MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE PORT OF THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Port of the
Islands Community Improvement District was held
Present and constituting a quorum
were:
Richard Gatti Chairman
Bernie Wolsky Vice
Chairman
Ted Bissell Assistant
Secretary
John Robinson Supervisor
Also present were:
James DeCocq District Manager
Dan Cox Attorney
Ron Benson Engineer
Several Residents
FIRST
ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Gatti called the meeting to order and Mr. DeCocq called the
roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the
Mr. DeCocq stated that each
member of the Board had received a copy of the minutes of the
On MOTION by Mr. Robinson seconded by Mr. Bissell
with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Administrative Purchasing Policy
Mr. Gatti stated since Mr. Wrathell and Mr. Bissell
developed this administrative purchasing policy together I will ask Mr. Bissell
if he wishes to go ahead without Mr. Wrathell.
Mr. Bissell stated I would rather wait until Mr. Wrathell
is here.
Mr. DeCocq stated I discussed this with Mr. Wrathell and
he said if it is the will of the Board, it is not a big is
Whereupon, this item was deferred to
the next meeting.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion
of Uniform Rental Program
Mr. Gatti stated this next item; the uniform rental
program is essentially the same problem.
We could still move ahead with this.
Mr. Bissell stated Mr. Stephens should be here for this.
Whereupon, this item was deferred to
the next meeting.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion
of Capital Improvement Plan
Mr. Benson stated Mr. Wrathell and I have this item. I can do part of it with him absent, but he
needs to do part of it.
Mr. Gatti stated now is the time to get into this because
our budget is coming up rather quickly and we have to know where we are going.
Mr. Benson stated I prepared the program as far as where
the projects are and the dollar amounts.
I can go through that aspect of it.
The financing is Mr. Wrathell's side.
Under Section V there are a couple of pages there. The first page is a five-year program
proposed for renewal and replacement of various infrastructure of Port of the
Mr. Gatti asked does the audience have this?
Mr. DeCocq responded it is being handed out right now.
Mr. Benson stated I would like to also remind everyone
that each year the engineer does an annual report on the general condition of
the facilities, identifying their needs.
We do that every year. Generally
the projects have all been identified, but have not all been done because of
the funding situation. One of the things
we did a few years ago was to update the road because the roads have been put
off for many years.
We updated a cost to basically do all the roads with a
two to four-year program.
We prepared a cost of the major components. We provided an estimated amount for each of
those components and basically took the cost of each item divided by its
service life and that was the cost per year that you would budget over the life
of these different components and we came up with something between $90,000 and
$100,000 for those items. Most of these
items are now over ten years old so a number of them have reached their service
life and are in need of replacement.
These have been identified in past meetings.
I went to different sources and pulled the information
all together, added a few items that may not have been specifically identified
in the report although we have talked about them in the past and prepared this
list. We divided the list into two
categories. The top ones are the general
fund items, which are the road and the storm water repairs. The lower half of the table is the water and
sewer and irrigation systems. What we
then did was I met with Mr. Stephens as we do through the year. We put our heads together and came up with a
priority as we see it as far as the condition of the system and which items
would be higher prioritized than others.
That is our staff judgment.
Some of the storm water improvements, we identified
higher than the road because some of those had been pipes that corroded and
needed replacing and things of that nature.
I will list a couple of the highest priority ones we identified. We have some items that are required by DEP
with our permit and other conditions.
Basically those are mandated so we put those first. We identified some projects with the fire and
irrigation pump stations that we feel are high priority and those have been
discussed for a number of years also.
That is generally what we have done to date. What we wanted to do at this point is to put
all this together where you can see the overall picture. When you add everything up that we have
discussed over the past few years and put it all together it is a lot of
money. The general fund was $325,000. The water and sewer fund renewal and
replacement were $323,000. We then added
a budget contingency, administrative and legal costs.
They are with different projects from time to time. Some projects are going to require
engineering design. Other projects will
require design as well as some inspection during construction. Other projects may just require
inspection. The total of those is
$855,000. Originally we had $95,000 a
year and $40,000 a year, a total of $135,000 a year identified. I believe it was budgeted a few years ago; it
just had not been spent. This took the $135,000
a year that we had estimated a number of years ago and we spent that for five
years, it gets pretty close to the amount prior to adding the engineering and
other costs.
Mr. Gatti stated we put it aside as a reserve fund and we
always need it before we could get to the capital improvements program.
