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:
Ed
Goscicki District
Manager
Dan
Cox Attorney
Ron
Benson Engineer
Bob
Dick Field
Manager
Tom
Mack Staff
G.
Russell Weyer Fishkind
& Associates
James
Vogel Sunstream,
Inc.
Christopher
Shucart POI
Hotel &
James
Shucart POI Hotel &
Dennis
McKay Resident
Susan
Beck Resident
Edith
Bolton Resident
Neil
Bolton Resident
Charles
Custer Resident
Mr.
Gasaway Resident
Nannette
Gatti Resident
Charles
Hawkins Resident
Barbara
Lagasse Resident
Duane
Otto Resident
Kay
Otto Resident
Peter
Saalprank Resident
Sandy
Taylor Resident
Tom
Weir 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 August 11, 2006 Meeting
Mr. Gatti stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr. Lambert stated on Page 18 under
the fourth order of business there was a discussion about the ponds, which I do
not recall.
Mr. Goscicki stated I am not aware
of any ponds needing to be relocated, but I will check with Mr. Cox and get
some clarification.
Mr. Lambert stated on Page 31 we
were discussing the trucks. In the second
sentence of the twelfth paragraph CID
should replace Severn Trent.
On MOTION by Mr. Lambert
seconded by Mr. Ziko with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s
Report
A.
Discussion
of Draft Developer’s Agreement
Mr.
Goscicki stated the Board will recall this issue came up several months ago in
which we suggested the creation of a developer agreement to act as a legal
framework for dealing with any major new development within the District. The District has an established set of rules which
detail policies for the District with regards to issues and terms of ownership
of the utility systems, installation requirements for the developer which meet District
standards, transfer of ownership and where the meters can be set. There is no existing formal document to
memorialize the relationship with a new developer who is interested in
redeveloping a property. This is an
attempt to create a legal agreement between the developer who wishes to develop
property and the District. This will be
a framework for dealing with anything involving facility infrastructure development
on a parcel they already own.
Mr.
Bissell stated I understand we have to furnish them with water and sewers if
they have the ERCs. Does the CID have to
accept their sewer system, water system or fire hydrants?
Mr. Goscicki responded I prepared
this document which Mr. Benson and Mr. Cox reviewed, and I incorporated a
number of comments. First of all, you
define the limits of what will and will not be accepted in the developer’s
agreement. You define the extent of the
District’s infrastructure and what remains private. Therefore, it depends on the nature of the
development. If it is single-family
development, typically you own up to the meter box which serves the single
family. If it is a condominium
development, you may only own up to a master meter which feeds multiple
buildings. If the buildings were each
individually metered, you own up to the meter which served each individual
unit. The purpose of this agreement is
to lay all of this out in the engineering plans which get reviewed and approved
by the engineer, and brought back to the Board for review and approval to
clearly establish what is owned, what is not owned, what stays private and what
stays under the District’s ownership. The
agreement further states one of the plans need to be reviewed and approved by
the engineer after these issues are resolved as part of the initial phase. The developer’s engineer, who is the engineer
of record, must inspect those facilities and certify back to this Board and the
District engineer they were constructed according to those plans. After they are accepted by their engineer,
your engineer will transfer ownership to the District. This sets up a process where you clearly
define the bounds of the ownership. You
establish they must be built to the District’s specifications. You establish they must be reviewed,
inspected and paid for by their engineer, including all infrastructure costs. When it is deemed acceptable to the District,
all standards are met and the construction completed, tested and approved,
there will be a transfer of ownership at no cost to the District.
Mr. Bissell asked is a transfer of
ownership required?
Mr. Goscicki responded I believe it
is an applied transfer of ownership, and if all requirements are met you are
obligated to accept it. However, if they
do not meet the requirements, you do not have to accept.
Mr. Bissell stated for example, we
say it has to be built to the county’s specifications. If the county signs off they inspected the
construction does the county inspector have to sign off?
Mr. Benson responded the design engineer
has to sign the application according to the state permitting process. They must also ensure the plans are signed
and sealed. After the permits are issued,
the project engineer must ensure everything was completed according to the
plans. All changes must be noted at the
end of the construction. This
responsibility is already established according to the rules of the DEP and
Health Department. Therefore, I believe
Mr. Goscicki is trying to establish a formalized process which partially takes
on the accepted and regulated process.
