MINUTES
OF MEETING
SUNSHINE
WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the
Board of Supervisors of the Sunshine Water Control District was held on
Present and constituting a quorum
were:
Mary Macomber President
Dave Hulett Vice President
Philip Sobers Secretary
Russell Parks Outgoing Supervisor
Also present were:
Bob Nanni Manager -
Dana Kaas
Ed Goscicki
Dan Daly
Karen Ellis
Mona Slaughter
Cory Selchan
Bruce Cranmer Attorney
Cedo DaSilva CH2M-Hill
Peter Colussy CH2M-Hill
Daniel Bohorguez CH2M-Hill
Rich
Michaud City of Coral Springs
Director of Public Works
John McKune District Staff
John Petty
Several Residents
Mr.
Nanni called the meeting to order and called the roll.
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS Organizational
Matters
A. Oath of Office for Newly Elected
Supervisors
Ms.
Macomber stated I want to thank Mr. Parks for all his years of service and great
work. He supported Mr. Sobers and me and
we respect his values and judgement. You
will be sorely missed. We wish you all
the best.
Mr.
Parks stated thank you.
Mr.
Sobers stated I echo Ms. Macomber and wish you well in your well earned
retirement.
{Applause
from the Audience}
Mr.
Nanni being a Notary of the State of
B. Election of Officers
Mr.
Nanni stated since a new Board member is seated, it is necessary to have a
re-organization of the officers. The
Board usually elects a President, Vice President and Secretary.
Mr. Sobers nominated Ms. Macomber as President
and Mr. Hulett seconded the nomination. Hearing
no further nominations, with all in favor Ms. Macomber was elected President.
Ms.
Macomber stated I will try to live up to the work Mr. Parks accomplished.
Mr. Sobers nominated Mr. Hulett as Vice
President and Ms. Macomber seconded the nomination. Hearing no further nominations, with all in
favor Mr. Hulett was elected Vice President.
Ms. Macomber nominated Mr. Sobers as Secretary
and Mr. Hulett seconded the nomination.
Hearing no further nominations, with all in favor Mr. Sobers was elected
Secretary.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes
of the March 14, 2007 Meeting
Mr. Nanni stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
There not being any,
On MOTION by Mr. Sobers seconded by Mr. Hulett
with all in favor the minutes of the
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Permit
Request to Pan American Group for Right-of-Way Permit for Construction of a
Monitoring Well on Sample Road East of NW 124th Avenue and NW 35th
Street
Ms. Macomber stated the letter from
Mr. DaSilva was addressed to Ms. Donna Holiday.
Is she back in business?
Mr. DaSilva responded it was a
typo. This request is for a right-of-way
permit for a monitoring well. We request
approval of the permit with the recommendations as stated in the letter.
Mr. Sobers moved to approve the permit
request from Pan American Group for a right-of-way permit for construction of a
monitoring well on
Mr. Hulett asked are they installing
the monitoring well at their expense?
Mr. DaSilva responded yes.
Mr. Hulett stated all they are doing
is asking us for permission to install the well in our right-of-way.
Mr. DaSilva stated correct.
Mr. Hulett stated it looks like it
is in the industrial park.
Ms. Macomber asked is Pam American
Group the owner?
Mr. DaSilva responded yes.
Mr. Hulett asked what is the purpose
of the well?
Mr. DaSilva responded it is just a
monitoring well.
Ms. Macomber stated this is a
Broward County DEP requirement.
Mr. DaSilva stated as a condition in
the recommendation letter, in the event the District wishes to obtain
ingress/egress to the easement and right-of-way for the purpose of maintaining
the water management system, the removal of infrastructure should be at the
owner’s expense. This is just an
underground flush.
On VOICE VOTE with all in favor the prior
motion for approval of the permit request from Pan American Group for a
right-of-way permit for construction of a monitoring well on
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Attorney
Mr. Cranmer stated I was just
provided with the contracts for Phase 2 of the canal rights-of-way clearing for
the non-nuisance vegetation by American Earth Movers. The specifications were designed by our
engineers. They met the following
criteria:
• Responsive
bid.