Mr. Benson stated these should not be anything that
new. We are putting it all in place
now. The second page is identified as
capital improvements. These are things
that are kind of new. Some of them were
identified in previous reports. For
instance, the wastewater treatment plant, Project WWW-4, construct the second
upland storage tank, that is required by DEP once we get to a certain system. A few years ago we acquired a used effluent
filter for the treatment from Sarasota County Salvage surplus. We never installed it. That would be a capital improvement that
would allow us to have the capacity of the plant, as we need it.
We are quite a ways from our permitting capacity. At some point if we build all the units that
are planned here, we will need this capacity.
There was a supposed package plant and equipment. There used to be the treatment plant prior to
the new wastewater plant being built that equipment was salvaged. It is on site. We had a plan eventually to put that in
service to treat sludge, which would be a betterment and also induce some
operating costs in the long run and also when we get to higher capacities in
the future.
We have talked about the DEP requirements in order to allow
us to mix our reclaimed water and wastewater treatment plant, which would be
used for irrigation. With the water
coming from the canal, we have to thoroughly treat the canal water and that is
a project we have talked about in the past that is on this list. One project that may not have been talked
about in the past much that I have listed is fire and irrigation.
The older section of the
single-family houses uses potable water for irrigation. At some point it makes sense, when we have
more of a demand for our potable water, to expand the irrigation lines to those
houses so they can use the fire and irrigation like the rest of the community,
which is a lower quality water. The
potable water could then be used to serve the drinking water needs for the
community. It is a better use of that
potable water.
That is more of a long-term
project. Additional sidewalks have been
a topic of discussion over the years in this forum. The area has primarily been identified on
this side of the canal from the hotel all the way back to serve the residential
areas. I estimated the cost for those
sections of sidewalk for the City of Marco Island and it should be fairly
reasonable. We divided the cost of that
project by the length and used that as an estimate.
The storm water drainage
system, there has been discussion in this forum about the level of maintenance
the C.I.D. is going to do on the system and the swales. What I have done here in the renewal and
replacement, on the previous page I identified that there are some areas that
need some work. We estimated $25,000 for
the immediate needs you may choose to do and identified an additional
$125,000. Again, it depends on what
level of maintenance and service this Board decides they wish to do. It is a ballpark estimate of $150,000. The lesser part of it we are addressing
immediately and the other being maybe longer-term needs.
You can see the priorities
that Mr. Stephens and I came up with. We
talked to Mr. Wrathell once and I talked with some of the staff in my office
that worked on part of the Port of the Islands project list. Their involvement out here had higher
needs. These are the priorities that
your staff has come up with. You may
want to discuss the various projects and you may come up with a different
ranking. These projects were $709,000
and then with other budgets for contingency, legal and administrative costs,
engineering design and inspections of construction, these add up to $949,000. The total is a very large number. Mr. Wrathell and I have talked about
this. We recognize that we may not be
able to do all this. A lot of it is
catch up. We may not be able to do it in
five years, but it is a starting point.
Mr. Gatti stated we cannot
really do anything on this without the financial side of it.
Mr. Cox stated as you are
thinking about this between now and the next meeting I think it is pretty
important that we start getting guidance on how you want to go about this in
order for us to put it in the budget cycle for the upcoming fiscal year. It is critical that we look at funding any of
these improvements that you decide to do through a separate budget and separate
assessment with a separate methodology so we do not have the problem that we
had been having with our reserves being used for something other than what we
are trying to earmark these for.
That is going to result in a
fairly substantial assessment against properties in the District though if you
were to try to find the whole thing up front you know it would be a $2,000 pop
per ERC.
Mr. Gatti asked is that per
year or a one-time thing?
Mr. Cox responded that is a
one-time thing. That may be one option
for you to consider, just to do that. We
assess each property and get all of our money quickly and get all of our money
quickly to do everything. The other
option is to spread it out over your five-year period. We are going to have some priority items that
we really need to do. Then some things
are going to be delayed so you are going to have variable assessments in each
of those five years depending on what you decide to fund each year. You could consider some separate form of
financing where you go out and get the money and pledge revenues from an
assessment for repayment of those funds, similar to your bond is
This only being a five-year
plan, you may want to look at some other options as opposed to floating a bond,
maybe going into private money financing.
With all of the situations we have had with our past bond we have some
is
Mr. Gatti stated let me see if
I can interpret everything you have said in one or two sentences. First of all we have two funds, the general
fund and the water and sewer fund. The
water and sewer fund, we can increase the water and sewer rates and that is an
avenue of funding. For the general fund
we would have to increase the taxes and that would show up in that form,
correct?
Mr. Cox responded that would
be if you used your current funding structure.
