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
Present and constituting a quorum
were:
Richard
Gatti 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
Bob
Dick
Tom
Mack Staff
James
Shucart POI Hotel &
Craig Wrathell Wrathell, Hart, Hunt & Associates
George
Bogeny
George
Cramer Resident
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Gatti
called the meeting to order and Mr. Goscicki called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Evaluation and Ranking
of RFPs for Operation and Maintenance of Water and
Wastewater Facilities
Mr. Gatti
asked how does the Board want to handle this?
Ms. Dillon responded I understand
from Mr. Cox we do not have to go through this evaluation ranking form which we
have to use for a management company.
Since only two firms are bidding on the contract, I am in favor of the
Board making a decision and voting in order to start the process.
Mr. Ziko
stated I agree.
Mr. Gatti
asked should we note on a piece of paper who we individually believe should be
hired as opposed to discussing the evaluation?
Mr. Ziko
responded I believe we can do this with a roll call vote.
Mr. Cox stated since this is for the
operation and maintenance of the plant, there should be some discussion on the
basis of your decision.
Mr. Gatti
stated I am not sure exactly how this is done.
Someone makes a motion to hire a firm.
The motion is seconded, and we vote on it. The results of the vote will be evaluated. How are we going to balance this out?
Mr. Cox responded we always discuss
the motion after we put the motion on the table.
Mr. Gatti
stated I will entertain a motion to direct the agency which is selected to
proceed on this basis.
Ms. Dillon moved to
approve Severn Trent Services Inc. to take over operation and maintenance of
the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District’s Water and Wastewater
Facilities and to direct Mr. Cox to draft an agreement and Mr. Ziko seconded the motion.
On Roll Call vote.
Mr. Gatti
voted aye for Severn Trent Services, Inc.
Mr. Ziko
voted aye for Severn Trent Services, Inc.
Ms. Dillon voted aye for
Severn Trent Services, Inc.
Mr. Bissell voted aye for
Severn Trent Services, Inc.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we have a 4-0 vote in favor of Severn Trent Services, Inc.
Mr. Cox responded we will bring a
contract with Severn Trent to the next meeting for the Board’s consideration,
which lays out all the final terms. This
is when the discussion will take place.
Mr. Gatti
stated we will negotiate a price since we selected a firm.
Mr. Cox stated the RFP for
operations includes the price component.
The management RFQs is where we discuss
ranking so you negotiate the price with the top-ranked firm.
Mr. Gatti
stated we rank the person.
Mr. Cox stated this is with
management, not operations.
Mr. Goscicki stated for
clarification, Severn Trent submitted a price proposal. We submitted a draft contract which laid out
our understanding of the scope of work.
We will now sit down based on this direction from the Board along with
Mr. Cox and Mr. Benson, and discuss the proposal which may include additions or
deletions depending on the final outcome of those discussions and this is what
will come back to this Board for consideration.
Mr. Ziko
asked is there any direction to Mr. Cox which can possibly be included when he
is making up the contract since a couple of items were not included?
Mr. Gatti
responded we will negotiate the contract.
Mr. Ziko
stated if it is not in the contract prior to it getting here, we will need the
inclusion of a maintenance person who will work at POI to upkeep with our
infrastructure, such as Stop signs among other things, and that this person
leaves the plant and actually physically does some work around the District to
keep it in shape. That is not in this
contract.
Mr. Gatti
stated please give us some guidance Mr. Cox.
We are going to review the contract and adjust it to our needs. We already accepted who the most qualified
is. Now we are going to enter into a
contract. As I understand we will
negotiate the contract which includes final price as well as the scope of work.
Mr. Cox stated you are correct
within the parameters of what you put out.
If there are additional items you want to add to the scope of work they
will be negotiated.
Mr. Gatti
asked is discussion necessary now?
Mr. Cox responded if there are
specific items you want to me to negotiate or if you want to send me a memo of
what you think needs to be in there when we present the contract at the next
meeting I can include those issues.
Ms. Dillon stated we can do both. Since we are all together we discuss and come
to an agreement on some issues right now.
Mr. Ziko
stated I would like you to look into this future years’ price adjustment because
this follows a pattern that if we had another 100 units to the water plant we
are going to get charged for it; 100 more people coming on line does not
directly affect major cost the way it shows in here. It may affect a few more chemicals and
meters, but it should not be based on a percentage increase. CPI would be a better thing to base the
future increases on.
Mr. Cox stated Mr. Benson is not
here and he should really address this, but as I understand there are
thresholds under the permit which trigger additional staffing and monitoring
requirements which can bring an incremental increase.
Mr. Ziko
stated I understand and discussed this with Mr. Dick over the past week, and
our plant will have to double its capacity of water outlay in order to meet
staffing requirements. Therefore, I believe
we should address how we are going to have these increases on a yearly basis in
the contract.
Mr. Gatti
stated I would like for us to follow Mr. Ziko’s
thinking. Since you are obviously making
a list of items which should be included in the contract, I would like for us
to go around the table and voice our various concerns which we should consider.
Mr. Bissell stated mosquito control
is listed here.
Mr. Gatti
asked is there a price proposal for mosquito control included?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes.
Mr. Gatti
asked what else do you have?
Mr. Bissell asked will this be two
full-time personnel and one hourly worker?
Mr. Gatti
responded in any activity which we direct to Severn Trent, the reason we are
picking a consultant is to get out of the operation of these activities. It is our job to overview whether or not they
do the job correctly and to give them a level of work effort as well as the end
product which we expect, but it is not our job to tell them how many people
they should use. If they do not get to
the end product, then we step into the picture.
