MINUTES OF
MEETING
CORAL SPRINGS
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral
Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, September 19, 2005 at 4:05
p.m. at the District Office, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral Springs,
Florida.
Present and constituting a quorum
were:
Bob Fennell President
Bill Eissler Vice
President
Glen Hanks Secretary
Also
present were:
Pete Witschen Severn
Trent Services
Ed Goscicki Severn
Trent Services
Dana Kaas Severn
Trent Services
Jean Rugg Severn
Trent Services
Janice Larned Severn
Trent Services
Scott James Severn
Trent Services
Mike Acosta Severn
Trent Services
Joe Groseosy Severn
Trent Services
Mel Entus Severn
Trent Services
Michael Pawelczyk Attorney
John McKune Engineer
Mr. Goscicki called the meeting to order
and called the roll.
SECOND
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of The Minutes of the August 9 and August 15, 2005 Meetings
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member received a copy of the
August 9, 2005 minutes and requested any additions, corrections or deletions.
Mr. Eissler stated in the August 9th minutes,
there is a breakdown of the services ST provides on page five. Could you define what Severn Trent does with
the General and Enterprise Funds accounting, finance and EDP? The total amount comes to $320,000.
Mr. Goscicki responded EDP is the data processing. The $320,000 number is not correct. The utility billing customer service costs
$110,000 plus a deduct for our cost for use of Mr. Dan Daly’s time and other
staff’s time, to come up with the management fee in the contract. The total management fee under our contract
is $219,000.
Mr. Eissler stated we never received a quote from
Wrathell & Associates. Is Mr. Doug
Hyche still working for CSID?
Mr. Goscicki responded 50% of his time is spent with CSID
and 50% with NSID. We asked Mr. Hyche to
take on some additional responsibilities at his current salary while we brought
Mr. Mel Entus on board.
Mr. Eissler stated the rumor from the employee was his
salary increased from $75,000 to $92,000.
On
MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the minutes of
the August 9, 2005 meeting were approved.
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member received a copy of
the August 15, 2005 minutes and requested any additions, corrections or
deletions.
There not being any,
On
MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the minutes of
the August 15, 2005 meeting were approved.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Drainage
Permit Request Submitted by Amera 1800 Plus, Inc.
Mr. Fennell stated what concerns me is
the site is designed with no emergency outfall and the zero discharge drainage
system may flood during certain storm events.
Mr. McKune stated this is a common
provision on all drainage permits when there is no discharge for the site. The applicant’s engineer has made the
determination the drainage system contained on site is adequate. We do not dispute that. The site is located along the old portion of
the University Drive subdivision where there are many small commercial
parcels. We recommended approval of this
permit based on the drainage provisions.
We noticed the building elevations as proposed, which this District has
no say over, seems to be in conflict with the 100 year flood elevations in
existence in this area of the District.
For our protection and the owner’s protection, I recommend we table this
item until the next meeting to verify the builder understands what he may be
getting into if in fact those elevations are not up to where they need to be.
Mr. Fennell asked if we do not control
it, who does?
Mr. McKune responded the city, under a
permit.
Mr.
Fennell asked are you going to contact the city?
Mr.
McKune responded yes.
Mr.
Fennell asked does zero discharge drainage mean every time we get two inches of
rain, we are going to have a flooded parking lot?
Mr.
McKune responded no. Assuming the system
functions as designed; the water will go down the storm drains, into the
infiltration trenches and disappear into the ground water.
Mr.
Fennell asked are you disputing whether or not there is adequate drainage?
Mr.
McKune responded no.
On
MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the drainage
permit request submitted by Amera 1800 Plus, Inc. was tabled until the next
meeting.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Award of Contract to
Interstate Construction Corp. in the Amount of $295,000 for Digester
Modifications
Mr.