My suggestion is that we establish a third fund, which would be our
renewal and replacement fund and capital improvement fund.
Mr. Gatti asked where would I
pay for that from my house?
Mr. Cox responded through the
same mechanism that you collect your other assessments for capacity, O & M
service and then you have a fourth assessment for renewal and replacement and a
fifth assessment for capital improvements.
The reason we are segregating
those two out is if you look at the nature of those two improvements and for
the sidewalks there is going to be a different methodology for funding those
sidewalks because there are different properties that are specially benefited
by those and the apportionment should be based on that benefit. The renewal and replacement, because these
are the infrastructures that are part of your original fund, would be very
similar to that methodology with some adjustments for some of these
improvements that are being renewed and replaced.
Mr. Gatti stated for the time
being we will wait until Mr. Wrathell is here.
I suggest we start with it a piece at a time and see if we can keep it
understandable. Let the Board look at
what is being proposed as a five-year program and take into account what we
think the priority should be.
I suggest that the Board look
at the proposed improvements and if we see a hole in this, propose an
additional improvement. In other words,
there is flexibility in it at this point.
If we think there are some other things that should be done we should
incorporate it and prioritize what you see here. Two, we can add to it if you deem it
necessary.
Mr. Bissell asked would this
be on our tax statement if we had a special assessment?
Mr. Cox responded there would
be two options there. We could levy it
through our tax bill or you could decide to do a one-time assessment of $2,000
per ERC or whatever we work out. When you
do that assessment, you direct assess and give the person the opportunity to
pay it up front and those who want to amortize it over a five-year period could
amortize that with a little bit of interest or whatever so we cover those
funds.
Mr. Bissell stated if it were
on your tax bill you would be able to use that for your tax purposes.
Mr. Gatti stated this whole is
Mr. Gatti stated jot your
comments down in the form of options for us and we will talk about it at the
next meeting. Different people are going
to feel very strongly about this. I have
a serious problem with letting people choose whether they want to be on one
side or the other. They will really have
problems in terms of the money coming in.
Mr. DeCocq stated for the
record, if I may, I would also ask if when Mr. Cox talks about the two
different types of how you want to charge these assessments, if he could talk
about the pros and cons of each, especially the methodology of delinquent
collection. That may have some bearing
on how they choose to finance.
Mr. Gatti stated that is a
good point.
Mr. Benson stated if you look
in your booklet at Tab Section 8 at the very last page this is your budget for
the year. The last item on that list on
the last page, page six, it says renewal and replacement $95,000 a year. You do now and have had each year, money in
your budget. We just have not spent the
money.
Mr. Cox stated looking at that
line there, where it says beginning retained earnings; there is a number of
$623,000 in the negative. That is
reflective of the deficit of the renewal and replacement of your existing
capital infrastructure. You maybe could
explain that a little better.
Mr. Gatti asked is that what
is called for in the bond is
Mr. Cox responded this is the GASB34 that is reflecting what
we have not been amortizing out or capital assets.
Mr. Robinson responded correct I understand that now we
are falling under the requirements of GASB34.
You have to do is look at your assets and figure out depreciation on
them, so it will indeed show and reflect a negative amount there. Unless you pour the exact amount in every
year to maintain the status quo, which most likely you will not.
Mr. Cox stated GASB34 has
required local governments not to bump their assets and depreciate them out
over their useful life. After the
depreciation is extended out, you are going to be collecting renewal and
replacement funds at the same level so you have a zero fund balance there, but
because nobody has been doing this, every local government is probably in a state
of financial emergency now.
Mr. Gatti stated let me expand
on this for a minute. If anybody in the
audience sees projects that they think might be vital to the community that
they are not seeing here, we welcome the input.
If you feel that something should be done, like the sidewalks, which
there is a strong feeling about, that needs some discussion too. We welcome any input.
A resident stated I have a
question. It appears that about twenty
percent of the budget is mandated projects; is that regarding wastewater
treatment, correct?
Mr. Gatti stated we will get
into that when we talk about this if you do not mind. I would rather stay on track here. There will be a lot of questions about this. That goes into our priorities. Whether we like it or not this is part of
what we are going to be faced with. Keep
that in mind as something we have to respond to. When we look at the whole picture we will go
that way.
Mr. Benson stated one aspect
of some of these ones that are identified by the DEP we have done what we could
in our permitting to postpone these, but we do have to do these projects at
some point to be able to serve our entire community when we get to full
capacity.