Mr. Ziko
stated I do not want to micro manage the plant, I just want to ensure it is run
according to the State Statutes. If they
can run this plant as well the plant in
Mr. Gatti
stated I agree with you and it does not conflict with anything else. However, we have to stop micromanaging
staff. If a staff member is not doing
their job, we should tell them what level of effort we expect in mosquito control
or any other activity we handle.
Ms. Dillon stated since the contract
is going to Severn Trent, the Board does not really care how many people work
at the plant, as long as the job is getting done as specified. However, I agree with Mr. Ziko. I would like something in there about a
handyman for lack of a better term, or some definition of these ancillary
projects which may not be directly related to running the plant, but are part
of the community such as preparing signs and other small projects which we do
not seem to be able to get done.
Mr. Gatti
stated when we enter into the contract I believe what you are saying is to
maintain the CID properties in the community.
Properties is probably the wrong word.
I meant to say facilities.
Ms. Dillon stated this may take some
direction from the Board in the sense that we noticed something which needs to
be done.
Mr. Gatti
stated this is where we cut off.
Mr. Ziko
stated we do not care who does it, but we want it done in a timely fashion.
Mr. Gatti
stated we should include this in our contract and Severn Trent is going to do
it for us and tell us what it is going to cost.
Ms. Dillon stated I do not
completely understand what is included in the ‘outside services’ item. The proposed amount is $65,000. Can you elaborate?
Mr. Gatti
stated if the Board decides to look at certain activities above and beyond what
is normally considered, they will come back to us. For example, we had a meeting a couple of
days which no one knew of, and we want Mr. Benson or the management to look
into what is happening with the government in terms of putting these berms in. No one has
any idea what it is. Therefore, it is
going to have to be investigated. If we
direct the management to do this, we have to pay them for it.
Mr. Goscicki stated the O&M side
is typically subcontracted services. We
cannot do everything with our own internal forces to take on some of the heavy
maintenance among other things.
Therefore, we would use this line item for outside contractors.
Mr. Gatti
stated they will come back to the Board, tell us what they have to do and what
it is going to cost.
Mr. Goscicki stated the purpose of
the breakdown is to show how the costs were spread by us internally when we
looked at it. The contract itself is a
lump sum dollar amount.
Ms. Dillon asked will you come to
the Board with regards to anything over the proposed amounts?
Mr. Gatti
responded they will come to the Board for anything which will be of any
significance, even though it is included.
Is this correct?
Mr. Goscicki responded we take a
great deal of risk on this. We are
entering into a lump sum contract and we take the risk of operating within the specific
dollar amount, of which there are some exclusions. We create a maintenance budget with an agreed
upon dollar amount. If we spend less, we
give it back to you, if we need to spend more we come to you for authorization
to spend more.
Mr. Gatti
asked is this acceptable?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
Ms. Dillon stated the price proposal
showed an annual amount of $337,800. The
data of the total cost which you gave us at our request is going to be
considerably more than this. Can you
give me a ballpark figure as to where this extra money is?
Mr. Ziko
responded it is in this renewal and replacement which is obviously not part of
the contract, and probably will be discussed with the Board if renewal and
replacement were necessary along with Mr. Benson to do work in the community.
Mr. Cox stated items which are
outside of the lump sum which Mr. Goscicki was talking about refer to
expenditures which exceeded the thresholds as well as your purchasing policy, and
they come back to the Board for review.
This was for various items which are going to have to be replaced over
the course of the year due to normal wear and tear. Although we know about this, we still have to
get approval for those items.
Mr. Ziko
asked are you going to negotiate this proposal which was put forward with
Severn Trent at the same time? Will this
number change?
Mr. Cox responded the lump sum
contract will not change unless there are additional services which you
request. If this happens, you will have
to do change orders.
Mr. Ziko
stated since I do not believe the repairman was included, the lump sum value is
going to change.
Mr. Cox stated we will negotiate the
initial contract, which is based on this scope of work. You will have to do a change order for the
additional things which you are bringing up.
These change orders will have to be approved by the Board.
Mr. Gatti
stated our focus now is to include whatever we want in the contract now.
Mr. Ziko
stated Mr. Bissell made a good point with regards to mosquito spraying. I do not believe this is defined in this
contract either.
Ms. Dillon stated it is on the form.
Mr. Ziko
stated this form does not mean anything.
Mr. Cox stated I believe the RFQ had
definitions of the expectations for mosquito spraying.
Mr. Gatti
stated pricing was also indicated in the proposal for mosquito control. I want to include names of specific staff
members in the contract who will be assigned to this project. Is this reasonable?
Mr. Goscicki responded we can
obviously give you the initial names of people who will be handling this.
Mr. Gatti
stated I want to see both yours and Mr. Dick’s names in here.
Mr. Goscicki stated this is not a
problem. We can certainly show you the
staffing plan and team members who will be involved.
Mr. Gatti
stated with those changes to the Board, we will proceed with contract
negotiations with Severn Trent.
Mr. Goscicki stated I wanted to
thank you for your vote of confidence in our operating services side and
appreciate it.
Ms. Dillon stated I visited a plant
being run by Severn Trent under Mr. Dick’s supervision, and it makes ours look
like
Mr. Gatti
stated this aspect of the contract is updated.
Mr. Goscicki stated I always like
getting these comments on the record.
Mr. Gatti
stated Mr. Cox will explain the next aspect of this process.
