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
Also present were:
Ed Goscicki
Bruce Cranmer Attorney
Cedo DaSilva CH2M-Hill
Peter Colussy CH2M-Hill
Pamela Rower
Cory Selchan Field Superintendent
John McKune In-House Engineer (CSID
& NSID)
Rich
Michaud City of Coral Springs
Director of Public Works
Craig
Wrathell Wrathell,
Hart, Hunt & Associates
John
Hart Wrathell,
Hart, Hunt & Associates
Ms.
Macomber called the meeting to order and Mr. Goscicki called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of
the July 11, 2007 Meeting
Ms. Macomber stated each Board
member received a copy of the minutes of the
Ms. Macomber stated on page six, in
the third paragraph, “non-evasive” should be “non-invasive”.
Mr. Hulett stated as a point of
clarification, in looking at the list of people present, there are two
different engineers present; CH2M-Hill and Mr. McKune, the In-House Engineer.
Mr. Goscicki stated Mr. McKune has
no relationship with the District. He
shows up out of the goodness of his heart because of his 30 plus year history
working with the District. He does not
have a contract with the District. He is
an in-house contracted employee for CSID and NSID.
Ms. Macomber stated thank you, Mr.
McKune.
Mr. Hulett stated on page three, in
the middle of the page, “ex post factor” should be “ex post facto”. On page 21, I asked for clarification on
having a quorum when participating by phone.
I think there has to be a quorum of two supervisors in the room rather
than three.
Mr. Goscicki stated correct.
Mr. Hulett stated the next sentence
should be changed to “You cannot run a meeting with less than two”. Is the sentence “If there are two supervisors
in the room and one wants to attend by phone, they are allowed”, correct?
Mr. Goscicki responded you need to
have a quorum present to have anyone participate by phone. A quorum is two supervisors.
Mr. Hulett stated it is stated
correctly. What they were trying to say
was you need two supervisors in the room to have a quorum and as long as you
do, the other individual can participate by phone.
Mr. Goscicki stated correct.
Mr. Hulett stated therefore, in
order to have a meeting; you need to have two supervisors present. Can the person by phone vote as long as the
quorum was present in the room with the two supervisors?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes.
Mr. Hulett asked where we are
talking about the eight additional culverts, in terms of cleaning those out,
are these the culverts under
Mr. Selchan responded one culvert is
under
Mr. Hulett asked are there six or
seven culverts going under
Mr. Selchan responded yes. They will get inspected and if they need to
be cleaned, they will get addressed.
Some of those culverts were already addressed in the first bid
cleaning. A couple of others were added
in the additional work we asked to have done, including the one at the Burger
King. Not all of them needed to be
cleaned; only the ones in the worst condition.
We started with the worst and went down the list to get to as many as we
could clean. We will get as many as we
can cleaned again next year.
Mr. Hulett stated on page 19, the
minutes reflect “Electric engines are the way to go as they are more reliable
due to the fact both stations have power directly to those sites rather than
through the FP&L facilities for a small expense. In addition, we will have a diesel generator
backup.” It sounds like there is a power
source separate from FP&L. It does
not make sense.
Mr. Goscicki stated the words
“rather than” should be omitted.
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett seconded by Mr. Sobers
with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Change
Order No. 1 with American Earth Movers for Phase II Nuisance Tree Removal for a
Net Increase of $7,550
Mr.
Colussy stated this change order is for some additional work the contractor performed
to remove an Australian Pine Tree in the
Ms.
Macomber stated this is disturbing because there are so many.
Mr.
Colussy stated there are a lot. I
believe some of these areas are leftover from the first cleanup and the
contractor was asked to go back and clean those areas up.
Mr.
Hulett stated what disturbs me is most of these areas are in the Dells where I
live. What type of debris was there?
Mr.
Selchan responded tree debris. I
personally believe these were areas where during our cleanup, if there was a
tree in your yard, we cut off the branches at our property line and put the debris
in the right-of-way but did not take it.
Some people felt the tree originated on our property so it was our
debris and they decided to let us have it back after we left. These costs are minuscule in comparison if we
had to bid it out and have someone do this work. We removed a substantial amount of material.
Mr.
Hulett asked were there any bicycles?
Mr.
