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
Dale
Lambert Vice Chairman
Ted
Bissell Assistant
Secretary
Norine
Dillon Assistant
Secretary
Richard
Ziko Assistant
Secretary
Also
present were:
Edward
Goscicki District
Manager
Janice
Moen Larned Director, Fiscal Services,
Dan
Cox Attorney
Ron
Benson Engineer
Bob
Dick
Tom
Mack Staff
Christopher
Shucart POI
Hotel&
James
Shucart POI Hotel &
G.
Russell Weyer Fishkind
& Associates
Jean
C. Resident
Maggie
Demarco Resident
Peter
F. Resident
Bill
Focht Resident
Bob
M. Resident
Pat
McNally Resident
Bob
Richy Resident
David
Molberg Resident
Mike
Sloan Resident
Rosemary
Sloan Resident
Doug
Smith Resident
Phil
Tibbs Resident
Jim
Walker Resident
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Gatti called the meeting to
order and Mr. Goscicki called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the
Minutes of the February 24, 2006 Meeting
Mr. Gatti stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr. Lambert stated on Page 8 in the
second line of the discussion in italics, lost
should be added to the sentence after have. On Page 39 under Equipment Inventory, Mr. Mack should replace Mr. Dick. On Page 58 in the third paragraph from the
bottom, Mr. Lambert should replace Mr. Goscicki.
On MOTION by Mr. Ziko
seconded by Mr. Bissell with all in favor the minutes of the
Mr. Gatti asked what is the status
of the most current minutes?
Mr. Goscicki responded I do not
believe the Board had the opportunity to review the
Mr. Gatti asked does anyone have
comments?
Mr. Ziko responded I have three
comments. Are we going to accept them?
Mr. Gatti responded since we have
many people in attendance today, perhaps we should not discuss them.
Mr. Ziko stated they are quick
comments. On Page 28 in the first
paragraph, last sentence, the sentence should read, Therefore, I believe we may go on record not to accept the lift
station. On Page 29 in the second
paragraph PUD should replace HUD. On Page 37 in the seventh paragraph, next to
last line, wrench should replace rents.
Ms. Dillon stated I have to on
record again that I do not appreciate getting these minutes two days before the
meeting. I was not home all day
Wednesday, which means yesterday I had to try to go through the minutes at the
last minute. Starting on Page 36, in all
cases where we have Mr. Bowman, it
should be Lieutenant Bogeny.
On MOTION by Mr. Bissell
seconded by Mr. Ziko with all in favor the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS PowerPoint
presentation by Mr. Chip Eitel of the SFWMD on Designs for the Picayune Strand
Pump Station Restoration
Mr. Goscicki stated since Mr. Eitel
has not arrived, I suggest we move on with other items on the agenda.
Mr. Gatti stated you indicated some
urgency in having this presentation.
Ms. Dillon stated the idea was to
get him on and out.
Mr. Gatti stated we will accommodate
him when he arrives.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s
Report
Mr. Goscicki stated the main issue I
wanted to discuss with the Board this morning is the draft Capital Project
Status Report which I handed out to each Board member. The Board asked for a way to see the status
of the various capital improvement projects underway throughout the District. Our financial system is a cash-based
financial system designed to track cash expenditures, but not in the financial
statements, and deal with capital programs where you are encumbering dollars
through a contract and expending dollars down against the contract over one
year or more in some cases. We
structured this separate report, and we are proposing to update this and
provide it to the Board on a monthly basis.
I am presenting this as a draft because I still need to work with Mr.
Benson’s staff on the numbers. However, Mr.
Benson has not had a chance to see this.
Mr. Benson stated I was out of town.
Mr. Goscicki stated Mr. Clifford
Pepper from his office was helpful in working with me and walking through some
of these. However, there are one or two
numbers in revised estimates which I believe Mr. Benson will want to look at
and comment on.
Mr. Benson stated since we
anticipate having more definite pricing within the next 30 days, it will be a
good time to update this.
Mr. Goscicki stated the Board has a
detailed five-year CIP program which you review and adopt annually, and as part
of the budget going forward either Mr. Benson or Severn Trent will bring this
back to you with updated projects for us to review and decide what you want to
move forward on as a Board. This
document is meant to capture only the current year projects on the approved
budget for the current year based upon your approved CIP. This is designed to be a tool to be able to
track the status of approved projects. One
column is the approved budget for the current fiscal year 2005/2006. I put in a revised estimate because some
numbers changed, and as we fine-tune the process, the column can probably come
off because the budget will be set, and we will have a better way of tracking
it. The following columns are really
what I believe the Board was asking to see.
You want to know if a budgeted project has started; if we encumbered any
dollars to start construction; how much money was actually paid to date; if we
awarded a contract; and how much money was spent against the contract. The third column under Year-to-Date is the
balance available. Balance available is
defined as the budget minus the encumbrance, which tells you how much money you
have from an ability to contract more work.
However, it does not tell you how much money is left to spend on the
project. You encumbered a contract and spent
so much. We are not tracking this number. However, we can add it if the Board wants to see
it, but from a management and Board perspective, you are interested in looking
at how much money was planned to be spent this year; how much money was already
encumbered; and if there is any money available to fund another project if
something unexpectedly comes up which was not in the budget. The balance available tells you what you have
not encumbered to date. We plan to
update this again on a monthly basis based upon input from Mr. Benson, and
present this as part of the financial statements going forward.
In
the bottom section, you asked us to break out on the engineering side the same
basic information by project which is the authorization the Board approved for
those engineering services; what was paid to date and what the remaining
balance is. We went through the same
exercise. In comparison to budget on
engineering services, some numbers are going to be above or below budget. As you can see in the total you are
significantly under, but you have a budget of $173,000 for engineering fees and
we only authorized $149,500. This was
budgeted so that your fees are based upon a percentage of the CIP.
Mr. Gatti stated as I understand, Mr.
Benson is going to review this and when you are comfortable, the Board can
review it.
