MINUTES
OF MEETING
CORAL
SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
A
meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was
held on
Present and constituting a quorum were:
Robert Fennell President
Sharon Zich Vice President
Glenn Hanks Secretary
Also present were:
Kenneth Cassel District
Manager
Jane Early District
Engineer
Brenda Schurz
Sean Skehan CH2M Hill
Jim Aversa CSID
Dan Daly CSID
Doug Hyche CSID
Randy Fredericks CSID
Kay Woodward CSID
Jan Zilmer CSID
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr.
Cassel called the meeting to order and called the roll.
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the July 21, 2008 Meeting
Mr.
Fennell stated last time there were two different versions.
Mr.
Hanks stated yes. I saw you guys had a
discussion on it.
Mr.
Fennell stated I felt it lacked the flavor we normally have. Are there any comments or corrections?
Mr.
Hanks responded I have a comment relating to the bid pre-qualification. In this economic environment, does it make
sense to have a requirement to post a bond for completion?
Ms.
Early responded they will be required to post a bond.
Mr.
Hanks stated okay. I was not sure. I know if my clients have to work for the DOT
or different utilities, they have to post a bond.
Mr.
Skehan stated the performance bond is to pick up where the contractor leaves
off. If the contractor is no longer on
the project, removed from the project or the work is not satisfactory, that is
the intent of the bond.
Mr.
Hanks asked what about when it comes time for turnover of the project to the
District and there is a one year warranty?
Is there a warranty bond required as well? Because we have already paid the contractors
at that point for the work performed. How
are we protected for that money?
Mr.
Skehan responded they generally pay an amount which is left behind in an
account tied to what is withheld from each pay request to be able to do
this. You will have 10% at the beginning
of the project. It will go down to 5%
and ultimately it will go to 1% or less, depending on the level of how
comfortable you are.
Mr.
Hanks asked what is that term called?
Mr.
Skehan responded retainage.
Mr.
Hanks stated this is different than retainer.
Mr.
Skehan stated it could be defined as an insurance policy against the
contractor.
Mr.
Fennell stated we can discuss this under item three. Are there any corrections to the minutes?
Ms.
Zich stated I am fine with the minutes.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in
favor the minutes of the
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’
Requests and Audience Comments
Mr.
Hanks stated I just think it is something we can keep in mind, especially for
the nanoplant. It is getting into a
newer area where we do not have the expertise yet on how to keep it up and
running. It is certainly a situation
where we could consider a warranty bond.
Mr.
Fennell stated would the time to put that in be…
Mr.
Skehan stated in the specifications when it goes to bid.
Mr.
Fennell asked are there any other items for the third order of business?
There
not being any, the next item followed.
FOURTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion
of Proposed Water and Sewer Budget for Fiscal Year 2009
Mr.
Fennell asked when will we be adopting this?
Mr.
Cassel responded at the September meeting.
Ms.
Zich stated I have a question on repairs and maintenance. I question why it went up so much. There is $200,000 for mechanical integrity test
of injection well.
Mr.
Fennell stated that is actually a guesstimate.
Mr. Skehan, can you speak to that?
Mr.
Skehan responded I can. The last time
mechanical integrity testing was done for both the wells it was probably in the
range of $50,000 to $60,000 per well. This
was to have the contractor come out, set up the rig and do all the testing
required. It is three to five days worth
of testing. Over the last five years the
contractors who were doing this work, one contractor in particular, have become
much more expensive. There are a couple
of other contractors who are doing this, but they are not as well equipped and
will take a longer period of time to do testing. The cost of the one contractor in particular
has gone up $75,000 to $80,000 per well to do the testing. Our fee for this is around $25,000 to
$30,000. The total from our engineering
fees and the contractor’s fee gets you to $200,000. This is a requirement every five years for
the DEP permit for injection wells. Every
five years you have to do a video survey.
You have to do a pressure test on the well itself. We have to make sure it has mechanical
integrity and there are no holes or leaks, which could possibly affect drinking
water sources. You have to go in with a
radioactive tracer test. Contractors
have to run all of their tools in. They
bring in rigs.
Ms.
Zich stated I am not familiar enough about it.
Mr.
Fennell stated he is right. It is more
expensive and guess what? We actually
put it in the budget this time. It
usually hits us.
Ms.
Zich stated because it is so much I was thinking it might be for construction. There was no back up for it at the time so I
really did not know what it was. I am
just looking at a $200,000 increase and thinking it must have something to do
with what we are building.
Mr.
Fennell stated well this is the right place to discuss this and it is a good
thing to actually put it in the budget. We
should not be surprised by it.
Mr.
Skehan stated we are supposed to have a plan to DEP 180 days before the testing
is to take place. The requirement for
the testing to take place is next May or June.
