MINUTES
OF MEETING
CORAL
SPRINGS
IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the
Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on
Present and constituting a quorum
were:
Bob Fennell President
Glen Hanks Vice President
Sharon Zich Secretary
Also present were:
John Petty Manager
Dennis Lyles Attorney
John McKune Engineer
Isabello Rodriguez CH2M-Hill
Jane Early CH2M-Hill
Randy Fredericks Field
Supervisor
Doug Hyche District Staff
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr.
Fennell called the meeting to order and Mr. Petty called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of
the January 22, 2007 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
There not being any,
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr.
Hanks with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF
BUSINESS Award of
Contract for a Boom Lift
Mr. Hyche stated this is for an
aerial man lift.
Mr. Hanks asked how many hours is
this for?
Mr. Hyche responded this is a
purchase.
Mr. Petty stated we have many tall
structures on the site. We rented them
in the past and when the idea of purchasing them first came about, we said,
“Why did we not think about this before?”
We checked and determined purchasing makes more sense.
Mr. Hanks asked are we going to be
paying an excessive amount for maintenance?
Mr. Hyche responded it comes with a
one year maintenance warranty. The
maintenance is relatively simple. It
will not be an excessive amount.
Mr. Hanks asked what type of life
expectancy do they have?
Mr. Hyche responded this one has
2000 hours. If maintained property, you
can get a good 15 to 20 years.
Mr. Petty stated it is a hydrologic
device like our backhoe or front end loader, which we are used to
maintaining. This is similar in nature.
Mr. Hanks asked is this a used piece
of equipment?
Mr. Hyche responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked were the others
used?
Mr. Hyche responded at this price
used is all you are going to get.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the price
for a new one?
Mr. Hyche responded $60,000 to
$80,000, depending on the type.
Mr. Hanks asked what will you be
using it for?
Mr. Hyche responded trimming trees,
changing lights inside the garages, hanging tanks, etc.
Mr. Hanks asked inspection of the
catwalks?
Mr. Hyche responded yes. You can also lift it up and reach over items
in constricted areas.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the contract for the
purchase of a Boom Lift was awarded to Sunbelt Rentals in the amount of
$25,000.
FOURTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Attorney
Mr. Lyles stated just a quick update
on our legislation. I informed you at
the last meeting, we received negative questions from Representative Bogdanoff
who represents eastern
Mr. Hanks stated there are no
Special Districts in eastern
Mr. Lyles stated correct.
Mr. Petty stated the issue may be
landowner elections versus electoral.
Landowner elections make sense when all you have are landowners and no
electors. There are those who may come
after Special Districts from the vantage point of landowner elections being out
of place or old fashioned. They have
their place in time but there comes a point in time where you should transition
over. Our legislative act does not cover
the time period so we are doing it but there are those who may have angst
against Special Districts who may see this as an opportunity. It could be they are defending the
landowner’s election to protect Special Districts. We do not think we are weakening it.
Mr. Fennell stated the new Special
Districts already have this built into it their act. We are an older Special District and did not
have this written into our act.
Mr. Lyles stated I thought about
this and we discussed it a great deal within the firm, because there is more
than one of us working on this issue. A
few years ago, we had a bill to collect our Special Acts into one bill so you
did not have to look at the bill, then the amendments and then try to figure
out which was in effect. We were
required to do this in 2000/2001. At the
time we did this, a previous member of the Legislative Delegation did some
amendments to our Special Act. One of
the amendments was to change the nature of the Board, the size of the Board,
the meeting and election times and moving to an electoral system. After the Board authorized the bill to
proceed, without any involvement, Governor Bush vetoed the bill for the issue
of switching to a different Board without going through the statutory
process. It may be they are saying, “I
recall the Governor vetoed it so it must have been the right decision because
he is the Governor and he is not here to veto it so I am going to pursue this
same logic.” This is all we can think
about. We cannot conceive of anyone
having a problem with the contents of this proposed bill on any policy level. Mr. Petty is correct. What we usually get yelled at by other
elected officials about is the fact only landowners can vote. We are trying to take this away. Believe me, 90% of the Legislative Delegation
is applauding this effort but we have two people harpening back to the veto
from four or five years ago and wondering whether this should still be the
case, even though everything has changed.
The member of the Legislative
Delegation, who was our biggest adversary at the time, was made aware of the
fact we are coming forward with this.
She applauded our efforts and is very pleased. She wished it had happened sooner but she is
glad it is finally happening. Now she is
on the
Mr. Fennell asked is the eastern
district a republican or democrat area?
Mr. Lyles responded the Broward
County Legislative Delegation is the most heavily democratic delegation in the
state of
Mr. Fennell asked is this along
those party lines?
Mr. Lyles responded it is somewhat
party oriented.
Mr. Hanks asked has anyone ever made
a comment about Special Districts running along the same lines as other
professional Boards? You have
professional engineers or surveyors who sit on the Board in some capacity. Has there ever been this thought as far as
utilities?
Mr. Lyles responded no. I do not think it will be helpful to propose
this because it affects many people and their pocketbook. There are many different things other than
engineering and scientific based activities relating to water treatment and
production. Everyone who is in a
position to have a say about this wants to see qualified members on the Board
but no restrictions on their qualifications other than residency. This is only a status report and we are
continuing on as before. I just wanted
you to know questions are being raised and it may be interesting in
B. Engineer
– Discussion of Capital Improvement Program and Consideration of Work
Authorization No. 34
Mr. Petty stated at the last
meeting, the Board authorized staff to assign a Work Authorization under
certain parameters. We have been in
discussions with CH2M-Hill about this process to make sure we had all our
concerns addressed. They worked well
with us. This is Work Authorization No.
34. In the first part of the work
authorization, they will look over items we itemized previously. They validate them by component based on the
resources we have, permitting requirements, policies and the economics in
getting it done. They have been doing
this and will continue to do so. This
should be completed by the next meeting.
The components we identified to date are subject to change. You will see in Work Authorization No. 34,
where each component is identified as a task to be defined and explained before
the Board and signed off by staff before they actually start the work. Our Water Use Permit is tied to our effluent
reuse, which is tied to our Wastewater Treatment Plant. We want to maintain as much flexibility as we
can.
Before we define the size and pay
for something we may not be able to use, we will do it on a task by task
concept. Mr. McKune brought this into
the discussions as our coordinator and we think this is going to work very much
to the District’s benefit. Work
Authorization No. 34 is the overall authorization to do the design and its
specific elements will be approved one at a time. You currently approved one, which is the
Water Use Permit. This will be used as a
component. We summarized into the Water
Use Permit; membrane; wastewater process feasibility, which is the effluent
reuse concept and replacing Plants A and B with F, which is the solid system
including the Centrifuge and belt press.
The digester transfers to and from the engineer. The components will change as we go through
this program, as you see different tasks getting priority.
Once each task is approved, the
status of our capital improvement project will be reported to the Board. We have a timeline, which breaks down each
component into job tasks. You will see
the progress as we proceed along the timeline.
Of course, when we approve a task, we should know the time projection
for completing the task and the cost. We
are going to check with the engineer to see if we are on time with the
construction and the project and how the money was spent. You also need to follow the funding as well.
Work Authorization No. 34 includes
CSID’s vision of the next 20 years in utility services, which is to meet future
regulations in a speed adaptable and reliable and lasts 10 to 20 years. Step two is to prepare an Interim Report,
which we are going to be modernizing. We
expect the Engineer’s Report to be 30 and 50 pages to define the task. It goes through the process of putting down
objectives of how you are going to do this in a timeline in a formalized
document. We will use this document to
obtain our funding, build the facilities and talk to other government agencies
and residents about what we are doing.
As the task may change from time to time, we are asking for the
engineers to do a quarterly update so you do not have an Engineer’s Report and
as-builts that are substantially different from this report. We want the report to have supplements
explaining why we decided on the path we took so at the end of the day, you
have an Engineer’s Report matching your as-builts. Since we expect a two year construction
period, the Engineer’s Report will have updates every six months.
Step three is to write the
specifications, the District obtains the funding and the Engineer needs to bid
and award the contract based on priority and oversee the construction. Work Authorization No. 34 allows them to do
both the design and oversight. The rate
hearings should be between April and June.
At the next meeting, we expect to give you the results of the rate study
you authorized and take direction from the Board. If it calls for additional rates and we
suspect it will, we will have rate hearings where you will discuss changes to
the District’s rates. Mr. Lyles can
speak on this further. We expect the bid
specs to be written by our engineer between March and June. They may be written after June but we expect
most of the work to be specked out between March and June of this year. Are you talking about the elements?
Mr. Petty responded the tasks are
going to be completed sequentially according to priority but we expect this to
happen by the end of June. There may be
one or two elements left out because we do not have a customer for effluent
reuse but 80% to 90% of the job should be specked out.
Mr. Hanks asked are there six
different items including the Water Use Permit, replacing Plants A and B with
Plant F, effluent reuse and membrane?
Mr. Petty responded yes. There is the water treatment process, which
is the membrane; wastewater feasibility, which is effluent reuse; Wastewater
Treatment Plant changeover, which entails replacing Plants A and B with Plant F
and the engineering; solids handling of the wastewater facilities.
Mr. Hanks asked is the rate
sufficiency included?
Mr. Petty responded it is not part
of the capital improvement program. We
are doing the rate study as it own entity.
Mr. Fennell stated obviously the
rate study bears on the capital improvements.
Mr. Petty stated we will include it
in the consideration but it has a different scope. It does not come under the 7% contract
administration. It is on its own. We expect to have construction start this
summer if we can stay in our timeline.