Mr. Cox stated the management
proposal you received is strictly qualifications-based, and not on cost to the
District. We will ask you to rank the
firms who presented to you at the last meeting in order of preference which you
want me to negotiate the contract for management services. Although this is not required by Statute,
there is a Statute for a provision for consultant negotiations and retention of
the consultants who provided this good framework to do it under. In the past, this District was operated on a small
budget, and was unable to afford the levels of services it may have wanted from
the management staff. Since we are
operating on a considerably better financial picture, we left it open for you
to negotiate the specific level of services which you are looking for with the
management team.
Mr. Gatti
stated we have all made an evaluation of who we think it should be. How do we want to handle this? Do you want to add up the score and go from
there; discuss it; use this score as the datum from which we are going to make
a decision; or is the scoring just a
guideline?
Mr. Ziko
responded you created this matrix along with four questions, which I do not
like. They do not relate to what I
expect to glean out of these proposals because two of them are based on
geographical proximity to the plant, which will not enter into my rating of one
of these companies.
Mr. Cox stated not only are you
ranking five individual questions, you are also going to evaluate those
questions and determine which questions are most important to you. Familiarity with the District as a general
rule and how Chapter 190 Districts operate will be much more important to you
than proximity to the District. Although
the criteria is not equally weighted, there is going to be some flexibility on
which ones you believe are relative.
Mr. Ziko
stated I agree with what you are saying, but I do not agree with any of these
questions.
Mr. Gatti
asked what is the best way to handle this?
Ms. Dillon responded I also want to
comment on the fact that I received this form on Tuesday, and I do not believe
I had adequate time to make a decision. Since
this is an important decision I am not prepared today to do this ranking. I have a couple of other questions. I have a difficult time deciding this without
dollars. No matter who you pick, cost
has to be a factor. Although I am not
going to go with the cheapest firm, if one outfit is considerably more money
than that other, this is a factor.
Mr. Cox stated this is a factor for
you to consider. Once we negotiate the
level services you are looking for and we have the price the number one ranked
firm is willing to do this for, we bring it back for your ultimate
approval. If you are dissatisfied with
the price, you can try to negotiate with them, but if they finally tell you
they cannot reduce the price, you may direct me to negotiate with the number
two ranked firm.
Ms. Dillon stated they have not
submitted dollar amounts yet.
Mr. Cox stated that is correct.
Ms. Dillon stated this can go on for
a long time.
Mr. Ziko
stated it does not seem fair to me to rank these firms. We could be all over the scope on price, and
price is a very important part of ranking.
Mr. Cox stated this is the reason it
is the ultimate factor which you will consider in making your decision. You are looking for the most highly qualified
firm capable of providing the level of services you want, and this is the
ultimate goal in hiring someone who is as important as your management team.
Mr. Ziko
stated I agree with you, but running the plant is also important, and we had
price proposals from both companies who submitted bids. Can we get price proposals from these firms?
Mr. Cox responded there are certain
costs which are going to be incurred with running a plant. You know what the required levels of services
are to operate a wastewater treatment facility, and everything must be done in
accordance with statutes and limitations of the permit. The level of service is fairly well defined. Where you are going to management and looking
for the broader ranges of levels of service, the price needs to be secondary in
order for you to ensure you are getting what you want from your management
team. Asking for a price-based proposal
without having the level of service truly defined raises a wide range of
issues.
Ms. Dillon stated I noticed some of
these gentlemen are in attendance, and to their chagrin we are probably not
going to make a decision today. This
question is directed to Mr. Wrathell.
Since an outside firm will be running the plant, and we decide we do not
have the same people as our management company, how do you see the interface?
Mr. Wrathell responded your
description today actually helped us clarify what our goal will be from an
oversight perspective for an active operations manager. The district manager will handle the
accounting and all other financial components, and a hypothetical
organizational chart will be structured from a staffing perspective as
follows: the community, the Board, the district
manager and Severn Trent as both the operations and plant manager. Many of our districts have an administrative
and financial component in running a district from the general oversight of
operations, and is actually sitting in the seat which you described of being
the operations manager for the district.
From what I have gleaned from the discussions, Severn Trent will fill the
operations manager role, and the district manager will have more of an
oversight role over those two functions.
Ms. Dillon asked if we select
someone else to be the management company, will your interface be conducive to
a friendly atmosphere?
Mr. Goscicki responded we currently
have these relationships. As a matter of
fact, we are the contract operator one of the districts managed by Special
District Services. We operate the
Beeline Water and Wastewater Facilities under a contract to the district, and
Special District Services is the contract manager. We are comfortable working in this type of
relationship. Obviously, we believe
there are advantages to you if we handle both areas.
Mr. Cox stated Mr. Ziko indicated there were other criteria he felt should be
evaluated, which the Board may want to discuss.
Mr. Gatti
stated following up on what Mr. Ziko said it is
possible other Board members want to see some specific questions as part of the
evaluation. Will it be appropriate for
us to write this down and ask you to consider this as part of our next level of
looking at this?
Mr. Cox responded you can write them
down and send them to me, and I will revise the evaluation sheets. However, if you raise issues not addressed in
the RFQ, we will need to circulate it to each respondent.
Mr. Gatti
stated if we try to do this today, it is going to be difficult to come to a
consensus. On the other hand, perhaps we
can write down our individual questions, sit down as a Board and determine what
we want to include. We may disagree on
what is or is not important, but we can go through that list, knock out what we
do not want, and proceed with our own matrix.
Does this make sense?
Mr. Cox responded I am trying to
understand the timing of what you are asking for. We cannot go back and forth on this. We will do as you asked and finalize your
evaluation sheet at the next meeting.
Mr. Gatti
stated we can make this evaluation and come to a decision.