• 150
days to complete the job.
• Liquidated
damages of $1,000 per day.
• More
than adequate bonding.
• 10%
retainage.
Ms. Macomber asked did we prepare
the contract?
Mr. Cranmer responded no, they did.
Ms. Macomber asked were they the low
bidder?
Mr. Cranmer responded no, the second
bidder or the lowest responsive bid.
Ms. Macomber asked have you reviewed
the documents?
Mr. Cranmer responded yes. They are ready for signature.
B. Engineer
– Work Authorization #WA-4 for Stormwater Pump Stations 1 & 2
Mr. DaSilva stated the Work
Authorization is for the evaluation of the physical condition of the
structural, mechanical, electrical and control components of Pump Stations 1
& 2.
Ms. Macomber asked are these new
pumps?
Mr. DaSilva responded the evaluation
is for the overall pump; the building and electrical components.
Ms. Macomber asked is this
evaluation required?
Mr. DaSilva responded it needs to be
done.
Ms. Macomber asked how did we determine
this needed to be done?
Mr. Colussy responded the pump
stations are 30 to 35 years old and receives periodic maintenance over the
years. However, they are in such
condition to where they need to be evaluated to determine what needs to be
replaced now and later on, especially with hurricane season approaching. We did this for CSID and is a normal
evaluation due to the age of the pump stations.
We will prepare a report telling you what needs to be maintained,
replaced, painted and repaired. The
subcontractor of the pumps will provide a diver to perform an inspection and a
written report.
Mr. Hulett stated I noticed your
compensation is estimated to be $20,000.
For the diver, we contract with a separate company.
Mr. Colussy stated correct. The diver is a separate fee. They charge us $1,800 for each pump station.
Mr. Sobers asked when was an
inspection last performed?
Mr. Selchan responded I am not aware
of any complete inspection performed in the last 20 years because everything
functioned the way it should function relative to the operations. Engineers have creative ideas and new ways of
doing things as well as more efficient ways of doing things. They can evaluate the system as it is and
look at different ways of operating each pump station; to give you the general
condition of what it is now and what it could be if they decide to go in a
different direction of the way it operates.
Ms. Macomber asked does staff concur
this is something we need to undertake?
Mr. Selchan responded it does not
hurt us to do so.
Mr. Sobers stated I recommend we
establish inspection timetables based upon there being no prior record of any
of these pumps being evaluated. For
example, if a pump is evaluated in August, we can set up a timeline saying the
next inspection is due in 24 months.
Mr. Colussy stated a major
inspection should be done every five years and an interim inspection every two
and a half years.
Ms. Macomber stated these pumps are
new.
Mr. DaSilva stated Water Control
Districts should inspect their pumps every five years.
Mr. Hulett asked are these pumps
working?
Mr. DaSilva responded we have not
had any problems with the pumps.
Mr. Selchan stated the pumps were
installed in 2001. They are relatively
new and perform flawlessly. We do not
have any operational problems. However,
the electrical components need to be looked at.
Mr. Goscicki stated this is part of
an Asset Management Program. We are
going beyond routine maintenance. The
pump stations are maintained on a routine basis but periodically we will do an
in-depth review of the entire asset and look at long-term strategies on how to
utilize the system, where it is going and what needs to be replaced going
forward. It is more in-depth than just
routine maintenance.
Mr. Sobers asked have we determined
five years from now whether the same thing will be done automatically?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes.
Ms. Macomber stated we should obtain
a recommendation from the engineer.
Mr. Selchan stated we should have
the divers report and the actual inspection completed in 30 days and a report
in 60 days.
Mr. DaSilva stated I suggest waiting
for the report before proceeding.
Mr. Hulett asked do these pumps
raise and lower the water levels in the canal?
Are they turned on a standby basis or periodically to test?
Mr. Selchan responded the pumps are
started every other month so the engines have time to sit and idol. They are only turned on when it rains in
order to pump out the water. We have no
way of pumping the water back in. We are
getting ready for our hurricane preparation drill where we will look everything
over to make sure the engines will function in a stormwater event.