Selchan responded it was all vegetation.
Mr.
Hulett stated we will certainly address this issue. We have a neighborhood meeting on Saturday
for the Dells where I will bring this issue up.
We need to communicate with our neighbors, not only should they not be
putting debris in the canal but it is their responsibility to keep the banks
clear and trimmed back. This is
difficult to do as I tried to do this myself on my canal. When I saw the addresses, I knew they were in
my neighborhood.
Ms.
Macomber stated I appreciate you bringing this to their attention.
Mr.
Hulett stated I certainly will.
Mr.
Colussy stated the last item in this change order was a $1,400 fee the
contractor paid for his barge breaking a suction line at the Sportsplex
Facility owned by the City of
Mr.
Sobers asked were the residents notified about this proposed work?
Mr.
Colussy responded yes.
Mr.
Sobers asked was the city aware?
Mr.
Colussy responded the city was aware of the work but were not aware of the
schedule for the barge going down their canal.
We notified everyone 10 days before the contractor anticipated beginning
work in the area. The city obviously
knew the entire District was being cleaned but in this particular instance,
they were not notified within 10 days we were going to be doing this work.
Ms.
Macomber stated we notified the wrong entity.
On MOTION by Mr. Sobers seconded by Mr.
Hulett with all in favor Change Order No. 1 with American Earth Movers for
Phase II Nuisance Tree Removal for a Net Increase of $7,550 was approved.
Mr.
Colussy stated at this time, I will give you a quick update on where we are
with the Phase II tree removal. I hoped
to be completed by July 31st, however, when we went back to the
areas with Mr. Selchan, our engineer and the contractor, we found more
debris. Most of the debris was small
trees, which needed to be cleaned up and the contractor is currently working
on. There are two areas in the Dells
where the property lines of the District and the property owner are rather
vague. Many of the plats show
easements. We found several large
Bishophia and nuisance trees, which will have to be removed. Our engineers spent an entire day out in the
field with the contractor seeing if those trees were marked and why they were
not removed or if there was a question of the trees being on the District’s
property. If a few trees have to be
removed, there may be another change order.
We are currently in the process of getting all of this verified. I will have a report for you at the next
Board meeting. As far as any approaching
storms, we are still in good shape.
There are a few large trees but even if they came down into the canal,
they will not cause any drainage problems.
Ms.
Macomber stated I look forward to your update.
Mr.
Hulett stated on the canal bank running north and south separating the Dells
from
Mr.
Selchan responded we noticed these plants during our walk-through when we were
doing our inspection. The contractor is
going to re-apply herbicide to those plants to try to control them. Once he knocks them down, my guys will
monitor them into the future. Even
though we will normally spray the waterway, because of the box cut type of
canal, we are going to keep them sprayed back.
You may notice the banks have become overgrown. Obviously we cannot spray over the bank 6’ to
10’ because the bank will erode into the canal, if we remove all of the
material. We will keep the trees sprayed
so they do not grow back. We can do this
with a couple of guys with backpacks applying the herbicide directly to the plants.
Mr.
Hulett asked are you going to come up the canal with a boat?
Mr.
Selchan responded to be honest with you; I was waiting until we completed the
Phase III tree removal. I was going to
bring proposals to the Board for this canal or Canal A, for future
reference. We always maintained this
canal on the Eastridge side using a wide right-of-way we had there for years. However, it became so overgrown that we
rarely used the easement or right-of-way to maintain the canal. Since we cleared the debris, we may have to
go back and reclaim our right-of-way, which has been planted on. In light of how upset the residents were when
we were removing the excessive material, we decided we can only address
nuisance trees in this phase. We may
have to go back and address new areas where we need the right-of-way to help
maintain the canals in areas such as Canal A behind your home where the
material is too high to get through the waterway and do any real maintenance of
this canal.
Mr.
Hulett stated I tried to set an example by using a weed whacker to take care of
my property. It is amazing how fast the
Holly grows back. It is already 4’ to 5’
tall from the time it was cut before.
Mr.
Selchan stated it is a highly evasive plant.
Ms.
Macomber asked when do you think you will be bringing this back to us?
Mr.
Selchan responded when we are completely finished with this tree project. We are close to 97% complete. I will try to outline these areas for the
Board.