Mr. Goscicki stated representatives
of all four firms are in attendance today.
Therefore, if any Board members have specific questions of those
individuals, it will be a good use of their time to address them. This is appropriate and it will not hurt the
process either.
Mr. Gatti
stated we have been through this and we should have asked all our questions
when this was submitted. We are going to
look at this and come up with specific items we want to see in this
evaluation. We will go through them
during the first part of the next meeting, and with this criteria we will make
a decision and move forward. Will adding
up these numbers control who we select?
Are you satisfied with this?
Mr. Bissell responded not
necessarily. Are we going to hire the
firm with the most points?
Mr. Gatti
responded we are going to negotiate with the firm. If we are not happy with their price, we will
negotiate with the next firm.
Mr. Cox stated this is the way the
process is done.
Mr. Ziko
asked do we have to use the evaluation sheets?
Mr. Gatti
responded no.
Mr. Ziko
asked is there any state statute which indicates we have to come up with a
number?
Mr. Cox responded there is no state
statute specifically governing how you hire a management team. I used this model for convenience because it
is a well used and tested methodology for ranking these firms and trying to
give you focus on making your decision based on notable criteria.
Mr. Ziko
stated we had four presentations and brochures, and I believe can digest these
things myself without having to put down a second grade evaluation sheet to
come up with who I believe we should negotiate with. I do not believe this is necessary for
me. However, the rest of the Board may
use this if they so choose.
Mr. Cox stated this is a tool for
the Board to focus on criteria for making your selection.
Mr. Gatti
stated I want to know how we come to a conclusion. You are stating what you want to see. How do we accumulate this as a consensus
without putting something down?
Mr. Goscicki responded I believe
there are two issues for consideration.
You have a rating and ranking form which identifies a number of criteria
to determine in what numerical order each firm should be ranked. Each of you, as Mr. Cox pointed out, are free
to use the form in terms of what criteria you believe to be most
important. When it comes to making the
final decision, each of you is going to come up with a ranking in numerical
order, and those are the rankings you are going to add up. You are not going to add up the points which
you assign to each category, but you are going to come up with a ranking which
says this firm got three #1 rankings; firm two only got two #1 rankings. This is our #1 ranked firm and this is our #2
ranked firm.
Mr. Gatti stated
if the Board satisfied we will proceed on this basis.
Mr. Cox stated it was my
understanding at the last meeting you wanted representatives in attendance in
the event of additional questions.
However, you do not foresee additional questions for the applicants,
they do not need to be here. Therefore,
we are going to rank and notify them of our decision at the next meeting.
Mr. Gatti
stated we can continue to discuss this and never come to a conclusion.
Ms. Dillon asked is it fair to ask
the representatives of the firms today if they have any additional comments?
Mr. Gatti
responded it is not fair because we asked for this. We received responses and it is not
appropriate to open this up again. Does
anyone feel differently?
A
resident responded for clarification, the Board is looking to identify the
questions or criteria for evaluation.
There will not be questions after hearing the presentations. The questions will be distributed for each
firm to respond to.
Mr. Gatti
stated as part of our negotiations with the #1 firm which we ranked, any
questions we have will be directed to the selected firm, and you can ask
questions, clarify any contract you are going to enter into, and we are still
in control of what is going to happen.
Mr. Cox stated if you tell me over
the next couple of weeks there are additional criteria you want on the ranking
sheet, I will look at those criteria, and if there is something which is not
addressed in the RFQ, I either have to leave it off the ranking sheet or I have
to give everyone an opportunity to give a written response.
Mr. Gatti
stated as far as the Board is concerned if you believe there is something
necessary to include, we are not telling you we will not put this in. However, we want to ensure we are covering
all bases when we consider this evaluation.
Mr. Goscicki stated none of these
gentlemen will leave out of respect to this Board unless you give them
permission to do so.
Mr. Gatti
stated we understand this, and there is no need for you gentlemen to stay, although
you are welcomed to stay.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Acceptance
of 2004 Audit
Mr. Goscicki stated I realize this
is late. There were a number of issues
which involved the 2005 audit in terms of the final settlement which were not
reflected. The issues involved
clarification they were trying to go through before they can get this audit
finalized.
Mr. Gatti asked
does the Board want to go into detail or should we take our time, read it and
develop questions since we just received it?
Ms. Dillon responded this is an
historical document, and has no basis for today’s reality because it was done when
the District was not in good shape.
However, I spoke to Mr. Cox before the meeting, and he clarified some
issues for me. Therefore, I do not
believe we should continue to discuss this matter.
Mr. Ziko stated
I want to know if this make us conform to State Statutes, and if it is
acceptable. Since we are not going to
change anything, we might as well accept it as long as the State is not going
to penalize us.
Mr. Cox stated this is strictly an historical
document with a snapshot view of where you were on September 30, 2004, which is
nowhere near where you were on September 30, 2005. There are two to three key issues you may
want to focus on within the audit, but it is nothing more than a picture. We are asking you to accept the audit. You are not saying you agree with any of the
conclusions or believe it is pertinent.
It is just you accepted the auditor’s presentation of this document in
order for us to transmit it and keep you in compliance with the State.
On MOTION by Mr. Bissell
seconded by Mr. Ziko with all in favor the 2004 Audit
was accepted.
Mr. Cox stated I want to mention a
few issues you should be aware of when you are looking at the first couple of
pages of the audit. On Page 1 is the Independent
Auditor’s Report, which describes the audit was conducted in accordance with
GASB standards. The paragraph near the
end states the financial statements referred to in this audit accurately
reflect the District’s activities, and are done in accordance with accounting
principles as accepted by the
Ms. Dillon asked when can we expect
this?
