MINUTES OF MEETING
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
on Friday, January 27, 2006 at 10:00 a.m. in the Egret Room, 25000 Tamiami
Trail,
Present and constituting a quorum
were:
Richard
Gatti Chairman
Dale
Lambert Vice Chairman
Ted
Bissell Assistant
Secretary
Norine
Dillon Assistant
Secretary
Richard
Ziko Assistant
Secretary
Also present
were:
Edward
Goscicki District
Manager
Dan
Cox Attorney
Ron
Benson Engineer
Tom
Mack Staff
Tim
Stephens Field Manager
Bob
Dick Severn
Christopher
Shucart POI
Hotel &
James
Shucart POI Hotel &
Samantha
Marchand POI RV Resort
Numerous
Residents
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Gatti called the meeting to order and Mr. Dick called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the
Minutes of the December 16, 2005 Meeting
Mr. Gatti stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the December 16, 2005 meeting and requested
any additions, corrections or deletions.
There not being any,
On
MOTION by Ms. Dillon seconded by Mr. Lambert with all in favor the minutes of the
December 16, 2005 meeting were approved.
Mr. Gatti stated we will discuss the third order of business once everyone gets here. In the meantime, we will discuss the open items.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Open Items
Equipment
Inventory
Mr. Dick stated the list has been
completed on the inventory. However, I
do not have it with me. Mr. Stephens and
I worked on this earlier in the week, so we do have a list. The only question Mr. Stephens had was how
extensive you wanted the list and if it was to include every piece of equipment
and if we established a limit of anything over $500.
Ms. Dillon stated I thought we
agreed on $250.
Mr. Lambert stated that is what is
written down.
Mr. Dick stated we can incorporate
this.
Mr. Lambert asked did we get those
two new generators on the list?
Mr. Dick responded yes.
Mr. Ziko asked when will we be able
to get a copy of this list?
Mr. Dick responded I can bring you a
copy next week.
Mr. Bissell asked will the list have
the new items?
Mr. Dick responded yes.
Reuse
Water for Irrigation
Mr. Ziko stated since Mr. Benson and
Mr. Stephens are not yet here yet, we should hold off on this discussion.
Mr. Gatti stated the meters need to
be hooked up, which cannot be done until the restoration work is done.
Mr. Ziko stated I want to find out
where we stand, and Mr. Benson and Mr. Stephens.will be able to tell us.
Mr. Goscicki asked are you referring
to the installation of the irrigation lines?
Mr. Ziko responded I am referring to
the entire system setup.
Mr. Lambert stated there is some
other equipment which still needs to be installed.
Mr. Gatti stated as far as I know,
Mr. Benson will be here.
Mr. Goscicki stated I spoke to him
yesterday on several issues, and as far as I know he will be here.
Fire
Station
Mr. Ziko stated although Mr. Cox is
not here, Mr. Mack can update us.
Mr. Mack stated I spoke to Ms.
Marchand who has been in discussion with the new owner at the park, who said he
is going to go along with what Ms. Marchand proposed. He is currently trying to work out the tax
ramifications, and hopefully he will have it for the next meeting, at which
time we should be able to go through it.
Mr. Lambert asked has Mr. Cox been
working with him at all?
Mr. Mack responded no, it has just
been Ms. Marchand and myself.
Mr. Lambert stated we probably need
to get Mr. Cox working on this if we are ever going to get this done.
Reuse
Water for Irrigation (Continued)
Mr. Benson stated we have all the
equipment and materials. However, the
prices we received from contractors have been too high. We asked a couple of other companies to give
us prices and proposals. I want to ask
the Board if it is acceptable for our firm to provide the information to Severn
Trent Services because they have the ability to install these pumps, valves,
pipes. Perhaps they will be able to give
us a more responsive price because the general contractors are pricing it too
high since it is a small project. Installation
of valves and pumps are not of an interest right now for local contractors.
Mr. Bissell asked does this require
a motion?
Mr. Goscicki responded I believe it
does since it involves waiving your competitive procurement in order to do a
sole source negotiation with Severn Trent to provide this service.
Mr. Gatti asked how much will this
cost?
Mr. Benson responded originally we
were discussing $25,000 or less. I gave
you a list of equipment and the cost for installation a few months ago and you
authorized us to get some prices and have it done. These contractors are not interested and are
giving us unreasonable prices.
Mr. Gatti asked will this be in the
range of $25,000?
Mr. Benson responded it may be higher
since more items were added to the project.
Mr. Gatti asked what is the Board’s
pleasure?
Mr. Benson responded I do not want
to discuss the numbers in order to give them a fair chance. We have a major capital improvement project
at the irrigation pump station, which is a separate project we designed, and I
have been working with Mr. Cox on issues with the property for that pump
station. We have to go outside our
existing fence to install new equipment and ensure we put it on property which
you have an easement to, which is currently being verified. This project is well designed, unless equipment
has to be move around.
Mr. Gatti asked are we talking in
round numbers of less than $30,000?
Mr. Benson responded I believe so.
On
MOTION by Mr. Lambert seconded by Mr. Bissell with all in favor staff was
authorized to obtain a price from Severn Trent Services to install pumps,
valves and pipes as part of the Reuse Water for Irrigation Project.
Fire
Station (Continued)
Mr. Mack stated I have not spoken to
Ms. Marchand since the last meeting.
However, she spoke to the new owner and he sees the need for a fire
station, and he agrees with Ms. Marchand’s proposal. He needs to understand the tax ramifications
and we should have something for the next meeting.
