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
Sharon Zich Vice President
Glen Hanks Secretary
Also present were:
Dan Daly Interim Manager
Ed Goscicki Co-Manager –
Dennis Lyles District Counsel
Jane Early District Engineer –
CH2M-Hill
Sean Skehan CH2M-Hill
Isabelo Rodriguez CH2M-Hill
Cedo DaSilva CH2M-Hill
David Green CH2M-Hill
Kevin Mulshine Prager,
Sealy & Company
Denise Ganz Ruden, McClosky, et.
al.
John McKune District Capital Improvement
Coordinator
Doug Hyche CSID Utilities
Director
Randy Frederick CSID
Drainage Supervisor
Jim Aversa Chief Operator –
Wastewater
Kay Woodward CSID Accountant
Jan Zilmer CSID Human
Resources
Numerous Residents
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr.
Goscicki called the meeting to order and called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of
the August 20, 2007 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr. Daly stated on pages two, all
instances of “Mr. Mulshine” should be “Mr. Bill Benson” from Keefe, McCullough.
Ms. Zich stated on page three, the
statement “I did many of these and I am amazed at the amount of material”
should be “I did many of these and I am amazed at the amount of time it took to
complete the audit.”
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Hanks
with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Public
Hearing to Consider Adoption of the Water and Wastewater Fund Budget for Fiscal
Year 2008 (Resolution 2007-13)
Mr.
Fennell opened the public hearing. Are
there any comments from the public?
Not
hearing any,
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the public hearing
was closed.
Mr.
Fennell stated we just signed the bonds and I want to thank everyone who was a
part of this endeavor. I also want to
thank Mr. Hanks and Ms. Zich who have been performing heroic efforts over the
bond issue and the budgets. Without
their effort we would not have the kind of District we currently have. Thanks to the public service of Ms. Zich and
Mr. Hanks, this is all possible.
Ms.
Zich stated I want to thank Mr. Fennell.
He does a great job.
Mr.
Fennell stated the District is in good shape and moving in a great direction.
Mr.
Daly stated Ms. Zich met with Ms. Woodward and me in regards to the budget and
financials. I do not know if this was
unbeknownst to the Board but this meeting was helpful and beneficial. Mr. Fennell has been open about the direction
he wants to take and we are appreciative.
Mr.
Fennell asked are there any further questions or comments on the budget?
Mr.
Daly responded the Board was concerned about the interest income and felt the
numbers were slightly conservative. As a
result, we changed the Interest on State
Board Funds from 3% to 5.25% and Interest
Earnings Trust Accounts from 4% to 4.50%.
Mr.
Fennell stated sounds good. This means
we can get a couple of hundred thousand dollars.
Mr.
Daly stated correct. The idea was this
was originally a conservative budget.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we tried to be conservative on your revenue in terms of
underestimating revenue and overestimating your expenditures to make sure you
are in the positive at the end of the year.
Mr.
Daly stated there was another issue with regard to percentages for raises. They will be close to where they were last
year. What was the overall increase?
Mr.
Zilmer responded the overall increase to last year’s budget was 3.1%, which was
based on performance appraisals. In
reality, there was an increase of 2.8% because we did not fill open positions
last year. We are actually increasing
the budget by $63,000. For our 63
employees, the increase ranged from 5% to 2% based on attendance.
Mr.
Hanks stated the drainage canals in CSID look good but I want to make sure the
employees keep the canals clean but still address the water and sewer
components as we just authorized $42 million in bonds. By the time we finish paying off the bonds,
we will end up with $4 to $5 million, which is a great deal of money. I want to make sure we are making the best
use of the staff we have and not in the position of where we have people
sitting around.
Mr.
Zilmer stated you only have four employees involved with drainage/canal
maintenance and they are not sitting around.
Mr.
Daly stated with Mr. Frederick’s direction, they go above and beyond. You have seen the compliment letters. Mr. Frederick should be the one they look up
to as far as customer service. Over the
past few months, we required more of our employees. We have a graph showing every ½ hour what
they are doing, where they are, who they report to, etc. Saying we had three water breaks and it took
all day to repair them, does not tell me anything. Unless you know what the workload is, you
cannot analyze it and make it more efficient.
They are doing their work with a smile on their face. We will always wonder whether we need a crew
or have them do other things. The whole
idea is for them to do other things, for example, the fire hydrant painting
program. In one hour they should be able
to drive “x” amount of streets and identify “x” amount of fire hydrants and put
them on a map. We
will get them on a CAD drawing and send them to the City of
Mr.