The engineer who designed the project must inspect it, even though this was
not always the case.
Mr. Bissell asked if the engineer works
for the developer, why wouldn’t he sign off and state the work was done correctly?
Mr. Benson responded at times they
were not signed off because the engineer did not accept it, and the engineer’s
license may be at stake if something is falsified.
Mr. Bissell stated I just wanted to ensure
we do not need to accept the development. All we have to do is give them water and sewer
service at our point.
Mr. Benson stated the CID has rules
and policies which were adopted many years ago.
For example, Stella Maris was accepted when the developer offered
it. In the process of doing this some
things had to be done before we accepted it in order to bring it up to our accepted
standard. There are other areas where
conditions are considerably different.
For example, condominium meters are set up along the street, and all of
their water and sewer lines are underneath public or community spaces, parking
lots and driveways which all condominium owners share. According to the county process, the engineer
must review the utility plans, and since it is not the condominium’s utility,
the CID engineer handles it. When we
approve those plans, I always try to be careful in stating exactly what we are
approving. I try to write a letter
stating we have approved this according to specific policies. Mr. Goscicki is trying to formalize the
process.
Mr. Lambert stated accepting
everyone’s system as long as they meet the criteria may not be appropriate in
some situations. There should be
something in this agreement with regards to roads and other infrastructure we
own and maintain which ensures they are left in a similar condition when the
work commences, and we should have some review of what they are going to do with
regards to crossing our properties. We
should try to eliminate some problems which arose with the Orchid Cove
situation.
Mr. Goscicki stated this is an
excellent point because this developer agreement deals with new development on
virgin land, and the restoration issue deals specifically with what we have.
Mr. Lambert asked did you and Mr.
Benson make some comments and changes to what we have in this folder today?
Mr. Goscicki responded all changes
were made prior to you receiving this today.
Ms. Dillon stated nothing is
mentioned with regards to property damage.
Mr. Gatti stated we are going to
deal with anything which affects our property, including damage.
Ms. Dillon stated on Page 3 I did
not understand this comment which says, may
not need to include this section, applies to only Area 1. I do not know what Area 1 is.
Mr. Goscicki stated I need to get
more background information from Mr. Benson and Mr. Cox with regards to this,
which is why I included the note. This refers
to connection fees which are currently part of your rate structure. Since I did not have a personal knowledge of
Area 1, I had to go back to the history of the District to determine where they
are not covered by the water and sewer assessments. I found out they were paying a connection fee
in order to pay their fair share of the impact.
I believe this only applies to a few remaining lots, in which case a
developer’s agreement cannot be used. This
entire section can probably be deleted. However,
I left it in this draft as a reminder to clean this up and to make you aware we
probably do not need it in there.
Ms. Dillon stated Page 1 refers to
EDUs. Should it be ERCs?
Mr. Goscicki responded it should be
ERCs.
Mr. Lambert asked will this be
signed by the developer before Mr. Benson submits his letter to the county?
Mr. Goscicki responded this will be
signed by the developer before any work can commence.
Mr. Lambert stated we should sign
off on this before the developer signs it.
Mr. Benson stated I believe we should
get this done before they submit their plans.
Mr. Gatti stated I suggest including
the developer have all county approval and permits in place before we invest in
this.
Mr. Benson stated they cannot get
all approvals until they get all of their sign-offs.
Mr. Goscicki stated I will work this
out. We have been reviewing it mostly
for content at this point. I suggest the
next step is for Mr. Cox to do a complete legal review since I do not want to make
any legal judgement calls on this document.
Mr. Bissell asked can the Board be
emailed a copy so we can fine tune it before the next meeting?
Mr. Goscicki responded absolutely.
B.
Field
Manager’s Report
Mr.
Dick stated we are having problems at the wastewater plant with the removal of
ammonia from the wastewater with regards to the total nitrogen
requirement. There is a control problem
in the process which is not allowing us to de-nitrify. Mr. Benson has some recommendations which can
be implemented to correct the problems, and he will go over those in more
detail. We are in the process of doing a
total assessment of the facilities within 90 days of taking over the operation which
we owe the Board at the end of this month.
