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
Also present were:
Bruce Cranmer District Counsel
Cedo DaSilva CH2M-Hill
Pete Colussy CH2M-Hill
Cory Selchan Field Supervisor
Michal Szymonowicz Wrathell, Hart, Hunt & Associates
John Hart Wrathell, Hart, Hunt & Associates
Glen Hanks Coral Springs Improvement District
John McKune McKune & Associates
Several Residents
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS: Roll
Call
Ms. Macomber called the meeting to order and welcomed all the attendees.
Mr. Wrathell called the roll and noted for the record, Mr. Phil Sobers was absent from the meeting.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS: Approval of
Ms. Macomber requested if there were any corrections, additions or deletions.
Mr. Cranmer referred to page 5 of
the
Mr. Hulett referred to page 11, the sentence regarding the District’s website should be striked from the record. On page 17, the fourth line, the “no flat bottoms”, should read “flat bottoms”. On page 19, the second paragraph, Mr. Selchan is an employee of Sunshine Water Control District, not Severn Trent Services. On page 20, second paragraph, the third line, the statement “we can transplant……”, should be deleted; and the paragraph beginning with “Ms. Rower stated….”, should be deleted. On page 22, paragraph 2, “liquid propane” should read “electrical system”.
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett and seconded by Ms. Macomber with all in favor
of approving the
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett and seconded by Ms. Macomber with all in favor
of approving the September 12, 2007 Meeting Minutes with corrections as noted.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS: Discussion/Consideration
of Resolutions
a.
Resolution
2008-1; Ratifying previous Board action regarding the decision to
Designate the firm of Wrathell, Hart, Hunt
and Associates, LLC as District
Manager
Mr. Wrathell explained that Resolution 2008-1 is for the purpose of the Board commemorating the previous Board approval of Wrathell, Hart, Hunt and Associates as designated District Manager of Sunshine Water Control District.
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett and seconded by Ms. Macomber with all in favor
of approving Resolution 2008-1; designating the firm of WHHA as District
Manager of Sunshine Water Control District.
b.
Resolution
2008-2; Designating Craig Wrathell as Assistant Secretary
and Treasurer of the District
Mr. Wrathell discussed the functions of the Assistant Secretary and Treasurer of the District, enabling the Assistant Secretary/Treasurer to carry out the monthly financial responsibilities, pay the bills, etc. In appointing Mr. Wrathell, the previous Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer positions would be rescinded.
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett and seconded by Ms. Macomber with all in favor
of approving Resolution 2008-2; designating Craig Wrathell as Assistant
Secretary and Treasurer for the District.
c.
Resolution
2008-3; which Rescinds Resolution 2007-6 in its entirety
and re-designates the Signatories for the
District
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett and seconded by Ms. Macomber with all in favor
of approving Resolution 2008-3; rescinding Resolution 2007-6 in it’s entirety
and re-designating the signatories for the District as discussed.
d.
Resolution
2008-4; Approving the Statewide Mutual Aid Agreement
Mr. Wrathell stated we carried this discussion over from the last meeting, at which you were not here at the last meeting Ms. Macomber, a form of a Statewide Mutual Aid Agreement and Bruce wanted some time to review the agreement and make sure there were no implications that concerned him.
Mr. Cranmer stated what the Statewide Mutual Aid Agreement does is if we need help we are more likely to get it, because they know they are going to get paid, largely through FEMA. It is an automatic guarantee of payment.
Mr.
Wrathell concurred, I think that Mr. Cranmer hit on it on the point, I think we
had also talked about trying to eventually form a level of agreement with the
City of
Ms. Macomber asked Mr. Hulett, do you have any questions or comments?
Mr. Hulett responded, I am all for it, I think it is excellent.
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett and seconded by Ms. Macomber with all in favor
of approving Resolution 2008-4; approving the Statewide Mutual Aid Agreement as
presented.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS: Consideration and Review
of Pump Station Financial Analysis
Mr. Wrathell stated you have been provided a form of this analysis in your Agenda Packages; however, Michal has some larger versions which are easier to read.