Hanks stated I do not want to get into the cutting of personnel because in an
emergency situation, we need these people around. We are going to need these people to clear
blockages and handle the lift stations.
Mr.
Daly stated we are now looking at things, which have not been looked at in
years. The whole idea is to make the
place a little better.
Mr.
Fennell stated one of the things helping us is having Mr. Daly here taking on
an on-site, operational characteristic and assisting with the smaller jobs.
Mr.
Goscicki stated since Mr. Daly has taken on the roll, you truly have an
Operations Manager overseeing the operation from a business perspective; not
only seeing if the samples are being collected correctly or whether the
treatment plant was operating properly; but whether we have the accountability
systems and cost controls in place. Mr.
Daly has taken a major effort in moving this accountability forward. This is something we will talk about more
under the manager’s report.
Mr.
Hanks stated engineering fees are not reflective of our capital projects
budget.
Mr.
Goscicki stated correct.
Mr.
Hanks asked are the costs allocated in construction costs over the course of
the next five years?
Mr.
Goscicki responded you need to spend $39,000 over the next three years.
Mr.
Hanks stated over the next three years, we are going to be spending $4 million
in engineering fees. The engineering
fees listed here are $50,000.
Mr.
Daly stated it is going to be in the Capital Budget because the monies will
come out of the bond proceeds. The
Capital Budget will be effective as of right now because the bonds will be
closing tomorrow.
Mr.
Goscicki stated there is a debt service component because all of your capital
is now being funded through debt and is included in this budget.
Mr.
Fennell stated it looks like we are going to bring in $500,000 more in revenue
and do a fair job of holding down the costs.
We need this additional money set aside, even though it says Available for Debt Service and the Project Surplus, in order to have
funds. We need to set up different
accounts. I do not see it in this
budget.
Mr.
Goscicki stated you are not seeing it in your annual budget due to how we
structured the entire five year rate structure with capitalized interest in the
first year. You do not need the revenue
from the rate you are currently putting into place this year to meet your debt
service coverage today but you will need it next year and the year after. Some revenue is going to be accounted for as
surplus in the overall cashflow projections we worked out in terms of how much
money we needed to borrow. It is also
accounted for in the five year program.
Ms.
Woodward stated I recalled one component where out of the $591,000 for
Projected Surplus, if you drop below the debt coverage of 1.29%, you will
notice we have to use $331,000 out of the $591,000 for renewal and
replacement. This is a requirement of
the new bonds.
Mr.
Fennell stated I was happy to see a cashflow sheet. Over the next three years, this document is
going to become more important than the monthly budget. I am convinced we are going to maintain our
budget. What can go awry fairly quickly are
the capital expenditures. This is what
we want to see every month.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we actually used forms in other districts showing what was
budgeted for the project, what was encumbered to date, what was spent to date
and the remaining balance on the project.
You will be able to see what we encumbered and awarded for a
contract. For example, if we awarded a
contract for $5 million, we will show what has been allocated and what the
actual cashflow is in terms of what we spent to date against the budget. We will track it on a monthly basis.
Mr.
Fennell stated we need certain kinds of supervision; one is good engineering,
another is good fiscal oversight and the last one is good management
oversight. This will be important for us
over the next three years.
Mr.
Hanks asked are the rest of Mr. McKune’s services shown in the capital budget?
Mr.
Daly responded yes, with the exception of $4,000, which was held until some
invoices were paid.
Mr.
Hanks asked what are we looking at in terms of the overall picture for
projected engineering services for the next year?
Mr.
Goscicki responded in the draft budget, we put Mr. McKune’s fees upfront so you
could see them. We projected $80,000 for
this fiscal year. However, the Board
felt it should be capitalized as part of the budget. As a result, we took it out but brought it
forward so the Board could see it last month.
Ms.
Zich asked are we going to get a monthly update?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes.
Mr.
Fennell stated this is what we are asking for because we are spending as much
money on our capital budget as we are on the operations budget. We have $8 million in our operations budget
and are going to be spending $8 in our capital budget.
Mr.
Daly stated you asked what you can expect.
In May of 2006, the Board spent $450,000 in engineering fees alone but we
have only paid $250,000 so far and have another $200,000 to go.
Mr.
Fennell stated next month we are going to see a capital and cashflow update,
not only for operations but for capital, as well as the usual schedules.