Mr. Benson stated we provided the
original numbers and there has been some work back and forth, but as we come
closer to the real prices on some projects, we will have a better idea.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion
of Open Items
Paint Fire Hydrants
Mr. Ziko stated at the last meeting,
it was stated we would not pay anymore money to Florida Underground. On March 13th a letter went out from
Severn Trent and Hole-Montes reviewed the request and recommended payment of
the requested amount of $44,000. I want
to know if this was paid because these fire hydrants are still not to code. Last month we were demanded by the fire
department to bring these to code. I
have pictures which I took last night of the fire hydrants. If the contract was paid, it was without the
Board’s approval. Can you tell me if it
was paid?
Mr. Goscicki responded we need to
update what has and has not been paid.
Mr. Ziko stated if we had the March
financials we would be able to look at the check register and determine whether
or not it was paid.
Mr. Goscicki stated by moving the
meeting from the fourth Friday to the second Friday of the month, we are not
able to close out March 30th and have financials available in a
two-week turnaround.
Mr. Bissell asked did you hold money
back from them?
Mr. Benson responded we are holding
retainage on their contract in addition to this amount.
Mr. Gatti stated unfortunately,
bringing the fire hydrants to code was not part of the contract. The contract was to restore the hydrants as
they were. They removed all those
spindles.
Mr. Ziko stated they did not.
Mr. Benson stated I do not remember
the exact number, but we have approximately four hydrants on order which will
be replaced. As I mentioned at the last
meeting, those were going to be at an additional cost because they were outside
what is in our contract. The contract
was to take the hydrants off the existing line and reinstall them on the new
line. However, some hydrants do not fit,
and we are going to have to replace them as I mentioned last month. There was a series of other items other than
the hydrants which we discussed with regards to the Florida State Underground
contract along with all the other items which were inspected and done. We are still holding retainage on their
contract. Therefore, we recommended
approving the payment for the work which was done, which involved putting in
pipe among other things.
Mr. Ziko asked why was this letter
sent to Mr. Goscicki to cut a check for them if you are retaining money?
Mr. Benson responded in addition to
what they are being paid which was for work they did approximately two months
ago, there is still money which is considered retainage. A percentage of their contract does not get paid.
Mr. Ziko asked do you retain or does
Severn Trent retain?
Mr. Benson responded retainage means
we are holding money for work which has already been performed.
Mr. Goscicki stated when the
contractor submits a payment request for $50,000 the engineer will approve the
payment less 10%. Therefore, even though
they submitted a payment request for $50,000 the authorization from the
engineer back to us will be for $45,000 reflecting the fact we are going to
withhold as an organization 10% of the contract amount until all those items
have been taken care of.
Mr. Ziko stated at the last meeting
it was stated we were retaining $27,000 in order to get this work
completed. Three days later this letter
came out from Hole-Montes to Severn Trent requesting we pay them $44,000.
Mr.
Benson stated this was from the previous month.
They submitted an invoice for payment approximately two months ago which
we did not approve. We went back and
forth with the contractor to basically get them to fill out the forms for the amount
we would agree to pay. Therefore, this
payment was for approximately two months prior, and this is in addition to the
money you are referring to.
Mr. Ziko asked how much money do we
have in hand right now?
Mr. Gatti asked what percentage do
we keep?
Mr. Benson responded at this point
we probably have approximately 10%.
Mr. Gatti stated we have a
significant amount of their money.
Mr. Benson stated I believe this is
probably the $26,000 or so you are referring to. I do not know the exact number, but this was
in addition to that.
Mr. Gatti stated you want to
accomplish the correction of these hydrants.
The new line is 2’ or 3’ shallower than the old line, and what you see
sticking out of the ground is the difference between the depth of the old line
and the new line. We did not have
provisions in the contract to accommodate this.
Mr. Benson stated we were trying to
reuse the existing hydrants which were still serviceable.
Mr. Gatti stated in order to bring
these hydrants to code, we have to go all the way down to the new main,
restructure everything and bring up a new hydrant.
Mr. Benson stated three or four hydrants
were not able to be lowered and those are on order. The contractor will get paid and there will
be an additional charge for the cost of the hydrants.
Ms. Dillon asked does the contract
state they are supposed to bring those to code?
Mr. Benson responded it states they
were to take the hydrants off the old line and install them on the new line.
Mr. Gatti stated the problem is they
are not to code.
Mr. Benson stated if they were new
hydrants this would not be the case.
These were our hydrants. However,
we are still saving money because we reused a number of hydrants, but there
were some which were not able to be reused.
We put them in temporarily in order to maintain some fire service, and
those are the ones which are going to be replaced.
Mr. Gatti asked will this be done
soon?
Mr. Ziko responded it will not be
done in a timely fashion and the fire department told us last month if they had
to use one of these hydrants, there will be a large liability on this community
because it will probably break off. I
want to know why something was not done.
Mr. Benson stated something was
done. They were adjusted to the best way possible as a temporary measure.
Mr. Ziko stated this hydrant was not
adjusted. I will have to go back through
my files and get the other picture of it.
Mr. Benson stated this is one that we
discussed last month which we were going to have replaced.
Mr. Ziko stated there are five
hydrants. I have five pictures in my
camera. If they had to be replaced this
should have been done by now.
Mr. Benson stated fire hydrant code
states they should be a minimum of 18”, but not more than 24” from the finished
grade. There are a couple of hydrants
which when you put 2” of dirt on the ground, they are going to be within the
24” requirement. There are other ones
which have to be replaced in order to get them to within the 18 to 24” requirement.
Ms. Dillon stated I talked to
Lieutenant Bogeny again this week and he told me the fire department was not at
all happy that these hydrants are in the same condition, they are still a
liability and not up to code. I do not
understand why this is taking so much time.
I believe we authorized to spend money to get new ones.
Mr. Gatti stated this does not just
involve going to the hardware store and purchasing a fire hydrant.
Mr. Benson stated we have done two
things. We had the contractor order the
hydrants and we have been negotiating the price with the contractor. The few extra weeks this has taken will
probably save the CID approximately $700 per hydrant.
Mr. Ziko stated I want to see these
completed by the next meeting.
Mr. Benson stated this will happen.