Mr. Goscicki responded they started
the new audit for 2005 within the last month.
Therefore, it will be a couple of months before we see it. I will be remiss in not bringing up to the
Board the audit firm asked for additional compensation for the 2004 audit. I told them they need to convince me why this
is the case. Perhaps the complexity of
the financial situation of where the Board was in 2004, along with the status
of funds was their justification, which I do not agree with. I received the invoice for an additional
$7,000, but I have not received the justification for this compensation.
Mr. Ziko
asked was this a contract?
Mr. Goscicki responded this was a
contract, and the Board owes nothing unless it is approved. They did this in the previous year, and the
Board did not approve additional compensation for the audit firm. I believe since they gave us a price based
upon certain assumptions, they must show me as these were the assumptions we
made going into the audit. We found the
situation markedly different, which resulted in additional cost, and I believe
we are obligated to review this.
Mr. Ziko
stated as far as I am concerned, they did not do the audit in a timely fashion
either. Since this is one year late, why
should we give them more money when they were unable to live up to the
contract?
Mr. Goscicki responded I just wanted
to make you aware of their request.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion
of Open Items
Equipment Inventory
Mr. Dick stated this item is
complete. I will provide the Board with
copies of the inventory.
Mr. Goscicki stated the Board will
recall we already submitted the more substantial list which included all fixed
assets within the plant, along with the rolling stock. These were the smaller items which
supplemented them.
Mr. Ziko asked
if the swamp buggy is left on our property for 30 days does it become ours?
Mr. Dick responded yes.
Mr. Cox stated part of the
development agreement to redevelop this property states off road vehicle access
is prohibited.
Ms. Dillon stated it is illegally
parked.
Mr. Ziko
asked when is this going to be removed?
Mr. Dick responded when Mr. Stephens
was instructed to remove it he told me he has a friend who will allow him to
store it. However, they are out of town
and he cannot take it there until they return, which is supposed to happen this
weekend. If it is still there on Monday,
I will consider having it towed.
Mr. Bissell asked did they purchase
a computer?
Mr. Goscicki responded it was purchased
last year because Mr. Stephens’ computer stopped working.
Mr. Bissell stated they have a 2003
here.
Mr. Dick asked was it purchased in
2003?
Mr. Bissell responded it says 103HS
Computer.
Ms. Dillon asked did we buy a new
03?
Mr. Goscicki responded we purchased
a new computer through Severn Trent to expedite the process. We may have purchased the box itself and not
the monitor and everything else, and it may just be carrying the old date.
Mr. Bissell asked what did we
purchase from Office Max?
Mr. Dick responded it was a
combination of office supplies and printer cartridges, and was not one item.
Reuse Water for
Irrigation
Mr. Benson stated another contractor
declined to provide us a price for installation of the pre-purchased
equipment. The Board gave me permission
to ask Severn Trent to put together a price.
We called yesterday and they are still working on it. We told them we needed it today, but they
told us they will get it by Monday.
Therefore, it will have to be resolved next month.
Fire Station
Mr. Ziko
asked do you have an update?
Mr. Mack responded there is nothing
new to report.
Entrance Monuments
Mr. Cox stated Mr. Dick gave me
additional information to help us get the easements in place.
Mr. Ziko
asked which easements do we need?
Mr. Cox responded one sign is
located on the hotel property, and the two signs at the Cays are actually
located partially on private property.
Mr. Ziko
asked did we have easements on those properties initially?
Mr. Cox responded nothing is recorded
in the public record. However, the
actual platted easements are where I believe they expected those signs to have
been built, but there is some argument as to occupancy over time. However, I believe they have been there for
at least 25 years, but we can negotiate.
Mr. Ziko
asked what about the one on
Mr. Cox responded we actually own
the property which it is located on, and we also own the property where the
second sign is located.
Truck Decals
Mr. Goscicki stated there is some
positive news on the signage.
Mr. Dick stated we have the vehicle
signs on all the trucks.
Portable Generator for
Sewage Lift Stations
Mr. Benson stated this was completed
last month.
DEP Letter –
Compliance Inspection Report
Mr. Benson stated one of the items
we discussed approximately two weeks ago was the fact that the generator at the
well field was installed, the final watering was being done, and Mr. Stephens
sent me an email a couple of days ago telling me the fuel is being delivered for
testing. We will send a letter to DEP as
soon as we verify it is working.
Mr. Ziko
stated Mr. Gatti explained we were blindsided here
when the office for the restoration called a meeting on Wednesday and never
informed anyone from the CID. I tried to
reach Ms. Starnes to find out why we were not informed. I have been talking to her on a monthly
basis, but she is on vacation.
Therefore, someone in her office decided to have a meeting without
informing anyone. I believe the meeting
consisted of five people. I am
disappointed in the way this is being handled, and I will talk to Ms. Starnes
as soon as I can get in touch with her.
Ms. Dillon stated I attended the
meeting and received a handout. They are
still working on the project and expect to install the pumps within a couple of
months. I told them Mr. Ziko is our point man, and in the future if they wanted to
have a meeting here to explain what is going on, they should tie it into one of
our Board meetings.
Mr. Mack asked did she mention there
will be another meeting on March 16th?
Ms. Dillon responded the meeting you
are referring to is open to the public.
It will be at the
Mr. Cox asked what will they
discuss?
Ms. Dillon responded at this meeting
they mentioned they did not believe we needed berms
south of Route 41 at this time, and the only berms
they needed north of Route 41 were on the east side of the gun club, but we are
not entirely sure. We spoke about the berms again and the fact that any plans to put berms in would have to be discussed. When do you think this will be done?