Ms.
Macomber stated you are correct about needing to keep on top of this because since
we have all the nuisance trees cut, we do not want them coming back again. It does not take much for them to grow back.
Mr.
Selchan stated they grow extremely fast and will take over the lake bank very
quickly if we are not diligent in staying on top of it. Maybe we can get the city’s Code Enforcement Department
to assist us. They already told us what
days they can assist us. We also need to
keep the residents on top of maintaining the areas we cleared out.
FOURTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Attorney
Mr. Cranmer stated I assume Severn
Trent Services received my July 30th letter regarding the October 1st
takeover by WHH&A.
Mr. Goscicki stated yes.
Mr. Cranmer stated I have very few
comments on the contract. In the first
paragraph, accounting advisory services, the Board expressed the desire to have
the accounting included. I do not know
if accounting is the same as accounting advisory services. In paragraph two, there are word processing
charges, computer services and copying charges.
These might be considered part of the fee. However, extraordinary expenses like long
distance travel and computerized research if authorized by the Board can be
separate charges, for example if we have to hire Fishkind &
Associates. It was of great interest to
the Board for the D&O insurance to include the three Board members. I know the new management does not have a
problem with it. Being a Real Estate
Attorney, we often have these types of clauses.
They have a fee for certified mail/return receipt. You can say Fed-Ex or use facsimiles. Certified mail is sometimes slow. Those are all the changes I have.
Mr. Wrathell stated on page one, I
agree with point two for certain out of pocket expenses. We will not incur any long distance phone
calls since we have the same area code.
This is not an issue I can perceive by any means.
Mr. Cranmer stated I suggest leaving
it in as there could be long distance calls placed if we needed to speak to a
consultant in Tallahassee, especially if there is a two hour long conference
call.
Mr. Wrathell stated we can leave it
in. The postage component is associated
with Fed-Exs when sending out the agenda packages. They will be reimbursable based on the actual
expense. Often times the District will
have a Fed-Ex account. We can check with
Severn Trent Services to see if the District has a Fed-Ex account.
Mr. Goscicki stated each District
has their own Fed-Ex account.
Mr. Hulett stated my agenda package
is delivered by one of our employees.
Mr. Wrathell stated we do not charge
for computer services. We can pull it
out.
Mr. Hulett asked what about copying
charges for the agenda packages? I think
Severn Trent Services charged extra money for the preparation of the agenda
package on top of the monthly fee.
Mr. Wrathell responded we charge a
printing and binding expense. I would
appreciate being reimbursed for this charge.
Ms. Macomber asked what about the
D&O insurance?
Mr. Wrathell responded we talked
about this at the last meeting. The
policy in place is with our firm and we can name the District as an additional
insurer. Customarily the District itself
has D&O and general liability insurance policies. On the policy we have for the work performed,
we will name the District as an additional insurer.
Mr. Goscicki stated we already have general
liability insurance for the District, which covers all of the Board
members. As a governmental entity, there
is a cap on your liability for a quarter of a million dollars. To go beyond this amount, you have to go
before the State Legislature.
Mr. Cranmer stated there could be a
situation where a Board member might be adverse to the District in
litigation. This is a rare situation but
it does happen. If the action was
directed to a specific Board member, they would have to pay for their own
attorney’s fees.
Mr. Wrathell stated many boards will
have a resolution passed stating the Board performs their functions and
responsibilities and does not violate any laws.
As long as you are performing functions of the Board, the District will
indemnify or protect the Board and legally defend the Board. One of the issues you want to protect against
is someone trying to coerce you for your votes, for example, someone in the
community putting personal pressure on you or threatening you with certain
lawsuits. The District will pass this
resolution stating we will defend the Board members as they are not performing
an illegal act.
Mr. Cranmer stated within the scope
of their assignments without recklessness.
Mr. Goscicki stated we can see if we
have a resolution on record because this has been standard practice with Severn
Trent Services for some time. However,
this District goes back so far, we will have to check to see if it was done.
Mr. Hulett asked who does the
negotiation of the insurance agreements for the District? Our general liability policy protects our
infrastructure. Is it one policy for the
other three different districts with each being a named insurer or does each
district have their own policy?