Mr. Wrathell reviewed the previous discussion at the onsite Workshop regarding the canals with silt removal issues that we were looking to address. Michal’s analysis is step one in the process at looking at financing options, we focus primarily on the pump stations at this point because we don’t have real numbers to look at in regard to the silt removal from particular canals. I think you will see from this analysis that the canals themselves and the silt removal, I think there is an opportunity to wrap it into a Bond financing instead of something with a shorter maturity, being able to spread that obligation over a longer period of time.
Mr. Szymonowicz stated the analysis that you have in front of you is a singular piece of a comprehensive attempt by the District to assess and address your Capital needs and components of other pieces of information about the infrastructure. My recommendation would be to look at it and other pieces to get a more complete picture, not just concentrated in the pump houses with regards to how the pumps move water but also make sure we have water to move. This analysis is a financial piece that is complimentary to the presentation that was reported to you by your Engineers, and looks at the issue of whether pump station number one and pump station number two should be merely upgraded with liquid propane engines or whether the system should be switched to electric. As to the specific technical reasons, that is something that your Engineers are more than capable of addressing for you. This analysis looks at what it entails in financial terms, not just in a one time cost, but how this decision is likely to reverberate over a long period of time. When I met with your Engineers we looked at what could be or what should be and look at what gives you a better perspective and how to look after the needs of the community for long periods of time. We arbitrarily chose a twenty-year lifespan, we looked at how the systems with the current drives compare with the system being switched to an electric drive over this life span.
Mr. Szymonowicz reviewed the analysis for pump station number one and pump station number two; discussing the initial costs for each pump station and the additional costs for permitting, engineering and other costs involved with installing the new facilities. The estimate of the additional costs is approximately 15% of each pump station. The costs discussed were Capital costs, not including ongoing Operations and Maintenance costs per year. The total approximate cost for the twenty year period is 2.7 million dollars.
Mr. Szymonowicz provided an adjusted total to allow for an inflation rate of 5% and compared this amount to the increased benefit and value to the District, noting the 4.9% interest rate on the SunTrust note.
Mr. Wrathell commented, the big difference is the Capital Expenditure being higher to move to an electric engine system, however, with the liquid propane every ten years engine replacement has to be undertaken with a cost of approximately $250,000.00; while what the Engineers have indicated is that if you move to an electrical system, instead of an engine replacement you would have a motor rewinding which is approximately $30,000.00. You are looking at a reduced estimated Operating and Maintenance costs plus the reduced costs of the engines being replaced versus the rewinding of the electrical.
Mr. Hulett stated, looking at it in terms of today’s numbers, you are talking about 2.2 million to convert to the electric or $746,000.00 to do the refurbishing on the buildings; a difference of about 1.4 million today, to move forward with this project but over the long haul when you calculate all the numbers you have run, putting in the operating costs, your talking about electric engines 2.8 million versus the LP gas at 2.7 million, projected costs.
Mr. Szymonowicz discussed the reasoning in utilizing the long term analysis.
Ms. Macomber commented on the cleaner, more up to-date electrical system.
Mr. Wrathell stated is we are able to wrap in the silt removal on the canals with our overall revised plan of reclamation and this, we may be able to take components and spread this out further than twenty years.
Ms. Macomber stated the tour of the facility by the Board of Supervisors was very beneficial and with the current situation we are in, we have an obligation to plan for the future so we need to take a really long hard look and make sure we are planning for the future; plan properly so we don’t impact our taxpayers too severely but do the right thing conservatively.
Mr. Hulett agreed and stated, Mike, this is an excellent financial presentation, it really pops the numbers out and we appreciate the work you have done. As we have gone through this process, I am personally leaning toward the change over to the electric motors. Based on the numbers that I am seeing here, I would say let’s get it done, get up to current technology with the telemetry and security. The other element we need to determine is to make sure that we have the proper flow in the entire system and that element should be a part of this financial projection, as Craig has eluded to tonight. I would like us to put together some numbers for that part of the puzzle so that we can look at the whole package and see the total numbers. I think the Bond issue makes a lot of sense to me over time. Craig, do you see it being one Bond issue or what is normally done?