We need to have the plan for testing to DEP by December. We will be preparing a work authorization to
get on the next agenda so we will have ample time to get this to the Board’s
attention and to work on it after we are given the authorization to do so.
Mr.
Hanks asked when is the testing required?
Mr.
Skehan responded in May or June of 2009 and then five years after that.
Mr.
Hanks stated this is something we should consider putting, after this year,
$40,000 into a sinking fund for this as opposed to having a figure like this
every five years.
Mr.
Fennell stated my experience with many of these wells has been you never know
what you are going to get. It will be
difficult to forecast the cost. They
always go down to look and they always find something wrong.
Mr.
Skehan stated the last MIT went pretty well.
Mr.
Fennell stated think about it. We are
building a whole new well. We have a
whole other $1 Million we are spending to do the monitoring well. This fits into a general discussion we have
not had yet. It is costing us a whole
bunch of money to sink this stuff down.
Is there a cheaper alternative somewhere in the future? Maybe not.
I still think the right thing to do is treat the water better and
somehow replace it back into the
Mr.
Cassel stated the county is into the large push for reuse, which brings its own
set of potential issues and problems. It
is something all of us need to continue to fight. Reuse is going forward, but it is a solution
which is going to be costly for people and I do not think anybody is taking it
into consideration.
Mr.
Daly stated at one time our consumptive permit was being held hostage to us building
a reuse plant here. Now the county does
it. They are going to have 100 times
more than we will.
Mr.
Skehan stated we are not completely out of that realm. We are still on the table for
consideration. The water use permit has
not been completed yet and we are still in the process of doing the
modeling.
Mr.
Hanks stated we are talking about putting $1 Million into a monitoring
well. Are we going to be in a situation
where we go ahead and improve the wells to the point where they are accepting
all of our discharge and then get cut off so we are not able to use them?
Mr.
Skehan responded I do not see it being the case. Before any regulating agency, primarily DEP,
will be able to do this there will be some other technology in place to be able
to either treat adequately and to allow disposal in a manner which is going to
be perceived as safe. We talked about
reuse in the past. Mr. Cassel and I were
talking about it this morning. What are
people going to do about the pharmaceuticals which are out there right now? Are they going to allow that reuse to take
place in the vicinity of well fields?
That would not make sense in a lot of respects. Going to deep injection wells, are we going
to use water from 3,000 feet which is essentially ocean water? It is truly a pollution source? Is it the best way to dispose of it? Will there be better ways in the future? I am sure there will be in the future as technology
becomes more advanced in that area.
Mr.
Hanks stated I have a couple of concerns or questions on this budget. We were down on our combined revenues this
year; 10% down for water and 5% down on sewer.
Are the numbers for next year reflecting the reduced consumption?
Mr.
Fennell responded I have the same question.
Water revenue is based on what consumption, current?
Mr.
Daly responded current for nine months and the following three months is when
the third and final rate increase kicks in.
Mr.
Fennell stated you are using the current water amount we generate as the basis
for next year.
Mr.
Daly stated as of July 1, 2008 we went into the second phase of the increase in
water waste.
Mr.
Hanks stated the amount of water going out of the plant for the immediately
proceeding 12 month period is what was hit with the new raise to come up with
the projected revenue for next year.
Mr.
Daly stated that is correct.
Mr.
Hanks stated so perceivably, the only reason this would decrease is if there
were a further decrease in consumption by residents.
Mr.
Daly stated that is correct.
Mr.
Fennell asked why did consumption decrease?
Mr.
Daly responded South Florida Water Management District put in restrictions.
Mr.
Fennell stated we do not really do that much watering of lawns.
Mr.
Cassel stated yes you do.
Mr.
Daly stated there are tons of irrigation meters out there. I believe at one time they even backed off a
little bit on the pressure. There was
also a shock value when the price increase happened and there were water
restrictions. People reset their clocks
incorrectly and they got hit with a big bill.
They went ahead, got rid of it and set their timers correctly. As they saw the grass start to die it was a
little more powerful for them. They had
the big bill, but they knew it. Over the
course of the South Florida Water Management District water restriction, the
first three to four months were really slow and then people started getting
used to it or started breaking the law.
Mr.
Fennell asked how about personal consumption?
Did that drop at all? Can you
tell?
Mr.
Daly responded you can tell to an extent.
We have a rate quote for irrigation only, but if Mr. Smith irrigates his
landscaping off of the house meter, it goes in the mix. You really cannot tell categorically. The average person uses about 3,000 gallons
per person per month.
Mr.
Hanks stated you should probably take a look at which houses are immediately
adjacent to canals and see where their consumption was for the past four months
because they will be pulling out from the canal.
Ms.
Zich asked how many people have wells?
Our house was built with a well.
All the houses in my area were built with wells. We use well water all of the time.
Mr.
Hanks responded not all of them have wells.