Mr. Goscicki responded each district
has their own policy through the Florida League of Cities. There are a number of companies out there who
will provide insurance to small governments like this but the policies are in
the district’s name.
Mr. Hulett asked as the manager, do
you bring the policy to the Board during the renewal period?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes. This is one of the services we provide. We have a person on staff who manages
insurance issues.
Mr. Hulett asked in the coverage we
currently have, is there a D&O element for errors and omissions under the
Sunshine liability coverage?
Mr. Goscicki responded I have to
look at the policy. Typically it is a general
liability policy and you as a Board member are covered under this policy. If you are sued personally by a plaintiff as
well as the District being sued, the insurance company will first and foremost
cover you, unless they wind up in a situation where there is a conflict. In this case, the District’s insurance
company through their attorney will put you on notice that they have a
potential conflict and you may want to entertain your own counsel because the
District’s counsel will have responsibility to defend the District and
secondarily to you. This is the typical
process you go through. I am not aware
of any Board member being sued personally in my tenure. You do not have a deep enough pocket.
Mr. Hulett asked what is Mr.
Cranmer’s opinion in terms of exposure of the individual Board members for
errors and omissions?
Mr. Cranmer responded I was thinking
of a dissenting Board member type of an issue where someone filed suit because
we did something wrong. If one of you
voted against it and argued vociferously we should not being doing this and you
are right and the District gets sued, the attorney has to decide which client
to defend; you or the District.
Mr. Hulett stated certainly if Mr.
Wrathell can add us as an additional insurer under his coverage, I say go for
it. When is our coverage due for
renewal?
Mr. Goscicki responded it runs on a
fiscal year basis.
Mr. Hulett stated this is something
we can look at after October 1st.
Mr. Cranmer stated as Mr. Wrathell
indicated, as long as you are acting within the scope of the job and are not
acting within malice or malfeasance, you are covered.
Mr. Hulett asked in the meantime,
are you willing to add us onto your policy?
Mr. Wrathell responded yes, although
I do not know if legally my firm can put you as the Board on my corporate
insurance. Performing as the District
Manager and the accounting and other functions, the insurance we have covers
professional liability, general liability and workers compensation. If something happens during this function, we
are covered under our policy and there will not be any exposure to the
District.
Mr. Goscicki stated we deal with
these issues in our management service agreements and operating services
agreements. His insurance and
indemnification should protect you against their actions. Therefore, you should have some type of
indemnification provision saying, “If we make a mistake” and you get sued
because of our negligence, we are going to defend you.
Ms. Macomber stated we are covered
by being a named insurer.
Mr. Cranmer stated the problem with
the District being insured and the resolution stating the District will
reimburse you individually or indemnify may imply you have to front the money
and get it later. You can always weigh
the conflict and say, “I do not mind being defended by the District”.
Mr. Goscicki stated I am not talking
about the individual. In my history with
local governments and having been on both sides, if you are sued personally and
in your capacity as a Board member of the District, it becomes a question of
whether there is a conflict between your liability and the District’s
liability. The District is not
prohibited from paying for an attorney but this is an opportunity the District
can take. The District can still make a
policy decision for the Board member to get sued individually and because of
the circumstances, we believe there may be a perceived conflict or potential
conflict and will bifurcate those responsibilities. This still means the District can authorize
hiring separate attorneys to represent the Board member being sued separately.
Mr. Cranmer stated this would be
formalized in a resolution.
Ms. Macomber stated we need to take
a look at whether or not there is any such resolution and when the insurance
policy comes up for renewal, we need to review our coverages for next year.
Mr. Hulett stated if our renewal
date is October 1st, we should have the agent here at the September
meeting.
Mr. Goscicki stated you will not get
the agent here.
Ms. Macomber stated we do not need
the agent, as long as we understand what the policy is.
Mr. Goscicki stated we are lucky to even
get the agent to call us as they work through the Florida League of Cities and
is not a high profitable type of business.
Mr. Hulett stated I want an explanation
of what coverage we have and would be interested in knowing what the coverages
are, what infrastructure of the District is covered as well as
supervisors. If we can have this
information at the next meeting, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Wrathell stated in addition to
general and D&O liability, you probably have property insurance for your
pump stations in case they are damaged in a storm event.