Mr. Lambert asked which term is
correct, project manager or inspector?
Mr. Benson responded this is going
to be considered an inspection.
Mr. Lambert asked why wasn’t this
caught sooner?
Mr. Benson responded a few meetings
ago we mentioned some hydrants will have to be purchased new and replaced since
many of them were not able to be reused.
Trying to get a fair price delayed the process.
Mr. Gatti stated we must have these
hydrants where they should be by the next meeting. Is painting part of the contract?
Mr. Benson responded painting is not
part of the contract. Some residents
were going to paint them, but now the fire department wants to paint them. However, the CID purchased the paint. I understand Lieutenant Bogeny’s concern
about the hydrants. Some of these
hydrants were just moved and they were sticking out of the ground quite a
bit. I am not sure I agree the ones out
there today are going to snap off. I believe
this is his opinion and it may be an exaggeration.
Mr. Bissell stated although the fire
department stated these should be brought up to code, they were here one month
ago saying they were going to paint them, but they have not been painted
yet. Have they mentioned anything?
Ms. Dillon responded they mentioned
last week they were working on determining what they had to get.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s
Report (Continued)
Ms. Dillon stated it may be helpful
if we had a column showing the overall commitment to each of these projects,
not just for this budget year. For
example, road resurfacing comes from this year’s budget, but what was the total
projected cost? With regards to the
other form Mr. Benson gave us, it will be helpful to know what we are talking about
on a total basis, not just for the budget year.
Mr. Gatti asked do we have to look
at the five-year budget in order to do this?
Ms. Dillon responded yes, but we
have the data.
Mr. Gatti asked can you make this
happen in one column?
Mr. Goscicki responded it is
possible, and one of the things I discussed in detail with our finance staff is
trying to keep the format for the total projected straightforward and simple to
provide good information, recognizing this is not your five-year CIP
document. The five-year CIP document
will also be reviewed and approved on an annual basis. If you authorized $100,000 for sidewalk
improvements last year and the work is still continuing, you want to know this. However, I did not include it since we currently
do not have any situations like this. I
also did not include any carry-over authorizations from prior years which are
not in the budget, but we can include them going forward. I currently have defined balance available as
essentially a fund balance. I can also add
another column to show you what Mr. Ziko is specifically looking for in these
contracts as well as how much money has yet to be paid on the contracts.
Mr. Ziko asked when you put those
two columns in, can you possibly print it on legal-size paper and raise the
font?
Mr. Goscicki responded I will
increase the font size and if necessary, I may put it on 11 x 14 paper which
will fold into an 8 ½ x 11 sheet and fit in your files.
Mr. Gatti stated I believe this is a
valuable tool.
Mr. Lambert asked will it be
updated?
Mr. Goscicki responded this will be
updated and one of the things we are working out with Mr. Benson’s office is a
way to easily identify these capital projects as opposed to traditional O&M
expenses in our accounts payable area.
I want to introduce Ms. Janice
Larned to the Board. She is our Director
of Fiscal Services. Ms. Larned oversees
all of our fiscal services within our management services group, with regards
to accounting, assessment roll, budget and assessment methodology issues, as
well as fiscal planning, bond financing and any other issues concerning
money. Ms. Marina Hernandez is still
your accountant right now. However, Ms.
Larned oversees all of our programs. Ms.
Larned will become more involved in some of our discussions as we get into the
budget workshop later today.
Mr. Ziko stated I have a request
which I believe we should bring up at this time, and perhaps Ms. Larned can
address it. One of my neighbors called
your office and talked with Ms. Reesa Weaver who gave him all of the
information to pay off his bond debt. He
mailed in a check. Severn Trent
deposited it, but did not know where they put it. He called up to find out why his bond debt
was not paid off, and Severn Trent was not able to find it. Upon getting his check back, it was deposited
in Port of the Islands Community District General Operating Account. When your office receives a check for this
amount of money, does not know where to put it, and decides to put it in the
General Fund is incorrigible. What is
being done to correct this situation?
Mr. Goscicki responded this is the
first I am hearing of this, and I need to find out the specifics. If the check came to our normal accounts
payable group, it would be put into the general fund by our accounts payable
staff to ensure the funds were accounted for and secure. The check should have been applied against
the assessments and paid against the debt service.
Mr. Goscicki stated he called up to
find out the exact amount as well as the correct way to get this handled.
Mr. Goscicki stated it sounds to me
like the check did not get to Ms. Weaver’s desk where it should have gone to.
Mr. Gatti stated you will look into
this to make sure it goes into the proper category.
Mr. Ziko stated I want to ensure
this does not happen to someone else.
Mr. Gatti stated I think it is
appropriate to get back to the gentleman and let him know what is happening.
Mr. Ziko stated he traced it down.
Mr. Gatti asked was it taken care
of?
Mr. Ziko responded I believe
so. However, it would be nice if you
sent him a receipt indicating his bond issue was paid off.
Mr. Goscicki stated I will report
back to the Board on how this process is supposed to work within our
organization and provide assurances for you it is working properly at the next
meeting.
The
Board authorized moving forward on a contract with Severn Trent for the
operation of the utility system and other field services at the last
meeting. We provided a draft contract to
Mr. Cox for review and we are currently in the process of working through this.
Mr. Ziko asked can we get a copy?
Mr. Cox responded we can get it to
you, but I want to go through it with Mr. Benson to ensure everything is
included before I send it to you.
Ms. Dillon asked will we have it for
the next meeting?
Mr. Cox responded we will have it
ready before the next meeting.
Ms. Dillon stated I would like for
us to receive it ahead of time and discuss it in detail at the next meeting.