Ms.
Zich stated well I know the builders did not put them in the newer homes.
Mr.
Fennell stated I had to put in my own well.
My next door neighbor just had to redrill the well.
Mr.
Hanks asked do you know how much it cost to redrill a well?
Ms.
Zich responded we just had ours done a couple of years ago, but I do not know.
Mr.
Hanks asked are we talking $5,000 or $10,000?
Ms.
Zich responded no.
Mr.
Skehan stated probably $750.
Ms.
Zich stated I am thinking less than $1,000 to redrill it.
Mr.
Fennell asked is there any pattern for the people who actually use our water
for irrigation?
Mr.
Daly responded it is tough to say. I
would not know off the top of my head.
Mr.
Fennell stated if there was actually a large group near here, then we could
actually entertain the idea of water reuse.
I suspect it is 1 out of 50 people at best, scattered throughout the
area. We should look at this if we
can.
Mr.
Hanks stated you should get from Mr. Daly a picture of where the irrigation
meters are. Is this something you have?
Mr.
Daly responded I can tell you where irrigation is, who has one and who does
not.
Mr.
Fennell stated I think it is worth looking at just in case. One, maybe there is an opportunity there or
two, maybe there is not an opportunity there and we need to prove there is not
one.
Mr.
Daly stated it will be really easy because of all our routes. Shadowood is one route and
Mr.
Hanks stated whether you are drilling a well or a canal, your only expense is
your electrical expense.
Mr.
Daly stated exactly, but if we are looking at reuse, you want to know. No way are we going to talk to “Mr. Brown”. He is getting his water out of the canal or a
well. He would not be included in the
mix. We can get some data together.
Mr.
Fennell stated we probably should just because we need to be prepared in
knowing whether or not we are sure it is a good deal or not.
Mr.
Hanks stated maybe we should figure out by regulation where we are more likely
to send the water.
Mr.
Fennell stated obviously the closer the better.
Mr.
Hanks asked was the city ever under any type of restrictions?
Mr.
Cassel responded they were. When the
South Florida Water Management District came out with watering restrictions the
city and NSID were all under the same restrictions on watering.
Mr.
Hanks stated I think we also need to get a laymen’s summary as to what the
statutes are and the regulations are as far as where we can use the water.
Mr.
Skehan stated it is likely the South Florida Water Management District will
require a reuse feasibility study. It is
not exactly laymen’s, but it gets into an analysis as to what are likely
commercial enterprises, locally, that you can feasibly do this financially.
Mr.
Hanks stated years ago I worked on a project for FPL. Because they had food service out on the site,
there were certain restrictions as to where we could put the reuse and where we
had to make use of other irrigation systems.
I know there are different criteria.
I do not know what the restrictions are in terms of residential. Basically, whether it is an actual health
hazard or it is perceived as a health hazard.
Mr.
Skehan stated that would be tied into a reuse feasibility study. More often than not, on the financial
component of it, how expensive is it to treat it, how expensive is it to pipe
it, do you have customers for this reuse?
Then you will get into the regular component of it. What level you need the reuse water at. Does it need to be advanced? You know, high level disinfections so you
will go through some filters and heavily chlorinate it. That is your typical irrigation type of
reuse. If you want to get into something
which is going to be more rigorous funding, if it is going to be put into
cooling towers and the reuse water will be going up into the air, it can be
carried in a very defined vapor and that is not allowed in a commercial
district. There are other
restrictions.
Mr.
Cassel stated I think the key is to find out where the potential location is
and see the amount of customers. This
also gives the engineering firm the ability to push back if they are pushing us
for reuse to say, “Look, I only have X number of customers. The cost effectiveness of serving this number
of customers is not attainable for any kind of payback for reuse.”
Mr.
Daly stated the fact of looking at what it costs to treat the water; the
chemicals for next year and the transportation to get the chemicals here. If we are going to retreat water for reuse, I
would just say to forget about putting a well in the ground. I cannot guarantee as a District that the
water I am sending you today is going to be less than $1.00 a gallon next year
or the year after. All of a sudden it
becomes a cost of what our price is for this commodity and is it worth it. A big study needs to be done on this.
Mr.
Fennell stated some organization might try to find a punishment incentive for
us to do this. That is the problem. Nevertheless, let us first look. It will be nice if there actually is a good
use for the water. We would like to see
that. I suspect there is not, but we
will have a look. I was looking for A
and B on the expenditure of the debt service.
I see the 2002 Series are going to pay off just $65,000, but we are
going to pay $281,470 in interest on it.
Ms.