Mr. Gatti stated we have
received things that I just cannot believe the DEP is requiring. I have one here is that we have to start
monitoring lead and copper. That costs a
lot of money. That is the way it is
going to go. We need to take that into
consideration when we look at this. It
is critical that you be here at the next regular meeting or somebody who really
knows what is going on.
Mr. Bissell is going to talk
about something in a few minutes that relates to this for Board
consideration. I would like to go back
for a minute. Mr. DeCocq has indicated
that Mr. Wrathell has no problem with the administrative purchasing policy and
that this time we consider passing that policy.
We have been working on this since last September. If we pass this, I feel Mr. Wrathell should
sit down personally with Mr. Stephens and Mr. Benson and go over this. That would be number three.
Mr. Gatti stated we will wrap
up this is
Mr. DeCocq responded yes.
Mr. Bissell MOVED to approve the administrative
purchasing policy and the motion was seconded by Mr. Robinson.
Mr. DeCocq stated for clarification, Mr. Wrathell said
this is the same policy that you have seen at the last meeting. There we no changes to this policy. This is exactly what you have had in the
past. He is comfortable if you feel you
want to pass that today or if you want to table it, he is comfortable either
way.
Mr. Gatti stated this is essentially required by Florida
Statutes and is good thinking on our part.
I have no problem with this.
On VOICE VOTE with all in favor the
administrative purchasing policy was approved.
Mr. Teneriello stated as long as we are doing this I
would like to finish up with Number 4.
Whereupon, Agenda Item Number 4 was addressed out of
order.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion
of Uniform Rental Program
Mr. Gatti stated number four pertains to the uniform
rental program for staff, and that includes more than Tim, eventually instead
of purchasing different types of clothes, we have an established uniform for
our staff. The important thing to that
is when you see that person dressed in that because you know he's in my
backyard looking at our meter and that sort of thing. I think it is a good thing and that it is
appropriate for staff to have it.
Mr. Bissell stated at the present time there is a uniform
clothing allowance so this would not be an expense over and above what we have
had. I have talked with Mr. Stephens and
he has been looking into this uniform rental program.
Mr. Stephens stated I have not been able to get anybody
to commit to renting us any uniforms. I
don’t have anybody that would like to service us.
Mr. Gatti stated I will get you some names. There are half-dozen companies who furnish uniforms
to municipalities, the State and the County.
They will be glad to furnish us and provide us with those on a monthly
basis. There are businesses and staffers
that do just this.
Mr. Stephens stated I have not found anybody that wants
to service Port of the Islands for a small amount. It is only three uniforms. That was their problem.
Mr. Gatti stated I understand. We will work that out.
Mr. Bissell stated it is another possibility, if we
cannot get anyone to come out here that we purchase the uniforms. At present we are furnishing a clothing
allowance. You are taking these and
washing them yourselves and that could continue if we purchase uniforms.
Mr. Gatti stated the point that we want to establish here
is that we establish a uniform and that is your prerogative, unless the Board
feels strongly about it. It has our logo
on it and it is readily identifiable so when people see you or part of your
staff, they will know they are part of our staff. It is however you want to run with that.
Mr. Bissell stated Mr. Stephens and I will get together
on that.
On MOTION by Mr. Bissell seconded by Mr. Robinson
with all in favor staff was directed to proceed with the uniform rental
program.
Mr. Gatti stated summarizing
the discussion of capital improvement plan; the Board is going to look at what
is being proposed. People that are
interested are going to propose ideas to us.
Mr. Cox stated I will get you
a memo on your financing options.
Mr. Gatti stated the financing
is the critical part. From Mr. Benson's
standpoint, we want to have the priorities that serve our need, but we also
want the priorities that are mandates.
SIXTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Attorney
Mr. Gatti stated I suggest we
postpone your report because I suspect we will have a lot of questions for you.
Whereupon, Item 6B was
addressed out of order.
B. Engineer
Mr.
Gatti stated we are in the process of making an infrastructure report. Will we have that?
Mr.
Benson responded we will be doing the next report over the next few months.
Mr.
Gatti asked do we need that before we look at the capital improvements? Will something come out in that report that
says hey, you have to do this?
Mr.
Benson responded these items come from past reports. This year, I am going to include this
document that we have prepared. I want
to include it the upcoming year's report as a summary of the cost impact of
everything added together.
Most
of this information is available in various places. Now it is in two tables.
Mr.
Gatti stated you are bringing this down to a mundane level. Everyone is going to ask us about the pothole
that is right here. I will ask you to
fix that somehow. We will discuss that
in a minute.
Mr.