Mr. Lambert asked will it be in a
format where we can mark it up on the computer and send back?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
Mr. Ziko stated I got a kick out of
your email which mentioned significant changes for this budget workshop and
mowing grass twice per week. We are
having a problem growing grass and now you want to mow it twice per week. What are we doing on this landscape contract
and why isn’t the grass growing on
Mr. Goscicki responded as you will
recall the Board approved the contract with OLM at the last meeting. There was a mix-up with regards to them
getting the contract executed. However,
this was resolved and will be reporting back at the next meeting with a
detailed schedule. If you recall, we
approved them to put together a detailed RFP for landscape management
services. They have been on site. They reviewed the requirements and they are
now working out a detailed draft contract and request for proposal document
which they will bring back to the Board for your approval. They will manage the overall selection
process the same way Mr. Benson manages construction contracts. They will oversee and review the bids, and
bring back their recommendation to the Board.
They realize the Board is looking for performance standards as well as
the payment tied to meeting these performance standards in this new contract.
Mr. Gatti stated between the dry
weather and winds blowing, the grass is suffering.
Mr. Ziko stated the sprinklers were
on again this morning even though you are not supposed to water on Friday.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney’s
Report
Mr. Cox stated I received a letter
from the attorney representing Orchid Cove residents. Apparently, there are a couple of water lines
which need to be moved. There is an
existing force main located along the north boundary of their property which is
not within an easement, but actually falls within some of the setback areas for
their buildings. The recorded drawings
show this, but they do not show it quite in the same place. They believe one of the water lines meanders
outside of the easement area onto the eastern boundary of their property which
the District has there and they want it moved.
Mr. Gatti asked have you looked at
this Mr. Benson?
Mr. Benson responded this is the
first I am hearing of this situation.
Mr. Gatti stated Mr. Benson should
evaluate and determine who is responsible, and we can go on from there.
Mr. Benson stated if you are
referring to the force main which runs east to west to south of the North
Hotel, there should be an easement when it was put in, but we will find out.
Mr. Cox asked do you know when it
was put in?
Mr. Benson responded I am going to
have to check into this.
Mr. Gatti stated you both should get
together, determine what the problem is and tell us how it should be handled.
Mr.
Benson stated there are actually two easements side by side along the water
line because we have two lines. It is my
recollection when we did the second easement we made sure anything which was
actually built outside the first easement would have been picked up by the
second, but we need to research this.
Mr. Lambert asked is this in the
area where we still have old asbestos pipe?
Mr. Benson responded no. These are located at the force main and
irrigation lines, not the water lines.
Ms. Dillon asked did they respond to
the letter you sent about cutting the road?
Mr. Cox responded this may have been
the response.
Ms. Dillon asked do they still want
us to move the water line?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
Mr. Ziko stated they have been using
our water without our permission and we had it disconnected twice. Can you put in something telling them not to
take our water? They do not have a meter
on it. They connect up with a hose and
use whatever they want.
Mr. Cox asked what are they connecting
to?
Mr. Ziko responded they are connecting
at the end of the road at the line.
Mr. Dick responded they paid their
fees and it was metered to them for approximately five days. They used 210 gallons since it was metered,
which is not a significant amount.
Mr. Ziko asked is it possible to
prorate the water they used without our permission?
Mr.
Lambert stated we had a question on easements and whether or not we had a right
to build along the weir with the pump station.
Mr. Cox stated we are also working
on this and do not have an answer yet.
The title work has taken a considerable amount of time because we found
many documents with different descriptions which overlap. We are also waiting for the title people to
tell us where our easement is and where we have rights based on them going back
and mapping each document.
Mr. Benson stated our surveyors have
done this and it is now ready for you along with their survey opinion. The original design, which is easiest for us,
is to build the new part south of the existing facility. This may be an area which is in question, but
we may have an area to the west that we have legal rights to and we may just
move the facility around. We have been
working with Mr. Cox and hopefully we will have an answer by the next meeting.
Ms. Dillon stated I do not want to
let go of any leverage we may have with Orchid Cove.
Mr. Benson stated this is not Orchid
Cove.
Mr. Ziko asked with regards to the
irrigation area we are looking to correct as you were discussing, does the
water go under the weir if the water is not coming over the weir? In other words, do we get a back flush
underneath from the tidal action?
Mr. Benson responded when it was
built, the purpose of the weir was to have fresh water go over salt water and
not go back. The weir deteriorated over
the years, and whenever SWFWMD was asked they said this is not something they were
going to spend money on, along with all other projects related to what is going
on in the water shed. It was originally built
to stop the salt water, but it is not totally impervious and the water does go
back.
Mr. Ziko asked are we set back far enough
to dilute the salt water that when we put it through our irrigation system we
are not going to kill all our lawns again?
Mr. Benson responded this is one of
the reasons we have all these projects relay the irrigation with reuse and try
to get permission to use excess water from our wells for part of the year. In the future during periods when the water
in the canal does start to get salty, we will blend three types of water to
make your irrigation water. We will
blend reuse water; water from the canal which has some salt in it; and water
from well fields down to where it is acceptable. Unfortunately, this has been taking more than
one year in working with the agencies. I
will have more information relative to this issue during my report.
Mr. Lambert stated in the February
minutes we discussed discrepancies in the amount due on the bond from Allstate
and you were in the process of looking into it.
Was this ever reconciled?
Mr. Cox responded this is not quite
reconciled. I received all the information
and since Mr. Goscicki mentioned Ms. Weaver’s name, I want to get with her to
ensure she understands where I am coming from so we can come up with the same
number as well. By handling it this way,
I have it triangulated between Severn Trent, what I think and what Allstate is
presenting.
Mr. Ziko stated this may be for both
Mr. Cox and Mr. Benson. We have four
violations from the Department of Environmental Protection and they need to be
notified in writing no later than April 15th. Has this been taken care of?
Mr. Benson responded these are the
ones involving the water plant. I have
not talked to Mr. Stephens personally in the last couple of weeks. Before I left for vacation, we discussed it and
had it where those items were taken care of.
If a letter was not already sent to ensure we are technically in
compliance, the letter will be sent today.
Mr. Bissell stated the letter would
have been sent if the Board received a copy of it because we requested that all
communications be sent to the Board.
Mr. Benson stated by procedure, I
copy the manager and he copies the Board.
However, I was out of the office and I yesterday was my first day
back. A letter may have been sent, but
we will ensure it meets the technical deadline.
We talked to them verbally on the phone about these issues and many of
these items have already been addressed.