We have a draft which will probably be completed over the next week, and
we will make it available to the Board. Our
main concern is the reliability of the fire station across the street. We have done an analysis and there is some malfunctioning
equipment. The subcontractor is
supplying us with some of the original data, and I will submit a report as to
what the system may or may not need to improve the reliability of the controls
and installation. We currently have four
pumps, of which two are not operating.
Mr. Goscicki stated I spoke to the
fire chief and advised him of the current status.
Mr. Dick stated we need to approach
this with an abundance of caution. At
worst, we have hydrants with plenty of volume and pressure, but it is not
perfect. We must ensure everything works
as it was designed, which is why Mr. Benson is involved.
Mr. Goscicki stated we also want to
ensure the fire department has all contact information for Mr. Dick and our
operators. In a worst case scenario if a
pump fails during off hours, they will be able to contact us immediately and we
will be on site until these issues are resolved.
Mr. Lambert asked was one of the
items on our to-do list to check some of the equipment?
Mr. Benson responded we have a list
of items which need attention on the annual engineer’s report, such as repair
of the pump station and the valves. We
also may have to do a CIP project with a dollar amount to a point where there are
enough repairs which need to be done. We
will probably need to replace the generator at the pump station, for which we
have a plan. I will discuss this during
my report. In answer to your question,
we have a project involving improvements to the station, which are not different
from the items which Mr. Dick discussed.
Those were covered generally in our annual report. Specifically, we are adding a filter and
disinfection system to meet DEP rules for reuse and irrigation water
quality. There are a number of items
which are all related, and at some point we may roll them all into one project
if there are enough funds available. It
is probably going to cost more than $200,000, not including these smaller
items.
Mr. Lambert stated Mr. Benson should
combine his report with Mr. Dick’s report, in order for the Board to determine
what we want to do.
Mr. Dick stated the August
Operations Report touches on operations highlights. It also includes the Discharge Monitoring
Report for the wastewater plant which is sent to the state on a monthly
basis. The Monthly Operating Report for
the water plant is also submitted. There
is also a flow graph which trends the water and wastewater flows on a daily
basis.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney’s Report
Mr. Cox stated I spoke to everyone
concerning the sign easements, and they are still looking at them, but we
should find something out soon. I also
talked to Mr. Franklin about the fire station property. Although it is still under consideration, he
did not refer to the price we discussed and may come back with a counter-offer.
Ms. Dillon asked did we offer him
the assessment?
Mr. Cox responded we offered the true
value.
Mr. Gatti stated while we are
discussing this issue, does
Mr. Mack responded I spoke to him on
Wednesday. I believe we need to discuss
prices, which I am not sure you will want to do at an open session.
Mr. Gatti stated give us a status.
Mr. Mack stated I am waiting for him
to get back to me with the accounting.
Mr. Gatti stated when you get the
information, perhaps you can brief the Board.
Ms. Dillon asked was this going to
be one of the items for the Executive Session?
Mr. Cox responded no.
Mr. Lambert stated discussing what
we consider to be our high or low offer in public defeats the purpose.
Mr.
Mack stated we have to work with him in order to get the best possible prices
in order to be able to work with you. We
need to know first where the Board stands and whether or not we should continue
to pursue it since we currently have no direction.
Mr. Lambert stated we need to pursue
it since there are not many other options.
Mr. Ziko stated I believe we should
pursue it since it will be a much cleaner operation. We were promised this for the last two years
by Ms. Marchand and the people who purchased the RV park. So far, we have nothing and we need a fire
station out here. I do not want to wait
two more years. I believe Mr. Mack and
Mr. Cox should pursue negotiations.
Ms. Dillon stated I agree we should
pursue it, but I am also holding out hope for the donated land.
Mr. Mack stated I thank Mr. Gasaway for
standing up for us and bringing new developments to the table. He will allow us a spot somewhere around the
plant, but I am not certain of the exact location or size.
Mr. Mack stated I saw a site drawing
last week for the project, and he has a piece of property designated for the
fire station to cover your plan. He
needs to get HUD approval as well, and they think it is going to take two to
three years. A permit for a home takes
one year to get approval.
Mr. Lambert asked is this north of
the plant?