Cox stated I think the one difference that Mr. Benson is citing is, for the
difference in the GASB34 requirements he is probably going to have to go back
and figure out the value of the assets and what depreciation has occurred. That will help us realize then what the
value-added benefits are of the capital improvement program and the renewal and
replacement program that we are talking about because we will have an idea then
what percentage of the value of these assets we are actually impacting.
Mr.
Wolsky asked are we talking about roads?
Mr.
Cox responded yes.
Mr.
Gatti stated the point is you have lived in your house ten years. The roadway in front of your house is
depreciating. We have to replace it.
Mr.
Bissell stated we could seal it at least.
Mr.
Robinson stated I would like to echo what the attorney said. It is very important for you to understand
the total amount of assets you have. I
do not think you realize the tens of millions that are here. It is important for you to get that in your
engineer's report and see how that plays out against your approximately $1.8
million for your capital improvements and replacement.
Mr.
Stephens stated I want to see if Mr. Benson will talk about the purchasing we
had discussed. You can only purchase
certain items from those people.
Mr.
Gatti stated that is called a sole source purchase, which is allowable. It has to be.
All you have to do is, in your presentation to the Board; say that this
is a sole source thing. It is as simple
as that.
Mr.
Benson stated we discussed specific equipment.
You have whatever brand it is and you need to replace it or buy a part
to go in it and you only have one person in Florida that is an authorized
dealer.
Mr.
Gatti stated it is very simple. You
bring us a paper that says this is the sole source, and that takes care of
that.
Mr.
Stephens stated I have a few quotes on getting that bump in the road fixed.
Mr.
Gatti stated go ahead and tell us about it.
Mr.
Stephens stated the cheaper one is $8,600 by Kyle Construction and I have
another one from Eli Contracting for $11,991.
Mr.
Gatti asked when you say fix the pothole, are you talking about just putting
some asphalt in there or are you talking about undercutting?
Mr.
Stephens responded we are talking about removing a foot of pipe from culvert to
culvert.
Mr.
Gatti asked is that corrugated metal?
Mr.
Stephens responded yes what is in there is corrugated metal. We want to put the black plastic in.
Mr.
Gatti stated the City of Naples is just like the County is. They put stuff in about 25 years ago and it
is deteriorating all over the road. What
is the will of the Board?
Mr.
Bissell responded we need to get it done before the rest of it goes in.
Mr.
Stephens stated this is a serious situation.
Mr.
Gatti stated have you had a chance to look at this?
Mr.
Benson responded not this specific one, but one of the items we had in renewal
and replacement was to replace corroded metal, corrugated pipe.
Mr.
Gatti stated this is going to come up all over the subdivision; especially this
older section that and what is being done in terms of various development
aspects. What is the Board's feeling?
On MOTION by Mr. Bissell seconded by Mr. Wolsky
with all in favor the bid for $8,600 by Kyle Construction was approved.
Mr.
Wolsky asked does anybody know that two or three firms that have done this so
we can get some sort of an idea on them?
Mr.
Stephens stated both of these have worked for us several times. How many places in this do you have storm
water drainage, replace metal corrugated pipe in various locations?
Mr.
Benson responded we thought there might be a couple over the next five years
and we budgeted $10,000 as a ballpark estimate.
It seems like this one is going to take the most.
Mr.
Gatti stated this is the widest roadway that we have. We have to fix that.
Mr.
Stephens stated in comparison to our estimate of $10,000 for various locations,
we are looking at $8,500 for one.
Mr.
Gatti stated you had better look at that.
Mr.
Benson stated Mr. Cox had made a valid comment.
The approach we have here is when we have the next failure and we figure
there might be a couple over the next five years that is where we put $5,000
each. That was an estimate. We figured we needed to go through and
identify all the places we have these pipes and come up with a budget if we
have to replace all of them.
In
the meantime we have to deal with this.
Mr.
Gatti stated this gives us a base to know what our future cost would be.
On VOICE VOTE with all in favor the prior motion
was passed.
Mr.
Stephens stated I have a proposal here from Bob Dean Supply. They are the company we deal with all the
time, who removes and replaces our pumps.
Mr.
Gatti asked what is the name of the company?
Mr.
Stephens responded Bob Dean Supply. I
had a 10 horsepower pump that went down.
They came out and were going to work on it, but it was in such bad
shape. It is about 15 years old. They recommended replacing it. With what they had already done, to replace
that motor was $2,100.
Mr.
Gatti asked did you look at that? Are
you comfortable with that?
Mr.
Benson responded Bob Dean is one of the standard people who does that kind of
work.
Mr.