Mr.
Hanks stated Postage increased by
$3,000. Why did this item increase if we
are not mailing our agenda packages and they are being delivered to us?
Mr.
Goscicki responded most of the postage was for the water and sewer bills.
Ms.
Zich stated $31,000 was expended for the water and sewer bills.
Mr.
Hanks asked is the Communication Expense
for website setup and operation going to cost $30,000?
Mr.
Goscicki responded this was the consulting fee amount we budgeted for Ron Sachs
Communications last year. It is an
allocation we moved into this year’s budget when we terminated the agreement
with Ron Sachs Communications. We have
enough money to hire someone to provide technical support.
Mr.
Hanks asked is this an optional line item?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes. You may spend
this money or may not spend it at all.
Mr.
Hanks stated we need to have some public relation involvement.
Mr.
Fennell stated we definitely need to have a newsletter and public relations for
our constituents. We need to communicate
with them on a regular basis.
Mr.
Daly stated we had a meeting last Friday with Mr. Hyche, Mr. Zilmer and Ms.
Woodward in regards to the newsletter and have already come up with some
topics. We will put it together here as
best we can and seek outside help if necessary.
We should have a draft for the Board to review at the next meeting.
Mr.
Hanks stated we budgeted $20,000 for Electronic Document Storage last
year. We did not pay anything this year
and budgeted $20,000 again for next year.
Mr.
Daly stated Mr. Petty felt strongly about budgeting money for utilizing the
city’s resources, which we did not have.
It was left in the budget to see if we could get the manpower.
Mr.
Hanks asked what about management fees?
Mr.
Goscicki responded we did not do anything with the management fees. The current budget reflects only a 3%
increase. Obviously this is something we
need to discuss as we move forward. We
have a proposal to present to the Board today for your review.
Mr.
Hanks asked is this based on past practice?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes. There may be
some opportunities to reduce this fee, depending on what we do.
Mr.
Hanks asked where do we stand with the actual revenue projected from outside
billing fees, rent for the facilities and shared employees? How do these items look for the fiscal year
going forward? Are we sharing them with
other districts? Can the budget endure
if the other districts choose not to go forward?
Mr.
Daly responded the Board of Supervisors for each of the districts will have to
make up their own minds. It is down this
year compared to where it had been last year with the onset of Severn Trent
Services taking the accounting component of NSID in-house. This component of our revenue stream is no
longer being used by CSID.
Mr.
Hanks stated we do not have the personnel.
Mr.
Daly stated correct. This has been taken
care of to a certain degree. The water
and sewer as well as drainage was approved in NSID and the other two drainage
districts. The numbers originally going
into their budget came from this office.
Have they been altered?
Mr.
Goscicki responded no. As the District
Manager for Pine Tree and NSID, both of those Boards recognize the synergies
and benefits of having a working relationship with CSID. The only change from the current year to the
upcoming fiscal year, as Mr. Daly pointed out was the accounting, where there
were not much synergies. There were
isolated individual resources rather than a company resource. This decision was made by Pine Tree, NSID and
Sunshine to take their accounting in-house.
The remaining functions such as personnel, customer service and general
oversight of the operations through their joint use of an operations manager
and some of the other technical resources were seen as a benefit and I do not
see this changing going forward.
Mr.
Fennell asked since we now have a reliable computer, can we handle more
business?
Mr.
Daly responded definitely.
Mr.
Fennell stated I intend to use my resources fully.
Mr.
Goscicki stated your computer system is a big part of this utility billing
system and you continue to provide service to a number of districts, one of which
is the Riverwood Improvement District.
They are happy with the service they get from CSID. STS is both the manager and operations
company for this District but for the billing, they said “If it is not broken,
do not fix it and leave it alone with Mr. Daly.
Mr.
Daly stated this has to do with the fact the attorney left the District and all
of the District Managers have moved on.
Only two people know anything about the history of the District; which
is me and a Severn Trent Services employee.
Mr.
Fennell stated we have the resources for a new system and should ensure we can
expand this to a point of where you feel comfortable we are not overusing. Along those lines, we are going to make sure
we had agreements with the other districts.
Mr.
Daly stated I noticed in the August minutes of 2006 where it was discussed but
I am not sure whether or not there was a directive to get this in writing.
Mr.
Lyles stated we have been trying to formalize these relationships and are
working on drafts. We will continue
working with Mr. Daly to get those agreements in place.