Construction should take two years to build the majority of the plant,
in particular the effluent reuse, possibly taking longer than those two years. It depends on how successful we are in
negotiating the process of who can buy it.
Our sister district, NSID is currently under their capital improvement
program and the final leg of expansion of its facilities. They are going to be hit hard on their
Consumptive Use Permit. They use
Mr. Rodriguez stated we are fighting
for the major task on the capital improvement but everything ties together with
the Water Use Permit. We presented it to
SFWMD who is already working on a modification for the Water Use Permit. We are talking to them about the wastewater
facility. They are looking positive
about the way we are presenting the program because it will improve the
treatment for the water and provide recharge of the aquifer. Everything comes together, which they are
positive about. So far we have done
water quality testing and getting samples for the wall water. We are getting a good idea of the type of
membrane on how things are going to be tied together for the Water Use Permit
in relation to the wastewater. We are
going to show SFWMD what we have, what type of wastewater and what type of
water treatment will go into the water facility to distribute to our clients. We are happy with what we have been discussing
with them.
Mr. Hyche stated we have been doing
some sampling through wells as well and the water coming into the plant. We are looking at each of the nine
operational wells and still collecting samples from two other wells for a total
of 11 water wells looking at the water quality, range of water quality and
expected blended water quality so we can start securing design parameters for
our systems. This will tell us how much
bypass blending we can do, meaning how much of the water has to be treated. The treatment system we will be designing, can
remove a a lot of your hardness.
Mr. Fennell asked what do you mean
by blended?
Mr. Hyche responded with your
softening process, you are able to soften down to a certain level but you
cannot get all the hardness out. With a
nano filtration membrane, you can remove everything to where you are left with
H2O. You do not necessarily want to
distribute this water because it is aggressive on your pipes. You need to re-stabilize this water. One way of doing this is to bypass putting
back some of the well water going through a cartridge filter for pre-treatment.
Mr. Hanks stated you still have some
type of filtration on it to chlorinate or ionize so you have disinfected water
meeting parameters downstream. You are
maximizing the efficiency of the membranes by treating to the best ability a
certain portion and maybe half or a quarter of the water is going to come back
in a raw state because we have good well water down below.
Mr. Hyche stated absolutely.
Mr. Fennell stated you are not
talking about blending in wastewater.
Mr. Hyche stated you will send the
reject water to blend with your reuse system.
Mr. Petty stated for the irrigation
quality reuse water only.
Mr. Hyche stated we are trying to
match up your well water quality with your finished and also regulation
water. You need hydrogen sulfide removal
to get the rotten egg taste out of the water.
All of this has to be taken into account. We need to match up your goals with your well
water quality and how much of the water has to be treated with the nano
filtration membrane and how much can be blended back around to save on capital
costs for equipment. I have a picture of
a membrane. There are spiral wound
elements 40” long and 8” in diameter.
Water flows in one end.
Mr. Petty stated it is easy to think
of it as a filter since we say nano filtration.
It rejects the dissolved minerals based on an electrical repellent more
than fine hairs or fibers.
Mr. Hyche stated it is easier to
conceptualize this as a strainer removing sodium.
Mr. Fennell asked does this work in
salt water?
Mr. Hyche responded yes. There are different radiations of nano
filtration and reverse osmosis membranes removing more or less than what you
want. Certainly the more you remove, the
higher the pressure and the higher the operating cost.
Mr. Hanks stated if you were using
this in a desalination technique the waste product has some environmental
issues associated with it. What concerns
do we have with the bypass product?
Mr. Hyche responded certainly if you
are doing reverse osmosis, you have a great deal more sodium and chloride.
Mr. Hanks asked what are the issues?
Mr. Hyche responded there is calcium
and magnesium, which are not a great concern to the District. They are more worried about sodium and
chlorine, not calcium and magnesium.
Mr. Hanks asked how do you dispose
of the calcium and magnesium?
Mr. Hyche responded it is a
concentrated stream. For a gallon of
well water, you will treat 85% and get a usable product and 10 to 15% will go
towards disposal reject. It has a more
concentrated level of calcium and magnesium.
The disposal methods are deep injection well or blending with your reuse
facility. We think you will be able to
blend with the reuse facility and gain the benefit of the water so it will not
be wasted. It will actually go to a
beneficial use.
Mr. Rodriguez stated this is why we
call it part of the validation process because they will decide whether it will
go into the wastewater, irrigation water or the injection water.
Mr. Hanks stated when you throw it
back into the wastewater stream; your hardness is almost the same as what you
had come out originally.
Mr. Hyche stated you are going to be
removing a certain amount of hardness with the membrane and when you blend it
back together, you almost have the same water you left the ground with. You will increase your hardness but your
wastewater will go to the reuse.
Mr. Hanks asked at this point in
time, are there any environmental concerns?
Mr. Hyche responded no. Most concerns occur with the sodium chloride
and the total dissolved solids.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the result
of sending the water into deep injection wells?
Mr. Hyche responded it is a common
way of disposing waste.
Mr. Hanks stated we understand the
concept of deep injection wells and how safe it is.
Mr. Hyche stated the way I look at
it is you are taking the concentrate and blending it into your reuse
facility. You are taking a waste stream
and turning it into a beneficial use by maximizing your ground water withdrawal
rather than wasting 15% and sending it down a deep injection well.
Mr. Fennell stated you gave us a
more in depth overview than the last time we met.
Mr. Petty stated this is the concept
of taking water out of ground and splitting it in two and using one side for
drinking. When the water is done being
used for drinking, it comes back to our Wastewater Treatment Plant to be
treated and is put back into the ground similar in nature to the way it came out
of the ground. This concept was always
part of the initial validation concept.
What they told you tonight is SFWMD looked at it and this is exactly
what they are hoping people will do more of.
Mr. Fennell stated they are not
going to force us to go down to another water level.
Mr. Rodriguez stated we are not
expecting to.
Mr. Hanks stated the City of
Mr. Petty stated by being one of the
first utilities with reclaimed water, which is considered beneficial to push
back down into the ground, we have the potential.
Mr. Hanks stated also on the table
is aquifer recharge with the reclaimed water.
Mr. Petty stated Mr. McKune is
talking with representatives of the SFWMD for doing this on the west side of
the berm in conservation area 2A or what we call the
Mr. Fennell asked what are we going
to put out there?
Mr. Petty responded we could put our
effluent reuse water, which is treated wastewater with our reject stream
combined to put the water back to where it was when we pulled it out of the
ground and release it there.
Mr. Hanks stated release it into the
Biscayne Aquifer, which will elevate the water levels appropriately.
Mr. Petty stated it will give you a
positive water pressure. In conservation
area 2A, the concern is it seeping out through the ground water table. If we put water in at this location that is a
positive back pressure on the water. It
keeps it in conservation area 2A instead of bleeding through into our canals and
draining out to the ocean. By putting
the water at this location, you can provide some hydraulic back pressure, which
should retard the seepage rate from conservation area 2A.
Mr. Fennell asked how good is this
water?
Mr. Petty responded it is good water.
Mr. Hyche asked are you talking
about the wastewater?
Mr. Petty responded the effluent
reuse. It will be similar to the water
we are pulling out of the ground, which is very good.
Mr. Fennell asked does this mean we
need a new Water Treatment Plant?
Mr. Petty responded currently what
we are talking about doing and what is part of their design work is adding a
deep filtration system to the plant. You
do this to pull off any floating bacteria.
We are treating bacteria at the Wastewater Treatment Plant and the
solids look like sludge but at the finer end of the effluent is dust. This is actually bacterial runoff. You have filters to take off so your
chlorination process is effective. The
deep vent filtration pulls any suspended material out of the water so it can be
disinfected and therefore safe. In this
case, the water quality will be short of magnesium and a great deal of
calcium. We put it back in through the
reject water taken from the membrane plant and chlorinate it. This will be similar to the water we pulled
out the Biscayne Aquifer. The only
difference is it may have more dissolved solids and chlorine.
Mr. Fennell asked what prevents it
from coming back into the water we draw out of the ground? In three years will it be back in our well?
Mr. Petty responded absolutely. The water we are pulling out of the ground
now came from someone else’s facility.
The hydraulic cycle guarantees the water we are using has been used
billions of times. We are not making any
more. It is the same water here since
the beginning of time.
Mr. Hyche stated by the time water
reaches
Mr. Petty stated our responsibility
is to make water.
Mr. Hanks stated what we are dealing
with is the perception of the quality of the water. It is the perception; not the reality.
Mr. Fennell asked why not just drop
back into the local canal?
Mr. Petty responded this is what
many engineers are proposing to do. The
concept goes back almost 50 years. Show
a place where visually it disappears and the permitting agencies say
“yes”. Privately they will agree with
the engineer putting it back into a canal, if it is treated properly, is the
exact same thing.
Ms. Zich stated I always wondered
why you have to put it way down.
Mr. Petty stated out of sight/out of
mind. This policy has been around for 50
years.
Ms. Zich stated no one is going to
think about it. If you treat it well, it
does not make any difference.
Mr. Rodriguez stated we had this
conversation with them and they were receptive.
Mr. Fennell stated my understanding
is we are going to pipe water out of the C-14 Canal. Is the water going over the hill and dumped
or will it be distributed? What is the
plan?
Mr. Rodriguez responded there are
many options. Let’s compare the one we
have to tell us how we are streaming the treatment to be able to dispose of it.
Mr. Fennell stated our permit
expires this year. What month?
Mr. Petty responded I do not
recall. Since we are applying for a new
permit, as long as we are working on it, the deadline is immaterial, as long as
we have an application in and are in the process.
Mr. Rodriguez stated it expires in
August of 2007.
Mr. Fennell asked what happens if it
expires and is not renewed?