McKune stated on September 1st, one bid was received for fast track
installation of blower systems for the existing digester from Intrastate
Construction Corp. with a total base bid of $307,036. The engineer’s estimate for this work was
$285,000. After review of the bids, we
received an offer from Intrastate to reduce the amount of their bid by $12,036,
as a result of negotiations with their subcontractors and suppliers. A copy of the offer they made to the District
to reduce the amount of the contract was provided to the Board. We reviewed the bid and subsequent offer for
the reduction and recommend the Board award the project to Intrastate
Construction Corp. in the amount of $295,000.
This particular project is budgeted in the capital improvement program
for $300,000.
Mr.
Fennell asked what are these blowers for and why do we need them?
Mr.
McKune stated they will be adjacent to the existing concrete tank, which has
been the subject of odor complaints. The
tank’s function will be changed from an anaerobic digester to an aerobic
digester with the provision of flows mounted exterior to the tank along with,
air piping systems, fusion headers, walkways, catwalks, concrete work and all
the power necessary to tie into the existing control panels including the
instrumentation and controls.
Mr.
Fennell stated the need for additional digestion has been vital in the
treatment process to eliminate odors.
Mr.
Eissler asked do we need to build a new building?
Mr.
McKune responded we do not need a building for the new digester.
Mr.
Fennell asked are there any noise issues associated with the blowers?
Mr.
McKune responded the blowers are noisy but are in a self-contained enclosure
with soundproofing on the interior.
There are DB restrictions on the equipment and we will do tests in the
field. If they do not meet code, we will
add to the sound material inside of the enclosure.
Mr.
Eissler stated these are big blowers.
Mr.
McKune stated they are 125 horsepower blowers.
Mr.
Hanks asked was this one of the improvements the adjusters identified in your
water treatment plant operation review from January?
Mr.
McKune responded yes.
Mr.
James stated Mr. Roger Moore identified it.
We only seconded the need for it.
Mr.
Fennell asked is the digester going to get us to the rotor thickener and then
into the filter press?
Mr.
McKune responded yes. It is going to
greatly reduce odors and improve digestion efficiency and effectiveness.
Mr.
James stated it reduces your sludge volume.
Mr.
Eissler asked will it reduce sludge to any significant level?
Mr.
James responded as much as 10%.
Mr.
Eissler asked how many motors?
Mr.
McKune responded there is one unit.
There is another system under design, which will be a standby.
Mr.
Eissler stated this will save us money on perfume. We spent $7,000 the first three months of the
year for odor control.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor contract for
digester modifications was awarded to Interstate Construction Corp. in the
amount of $295,000.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Encroachment of Easement for Maplewood Isle, Lot 63, Block E
Mr.
Fennell stated this item was discussed at the last meeting, however, the
engineer had not reviewed the request.
There were several questions because it looked like the property had an
encroachment until it was sold.
Mr.
McKune stated this lot is on a District waterway. I provided the Board with a newer sketch from
the surveyor indicating what is there and what is encroaching. There is an existing platted utility easement
within the lot on all three sides. This
is not a District easement and the District has no rights associated with
it. It is a standard utility easement
required by plat. There is a District
maintenance area beyond the property line as is everything outside of the
right-of-way. The chain link fence is
within the District’s maintenance area.
There also appears to be a small slab, which may have a corner extending
beyond the property line but is insignificant.
A piece of wood deck extends into the District’s maintenance area. We do not feel this is going to cause a
problem to the District during their maintenance operations but we did include,
in our letter of recommendation, a requirement whereby if and when it becomes a
problem or burden to the District, we maintain the right to remove it at his
expense.
Mr.
Fennell asked does the new owner know this?
Mr.
McKune responded the attorney at the last meeting represented the owner and
understood this and even made this offer.
This is a term of the permit, whether he likes it or not.
Mr.
Eissler asked do we have an obligation to notify the new owner?
Mr.