Mr. Goscicki stated I thought this
was an exclusion. We can give you the
specifics in terms of what the deductibles and the coverages are.
Ms. Macomber asked is this the only
issue you have?
Mr. Cranmer responded I had a
problem with the accounting versus advisory services.
Mr. Wrathell stated I can remove the
word “advisory” from this provision.
However, you want to be careful from an IRS taxing perspective. Even though you can be contracted, if you can
be deemed by the IRS in some manner, somehow and in some fashion as an employee,
the advisory language is there for clarification purposes. As a contractor, we serve multiple
clients. We do not exclusively serve
Sunshine WCD. This was only an extra
legal step to protect the District.
Mr. Goscicki stated the Board
clearly wants the accounting services necessary for the day-to-day operations
of the District.
Ms. Macomber asked can you work out
the language?
Mr. Cranmer responded we are going
to prepare the resolution for the insurance to provide for the indemnification
and retention of counsel at the District’s expense. We want the District to be required to
advance this money so the Board members do not have to pay the money and be
reimbursed later.
Ms. Macomber asked will you work out
the contract language?
Mr. Cranmer responded
absolutely. In fact, I will work out
what Mr. Wrathell and I consider to be a final draft.
Ms. Macomber asked does anyone have
any other issues?
Mr. Sobers responded yes, paragraph
15 on page three says, “The agreement shall be automatically renewed each
fiscal year”. Will this be on October 1st?
Mr. Wrathell responded yes. After the initial agreement is approved, on
an annual basis, you have the ability to terminate the agreement with the
notice provisions at any time. It is
assumed the services will continue to be provided unless you provide us a
termination notice. Any adjustment to
fees is typically a CPI number of 3%, which we will not use this year because
we are just coming onboard. We serve at
the will of the Board and this language is customary.
Ms. Macomber asked what was the
notice of termination to Severn Trent Services dated?
Mr. Cranmer responded July 30th.
Mr. Goscicki responded our
termination ends on October 1st.
Mr. Wrathell stated Mr. Goscicki and
his staff at Severn Trent Services have been very professional during these
transitions, which we appreciate and will continue operating with them in this
manner.
Mr. Sobers stated at the special
meeting, I asked about how many accounts you obtained from Severn Trent
Services and how many you lost to them?
Mr. Wrathell responded zero.
Mr. Goscicki stated the reason we
lost clients to Mr. Wrathell and his associates is because their current
employees were all former employees and when they left us, they took their
clients with them.
Ms. Macomber stated let’s not go
there.
Mr. Goscicki stated I did not want
to give the perception we are losing all of these clients on an ongoing basis.
Ms. Macomber stated that is very
fair.
Mr. Goscicki stated our accounting
worked the same way. When the
accountants left, the clients tended to follow them on the way out.
Ms. Macomber stated we appreciate
the professionalism you have shown through all of this.
Mr. Hulett stated absolutely.
Mr. Goscicki stated we know we will
be back.
Mr. Hulett stated page six of the
contract says, “Coordinate all personnel applications, benefits and payroll and
submit in an accurate and timely fashion.
We have an agreement with CSID where we are paying on a monthly basis
for personnel services. Are we going to
take another look at what you might be doing and what they might be doing and
what makes sense of the whole personnel, administration issue?
Mr. Wrathell responded I need to
evaluate and understand the operations.
I know some of the individuals who provide services at CSID. As I mentioned in my presentation last month,
we have a contract with other districts.
I think the services need to be provided at a fair value. I understand they provide a lot of value and
I want to sit down with Mr. Zilmer and the other staff at CSID to learn more
about what they do so I have a real understanding. They always had fair opinions to my
experiences. We will evaluate this to
see if there are any issues.
Mr. Hulett stated this falls into
the, “If it is not broken do not fix it” situation. As long as we are getting good value, I certainly
do not object. However, I would be more
comfortable if I knew what monthly/day-to-day operations they are doing.
Mr. Goscicki stated one of the items
we will be coming back to this Board with from CSID is an Interlocal Agreement
to formalize this relationship. Sitting
here as the manager for both districts, I can make sure the allocation of costs
were appropriate and deal with any issues under the administration of this
service. Severing the relationship to
where Severn Trent Services is no longer part of this but still managing CSID
is similar to what we do with some utility billing services, which Mr. Wrathell
is referring to. At times I found it
necessary to enter into a formal agreement between the two districts saying,
“CSID is going to provide this service”.