Mr. Ziko stated when these come out,
I would like to receive a copy. This was
sent to Mr. Gatti and I never received a copy of it until Mr. Bissell managed
to get me a copy. There is a
communications problem with the Board.
We do not get half the information we should be getting and this should
be corrected.
Ms. Dillon stated this letter went
to Mr. Gatti on January 4th and then on March 13th a
letter went from Hole-Montes to Mr. Goscicki.
Mr. Gatti asked when did I ask you
to distribute this?
Mr. Bissell responded you asked me
to distribute it last week.
Mr. Benson stated you brought the
letter to the last meeting or the meeting before and gave it to me. I made a copy and sent it to Mr. Goscicki.
Mr. Goscicki stated I will ensure
copies of any of these communications go to all Board members from now on.
Mr. Gatti stated I do not have the
facilities to get things out to the Board.
I asked Mr. Lambert to do it in the past and now I am asking Mr. Bissell
to do this.
Mr. Goscicki stated actually it is
more appropriate if you just forward it to me with a note you want this
distributed to Board members.
Mr. Gatti stated I will handle it
this way from now on.
Ms. Dillon stated I am only
concerned because I am not sure how serious this is. The violation is supposed to be corrected no
later than April 15th. Today
is April 14th and we do not know if this has been taken care of.
Mr. Benson stated my office, as well
as Severn Trent, have both been working with Mr. Stephens over the last month
and most of the items were corrected.
However, if a letter was not already sent either by Mr. Stephens or my
office, a letter will be sent by my office today.
Mr. Ziko stated one of their
corrections was to have a water flushing log and this was previously discussed. Did we get this log in effect?
Mr. Benson responded I will have to
ask the Field Manager because this log needs to be maintained by Mr.
Stephens. This is a book in which they
write down what was done on what day.
Mr. Ziko stated my street has not
been flushed since I lived there.
Mr. Dick stated I can explain some
of this. Since the hydrants are all on
reuse water, they can no longer be used as a flushing mechanism.
Mr. Ziko stated they were never able
to be used for this purpose.
Mr. Dick stated they may have been
in some areas, but not in other areas.
There are blow-offs or flushing points on the main which are
buried. Mr. Stephens and Mr. Benson
identified these locations. He must get
them excavated and brought up to grade in order to be able to use them as
flushing points.
Mr. Ziko asked will this be done by
the next meeting or is there going to be a delay six months down the line when
this log says it should be done on a bi-weekly basis?
Mr. Dick responded I will make my
best effort to have this done by the next meeting and also present a schedule.
Mr. Benson stated you have some
points in the system with automated flushing devices.
Mr. Ziko asked can you bring the log
to the next meeting?
Mr. Dick responded I will.
Mr. Lambert asked is the log
something new which was requested to be done within the last few months, or is
it an ongoing process we have been delinquent in?
Mr. Dick responded it is relatively
new.
Mr. Lambert stated it seems as
though they keep raising the level of expectations.
Mr. Benson stated yes they are.
Mr. Goscicki stated over the last
several years through regulation and not through legislation, DEP has ratcheted
up requirements for utility operations and formal valve maintenance programs. They do not require a formal valve
maintenance program where you must document to them you are exercising the
valves on a periodic basis. There are
also requirements for a log for line flushing to enable you to document back to
them; they are creating more and more documentation requirements.
Mr. Benson stated a few months ago
when valve maintenance came up we prepared a drawing with all the locations of the
valves and numbered them in order to make it easy for Mr. Stephens to record in
his log book. The map was also a
requirement. We are currently working
with Severn Trent and with Mr. Stephens on this issue. We installed the two automated flushing units
approximately one year ago in order to meet a minimum requirement and again
they want more documentation to prove you are doing what should be done. Mr. Stephens came back and told our office he
had no access to some of these blow-offs since grass had grown over them or
pavement covered them. At this point, we
are going to ensure together this is being taken care of.
Mr. Lambert asked will there be some
sort of box installed so they are acceptable?
Mr. Benson responded I priced
installation of both manual and automatic ones.
I am not sure I recommend additional automatic ones even though this is
something I am involved with. I believe
you will be installing a few more manual ones because if the ones there do not
work, we will ensure you have ones which you can use.
Mr. Lambert asked will every
dead-end have them?
Mr. Benson responded all the
dead-ends should have a manual blow-off.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s
Report (Continued)
Mr. Ziko stated you stated you
cannot get the financials out on time. I
am going to request you send them out as soon as you get them since we are now
going to be six weeks behind on the financials.
Email works well and you can send it out as a pdf, but I want to see the
financials in a more timely fashion than six weeks. Can this be done?
Mr. Goscicki responded we are on a
production schedule and if you want them prior to the Board meeting, I am sure
we can get them to you. We cannot hit a
button and produce financials. We
literally have to create the reports.
You have several customized reports which we do for you on a monthly
basis. We can customize this new report
which we created on Excel. You have to
download the information and proof it against the financials. However, I will look into how quickly we can
turn them around and sent them out to you.
If the Board wants to see those as an early deliverable prior to the
Board package, we will see what we can do.
Ms. Dillon stated we received
February’s financials this time. There
has been six weeks of financial activity and we always seem to be a couple of
months behind in trying to figure out where we are financially. I agree with what Mr. Ziko is saying. Is there some way we can get them over email? I prefer this than waiting six or eight weeks
to look at our financials.
Mr. Goscicki stated I want to point
out to the Board that when we move forward with the contract operations, as you
will find out in today’s budget discussion, your budget will become simple. Therefore, your financials will also become
simple. Many details you are currently looking
at in your financials and check registers will no longer exist.
Ms. Dillon stated I realize this.
Mr. Bissell stated some bills were
not paid for several months. Therefore,
there have been penalties. Is this our
fault for not sending things to Severn Trent or is Severn Trent not paying the
bills when they receive them?
Mr. Goscicki responded several
months ago there were problems on our side with bills getting paid on
time. Some problems you have seen
recently were delays from getting the invoices out of the field and into our
office. We spoke to Mr. Stephens about
this to ensure we stay timely on getting the invoices out of the field. Mr. Stephens is considered your Field Manager
and he is the one who purchases materials.