Pawelczyk responded Mr. Lyles sent a form Encroachment Agreement to the
attorney. I checked last week and we had
not heard back from him. I am not sure
how I can follow up on this. Section 5
of the agreement contains the permit condition, indicating if the District
requires any use of a portion of the encroachment or determines a continuation
of such encroachment is not in the public’s interest, we can order them to
remove the deck. If they do not remove
it, the District will remove the deck at their expense and place a lien on the
property.
Mr.
Eissler stated it is only a small part of the deck.
Mr.
Hanks stated this is a platted utility easement for utilities. Do we put utilities in platted utility
easements?
Mr.
McKune responded only in unique situations.
Mr.
Hanks asked are we setting a precedent?
Mr.
McKune responded no. We have done this
in the past.
Mr.
Eissler stated I suggest we notify the new owner.
Mr.
Hanks asked has the property been transferred?
Mr.
Eissler responded last month it was pending.
Mr.
Goscicki stated our suggestion would be to give conditional approval based upon
execution of this Encroachment Agreement by the current property owner.
Mr.
Pawelczyk stated I do not know the status but we will follow up after this
meeting.
On
MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the request for
encroachment of easement for Maplewood Isle, Lot 63, Block E was approved,
based upon execution of the Encroachment Agreement by the current property
owner and submittal of a legal description of the encroachment area.
Mr.
Hanks asked in regards to the drainage permit for University Drive, is there
any provision in the Drainage Manual for existing sites at a higher elevation
than required calculations? For example,
if the existing site is 12' and our flood contour is 11.5'. Is there some flexibility in our permit manual?
Mr.
McKune responded I will check with our drainage staff.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Resolutions
A. Resolution
2005-8 Appointing Pete Witschen and Jean M. Rugg as Assistant Secretaries
There
being no report, the next item followed.
B. Resolution
2005-9 Removing Patti Powers as Treasurer and Appointing Janice Moen Larned as
Treasurer and Ed Goscicki as Assistant Treasurer
Mr.
Goscicki stated Ms. Larned is our new Fiscal Manager and joined Severn Trent a
couple of weeks ago. In the past, Mr.
Jim Ward was the head of our Fiscal Management Services as well as being
involved in the City of Weston. We
recognized the need to hire someone to focus on our fiscal service to our
clients. Ms. Larned has been assisting
on the accounting, budgeting, accounts payable and assessment roll. We have added this item to a number of
District agendas.
Mr.
Fennell asked what is the flow of approval on payments such as who signs off,
what and where?
Mr.
Goscicki responded if it is an operational issue and field staff needs to order
parts, equipments and supplies, they will submit their order and sign
confirmation and receipt of their order.
The invoice would then be provided to the Accountant, Ms. Sue Walker who
would compile the accounts payable list for invoices to be paid and forward to
our A/P Department. Instead of transferring
paperwork back and forth, we would have our A/P Clerk meet with Ms. Walker once
a week to review the invoices. We had a
problem last week where a new A/P person who came on board miscoded a few
invoices between CSID and NSID. However,
Ms. Walker caught the errors before the checks were cut.
Mr.
Fennell asked how do the invoices get approved and by whom?
Mr.
Goscicki responded the authority runs through the Operations Manager, which at
one time was Mr. Roger Moore. Some of
this authority is now delegated to Mr. Hyche.
Mr. Entus is also getting involved on a routine basis.
Mr.
Fennell stated I came from a large corporation where every level had a
signature level. For example, a $50
request to fill up a truck with gas, only requires a certain signature
level. Usually above a certain level,
you need double signatures. I am looking
for a form stating the item ordered, who ordered it and the signature level. When the item arrives, the invoice should be
matched with the form. Does this happen?
Mr.
Entus responded I am sure there is a required level such as $4,000 to bring
items to the Board. However, like any
utility system, there are times when you have emergencies and cannot wait for a
Board meeting. I have such a situation,
which I was going to discuss under the Manager’s Report. Anything over $4,000 we have to obtain
bids. If there is an emergency
situation, which would impact the production of water, there needs to be some
means of waiving that.
Mr.