Woodward stated that is correct. I
confirmed this with US Bank. They
confirmed it is the right amount. We
have different layers being paid off at different times. I put together a chart, which I can make
available to you, where I actually put all three of the bond series side by
side. The intention when these bonds
were issued is that we have level debt service payments. What you will see when you put them side by
side is between the reduction in Series 2002, it allows you to pay off the 1992
Bond; 2009 and 2010 will be the last two years we pay on the 1992 Series. When one set is paid off the differential is
then moved over to the 2002 Bond. It
increases the amount you are paying in 2011 through 2014 so its a level debt
service for all of your series put together, but it is awkwardly structured.
Mr.
Hanks asked are we paying the interest rate first?
Ms.
Woodward responded we are paying off what we are required to pay off. We are scheduled to pay off the 1992 Series
in 2010. The balance of Series 2002 is
scheduled for final payment in the fiscal year ending in 2014. That coincides with when you issued the 2007
Bonds. If you recall from the closing
documents, there was the indication that your first principal payment was not
going to be made until 2015. You will
see because your prior series will all be paid off by then, those funds will be
available to put towards the 2007 debt service as well as the increases in the
rates on utilities. In combination it
helps you level off your cash flow to help you deal with your debt
service.
Ms.
Zich stated that is very interesting. I
did not realize it.
Mr.
Fennell stated I thought it might be a typo.
I would have expected to pay off $281,470 in debt and $65,000 in
interest. Is the divide in the water we
are using for next year the same as this year or the previous year? It was not so much the cost of the water, it
was the divide.
Mr.
Cassel responded the projections are based on this past year with the water
restrictions and the consumption that is there.
Mr.
Fennell stated okay. You are projecting
what we will see next year is if I have been looking at adopted versus actual,
I will not see such a large variation like I do now.
Mr.
Daly stated actually, we made up a lot.
At one time we were looking at about $1.2 Million in revenue for water
and sewer that we were going to be down.
That was the first two to three months when the fiscal year
started. Now you are at approximately
$600,000.
Mr.
Hanks asked are we still in compliance with the bond requirements in terms of
coverage?
Ms.
Woodward responded yes. If we can ultra
conservatively budget the revenues and we can still meet our debt service
coverage, we have comfort that if better things happen, restrictions are lifted
and there is more revenue coming in, we will be in the best of terms. We budget revenue to make certain you are not
going to be marginally close to having a problem on your debt service.
Ms.
Zich stated I have another question on repairs and maintenance. What is Valve Indent & Insert Program in
the amount of $25,000?
Mr.
Hanks responded there are a number of places where valves are not known, they
have been covered over or whatever, which leads to potential problems down the
road should there ever be a break having to take down a large number of
customers. My guess is this is a program
by which we are allocating a certain amount of money to go in there and put in
new valves.
Mr.
Cassel stated identifying lost valves is very critical. You usually have some kind of a valve
identification program. The insert would
be to go back in and be able to put a tube down the valve stem so you can turn
it off when you need to.
Mr.
Hanks stated or if there are situations where there are no valves, there are techniques
available so you can put in a line stop.
Mr.
Cassel stated do a hot tap with a valve and make it so you can shut off a fewer
number of people during an issue.
Mr.
Daly stated there are a lot of variables in this. If you have the money there and you do not
use it, such as the culvert cleaning where we had $150,000 in the budget for it
and never touched a penny of it last year, the fact is had we decided it needed
to be done the money was there and spoken for.
You will see a lot of that throughout this budget. It is not padded. It is cautious with regard to the fact you do
not have to borrow from Peter to pay Paul at the end of the year.
Mr.
Hanks asked are we taking any action on this?
Mr.
Daly responded there will be a few more changes made to the budget, only
because you will be voting on one thing today with regard to worker’s
compensation. We have gotten a much
better number than originally expected.
Mr.
Fennell stated overall it looks as if we will be in good shape next year. You are projecting a surplus of approximately
$900,000. Even after we take out some
required reserves for renewal and replacement, there is probably about
$600,000. You have a $400,000 surplus
this year, despite the conditions we are in.
Somebody has done an excellent job of maintaining costs to fit the
budget. I have to say great job because
in a trying year where our main product is down, you have been able to cut back
expenses. That is great because it
allows us to still serve our customers and not have to do anything
drastic.
Ms.
Zich stated that is really good because our customers would not like a
surcharge.
Mr.
Fennell asked did someone take time to look at electricity since it is a $1
Million a year expense?
Mr.
Daly responded Mr. Hyche did contact a gentleman. It is actually not feasible to have a company
come out. It is going to cost us over
$10,000 to do an efficient analysis. We
are doing other things. Mr. Cassel, do
you want to comment on the energy audit we talked about with Mr. Hyche and why we
probably are not going to go in that direction?
Mr.
Cassel responded yes. It is due to a
couple of things; one is the cost of it and two is what we already have in
place. For the type of pumps, motors,
etcetera that we are running, we are as efficient as we are going to get. You might be able to save in one or two
areas. The cost to get there far exceeds
any savings. FPL is going to reevaluate
some of the transformer boxes and will look at how we are set up.