Mr. Rodriguez responded we already
have some indication. We will be having
a prefabrication meeting this month where we will be sitting down and
completing the application before submitting.
Mr. Petty stated there is no cutoff
date while you have the application into SFWMD.
I worked with them for two years after the expiration date. As long as you are working with them in good
faith, you are not predisposed. You
arbitrarily close out your discussions with them because of the deadline.
Mr. Fennell asked will they
necessarily approve it on this date or hold it for a period of time?
Mr. Petty responded the status of
your application is under review. If
they reject your application, then you start worrying about the timelines. As long as it is being processed, we do not
have an issue. Either way, our matters
should be signed, sealed and delivered long before the August deadline. When you approved this task, we expected this
to be completed in 120 days, which puts us well before the August
deadline. We expect to have the permit
in our hands by then.
Mr. Fennell asked if we do this and
get this nice water, how much of a percentage of our water will be
effluent? Are we talking about half,
quarter or all of it?
Mr. Petty responded part of the
review process is determining how much money will we have available for
effluent reuse? SFWMD will be satisfied
if we can do 2 million gallons a day.
Mr. Hanks asked is our total
capacity five million gallons?
Mr. Petty responded processed water
is eight million gallons. Our permit is
going to be around 6.5 million gallons.
We do not have this much water going out so our Wastewater Treatment
Plant does not need to be sized as much.
We have some redundancies built in.
We will be able to process up to eight million gallons but this will be
with all facilities on-line. As you all
know, Plant E, which you approved a year ago is supposed to be a redundant
plant so you can cycle the other two million gallon a day plants for repairs
and maintenance. I think we are going to
end up processing six million gallons a day.
In the end, we hope to be able to treat it all but we are thinking it
will be one treatment of two million gallons a day.
Mr. Fennell stated the deep water
injection well is eventually what you want to get rid of.
Mr. Hanks stated we will still have
a need for it.
Mr. Petty stated we will have to
keep it because they require us to have an alternative disposal site. They are up to $5 million.
Mr. Fennell stated something is
always going wrong.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to take
any action at this time?
Mr. Petty responded no.
Mr. Fennell stated we will be doing
all the engineering and design. As part
of your design philosophy, I want to have copies of all designs and programs.
Mr. Petty stated absolutely
Mr. Fennell stated we own the
design.
Mr. Petty stated along with the
design, we expect the engineers to prepare a Quarterly Report as we modify
this. We expect them to be before this
Board every month during this construction project. We currently have a Water Use Permit. At the next meeting, we should have the Water
Treatment Plant concept and the replacement of Plants A and B. We will be tracking progress and funds on a
monthly basis. The last item is facility
testing as required or available to us as they build facilities’ becoming a
beneficial use to us.
Mr. Fennell asked how much is it
going to cost us?
Mr. Petty responded it depends on
whether we will be able to treat two million gallons a day of our effluent or
eight million gallons. If we can meet
our goal of two million gallons, I will be happy. This is part of the reason why the regulatory
agencies want you to have the alternative disposal or a deep well. In many effluent reuse facilities, when you
are discharging to a water body, as we are proposing, many times they will have
rain events. In this case we either have
to store the water for a rain event or have an alternative means of disposal.
Mr. Hanks stated I am thinking in
terms of the ability to aim for the
Mr. Petty stated the revenue stream
is cost recovery only. Typically you
only charge for your pumping costs because the treatment costs are part of the
permit. This is how you were able to
operate the Wastewater Treatment Plant.
When you try to calculate how much you should charge for the effluent
reuse, you have a PR issue so you price it fairly low. Secondarily, you can only get cost recovery
and since treatment stops at the chlorination process, your holding tanks and
pumps are all you can charge for.
Mr. Hanks stated even though we are
adding tertiary treatment, it is not considered. Under today’s regulations, we are able to do
secondary treatment and pump it down to the ground.
Mr. Petty stated correct, without
using a filter.
Mr. Hanks stated the regulatory
agencies may have a different opinion.
Mr. Petty stated it is going to be
from our perspective on where we draw the line and will be based on a similar
analysis. You are absolutely right; you
may be able to cut it off further back.
This treatment process usually has to do with getting compliance on your
Consumptive Use Permit and therefore is part of our regular treatment. Cost recovery should be only for the section
occurring above and beyond. Your
residents have to pay for it as a cost of doing business today. The effluent reuse customer should pay for
bringing water to them.
Mr. Hanks stated which in a built
out situation could still be substantial.
Mr. Petty stated you want to recover
your cost. If you are pumping, you do
not have to recover your cost. If we get
a customer in NSID, we discussed the possibility for them paying for the cost
of the water but they will also pay for the piping. If we are running the piping to them, they
will have to incur the cost. We are
going to have to run some numbers to see if this is feasible and a financial
benefit to NSID. Since they have a
strong need for their Consumptive Use Permit, going to Fordam, hits their
pocketbook. The treatment train will
change drastically and the cost per thousand gallons of water will jump
dramatically. The cost of a pipeline may
be something they can fit in. As you
brought up earlier, we may affect other customers along the way. Currently we have NSID who is interested in
working with us at least on a concept basis.
Mr. Fennell asked what does the two
million, four million or six million gallons per day compare to the amount of
water we have in our canals?
Mr. Petty responded nothing. It is less than a summer storm.
Mr. Fennell stated it is an acre
foot of water.
Mr. Petty stated we have almost
5,000 acres in the District. Figure one
inch of rainfall across 5,000 acres. One
afternoon rainstorm is much more than we produce. You made an improvement and took a step
forward. SFWMD is looking for us to be
positive. By us taking the water and
putting it back in a nearby area helping support both the
Mr. Fennell stated maybe we should
do this and getting the water to the right place is a good thing. It seems like we have a gigantic lake and if
we cleaned off the water enough, we should make it such that we can put it back
into the canals. The out of sight/out of
mind is there.
Mr. Petty stated your current permit
has some rapid infiltration beds as an alternative disposal or deep well. We have three rapid disposal beds, which we
can put our effluent into. They are
percolation pods where the water will seep into the groundwater table.
Mr. Fennell asked can you handle
them?
Mr. Petty responded they can
probably handle a great deal of water. We have not tested them because our deep wells
have always been able to function with well water. They are an alternative disposal source,
which is why we do not have to build a deep well.
Mr. Hanks stated of course we are
subject to winds.
Mr. Petty stated if it rains, you
cannot use your rapid infiltration beds.
Mr. Fennell stated this is the dry
season and there is not much rain.
Mr. Petty stated this is why they
are asking our Drainage Districts to start crossing borders. If you recall, we cannot cross a border or
take drainage across the street. The
most famous parcel was at
C. Manager
i. Rate Study Status
Mr. Petty stated your engineer put a
team together to work diligently on this rate study. I spoke to them this afternoon. We expect to have the first draft ready for
discussion by staff in the next 10 days.
It will be at your next Board meeting for review. We asked them to look at funding in the same
capacity commodity format as in the past.
We asked them to look at one new item, “Institutional”. Since we are re-building the Water Treatment
Plant and do not have connection fees to help us pay for it or any other way,
we were asked to look at the institutional portion of the cost of running this
facility, which the homeowners own. This
will be a fee we will either add to the current user fees and pay it monthly or
see how appropriate it is to use alternative means. Institutional costs have no relationship to
how much water you use or to the monthly concepts we build.
Mr. Fennell stated there is a fixed
cost.
Mr. Petty stated we looked to see if
it is more appropriate to put this fee on our assessments to have it show up on
your tax bill. We looked at other
utilities who subsidize the utilities with the institutional cost through the
ad valorem tax base. The closest one is
the City of
Mr. Fennell stated in the future, we
should consider doing some serious reconstruction of interconnects. We can do this by area. We can also have a Board member, especially
someone with Ms. Zich’s experience join in some of these discussions.
Ms. Zich stated I wish to
participate.
Mr. Petty stated the study should be
ready by the next Board meeting. This
rate study is to be delivered to us in electronic format, which gives us the
ability to make changes each budget year so we can adjust the rates.
Mr. Hanks stated I had a meeting
earlier last week with Ms. Early and CH2M-Hill regarding the Stormwater
Criteria Manual. The additional
expansions to existing houses do not add a burden to our stormwater management
system but collectively represent a sizable increase. We were talking about finding a way to take
care of those additional impacts.
Ms. Early stated we were trying to
figure out some type of bank for improvements depending on the square footage
of the addition.
Mr. Petty stated like a retention
bank.
Mr. Hanks stated years ago, there
was a lawsuit in
Mr. Petty stated this gives us an
option to say no.
Mr. Hanks asked for every single
house permit going through the City of
Ms. Early responded we have not
received any requests before.
Mr. Hanks asked is it appropriate to
expect the homeowner to retain an engineer to figure out a way to install an
exfiltration trench? I do not think this
is going to happen. We were trying to
figure out different mechanisms to help address some of these situations to prevent
an issue in the future.
Mr. Petty stated I can see on an
individual basis where if you could not show a material impact to the District,
it will be difficult to say, “No” but if you look at 100 homes, there is an
impact to the District. Working out a
structure for handling this impact since land is at a premium in
Mr. Hanks stated I recognize this
will be a capital improvement program.
We will have to design the type of improvements to be conducted,
establish a cost and decide for each one.
It is fairly simple for the City Building Department to say, “You need
to get your receipt from CSID demonstrating you paid your drainage impact fee”.
Mr. Petty stated I want to work with
the engineer on this issue, bring it back to the Board at a later date and
determine the cost so we can set a flat fee, which can be paid when the permit
is issued. We do not have any way to
police this. It does not go through our
process. Working with the city to
collect the fee may be the easiest way to do it, if we can come up with a cost
and there were to be a quick review of what land was available and what we
think will work.