Mr. Hulett asked does this
expenditure come out of the repairs and maintenance line item of the budget?
Mr. Nanni responded yes.
Mr. Hulett stated $243,000 was
budgeted for repairs and maintenance, of which we spent $7,000.
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett seconded by Mr. Sobers
with all in favor Work Authorization #WA-4 for Stormwater Pump Stations 1 &
2 with CH2M-Hill in the amount of $25,000 was approved.
Mr. DaSilva stated the next item is
an update on the Hydraulic Model. This
is a study we performed for all of our districts. We created a model, representing the areas as
they were originally permitted when the canals were 6’ to 8’ deep with nice
canal banks and no obstructions. We looked
at the present condition of some of these canals and the potential improvements
needing to be done to get the Hydraulic Model to work as designed. We looked at random areas; the worst areas
and took pictures. The canal south of
Mr. Hulett asked are they blocked?
Mr. DaSilva responded no, but when
it rains it flows.
Mr. Selchan stated many of these were
small ditches to begin with and were not anticipated to be big canals. They are only drainage ditches to enable the
stormwater to flow into deeper areas. We
have many areas where the sediment built up over the years, the canal banks
eroded away and the depth of the canal was lost. If you can see any pipes, the canal bottom is
higher than the bottom of the pipes. It
is not a severe problem but when you calculate multiple sites it starts to
impede the flow. It slows the process
down of getting water out during a stormwater event.
Mr. Sobers asked is the elevation on
the blocked canals in the north less than the canals south or east of it?
Mr. DaSilva responded those ditches
were shallow canals at one time.
Mr. Selchan stated they were once control
structures on the golf course where you could place wood in the frames to
control the water flow. The golf course
controlled their water level 25 years ago with a pump station to sprinkle water
onto the golf course. When they were not
watering the golf course, they pumped water out of a well into the golf course
area to maintain their own water level.
At some point they quit doing this and most of these shallow areas dried
up in times of drought, such as now.
Mr. Hulett asked were these canals
left this way over the years? If it was
built up higher than the culverts, should there have been an ongoing process?
Mr. DaSilva responded we should look
into cleaning some of these canals in the future from the overgrowth and
dredge.
Ms. Macomber asked when was the last
time we did any such work?
Mr. Selchan responded years ago we
dredged some of the ditches to drag this type of material out because it was so
shallow. It is almost impossible to keep
spraying and maintaining the areas. On
both sides there are all types of brush and our staff cannot get in there. Spraying would not change much because of the
shallowness. To keep it flowing, you
need deep water. Inside of the city we
have access issues. When our tree
project is underway, all of the brush around those waterways will be removed,
which will make it easier to spray.
Spraying has an aesthetic value.
I believe our objective is to get the material dug out of the bottom to
be able to hold some water. When we get
water, we need the capacity to hold the water so in times of drought, we have
some storage.
Mr. Hulett stated or vice-versa.
Ms. Macomber stated there is an
article in today’s newspaper about SFWMD changing from outflow to inflow in
order to keep water in the area.
Mr. Goscicki stated SFWMD put a halt
to any recharge into any of the basins.
Mr. Selchan stated we tried to close
our recharge.
Mr. Hulett asked why were these
areas not being maintained all along rather than letting the sediment build up?
Mr. DaSilva responded most of the
canals are in good condition. Property
owners have not been maintaining to the water’s edge as required. Some of these areas are commercial areas.
Mr. Hulett stated I am referring to
the sediment in the canal. If you are
saying the ground is higher than the culvert, this is something we should have
addressed over the years.
Mr. DaSilva stated they all go to
the same place. This is an essential
component of the whole stormwater system.
Mr. Hulett asked can some of these
small canals handle runoff in heavy rains or are they blocked?
Mr. DaSilva responded they are not
blocked but they currently do not hold any water. In canal rights-of-way and surface water,
stormwater flows continuously.
Mr. Hulett stated but there is
currently no water.