Mr.
Daly stated one thing Mr. Hyche is doing is having our electrician take out
some of the lights and put them on photoelectric motion detectors because you
really do not need this place lit up like a Christmas tree at night. That is going to be taken care of. We already have our air conditioners on
timers. We are doing some little things.
Mr.
Hanks stated so you are taking the approach there are known things we can do.
Mr.
Daly stated that is correct. As far as
the big motors and things, we have nothing to look forward to with our old
plant as far as electricity goes.
Mr.
Hanks asked how many motors will the new plant have?
Mr.
Skehan responded there will be a lot of motors out there.
Mr.
Hanks asked do you know how many?
Mr.
Skehan responded there is one large pump per train for the membrane feed pumps. That is where the largest usage will be. There are other smaller motors, which range
from 2 to 3 horsepower pumps all the way up to 200 horsepower pumps. There is a wide range in what the size of the
pumps and motors will be.
Mr.
Fennell asked so what is FPL going to do for us?
Mr.
Daly responded I will have to talk to Mr. Hyche about the specifics of it. He has a list.
Mr.
Fennell stated maybe there is somebody from Severn Trent who can come in as
part of our normal services and check.
Mr.
Cassel stated I will check on that.
Mr.
Fennell stated I noticed we spend $200,000 disposing of waste products. Is this worth bidding out?
Mr.
Cassel responded Mr. Hyche keeps an eye on that. I believe he has done it recently. I will double check with him and get back to
you on it.
Mr.
Daly stated this year we will also bid the uniforms contract. It is coming to the end of its term and we
already know we will probably get a better price. Mr. Hyche is on his way over. He should be here soon.
Mr.
Fennell asked are there any other comments or questions on this budget?
Mr.
Hanks responded no. Do we need to set a
date or make a motion?
Mr.
Lyles responded it has already been set by resolution at the previous meeting.
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Arbitrage Rebate Engagement Letter(s) with Deloitte Tax, LLP
A.
$21,915,000 General Obligation Water and
Sewer Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 1992
B.
$9,120,000 General Obligation Water and
Sewer Refunding Bonds, Series 2002
C.
$43,255,000 Subordinate Water and Sewer
Bonds, Series 2007
Mr.
Fennell stated I read through these and I still do not know exactly what we are
getting for $1,500 a piece.
Mr.
Hanks asked after we spend all of this money are we going to get something out
of it?
Mr.
Lyles responded this is to avoid paying a penalty. This is required. You are not allowed to make money on the
float for tax exempt bond issues you have partaken of under the tax code. You are required to do arbitrage rebate
calculations so you in essence file a form of tax return with the government
indicating you did not make excess money on interest calculations while you
were holding the money before you spent it.
It is a lot more complicated than this.
I am not a tax expert, but you are required to do this to ensure you are
within the federal rules on arbitrage, which is earning money on tax exempt
interest you have. If you issued the
bonds at 7% and you are earning 9%, you have a 2% profit you are making there
is no tax paid on. That is a simplistic
example. Ms. Woodward may be better off
explaining this.
Ms.
Woodward stated that is a perfect example.
The computation is done annually, but in truth there is only one time when
there will be a true up and a check is or is not written. This is when you pay off the bond. If you issue a 25 year bond, you are going to
make 25 annual computations. When you
get to the final computation it is an accumulative computation from the date
you issued the bond. When the final
computation is made in 25 years and you paid off the bond, if there is a true liability,
the District will have to write out a check to Uncle Sam.
Mr.
Hanks asked because the aggregate of this is an excess of $4,000, is this a
service which has to go for bid?
Mr.
Lyles responded no.
Mr.
Hanks asked are there any concerns in the subject of the agreement?
Mr.
Lyles responded yes. We probably could
have looked at it sooner, but it actually was not the subject of a document
that was circulated. It was just in your
agenda package. I do have some heartburn
as your counsel over the paragraphs on their responsibility to you if they
commit an act of negligence which ends up costing you money. They have capped their damages in that event
at essentially refunding the fees which were paid. You might get $1,500 for a $50,000 loss you
incur. They also require the District
indemnify them if there are any claims arising out of their performance of this
unless they act in bad faith or there is intentional misconduct, which is a
very high standard that will be impossible to prove. We need to work on the damages and
indemnification provisions of this agreement.
I do not know what the timing is on this or if you have to approve it
now.
Mr.
Woodward stated it is not a crisis. The
only one which could actually be computed now is the 1992 Series because it was
issued in June. We are in a position to
give them the 12 months worth of statements from US Bank and they can start the
computation, but they can start it another month from now.
Mr.
Lyles stated I would like to get them to work with us on all of the disclaimers
they have on liabilities and the indemnification. That would be considered kind of an
informational report and maybe we can bring it back for final vote at the next
meeting.