Mr. Hanks stated I am bringing this
up at this time so we can get your involvement and Mr. Lyles thoughts or issues
with it.
Mr. Lyles stated I do not have any concerns
at this time.
Mr. Fennell stated today it rained
for awhile but then went away. Since it
is not raining now, we do not have to fix the hole in our drainage system. We spend a great deal of money doing these
studies. It told us we had a problem. What are we going to do about it?
Ms. Early responded I obtained some
information about the dike from SFWMD.
The surveys we have recently taken show the lowest spot on the
Mr. Hanks asked is this on the east
or west side of the canal?
Ms. Early responded west side. The highest elevation of the C-14 Canal in
1999 was 9.4’.
Mr. Fennell asked do they have any
data from 1979?
Ms. Early responded the maximum
elevation in 1985 was 7.8’.
Mr. Fennell stated ask them for data
for 1979. There was water back flowing
into my street out of the canals. They
are not giving you the entire truth.
Ms. Early stated in 1991, the
highest elevation was 8.03’.
Mr. Petty stated keep in mind, these
are monitored by plotters and during the flood of 1979, they probably sank and
the data is not available.
Ms. Early stated on the
Mr. Hanks asked is their pump rate
150,000 gallons per minute?
Ms. Early responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated your own data
says we can get up to 12’.
Ms. Early stated correct. The finished floor is 12’ in the east
basin. I cannot get SFWMD to say whether
we even need the dike anymore.
Mr. Fennell asked was it designed to
be 15’?
Ms. Early responded years ago it was
designed for 15’ but this was because no one else controlled the water. Now everyone controls their water.
Mr. Fennell stated if it was
designed at 15’ and it is 11.5”, the C-14 Canal is still at 15’
Ms. Early stated correct.
Mr. Petty stated we have a
hydrologic model telling us when we should be concerned about flooding since we
are a flood control District. If we have
a hydrologic model indicating there could be a flood condition we can prevent
economically, I do not care if the SFWMD cares about it, I care about it. I do not see any problem. Of course the engineer’s concentrate on the
SFWMD water requirements because this is the minimum you are going to get a
permit for. There is no maximum. If we can consciously go after this, we have
an obligation to do so.
Mr. Fennell stated when you say
11.5’; there is not a higher berm behind it.
Ms. Early stated it starts at 11.5’
and then the water rises and falls.
Mr. Fennell asked is there a berm
behind it going up to 15’?
Ms. Early responded no. The house pad goes up to 12’.
Mr. Fennell stated it goes back to
the design. Give me a good reason why
this does not go back to the design?
Mr. Hanks responded we have a berm
at 11.5’. Where is the berm located?
Ms. Early responded just south of
Mr. Hanks asked just south of the
professional complex?
Ms. Early responded it is in one of
those developments. Is this where the
drainage model we prepared did not agree with the original drainage
assumptions? There were some discrepancies
in this area.
Ms. Early responded yes.
Mr. Hanks stated if the District has
a stage 12’, you have a perimeter elevation of 11.5’
Mr. Fennell stated I understand what
you are saying but this is a tough assumption to make.
Mr. Hanks stated we are downstream
from the Sunshine W.D.D. pump pumping 150,000 gallons per minute with the cross
section of this east outfall. Was the
change in the hydrologic grade line due to the cross section and is our stage
going to be higher, lower or the same than what we are expecting the Sunshine
east outfall canal to be?
Mr. Petty responded the east outfall
canal mirrors the C-14 Canal. There is a
small amount of change from the times we looked at it but the east outfall is
so wide to where our pumps did not even make a dent.
Mr. Hanks stated if we are going to
make a decision impacting whether or not we keep the elevation of the berm
where it is or raise it, we need accurate information. We may say it may not be much of a change but
it could turn out to be more.
Mr. Petty stated the higher priority
is the duality we looked at before where we do not go up to a 12’ stage. We keep our stages for the 100 year storm
below the 11.5’ by getting more pipes outward of the basins and relieving the
restriction in those basins. I think
this is a much stronger answer than the berm issue. The berm is for the sheet flow, which we do
not have anymore now that homes are there.
Berms are good at re-directing sheet flow. If you saturate the ground, the berm is not
going to move anywhere because we are going underneath the sand and through the
coral rock. The groundwater is going to
build. The idea of flood control has to
be with relieving water to a down hill source, which is the C-14 Canal. How do we get it there? We get it there best by coming up with the
suggestion the Board had, which is to make sure our pipes are clear and provide
a secondary outlet for each of our bases, wherever practical.
Mr. Fennell stated we need to do
this but the real issue is whether or not this is a problem. It really is 3.5’. We are 3.5’ lower than the original
design. No one seems to know why this
occurred. It looks like the builder
decided to level it off.
Mr. Hanks stated he built different
house pads.
Ms. Early stated they did not want
to have a house pad and then have a berm in the back yard.
Mr. Fennell stated nevertheless, it
is 3.5’ below the C-14 Canal. I saw two
big pipes.
Ms. Early stated it is not on the
C-14 Canal; it is on the
Mr. Fennell stated you are
wrong. If you look at the end of the
Mr. Petty stated Sunshine has a
permit with CSID to open a valve and the water flows in backwards from the C-14
Canal. This valve is by the pump station
at
Mr. Fennell stated we are not
talking about 6”; we are talking about 3.5’.
This is huge. Otherwise, we might
as well sell the C-14 canal and make $1,000,000 worth of landfall. I think this is a major problem.
Ms. Early stated I do not think it
is a problem but our permits from SFWMD do not specify. House pads are at the 100 year storm level
and roads are at the 10 year storm level.
Mr. Hanks asked if you are working
on a large project, whether it be a 100 acre industrial park or 5,000 acre
District, what is your elevations set at?
The preliminary is required to be at the 25 year storm as a minimum.
Ms. Early responded the 100 year
house pad is at 12’ and we have the dike at 13’.
Mr. Fennell asked is there a reason
why they built the C-14 Canal to 15’ instead of 12’?
Ms. Early responded my understanding
was always to keep the water from going into the District. Mr. Hanks is saying now we have a way to get
the water out.
Mr. Fennell stated he is just being
innovative, but it should be at 15’, which is the design level.
Mr. Hanks asked how far do we have
to go if we were to put it at 15’?
Ms. Early responded there is an
easement. When we had to remove the
trees, the homeowners were angry with us.
Mr. Hanks asked did you take
pictures?
Ms. Early responded I should have.
Mr. Fennell stated I think this is
important. We want the canal back up to
15’.
Ms. Early stated Phase 1 removed
those trees and make it look clean.
Mr. Fennell asked did Sunshine WCD
know their canals were down 3’ lower?
Ms. Early responded when we started
removing trees, we realized it. There
was so much growth back there and you could not tell what was going on.
Mr. Petty stated it was not done by
survey but by visual. The berm was
flattened.
Mr. Fennell stated we need to get it
back up to 15’. We cannot physically
change it but NSID needs to put it at 15’.
Mr. Hanks asked has Sunshine completed
their analysis?
Ms. Early responded we are bringing
a Work Authorization before the Sunshine Board for us to do the ICPR.
Mr. Petty stated Sunshine approved
it at a cap of $75,000.
Ms. Early stated we need to start
doing the survey.
Mr. Hanks asked do they have a
hydrologic model?
Mr. Petty responded no. The model is going to be transferred from the
county.
Mr. Hanks stated what is of more
concern to me is not so much the outfall, which goes down to the C-14 Canal
because we have the east and west outfall, but what happens along the west
outfall canal for Sunshine and along our north corridor. If Sunshine’s stages are higher than the
perimeters along this location, it does not matter what happens along the east
outfall canal because it is controlled by SFWMD. It is affected by the level in the
canal. If it is something on the north
border, where there are stages significantly higher than the perimeter
elevation, we are going to receive their runoff in a 100 year storm. This is going to be more of an issue than
what happens on any side.
Mr. Fennell stated you are
correct. There can be more problems than
this. Can you answer the question about
the north edge?
Mr. Petty responded we know there is
a problem at the north edge. There is
one such problem south of the Walgreens on
Mr. Fennell stated which means they
can run into us.
Mr. Hanks stated this is also why
SFWMD regulates how many pumps you have and your basic discharge.
Mr. Fennell stated I am not so
sure. The answers they gave me were
nebulous and extreme. Do they have a
model for their canals and discharge?
Ms. Early responded I am sure they
do. This is the only information he gave
me.
Mr. Hanks stated there was a C-51
basin study done in
Mr. Fennell stated I do not see how
they can talk about
Ms. Early responded yes.
Mr. Petty stated they have already
been hit with $9 million to repair the
Mr. Fennell responded I feel
strongly about this. I need to know if
this is a significant problem. They owe
us an answer and we cannot take no. It
cannot be a case of embarrassment because of the public, safety and health. I am hoping this was an error on their part
in not cooperating with you fully. It
sure does not sound like we have their full cooperation. I will give public statements if I have to in
order to make sure we get this information.
I feel strongly about this. We
will know whether or not this is a real problem. If it is a real problem, we will solve
it.
Mr. Hanks stated we identified
differences in our own system from the model done by hand in the 1970’s to
today’s model done by computer with the updated information accounting for
hydraulic losses in the system. We are
looking at this and trying to say, “SFWMD has problems. We are concerned about this. How come they do not have a model? What are you doing to improve our situation?” Have we exhausted all the remedies within our
own District and within the confines of our District to improve this situation
on our own?
Mr. Fennell responded I agree.
Ms. Early stated I spoke to Mr.