Mr. DaSilva stated there is a
ditch. When it rains, the ditch will
fill up and water will travel through pipes.
Mr. Hulett asked with 16” of rain,
will the water flow?
Mr. DaSilva responded yes.
Mr. Hulett stated I do not
understand the point of your presentation.
Mr. DaSilva stated in doing the
Hydraulic Model, we thought these canals were wet and working as designed. I do not want to put in numbers that do not
represent what is out there as far as the capacity.
Ms. Macomber stated this is our
first hydraulic study.
Mr. Sobers stated this leads me to
believe because of the present drought, this type of condition has been
revealed to you. Correct?
Mr. DaSilva responded correct.
Mr. Sobers stated had we not had a
drought, you would not have been able to see this.
Mr. Selchan stated we have known for
some time these were shallow ditches but this is a great opportunity for you to
see the condition of some of these ditches.
We want to address cleaning this material out so when you have two pipes
and the water has to flow between point “A” to point “B” there is a rise in
elevation for it to go over. We want to
start addressing the worst areas and move into areas we have not addressed in
the past. As we find these areas, we
will highlight them, put them into the Hydraulic Study and see how it affects
the flow. If there are serious effects,
we will address them immediately. If
not, you can have an annual maintenance with “x” amount of funds to spend to
dig out certain areas on an annual basis.
Mr. Hulett asked will the work be
prioritized?
Mr. Selchan responded yes.
Mr. Hulett asked is there money in
this year’s budget?
Mr. Selchan responded we budget a
certain amount of money each year to address small areas. It is not a great deal of money so not much
work is done.
Mr. DaSilva stated after the model
is completed, we can prioritize the areas.
We will have to see what the results are.
Ms. Macomber asked when do you think
the model will be complete?
Mr. DaSilva responded next month.
Mr. Cranmer asked do you think we
should have the contract signed before the meeting or after?
Mr. Nanni responded I believe the
President is going to call Mr. Colussy after the meeting.
Ms. Macomber stated at this time, I
request Mr. Colussy review the tree removal bid.
Mr. Colussy stated at our last
meeting, we had the contractors here who were the second lowest bidder on the
project. There was a pre-construction
meeting, which I attended along with Mr. Selchan and the contractor. The contractor started marking all the
nuisance trees as the Board requested, which will be completed by the end of
this week. This Friday, Mr. Selchan and
I will meet with the contractor to prepare a plan and schedule. Mr. Selchan will be placing door hangers on
residents doors’ explaining what is going to be done. We will be monitoring the contractor closely
to make sure only nuisance trees within the District’s rights-of-way are
removed.
Ms. Macomber asked were we going to
tag all the trees?
Mr. Colussy responded they should be
100% tagged by the end of this week. The
contractor has an Arborist on staff who marked the nuisance trees. The contract is 150 days but we are hoping to
get it done quicker. They will have
three to four crews performing the job.
Mr. Cranmer stated there is a time
limit of 130 days with an outside limit of 150 days. There will be $1,000 per day penalty for
delays. There are liquidated damages at
a set amount to be determined by the Board.
The bonding has been met. There
is a 10% retainage. When they are done,
we will do a walk through. There are no
subs. This company is able to do the job
without having to sub it out.
Mr. Colussy stated I was just
informed by the contractor they will be bringing a sub in.
Mr. Cranmer asked for what purpose?
Mr. Colussy responded so they can
have more crews.
Mr. Cranmer asked is he afraid of
the liquidated damages provision?
Mr. Colussy responded could be. I worked with American Earth Movers before
they used subs for Phase 1 and we had little problems with them. Any problems American Earth Movers was
responsive to and took care of them.
Mr. Cranmer asked will you monitor
their progress?
Mr. Colussy responded
absolutely. They will give us all the
paperwork for the subs in regards to who is doing the work and the type of work
they will be doing.
Mr. Cranmer stated this is a
revision to the contract
Ms. Macomber asked do we need to
issue a change order?
Mr. Cranmer responded yes.
Mr. Nanni asked why was the contract
awarded to the second lowest bidder?