Mr.
Hanks asked what are the benefits to having an outside firm do these calculations
versus doing them in-house? Do we have
the capabilities to do it in-house?
Ms.
Woodward responded I would feel more comfortable if someone else was doing this
computation, but by the same token they want to make certain if there were
claims brought up, they will not be held responsible.
Mr.
Hanks stated if we are paying $4,500 at our own risk and they are not budging
on it, do it in-house. If you feel
reasonably confident on this, we might as well do it in-house.
Mr.
Lyles stated we can look at that as well.
As a fall back.
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in
favor the arbitrage rebate engagement letters with Deloitte Tax, LLP were
tabled until the next meeting pending further review from counsel.
FOURTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion
of Proposed Water and Sewer Budget for Fiscal Year 2009 (Continued)
Mr.
Daly stated Mr. Hyche has joined us and will be happy to answer any questions
you might have.
Ms.
Zich stated the $25,000 for Valve Indent & Insert Program, I do not know
anything about this.
Mr.
Hanks stated tell us about it.
Mr.
Hyche stated you caught me by surprise.
Let me take a look at it.
Ms.
Zich stated it is on page 19 near the bottom.
Mr.
Hyche stated that is your valve replacement program.
Mr.
Cassel stated for identification of valve replacements.
Mr.
Hyche stated yes.
Mr.
Cassel stated Mr. Hanks, you are right on the money.
Mr.
Hyche stated street valves get paved over quite a bit.
Mr.
Fennell asked is there any other question?
Mr.
Hanks responded sludge hauling.
Mr.
Hyche asked sludge hauling under H&H Sludge or DRD Enterprises?
Mr.
Hanks responded if we are going out and bidding these things.
Mr.
Hyche stated I doubt you would get another bidder for your sledge hauling. H&H Sludge is going to be the one that
does the land application, which is what we use with our solids from the
wastewater. I doubt you can get another
bidder on that. I guess it is possible
to go out to bid for it. DRD
Enterprises, the last time we went out to bid for that, they were the lowest
bidder.
Mr.
Hanks stated this will be once the nanoplant comes along.
Mr.
Hyche stated once the membrane plant comes in.
That is correct.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Work Authorizations
A. WA No. 47 – Dumpster Pad Design
This item was pulled from the agenda.
B.
Amendment to WA No. 42 – Pump Station #1
and #2 for a Net Increase of $3,600
Mr. Fennell asked why are we paying $3,600?
Ms.
Early responded it is basically due to the city. For example, we went back again for the
permit. The door manufacturer went out
of business so we had to get it from another company, which their doors are
better. The city wanted us to revise the
drawings. We had to revise the
drawings. The contractor took a bad hit
again and there was a three week waiting period. There were so many other things. We are trying to work with South Florida
Water Management District to move the fence out of where the canal bank is
caving in. That was a couple week process. They came back to us and told us if they let
us do it, it will be a 90 day permit. We
said, “forget it.”
Mr.
Hanks asked why does the city care if it is under one contractor or two?
Ms.
Early responded I have no idea. That was
an argument I had with the city.
Mr.
Hanks stated you could go back to the city and tell them it does not
matter.
Ms.
Early stated I told them the District bid one contract for all of this work. They wanted separate plans. I convinced them into making two separate books
because they wanted the District to have two separate contracts. I told them it was too late. It was already done. I made two books and highlighted the
different costs.
Mr.
Hanks stated as far as the plans. I am
surprised you have them all on the same set of plans. They are different distinct locations and
structures.
Mr.
Fennell stated so this $3,600 is going to CH2M Hill.
Mr.
Early stated we had separate sheets for each pump station. Everything else was separate. There were four or five sheets we had to
change.
Mr.
Hanks stated I understand the problems you have with the city. I have been through those as well, but some
of these approaches come out to $3,600.
Inspection services comes out to $25,000. You are a creative engineering firm. There are two distinct locations for permits. They put them on the same set of plans and
try to permit them together.
Ms.
Early stated we did not do the permitting.
The permitting is being done by the general contractor. We did not have to pull the permits for the
design. We had to pull permits for the
roofing. I had to send it out to
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in
favor Amendment to WA No. 42 for pump stations #1 and #2 for a net increase of
$3,600 was denied.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Manager
i. Consideration
of Meeting Schedule for Fiscal Year 2009
Mr.
Mr.
Fennell asked I assume you looked at February, right?
Mr.
Cassel responded yes.
Ms.
Zich stated I looked at the holidays and they covered them.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in
favor the meeting schedule for fiscal year 2009 was approved.
ii.