McKune today. We are going to meet with
him and prepare a Work Authorization to do a feasibility study. This will be the next step. Based on the feasibility cost, we can choose
a project.
Mr. Fennell asked did we already
authorize some money for this study? I
thought we did.
Mr. Petty responded you did for the
hydrologic study. This Work
Authorization is to prepare the design for those interconnects. We have not authorized it.
Mr. Fennell stated on the agenda for
the next meeting, I want to have the item, “Status of Study for Improved
Hydraulics”. I applaud where we are
going to go. We are going to have
monthly meetings and status reports.
This one is just as important and in some ways more critical. If we get this wrong, there is no Water
District. There are three things we are
looking for CH2M-Hill to do:
1.
Hydrologic Study recommendations (internally
versus externally)
2.
Software program for determining how long it will
take the drain water
3.
Capital Improvement Program
Ms. Early stated we cannot pump
until we reach a certain elevation.
Mr. Fennell asked how do you reach
this conclusion?
Ms. Early responded it is based on
the permit through the SFWMD.
Mr. Hanks stated we have
requirements by certain water quality within the canals, just as you have to
provide water quality within your drinking water and a certain amount of
treatment and quality for the effluent going into your deep water injection. There are different ways of measuring such as
storing a certain amount of inches.
Mr. Fennell stated six to eight
months ago, I called the SFWMD looking for data on whether or not we actually
had a problem. I asked them for a
Hydrologic Study. They forwarded me to
the Weather Bureau. I found out no one
really knew but us what was going to happen in our area. You are correct. There may already be a permit restraining us
but the individual who set the permit number was either us or them or both of
us. We have better information now on
what can happen. We need to test the
Hydrologic Study so when the pump is turned on, the parameters on the number of
inches or saturation of rain should be accurate.
Mr. Petty stated what you are asking
for is a capital improvement program for water management. I think you are on target and ahead of
us. Under our Consumptive Use Permit,
the SFWMD wants us to retain more water than we ever retained before. They are asking us to delay turning on our
drainage pumps for even longer periods.
In other words, if we cannot turn on our pumps before a storm, when we
turn them on, we are going to need more pumps than what we have because the
ones we have are not going to retain any water if it is already here. This is why we are always pumping ahead of
the storm. This is all very material and
we have to come back at the next meeting with a Capital Improvement Program
including SFWMD’s hydrologic model of the C-14 Canal or any other discharge
area we are concerned with and of course, how we are going to handle this
operation.
Mr. Fennell stated I want to see a
study for the retainage of water to hold up against our study. We are not an island but surrounded by water
and there has to be a study predictive of what can happen for water flowing into
us. This is what happened in
Mr. Hanks stated when you have an
analysis on what improvements can be made, think about whether or not the
District created these issues. I want to
know if there is a way to tighten up the Permit Criteria Manual for
re-developed projects so the burden of finding solutions is on the District
within our limited land area as well as the overall property owners who
contributed to the concerns out there.
Mr. Fennell stated keep in mind; the
hurricane did not happen last October but a year and a half ago. In regards to the city and the build-out from
30 years ago, the models did well for what you could do at the time. However, given the data we know now and the
fact we have a build out situation and the tools we have on hand, we can do
much better. We can actually protect
ourselves in an intelligent way. I do
not think we have any real issues so much with what we thought were going to be
the issues 30 days ago. Frankly, this is
a good plan and worked fairly well. For
the calculations, they did a good job.
We know better now, can make improvements and are knowledgeable about
what our problems can be. With this
knowledge, we cannot fail but to step forward and take the right steps.
Mr. Hanks stated we still need to be
fiscally responsible as well.
Mr. Fennell stated we do.
Mr. Petty stated we have our
direction.
Mr. Fennell stated this is not going
away.
Ms. Zich stated this is a subject I
am interested in since my property became an island in 1979.
Ms. Early asked was this an isolated
area?
Mr. Fennell responded the canals can
retain the water but the streets can still flood because the drains off the
street are filled. My own street has an
issue regarding renewal of the permits with the city. They are supposed to go out and clean the
drains. It turns out they did not know
about them.
Mr. Petty stated there is a resident
here tonight who submitted an application to the City of
Mr. Fennell stated correct. How do we address the issue?
Ms. Early responded one of the ways
it is currently being addressed is by the five year permit renewal
program. The difficulty we are having is
we contact a subdivision based on the appraiser’s information and they give us
the number for the HOA. We send the HOA
a letter and they contact us saying they were the HOA five years ago. It takes forever to contact them. Now I have an HOA saying they are the HOA of
this property but the city is supposed to maintain. Then the city calls me and says, “Why should
I have to do this?” I tell them, “This is
a requirement and all of
Mr. Petty stated part of the issue
is there is a SFWMD provision saying “If you permitted the development of a
scale of “x” or smaller, it is your job to go back every five years and get a
new permit”. This happened without too
much of a fight because not many people figured out it would be much
trouble. It is a ton of trouble. Our enforcement capability is minimal. As Mr. Lyles knows, we have no policing
action. The issue is when does it become
more practical to take over the system or administer the permit?
Mr. Fennell responded we may do this
but before we do, we need to have a list of issues and send a letter to the
City Manager of the City of
Mr. Hanks asked are you suggesting
we pull together all the records?
Mr. Fennell responded I do not think
they know what permits they have.
Mr. Petty stated we should talk about
the scope. What we will bring back to
the next meeting is what we can tell you about the scope of the secondary
drainage issue, which is the permit problem we currently have. The engineer can bring this back to the next
meeting so the Board has some indication of the scope.
Mr. Fennell stated we need to let
the city know about this.
Ms. Early stated they know. Ms. DaSilva met with them and I spoke to them
on the phone.
Mr. Petty stated what the President
is requesting is a formal presentation from the Board versus staff.
Mr. Fennell stated I am talking
about a formal letter outlining the permits they are responsible for.
Mr. Petty stated if you recall, we
had these preliminary discussions on the trees.
The City Assistant Manager and Public Works Director are open to the
concept of the District having secondary drainage.
Mr. Fennell stated now we have to
make sure we adequately enforce it. If
the City Manager cannot take appropriate action, I will talk before the City
Council. I want to let the City Manager
know first.
Mr. Petty stated I want to give them
the option if they do not think they can handle the drainage properly and I do
not believe they are set up to do so, as the Drainage District we will allow
them to come to a decision.
Mr. Hanks stated we are always
talking about different ways we can provide services to other communities. Rather than taking on the ownership and
maintenance responsibility of the drainage system, we can offer it as a service
to the neighboring communities, since we are familiar with the drainage
system. We can provide it as a contract
service to the City of
Mr. Petty stated we know they are
not funding any program for maintenance and the taxes and fees they are
currently getting does not go towards this issue. Certainly the money is going to have to be
re-allocated from an existing project.
The city gets state revenue sharing for road drainage, which is a
secondary system. They get money
delegated from the state for such maintenance programs we will never see.
Mr. Fennell stated step 1 is to list
everything they need to look at. If we
have not done so, then we are negligent.
How we handle the problem, depends on their response. We have to do our part first, which is to
enforce it. If the city is saying they
are not responsible and are directing us to the Shadowood HOA, there is not one
and they are passing the buck.
Mr. Hanks stated it is no different
than
Mr. Petty stated it is a problem,
which SFWMD has acknowledged, which is why we are being charged with a five
year permit processing.
Mr. Fennell stated we are going to
look for this every month as a report item.
ii. Short Term Funding
Mr. Petty stated this is designed to
be a funding mechanism for such things as the pipes between the drains. It is also going to be used for short term
funding versus trying to build up a large capital reserve, which we may or may
not spend. This way we do not tax or
assess the residents before the need arises.
We will use this revolving Letter of Credit instead. We have a current project in mind for this
money, which is the second part of our wastewater expansion program for
building digesters. We have $3 to $3.5
million in our capital program. The
contract was for $7 million. As a
result, we have a $5 million short-term note to cover the construction cost of
the digester expansion and start a CIP for the water management. This is a new type of mechanism providing the
banks with assurances, whether it is from a revenue source such as water and
sewer monthly billing or from drainage assessments. It is flexible and takes into account what we
anticipated. It works with us. The one you have in your agenda package is
the wrong one. This is actually a
draft. We have a new one to provide to
you. We expect the short-term to be
extinguished when we go for long-term funding on our Capital Improvement
Program. Mr. Lyles still needs to review
this and it is quite possible he will recommend we have Bond Counsel review,
since a tax exempt status is required.
Ms. Larned stated we are working on
a parallel path within the Capital Improvement Program to make sure the funding
is in place at the time we need it. We
distributed to you a customized borrowing instrument for this capital
program. We have been negotiating with
SunTrust to secure this borrowing, which is both advantageous and reasonable in
its terms and conditions. We wanted to
make sure it was flexible in matching when we get the money to when we need the
money. In other words, we want to get
the cash quickly. We asked for a variety
of terms so we can minimize the cost of our money. We will have a draw period and options for a
long-term payout. Keep in mind we still
want to issue long-term bonds for the full capital program. This is in interim financing the manager
spoke about. We also sought a favorable
interest rate reflecting the credit worthiness and our position within the community. We ask for a pre-payment penalty so if we
were to extinguish this, we can do so without having to pay a penalty.
We have been working with SunTrust
and received their full attention. What
you have before you is an easy and accessible loan commitment recognizing our
sustained delivery of operations in the community, our good financial
management of the District assets and our fine financial history. To summarize, the SunTrust staff recognized
CSID and its excellent credit standing.
In so recognizing, they are offering us an interest rate and
administrative cost far below what they offer their best customers. We are pleased to present this commitment
letter to you.