Mr. Mack responded it is south of
the plant. This is where we stand. When we make something happen you will be
able to see what we can fit on the property in the corner.
Ms. Dillon stated we want to
continue to pursue this.
Mr. Mack stated we need some
guidelines.
Ms. Dillon stated we should continue
to pursue the purchase of this property, but I do not want to shut the door on
the possibility of the community not spending more than $200,000 on a piece of
property if they do not have to.
Mr. Lambert stated I believe we need
to pursue it. Some of these options may
or may not come about in the future, and I do not want any strings attached to
someone giving us something.
Mr. Bissell stated I believe we
should pursue it. According to the
property appraiser it will probably appraise at $244,000, but I do not know
what he is asking.
Mr. Mack stated he is asking $900,000. I explained where we stood. I told him what the appraised value was and offered
him $180,000 which I thought was a good price considering there are no ERCs
involved. He told me he will get back to
me after he talks to the owner.
Mr. Ziko asked if we pursue purchasing
the property under an eminent domain as we previously discussed, how close to
the appraised value will we be able to come to?
Mr. Cox responded the law requires
you first pay the fair market value of the property along with your legal
fees. They challenge your fair market
value. You go through a jury trial where
both of you give expert testimony, and it is actually established by a jury as
opposed to the judge. Therefore, it is
impossible for me to predict what is going to happen.
Mr. Gatti stated it seems to be the
consensus of the Board we should pursue this, which makes sense. What direction does he require?
Mr. Mack stated as a first step Mr.
Cox should make a firm offer, and I recommend starting with $180,000.
Mr. Cox stated I do not understand
where you came up with $180,000.
Mr. Mack stated the price was
$240,000 with ERCs.
Mr. Gatti stated perhaps we should
authorize Mr. Mack to negotiate within a certain range not to exceed a certain
amount.
Mr. Goscicki stated I believe you
can leave it more generalized.
Mr. Mack stated I would rather leave
it until we find out exactly what he wants to do.
Mr. Ziko stated time is of the
essence here. This has been going on for
two years and nothing has happened.
Mr. Mack stated I understand timing
is an issue, but if someone negotiates with the same strength as you it is
going to be difficult to force the issue.
Mr. Lambert stated we should move
forward.
Ms. Dillon stated the appraisal I
have states $250,000.
Mr. Goscicki stated I believe it is
worthwhile to have a formal motion by the Board authorizing Mr. Cox and Mr.
Mack to represent the Board to pursue negotiations for acquisition of this fire
station property.
Mr. Gatti stated we are looking at a
reasonable number.
Mr. Goscicki stated it is clearly
understood they cannot commit the Board.
However, they can pursue negotiations without a commitment.
Mr. Cox asked are we trying to
obtain the entire 1.9 acres on that side?
Ms. Dillon responded that is
correct.
Mr. Mack stated he paid $134,000 for
it less than two years ago, so he must be realistic about this.
Mr. Gatti stated it seems to work
out well in terms of what we are offering.
Mr. Mack stated the area around the
community center is a large piece of land to build on.
Mr. Ziko stated I hope the building
design is open to change if we want to incorporate the community center in the
building rather than keeping it separate.
Mr. Benson stated if you are
referring to the fire station building, I am not certain.
Mr. Ziko stated in
Mr. Benson stated it depends on what
we work out with the fire department and what their rules are.
Mr. Goscicki stated I have seen a
number of fire stations in which they use it as a training room for the
firefighters.
Mr. Gatti stated we do not want any
training in this area except for the people at this station.
Mr. Ziko stated I believe he is
referring to training for the people on site.
Mr. Gatti stated this was one of our
provisos when we were negotiating with the county for their use of the land.
Mr. Ziko stated we do not want a
firefighting tower behind there.
Mr. Lambert stated I do not believe
instructional classroom training will be a problem. Did you take care of the easements for the
pump station work we are going to be doing by the weir?
Mr. Benson responded we are still
working on it, but we need to get a use agreement as opposed to an easement.
Mr. Lambert asked is this the only
issue delaying the project?
Mr. Benson responded the other issue
was the DEP permit, of which I have an update.
Mr. Ziko asked where do we stand on
the other easements for the signs?