Mr. Wrathell reviewed the financial analysis and stated, it is my recommendation to wrap it into a Bond issue. From a functional perspective, it makes sense to do a singular financing and from a financial perspective the ability to spread it over twenty to thirty years.
Discussion was held regarding the benefit of the new electric system; the approximate costs for removing the silt and the financial benefit for the District.
Mr. Wrathell stated we would update your plan of reclamation because the system is not be expanded, figure the costs for removing the silt, the cost of the survey and then incorporate the cost of the pump stations to provide a base for moving forward with the assessments. We would have a new debt assessment to pay for these costs that would be spread over that time.
Ms. Macomber stated we will have to figure out how to take care of the security of the pump stations.
Mr. Wrathell stated I think our site visit had shown we have some issues out there and I would suggest that we wait until we get through the Bond issue.
Mr. Hulett stated I would like to talk about how we are going to identify these silted up areas. Cory could you step up to the microphone for a second?
Mr. Selchan stated the land use has changed from the original design of the land use. I think they were looking at would the system operate as designed? I don’t think they were looking at if there was a problem or a crushed pipe, or dammed areas in the canal system.
Mr. Hulett asked do you have a number of those areas already pinpointed yourself, in terms of which ones are the critical ones in terms of our major canals in order to empty the system if need be. Do you know where those are? What else would need to be done to properly identify those areas? How much of a de-silting process and how extensive the whole thing is before we try to put a number to it?
Mr. Selchan answered, in recent meetings with the Engineer and CH2M-Hill, we came to a general consensus that if we got a center line profile and found the general depth, we could identify probably 95 to 96% of those areas down every canal, roughly twenty miles of canals. We could then put together a scope of work to address those areas to remove the silt and not worry about other areas outside the center line.
Discussion was held regarding the actual process used to evaluate the silt amounts in the canals using available data and the “as built” designs.
Mr. Hulett commented we need to identify these areas, and if you already have a lot of them identified, I hope that we can do that without spending forty or fifty thousand dollars on another study to identify the silted up areas.
Mr. DaSilva stated I don’t think we need another study, why don’t we do what Cory is suggesting with the center line profile and have the surveyor identify the amount of silt.
Ms. Macomber stated I don’t think we have a choice, I think we are going to have to do something.
Mr. Selchan stated I believe it would give us our best view of what is there. We would have a much broader perspective and give us good data to provide a scope of work that would address all of the issues.
Mr. DaSilva suggested prioritizing canals and possibly take it a step at a time.
Mr. Hulett stated I understand what you are saying, but I think we should bite the bullet and get the whole thing done.
Mr. Wrathell stated we do need to authorize a cost estimate/proposal to do a similar survey. Cory and the Engineers came up with an approach that was practical and cost effective, so we need to know how much the survey will cost.
The Board decided to allow more time for Staff to research further the costs of de-silting the canals and report back to the Board at the next scheduled meeting.
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett and seconded by Ms. Macomber with all in favor
of authorizing Staff to move forward with analyzing the costs for a potential
study of de-silting the canal system.
Mr. Hulett asked regarding the security issues, does anyone have any short term solutions for a quick fix, particularly at pump station no. 2 where you can just walk in?
Mr. Wrathell stated I would say that Cory is more qualified to answer that question. I think the thought process is for a long term fix.
Mr. Selchan stated we can try to address anything my staff is capable of doing, otherwise we could get three or four estimates of repair from local fence companies and see what they can do for us. Most of it is minor repairs to at least keep “easy access” out.
Mr. Hulett stated I think that is a great idea, maybe you could bring that back to us in November to let us know, I think we have a liability issue there with the complete open access. I am most anxious to get what we have now secured as quickly as we can.