Mr. Gatti asked what is the next
step in this process?
Mr. Cox responded I will need to get
the title updated which will take approximately one week and we can close as
soon as they ready.
Mr. Gatti asked do you need
authorization from the Board in terms of money being spent?
Mr. Cox responded there will be some
related expenses, such as title insurance. I also need to know whether or not we are
going to purchase the other 1 ½ acres we discussed.
Mr. Mack stated that issue may be
part of it, and it may be different than what it originally was.
Ms. Marchand stated Mr. Holecek
indicated he is definitely inclined to do this and he is working on making it
happen in the best interest of the District.
He has some ideas and he is working with someone in order to make it a
nominal investment on behalf of the District.
Mr. Gatti stated at this point, we are
waiting on Mr. Holecek.
Ms. Marchand stated he is not tied
down to a time schedule.
Mr. Gatti asked are there any steps
we should be taking at this point or are we just waiting for the owner?
Mr. Cox responded I have everything
I need. When they are ready, we can
close.
Mr. Gatti stated we are waiting for
the owner to come back with some proposals.
Ms. Marchand stated I believe Chief
Wilson stated that is the property he wants.
Therefore, I do not think there is anything further which needs to be
done at this point until it can be transferred.
Entrance
Monuments
Mr. Ziko asked will we ever get
these done?
Mr. Dick responded I hope so. The most recent delay has been permitting
because the driveways to the Cay and the driveways to the marina are the dividing
line for individual property ownership.
We want two signs at the entrance to the Cays, and the east and west
side are owned by different individuals.
This became an issue during permitting.
There is a meeting Monday morning with the
Mr. Ziko stated I was under the
impression this was part of the CID’s property which we are responsible for.
Mr. Benson stated Mr. Cox and I put
together a survey, legal descriptions and documents because some of those signs
were on private property and some were on CID property. Therefore, we prepared documents which will
enable the Board to get the owners to give you easements, giving you ownership
of the entire area.
Mr. Ziko asked was this ever done?
Mr. Cox responded it has not been
done, and I am not sure what transpired.
However, I know who to contact.
Mr. Ziko asked will we see the signs
within three or four months?
Mr. Dick responded hopefully you
will see them sooner.
Mr. Benson stated Mr. Cox has all
the legal descriptions for those locations.
Mr. Dick stated the sign company is
meeting with the
Mr. Gatti asked do the owners need
to be involved?
Mr. Dick responded we may need the
owners.
Mr. Cox stated we can get easements
from the owners.
Mr. Dick stated they determine
ownership via the Collier County Tax Appraiser’s Office.
Mr. Gatti stated it seems as though
you have a long way to go.
Mr. Ziko asked does the same person
own both sides of
Mr. Dick stated I was told there
were different owners at each entrance.
It is split with different ownership on each side.
Portable
Generator for Sewage Lift Stations
DEP
Letter – Compliance Inspection Report
Mr. Dick stated the portable
generator is parked at the plant and ready to go for any emergency for the
wastewater lift stations or anywhere else it is needed. The generator for mounting out in the well
field is also on site. Mr. Stephens completed
pouring the concrete foundation for it.
The next step is to physically set a crane there and have it connected.
Mr. Ziko asked is this part of the
compliance we were supposed to have done by December 31st?
Mr. Dick responded that is correct.
Mr. Ziko asked has it been done?
Mr. Dick responded it is not
complete.
Mr. Ziko stated we are now out of
compliance with the State.
Mr. Goscicki stated this is not a
non-compliance issue. You are dealing
with a consent order.
Mr. Benson stated it was a letter,
not a consent order. However, I am not
certain this was part of the December 31st deadline.
Mr. Lambert stated it was on the
same letter.
Mr. Benson stated the December 31st
deadline relates to specific regulatory requirements. We had to get the mapping of all the water
system valves which is called the Operation Maintenance Plan. We also did a couple of other documents, and
one of them is the emergency preparedness plan which Severn Trent is working
on.
Mr. Ziko asked can you get that
letter out again to make sure because I thought it was pretty specific that the
generator had to be in place in order for us to be in compliance.
Mr. Gatti stated we showed the State
a conscientious effort.
Mr. Ziko stated we should be able to
get things done on time. We started this
six months ago.
Ms. Dillon stated we started this last
January.
Mr. Bissell asked how high is this
generator when it is sitting on the pad?
Mr. Dick responded it sits no more
than 5’.
Mr. Bissell asked is it possible
that the backhoe or bucket can lift the generator and put it on there?
Mr. Dick responded we may use the
backhoe. We have to put it on the
trailer and drive it out there. It is a
heavy piece of equipment and we want to ensure it is safe.
Ms. Dillon stated we still want to
ensure we are in compliance.
Mr. Dick stated I will contact DEP and
if necessary, I will have the portable generator connected in the well to
ensure it is physically there and installed if they suggest this. This can be done immediately, and will help
to satisfy them.
Ms. Dillon asked what is the status
of the emergency preparedness plan?
Mr. Goscicki responded the emergency
preparedness plan is complete. In fact,
we asked the DEP where to send it. They
told us they did not want it, but they need to know we have it.
Mr. Ziko asked how can the plan be
complete when the generator, which is an important part of this plan, is not in
place?
Mr. Goscicki responded the plan is
the document which asks what you are going to do in the event of an emergency,
and the plan is complete. Implementation
of the plan is another issue. The DEP
told us to put together an emergency response plan, which we have done.