Mr. Petty stated we are not asking
for action tonight since counsel has not had a chance to review it. It is quite possible we will have to get Ms.
Denise Ganz from Ruden, McClosky, our Bond Counsel to work on the tax exempt
status. We will wait until Mr. Lyles has
a chance to read this and then we will take it to Ms. Ganz.
Mr. Fennell asked is this a Line of
Credit?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Fennell asked do we normally
have to pay $2,000 plus $7,500 in legal fees?
In order to get the Line of Credit, will we have to spend $12,000?
Mr. Lyles responded it will be
substantially more. In order to get the
tax exempt status, a qualified Tax Attorney will have to render an opinion that
the interest on this $5 million note is exempt from tax under Federal IRS
regulations. This may or not be picked
up by the bank’s Bond Counsel. I have
not spoken to them about this. I will
approach this as if it is assumed it will be picked up by the bank’s Bond
Counsel. If this is the case, it is not
going to be any more money. However,
between their legal fees and your legal fees, especially if we have to involve
Ruden, McClosky, the total could end up being $20,000 rather than $12,500.
Mr. Fennell stated this is before we
actually borrow the money.
Mr. Petty stated we will only do
this if we have to borrow the money.
Mr. Lyles stated you will not incur
this on the off chance you are going to borrow the money.
Ms. Zich asked why SunTrust versus
any other bank?
Mr. Petty responded we called Bank
of America and Wachovia, who is our banker.
We also spoke to several other sources such as Prager, Sealy &
Company who we get money from. For these
short-term notes, the closest they could come was a Bond Anticipation Note,
which was not going to suffice for this instrument. We also went to the Association of Counties,
which has periodic bonds and loan capabilities and the Florida League of
Cities. The responses were so off course
to where we could not use any of them.
SunTrust was the only one who sent people out saying, “How can we help
you because we do not understand what you need?” They were the only ones who wanted to work
with us. None of the other banks wanted
to work with us or understood our concept of having a revolving Line of
Credit.
We do not want to incur $20,000
every time we need money. I want to do
it once and set up an instrument I can draw on continuously because I want to
use this instead of a Reserve Fund. I
need short-term funding where I can spend a $1 million and in next year’s
budget put this into the assessments, extinguish the note and move on. I do not want to put an assessment on the
residents where I build up $5 million in a Reserve Fund and take their money
out of circulation and sit on it. I
rather have a revolving Line of Credit made available to me if it makes sense
to do so. Trying to get the banks to understand
this concept was extremely difficult.
SunTrust were the only ones who got past step one.
Mr. Fennell stated businesses do
this all the time.
Ms. Larned stated the rate they are
giving us compared to businesses is almost 100 to 150 basis points lower
because of the tax exempt status.
Mr. Hanks asked what is a basis
point?
Ms. Larned responded 1.5 percentage
point. Ours is going to be 5.41% if we
move forward. Most large commercial
customers are paying 7.32%.
Mr. Hanks asked what happens as
interest rates go up and down? Is this
structured so we have a fixed rate?
Ms. Larned responded during the draw
period, which is up to one year, it will be a variable rate set on a percentage
of LIBOR. We have a benchmark to which
we pay every 30 days.
Mr. Fennell asked what is LIBOR?
Ms. Larned responded London
Inter-Bank Offered Rate. Every 30 days,
the rate will be reset every 30 days.
For example, when we first started talking about this, the rates were
slightly higher. We already took
advantage of the fact we have been delayed.
Once we get through the draw period and depending on what we determined
as the long-term financing, we will have options to go out either one year up
to the bond years. We are not
anticipating using it at this point. We are
anticipating using long-term bonds to encompass the entire capital plan. You are only using this as interim
financing. Should the Board choose to
use the benefit of this particular instrument, we can term it out up to five
years and it will become a fixed year.
Mr. Petty stated we have certain
limitations. Short-term funding is all
we are going for. We are not going to do
long-term funding where we need to have a public hearing. This is for renewal and replenishment items. We are not exceeding the $10 million
cap. We are looking for District Counsel
to tell us if we missed any limitations.
Our District is controlled on how it gets its financings and what we can
do. We are trying to stay within those
specific corridors by making sure the District has the money available when it
needs it and only the amount it needs, without having to go through a huge
amount of paperwork to get another $100,000 or $1.5 million.
Mr. Hanks asked is this structured
to where if we need $1 million in June and $2 million in September, we will be
able to make those draws at different times?
Mr. Petty responded yes. Once you make a draw, it is interest only for
the first year. Within the year, you
have to set the term and the interest rate.
When you set the term, you set the interest rate. Until you do, you are at this monthly LIBOR
standard. When you set the term within
this year; you can have a one year, two year or three year note, no greater
than five. At this time, you will decide
what you can do. We wanted interest only
for the first year, because we needed time to get it in the budget so we could
charge assessments.
Mr. Fennell asked once we have this
deal worked out, how many times can we go back?
Ms. Larned responded we can draw it
in $200,000 increments. There is no
limitation.
Mr. Fennell stated during the
hurricane there was an issue where other districts could have used money for
hurricane cleanup, even though we were fine.
In fact, the City of
Mr. Lyles stated you cannot do
this. It is a financing with a cap of
five years. Otherwise, it has to go
through the validation process. Regardless
of how it comes before you, legally it will be considered a bond if has a term
of five years or more. You are good for
five years unless you take it out with your permanent financing sooner. Keep in mind, this is for informational
purposes and you will not be voting on this issue until the next meeting. I just received information today about a
permanent regular bond financing of well under $5 million at a slightly lower
interest rate. The costs, independent of
the interest rate were well over $150,000.
This is a cheap transaction for a tax exempt entity as opposed to a
corporate entity. It is an aggressive
borrowing structure in terms of keeping the costs within the maximum
flexibility. If you did this issue in
the conventional local government way, the costs will be excessive.
Mr. Fennell stated on the other
hand, if I was in the lending business and could get a short-term tax exempt
loan of over 5%, I would jump on it.
T-Bills are currently 5% and under.
Mr. Petty stated SunTrust has bankers in their firm. The banks have merged so rapidly some of
these employees are little more than store clerks. We found this out when talking with the
banks. This is why SunTrust was
responsive. They understand the banker’s
mentality. They saw the rooftops on
their liability as being nil. This is
why the proposal is as flexible as it is.
Mr. Lyles is correct on uncovering fairly quickly what took us several
months to put together. His perception
is paramount.
Mr. Fennell stated we have money in the bank. Why do we need this financing?
Mr. Petty responded you do not have any more money in the
bank. This is why we are looking.
Mr. Fennell stated we still have some money in the bank.
Mr. Petty stated the General Fund still has some funds
but the Water and Sewer Fund has been committed under the current
contract. We will bring this to you in
the completed form at the next meeting for the Board's approval. We will then take District Counsel's
recommendations for execution. We will get this done so we can bring monies in
for this contract. There will still be
some money under the $5 million cap to be available to the Water Management
Capital Improvement Program in particular for any pilot studies considered,
which we may bring to you at next month's meeting. Certainly $2 million is not going to buy a
great deal of drainage but it can buy several key elements.
Mr. Fennell asked are we limited in what we spend this
money on?
Mr. Petty responded we cannot spend it to pay the
electric bill.
Mr. Fennell asked can we spend it on canal improvements?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Part of this will have to be opined by District Counsel under the tax
exempt status. In the past we had
earthwork approved under the tax exempt status.
Mr. Lyles stated think capital items versus ongoing
maintenance items.
Mr. Fennell stated it makes sense.
Mr. Petty stated in regards to the long-term funding, we
are continuing to speak to multiple entities.
We are working with two entities on the long-term funding for this
capital improvement project, which has been estimated between $35 million and
$50 million. We are also talking to Prager,
Sealy & Company who is the underwriter for most of the bonds the District
issued and to SunTrust. We are using
these entities to get a competitive financial structure for the Board to
consider.
Mr. Fennell asked what is our rating?
Mr.
Petty responded we received a AAA rating with our last water and sewer bond
issue. Ms. Larned looked through the
bond issue and there are ongoing costs.
We are asking both entities to give us "all in" interest
costs. This includes the cost of having
coverage on revenue and currently a 110% requirement on our revenue is
required. There is a mandatory renewal
and replenishment program where a number of dollars have to be collected each
year to a maximum of $1 million. There
are several other issues. Our position
has been we are 30 years old, have rooftops, a financial history and this is no
longer a gamble. This is fairly stable
government institution. It is almost
like the time to where you no longer have to take what is given to you. We are going to have a proposal from Ruden,
McClosky for your next meeting. Mr.
Lyles will serve as Bond Counsel for any long-term issue. We spoke to Mr. Lyles about his working
relationship with Ruden, McClosky and he recommended them as well.
Mr. Petty stated we discussed the assets
a great deal and our responsibilities concerning those assets. We have been talking to our engineers for the
last several months trying to figure out where we should be going. We know our Asset Management Program is not
what we need it to be. This came to
light when the Sawgrass Expressway was built and they cut some of our drainage
pipes. One question was whether we owned
them. When we build capital improvement
facilities like this we keep track of the money spent. However, what about any contributions or the
drawings coming with it, the caps and whether they are easily attainable? I have documents concerning this District
stored in 15 different locations and CH2M-Hill has documents. We also use the storage place on
After years of building, it is now
time for management to take ownership and start managing the asset instead of
building the asset. Our assets are the
public facilities and the associated lands.