I think this serves both clients well where you have a formalized
relationship, know exactly what services you are getting, what the fee is and
move forward. Obviously we will proceed
with this as need be and continue providing this service.
Mr. Wrathell stated I agree. For auditing purposes, we like to have
agreements in place.
Mr. Hulett stated on the bottom of
page eight, as a point of clarification, currently CSID acts as the
clearinghouse for property owners questions regarding special assessments and
tax bills. Are you also including
general questions for canal issues or are you seeing yourself as the central
clearinghouse for all communications?
Mr. Wrathell responded I am not
familiar with this but what we typically do is establish a process and if it calls
more for issues with canals or any other operational issues, we typically refer
the question to field staff. However,
whether it flows through CSID is something we can evaluate in the near future. When it comes to assessments, we handle
anything related to questions about tax bills and why they are paying this
assessment. Certainly if someone is
asking questions about operational issues, we will field the call and let them
know we will contact Mr. Selchan and his staff and they should be expecting a
return call from them or we will find out the answer to the question from Mr.
Selchan. There will not be any finger
pointing. I am fine with phone calls
funneling through to us. In some
respects there may be some efficiencies with calls being directed to Mr.
Selchan versus people feeling like they are getting transferred around too
much. In other districts, we have
instructions on a website showing who to call for certain issues. We give their phone number and of course when
they contact us and ask the same questions, we certainly answer them to the
best of our ability.
Ms. Macomber stated as you proceed
with the transition, we want to be updated on the status.
Mr. Goscicki stated some of these
issues need to be addressed relatively quickly as there will be a great deal of
interlocking taking place such as office space, telephones, customer service
and human relations. All of these
services are currently running through the CSID office. If it is the desire of the Board to continue
running those services through CSID, we need to enter into an agreement to memorialize
this. Your budget reflects what the fees
are for shared services. However, we
need to make sure the system is set up to deal with this. If there are any additional requirements, we
need to make sure we clearly understand those.
Ms. Macomber stated between now and
the next meeting, we want you to determine what those issues are and let us
know.
Mr. Wrathell stated the residents
are used to a certain process over the years and I do not want to make any
changes, unless we have to.
Ms. Macomber stated this is one of
the items in your proposal.
Mr. Hulett stated the residents do
not know who they are talking to. If you
have time between now and the next meeting, I want you to figure out the
personnel issues. It makes good sense,
if we have 100 employees, to keep the group together for the employee
benefits. If I understand correctly, the
employees are extremely satisfied with their health, life and disability
insurance. It is a nice package enhanced
by having a large group. As far as the
other issues, I want to separate the benefits administration from other
personnel issues to see if what we are paying makes sense. If we are getting good value, leave it alone.
Mr. Sobers stated on page six,
recording services addresses all notices of meetings in an authorized
newspaper. Are notices going to be
limited to authorized newspapers such as city newspapers?
Mr. Wrathell responded we spoke in
our presentation about taking advantage of all the different avenues of
communication the City of Coral Springs has and piggyback off of this. This is technical language for the advertising
of meetings. As a governmental entity,
we are required to advertise in a newspaper of general circulation in the area
so no one can argue the newspaper you put the ad in did not reach a segment of
the District.
Mr. Hulett stated other than some
fine tuning of the language, I am ready to move forward. After you fine tune it, can you email it to
us for our approval?
Mr. Goscicki responded if you are
just cleaning up the language, you can pass a motion tonight authorizing the
attorney to complete the contract negotiations and authorize the President to
execute the contract upon resolution of those issues with the attorney.
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett seconded by Mr.
Sobers with all in favor District Counsel was authorized to complete contract
negotiations with Wrathell, Hart, Hunt & Associates and the President was
authorized to execute the contract upon resolution of the outstanding issues.
Mr. Cranmer stated the Attorney
General issued an option filling in a gap in Chapter 298. We now have the authority to dispose or sell,
surplus of real property by fee simple.
I know it has been a rule in this District since inception never to pay
fee simple for anything. This was Mr.