Mr. Ziko stated the first item on
the plan probably says to start the emergency generator, but it is not in
place. Therefore, the plan is not good.
Mr. Goscicki responded the plan is
good. We need to get the generator in
place.
Mr. Ziko stated everything is on
hold until April when they find out where the money is going to come from and
what they are actually doing on this side.
On the other side, which is Big Cypress, they are already starting. As
soon as we get any further word on this, I will let you know.
Mr. Gatti asked are they finished
with the mobilization yard? Have they
spoken to you at all on this?
Mr. Christopher Shucart responded
the contractor who was there previously is complete, but there is another
company that is going to be utilizing it.
Port
of the
Mr. Goscicki stated I have not been
able to get with
Mr. Ziko stated I want to know what
‘continue as is’ means from Mr. Dick.
Although we currently do not have a mosquito problem, it is coming up
rather rapidly. Do we have someone who
can mix the chemicals?
Mr. Dick responded at this moment,
the only person who is licensed to mix the chemicals is Mr. Stephens.
Mr. Ziko asked will he mix the
chemicals?
Mr. Dick responded he suggested he
will not do this.
Mr. Bissell stated when Mr.
Stephens’ job description was made, this was omitted. It was part of his job for the years he was
employed here. If the job description is
amended to include this, then there will be no excuses, and it can then be
considered insubordination.
Mr. Gatti stated you cannot
arbitrarily change a job description.
Mr. Bissell stated this was
done. It was omitted and was part of the
job description, but it was not in writing.
Mr. Ziko asked if he is no longer
going to spray for mosquitoes or mix the chemicals, has he taken a reduction in
pay since he is not fulfilling what he was hired to do?
Mr. Goscicki responded he has not.
Mr. Ziko stated I suggest you
discuss this with him and if he is not going to mix the chemicals, dock his pay
for it.
Mr. Dick stated we are working on
this issue. However, I have a proposal
from an independent contractor who is wiling to do it, but it is very expensive.
Ms. Dillon stated he is charging
$650 per application.
Mr. Dick stated this is a last
resort.
Ms. Dillon stated as I remember, you
were also working on getting other people qualified to mix chemicals.
Mr. Dick stated we are in the
process of getting other people licensed, who are independent of this
project. Among those is myself and
another manager in
Mr. Gatti asked what is Mr.
Stephens’ issue?
Mr. Dick responded he feels this is
leverage he can use in order to be paid more.
Mr. Goscicki stated I do not believe
it is appropriate to discuss personnel issues in an open forum. I should discuss this with the employee. If we cannot reach a resolution, I will come
back to each Board member individually.
However, I do not think it is in the best interest of the Board, the
community or employee relations to discuss personnel issues in this forum.
Mr. Gatti asked can we go into
executive session on this?
Ms. Dillon responded Mr. Cox said we
cannot.
Mr. Gatti asked can a personnel
manager go into executive session?
Mr. Cox responded no. There are collective bargaining procedures
which can be done in executive session.
Mr. Lambert asked can you get back
to us on this issue?
Mr. Goscicki responded I planned to
be here 45 minutes in advance if it was not for the 30 mile backup on I-75 to
meet with the Board members one on one.
If we have time after the Board meeting, I would like to meet with the
Board members one on one to briefly discuss this issue.
Mr. Ziko stated we need to have
something in place when the mosquito season begins.
Mr. Goscicki stated absolutely.
Mr. Dick stated we will have this.
Proposal
for Operation of Water & Wastewater Facilities
Mr. Ziko asked has anything more be
done on this?
Mr. Cox responded yes. Those proposals are due back to me
approximately one week before the next meeting.
I will get those out to each of you via FedEx as soon as I receive them,
and we will hopefully have them available for consideration before the next
meeting.
Mr. Ziko asked when you made out the
RFQs, did you do it for the three categories of management, plant operations,
or both?
Mr. Cox responded yes. It was set up this way. You have management operations, general
management and an alternative of plant operations, which can be awarded to a
separate company.
Mr. Gatti asked what is the next
step?
Mr. Cox responded the proposals will
be here for your next meeting.
Mr. Ziko asked how many replies were
received?
Mr. Cox responded three or four of
the six I sent have called to let me know they are sending it back.
Mr. Ziko asked will this be
discussed at the next meeting?
Ms. Dillon responded perhaps it will
be discussed in March, depending on when the next meeting is.
Mr. Cox stated the RFP indicates it
will be considered on the fourth Friday in February. Therefore, we will have to keep this meeting.
Mr. Goscicki stated you can still
change it.
Mr. Lambert stated if we change the
February meeting, I will be out of town.
Mr. Ziko stated we can start the new
schedule in March.
Mr. Cox stated this may help
depending on how the process proceeds in arranging the schedules for the
management.