Mr.
Goscicki stated Sunshine WCD changed management companies. Since the same management company is not
involved, they are anxious in formalizing some of those relationships.
Mr.
Fennell stated we can make sure we have good service through the other groups so
they know what is expected and we know what is expected.
Mr.
Daly stated exactly.
Mr.
Hanks asked are there any concerns from Mr. Hyche, Mr. Frederick and Ms. Early regarding
this budget in terms of too much money being allocated or not enough money being
allocated?
Mr.
Hyche responded not for me personally as far as the operation. Mr. Daly and I discussed this budget several
times and we whittled it down as much as we could.
Mr.
Frederick stated it appears appropriate for what we know now.
Ms.
Early stated I am comfortable with it.
Mr.
Hanks stated are there any reservations with it?
Mr.
Frederick responded I am worried about some increased chemical expenses, which I
was not aware of.
Ms.
Zich stated the budget is just an estimate.
As you know, prices go up.
Mr.
Frederick stated I put in a 5% increase for chemicals but the actual was not
what I expected.
Mr.
Daly stated you may have noticed the chemicals were broken out. Ms. Woodward had painstakingly gone through
invoice after invoice to break out what it would have been last year had we not
done this. It is still going to increase
$100,000 more this next fiscal year than last fiscal year. I could not believe this number.
Mr.
Hanks asked how does it compare? Did we
do a comparison? We switched chemicals
to save money.
Mr.
Goscicki stated there was an increase between the cost of chlorine gas and
liquid chlorine on a per pound basis.
Mr.
Hyche stated this was done through risk management.
Mr.
Hanks asked did we receive a reduction in our insurance rate when we eliminated
the chlorine gas?
Mr.
Daly responded not to my knowledge but I can check.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we performed cost comparisons on bulk chemicals and to my
surprise, we found out some of the prices you were getting were better than
some of the prices Severn Trent Services received. You received better governmental prices than
group prices across the state.
Mr.
Daly stated I told Mr. Hyche we need to prove this $100,000 increase and there were
two ways to do so. One way is to find
the financing to make this happen. Severn
Trent Services was nice enough to assist us.
Another way was not to do anything and find out what we used quantity
wise and then multiply by the current cost to see if we are in the
ballpark. Unbelievably, there figures
came out to be correct.
Mr.
Hanks asked did this budget reflect the savings we had from eliminating most of
the overages?
Mr.
Daly responded we still have it.
Mr.
Hyche stated we eliminated the areas where we had overages. You have to go back two years to see a
difference.
Mr.
Daly stated in addition, Mr. Aversa, our Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator is
taking a daily inventory of the level in the tank because it is like liquid
gold. He is noting when a person comes
in to fill the tank up and checks the invoices to make sure he gave us what was
ordered.
Mr.
Hanks stated I am happy with the budget.
Mr.
Goscicki stated as part of the budget process, we provided Resolution 2007-13
for the Board to consider.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor Resolution 2007-13 Adopting
the Final Water and Wastewater Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 was adopted.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Request for
Right-of-Way Permit for Monitoring Well in Canal L-106
Mr.
Goscicki stated a consultant from DEP contacted us requesting permission to
install a monitoring well to see if dry cleaning fluids worked their way into
the ground water table.
Mr.
McKune stated this is for the dry cleaning place on
Mr.
Daly asked near Crown Liquors?
Mr.
McKune responded next door.
Mr.
Fennell asked what necessitates the need for staff to install a monitoring
well?
Mr.
McKune responded they already picked up some contamination. The plume is moving in a southwesterly
direction towards us. I do not foresee
this being a problem.
Mr.
Hanks asked what expense will we incur by installing the monitoring well?
Mr.
Hyche responded they are installing the well and paying for it.
Mr.
Hanks asked are they going to pump the toxins out or let them disburse?
Mr.
McKune responded in a prior request, the applicant pumped it out for three to
four months and spent a great deal of money.
Although they did not totally remove the toxins, they let it
disburse. This works depending on what
the contaminant is. This plume is much
smaller than the one before.
Ms.
Zich stated I do not understand this at all.
Mr.
Fennell stated no one knows why, because we do not see anyone do it, but people
dump dry cleaning fluid on the ground, which percolates into the ground and
contaminates our water. We had the same
problem eight years ago. It turns out
where the fluid was dumped was only about three to four blocks from here. Since our wells naturally draw the ground
water towards us, so the plume they contaminated moved into our canals and
towards the water supply. It was a big
deal.