He has to sign off on the invoice that he received the materials and code
it to the appropriate account, which usually involves repair and
replacement. He sends the invoice to our
Accounts Payable Department. They
process the invoice, cut the check and move forward with it.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer’s
Report
Mr. Bissell asked when the builders
connect to our mains, do they do the installation and do they pay from the main
to their project or do we furnish the water?
Mr. Benson responded they make the
connection to your main.
Mr. Bissell asked are they paying
for the cut and distance over to our main in the area where they install a
meter and cut through the road to put the pipe across?
Mr. Benson responded to my knowledge
since you did not do those installations, you did not pay for them. If they did the work, they paid for the work
because we were not doing it as a CID.
Mr. Lambert asked is there more than
the cut across the road?
Mr. Bissell responded no.
Mr. Lambert stated we made the cut
when we installed the main line.
Mr. Benson asked are you referring
to something the contractor is currently doing or to cover something we did?
Mr. Bissell responded it was done a
couple of months ago.
Mr. Benson stated this was our
connection which was not made for a specific developer. It was made to connect our new line to our
existing line because they were on opposite sides of the road. We paid for this because it involved
replacement of our water line and connecting the new water line to the existing
water line.
With regards to our concerns about
our well field and potable water system supply, the hydrogeologist televised
one of the two wells and did a detailed investigation. This was when we reported back that our water
supply is much shallower than we were previously told when the CID acquired the
well field. In the next phase, the
hydrogeologist did a computer model of our well field and the projected
withdrawals we have for build-out of this community and the results are shown. These results indicate the proposed
withdrawals will not cause any adverse impacts and this is what we are required
to report back to SWFWMD. We can
withdraw water from these two wells at the rates we proposed to SWFWMD without
causing an impact. The draw-downs are minimal
because we are the only people out there and it is a large recharge area. This report came in while I was on vacation
and I asked the hydrogeologist to sign and seal the final report. There are a few other attachments which will
be included. This will answer SWFWMD’s
question as to what is holding up our permit.
As long as SWFWMD accepts this report, which they should because work
was done per their requirements, we will be able to continue to use our
wells. The condition is we have to be
careful of what may happen and this is the best scenario compared to the information
we received over the last year of what the worst case could be.
Ms. Dillon stated still our wells
are 15 ½’ below pad surface with a total depth of 20’ which is not very deep.
Mr. Benson stated you are correct,
but for the amount of withdrawal and the distance apart these wells are, we are,
by computer modeling and from the measurements they took, able to show we can
withdraw the amount of water we desire without having a significant
impact. However, you need to be
concerned when you have shallow wells about the potential for contamination
which also triggers additional water treatment requirements for which we
actually have been complying with.
Mr. Gatti stated although we are
concerned about the depth of our wells, it apparently is not a problem. How close are we to our allocation in terms
of what we withdraw?
Mr. Benson responded right now we
are not withdrawing very much.
Mr. Gatti stated we do not have a
problem there.
Mr. Benson stated no.
Mr. Gatti asked what is the general
recharge area?
Mr. Benson responded it is a huge
area, possibly 50 square miles.
Mr. Gatti stated it is a surface
recharge.
Mr. Benson stated the canal tends to
hold up to the water table.
Mr. Gatti stated it is not someplace
north of Immokalee, but nearby. All of
this improvement to the Everglades is going to help us.
Mr. Benson stated you are
correct. For part of the year there will
be more water out here. As far as
contamination concerns, since the state and federal government generally own
all of this land, we do not have anyone who will potentially do something to
harm us because private ownership brings more potential for contamination than government
ownership.
Mr. Gatti stated there are two shallow
well heads out there and if the draw-down is not significant, we will not have
a problem. If the cone of influence of
the well is 100’ or 200’, will we be in a position to go outside of the cone of
influence and put down another well head to help solve any possible problems? In other words, can we drop another well 100’
outside the cone of influence?
Mr. Cox responded we will need to
get an easement from the state.
Mr. Benson stated I mentioned last
month we have a strip of land which the CID owns which has two wells at one end
of the strip. One of the options I
mentioned at the last meeting was if these wells were causing a draw-down, we
may put in additional wells along this strip if we can get a permit because it
is located in an area of critical concern with regards to environmental
issues. These wells have been there for
many years, they have not caused a problem and we are not competing with
anyone. In the same paragraph, the first
sentence of the paragraph says, the
extents of the 0.2’ draw-down contour is approximately 1,000’ from the two
wells. There is no one within 1,000’
of us and 2/10ths of a foot is not very much.
Mr. Gatti stated we may have a problem
if we drop a well outside of the 1,000’ area subject to permission. However, I don’t foresee any problems as long
as the allocation is there.
Mr. Benson stated a draw-down of
2/10ths of a foot is very small. We can
put them in even closer since we own the property. Getting a permit for an additional well may
not be easy because of all the environmental sensitivity, but the two wells we
do have look like they are in good shape.
Mr. Gatti stated it seems even at
build-out, we are in good shape from a water standpoint.
Mr. Lambert asked are there any
records on this area as far as what the water table level is doing over a
period of time?
Mr. Benson responded the surfacial
aquifer has not changed much, but the deeper aquifer has become more salient
over time.
Mr. Lambert asked is there a trend
where we are getting more salt?
Mr. Benson responded no, because
there is such a large recharge area.
Mr. Lambert stated we are fortunate
we are located where we are basically.
Mr. Benson stated we probably will
not be able to get a permit to do this today, but these wells have been there
for a long time.
Mr. Gatti asked do you have anything
else?
Mr. Benson responded yes and I will
try to go through my issues quickly.