Discrepancy
between Gallons of Water Pumped and Gallons Billed
Mr. Goscicki stated I went through
this and worked up a summary which is not encouraging. I looked at the last year of data for the
revenue consumption report from our utility billing system and the water
production numbers from Mr. Stephens at the water plant. I included several numbers which represent
the irrigation number of customers, billed potable water and the number of
potable water customers. The per unit
consumption from my own analysis represents what we are billing, the number of
customers and how much we are billing per customer. This number is low when you look at a maximum
of 5,000 gallons per month, and a minimum of less than 2,000 gallons per month,
per unit as water consumption. I have
not gone back into the details to see what the average billing currently is,
but I assume the average billing is probably significantly higher than this. Typically, we use water for domestic purposes
on the order of 3,000 to 5,000 gallons per month, and if we use it for
irrigation, which some parts of the community still do, it can easily increase to
10,000 gallons per month. When you
compare the billed potable water consumption numbers against the line of water
production, you come up with the unaccounted amount for water, which is right
above the bold line. When you look at this
as a percentage of the water produced, you can see you are running on the order
of 50% unaccounted for water, which poses a significant problem. The dollars associated with this are not
insignificant. Assuming you can recover
75% of the unaccounted amount for water, you may realize approximately $30,000
in additional revenue. This is an
issue. We want to check the main meter
again and get it calibrated to ensure the numbers coming out of the water plant
are correct, but my suspicion is we have a good bit unaccounted for water,
either through leaks, unmetered connections or other sources which may be
contributing to this. This chart also
did not put in a number for internal usage. I want to get with Mr. Stephens to see if we
can come up with an estimate for internal usage within the system for flushing
hydrants and lines. Typically, this is
chemical feed within the water treatment plant.
The internal use is significant and can easily be 100,000 gallons per
month when you look at line flushing, among other programs. This will obviously have a significant impact
on reducing this from the 50 range to the 40 range, which is still abnormal. Ten to twenty percent is considered normal in
the industry which has unaccounted for water in an older distribution
system. We have some work to do with regards
to this issue.
Mr. Gatti asked are we installing
new meters?
Mr. Benson responded yes. We discussed at previous meetings identifying
meters by age and having a program to replace those meters.
Mr. Gatti asked in your experience,
does this almost suggest a water main break somewhere?
Mr. Benson responded there are a
number of issues. We compared the amount
of water production to the customers and the per unit consumption which was
reasonable. Therefore, I believe the
amount we are billing is low compared to what we are producing, and the amount
we are producing compared to the number of customers is reasonable. This probably involves the billing which
relates to the meters, and also how the water being used for irrigation is
accounted for.
Mr. Ziko stated the second line
shows we had 117 customers in January, which does not seem correct.
Mr. Goscicki stated that line refers
to irrigation customers. If you go down
three more lines, you will see the number of potable water customers which is
556 and is decreasing.
Mr. Gatti asked do we meter our
irrigation use?
Mr. Benson responded yes. The reason we have less irrigation meters is
a condominium has one irrigation meter and each condo uses it as a potable
water meter.
Mr. Lambert asked where is the main
meter located?
Mr. Benson responded it is at the
water plant.
Mr. Lambert asked is it before it
goes into the plant?
Mr. Benson responded it is coming
out of the plant. The water which is
being pumped from the plant toward the customers is where it is metered.
Mr. Lambert asked is this related in
any way to losses inside the plant?
Mr. Benson responded it does not
relate to this issue. We keep track of
losses differently, which is not a big number.
Mr. Lambert asked is water we push
out of the plant being metered?
Mr. Benson responded yes.
Mr. Gatti asked what action should
we take since we are talking about a large number?
Mr. Goscicki responded we need to
look at a water loss analysis program.
Typically, when you are doing water loss analysis or an unaccounted for
water analysis, certain issues at the plant need to be verified. You must first verify the main meters. The second verification needs to be a field
check of accounts to ensure we are metering everything out there. This involves a field effort. This is not something which is done on a part-time
basis. You need to go through a
systematic approach of identifying the existing units as well as the exact meter
for each unit. Over time, field staff
who are doing meter readings know where the meters are which need to be
read. They then read the meter. However, they are not checking to see if
every house is accounted for with every meter out there. A field check to confirm every building has a
meter and the meter works is the first step.
If we do not identify any unbilled connections, the next step is to look
at the consumption by service areas and breakdowns within the service areas to
see if there is an inordinate consumption pattern indicating a line leak. Part of this analysis involves looking at the
age of the meters and determining if we have old meters in particular areas
which are inoperable.
Mr. Gatti asked will we be looking
at extra costs since this is way outside of yours and Mr. Benson’s scope of
work?
Mr. Goscicki responded I suggest we
put together a proposal to do this. This
is something we do on a routine basis as a service to customers around the
country to both our local offices and our national resources. We have a separate company which handles
pipeline and water loss analyses.
Therefore, we rely on their expertise to help us on this.
Mr. Gatti asked in terms of dollars,
what kind of loss are we talking about?
Mr. Goscicki responded the loss is
approximately $30,000 per year.
Obviously, you do not want to spend $100,000 to recover $30,000. If we can do something which will cost
$20,000, you will cover it in less than one year. We want to put together a sequential proposal,
which looks at ways to take this off in incremental chunks to see what can be
uncovered. The first thing is the audit
of what is in the field on a house by house and unit by unit basis to ensure we
are metering everything in the ground.
Ms. Dillon asked can this be done by
our plant personnel?
Mr. Goscicki responded it has not
happened, and we had significant staff turnover. You have one licensed operator who is tied to
the facility, and the remaining people get trained and move on. I am not confident you have trained people to
handle this.
Mr. Lambert asked will you put a
dollar amount on each step of this process in your proposal?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes. We break the proposal down into steps so we know
what it costs, what the results and benefits are before we move on to the next
step.
Mr. Lambert stated it is going to
take some period of time to get through this.
Mr. Goscicki stated that is correct
and it gets exponentially more expensive.