Mr. Cox responded I spoke to the
property owners and they are still looking at them. As soon as I hear from them I will let you
know.
Mr. Ziko stated we have a new sign
on our property in front of the sales office.
How did it get installed?
Mr. Cox responded it is on their
property.
Mr. Ziko stated it is on our
property and we were never consulted to get an easement for the sign.
Mr. Benson stated there is some
history to this sign and I recall Mr. Cox gave us an update a few years ago. It may be on property which is part of the
wide road area. When they built the
sales center, some rights were withheld.
Therefore, they had to get a new sign permit which was not allowed to be
connected to the archway. They had to
build a free standing sign inside the archway and there were many technicalities
involved.
Mr. Cox stated they had some type of
easement in this area which allowed them to do this because the sign has always
been there, but it was replaced a couple of times.
Mr. Ziko stated I have a picture of
the lot and this is definitely on our property.
We cannot get an easement to put up our own signs. How did they get an easement to put up this
sign?
Mr. Cox responded I assume this was
done years ago.
Mr. Ziko stated I am not so sure
they have because I spoke to the signage people up there, and they are not certain
how it got done.
Mr. Cox stated it needs to be
determined.
Mr. Ziko asked did we give them an
easement to put the sign there or do they have to come to us if they want to
change it?
Mr. Cox responded if they were given
an easement, they probably do not have to come to us.
Mr. Ziko asked how will we find out?
Mr. Cox responded I will look into
it.
Mr. Lambert asked will the easement spell
out what can and cannot be done?
Mr. Cox responded if it was done
many years ago, it probably did not get an easement.
Mr. Gatti asked is there an issue
here which we want to address?
Mr. Ziko responded it is a
commercial sign which does not reflect the community of the POI. It is a commercial advertising sign to sell a
hotel.
Mr. Gatti stated Ms. Marchand was
after us for 10 years to put up her sign.
Ms. Dillon stated they still had to
get a permit for the sign.
Mr. Goscicki stated before you
proceed, we did not vote on a motion for the fire station.
Mr. Gatti asked can you voice the
motion for us?
Mr. Goscicki responded I suggest a
motion to authorize Mr. Cox and Mr. Mack to pursue negotiations for the
acquisition of property for a fire station site.
On MOTION by Mr. Ziko
seconded by Ms. Dillon with all in favor Mr. Cox and Mr. Mack were authorized
to pursue negotiations for the acquisition of property for a fire station site.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer’s
Report
A.
FDEP and
Wastewater Treatment Plant Permit Issues
Mr.
Benson stated we received two water use permits from SFWMD, one for our potable
water and one for our irrigation. I did
not make a copy of the entire permit, but the first couple of pages provide the
most detail. It came in on September 11th
after one year of waiting. We previously
did not get what we asked for, other than on irrigation. We were reduced to the amount I informed you of
a few months ago which we negotiated with them.
However, it is a 10-year permit.
The second item relates to the wastewater treatment plant permit which was
also delayed. The permit is
approximately 40 pages long and contains mostly technical and standard
details. We received the intent to issue
on October 3rd. Since we
advertised the intent to issue as required, timing is in our favor. Unfortunately, this permit is taking a long time
to obtain. Since DEP has been
understaffed, they have not been processing permits for anyone in a timely manner. DEP also sent us an enforcement action relating
to some of the items which started all of this a few years ago, in which we had
some violations. They sent us a letter
approximately one month ago stating we have 60 days to take care of this or we
are going to be penalized. We put them
on notice they need to approve $1 million in order for us to take care of
this. As a result, we did get their
attention. Every time we send them a
monthly report about what is happening at our facilities, they have to enter
the information into a computer database which goes to both
Ms. Dillon stated I advised Mr.
Kleinmann not to seek any penalties. Do
we have anything in writing which defines this?
Mr. Benson responded this is all we
have, and I believe this is probably as good as you are going to get. I met with them, and they told me technically
at the high end they can charge us $80,000 in penalties which I told them we
would oppose. They said it is going to
be approximately $200 because we had a violation for which they are required to
penalize us for. The penalty is a
minimum charge of $250 under the category of department costs. We are likely
going to get a consent order which states we will do all required work
according to a schedule, with an administrative cost in the amount of $250.
Ms. Dillon stated it says only
administrative cost is included.