Moyer’s policy. However, if the Attorney
General says we declared surplus in accordance with our engineers through an
Engineers Report, we can sell it. We had
an issue last year where we turned down a developer who deeded some surplus to
us.
Mr. DaSilva stated there was a
reverse clause by the original landowner who dedicated the land.
Mr. Cranmer stated we came up with
another alternative but we never heard from them.
Ms. Macomber stated this gives us
latitude.
Mr. Cranmer stated correct. The Attorney General says we can determine
the terms of the declared surplus.
Ms. Macomber stated good to know.
Mr. Cranmer stated this gives us
flexibility. The original plan was laid
down along all of these plats and canals.
Over the years we determined what we needed and what we did not need.
I want to know if Mr. Selchan or Mr.
Colussy heard about any problems regarding the resolution of the Masters issue.
Mr. Selchan stated the last I heard
was the contractor did all of the work requested by the resident to plant all
of the trees. The city inspected and
approved it. The resident, Mr. Masters
asked for a letter releasing him from any action from city over the trees
inadvertently moved. The letter was
written and is in the City Attorney’s office.
As soon as the letter is approved by the City Attorney, Mr. Masters is
going to sign the release.
Mr. Cranmer stated apparently our
contractors passed the problem ahead of the paperwork. Before any paperwork was signed, the delivery
driver had to unload the trees. I spoke
to his attorney, which was brought in at the last moment but have not heard
from anyone since. I am glad to hear the
letter is on the City Attorney’s desk.
Mr. Selchan stated our contractor
acted in good faith and has done a tremendous job. He resolved the matter in a timely fashion.
Mr. Cranmer stated I want to
compliment Mr. Selchan and Mr. Colussy for answering the emergency call at 4:30
p.m. on a Friday afternoon.
Ms. Macomber stated thanks guys!
Mr. Colussy stated this matter was resolved
because everyone was where they were supposed to be and took the calls.
Mr. Selchan stated I want to thank
Mr. Cranmer for assisting us.
B. Engineer
– Condition Assessment Report for Pump Stations 1 & 2
Mr. Colussy stated the long awaited
pump station report has been submitted.
What has changed since the report submitted two months ago was we took
all of the data from the two pump stations obtained from the original site
assessment and met with staff. We wanted
to make sure we knew exactly what staff needed to operate the stations
efficiently and what they needed repaired.
We also wanted to double check our numbers because we had some high
numbers. A week after our last Board
meeting, we were able to take the whole assessment team to the Tamarac pump
station. They were extremely helpful to
us. They had their operations man there
as well as the manager who was there during construction. It is an impressive facility. It is clean, quiet, neat and very
efficient.
Ms. Macomber asked are they electric
motors?
Mr. Colussy responded yes, with a
diesel backup. It is a nice system. Once you see it, it is like putting light
bulbs up. This is the way to go. Of course there is an expense to this but it
is something to think about, if not now, definitely in the future. This is something the Board needs to look
into. We updated the reports. Hopefully you had time to review them. I am happy to answer any questions.
Ms. Macomber asked can you summarize
your recommendations?
Mr. Colussy responded if you look at
the summary tables in the front of the report, the LP gas engines were
installed in 2002/2003. They probably
have a lifetime of another five years.
If there is money available, it would be nice to do them now because the
cost is obviously going to increase. The
existing engines currently have a good re-sale value of approximately $15,000
per engine. As far as the electric, we
can do it now. If not, we recommend
getting it done within the next three to five years with a Reserve Fund. We performed an analysis for Pump Station 2,
which we feel is the most critical pump station to do. I think you are going to need to reserve
$194,000 in order to do the conversation in the next five years between the LP
gas engines and the electric.
As far as other recommendations for
the actual pump stations; both of them desperately need new roofs, fencing and
security upgrades. Pump Station 2
desperately needs bypass line repairs.
All of the other lines, which we list as a high priority in the report,
we recommend the Board doing as soon as it is feasible. The costs for the Pump Station 1 and Pump Station
2 repairs, without going to the electric pumps is $570,000. There are some items recommended if you do
the electric upgrades like the additional fuel coolers on Pump Station 2, which
costs $80,000, but the aluminum replacements will not be needed. If you want to do the upgrades in both pump
stations from LP gas engines to electric it will cost $1.7 million.