The first steps are similar, as you start getting every metered hooked
up, it tells if you have got either illegal connections you are not aware of or
you have significant leakage. As a
result, you must test the pipeline with certain equipment. You shut off certain areas, notify the people
and listen to see if there is actually water flow when there should not
be. There are techniques for doing this
which we can bring to the table.
Obviously, it becomes more intense if you have to bring in more
specialized skills and will be a last resort.
Mr. Gatti stated you are talking
about a large amount of money before this is done.
Mr. Ziko stated we are losing half
of our capacity, and running our plant at double time to meet half the
capacity.
Mr. Gatti asked how old is the old
section of the pipe system?
Mr. Benson responded the oldest
section is more than 35 to 40 years old and is starting to be replaced this
year. It was asbestos cement pipe which
was very brittle, and we started replacing it from the plant all the way down
to the north end of Orchid Cove. Anything
which is off the line we are hooking up to ensure it is on a meter. The line which comes off is on a meter and a
couple of months ago we brought a change order to put a pipe in one area to
basically ensure we were tying in two meters at the North Hotel. Every time we do a project we ensure
everything is tied in properly to a meter.
We also started to look at the age of meters without spending too much
effort. I asked the salesman for your
meters to send me a list of how many meters were sold as far back as the
records go. They had records from five
years back. We needed to know how many
meters are less than five years old compared to how many we have. Mr. Goscicki, Mr. Stephens, Mr. Dick and I are
going to get together to come up with a list of meters which need to be
replaced this year.
Mr. Ziko stated a meter will not
have a 50% error in it.
Mr. Benson stated when they get over
10 years old, meters can be off by 30 to 40%.
Meters always read low.
Mr. Gatti stated most cities have an
ongoing meter testing program which is part of their operation because contrary
to what you just said we can be losing a lot through the meters.
Mr. Benson stated purchase of a new
meter is less than $70 per meter.
Therefore, it is cheaper to buy a new meter than to test an old meter.
Mr. Lambert asked when you are
finished drawing this information together will we have a plan?
Mr. Benson responded this is our
intention.
Mr. Lambert asked will it be
something we can use in the future which will have data on in order to proceed
forward?
Mr. Benson responded yes and the new
meters come with new features.
Mr. Goscicki stated we will look
into this and I apologize for not getting back to you.
Mr. Benson stated it is more expensive
and can be done in steps, but if you are going to purchase 100 new meters per
year to replace old meters, every time you put in a new meter you may want to
think about putting in a more expensive meter which you can do more with in the
future.
Mr. Dick asked how much more are we
looking at?
Mr. Ziko asked are we looking at
remote reading?
Mr. Benson responded I am not
necessarily going to propose this, but we want to tell you the cost and you can
make the decision.
Ms. Dillon asked do we have a good
inventory list of the meters and their serial numbers?
Mr. Benson responded I am not sure
Mr. Stephens necessarily keeps this record detail.
Mr. Bissell stated we should.
Mr. Benson stated he purchases the
meters as he needs them and perhaps buys 40 at a time. He then supplies the builder the meters and
they get installed.
Mr. Goscicki stated if that is not
on the billing system as we move forward, we will make it part of the billing
system.
Mr. Lambert stated without the
billing system the work you are doing is a waste of time.
Mr. Benson stated I am not sure we
had records in the past.
Mr. Lambert stated we should develop
a system and keep it as we go forward.
Mr. Goscicki stated this is a field
within the billing system and we must ensure we have communications from Mr.
Stephens as these are being installed.
He should record the information and give it to our billing people.
Mr. Benson stated I gave the
contractor on Newport Cay and
Ms. Dillon asked do we have a
listing of those meters and where they were installed?
Mr. Benson responded I am not
sure. This is something we have to ask
Mr. Stephens.
Mr. Stephens stated we have those
records. Each meter has a number on top,
which is recorded with each household.
Mr. Benson asked do we have this for
every meter or just for the newer ones?
Mr. Stephens responded we have every
meter which is out there for the last 10 years.
Ms. Dillon asked is it possible the
source of our big discrepancy in the water production figure involves the data
or meters in the plant telling us how much we pumped?
Mr. Benson responded Mr. Stephens
has those meters calibrated as required by the DEP. When we looked at the number of customers
actively using water versus the amount of water the plant is producing, the
amount per customer per home is reasonable.
The irrigation water consumption is metered at the irrigation pump
station and it is calibrated. We have
calibration records and the number seems high, but this is the number we are
using and we need to determine where that water goes. We also need to study individual water bills
in order to determine which meters need to be replaced.
Ms. Dillon stated no one is going to
tell you their water bill is too low.
On
MOTION by Mr. Lambert seconded by Ms. Dillon with all in favor Severn Trent
Services was authorized to make a proposal to create a water loss and pipeline
analysis program to determine the need for new meters.
Mr. Ziko stated at the last meeting
we agreed to send a certified letter to the residents at
Mr. Goscicki responded the letter is
prepared. However, I had a difficult
time downloading those addresses from our billing system. Therefore, we plan to hand deliver them as
door hangers rather than send certified letters.
Mr. Ziko stated you can log onto the
Mr. Goscicki stated I wanted to go
out with Mr. Dick today and verify which homes are there, and then we can hand
deliver or mail them. However, I did not
want to guess off of our billing system which house got connected and which one
did not based on the engineering drawings.
Ms. Dillon stated last month the
reason we discussed a certified letter was to ensure the residents got the
letter telling them they are going to have to take a look at their water
system.