Mr. Selchan stated I should be able to get three or four cost estimates by the next Board meeting.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS: Other Business
There being no Other Business, the next item followed.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS: Staff Reports
A.
Attorney
Mr. Cranmer stated you had asked me research the issue of piggybacking with the City’s contract with Phillips & Jordan for post hurricane recovery. If we could find a way to sub into the City’s contract; whether we can do this outside the bidding process, the answer is yes. There is a Statute 255.20 which says that municipalities and special Districts can award a bid of up to $200,000.00 without going through the bid process. Apparently the City has stand by contract with a nominal $10.00. The Statute further states that we don’t even have to abide by the $200,000.00 limit if the project is undertaken to repair or replace existing facilities damaged by a sudden turn of events, etc. We could enter into a sub agreement with the City and be charged a fee based on tonnage. The first thing we ought to do is look at their contract; secondly, the City Attorney might have some issues regarding liability. I don’t have a problem with it, but it is the City’s call. I think we are allowed to do it under the Statute.
Mr. Wrathell commented we would probably need to negotiate a business agree-
ment component that provides that they have the resources and capabilities to take care of our canals; they may be well staffed with cleaning roads, but they may not be positioned to do the canals. I think we may be able to argue that as part of piggybacking that we may be able to have a separate business deal, etc.
Mr. Cranmer stated the only problem is that the City’s going to get served first.
Mr. Hulett discussed the reserve fund set up by the City for Emergency Services and the advantages to setting up a fund for emergencies.
Ms. Macomber stated I think this is indicative of our hopefully productive partnership with the City in working together on these issues.
Mr. Wrathell discussed the options available for funding emergency repairs; setting up a reserve fund or establishing a line of credit.
Mr. Cranmer discussed the census with The Florida Department of Community Affairs and the necessity of the District replying to the census.
Mr. Cranmer stated, finally I would like to read into the record something I was requested to do at the last meeting; a letter to American Earth Movers on behalf of the Board thanking them for their good efforts; the handling of the Masters issue, and timely, efficient completion of Phase II Wilma. I am paraphrasing, but I wanted that in the record so the public would know what was said and our appreciation.
B.
Engineer
Canal Survey
Scope: this issue addressed prior to Staff Reports.
C.
Field
Supervisor
Mr. Selchan stated I would like Pete Colussy to discuss the NRCS issue
with you.
Mr. Colussy stated I have been working with NRCS and I will give you a
brief recap; about two months I met with the local Engineer and we went out and
surveyed the canals; and noted what you folks saw on your tour, the silted up
areas and he felt that this was a good project and felt it would qualify for
NRCS funding. He did his report and sent everything in; the State Engineer also
reviewed the report and he wants to come out this Friday and look at
everything. The feeling is optimistic, we have no guarantees, but we did ask for
1.6 million dollars, so if we can get a
portion of that it would be good. Hopefully we will have an answer by the end
of October.
D.
Manager
1.
Overview of
Insurance Coverage
Mr. Wrathell stated we are in the process of evaluating your insurance
coverage, which we do for all of our clients. I expect to have a report back in
a week or so. Just to give you an example, we had a District, Lakeside
Plantation in
The company has done a fantastic job of taking the Districts and packaging them together. I wanted to share the status of that with you today; ultimately bring the comparison and our recommendation back to you.
2. Auditor Selection Process (218.391, F.S.,
Auditor Selection Procedures)
Mr. Wrathell provided a memo and a copy of the State Statute pertaining to hiring an Auditor, which now requires an Auditor Selection process. Mr. Wrathell explained the requirements of the Statute and stated I could not find anything in the record indicating that you went through an Auditor Selection process. We can invite all the auditing firms that we deal with in addition to your current auditor and ask them to solicit the responses for this. We recommend that the Board serve as the Auditor Selection Committee and rank the firms according to the required criteria; experience and expertise, audit approach, technical ability and pricing. I would recommend that you authorize Staff to proceed with inviting Auditor bidding/proposals.