Gatti stated we need a motion.
Mr.
Bissell asked do we need a motion? It is
in the budget.
Mr.
Gatti stated it is in the maintenance.
Mr.
Stephens stated it is in the budget as far as maintenance. If you want to use these people to do it,
they are very good.
Mr.
Gatti stated consider that you have the Board’s permission to proceed with
that.
D. Field Manager
Mr.
Stephens stated one other thing I spoke with you on before was to cover our
concrete floor. It is really in bad
shape. I have a man who will put some
tile down for $1,500.
Mr.
Gatti stated before we get to that we need to discuss that because we are
spending some money.
Mr.
Stephens stated I talked with Bob Dean Supply when they came out here and they
would like to send a diver down to check the pipe down there and see how much
trouble it would be to hook up a pipe to that and get us a floater up there to
keep out the mud and shells.
Mr.
Gatti stated when we have incoming water from the canal there is a lot of
debris and the thing is clogged all the time.
That is critical in terms of the irrigation. Another critical part is that it also serves
a number of our hydrants. You know how
coincidence goes, if it is clogged and we have a fire, then we have real
problems.
Mr.
Stephens stated it works off of pressure gauges so if it is full of mud it does
not see the pressure. To initially start
this process is going to cost about $300 to send a diver down.
Mr.
Gatti stated I think you should do it if no one has a problem with it.
Mr.
Bissell stated right; maybe at the next Board meeting you can come back with
some costs.
Mr.
Gatti stated in the meantime, we need you to go right to the source of the
problem and recommend a solution and Mr. Benson can take a look at.
Mr.
Benson stated that has been in our engineering report for years. It is Item I2 on the renewal and replacement.
Mr.
Gatti stated do it. Now we will get back
to the tile.
Mr.
Stephens stated we can purchase the tiles from Home Depot at a dollar per
square foot and then the thin set and the grout, I think all total around
$1,500, so the total with the labor, I think would be around $3,000.
Mr.
Bissell stated I reviewed that problem and fee we should do it. It is a health problem as far as I am
concerned.
Mr.
Wolsky asked what kind of tile is this, ceramic?
Mr.
Stephens responded I was thinking of using whatever ceramic tile they have on
sale.
Mr.
Gatti asked do you have anything else?
Mr. Stephens responded no.
Mr. Gatti stated now we need Mr. Stephens to
leave the room for a moment.
Whereupon, Mr. Stephens left the meeting.
Mr. Gatti stated Mr. Stephens has been working by
himself in the capacity of two or three people for the last five months. He has to be on call 24-hours a day, seven
days a week and he is out here at all times whenever necessary. We need to recognize this and I think we
should come up with some sort of financial appreciation of his good work.
We
know he is understaffed and we appreciate him.
What would be a reasonable sum in the Board's opinion?
Mr.
Bissell stated he now has a full time operator and part time worker. He has taken care of that, but now there is
the five months of 24/7 service is
Mr.
Gatti asked how much is the new staff costing us a month?
Mr.
Bissell responded one receives a salary of $40,000. That is $3,300 a month and the other employee
gets $300 to $400 a month. She works by
the hour and she is not full time.
Mr.
Gatti asked so if we give them $5,000 that would be a reasonable number?
On MOTION by Mr. Bissell seconded by Mr. Wolsky
with all in favor a bonus of $5,000 was awarded to staff in recognition of
extra efforts.
Whereupon, Mr. Stephens rejoined the meeting at this
time.
Mr.
Gatti stated as a token of our appreciation, we are giving you a bonus of
$5,000 in recognition of all your extra efforts and the fact that you have been
available 24 hours, seven days a week.
C. Manager
There not being any, the next item followed.
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor's
Requests and Audience Comments
Mr.
Bissell stated one thing I have is the proposal for increase on water and sewer
rates. Right now we are paying almost
$2.33 per thousand for our water and $4.77 per thousand for sewer. We are in dire straights financially. We must increase our water and sewer
rates. I feel we need to do it now, not
later and not wait until the budget time, but start on this immediately. I do not know if you have to go through the
Public Service Commission in Florida to do increases.
Mr.
Cox responded you are a small provider that does not quite fall under the
Public Service Commission's purview for rate increases. We have in place, a water and sewer rates
rule that was adopted pursuant to Chapter 120 Florida Statutes, which is
Florida's administrative code. You would
have to amend that rule, which calls for certain period of advertisement,
public hearings and the adoption of the rule.
In
the past when we have done these rule revisions we have tied them in with our
proposed budget so we were able to account for that revenue source as we were
developing the projects that we were going to do in the upcoming year.