Ms.
Zich asked how do you find out this is occurring?
Mr.
Hanks responded depending on what type of chemicals and what business they are
in, the state and county regulates it and imposes certain fines and installs
monitoring wells.
Mr.
Fennell stated we were concerned about this to the point of our wells getting shut
down and contaminated. This ended up at
the city after we started drilling additional wells.
Mr.
Hyche stated we sent a great deal of money sampling.
Mr.
Fennell stated it was touch and go for awhile.
There was a canal behind the dry cleaners and a school who used the
ground water for irrigation of the grass where the kids played. They came in with diagrams of the plume
expanding over time. They put a drill in
there and cleaned the ground water by pumping it up and then back in. There was a trailer sitting out there for at
least six months.
Ms.
Zich stated this is interesting to know.
Thank you for explaining this to me.
I was not aware of it.
Mr.
Hanks stated I want to put on the record we are allowing them to make use of
our right-of-way for the installation but not guaranteeing them access to the
canal. I have not been out to the site
and do not know if they can physically get to this location.
Ms.
Zich stated I am looking at the map they provided and trying to visualize where
they are going to install the well.
Mr.
Hanks stated on the canal bank.
Ms.
Early stated behind a resident’s home.
Mr.
Hanks stated we better get this well installed and monitored. It is going to be to everyone’s benefit to
make sure the plume does not remain out there.
Mr.
Goscicki asked Ms. Early, do you know what will be above ground?
Ms.
Early responded a 2’ by 2’ concrete slab.
Mr.
McKune stated at grade.
Mr.
Goscicki stated there will be nothing above grade. Has anyone contacted the homeowner?
Ms.
Early responded I did not. I do not know
if the applicant did.
Mr.
Goscicki stated I suggest the applicant notify the homeowner, if the Board
approves this request.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich
with all in favor the
request for a Right-of-Way permit for installation of a monitoring well in
Canal L-106 was approved, subject to the applicant notifying the affected
resident and providing a copy of the notification to the Board.
Mr.
Hanks stated when we get applications for right-of-way permits or stormwater
permits adjacent to our canals and facilities; we should request boat access
easements so we have the right to go through these properties to access the
canal.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Work
Authorization No. 40 for Preparation of Bid Documents and
Specifications for Pump Stations 1 and 2
Mr.
Fennell stated this work authorization is from CH2M-Hill to prepare the bid
specifications in the amount of $65,000.
Mr.
Hanks asked was there a contract for this project?
Mr.
Goscicki responded it will be considered under the Engineer’s Report.
Mr.
Hanks asked does it apply to this work authorization? There were certain conditions within this
contract, which I have issue with. Is it
appropriate to address those issues first or authorize the work and then deal
with the contractors?
Mr.
Goscicki stated we are currently operating under a General Services Agreement
dating back 30 years. We can continue to
authorize the engineer to perform work under this old General Services
Agreement and then take up the new General Services Agreement as we move
forward. The intent of this item is to
create a new General Services Agreement and bring it up to current standards.
Mr.
Hanks stated it does not matter whether or not the engineer is reimbursed
because at the end of the day, it is going to be governed by the new contract
we accept. Is this correct?
Mr.
Lyles responded yes. This work
authorization gives the engineer approval to proceed and provides their
estimate of cost. All work
authorizations are subject to the underlying prime agreement showing the
details you are referring to. I do not
think anyone from CH2M-Hill will disagree this work authorization will be
subject to any modifications to the primary Engineering Services Agreement.
Mr.
Goscicki stated this was discussed at previous Board meetings when the engineer
presented the recommended improvements.
We met with the engineer, Mr. Hyche and Mr. Daly and discussed what we
can do more effectively internally with our own staff rather than bidding it
out. This is a reflection of those
meetings.
Mr.
Daly asked is the flat fee/lump sum fee of $65,000 typical for the design portion?
Ms.
Early responded for construction services, we charge an hourly fee. The other work authorizations for the plant
were a lump sum for the design.
Mr.
Hanks asked is CH2M-Hill agreeable to doing this as a lump sum for the design
services and an hourly not to exceed fee for the construction services?
Ms.
Early responded I do not think this work authorization includes construction
services. This is for design and
bidding. Once we go out for bids, we
will come back with a recommendation for award of the contract. We can then issue a work authorization for an
hourly fee. We originally estimated
closer to $100,000 and then reduced some items.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the most significant item in this work authorization is the
preparation of the specifications to bid this project out.