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett and seconded by Ms. Macomber with all in favor
of authorizing Staff to proceed with the Audit Selection bidding process;
authorizing the Board to sit as the Auditor Selection Committee with the
provision for each Auditor to provide a presentation to the Board.
3. Copy of letter to City Manager regarding
the meeting at City Hall
on
Mr. Wrathell provided a copy of the letter to Michael Levinson, City Manager, thanking him for meeting with us and stating we look forward to strengthening our relationship with them and working closely with them. And for Ms. Macomber, at the last meeting, the Board had designated Cory Selchan and myself as the Emergency Management liaison.
4. Discussion of Public Depository
Mr. Wrathell discussed the advantages of the online banking services of SunTrust in that the monies that are wired out are restricted. I am not asking for any changes from Wachovia to SunTrust, but there are banks that do have the mechanisms to make the internal control process more efficient. If the Board has a desire to stay with Wachovia, we will honor that.
Ms. Macomber stated if you find it is more efficient for us, it makes sense.
Mr. Wrathell stated we will see what Wachovia has got and go from there; I just wanted to make you aware of what is out there.
5. Distribution of Notice of Meetings for
Fiscal Year 2008
Mr. Wrathell stated I wanted to share and check with you regarding the
statutory requirements for advertising your meetings; to put this additional ad
in the paper, you are looking at another three or four thousand dollars. I
ultimately defer to the Board, clearly Budget Public Hearings and other
required Public Hearings are done regardless, but advertising Regular meetings
becomes costly.
Discussion followed regarding whether the Public actually reads the newspaper advertisement.
Ms. Macomber stated if we can use that money to provide a better means of communication, I would be all for that.
Mr. Hulett suggested that Staff check into the cost for advertising in the Sun Sentinel and Mr. Wrathell will bring that information back at the next meeting.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS: Approval of Financials and
Warrants List
A. Financial Reporting as of
B. Unaudited Financial Statements as of
Mr. Wrathell stated you have two sets of financial statements in your Agenda Packages, the one form you are accustomed to and behind that is the layout that we provide with the Balance Sheet; the current month expenses, year to date; and a check register. We wanted to make sure you liked the presentation.
Mr. Hulett asked on the balance sheet, were does it reflect the amount of the SunTrust note on the liability side?
Mr. Wrathell stated you normally reflect an amortization schedule, which is provided in the budget. I would like to do additional homework on this if that is acceptable to you all and look at maybe a budget amendment.
Mr. Hulett referred to the total fund revenues amount of 1.9 million shortfall.
Mr. Wrathell stated you have certain monies that have been expended in relation to certain monies sitting in the investment accounts; which show there is a negative cash balance for the reporting time frame; split over two fiscal years.
Mr. Hulett asked whether the $272,000.00 in Engineering fees be expensed to the Capital Improvement Budget rather than the Administrative Budget?
Mr. Wrathell explained that if the Bonds are issued, Engineering activities and the NRCS funding, etc., and the work begins on the silt removal on the canals and we do a revised plan of reclamation, that if the District expends those monies when we issue the Bonds, we can get reimbursed for those expenses. We would show that as a Construction and Progress item, allowing us to get reimbursed under Capital Improvement.
On MOTION by Mr. Hulett and seconded by Ms. Macomber with all in favor
of approving the Financial Statements as provided.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS: Supervisors Requests and
Audience Comments
A resident commented on the concerns that the community has regarding Emergency preparedness and the response time of FP&L following a major storm, and providing flood protection for the community. Also discussed was the value of surveying and evaluating the silt removal of the canals.
(*** due to very low voice levels, these portions of the minutes were inaudible.)***
Ms. Macomber thanked the resident for his valuable comments.
Mr. Hulett discussed the possibility of holding a general meeting/workshop between surrounding communities and suggested that a letter be sent out to CSID, North Spring, Pinetree, etc., to coordinate this effort.