Mr. Colussy responded the lowest
bidder did not have a General Contractor on staff and counsel advised him he
needed to provide certain paperwork allowing him to use an outside General Contractor. He was unable to provide the paperwork. Therefore, the contract was awarded to the
second lowest bidder, American Earth Movers.
Ms. Macomber asked have we received
any bid protests?
Mr. Cranmer responded no. The lowest bid was not a responsive bid. The bid we did accept was a responsive bid
and is substantially lower than our engineering estimate. As you stated at the last meeting, if the
lowest bidder had been awarded the job and had not completed it or had not
completed it properly, there would be people looking over our shoulders
questioning why we selected a non-responsive bid without a qualified General
Contractor. I do not think we had much
of a choice. We had to go with American
Earth Movers.
Mr. Sobers stated in view of the
fact there will be an amendment to this contract, should we wait until the
amendment is filed? As it stands now,
this contract does not incorporate the subs.
Mr. Colussy stated currently, the
contractor is doing all the work with his own people. It will actually be a week to two weeks until
he starts cutting trees down.
Mr. Cranmer stated we can have the
Board approve the contract tonight and submit an amendment for our review at
the next meeting so the contractor can get started. We always have the right to amend something
along the way if it is unanimously agreed upon by the Board.
Mr. Sobers moved to approve the contract
with American Earth Movers for removal of nuisance trees and Mr. Hulett
seconded the motion.
Ms. Macomber stated I recommend we
approve the contract with the understanding future amendments will come to the
Board for review.
Mr. Cranmer stated with the approval
of the engineers.
Ms. Macomber stated I suggest we
change the motion to say “We will approve it with the expectation we will be
seeing at least one amendment and future amendments.
Mr. Cranmer stated the contractor is
agreeing to sign this contract without subs but now we are hearing there are
going to be subs. We need to know the
nature and extent of the subs. However,
it is not significant as they can submit an amendment to the contract.
On VOICE VOTE with all in favor the prior
motion for approval of the contract with American Earth Movers for removal of
nuisance trees was approved, subject to receipt of the amended contract.
Mr. Cranmer stated the contract was
already signed by the contractor. If we
sign it tonight he is bound to proceed without subs. If he wants to bring in subs later and Mr. Colussy
and Mr. Selchan approve it because it is for a small part of the project and
will not affect the rest the project, we will approve it. However, if they do 90% of their job with
subs, we are going to hold them in breach, subject to your discretion. We can be reasonable with him.
Mr. Hulett stated for an $880,000
contract, the contractor should have had the courtesy of being here
tonight. Where is this company from?
Mr. Colussy responded Miami.
Mr. Hulett asked are we satisfied
they know what they are doing and will meet our standards?
Mr. Colussy responded they worked on
Phase 1, which was a tough job and they had subs. We certainly had our share of normal problems
but we were able to overcome them. I
believe Mr. Selchan was satisfied with them.
Mr. Selchan stated they did a good
job taking care of any problem arising in the field and addressed all of our
resident concerns within 24 hours. It is
something to be said for them working around the residents and addressing
problems immediately.
Ms. Macomber stated absolutely.
Mr. Hulett asked do they have
direction as far as access? As I
understand it from the meeting I attended, the concern of the residents was
regarding fences and arbors.
Mr. Colussy responded they are
responsible in the contract for the removal and replacement of fences, damage
to sidewalks and irrigation systems. If
they have to go across private property, they will have to obtain
right-of-entry from the property owner.
This is in the contract and we have been over it with them. We had experience with them before.
Mr. Hulett stated I understand the
time constraints but normally the Board has time to review the contract before
the meeting.
Mr. Cranmer stated it is always the
hope but in this business things come up at the last minute. This happened in the past.
Ms. Macomber stated we have District
Counsel and engineer’s review.
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett seconded Mr.
Sobers with all in favor the prior motion was amended to reflect the contract
with American Earth Movers for removal of nuisance trees was approved as
submitted.