Fennell stated there is an approval and payment cycle and we were discussing
about how those need to be separate.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we created this separation by having a process where the field
staff will initiate the requisition, it would go to accounting and when the
invoice arrives, they match it up and it gets paid.
Mr.
Fennell asked is Ms. Larned going to be Treasurer?
Ms.
Larned responded yes.
Mr.
Fennell asked what is the role of the Treasurer?
Ms.
Larned responded I would have the authority to make properly authorized payments,
which have been approved in the budget.
Mr.
Fennell stated every month we approve invoices.
Mr.
Hanks stated not only has it been requested, but received as well.
Ms.
Larned stated it is a matter of matching to confirm the appropriate signatures
are in place with the appropriate approvals by the A/P department. They would look for those signatures before
paying the invoice. Of course, they make
sure there are adequate funds in the account before cutting the check.
Mr.
Fennell asked what does Ms. Walker do?
Mr.
Goscicki responded as the accountant, she verifies all of the records are
here. The invoices will come in, go to
Ms. Walker, she will match them and provide the coding to each account. The invoices go to accounts payable for
independent review to make sure there is a properly executed invoice, signature
verifying the equipment has been received and there are enough funds in the
account and they will authorize the cutting of the check.
Mr.
Fennell stated I like this process.
Mr.
Eissler asked who signs the checks?
Mr.
Goscicki responded the Treasurer.
Ms.
Larned stated you are authorizing at this point the signatory the bank will
honor when the check is presented.
Mr.
Fennell asked will Mr. Goscicki remain as Assistant Treasurer?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes, however, we can remove my name as Assistant Secretary
and add Mr. Witschen.
Mr.
Eissler stated we need an Assistant Secretary.
Currently, Mr. George Keller is Assistant Secretary and we need to
remove him.
Mr.
Goscicki stated each of the Board members are Assistant Secretaries.
Mr.
Fennell stated while we revise the resolutions, we will move to the seventh
order of business.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of a Decision
Structure
Mr.
Fennell stated we have been discussing for the last few months whether or not
we should hire our own District Manager and keep Severn Trent on in another
capacity. Severn Trent was going to find
additional people to fill these positions.
However, some of the Board members had other ideas.
Mr.
Hanks stated I provided to the Board a list of action items we should consider
in the future.
Mr.
Fennell stated at the last meeting, we interviewed Mr. Tom Good who is an
excellent candidate. Mr. Goscicki also
has some candidates for us.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the Board asked us to discuss our proposal in terms of managing
and operating this District and the value Severn Trent can bring to the
table. I suggest the Board forget about
the history and look at how to move forward.
We put together a presentation and provided the Board with our
statements of qualifications, which will be provided for the record.
Powerpoint Presentation by
Ed Goscicki
·
Introduced
Ms. Jean Rugg, head of Administrative Department; Mr. Dana Kaas, head of Severn
Trent North American operations; Mr. Mike Acosta, Senior Engineer - providing
both engineering and operations support for the Florida region; Ms. Janice
Larned, Fiscal Manager; Mr. Joe Groseosy, Vice President of Severn Trent –
providing business development and client services; Mr. Pete Witschen, District
Manager; Mr. Mel Entus, Consultant on operational issues for CSID and NSID and
Mr. Scott Jones from the national technical services group.