Mr. Mack responded it will be done
this year.
Port of the
Mr. Goscicki stated I believe you
closed this item with the decision this will be part of Severn Trent’s
responsibilities as your contract operator to take this on and get it done.
Mr. Ziko
stated Mr. Cox is working on this contract, and it has not been signed. Can we get a confirmation from Severn Trent
if the mosquito season comes before the contract is signed, something will be
done?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes.
Proposal for Operation of Water &
Wastewater Facilities
Mr. Ziko
stated this should come off the list.
Discrepancy Between
Gallons of Water Pumped and Gallons Billed
Mr. Goscicki stated we are going to
take interim measures on our own without any call from the District. We have a portable flow meter which we are
going to set up at the water plant, take some instantaneous readings over the
evening hours when there should be little or no flow going to any users, and
check this for a period of time to confirm whether or not there is some
consumption. At the same time, we are
putting a price together for two people to come out. We pulled together an inventory of the
physical addresses for all the meters, and our initial proposal calls for us to
physically perform a check of each meter to each location, ensure it is
connected and each occupied dwelling unit has a meter associated with it. We are going to attempt to physically check
on each meter by knocking on the doors in order to allow the property owners on
site to turn the hose bib on to see if the water flows through the meter and
make sure it is actually hooked up and working.
Mr. Ziko
stated before we went this far down the line on an individual basis, we have
two major areas on the east side and the west side, where meters will be
installed to determine if there is a big discrepancy between the west side or
east side billing, rather than trying to chase down every house.
Mr. Cox asked are you going to meter
a 6” or an 8” meter?
Mr. Benson responded this is a
fairly expense meter which may cost thousands of dollars.
Mr. Dick stated the rule is $1,000
per inch.
Mr. Benson stated it can be done,
but will be costly to install.
Mr. Ziko
asked how costly can it be for someone to check every meter and turn on hose
bibs among other things?
Mr. Goscicki responded the job will
require two utility technicians for a couple of days, and I am certain it will
not cost anything close to $20,000.
Ms. Dillon asked if we wait until
you have a contract will you be doing this?
Mr. Goscicki responded we can do
this as an additional service to the contract, but all terms will be defined
making it easier for you to authorize.
Mr. Dick stated we will certainly be
tracking this on a monthly basis.
Grant from South Florida
Water Management District
Mr. Ziko
stated this is complete.
Install Missing
Reflectors for Fire Hydrant Location
Mr. Ziko
stated this is complete.
Paint Fire Hydrants
Mr. Gatti
asked have we paid the contractor?
Mr. Benson responded no. Do you want me to report on the hydrants now?
Mr. Ziko
responded no, since this involves the painting of the fire hydrants.
Ms. Dillon stated a representative
from our local fire department, Mr. George Bogeny, is
going to talk to us later. According to
him, they will be doing this. Therefore
this may be another item which we do not have to deal with.
Truck Decals
Mr. Ziko
stated this is complete.
Portable Defibrillator
Mr. Ziko
stated this is complete.
Auditor Fees
Mr. Goscicki stated I just updated
you on this. Therefore, this should come
off the list.
Research Capacity of Facilities with the
Possibility of Adding Additional ERCs
Mr. Ziko
stated I believe this can remain open, but there may be concerns due to the
depth of the wells we have now.
Mr. Benson stated we are still
working on this with our hydrogeologist and do not
have an update on the status of the wells as yet. We will have a recommendation as to what we
are going to do about this.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A.
Attorney
Mr.
Cox stated the only thing I have to report on today is Orchid Cove roads. You need to write a letter to Mr. Wood and
remind him since they did not think we had an agreement to cut our roads
anymore, this must be the case.
Mr. Ziko
asked will this open cut be for the drainage to go to the new pond they are
putting in?
Mr. Cox responded it is probably for
whatever purpose they need to run any type of utility which is their
responsibility.
Mr. Ziko
stated they are inspecting the roads right now.
Mr. Cox stated this is for the
utility installation. The vehicle damage
must be documented as to how the road base was filling with an understanding
the roads were in bad shape anyway.
Ms. Dillon stated they were not as
bad as they are right now after all the trucks were running back and forth.
Mr. Cox stated I do not believe they
will want to approach it this way.
Mr. Gatti
stated I believe we should try to make a case for them to be required to
resurface the entire area because if you fix one part, it will not look right.
Mr. Ziko
stated I think they should fix the part past the entrance because they are
going to have a septic entrance on Union Road into their property and if they
pave it from Route 41 at the center entrance, that can make it look good for
them getting in there, but there is a great deal of damage, and I think they
should be responsible for that too.
Mr. Cox stated I assume Mr. Benson or
someone in his organization is in the best position to evaluate and determine
what percentage of the road damage was caused by those activities. Once we get the information, I can write a
letter if you want me to.
Mr. Ziko
stated I do not think we can expect them to do anything until their project is
almost complete.
Mr. Benson stated we have to wait
until all the damage is done to be able to make an assessment.
Mr. Cox stated we need
documentation.
Mr. Bissell asked was this
resurfaced in 1995 or 1996?
Mr. Benson responded I believe it
was more than 10 years ago.
Mr. Bissell stated it was surfaced
after 1994, when I came here.
Mr. Benson stated there was some
work done approximately 10 years ago, but I am not certain if it was a total
resurface.
Mr. Gatti
stated we should ask them to resurface the entire area with the possibility of
us sharing some costs.
Mr. Ziko
stated I disagree.