Consideration of Commercial Workers’
Compensation and Pollution Liability Insurance
Mr. Cassel stated staff went out and secured bids for next
year’s workers’ compensation. PGIT came
in with the best premium. As you can see
the Florida League of Cities would have been $81,468. FHM was $85,615 and PGIT is coming in at
$69,580 for workers’ compensation.
Mr.
Fennell stated I assume it is the same coverage we already have.
Mr.
Cassel stated yes.
Mr.
Hanks asked are there any concerns with these insurers and how they get their
resources?
Mr.
Daly responded we have PGIT for our general liability coverage as well. You had asked the question a few months back
when we were going through the SBA issue.
In no way, shape or form are they included in or do business like what
had happened with SBA.
Mr.
Hanks stated is that through the agent?
Mr.
Daly responded that is correct.
Mr.
Hanks asked does that agent represent the other two companies?
Mr.
Daly responded yes.
Mr.
Hanks stated so he had other dogs in the race.
Mr.
Cassel stated that is correct.
Mr.
Daly stated we had the Florida League of Cities here for years. Two years ago the District was spending
$100,000 for workers’ compensation insurance.
Now we have a proposal for $69,580.
A lot of it has to do with the fact management has kept workers’
compensation related incidents down to almost zero. We probably had two this year and they were
very minor.
Mr.
Hanks asked did Severn Trent come out recently and do a safety analysis?
Mr.
Cassel responded yes.
Mr.
Hanks asked do the insurance companies recognize that?
Mr.
Daly responded they do to a degree. We
also invited PGIT to come out unannounced.
Because we have them as our carrier for workers’ compensation we invited
them out. We deal with the company for
general liability as well. They did a
safety audit. They went to the lift
stations. They went in the tanks. They went all over. Today we saw the last of the report. We are so far ahead of most other people out
there with regard to OCIA requirements that will be mandated in two years for
everyone. There are just a few things
like a defibrillator. We might want to
put in a few more eye wash stations, but for the most part we are right where
we need to be. Mr. Cassel is more than
aware, because we meet weekly, that management is on top of safety equipment. We are making sure there are safety checks
done, spot checks and we have conferences with the crews. We are really big on this kind of stuff. PGIT did this for us free of charge. If we would do it on our own it would have
cost more than $1,000. We recommend
using PGIT because of the price and because of the company they are. They mean what they say and they say what
they mean. They back us up with all
sorts of training material. It is
great. These are things we did not get
from our former workers’ compensation carrier.
Mr.
Fennell asked do you have this budgeted?
Mr.
Daly responded yes we do.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in
favor the proposal for workers’ compensation insurance coverage through PGIT in
the amount of $69,580 was approved.
Mr.
Cassel stated the second item under that is pollution liability insurance with
Illinois Union Insurance Company.
Mr.
Hanks asked is this a new creation by insurance companies? I have never heard of this.
Mr.
Cassel responded no. We had it in the
past.
Mr.
Daly stated last year we paid $7,014.
Mr.
Hanks stated and we are at $5,000 this year.
Mr.
Cassel stated $5,000 and we are going to add the terrorism rider premium of
$250 on it.
Mr.
Fennell asked what does that mean?
Mr.
Cassel responded if someone were to come over, do something to the plant as an
act of terrorism and creates a pollution issue, it helps to cover it.
Mr.
Fennell asked how much will the coverage be?
Mr.
Cassel responded it is $5,000 without it and $5,250 with it.
Mr.
Fennell asked if something were to go wrong, how much money would they pay out?
Mr.
Cassel responded $1 Million per occurance.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in
favor the pollution liability insurance coverage through Illinois Union
Insurance Company with the terrorism rider premium in the total amount of
$5,250 was approved.
iii. Monthly Water and Sewer Charts
Mr.
Hyche stated I put in the lift station hour runs and how it corresponds with
the effluent flow to the wastewater treatment plant.
Mr.
Fennell asked what is the conclusion?
Mr.
Hyche responded I’m going to see what type of infiltration we are actually
seeing.
Mr.
Fennell stated we had talked about whether or not we want to automate some of
the lift stations as far as the levels go and being able to understand when
they get close to overflowing. The worst
case scenario I see is when we have a hurricane and we are running around to
all the lift stations. Do we know enough
to know which ones to go to?
Mr.
Hyche responded yes.
Mr.
Cassel stated in your annual emergency response reports you have to identify
all the critical lift stations within the system. They already have it drilled down as to which
lift stations are critical and what their pump times are in an emergency
response for the terrorism book Homeland Security requires. He already has it drilled down as to which
ones are most critical. He knows exactly
in the whole flow and scheme, which stations and how he can pump them at a
sequence to keep them down and flowing to the plant.
Mr.
Hanks asked is our fuel situation taken care of?
Mr.
Hyche responded everything is taken care of and we are ready to go.
Mr.
Hanks stated you got propane out to the pump stations.
Mr.