We get these public facilities by donation, construction, acquisition,
plat, agreement and condemnation. These
facilities are typically water management and wastewater facilities. Do we have any assets to worry about and is
this a big deal? Yes, it is a big
deal. Once you put the package together
it causes considerable angst to see we do not have a centralized program where
all of this is available. We are talking
about the ownership records for these documents such as title, liens,
right-of-way, easements, Bills of Sale, legal descriptions, shop drawings,
specifications, as-builts, insurance, agreements and contracts. We are allocating renewal and replacement
money into rebuilding and extending its life.
These are items we need to have and we have a strong need to put all of
this together.
We are proposing to build an asset
management system for the District to own.
You will have all your information in a centralized location and this is
our theory on how it should operate. You
will have three ways to search for these items; locating on a map, keyword
search and article as indicated by the folders.
For example, there are three different search criteria; legal,
management and operations. If I was
coming from operations, I will certainly use the map. If I work for management and concerned about
insurance, I will probably go folder by folder and pulling only the assets I
need. In water and wastewater, this is
where I will have most of my pieces. We
do not insure distribution and collection lines. We insure lift station pumps. If I was doing legal work and wanted to find
out how I had the right to work in a specific area, I will do a search by description. This will be done under the keyword
search. If you were going to use the
maps and not the other two criteria, you will select an area, for example area
32, which is a subset of these Districts.
These folders will hold only the information on area 32. In the past they had the information for the
entire District. Now they just have the
information for area 32.
If you need further information, you
can select a specific area by highlighting it.
The folders will change to include the information such as the water and
sewer lines, the easements they are in, how they were conveyed and any
specifications or other information pertinent to the system. In this manner, we will be able to address
our repairs, maintenance and management.
This will be performance based management by proactive maintenance. All of your assets are in this system and can
be queried to check their status and life expectancy. We will do this through three additional
positions; two allocated to NSID under the current priority, half to Sunshine
WCD and half to CSID.
Mr. Fennell asked is this known as a
management information system?
Mr. Petty responded yes. We will have customized database
development. We have to create a
database if you are going to ask queries and search.
Mr. Fennell asked did we digitize
schematics some time ago?
Mr. Petty responded Mr. Roger Moore
digitized blueprints for 10 years. We
cannot find the records. We know they
are here. We have the idea of going for
additional personnel after the database development, once the Capital
Improvement Program is up and running.
We figure this will take up two positions. A total of four to five people will be
running this Asset Management Program for the core districts. Currently NSID is on a $100 million
purchasing spree. They are the ones who
have to pay for the people upfront. We
want to start with their capital program because they have the most updated
record. The CSID records are 30 years
old. If we are going to use anybody as a
guinea pig, let's use NSID because they have the best records to date. Their Board has been told they need two more
people and they approved this in concept.
Sunshine has 35 year old systems with easements and right-of-way but we
know they have to do a great deal of work.
They will need to know where their right-of-way begins and ends and what
the rights are to have this drainage facility there.
We approved hiring a half a person
at their last meeting. CSID should have
a person or half of a person to start up this program and training. CSID wanted to be the paternal District and
own the staff. We can do this either
way. NSID approved the two positions and
will own the two positions. We can do it
this way or have CSID create three new administrative positions and we will
start billing NSID for two positions and Sunshine for .5. CSID will pay for the remaining half. We are asking you tonight to consider this. Should you consider the matter, we need to
discuss cost recovery. Since NSID
approved the two positions, you will start receiving compensation. Sunshine approved its half. The only exposure you will have is for the
remaining half. Let's not forget the
database design, which we are proposing to do through ASI. They were awarded the hardware installation and
software update on our current utility billing and government accounting
program. We have been working with them
since 1997. They are a good company for
this process. We have experience with a
strong database, which is adaptable. We
are working with them because of their history with us, can tie it to our
accounting system and their system works over the internet. The technology they have with their database
development works with this piece as we want this to be assessable from
anywhere at any time by those who have access.
We think the database design is
going to cost some real money. The cost
will be brought before you after we talk to them and not before because we do
not want to raise their hopes. The other
districts will utilize the cost recovery like NSID and Sunshine did on the
accounting upgrade and hardware purchase.
CSID has ownership and spreads the cost recovery to the other
districts. Once the system is up and
running, the other districts may want to do cost recovery. This may help us out but I do not want you to
count on it. We can count on our core
districts participating.
Mr. Fennell stated the problem is
you are always waiting on information.
It is always hard to justify the costs because it is not like we are
going to sell more water with it. It supposedly makes management more
efficient. Once it is in the computer,
you need an expert to get the information.
Mr. Petty stated there is no magic
to it being on a computer. The magic is
in the attention to it by staff. The
issue is to have a working database.
Whether it is electronic or manual, I do not care. I want all the documents I have assets
on. I need to have all these documents
because this is what my job entails.
Over the years it has been somewhat clouded by the building of
assets. I am talking to you about
putting another $30 million to $50 million into the Water Treatment Plant and I
still do not have a working asset program.
Mr. Hanks stated it is dependent on follow through by
everyone involved. If you do not ask for
the as-builts, we do not get them. If
they get entered, it does not do us any good.
This is the same problem we are running into with trying to track down
records.
Mr. Fennell asked where do we tie in? If the system does not interface with other
computers to where CH2M-Hill cannot enter their designs to show up magically on
your computer, then you have an expensive translation job trying to take their
data and entering it onto your computer.
I suggest you figure out who you need to communicate with or change
systems.
Mr. Petty stated we are not looking for our engineers to
do it.
Mr. Fennell asked how will you know what your assets are?
Mr. Petty responded I know what my assets are by taking
employees who have 25 years experience and breaking them away from their
current job. The three positions are not
necessarily working on this. We are
taking Ms. Susan Walker out of accounting.
She has 20 years experience obtaining information. If there is anyone who can get this
information, it is Ms. Walker. She is
not going to take no from anyone. It is
not just the engineer she will have to talk to.
She will have to talk with staff who has 30 years experience and get the
information out of them. She has been
doing this every year since she has been involved in the budget. She will also have to talk with District
Counsel. I am familiar with IT and will
not turn it over to anyone else. We will
contract with ASI to build it by contract and oversee the tough itemseed to
repair and maintain. Otherwise, it is
going to be us working on the system and inputting the data.
Mr. Fennell asked what computer will this run on?
Mr. Petty responded the AS 400.
Mr. Fennell stated we own this machine.
Mr. Petty stated as well as the software. You are going to be building the
software. You already own the
database. Meanwhile, someone has to pay
for those people. We can certain put the
three people onto those districts.
Mr. Hanks stated as far as many of these assets, we know
where they are. If we have to maintain
something, I am not certain this is a big issue. Are there any programs recording the
inventory of water mains and drainage systems?
Ms. Early responded all of our drawings are in
auto-cad. They used to be digi-cad. Now we are using micro-station.
Mr. Fennell asked how do you go from auto-cad to
micro-station?
Ms. Early responded we transfer them.
Mr. Petty stated this is not about blueprints at
all. One example is when a lady fell
into a meter box at the Coral Square Mall.
She sued the Coral Square Mall who in turn passed it to us and said,
"Please give this to your Insurance Adjustor as our records show this is
your meter and you are responsible."
I asked Mr. Hyche, "What is wrong with our meter vault and how can
we not maintain them? Some lady just
fell through one". He said these
were not our meter vaults as we do not have any lines inside of the Coral
Square Mall". I said to him,
"You must master meter from the road"". He replied, "I do not have any master
meters." I then asked, "How do
we meter them?" He referred me to
his Distribution Supervisor who said, "We do not own any water lines. We just have a bunch of meters and you would
not believe the problem we have. They
keep changing the stores inside".
Mr. Fennell asked are you metering individual stores?
Mr. Petty responded no.
We metered the original stores and charged them according to the fixture
count. This was back in 1987. The stores changed 15 times since then but
they are still using the same meters. We
have not charged them any differently. I
do not know what the fixture counts are.
No one knows who installed the meter vaults. We do not believe we own
the water lines going to the meter vaults.
There must be 15 miles of water and sewer lines inside of the complex
coming off of the main lines on
Mr. Hanks stated there are numerous instances where you
have private developments in a gated community.
Mr. Petty stated I do not know how I could have a water
meter on private property unless Mr. Lyles negotiated a certain instrument to
give me access to it. This is not
standard. Typically your meter is set
right at the end of your line before the private property starts.
Mr. Hanks asked what do you think the cost differential
is going to be to get it set up versus having to address each one individually
using staff?
Mr. Petty responded I am not getting answers to whether
or not we own it, whether we have a right-of-way for and if it is in an
easement.
Mr. Lyles stated I am hearing the questions and had
several references to legal counsel throughout this discussion but I cannot
offer too much about how we got to where we are. I have been here for 10 years and we have
only done a few of these. I have a set
of records for CSID but do not have the quantity Mr. Petty has. I became involved with the lady falling
through the meter box and the Sawgrass Expressway issue with the damage to the
lines. My first request was to show me
the instruments. We have not found
them. The problem is having a system
locating the instruments still requires you to do the research of locating the
document and loading it so the software search engine gets you there. This is a monumental task we occasionally
have to do on a case by case basis. If you do it for every right-of-way, every
pipe, every easement and canal; it will be terrific.
Mr. Fennell stated you are talking about doing an
inventory on the entire system.
Ms. Zich stated it will take many people to accomplish
this.
Mr. Lyles stated this is not just inventory. We can do this in the field. You need to find ownership documents
supporting the inventory you think you own.
Mr. Hanks stated we do not own the water mains in this
corner of the city. Does this change how
we approach it? We are still the utility
providing the water. Your homeowners and
the city are looking to us.
Mr. Lyles stated if at some point it turns out we cannot
confirm what is there, we are going to have to go to property owners and say,
"We are updating our records and need you to sign this easement so you can
continue to get water and sewer service."