Mr. Gatti
stated we should keep this open, as they may make a case they did not touch
certain parts of the road.
Mr. Ziko
asked have you been down there recently?
Mr. Gatti
responded I was down there yesterday and what you are saying is true.
Mr. Bissell asked this is there any
possibility Mr. Cox can send a letter to the State which says, ‘while
participating in resurfacing the road, they have hosed up the back and they are
using this road the same as everyone else’?
Mr. Cox asked the State does?
Ms. Dillon responded there are
people who were bought out staying in those homes temporarily.
Mr. Gatti
stated referring to the State is a broad statement. The people who do the paving have nothing to
do with the Department of Transportation.
Mr. Cox stated it is more complex
and goes back to the whole determination of possible liens on your special
assessments. This property receives
unique general public benefits from the existence of these facilities. In fact, other people can use it as access
property which goes beyond the District and is not relevant to our
determination of how we assess costs. The
benefits the facilities provide is recognized, and you may assess costs against
the residents which benefits other members of the general public. However, the benefits you receive are
peculiar to this property, and the improvements enhance the ability to develop
out here. They enhance your use and
enjoyment of the property as well as the marketability and value of the
property, where these general public benefits can get you from point A to point
B, and does not really affect the property’s utility or value.
B.
Engineer
Mr.
Benson stated the project was not closed out because the work is not complete.
Mr. Gatti
asked how much of their money do we have?
Mr. Benson responded I did not check
this before the meeting.
Mr. Gatti
stated keep as much as you can.
Mr. Benson stated we turned down
their last pay request because it was more than we wanted to pay.
Mr. Ziko
asked do you have any idea what it was?
Mr. Benson responded I do not.
Mr. Ziko
asked is there a chance they can walk from this?
Mr. Benson responded I do not
believe this to be the case.
Mr. Ziko
stated if they walked away we would have to get another contractor in to fix
their errors.
Mr. Benson stated we continued to
notify the contractor about the yard restoration concerns, and we have done
everything possible up to a point of some action where we would have to get
involved, and I hope we do not get to that point. They are working with Mr. Stephens on the
meter installations, which have to be checked to ensure we hook everything up
correctly before we hook up non-potable water to a meter they are not using
appropriately. This is being verified,
and I do not believe it was finished yet.
Mr. Gatti
stated I received a call a couple of nights ago from a resident who told me
part of their utilities are hooked up to the irrigation line, and he asked me
what we are going to do with it.
Mr. Benson stated we will have a plumber
come out and fix their problem. With
regards to the fire hydrants, we have an area of the community toward the
wastewater and water treatment plan where we are sill using the potable water
system for fire protection until we get the line up there but we have not
extended it out to actually set hydrants and we are holding off on this until
the north part of the community develops, and at this point they will extend
the fire and irrigation lines.
Mr. Ziko
asked are the hydrants up there opposite the plant on potable water?
Mr. Benson responded that is
correct.
Mr. Ziko
asked what about the one which is leaking water?
Mr. Benson asked is there one
leaking up there?
Mr. Ziko
responded it has been leaking for approximately 1 ½ months.
Ms. Dillon stated I believe they
finally turned it off.
Mr. Ziko
stated the hydrant up there is leaking, and I thought it was reuse water. Otherwise I would have called Mr. Dick.
Mr. Benson asked is it one of the
hydrants which was relocated?
Mr. Ziko
responded yes. It is sitting up above
the ground.
Mr. Benson stated I apologize, but
it was not reported to me.
Mr. Dick stated it must be turned
off because it is not leaking today.
Mr. Benson stated we had existing
hydrants which the contractor relocated from the old waterline which was
abandoned to the new waterline, in order to have fire protection along the
corridor. The fire hydrants were
installed, but not adjusted. There is a
section which should come off those hydrants, and if it does not come off, we
will have to get a new fire hydrant installed.
If we do this, it will be an extra justified to the contractor. In fact he must buy a new hydrant, since they
are currently relocating the old hydrants.
Mr. Gatti
asked can you cut out the spindles?
Mr. Benson responded we have been
working with the contractor for more than one month, and I expected it would
have been taken care of by now. However,
I know the engineer who is the manager on the project has been working with the
contractor and it should be resolved. We
are aware it is an issue.
Mr. Ziko
asked is the irrigation water hooked up at the end of Newport Cay?
Mr. Benson responded the extended
line is active for those who switched over at the meter when it is verified
safe to do this. Some people are getting
this water off the new line and some are not.
We are still in the process of verifying this.
Mr. Ziko
asked are the people who are not getting water from the new line still using
potable water?
Mr. Benson responded this will be
the case until we verify this is not causing a health issue.
Mr. Gatti
stated I am glad they lowered the hydrants.
Mr. Benson stated the hydrants are
supposed to be lower, and you must work with your contractor.
Ms. Dillon asked does our contract
clearly state we are going to reuse the old hydrants?
Mr. Benson stated this is correct.
Ms. Dillon asked what does the new
hydrant cost?
Mr. Gatti
responded approximately $5,000.
Mr. Benson stated this is per
hydrant which is why we relocated the existing hydrants which were still
functioning.
Mr. Ziko
asked is the new piping this much closer to the surface?
Mr. Benson responded that is
correct.
Mr. Ziko
stated I thought we were replacing it and if they had to dig up the old line, they
could install the new line and have the hydrant at the same height.
Mr. Benson responded we installed
the new line at the normal depth of cover in this area. I have no idea why the
old asbestos cement line was so deep in some areas.
Mr. Ziko
stated we had to get down to the line to take the hydrant out because the spool
piece which is on the bottom went all the way down to the line.