Mr. Wrathell stated it would be appropriate for a letter from the Chairperson, it carries a lot of weight. I could draft one for you if you like.
Ms. Macomber agreed and stated we could receive input from all of the Boards so that we can determine what our common issues are and those that we can discuss without affecting the business of each our Districts.
Mr. Hulett agreed and stated I sent an email of thanks to Mr. Hanks for their warm welcome at their meeting and he came back with an observation on the west outfall canal; there is some concern with blockages with right-of-ways. Indeed there are after looking at the areas with Mr. Selchan and Mr. Wrathell, there are blockages of our right-of-way. There are fences that go down to the water lines, ficus trees along the water line, if you had to bring in major equipment you would be uprooting trees, etc.
Ms. Macomber asked, why wasn’t this covered in our canal bank meeting?
Mr. Selchan replied these are not nuisance trees, they are not invasive trees, that is all we remove, so they were not involved at all in either phase of the cleaning.
Mr. Hulett stated I would like to ask Mr. Wrathell to bring back at the next meeting, some possible recommendations as to some direction, process or procedure to deal with this issue. Possibly contacting these people to say you have encroached on our right-of-way and the costs for removal.
Discussion was held regarding the possibility of contacting City Code Enforcement also.
Ms. Macomber discussed the difficulty in accessing the areas of encroachment.
Mr. Wrathell stated it was wide enough for us to access the area, the problem would be with bringing in heavy equipment.
Mr. Hulett stated it is not every property owner.
Ms. Macomber stated I would definitely want to have the City involved.
Mr. Wrathell stated maybe between the three parties we could sit down and see how we can deal with this and finesse the process. It would make sense to designate one of the Board members to do such a thing. Now the question comes because we have talked about it on record of the Board’s all meeting and talking about issues of mutual interest, if that is or isn’t a Sunshine issue we have to be aware of. The worst case, we can always put an ad in the paper and say we are going to meet at this location and investigate the issue with a representative of each Board. Mr. Hanks may want to bring that back to his Board to discuss.
Mr. Hanks is in agreement with this suggestion.
Mr. Hulett stated one of the things I have a concern about is the issue of Engineering over-site. Last month we paid $226,000.00 to CH2M-Hill for various studies, work and etc., and it’s a big number and as a layman I don’t have a good feeling about it one way or the other. I was going to throw it out for discussion, is a Engineering consultant, intermediary ombudsman to give us advice in terms of saying this looks like a good thing, or no, these are out of bound, etc. The gentleman is with us tonight, Mr. John McKune, and John would you come to the microphone.
Mr. DaSilva stated if I can say something, the majority of those fees were due to the tree removal and I don’t know if you are aware of that?
Mr. Hulett responded by listing the totals for work that was done; and explained the value of a third party Engineering consultant.
Mr. McKune discussed his consulting services for CSID as Capital Improvements Coordinator on their 55 million Capital Improvement program. They wanted someone on-site working directly for the Board that would advise the Board and keep the costs down as much as possible; maintain the level of service without compromising the quality of the job.
Mr. Selchan commented on the invaluable help that Mr. McKune has provided for him since Hurricane Wilma. His insight and perspective has helped tremendously in making decisions on how to move forward. That is not to say that CH2M-Hill hasn’t advised me and done a great job for us, but John has brought a lot of insight and perspective that has really helped direct how the project moved forward. He has a lot of experience that he brings to the table in making a decision. I would say with the major types of improvements that we are going into, I think his experience and oversight would benefit us in improving our system.
Ms. Macomber asked would you see this as a relationship similar to the one used after Wilma?
Mr. Selchan stated however the Board decides, he has done a great job for me.