C. Superintendent – Discussion of
Management Services Contract
Mr. Nanni stated I understand the
importance of the management services contract discussion but we have been
getting an occasional inquiry from SunTrust about a short-term commercial
loan. We need to get the procedures in
place regarding the repayment.
Mr. Goscicki stated if you recall, a
year ago last April the Board authorized us to go out for a loan with SunTrust
for $6.7 million in total proceeds to fund Phase 1 and now Phase 2 of the
improvement program. We are currently at
a point where SunTrust needs the Board to commit to a repayment schedule. This is what we are in the process of working
through now. I suggest we have a five,
ten, fifteen year repayment schedule.
The reason for the loan was you needed the money upfront to move forward
with these construction contracts.
Obviously we have a 75% refunding on the first bond and anticipate
having a similar type of result on the second one. We are currently going through the cashflow
analysis of how much can be drawn down and repaid immediately to avoid any
longer term payments and what we need to stretch out in terms of the longer
term payments to mitigate impact on the community.
Mr. Cranmer asked is the 75% from
Federal sources?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes, from
NCRS.
Mr. Cranmer asked are you suggesting
we may be able to pay it back on a more accelerated basis?
Mr. Goscicki responded exactly. You can have $5 million sitting in the
Reserve Fund with monies being brought in and you need to determine how much of
a loan you want to carry. This is what
we are going through in doing the cashflow analysis. We want to be able to come back to the Board
and say, “Here is what you have, what is needed going forward and what your
current assessment levels are”. We will
have this for the Board at the next meeting.
Mr. Hulett asked do we have the
money?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes. We already made the first interest payment.
Mr. Hulett asked how does it show on
the balance sheet?
Mr. Goscicki responded it does not
show so much on the balance sheet as it shows in “Debt Reserves” where you see
$5 million. There is no line item saying
“Loan from SunTrust”. When you take your
cashflow in and cashflow out, this is what you see.
Mr. Hulett asked is the $5 million a
loan?
Mr. Goscicki responded a big piece
of the loan. It is also made up of the
other revenues you brought in and the balance of your funds. This is why I want to do a cashflow analysis
to show you what it looks like on the longer term perspective and not just on the
balance sheet. This does not tell you
what you need to see.
Mr. Hulett asked do you know the
rate?
Mr. Goscicki responded no.
Mr. Hulett asked when was this loan
executed; after the hurricane?
Mr. Goscicki responded the Board
authorized this in April of 2006.
Mr. Cranmer stated I can provide a
copy to you.
Ms. Macomber stated this is a good
rate.
Mr. Cranmer stated this is because
we have the taxing power, which is just about the best collateral a bank can
ever have. We basically cannot go
bankrupt. Secured loans have lower
interest rates.
Discussion
of Management Services Contract
Mr. Nanni stated at the last
meeting, the Board requested discussion of the management services contract be
placed on the agenda for this meeting. I
was advised at the beginning of the meeting; Mr. Petty provided a proposal to
the Board. Severn Trent Services also
has a proposal, if you allow us to make a presentation to the Board. With us is Mr. Dana Kaas who is the Vice
President of the US contract operations for Severn Trent Services. Mr. Goscicki is the Vice President and
Regional Manager for Severn Trent Services.
Mr. Sobers stated I was contacted by
Severn Trent Services and met with staff using “ex parte” communication. The thrust of the conversation dealt with the
solicitation of proposals. There was no
critical issue by either party. I felt
it was imperative to address the Board pursuant to their invitation. I made no decision.
Ms. Macomber stated I was also contacted
by Severn Trent Services but did not feel it was appropriate to meet.
Mr. Hulett stated at the last
meeting, the Board expressed some dissatisfaction with Severn Trent Services. Mr. Petty requested he be recognized to bid
for the job. If the Board feels it is
necessary for a management change at this point in time, since we are subject
to the Sunshine Law, the job should be advertised for any interested parties,
whether Severn Trent Services or Mr. Petty or any other entity interested in
applying for the management position. It
is incumbent for us to do so, rather than reviewing the proposals tonight. We do not have a contract in place with Severn
Trent Services. The contract is with
Gary L. Moyer, P.A. from 1998. I
understand Mr. Moyer’s firm was purchased by Trent Services. Why do we not have a current contract?