There was a letter Mr. Ziko mentioned from DEP which was dated January 4th
and one of the items related to compliance with disinfection requirements. As I said last month, I though we already handled
this. Actually we sent in a report to
DEP on December 30, 2005 complying with the requirement. Therefore, this was done before they sent the
letter. Since the January 4th
letter states we were given another year, we actually are one year early on one
of the items in the letter. At the last
meeting, you authorized repairs to the filter at the wastewater plant. We worked with Mr. Stephens on this. The work was authorized after he got the
purchase order. The parts were ordered, shipped
and are here. The company who does the
rehab work using the parts you purchased is called Filter 1. They are expected to be on site on Tuesday,
April 18th to start doing the work.
Mr. Lambert asked is this filter
going to serve as a backup when we get the new one put in?
Mr. Benson responded yes. This will be our redundant treatment system which
we need now. One of the items you asked
to be done last month was to send a letter to the Orchid Cove residents which I
sent to the engineer with RWA relating to the lift station. In fact, it would have been installed out of
plumb. I sent the letter and have not
heard anything back. Basically the
letter said we notified them it was not acceptable and they had two
options. One is to fix the wet well or
two they may not have the system approved for acceptance by the CID if it is
not fixed. One of the engineers in our
office spoke to the contractor who installed the wet well and heard from them
they were going to take care of it, but this is probably hearsay.
Mr. Gatti stated at some point in
time we are going to have to accept this.
Mr. Benson stated you do not have
to.
Mr. Gatti stated I am using the
wrong terminology.
Mr. Benson stated we told them you
may not accept it.
Mr. Gatti asked do we have to accept
it before they can put this into effect?
Mr. Benson responded yes.
Mr. Gatti stated the only point I am
trying to make is we have leverage.
Mr. Benson stated we said in the letter
if you did not accept it from this point back, they will have to maintain it as
a private system. You will treat their
wastewater, but not take ownership of the system. Did you send them the package with the March
17th letter from DEP along with our response?
Mr. Goscicki responded I believe
so. If you forward it to me and asked me
to forward it to the Board members, I will do so. However, if it just came in on a transmittal,
it went into the file. Therefore, if it
is something which needs to be distributed to the Board, I need to get it from
you.
Mr. Benson stated there was a letter
sent March 17th to Mr. Gatti, as the permittee, for the wastewater
plant which was the inspection report for the wastewater plant we have been
waiting for. The inspection report came
in and there were some items noted as deficiencies. Mr. Stephens, Mr. Dick and myself spoke on
the telephone about this. I prepared a
list of responses which we put into the form of a letter. The DEP letter says we needed to contact the compliance
person in the local DEP office within 15 days of the March 17th letter. We contacted them within 15 days to set up a
meeting in order to meet the date requirement.
There is a meeting Tuesday morning which Mr. Stephens, Mr. Dick and
myself are going to attend. In addition,
I prepared a letter which basically went through each of their deficiencies and
gave them our position. Although this
did not have to be done, I felt it was appropriate. When we meet with them, they will already
have our position. The main thing I told
DEP was one year ago we received a similar inspection with some of these
items. These items were in the
engineering report for more than one year, as we discussed in the Board meeting. We identified those projects to be done approximately
one year ago. Therefore, we have
projects underway to correct most of these deficiencies. I gave DEP a schedule of anticipated
compliance with these items. It also
lets them know we met with DEP last summer about going through the permitting
process because a permit is necessary to take care of these items. We submitted applications, but still have not
received the permit. I tried to show DEP
we have been doing everything possible, and they need to participate in issuing
a permit in order to meet this compliance schedule. We will have an update next month after we meet
with DEP, which now leads me to the projects at the wastewater plant.
One
of the items on the open items list is the reuse pump station in which the CID
ordered the specified materials and then we needed to have the work done, which
was more than we could handle in house.
We decided to get competitive pricing from contractors. Originally we were going to talk to three
contractors and get three prices. Five
contractors basically told us they were too busy and did not want to price
it. However, we did get pricing from two
contractors. Since we felt the prices
were considerably high, I asked for permission to have Severn Trent price it as
well. The bottom line is we have three
prices. Florida State Underground, who did
the work for us, gave us a price of $102,331.
When we got this price, we thought we really did not want to do the work
because the price was too high compared to our estimate. We received a price of $89,500 from a
contractor in Fort Myers, Grayley Mechanical, which we also thought was too
high. Severn Trent gave us a price of
$96,000. I have three prices which are
between $89,500 and $102,331, which tells me today’s pricing is very high. This is probably the price in today’s market
and the low price of $89,500 is a contractor we know can do the work.
Mr. Gatti asked will we be in a
position to go ahead with this subject to the Board’s approval?
Mr. Benson responded yes. We have other projects coming up. We have the contract with Parkson for the MBR
equipment and installation. The design
is 100% complete; they have been fabricating the materials and they can ship
within 30 days. There are problems on a
couple of items. We still have not received
the permit from DEP, but we are meeting with them on Tuesday with regards to this
other compliance issue; hopefully, we can put some pressure on them to issue
the permit since we have been doing what we need to do. In order to complete the work, which Parkson
is doing a large amount of, there are three other things we need to do. Some miscellaneous underground piping needed
to get put in that they could connect to.
We completed all the designs to coordinate this. We need also to put in the concrete foundation
the equipment gets set on and a roof structure must be placed over the top of
it after the equipment is installed. Although
the structure is open-sided, a roof is necessary to protect it. We recently put this out for pricing because
we do not have a permit to start construction yet, but in order to get this
moving, we have gone ahead and everything is designed. We gave this to a series of local structural
contractors to price the foundation and roof.
Building a metal roof structure over a concrete slab is a
specialty. We also gave the plans to
local mechanical contractors who will do the piping for competitive pricing. There is also the electrical work to hook it
all up. We gave this to electrical
contractors to competitively price. We
expect to have a series of price quotes for these specialty items for the next
meeting and bring it all together as a package when it is all built.
We
also need to issue a purchase order for a direct purchase. There are two mixers at the wastewater plant that
are part of our replacement of equipment.
A purchase order needs to be cut for those two mixers which we will
coordinate with Mr. Stephens. There are many
things happening this month. We hope to
have a whole package next month. It may
add up to a large amount of money, but this was budgeted as such.
Ms Dillon asked how does the
$100,000 fit in with what we originally scheduled this was going to cost?