Mr. Wrathell stated if I could add a couple of thoughts, a company like CH2M-Hill will provide a full scope of different levels of services and that is of tremendous value. From what Cory is describing is CH2M-Hill provides all that level of expertise, but Mr. McKune provides an extra level, advisory type insight, for a second opinion. Bringing someone in like Mr. McKune could be an advantage to the District for the second opinion aspect; a second set of eyes, etc. There is maybe one Engineer who designs the scope and one Engineer handles the construction aspects, the different reasons why you could look at this. As a positive, Mr. McKune could provide an additional level of expertise for Cory and give us more options. We do have the CCNA issue, Consultants Competitive Negotiations act; 287.055 F.S., so that one of the issues you are able to secure a Engineering firm without going out to bid and use them as long as you don’t exceed $25,000.00 annually.
Ms. Macomber stated because of the size of the Capital Improvement project, I would think it would make sense to me, but then we would need a quote.
Mr. Hulett concurred and stated I would feel more comfortable with a third party providing input on the project.
Mr. Wrathell stated I would say it is a positive for the District and the Engineers.
Ms. Macomber and Mr. Selchan agreed that the Engineering services with CH2M-Hill has been excellent, we are just suggesting a collaborator.
Mr. Wrathell requested that Mr. McKune provide a defined scope and role for his services to the District and then the information would be there for project to project issues.
Ms. Macomber stated my experience with CH2M-Hill has been marvelous, but I do agree that John did add a lot of value on the Wilma thing and it makes sense to have him here in that role. We definitely don’t want to pit anybody against each other.
Mr. DaSilva stated Mr. McKune has been very helpful to us and he is a great asset. I think it will be a benefit to the District, and I don’t see that as being a problem to CH2M-Hill.
Mr. Hulett asked Mr. Wrathell for a copy of the agreement and fee schedule with CH2M-Hill.
Mr. Wrathell stated looking at the fee schedule, it is very competitive. That hourly fee is fantastic, the principles are $161.00 per hour.
Mr. Hulett questioned the status of the agreement with CSID to provide HR services and other shared facilities, are we okay there?
Mr. Wrathell stated this is in the General Counsel and has not made progress. It seems that it is getting bogged down.
Mr. Hulett stated is this something that Bruce could look into?
Mr. Wrathell stated they are still providing services, the Staff, and particularly, Kay Woodward has been doing your accounting and they have been a pleasure to do business with.
Mr. Hulett stated I just want to say, a very warm welcome to Wrathell, Hart, Hunt and Associates, I think we are off to a tremendous start and I am very happy that you are here. Welcome to the team.
Mr. Wrathell thanked the Board for their welcome.
Ms. Macomber stated good to have you aboard, and thank you Michal.
Mr. Wrathell stated I think it’s important that you meet my Staff, as they are the individuals who make me look good.
Mr. Walter Keller stated I am representing Coral Springs Country Club; approximately two years ago, representatives appeared before you to seek permission to utilize part of your drainage canal for expansion and redevelopment of the Coral Springs Country Club. What I came today with is the paperwork that was submitted with the application and there is a map that will help explain the redevelopment. We submitted for a right-of-way permit for permission to use part of your canal, a ¼ acre of drainage area. We would like to get a right-of-way permit at this point and time so we can put parking on it, landscaping and other features with culverts in the drainage portions. It would be helpful if you could approve us getting a right-of-way permit as we are trying to get through the City.
Ms. Macomber recalled the previous presentation/request by Coral Springs County Club.
Mr. DaSilva stated I understand what you are trying to do, but I want to bring to the Board’s attention that several years ago we tried to sell property and looking at the legal descriptions and dedications, it has a reverse clause to the original owner, prohibiting the District from selling or deeding.
Ms. Macomber stated that is why we are doing an easement, otherwise it reverses.
Mr. Keller discussed the design that was submitted for the right-of-way.
Ms. Macomber stated we can do the permit, but we can’t do that until we have the information. You will have to go through the process and then we will approve a letter from our attorney.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS: Adjournment
There being no further business, all were in favor of adjournment.
On MOTION by Ms. Macomber and seconded by Mr. Hulett with all in favor,
the meeting adjourned at
Mary Macomber
President
Dave Hulett
Vice President