Mr.
Hanks asked do we need to go with digital drawings at this point?
Ms.
Early responded we do not have anyone who will do hand drawings. No one wants to work with 30 year old
drawings.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell
with all in favor Work Authorization No. 40 for Preparation of Bid Documents
and Specifications for Pump Stations 1 and 2 in the amount of $65,000 was
approved.
SIXTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Manager
i. Consideration
of Resolution 2007-14 Designating Edward Goscicki, Dan Daly and Sharon Zich as
Assistant Secretaries
Mr. Fennell asked why do we need
this resolution?
Mr. Goscicki responded there are
occasions where the timing may not allow us to advertise the meeting in order to
have two Board members present. You need
another official of the Board to sign documents and since Mr. Daly and I are
not members of the Board, this will allow us to sign and attest documents along
with another Board member.
Mr. Lyles stated the key word is
“attestation” as opposed to the authority to sign for the Board and requires
the President and Vice President to sign.
This is subject to a motion passed designating an Assistant Secretary or
a Secretary to sign documents. None of
the individuals listed in the proposed resolution are being given additional
authority. They are simply being made
administerial agents to attest to the signature of the President and Vice
President.
Mr. Hanks stated you still need to
have public notice if Ms. Zich wishes to attend as a Board member.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell
with all in favor 2007-14 Designating Edward Goscicki, Dan Daly and Sharon Zich
as Assistant Secretaries was adopted.
Mr. Goscicki stated the Board talked
about the need to formalize Severn Trent Services relationship of how we are currently working,
what we do and do not do. We recognize
the fact the current contract we are operating under is split into two separate
contracts, which were assigned to Severn Trent Services several years ago and are not an accurate
reflection of the services we are currently providing. Mr. Daly and I met several times in the past
several months to discuss how things are working. I wanted to get his perspective in terms of
what is working well, not working well and how we move forward. We believe what we are doing now works well
for the District and the services Severn Trent Services provides and the way we are
working with Mr. Daly and his staff is a well functioning organization. It draws on the best of the abilities the
individuals and entities bring to the table.
Our challenge is how to describe what we are doing and sharing those
responsibilities.
I tried to put together a scope of
services by going back to the standard scope from Severn Trent Services, which
we use for other districts where we provide a full range of services. We cut out items we are currently not doing
and created a section defining at a minimum, what we need the District to
continue providing. I will provide this
to the Board for review and discussion at the next meeting. The basic framework was for Severn Trent
Services to
remain serving as your District Manager.
Mr. Daly will remain in the role of managing the day to day operations
of the District and oversee all employees of the District. Severn Trent Services will also be in charge of the
fiscal responsibilities as well as the capital improvement program. We tried to include all of this in the
scope. How we report to the Board is your
prerogative in terms of how you see this relationship. Mr. Daly and I do not have a problem with
this. We are working well together and
just need to formalize the relationship.
The proposed scope of services was provided to the Board and the District
Attorney.
Mr. Hanks asked are you available by
phone to discuss this further?
Mr. Goscicki responded
absolutely. Call me anytime.
Mr. Fennell stated I am looking for
a general management scope. I think Mr.
Daly and his staff are doing a great job of operational control and I see their
strength. I think you have some deep
talent in your organization, which we have not taken advantage of. I want to see them come here once a year and
do safety or utility inspections.
Mr. Goscicki stated this falls out
of our operational expertise but we are happy to include them as we have a
strong emphasis on safety within our company.
I will try to get our Corporate Safety Officer out here this week.
Mr. Fennell stated those are the
types of services we want on a day to day basis. It is good to have someone come in to look at
the operation to find out what we are overlooking.
Mr. Hanks stated do not be afraid to
tell us something.
Mr. Goscicki stated if we are going
to do a safety audit, I guarantee you we will find something wrong.
Mr. Hanks stated maybe they can do a
safety report or operational review. If
you perceive a problem with the operations, let us know.
Mr. Goscicki stated the safety
report does not show what you are doing wrong.
It only tells you the status of your current program and how to improve
it.
Mr. Hanks stated if there is a
component or permit condition we are required to monitor every six months, we
need to have it. Maybe Severn Trent
Services did not
do it but we should have some document in our files. This is probably more of staff’s
responsibility but we need the oversight or to be accountable to someone.