Issues:
·
Roles and responsibilities
§
Sharing of part-time employees
·
Continuity of management
§
District Manager turnover
§
Local knowledge
·
Cost of District management and operations
§
Services provided and how it relates to the
contract
§
Value of dollars paid
§
Capital improvement program
§
Savings in relation to management services and
operations
·
Cost versus quality of service
§
Guaranteed quality of service to current
customers and future customers
Roles & Responsibilities:
·
General management – Severn Trent responsibility
·
General accounting – Shared between Severn Trent and CSID
·
Utility billing – Shared between Severn Trent and CSID
·
Human resources – CSID responsibility
·
Records management – Severn Trent responsibility
·
Operations - CSID responsibility
·
Budgets - Severn
Trent
responsibility
Management of District:
·
Contract employees
·
CSID employees
·
Part-time employees shared with other Districts
§
Employees shared with other Districts on
operating side:
o
Karen Ellis – Finance
o
Steve Murrary – IT
o
Jean Rugg – Records
o
Jan Zilmer – Human Resources
o
Dan Daly – Utility Billing
o
Customer Service Reps (3)
o
Doug Hyche – 50/50 CSID & NSID
§
56 employees within the entire Districts, of
which 12 are part-time employees
·
Severn Trent employees
o
Pete Witschen – District Manager for CSID &
NSID with 30 years experience, 15 years experience as Assistant City Manager in
Ft. Lauderdale
o
Mel Entus – Interim Operations Manager with
utility expertise
o
Mike Acosta & Scott Jones – Licensed
Professional Engineers providing engineering support
o
Janice Larned – Fiscal Manager assisting in
capital planning and programming and with engineer on functional side
·
Senior Operations Manager
Severn
Trent’s approach to management and operations of CSID:
·
Create
one unified team for management and operation of CSID
·
Provide
clarity of purpose and values
·
Offer
employment to all existing CSID full and part-time employees at comparable
wages and benefits
·
Benefits
of a regional network of 200+ utility operations professionals
·
Integrate
the corporate resources of Severn Trent
·
Guaranteed
multi-year fixed cost & performance
Severn
Trent’s fixed fee of $219,000 includes:
·
Saving
the District a minimum of $350,000 plus opportunities for additional savings
·
Savings of $150,000 in
the management of the District
·
Management
·
Accounting
·
Records management
·
Project Manager
·
Taking CSID employees on
as Severn Trent employees
·
Complete fiscal and
records management and IT services
·
Utility operations
§
Guaranteed performance, including meeting the
permit requirements
§
All staff
§
Chemicals
§
Maintenance
§
Ownership of all vehicles (assuming leases or
purchasing new vehicles)
§
Sludge disposal
§
Laboratory services
§
New qualified management in place
§
One unified team with consistent goals and
value, focusing on providing excellent service to CSID
·
Utility operations
support
§
On-Site staff
§
Capital planning
§
Process control
§
Safety and asset protection
§
Asset management
§
Staff development and providing opportunities
for staff to grow and improve
§
Guaranteed cost and performance
Mr.
Hanks asked is there a savings in security?
Mr.
Goscicki responded it is not part of the $350,000 savings. I will provide copies of this presentation
for all Board members.
Mr.
Hanks asked how would you identify issues needing action we do not know about?
Mr.
Goscicki responded we are assuming a guarantee for the operations and therefore
have significant motivation to make sure we meet all of the permit
requirements, stay within a fixed dollar budget, the capital improvement
program is in place and adequate to meet the goals of the organization. We structured a contract, which is
self-motivating for us to perform to our client needs by building in those
constraints. This is a positive
motivator for us and positive assurance for you.
Mr.
Kaas stated we have been to the plant and it is now operating in
compliance. If we went to the plant and
found the equipment was not maintained and you were not in compliance, we would
have a caveat to assess what needs to be invested.
Mr.
Goscicki stated one of the items we typically write into all of our operations
contracts is a requirement for us to work with the District Engineer to develop
an annual capital improvement program, update the program on a year-to-year
basis and develop a realistic renewal and replacement budget to include the
capital improvement program. It is a
much more detailed contract for our operating services than on the management
side and we give you some specific details on what we are going to do and how
we are going to get it done.
Communications is a big part of our operating contracts, establishing
the strong formalized communications plan with the Manager and more importantly
with the Board in terms of how you are kept appraised of what is going on, our
needs and our activities.
Mr.
Hanks asked what would not be included in the base line contract?
Mr. Goscicki responded we would probably exclude energy. We included an energy cost to give you a light c