Mr. Goscicki responded there was an
assignment of this contract with a formal document going to the Board
recognizing the acquisition of Mr. Moyer’s firm by Severn Trent Services in
1998.
Mr. Hulett asked can I get a copy of
the assignment?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes.
Mr. Hulett stated assuming this is
the same contract; it calls for termination by either party for any reason upon
60 day written notice. The Board has
several options to take. We can give Severn
Trent Services 60 days notice and advertise the job. They may be a successful re-bidder on the
job. We can also advertise the job to
see who is interested and proceed from there.
If we decide to make a change, we can give Severn Trent Services their
60 days notice. There are several
avenues we can take on this issue.
Ms. Macomber stated it is not
prudent to terminate Severn Trent Services at this time because there should be
an overlap in order to make the transition.
Mr. Cranmer stated it is the Board’s
option to bid but not a legal requirement.
Ms. Macomber asked what are the
parameters if we were to bid it out?
Mr. Cranmer responded it is based
upon the expectations of the existing contract in place. I wonder how many companies there are in
Florida like Severn Trent Services.
Mr. Goscicki stated there are half a
dozen firms having capabilities in this regard.
We have been on both sides of this process. If you are transitioning, there is an overlap
required of 30 days to ensure the new firm is situated in regards to the
financial transition. We do not plan to
be leaving any time soon, but you are correct in terms of the transition
process. As District Counsel pointed
out, you have wide latitude in the management services type arena and how you
move forward. The practice in the
industry has been to go through a request for proposal type of process. In this process, you request proposals from a
number of qualified firms and may advertise to open the arena further. You will receive those proposals and evaluate
them. You may have a select number of
firms give presentations on their background and skills. In your request for proposals, you can typically
outline certain criteria for this firm to have a certain number of years of
experience, depth of resources and other important criteria.
Ms. Macomber stated in all fairness,
this is the appropriate thing to do in terms of making sure we make an informed
decision. What does District Counsel
suggest?
Mr. Cranmer responded a Resolution
saying the Board wants to go out for bids with a set of criteria and time
period of 30 to 60 days in terms of responses and have presentations by
qualified bidders.
Mr. Sobers asked how will we
determine what a qualifying party is?
Mr. Cranmer responded it will be at
the discretion of the Board.
Mr. Hulett stated in reading the
statutes, there is no specific language in regards to particular qualifications
for a management company.
Ms. Macomber stated we have some
general requirements set forth in our contract, which we can use to create some
specifications.
Mr. Cranmer stated keep in mind; we
are heading into another hurricane season.
Ms. Macomber stated I suggest we put
out a bid for 30 days
Mr. Hulett asked how long will it
take to prepare a request for proposal?
Mr. Goscicki responded it will take
between now and the next meeting for your attorney to prepare a proposal. We can certainly provide language to your
attorney.
Mr. Hulett stated it sounds less
complicated than it is.
Mr. Goscicki stated you are putting
together a one page document requesting proposals and laying out criteria.
Mr. Hulett asked can we do this
quicker than 30 days?
Mr. Cranmer responded I do not
know. This is new for us.
Mr. Hulett asked how were the
current fees negotiated?
Mr. Cranmer responded they were set
by Mr. Moyer.
Mr. Hulett stated the Board approves
the budget for the management fees so there must be some criteria.
Mr. Nanni stated when you are asking
for an RFP, you have an idea of what you want the management company to do as it
pertains to the by-laws. You are also
leaving it open for the companies to propose how they will go about it and the
resources they have. If you are looking
at a bid, you know exactly what you want in terms of the hours and people. This is why those items are enumerated in the
bid. With an RFP, once you look at the
plan provided to you by a management company, you can negotiate with them.
On MOTION by Mr. Macomber seconded by Mr.
Parks with all in favor District Counsel was authorized to prepare the RFP for
management services as soon as practicable but no later than the May meeting.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor Requests and
Audience Comments