Mr. Daly stated I am sure staff will
feel good when a report comes back saying they are in compliance with all of
the regulatory agencies and governmental agencies. We never had this oversight and it did not
matter whether or not staff did a good job.
Staff does a nice job and it is well within their means to look for some
problems. If you do a safety report,
pictures will be included. I want to know
the condition of the lift stations.
Mr. Hanks stated this would be more
of an engineering role than a Severn Trent Services role.
Mr. Fennell stated we are looking
for a safety report and doing what we have to in order to comply with national
and local regulations. We sometimes miss
things. You guys operate large
facilities throughout the world and maybe someone can tell us how we are
doing.
Mr. Goscicki stated I can do this. We talked about process optimization, safety,
asset management, regulatory compliance and monitoring. You have the systems in place to do those
kinds of things. What you are asking for
is what Severn Trent Services
does
every time we take over an operation.
You are asking for the expertise we bring. If we were running this, we would do
different levels of review and then come back and audit ourselves on an annual
basis.
Mr. Fennell stated I think this will
work well and we will know exactly what we are getting.
Mr. Goscicki stated we will try to
put out some memo to quantify the general management policy and implementation.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to take
action on the CH2M-Hill contract issue?
Mr. Fennell responded our practice is
to move forward with the contract now and create the framework.
Mr. Hanks stated I want to be clear.
Article 2 says “Guaranteed compensation
of 7% of the estimated construction cost”.
The way I am reading this, it is clear this is guaranteed. There is additional compensation “defined as
exceeding one information request in acquiring the required building permits
from the City of
Mr. Fennell stated we will deal with
this next month.
iv. Discussion
of Press Release
Mr. Fennell stated I looked at the
press release and it looks fine. We need
to hire someone who can write press releases for us when we need them.
C.
Engineer
Mr. Hanks stated we need to discuss
the work authorizations.
Mr. Goscicki stated the work
authorizations for the Nano Filtration Plant and the next phase of the
Wastewater Plant were lump sums for the design or 7% of the construction
amount. They were negotiated and
approved by the Board six months ago.
The plan was to bring it all together as a package. However, we did not want the Board to execute
them until the bonds were sold. At this
time, we can now have the Board sign those work authorizations.
Mr. Hanks stated the other component
of the contract was the ownership of engineering documents. In the past, it was made clear the product
was owned by CSID but this agreement does not say this.
Mr. Lyles stated we have made clear
and it has been understood by CH2M-Hill all engineering documents are a public
record as it is paid for with public funds.
I am not sure if we specifically own the documents for purposes of
selling to other entities; however, they are public, permanent and remain in
our files. Ownership is another issue
and we will have an explanation for the Board at the next meeting.
Mr. Hanks asked after this meeting,
are future meetings at a different time?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes. Our next meeting and future meetings are at
The record will reflect the Mr.
Fennell left the meeting.
A.
Manager
ii. Discussion
of Cash Flow – Cash Transactions Analysis
Ms. Zich stated it is nice to have a
cashflow analysis. Are we going to see
the cashflow of the General Fund and Sewer Fund every month?
Mr. Daly responded yes.
iii. Ron
Sachs Communication Termination Letter
Mr. Goscicki stated this is an
informational item to let you know we terminated the contract with Ron Sachs
Communications.
Ms. Zich stated we can hire someone
to provide those services as needed.
Mr. Hanks stated I have no
recollection of the Board taking any such action.
Mr. Goscicki responded the Board did
not take any action. The contract lapsed
at the end of August without being renewed and we formally released them.
iv. Discussion
of Press Release
Mr. Hanks stated I have a couple of
suggested edits.
Ms. Zich asked who prepared this
press release?
Mr. Hanks responded Mr. Daly.
Mr. Daly stated I provided this to
you so it could be changed by the Board.
Mr. Hanks stated in the third
paragraph from the bottom of the page, the sentence “Bonds for the project will
be underwritten through a proposed, staggered, rate increase of 15 percent rate
in the first year, 14 percent in the second year, and 14 percent in the third
year.” I recommend cutting out all of
the percentages and leaving it simple by saying “Bonds for the project will be
underwritten through a staggered rate increase.”
Mr. Daly stated by making this
change, I may be able to get this to fit on one page. Do you want to leave in the sentence “The
rate increase is the first since 1993”?
Mr. Hanks responded yes. In the next paragraph, the words “of 15
percent” should be deleted.