Mr. Benson stated this is more money
which has to be spent that was not in the budget, and I do not believe we have
an option.
Mr. Bissell asked what did we allow
for this?
Mr. Goscicki responded the budget
for the project was $41,000 and we are now estimating about $90,000.
Mr. Benson stated this is more than
double what we originally estimated for a couple of reasons. This project has gone on in dealing with DEP along
with all the requirements, hooking up the extra equipment due to the irrigation
pump station, all these things were necessary and other things kept getting
added to the project as well.
Mr. Gatti stated put together all
your numbers, bring it to the Board next month and we will evaluate where we
want to go.
Mr. Ziko stated we are going to have
to do it.
Mr. Benson stated the next item we
have been talking about for the last six months is the electrical service and
generator for both the water and wastewater plant as a package. We said we would do this while we did this
other project because we were adding new loads and we wanted to ensure
everything was in place once it was designed.
At this point the electrical engineer working with us came up with the
appropriate size generator loads and what size generator we need, which is
larger than what we originally planned for.
Although you may not know the history, we had a generator when we
originally built the wastewater plant, but the water plant did not have a
generator. The water plant was hooked in
after the fact to the generator at the wastewater plant instead of putting on a
separate generator to save money. Any
reserve capacity in the generator at the wastewater plant for future loads was
taken up by the water plant. We are
going to put some more loads at the wastewater plant and we are going to bring
you an estimate. This project is not
listed because we did not know at the time we were going to need it. We are going to come back with what size
generator is needed along with a cost estimate.
We hope the existing generator will be able to be used for the water
plant. However, we will have reserve
again as well. At some point you are
going to need new water plants and having a generator with extra capacity is
necessary and it is also a state requirement.
Mr. Ziko asked do you have an
estimate?
Mr. Benson responded I do not.
Mr. Gatti stated with the Board’s
permission, we have a lot of people here and if we go down the agenda, are
people here for a specific item they want to discuss?
Mr. Goscicki responded perhaps we
can ask how many are here for the presentation by SWFWMD.
Mr. Gatti stated I understand Mr.
Shucart wants to have a discussion with the Board. With the Board’s pleasure, perhaps we should
have them go first since most audience members are interested in this issue.
Mr. Lambert stated there was a
discussion in February with Mr. Benson, Mr. Dick and perhaps someone else
generally looking over the plant’s physical system and identifying items which
are not working properly or are in need of repair before we transition to
someone else running the plant. Where
did we end up with this?
Mr. Benson responded we have not
scheduled this, but it should occur rather soon.
Mr. Lambert asked will it be done?
Mr. Benson responded we are going to
do this as part of our annual engineer’s report inspections which is usually
done in the spring.
Mr. Lambert asked will there be a
review of the condition before the transition actually takes place?
Mr. Benson responded over the past three
weeks Mr. Dick was on vacation and when he returned I went on vacation. Therefore, now is the time when we are going
to do this.
Mr. Gatti stated many audience
members are interested in what is happening with the hotel. Mr. Shucart will have a discussion and I
suspect there are going to be questions from the audience, but I do not want
anyone shouting. If you want to speak,
please raise your hand, I will recognize you and questions can be asked in an
organized manner.
Mr.
James Shucart stated I am with the Port of the Islands Hotel, Restaurant and
Mr.
Weyer stated I am a Senior Associate with Fishkind & Associates. We are headquartered in
We also
looked at the capital structure in your Series 1990 Bond issues to determine an
ERC value. In addition, we understand
there is a special assessment which came through and I calculate approximately a
total of $3.6 million, giving you a grand total of approximately $10.5 million
in capital improvement funds ERCs take care of.
It is important to distinguish between capital and operating costs. These are capital improvements. The true value of an ERC is an entire CIP or
Capital Improvement Program. The entire
CIP is divided by the number of ERCs. If
you add the two together, I originally did not have the special assessment
there but if you do have the special assessmen,t your ERCs are valued at approximately
$10,500. We then determine how much
capital revenue the additional 68 ERCs will generate to the CID. The revenue generated will be a little more
than $580,000 if you did not issue bonds to do capital improvements. However, if you did issue bonds to do the
capital improvement now, you will generate approximately $475,000 in capital
improvement revenue based on the ERCs being your backup and the ability to use
it in a number of different ways. The
recommendation for ERC revenue use is the fact we understand you have plant
repairs which need to be done on the capital side. Ultimately, the District will have to do a special
assessment on the property owners again if the costs exceed what we have on the
capital side. These additional ERC funds
may help offset the costs and they also may prove beneficial to the entire
district.
Mr.
Shucart pointed out there will be approximately $700,000 in revenues at $10,500;
and stated another opportunity is to pay down some existing bonds. Currently, I saw nearly $3 million of the
original bond issue which will be reduced to a little less than $2.5 million
with the upcoming May payment. With the
additional ERCs, the bond principal may be reduced to just under $2 million,
which will also reduce the assessments. You
will have to go through an analysis in order to determine what the new payment
will be. Other uses include all capital
improvement programs, the opportunity of enhancing your landscaping or the
internal road as an opportunity. We
talked about the well field this morning and what happens outside of the cone
of influence. Those funds can be
utilized for construction or enhancement of the well field. I have not gotten an answer as to whether or
not the District boundaries cover the canals within the District, but another
opportunity to be researched is the possibility of a mandatory maintenance
regimen of the canals as a result of the storm.
We also understand from the Engineer’s report your water and wastewater
treatment plants may need replacement within the next 10 years. Is this correct?
Mr. Benson responded the water plant
may need replacement, not the wastewater treatment plant.
Mr. Weyer stated we recommend the Board begin looking into the life expectancy of the plant to determine project cost and the corresponding assessment for the replacement along with the possibility of these ERC revenues being applied toward the plant to reduce the assessment. Finally we recommend the Board work with the District’s legal counsel to plan a procedure to increase the ERCs, and then we will have to go through the whole procedure involved with the use and allocation of those additional funds which will generate those ERCs. It will cost approximately $10,500.<