Mr. Benson stated $250 covers this
cost.
Mr. Cox stated they changed the
rules, but we did not change what we were doing. Therefore, they dropped the fine.
Mr. Benson stated they may have
increased the minimum, which we will probably have to pay since we did have a
violation two years ago.
Mr. Lambert asked does the Board
have to approve the penalty?
Mr. Benson responded we are in a
position to negotiate with them. I will work
with Mr. Cox on the terms of the consent agreement, and I will tell them I am
not authorized to enter into the agreement.
I will negotiate the terms, at which point I will bring the consent
order to the Board for approval. Since
both parties have to agree to it, we can stall.
It will not be problematic for me to say I have to wait for the next
meeting to seek approval.
Mr. Lambert asked is this a separate
issue which may delay construction?
Mr. Benson responded it will not
delay construction.
Mr. Gatti stated be sure to tell
them you do not approve penalties.
Mr. Benson stated I already told
them if the penalty was larger than a small and negligible amount this Board will
probably submit it to their attorney for handling.
Ms. Dillon stated it does not seem
right they forced us wait this long and came back to threaten us with a
penalty.
Mr. Benson stated with regards to
the problem at the wastewater plant which Mr. Dick discussed, I wrote up a
recommendation and sent it to him to ensure it was on record we are working
together on this. If anything needs to be
done, they may likely have to bring a proposal to you for an additional
cost. I anticipate Severn Trent has a
category under the terms of their contract for these items.
Mr. Goscicki asked is this
considered an additional service?
Mr. Benson responded I believe there
is an amount for which you have to do an authorization, which is likely to happen. There are some blocked pipelines which need
to be cleaned or replaced. Mr. Dick and
I created a record stating these items should be taken care of, along with the
cost details. We had some problems a few
years ago with nitrogen removal when the plant was small, and Mr. Stephens and
I found a supplemental carbon source. If
this was done at a larger plant, industrial chemicals such as Methanol in drums
would have to be purchased. For safety
reasons and the small size of the facility, we literally added bags of sugar
which is considered a quick fix in the event Severn Trent recommends long-term
repairs, such as installation of a Methanol feed system and there is a cost for
the pump. The other item which Mr. Dick
mentioned was recommendations for ongoing maintenance at the fire and
irrigation pump station. One of the
items in our annual report was related to some necessary electrical and control
repairs. I also noted in the annual
reports over the last few years the generator has some issues, and some valves
and pumps need to be repaired. We are
planning an electrical improvement project at the wastewater plant which is
primarily to improve the service. We
will bring power from the
Mr. Gatti asked what property are
you referring to?
Mr. Benson responded I am referring
to this corner of POI at the hotel area.
Ms. Dillon asked are you referring
to the marshalling area?
Mr. Benson responded I am referring
to the property which is bounded by the canal.
We were working with the developer’s engineer to ensure the utilities
were taken care of. This is Route 41,
this is the canal and this is
Mr. Gatti asked how much will it
cost to complete the loop around the property and totally divest ourselves from
everything at the back of the property?
Mr. Benson responded part of the
issue may be trying to get use agreements with FDOT to start building new infrastructure
immediately. This is not always an easy
process, and we will have to work with DOT in order to get our line before the
edge of the pavement for the highway. However,
we may never get an agreement from them.
Actually, if they ever want to widen the road, they may tell us to move
our line. I am not certain this is
necessarily an easy process. This line
is currently close to the edge of the pavement.
There is a cost involved, which I am unable to determine. I actually recommended they complete the loop
here and give us another way to get our water since they have some lines which
are fairly large. Of course, they did
not offer to do this.
Mr. Gatti stated I believe you
should submit this for consideration for a couple of reasons. First of all, it puts it all on our property
and totally under our control. Secondly
and more importantly, when you have lines like this on a campus, you never determine
who is getting water where. If we have our
own loop, every time you come up off of our water line there is a meter, and you
have a point there which controls how much water is going into a campus. Once you go into a campus like this, there may
be all kinds of connections which we are not aware of.
Mr. Benson stated this relates to
one of the other items I included. Since
we do not have standard language, I put in the letter the property owner should
hire an engineer to prepare a record drawing of the locations of all the water
meters for this property.