Alternatively, we can get a group of questionable areas under one
lawsuit and file something in court to get a prescriptive easement declared for
us to continue providing public services in the areas where we think we have a
pipe but we do not have the document in hand.
You need to weigh the cost of creating the system versus doing it ad
hoc.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the cost?
Mr. Petty responded the cost is for half of a person now
and two more people at the end of the deal, one of which you will own. I think we can get your Asset Management
Program built with personnel costs and maintained with 1.5 people. I will bring back to you the cost of the
software. However, we already have a
database company who does great database work.
All they have to do is build a separate module for us working off of the
existing relational database.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to put this out for
competitive bid?
Mr. Lyles responded no.
This will be considered a professional bid as opposed to maintenance of
a project or equipment or capital cost items.
Mr. Fennell stated it is almost like an accounting and
engineering firm but they are not talking to each other. Is there any way to get those two together? Our assets in the end are going to be
designed with them. First of all, the
accountants have an accounting computer and I am not sure they talked to the
engineering firm.
Mr. Petty responded they have not done so. GASB-34 makes us do a great deal of checking
on the documentation but it does not give you any beneficial use of the
information. We want to dig out of this
cavern of information around us and have something workable.
Mr. Hanks asked do you need anything from us today or can
we mull it over?
Mr. Petty responded you can certainly mull it over if the
Board prefers. We are asking for you to
consider it.
Mr. Fennell stated we will consider it. You are making a good case. The problem is if you do not tie in the hard
assets, he can say, "We have 15 pipes going under the Coral Square Mall
and here is where they are opposed to being a nice accounting asset costing us
$1.4 million. The $1.4 million will not
answer the questions you are asking.
Mr. Petty stated we have done it. Mr. McKune is part of this as well as Ms.
Early and our staff. We allocated Ms.
Walker to be our chief data digger. No
one knows better than her and she will not take no for an answer from someone
like Mr. Hyche who says he is busy. This
is what we are going to need if we are going to get any answer for this in a
reasonable amount of time. We do not
have money to allocate to this forever.
NSID has nine months to find all this information. They are going to be one of the easiest ones
to shake. Once it is done, Ms. Walker
gets pulled out of there and then we want to have her work on Sunshine and CSID
to pull the data out of them. We will
keep using her to build new structures while staff maintains. We do not want high level maintenance. We want medium range maintenance.
Mr. Fennell asked who is Ms. Walker working for and who
does she report to?
Mr. Petty responded she is a CSID employer. One of the two NSID positions is filled by
Ms. Walker.
Mr. Fennell stated I do not see a strong enough effort
between the operational and the accounting.
Mr. Petty stated we will make the documents available to
all departments but it is useful for and tied to the accounting system so the
GASB-34 requirements can be taken from the fixed asset. We do not want the fixed assets to be
controlled by the accounting standards because it gives operations and legal no
justice. Of course we want legal to have
input into this because they are the ones who need to do the absolute Bill of
Sale or correct the action if there is no Bill of Sale or easement. They are the ones who have to go out and get
you one. Of course operations is tied to
it because they will have access. Am I
going to tie it to the engineer so they can input data? No way are those engineers putting data into
my system.
Mr. Fennell stated one of the issues most corporations
face is they have separate computer systems throughout the corporation. There is one for accounting, one for
engineering design, one for sales and one for inventory. None of them talk to each other. The more modern systems are able to talk to
each other. The internet actually drove
this so the systems could talk to each other.
One is using 32 bits, another is using a different type of language, the
format and
fields are
different. Suddenly someone is writing a
5,000 line code in order to transfer information. I want to see how this ties together.
Mr. Petty stated we have those same considerations.
Mr. Hanks stated let’s give these questions to different
staff members so we can get the level of detail in order to reach our own
decisions for the next meeting.
Mr. Fennell asked do you need anything from us tonight or
can we put it off until the next meeting?
Mr. Petty responded we are going to be meeting with the
company to go over training on our update next week. I can talk to them about how they can
structure such a design. I want to work
on the personnel at this time. We want
to move Ms. Walker to NSID.
Mr. Fennell asked can we do this on a temporary basis
like six months?
Mr. Petty responded it is difficult to hire people that
way.
Mr. Hanks asked do you have someone in mind as a
candidate?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked to work part time for CSID?
Mr. Petty responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated I do not know if this is the right
system or not but the fact is he is trying to get his hands on managing a 30
year old system with disparaging data.
Mr. Hanks stated the people involved are not going to be
sticking around with the District. The
people who were here 30 years ago are approaching retirement. We have been talking all along about one of
the issues with the accounting, which is the lack of redundancy. If we re-assign Ms. Walker to NSID and train
someone for this other position, now we have a redundancy. If the new person goes away, we still have
Ms. Walker who is familiar with the accounting system and can help provide the
training. I think this is an excellent
opportunity.
Mr. Petty stated it does cover an item, which has been on
our books for awhile.
Mr. Fennell asked are you asking for permission to hire
three people?
Mr. Petty responded yes, with CSID being the paternal
District.
Mr. Fennell stated we are willing to have the machine.
Mr. Petty stated you can do this if you wish subject to NSID
paying for two employees.
Mr. Hanks stated we have the opportunity for this to be a
revenue generator to other districts. If
we do not take the opportunity to say, “We are taking over the ownership”,
someone else will have the opportunity.
Mr. Fennell stated that is true, however we own the
machine.
Mr. Hanks stated but if they are taking the lead, our
exposure is still half of a person.
Ms. Zich stated this seems to be a great deal of
information to be pulling out.
Mr. Fennell stated the problem is he will have to
prioritize what he goes after.
Ms. Zich stated the issue with the mall sounds like a
nightmare.
Mr. Petty stated I looked for the information on the
mall. How can I possibly have water and
sewer there since 1986 and we do not have the information? I know they have irrigation systems, which
are not metered.
Mr. Hanks authorized Mr. Petty to hire
three employees to run the Asset Management Program and Ms. Zich seconded the
motion.
Ms. Zich stated it could be nice having one person
instead of three.
Mr. Hanks stated we are not having any additional
exposure. NSID is already committed for
two employees.
Mr. Petty stated you can amend the motion to say, “With
NSID funding for two employees.”
The prior motion with all in favor
authorizing Mr. Petty to hire three employees to run the Asset Management
Program was amended to reflect NSID paying for two positions.
Mr. Petty stated thank you very much. We will be bringing back the exact details to
you.
Mr. Fennell stated this was a tough one.
Mr. Petty stated we discussed the Florida Retirement
Program for the employees some time ago.
Mr. Lyles looked at the resolution and suggested we bring it before the
Board since it has been six months since we talked about it. At the next meeting, Mr. Lyles will provide a
resolution to the Board for consideration.
We are looking for authorization to apply to the Florida Retirement
Program so we can give our employees better benefits. If you are making $30,000 a year, the state
will match whatever the IRA was. If you
have 10 years of service, in 5.34 years it will beat your IRA at 4.35
years. If you retire and are going to
live for more than 4.34 years, the state is a better program. If you just want your cash and are only going
to live for two years, stay with the IRA.
We have some 25 to 30 year old employees heading for employment who will
not get any benefit out of a State Retirement Program, which mandates you must
have 10 years in before you are vested.
Ms. Zich stated it is usually five years.
Mr. Petty stated the guys who will retire soon will not
be vested in time and will stay with the IRA.
We told the young employees to look at it and let us know.
Mr. Fennell asked do you need a decision today?
Mr. Petty responded no.
We just wanted to bring this information back to you.
Mr. Fennell stated the general thinking is retirement
funds are passé and IRA’s always beat them.
I am surprised to see you have data saying it is not true. This is the rationale for doing away with all
the pension plans. The real issue is it
is easier for corporations not to have to fund pension funds anymore because
they never funded them completely. They
like the idea of IRA’s since they have no responsibility. It does not necessarily benefit the employee.
Mr. Petty stated you may have seen a trailer on your way
in. Our emergency generator is
broken. In the trailer is a mobile
generator, while the emergency generator is being fixed. They were working on it but it was not
putting out the amps it was supposed to.
Mr. Fennell asked is this our new one?
Mr. Hyche responded no, this was the old one. We wanted to replace it in the next contract.
Mr. Petty stated we are going to have the trailer on-site
until the emergency generator is repaired.
Mr. Fennell stated for the April agenda, I wish to have
discussion on hurricane preparations.
This is the appropriate time to see if we have everything we need. We have the time to do something if we need
to.
iii. Monthly Water & Sewer Charts
There not being any, the next item
followed.
iv. Utility Billing Work Orders
Mr. Petty stated these were for the
metering re-reads.
v. Complaints Received/Resolved
Mr. Petty stated we had quite a few
complaints because of the holiday season we do not go out and shut off meters. In the last couple of months, we had three
months of notifications for payment and now we are doing the shut-offs. The complaints for this season were normal.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor Requests and
Audience Comments
There not being any, the next item
followed.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of December
Financials and Check Registers
There not being any,
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr.
Hanks with all in favor the check registers for the General Fund dated January
31, 2007 in the amount of $1,306,360.64 and the Water and Sewer Fund dated
January 31, 2007 in the amount of $620.838.04 were approved.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There being no further business,
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr.
Fennell with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.
Secretary President
Notes
for
Agenda
Items for Next Meeting
• Presentation of Hydrologic Rate Study
• Status of Study for Improved Hydraulics
(Requested by President)
Agenda
Items for April Meeting
• Hurricane Preparations (Requested by
President)
Items
Discussed at Meeting for Future Agendas
1. Update the Board on the results of the
Sunshine WCD survey regarding the water levels at the north corridor.
2. Sending letter to the City of
3. Discussion of Document Management Program