Mr. Ziko stated we have been asking
you to put a notation on the water bill about boiling your water in the event
of a loss of pressure for three months, which you promised to do and nothing
has been done. This should not be
difficult to do. When will this be
accomplished?
Mr. Goscicki responded we can only
put a brief message on the water bill since it is a postcard.
Mr. Ziko stated this is all we are
asking for to cover us since we do not have a notification system and the plant
lost pressure a number of times over the last six months. We must notify everyone to boil their water.
Mr. Goscicki stated this is not
sufficient notification. In reality, it
is an operational requirement for us to notify the customers if we drop
pressure.
Mr. Gatti asked what message do you
want to put on the bill?
Mr. Goscicki responded “Dear Sir or Madam: As part of the Port of the Islands Community
Improvement District’s ongoing capital improvements, a new irrigation/fire flow
line was recently installed in the right-of-way adjacent to your property. This irrigation line has been connected to
your existing irrigation system, eliminating the need for the use of potable
water for irrigation purposes. The water
used for this irrigation is a combination of canal water and treated wastewater
from the District’s water reclamation facility.
Although the wastewater is treated to high standards to qualify for
irrigation use in a residential setting, (underlined and in bold) this water is not potable and is not
suitable for domestic consumption.
It is imperative that as a user of this non-potable irrigation system,
you understand, and again, (underlined and in bold) this water is not to be connected in any way to your current domestic
water supply or to any other outlet or exterior faucet which could be used for
domestic consumption. Your
cooperation in this regard is important to your health and that of the
community.
Mr. Ziko stated this sounds good to
me.
Mr. Goscicki stated we will send
this out.
Grant
From South Florida Water Management District
Mr. Benson stated we did not get a
grant. Most of the money was given to
large projects.
Install
Missing Reflectors for Fire Hydrant Location
Mr. Ziko stated this was done and it
was a good job.
Paint
Fire Hydrants
Mr. Dick stated we have the
materials but have not started to paint.
Mr. Bissell stated one hydrant was
spray painted white.
Mr. Dick stated this is not the
appropriate color.
Mr. Ziko stated please give us an
update on this next month as to what needs to be done.
Mr. Goscicki stated Mr. Stephens is
fully staffed. We now have two full-time
employees and two part-time employees on the payroll in Operations. Is this correct?
Mr. Stephens responded not to my
knowledge.
Mr. Goscicki stated we are paying
four people.
Mr. Stephens stated one person was
hired to read the water meters which she is not doing this month and the other
person is on weekend duty along with myself.
Mr. Goscicki stated perhaps we
should try to get the part-time meter reader to do some painting for us.
Mr. Stephens stated Natalee will not
do this. She has another full-time job.
Truck
Decals
Mr. Goscicki stated we used the same
sign company.
Mr. Dick stated they are complete.
Mr. Ziko asked are they on the
truck?
Mr. Dick stated the sign company
wanted me to bring the trucks to
Mr. Ziko asked are these permanent
or magnetic signs?
Mr. Dick responded they are
non-magnetic. Once they are on, they are
very difficult to get off.
Mr. Ziko stated please give us an
update next month.
Portable
Defibrillator
Ms. Dillon stated I finally reached
Mr. Burgeson, and he told me he will not do this and hung up. I will note people in the RV park on the
other side had a fund raiser and bought one, which they installed in the
office. However, the price has come down
significantly. They are less than $1,200
now and they were $3,000 when we started.
Mr. Gatti asked is there still an
issue of where to put it?
Ms. Dillon responded yes, but we are
hoping the fire station will take care of this.
Mr. Bissell asked does the fire
station have one?
Ms. Dillon responded it will have
one.
Auditor
Fees
Mr. Goscicki stated I understand
this was discussed at the last two meetings.
I read through the minutes and notice you have a proposal from Dufresne
& Associates again.
Mr. Ziko stated I thought we had a
signed contract with them which we approved at the December 2004 meeting. We approved for you to go out to Dufresne as
our auditor. Did you ever do this?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes, but it
was for the prior fiscal year and this is for the next fiscal year. If you recall we were late in getting
Dufresne on board for the 2004 audit.
Mr. Ziko asked do we have a signed
contract?
Mr. Goscicki responded we have a
signed contract for the work completed on the 2004 audited financials. This is for the 2005 financial audit, which
is on schedule. At this point we must get
the auditor on board, and get this audit done well before the end of this
fiscal year. The price increased over
the last one. It is approximately
$14,000 or more, and this increase has been an issue for all of our clients. It is a function of the new regulations under
the GASB 34.
Mr. Ziko stated we did GASB 34 on
the previous one.
Mr. Goscicki stated you are correct
and I will go through it. GASB 34 will
occur for the next several years. There
is an increase in requirements which GASB 34 has within those statutes. Last year it was a matter of getting the
format in compliance with GASB 34. This
year GASB 34 added another set of requirements in terms of comparative
analysis. In last year’s audit, they
looked at your previous year’s numbers and everything worked out fine. We did not see any discrepancies or problems
in the financial structure. Next year
they are required to do a comparative analysis of your financial position this
year compared to your financial position in the previous year. The year after this, I believe there are
additional requirements. The Federal
Government authorized a progressive series of requirements for governmental
entities, most of which started last year.
There are many more requirements in terms of what the auditors are being
required to do as part of GASB 34. We
have seen an average 20% increase in audit fees for this additional work, which
is not unique to POI, but has been the case across the board. It is turning into a significant work effort
on the part of the auditors to do this work.