Mr.
Gatti asked when will we be going into the budget cycle.
Mr.
DeCocq responded you will probably be starting that as early as April.
Mr.
Gatti asked when do we pass it? Is that
in October?
Mr.
DeCocq responded you can only do that in July or September.
Mr.
Gatti asked what is our fiscal year?
Mr.
DeCocq responded the fiscal year runs from October 1st through September
30th.
Mr.
Gatti asked can we pass that before the end of our fiscal year?
Mr.
DeCocq responded absolutely, because you need to report that.
Mr.
Bissell stated to begin with I suggest that we go from $2.33 to $3.00 per
thousand. Right now if you use 5,000 a
month, that is $11.64. If you go to
$3.00 per $1,000, that would be a 28.8 percent increase in the water. When they figure the sewer rates, they deduct
twenty percent, so if you have 5,000 gallons of water you take twenty percent
of that and you pay on 4,000 for sewer at $4.70, which at the present time
would be $19.08. With the proportionate
increase, that would go to $7.10 a thousand or $28.40, which would be a $9.32 a
month increase.
The
total increase for water and sewer on 5,000 gallons would be $12.70 per month,
with a yearly increase of $152.40 per unit.
I asked Mr. Stephens approximately how many units we have. He said we have somewhere between 750 and 800
units; is that correct?
Mr.
Stephens responded that is in the ballpark, but it could be 850.
Mr.
Gatti stated I agree we should increase it.
Mr.
Bissell stated at the $152.40, we would be increasing our yearly income by
$114,300. If we had 800 units, that
would be $121,920, which would be an increase of 48.809%.
Mr.
Gatti asked are there any comments from the Board?
Mr.
Wolsky asked how does that compare with Marco Island?
Mr.
Bissell responded I would say that is maybe fifty percent of Marco Island.
Mr.
Cox stated I also represent the Key Marco District and they have an ongoing is
Mr.
Gatti asked can you ask the City for that?
Mr. Harrison should be able to give that to you.
Mr.
Cox stated it was Mr. Lattice from the County who did the presentation for the
rate study. He already has the graphics
and everything.
Mr.
Benson stated you have to make sure that you are counting in the base charges
properly to be able to look at the totals.
You may or may not have base charges.
Mr. Cox stated one of the things that the South
Florida Water Management District and the other regulators are pushing for is
the conservation rate charges, the inverted block rates.
The
more water somebody uses, for instance if you use 3,000 gallons, you are paying
$4 for up to 3,000 gallons and if you go from 3,000 to 5,000 your rate goes to
$5.50 per thousand to give you an incentive to conserve water.
Mr.
Gatti stated so the more water you use, the more it costs you.
Mr.
Cox stated that might not work as well for this District because some of the
irrigation is on potable. People who are
irrigating with potable are taking a hit that nobody else will.
Mr.
Gatti stated that is separated. We have
two meters for that. Even though we are
using the potable water, we are still using the irrigation rates, so that is no
problem. I think it is a good idea.
Mr.
Wolsky stated it seems like this is almost overdue.
Mr.
Benson stated on the irrigation rates, you might also consider the inverted
rate structure to encourage conservation.
The more irrigation water that everybody uses it costs on the entire
community. We need to continue to
upgrade our availability of reuse water.
Mr.
Bissell stated we just went from $.52 to $1 on the irrigation.
Mr.
Gatti asked can you look at that? That
is where you really need discussion. I
think about Port Royal and they just let the water run.
Mr.
Stephens stated we have people who use 40,000 gallons per month for irrigation
and people who use 4,000 or 5,000.
Mr.
Bissell asked the people over here are using potable water and paying a
different rate for the potable water than their drinking water?
Mr.
Stephens responded it is a little higher than the irrigation, but is still
low. It would be nice to get them water
down there. We just need a line down
each street.
Mr.
Bissell stated if we can implement these increases and get some finances, we
can do these things. We need to do
something in the general fund too. We
have to start paying back our bond is
Mr.
Stephens stated on a good watering day we have 40,000 to 50,000 gallons in the
first of the morning used for irrigation.
Mr.
Gatti stated I do not mean to question what you are saying, but do we have
irrigation pipes throughout the whole system?
Mr.
Benson responded not the last couple of streets.
Mr.
Stephens stated it runs all the way down Newport Drive. All we have to do is cross the road and run
right down your street and come down the other.
It is just the laterals and that is it.
Mr.
Bissell asked how much would that cost?
Mr.
Benson responded I estimate $75,000.