Mr. Benson stated the new line is
much shallower and I have no explanation.
Mr. Ziko asked
why couldn’t they put the new line in the same hole they dug up?
Mr. Benson responded I do not
understand.
Mr. Ziko
stated when they dug up the hydrant they went down so deep to get the spindle
off of the old line. Therefore, they had
the hole down there already. Why didn’t
they put the new line in the hole?
Mr. Benson responded the new line
was installed while the existing line was still in use, and they are not in the
same hole.
Mr. Gatti
stated we did not get rid of the old line because we need it for potable water
to our homes. We put the new line up
here and lifted it up.
Mr. Benson stated I apologize, but I
may not have been clear. The hydrants in
the area out by the plant were relocated.
They were moved to this area, and the hydrants on
Mr. Gatti stated
the old lines which serve the homes are still there; since we did not remove
any lines.
Mr. Benson stated that is correct.
Ms. Dillon stated some of the
hydrants over by the plant were turned the wrong way, and the fire department
cannot get to them.
Mr. Benson stated we notified our
contractor who is doing our work as your representative, and we are working
with him to get things fixed. He is not
going to get all of his money until everything is taken care of.
Mr. Ziko
stated time is of the essence because if the hydrant located there is unusable
and an emergency arises where we need to use the hydrant, we need to know who
is responsible for the liability. We
have an unusable hydrant there. Are
there any hydrants on
Mr.
Benson responded I do not know whether or not they are usable.
Ms. Dillon stated the gentleman from
the fire department will talk to us about this.
Mr. Benson stated we told the
contractor to take care of this, and we are withholding his money until he does
so.
Mr. Gatti
stated let’s end this by saying we will not pay him anymore money until
everything is done, and Mr. Benson knows what has to be done.
Mr. Benson stated at the last
meeting it was mentioned we received a price from Parkson
for the filter at the plant which must stay in service even with the new
project because it is a redundancy and a back-up for DEP. I did not have a price at the last meeting,
but we have since gotten the price. Did
you forward my email to the Board?
Mr.
Goscicki responded no.
Mr.
Benson stated I only sent it out on Wednesday, but the quote is dated March 7th. I apologize it was late, but that is when we received
it. We have a price from Parkson for the materials, which is basically the supplies,
and it looks like it is under $3,000, and is an itemized list of materials which
are replacement parts. We have a price
from Filter One which is the authorized service company for parts and filters
in
Mr. Gatti
asked is your recommendation that the pricing is reasonable and we do not have
an option?
Mr. Benson responded we do not
really have an option. We usually buy
parts for the filter from Parkson, and we have some
items down to $5 each. I have a phone
call from some of the Board members within the last week and there were a
couple of items that I want to report on which were questions. One is there is a property in the Cays that
we have talked about before. I do not
remember the gentleman’s name and I believe his last name begins with a
‘K’. Do you know the name?
Mr. Bissell responded I believe it
was Kelmack.
Mr. Benson stated there is a house
in the Cays which we talked about approximately four months ago which was even
farther back, and at your request I got the information from the property
owner. We asked them to provide us a
survey showing the locations of all the easements. They acknowledged the easements and this was
the easement at the back of the property for the swale, which I believe is a
20’ easement. There is a 10’ easement on
the side for drainage on one side and another for general utilities on the
other side. He provided us the survey
which showed that he acknowledged where all our utility easements and drainage
easements were located. He also provided
us the site plan for his house which he provided to
Mr. Gatti
asked do they interfere with the float?
Mr. Benson responded at this point
without saying what they are building other than these piles, I do not think it
is going to interfere.
Mr. Gatti
stated you can contour the ground to avoid having a flow affect it.
Ms. Dillon stated they have to
return the required swale.
Mr. Benson stated part of what I am
saying is based on the fact the Board said staff can deal with people who build
these structures for docks as long as they are not interfering with the
drainage water. They did not ask for
this, but at some point, we may have to write them a letter telling them we
need a use permit as well as specifics of what they are building. Mr. Cox and I will write the letter.
Mr. Gatti
stated that is fine.
Mr. Benson stated with regards to
Orchid Cove and some of their construction activities related to utilities, they
will request to connect to our system and utilities. They then turn it over to us for use. In other words, they will ask us to accept it
and donate it to us.
Mr. Gatti
asked what leverage does this give us in the form of other activities, such as
the road paving which we were talking about.
Mr. Cox responded you are looking at
acceptance of utilities. If they are
billed according to your specifications in accordance with plans which have
been approved by Mr. Benson, when they ask you to accept them, you should do
so, but it should not be related to the road.
The road is a different issue. It
is the District’s personal property. If
they damage it they need to repair it, but it does not need to be tied to other
aspects.
Mr. Gatti
stated I understand the two cannot be connected.
Mr. Cox stated the open cut of the
roads to place your utilities in gives you leverage.
Mr. Benson stated I want to get to specific items of concern today, and one of them is the fact they installed the wet well for the sanitary sewer system, and they were concerned the wet well was not installed in plum. I had the same engineer who has been working on waterline projects who also inspected the one which Mr. Gatti asked him to check on. He determined it was not plum. How far off it is from plum has not been determined. We had this issue once before, and it was an item where a private developer was building something at his cost which he was then turning over to us. There is a difference when we build something with a specification and a contract with wording of what he is supposed to do as well as some remedies if he does not do it appropriately. When we are not building something without a contract, we do not have any leverage. The only leverage we have is if something is built which does not meet our standards, we do not have to accept it. We probably have to accept the sewage for the community, but we do not necessarily have to own and operate his lift stati