A couple of years back they would do a few spot analyses, review the
records, clean it up and move on. The
auditors are in our office literally 10 months out of the year continuously
working.
Mr. Lambert stated we have not seen
the product from the 2004 audit.
Mr. Goscicki stated this was an
oversight on our part. This audit is
complete and should have been presented to the Board in November. However, I will present it at the next
meeting.
Mr. Bissell asked can we assume that
in the 2004 audit we paid them $4,750 per fund and for 2005 we are paying $5,500
per fund?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes.
Mr. Bissell stated we did the first
one for one year and we wanted to see if they did a good job.
Mr. Goscicki stated the law on how an
auditor is selected also changed this year.
There are new requirements and since you used them last year you may continue
to use them again this year, but if you decide to select a new auditor, you
literally have to go through a formal selection process similar to what you recently
went through for the O&M contract.
We have to put out a proposal of which there is a certain structure. We have to establish an audit selection
committee, which can be the Board or you can select your committee. They will have to meet through the Sunshine
Law, follow a structured evaluation process and bring a recommendation to the
Board. In past years, we were able to do
this analysis for you, interview four or five firms and bring you our
recommendation. We cannot do this
anymore. It has to go through the
structured process.
Mr. Lambert stated when we selected
this firm we went through a similar process.
Mr. Goscicki stated we put out an
advertisement and received multiple proposals.
This Board evaluated those proposals based on cost and
qualifications. This follows the same
process, but it is more structured.
Mr. Lambert asked are they willing
to do 2005 through 2007 at $5,500 per fund according to their fee schedule? Based on the fact that everything is going to
increase, have they taken this into account?
Mr. Goscicki responded no. If you read the last line, “fees are subject
to adjustment 2006/2007 as a result of increasing costs”.
Mr. Ziko asked how much of an
overage did we incur on the 2004 audit?
In other words how much did we actually pay for that audit?
Mr. Goscicki responded I do not
believe we paid them anything additional.
This was a major issue in the previous year when I first started and we
refused to pay the auditor additional fees.
Although I am not aware of paying them any additional fees, I can verify
it with our accounting section.
Mr. Ziko stated additional services were
charged at the rate of $95 per hour and they charged us a blanket rate of
$4,700. How many additional hours did
they charge?
Mr. Goscicki responded we solicited
a lump sum proposal. The Board must
authorize additional audit work.
Otherwise, the work should be completed within the fee.
Ms. Dillon stated we have not paid
for the 2004 audit.
Mr. Gatti stated if they ask for more money we have to approve it in advance.
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Consideration
of Engagement letter with Dufresne & Associates, CPA, PA to Perform the
Audit for Fiscal Years 2005, 2006 and 2007
Mr. Goscicki stated I would like to
get a motion from the Board to approve the selection of Dufresne &
Associates for the 2005 Audit.
On
MOTION by Mr. Lambert seconded by Mr. Bissell with all in favor the Engagement
letter with Dufresne & Associates, CPA, PA to perform Auditing Services for
Fiscal Years 2005, 2006 and 2007 was approved.
Mr. Gatti asked can we take this
item off the list of open items?
Mr. Ziko responded we still need to look at the audit for 2004.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion
of Open items (Continued)
Research Capacity of Facilities with
Possibility of Adding Additional ERCs
Mr. Ziko stated this item will
remain on hold, pending resolution of the problems. Our plant is producing water, but no one
knows where it is going.
Mr. Benson stated the analysis I
prepared was necessary for our SWFWMD permit applications both for our drinking
water and irrigation. This information
was used and it is valuable information.
Mr. Gatti asked does one have
something to do with the other? When you
do an analysis of whether or not we have enough to produce more ERCs, is this
based on the production even though it is inaccurate?
Mr. Benson responded my analysis is
based only on production, as required.
Mr. Gatti stated your point is
valid.
Mr. Ziko stated if we are producing
100,000 gallons, and 50,000 gallons is missing, this is a large amount of
missing ERCs and our production is half of what we believe it to be.
Mr. Benson stated our production is
accurate, but we are billing less than what we are producing.
Mr. Lambert asked did your study
have to do with production, but not billing?
Mr. Benson responded we have to use
what is going through the calibrated meters and we have to use the production.
Mr. Gatti asked based on this, does
one have anything to do with the other?
Mr. Benson responded billing has
nothing to do with the permit process.
However, SWFWMD can ask us for information about unaccounted for
water. Approximately one year ago, I
said we need to be prepared to answer this question, because if you have a high
amount of unaccounted for water due to water going in the ground, they take this
as being the worst possible situation. However,
they are not as concerned with billing issues, but they have asked larger
utilities to incorporate a rate structure which penalizes people who use large
amounts of water in order to urge conservation. They have not asked us for this yet, but it is
something I would like to discuss with the Board in the near future for
irrigation.
Mr. Gatti stated based on the fact
we already have advance knowledge of what is going to happen, it is possible to
consider adding additional ERCs and potentially make them available.
Mr. Lambert asked did Mr. Cox
prepare something for this meeting which was going to explain this process?
Mr. Gatti responded yes.
Mr. Lambert stated we should defer
this item until we go through the remainder of our agenda.
Mr. Bissell stated there were
comments made at a Board meeting several months ago with regards to a question
from DEP for the amount of water we were using.
Was this irrigation or potable water?
Mr. Benson responded it was
irrigation water which refers to SWFWMD and this has not been resolved.
Mr. Bissell stated if we have to
irrigate Orchid Cove we will be using additional water.
