennell stated I am thinking of the personnel who might be hunkered down
here. You can build bunkers in your home
for $4,000 or $5,000. The bunker for the
controls does not have to be a large room.
Mr.
Goscicki stated if there is a category four hurricane coming this way and the
facility is not ready, we would not have somebody there. Our recommendation would be to send the staff
home, let them hunker down where it is safe, when the storm passes you bring
them back and you get the facility back up and running. That was one of the lessons learned from
Hurricane Andrew. The standard practice
of the utilities was to have a core crew and put them in the buildings. They are not doing anything anyway. They are certainly not going to go out and
operate anything during the storm. It is
safer and better to send them home during the storm and then bring them back
after the storm is over. You look at the
category of the storm what the facility is designed for, but with a storm of
this category you get your people out of harms way first.
Mr.
Fennell stated at this stage you can put in a concrete room in the
building. A concrete wall is not
expensive. You can make an area like the
control room a bunker.
Mr.
Skehan stated the control room is a good thing to place close attention to, but
if you have certain portions of your process outside such as tanks and piping,
those things are not going to be affected by a concrete wall. All of those things are being planned to
withstand 140 mph winds. That is the
code we are required to build to.
Mr.
Hanks stated my suggestion is we authorize them to proceed with this look
knowing this is probably what we will end up with.
Mr.
Fennell stated I like option one.
Ms.
Zich stated I always think a hip roof is better than a flat roof.
Mr.
Skehan stated we have already presented the basic concepts to the city. They are aware there could be another concept
out there. Their general idea is to have
something with a hip roof, which is more appealing.
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Ms. Zich with all in
favor in considering the architectural concept for the water treatment plant
the hip roof option was approved.
Mr.
Fennell asked did they say they do not want a metal roof?
Mr.
Skehan responded it is something we need to take forward and discuss in more
detail with them. If there is some
reluctance to do it, I do not think we are going to be recommending any other
type of roof such as a tile roof.
Mr.
Hanks stated if they are reluctant on it take them down
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
A.
Manager
Mr.
Goscicki stated I want to formally introduce Mr. Cassel to you. Mr. Cassel is a new member of the Severn
Trent Services staff. He will officially
be starting with us on
Mr.
Fennell asked where will he reside?
Mr.
Goscicki responded he will be working out of our office in
Mr.
Fennell stated thank you for bringing this to our attention. Mr. Cassel, we are going to give you a
try. I would really like for you to give
each one of us a resume. We cannot all
meet with you together, but each one of us can meet and talk with you
individually. I would like to have you
sit down with Mr. Daly. I am looking
forward to see what kind of relationships you are going to build with our
current staff. I want to avoid any kind
of personality disorders going forward.
We want you to get to know our staff first. We will try it out for a few months and see
how it goes. We have a large body of
people here who have great experience.
This current Board looks for contribution for everything. We are looking for people to contribute. I guess we need to see whether or not you can
fit into this philosophy.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we are thinking very much the same way. Mr. Cassel will be starting here on
Mr.
Fennell stated mostly our operations on a day to day basis are well handled by
the people here. They are here most of
the time and are the first responders to problems. We are looking for someone to handle issues,
which are not day to day issues. How do
we deal with
Mr.
Cassel stated it will be a great opportunity to work with all of you and get to
know you. One of my philosophies is to
get to know the personnel, understand how they work and how the operation goes. I have always gone into an operation looking
at who I have to work with, what their expertise is and how to maximize
it.
Mr.
Fennell stated it sounds great. We need
to all come to an agreement going forward, but we are looking for a long
lasting relationship.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the other major item we want to talk about is the landscape.
I.
Monthly Water and Sewer Charts
II.
Utility Billing Work Orders
The above items were distributed to the Board for
informational purposes and are attached hereto as part of the public record.
B.
Attorney
Mr. Lyles stated there was discussion regarding the
potential conversion to a Chapter 190 District.
We were going to do a background investigation and give something to the
Board as we get closer to the fall when it starts to become an issue. We are looking into it. There is some legislation pending again this
year. Depending on what gets filed and
what happens in
Every
kind of district has a scope which is so broad, it requires them to go through
the government agency that created them and submit a justification/deposition
paper outlining their role to basically justify their existence. The Florida Association of Special Districts
is objecting to it and taking action on it.
It is probably not going to become anything. We have not thought it necessary to request
you as an individual Board adopt a position or lobbying presence because so
many districts, and such a broad spectrum of districts, are doing this. We should be fine with this. We are doing an analysis for you.
Mr.
Hanks asked what is Chapter 192?
Mr.
Lyles responded Chapter 190 is the authorization on a statewide level for the
creation of CDDs. There are over 500
CDDs in the State of