Mr.
Gatti stated the payback on that would probably be pretty quick.
Mr.
Benson stated at some point in time we will have to do a renewal for our water
use permit with the South Florida Water Management District. At that point we have to do a study of all
the past water usage, the number of customers and how much each customer is using. At that point they may say we are using more
than we should. They are going to
encourage us to have the inverted block rates.
Mr.
Stephens stated once we reach fifty percent of our permitting capacity we have
to spend three or four hours a day at the plant. Once we reach eighty percent, we have to go
into the permitting process or do something differently.
Mr.
Benson are you talking about the water plant?
Mr.
Gatti stated that was a good idea and we will look at the irrigation part of it
too. We have discretion. Whether you water your lawn five days a week
or three days a week makes a big difference.
It is a good idea.
Mr.
Bissell asked when can we get started? I
just gave and example that to me, is a minimal increase.
Mr.
Gatti responded to bring this together, we are going to get the information on
what other communities charge. I do not
think that is going to really finalize how we should do it, but it at least
gives us an idea. I think we are getting
away cheap. What does it cost us to
produce 1,000 gallons of water? Do we
have any idea?
Mr.
Benson stated we would have to look at all the records.
Mr.
Gatti stated to produce the water it costs the City of Naples $1.40 per
thousand gallons, then they mark up their cost of distribution, staff and
everything else. What do we pay $2.32?
Mr.
Stephens stated that is a real low base.
Mr.
Bissell asked can we come back to the next meeting with some information?
Mr.
Cox responded I can get copies of the rate study. I will mail that out to you with the next
agenda package, so you can study that information. We can go into specifics then about the
procedures for the adoption of the rule.
It will require some analysis and some hearings. That will take a two or three meeting cycle,
which should put us side by side with the capital improvement analysis and the
rest of the budget analysis. When we get
ready to adopt the budget, we will incorporate all of this.
Mr.
Gatti stated if no one has a problem with that, we will proceed. Staff has direction to proceed on that.
Mr.
Benson stated I will call Mr. Wrathell and update him.
Mr.
Bissell asked can we approach Allstate, or is our credit good enough to get a
decrease in interest rates?
Mr.
Cox stated we have the three is
Mr.
Gatti stated we need someone who will pick up the bonds at a lower rate and buy
Allstate out.
A
resident asked are there any call features on the bond?
Mr.
Cox responded I am sure if there are, it is callable now because that bond was
is
Mr.
Gatti stated I recall Mr. Bloom saying something about them becoming callable
next year. The idea is really a good
one, but how do we initiate this?
Mr.
Cox responded it has been initiated. We
have been discussing this for a couple of months.
Mr.
Gatti asked whom are you referring to when you say we?
Mr.
Cox responded Mr. Bloom and Allstate's attorney and myself. It looks like there are some shakeups going
on. I do not want to deal in rumors, but
the atmosphere is going to get a little bit better for getting this thing taken
care of.
Mr.
Gatti stated the essence is to find someone who will buy these bonds at a lower
interest rate and buy Allstate out. Is
that how it works?
Mr.
Cox responded either that or have Allstate refinance the bonds.
Mr.
Gatti asked why should they refinance the bonds?
Mr.
Wolsky stated because they are going to be callable.
Mr.
Cox stated it is the final cleanup. Once
we have all the properties that we have foreclosed on you have to go in and say
these portions of the bonds were to that.
We have this amount of money left and what do we do with it? That is what they are thinking of and how
that is going to be affected.
Mr.
Gatti asked how does the Board feel about this concept? We are asking staff to pur
Mr.
Cox responded there are a couple of ways you can do this. There has always been the feature where you
can pay off your assessments and get an equity line on your house. Some of those are ridiculously low right
now. You can pay off your assessments
and your portion of the bond in one chunk.
Mr.
Gatti asked Mr. Schreiber, do you have any ideas on that?
Mr.
Schreiber responded you are looking for somebody that deals with municipal
bonds in the State of Florida and I would be happy to make a call.
Mr.
Gatti asked does this disrupt things?
Mr.
Schreiber responded by the way, they deal in dollars. It is not a big is
Mr.
Cox responded the original principal is $7 million and it is probably in the
neighborhood of around $5.2 million.
Mr.
Schreiber asked is there a coupon on that bond?
Mr.
DeCocq responded management will come back next month with a report on those
bonds and when they are callable. We
will give you a whole schedule and that will give you a starting point.
Mr.
Gatti asked would you mind looking at this as you have the expertise?
Mr.
Schreiber responded I will have a contract person do that.