Mr. Benson stated the application we
have for SWFWMD for irrigation includes all development of this community at
buildout. We are telling them how much
water we need at buildout and how we justify it, and we say here is what you
used in the past for the last 10 years by month based on the number of acres of
property over the last couple of years which are developed and using
irrigation. We compared the irrigable
acres to the amount of water each month, as well as a detailed analysis and the
irrigation rate was 1.2” per week, which is average. SWFWMD believes this is too high, and they
would like you to use less than an inch.
We also put a factor on for dry weather conditions, and they have us
factor in for a multiplier for dry conditions versus average, and our rate is
high. They told us they are not
approving this. Therefore, as we
finalize this permit we must cut the number back to something reasonable which they
will accept and we must deal with implementing conservation measures. The county already has an ordinance which
most people are not complying with as far as what days they can irrigate. I am not sure we can do something about this,
but we can educate. Another thing we can
do with water conservation rates is to make up a number that the first 10,000
gallons they use for irrigation in a month is at $2 per one thousand
gallons. If they use another 10,000 they
pay $4 per gallon and if they use more, the rate they pay per gallon increases
as they use more to try to make people use less, and it was done in most
places.
THIRD ORDER OF
BUSINESS Public
Hearing to Adopt a Resolution Setting Rules for Utility Capacity
Mr.
Cox stated this is the culmination of what we have been discussing for the past
couple of month with regards to how we determine whether or not a property has
sufficient ERCs for proposed development.
When property is going through the development approval process in
Ms.
Dillon asked is this based on
Mr. Cox responded we are keeping our
original uses for single-family, multi-family, recreational vehicles, hotel
rooms, restaurants, bar and lounge and the marina slips the same. Any use other than those specified on this
list will be evaluated under the process established by the Board.
Ms. Dillon stated we were going to
adopt this last month, but we had to have a month’s notice.
Mr. Cox stated you are correct.
Mr. Bissell stated I move we adopt
this since we had plenty of time to read it.
Mr. Goscicki stated we advertised
this as a public hearing. Therefore, we
must open a public hearing on this issue, take comments from the public, close
the public hearing and take the necessary action
Mr. Gatti asked what does this do
for us?
Mr. Cox responded if someone came in
at a commercial site and wanted to put in a convenience store with a fast food
restaurant, we do not have an equivalency established for this.
Mr. Goscicki stated we are going to
use what is in the State’s statutes as an accepted table.
Mr. Gatti stated this in essence has
nothing to do with the 1,032 ERCs we already have. This is simply a methodology to analyze the
amount of ERCs someone needs.
Mr. Goscicki stated if a parcel of
property has five ERCs committed to it and they want to build a fast food
establishment, Mr. Benson needs a methodology to determine how many ERCs this
will require and if the property has sufficient capacity.
Mr. Gatti asked is the 1,032 units
we have taken into consideration in the RV Park and the multi-family? In other words, do we have 1,032 ERCs and
then the trailer park and condominiums increase the usage?
Mr. Benson responded yes. You actually billed out considerably more
than 1,032 dwelling units because of the factors. For example, an RV is four-tenths of an ERC
and a multi-family is eight-tenths. You
can build more of those units than 1,032, but it is equal to 1,032
single-family dwellings.
Mr. Gatti stated in theory we can
have as many as 1,200 units or more.
Mr. Goscicki stated the ERC
definition is equivalent residential connections.
Mr. Gatti stated I did not have a
clear definition of what the 1,032 ERCs provided.
The Public Hearing was opened.
Mr.
Beck asked does the ERC represent water usage?
Mr. Goscicki responded that is
correct.
Mr. Beck asked if you are losing 50%
of your water, how can you consider ERC use until you establish where this
water is and how much is really being used?
Mr. Ziko stated this does not relate
to what we are discussing. This relates
to if someone wants to put a gas station out here, they own the property.
Mr.
Gatti stated this segment establishes how much use is required or how the
methodology is established.
Mr.
Beck asked how do you know what you have in usage?
Mr. Goscicki responded I will try to
clarify this for you. You raise a
legitimate concern that if you do not know what your usage is how do you define
an ERC? The reality is an ERC or
Equivalent Resident Connection was defined in the development of this community
based upon good engineering practice and allocated to the facilities. I believe the numbers are 250 gallons per unit
per day for water and some other number for sewer. A water and wastewater facility was built based
upon those numbers. The ERC is defined based
on how many gallons per day per unit.
The purpose of this public hearing is to determine how many of those
units do these different kinds of other establishments equate to? For example, if you build a 7-Eleven with a
gas station in front, it must be determined if it equates to four or five
single-family homes. The issue of
accounting for how much water those single-family homes are actually using
right now is an entirely different issue this Board needs to address.
Mr. Cox stated a demand analysis methodology
should be done to analyze the various demands.
Ms.
Marchand asked are we only discussing the commercial ERCs?
Mr. Cox responded this refers to any
use other than the ones we traditionally had in our table.
Ms.
Marchand asked what was the methodology used to assign those initial 1,032
ERCs?
Mr. Cox responded the potential for
demand determined this.
Ms.
Marchand asked why can’t we continue with the original methodology? Why does there have to be a new methodology?
Mr. Cox responded because there are
uses which are not defined in our table.
We have a process of single-families in one unit and multi-families in
another unit. We need to determine units
for a gas station. We need this
methodology to determine demand of a proposed use. It has nothing to do with the allocation of
ERCs between properties.
M