Hyche stated prior to hurricane season I had a company come out and clean out
our gasoline tanks so we do not have any problems with algae or moisture. We clean up the fuel left in there prior to
the next hurricane season and we will top them off again.
Mr.
Fennell asked is that needed?
Mr.
Hyche responded yes.
iv.
Utility Billing Work Orders
Mr. Hanks asked are these normal seasonal variations within
the misreads?
Mr.
Daly responded I do not know. It is only
two more than last month.
Mr.
Fennell stated I want to congratulate everyone in this room who has been
watching expenses.
Mr.
Daly stated there are a lot of little things Mr. Fredericks and his men are
looking at to see if they can do it as oppose to getting an outside
contractor. These are very capable
individuals.
EIGHTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of Financials and Check Registers
A.
Projected Cash Flows
B.
Summary of Cash Transactions
Ms.
Zich stated I just have one comment on the assessment collections. If you look at the current gross, there was
$125,216.24 collected in July. How come
so much was collected in July? Is it
because there are so many people not paying their taxes?
Mr.
Hanks responded I completely missed that.
Ms.
Zich stated it was just so high. It is
reflecting $125,216.24 in July. Normally
we collect it all the way up in November and December. It is nice we are collecting $125,216.24 in
July, but it was due last November.
Ms.
Woodward stated it is probably due to tax certificates for people who were not
able to pay their bills on time.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in
favor the financials and check registers were approved.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
(Continued)
B. Attorney
Mr.
Lyles stated I have nothing more to report.
C.
Engineer
i.
Project Status Update
ii.
Project Status Report
iii.
Drawdown Schedule
Mr.
Hanks stated I have one thing I would like to bring up with regard to the
Broward County Surface Water Coordination Committee. They are asking there be a technical
representative from the District as well.
I just wanted to bring this up and get input as to who can be the
technical representative.
Mr.
Cassel stated I would say initially Mr. Hyche and we will utilize CH2M Hill as
back up.
Mr.
Hanks stated okay.
Mr.
Daly stated Mr. Hyche attended a meeting with some of his employees with regard
to our own plant. He said every Board
member should go to the meeting to find out some of the things about what we
just purchased and what we are about to put in.
Next time there is a meeting, we will be happy to invite you to
come. We have money in the budget for
it. It is education for the Board
members. It is something he was adamant
about. He feels you really need to see
what this is going to do for us.
Mr.
Fennell asked what is happening with the pilot testing?
Mr.
Cassel responded it is in the engineer’s report under Section 7C.
Mr.
Skehan stated the equipment is expected for delivery soon and then it has to be
set up to proceed with it onsite. It is
part of what will be taking place next month.
Mr.
Hanks stated you have the landscape berms in.
Ms.
Early stated I called the city several times.
We are still going back and forth on whether they can give me a letter
on just the berm.
Mr.
Skehan stated they are now asking questions about when the rest of the site
plan is going to be implemented. It was
previously explained to them what we were trying to accomplish was to satisfy
the city’s complaint. They were adamant
about it being resolved.
Mr.
Hanks stated we have to be careful with what the city has associated with the
site plan. We need to get going on
it. There is a timeline for expiration
on site plans. We are barely going to be
putting a shovel in the ground for some of this stuff and the site plan will be
past its expiration.
Mr.
Skehan stated the site plan is in the process of being revised right now to
capture all of the new structures which are going to be built. Part of the frustration is we have these
conversations with the city and they seem to forget them.
Mr.
Hanks stated follow up. Send emails to
them so at least it has been out there and circulated.
Mr.
Skehan stated we have done that. Their
expectations of what is tied to how things get done and what is reasonable are
often times significantly different to what you would see in other
locations. We are still trying to get
this component resolved.
Ms.
Early stated they indicated they saw the berm and it is not that they are
unhappy with it. They just want to check
off everything else. They are not
willing to give me something in writing.
Mr. Powers asked when the rest of it was going to be finished. He is acting like he anticipates a lot more
landscape going in.
Mr.
Skehan stated part of the discussions related to additional landscaping which
was going to take place primarily on the east side of the facility. The discussion we had before, which made
sense, was that it would be part of the new building. There was no misunderstanding about it at the
time. At this point it sounds like we
have to go back in and remind whoever it was of those discussions.
Ms.
Early stated I called them back and left a message saying there was a meeting
on such date and what was discussed with whom.
The priority was to get this permit first and I wanted to make sure the
city is happy with phase one, which is the berm.
Mr.
Hanks asked are we going to go through the breakdown with the city to get
things moving?
Mr.
Skehan responded we just heard of this recently for the first time. We are in the preliminary stages of getting
everything together. We will talk to
them early next week.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There
being no further business,
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in
favor the meeting was adjourned.
Glen Hanks
Robert
D. Fennell
Secretary President