Ms. Macomber stated we put away
money in our capital budget.
Mr. Goscicki stated we set money
aside for repairs.
Ms. Macomber asked do we have enough
money to do the conversions only?
Mr. Goscicki responded no. I am not even sure we have enough money for
all of the repairs. We had several
projects running in three different districts with the same engineers and I have
a hard time recalling the amounts. You
have some money budgeted for a number of the repairs recommended in this
report. The next step is to let the
engineer and Mr. Selchan look at the available dollars and prioritize against
the dollars already there. If the Board
wants to move forward with the $1.7 million program, you are going to have to
tap into some of the funds you have from the loan, which have not been repaid
or use some of the borrowing.
Mr. Hulett stated this is what we
were going to decide. You repaid the $2
million we voted on at the last meeting.
Correct?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes.
Mr. Hulett stated so we are sitting
with a balance of $3 million.
Ms. Rower stated around $2.8
million.
Mr. Hulett stated it was $250,000
for the infrastructure on Pump Station 1.
Are you confident you can get $15,000 for those eight engines?
Mr. Colussy responded this is the
book value. My first thought was to sell
them to the sister districts.
Mr. Hulett asked is there a way you
can find out if there is a market for those?
If $15,000 was a real number, the total cost is $120,000. This reduces the infrastructure; the roofs
and railings down to $450,000. In my
opinion, the big issue is whether to do the electric motors now or in five or
six years. It is helpful for me to see
the projections of how much we have to reserve.
In other words, you have the cost for these engines and then some
inflation factors if you wait five or six years. On the other hand, if these engines still
have a useful life, it seems a shame to waste them. We need a financial projection showing how
much we will have to reserve over five or six years in order to have the money
available at the end of this period of time to do these electric engine
conversions, versus the cost of doing it today and the cost for the loans
outstanding. As far as I am concerned, I
am ready to go out for bids on the infrastructure, particularly the security
fence. We can do this tonight. I want to know what we can get for these
engines; if this is a real number and there is a market for them. This will be a significant number in reducing
the cost of doing the basic building infrastructure repairs. I did some research and this seems to be a
big issue for us. What do you think
about the three of us, along with Mr. Wrathell, Mr. Colussy and Mr. Selchan
taking a tour of the buildings and maybe going down to Tamarac to look at their
electric engines before we get into this?
I feel we should know what we actually have out there. There are a couple of things we have to do as
far as satisfying the Sunshine Law. We
have to give notice and someone has to take rudimentary notes of any discussion
taking place during the tour. It seems
to me this might be a valuable exercise for us because we are talking about a
significant expenditure.
Ms. Macomber responded we could do
this as a workshop.
Mr. Goscicki stated you can tie it
in with one of your Board meetings. You
can have the Board meeting early and meet here.
You can then recess from here to the field and still keep it part of
your structured Board meeting.
Mr. Hulett stated I took a tour with
Mr. Selchan when I first came on the Board.
I think it is helpful for all of us to go as a group and look at these
engines to get more information.
Ms. Rower stated you can also have
Mr. Selchan take each supervisor individually and then have discussion in the
public forum so you are not advertising a special meeting.
Mr. Hulett stated I thought it might
be nice if we all went together.
Ms. Macomber stated I agree this is
a good thing to do. We need to weigh the
pros and cons, know what is in the budget to do this work, what it will cost to
do later in terms of what we have to put aside each year and what the benefits
are of doing the work now.
Mr. Hulett stated as well as the
remaining service life of the current engines.
Mr. Colussy stated we ran through a
scenario in Section 3 of what it was going to cost for the next five years as
well as an analysis of the engines.
Mr. Sobers stated it is on page 3-1.
Mr. Hulett asked what is your recommendation?
Mr. Colussy responded our recommendation
is electric engines are the way to go.
Mr. Hulett stated you are saying we
should do it now and get them out of the way.
Mr. Colussy stated if you have the
money and could do it now; this would be the way to go.
Mr. Hulett asked what is the service
life of these electric engines?
Mr. Colussy responded these are low
maintenance engines. We are probably
talking about a minimum of 10 to 15 years life on them. They are easy to maintain. You can basically send them out to a shop and
have them back within a week and into service.