Mr. Gatti asked do we have four
sources of water off of our main line?
Mr. Benson responded since this is
the oldest part of the property, much of this is preexisting, and there are all
kinds of water meters. We are also
asking them to clean up all the water meters.
Mr. Ziko stated if we went with Mr.
Gatti’s suggestion of moving the line down on U.S. 41 and connecting it on
Mr. Benson stated you can install a
master meter on each connection point.
Mr. Ziko stated those lines run
underneath the parking lot. If something
were to happen with one of those lines, I am not certain whether or not they
want us to dig up their parking lot.
Mr. Benson stated I indicated in the
letter they will have to provide us an easement having a use and maintenance
agreement defining all of this.
Mr. Lambert asked have we determined
what type of piping is at this point?
Mr. Benson responded you may
remember we talked about this at a previous meeting. We determined it may be too difficult to do
as a result of the location of the line.
Mr. Lambert asked is this the case
with the process of putting in some isolation valves?
Mr. Benson responded when it became
apparent we were not going to do the potholing, I basically asked them to take
care of all possible issues, and make this as reliable as possible for both parties. It is the oldest part of the community and it
is possible for a line to break within the next five years and require
replacement.
Mr. Ziko asked will we be
responsible?
Mr. Benson responded we are
responsible since it serves everyone on
Mr. Ziko stated this is all the more
reason to come down 41 and straight down
Mr. Benson stated I will be happy to
start the process with DOT to see about installing this line.
Mr. Gatti asked can we get an
easement to install it outside of the property?
Mr. Benson responded we can run it on
private property across here.
Mr. Gatti stated this is an issue
which may never get resolved, and we will have to pick up future
generations. We have to depend on
private property to serve our needs, which puts us in a position of having to
maintain it. As Mr. Benson told us, some
of the material contains asbestos cement, which we want to get rid of
anyway. I believe we should take it all
down, clean it up, install the two meters, and everyone will know where
everything is located.
Mr. Benson stated I also indicated
in my letter we did not want to be responsible for anything which we did not
have to. Generally, it is a new
development where we have taken no responsibility. For example, the condo association is
responsible for the condominium property down the road. Historically, before I was involved, there
were decisions made to put the water meters on the water lines in some of these
condominium developments where the water line which feeds the meter is not
ours. Every condominium has its own
water meter, and they get their own bill.
However, the water line from the road is the CID’s water line, but we
said since it is private we do not want to maintain it since we did not want to
have to potentially dig up someone’s driveway, parking lot or all of their
landscaping.
Mr. Gatti asked did they get cut off
at the property line?
Mr. Benson responded no. This goes back to the precedent which was set
when the first buildings were built in which every unit got its own meter. We should ensure their engineer tells us the
locations of all the meters and that everything is hooked up properly.
Mr. Gatti stated I appreciate all of
your efforts, but this is not a good approach.
Mr. Ziko stated since they are
building a 10-story building, we are going to have a lot of pile-driving
activity where the yellow lines are. If
they crack and break what will we do then?
Mr. Gatti responded we will never
know what the problems are going to be on this project.
Mr. Bissell stated you have two pink
lines over on the right coming down. Are
they coming across the road?
Mr. Benson responded the road is up
here. This is the south edge.
Mr. Bissell asked is it all on this
side of the highway?
Mr. Benson responded that is
correct.
Mr. Gatti stated I do not believe it
will be the end of the world if we install an 8” water line down the edge of
the right-of-way, and then go down.
Mr. Benson stated the sanitary sewer
force main is right here and the irrigation lines are here. This is the force main over here.
Mr. Gatti asked when you cross the
west side of Newport Cay going out what is the blue line to the pink line?
Mr. Benson responded it is not a
water line.
Mr. Ziko stated if you are referring
to the blue line on the north side and the short area between the pink line and
Mr. Benson stated the sales center
is not our property.
Mr. Ziko asked what about the area
north of the sales center?
Mr. Benson responded north and south
of it is our property.
Mr. Ziko stated the only place we
have to get an easement is in the area where the sharp blue line runs parallel
to U.S. 41.
Mr. Gatti stated I submit to the
Board we give Mr. Benson the authority to pursue this as part of the
development of this property, which will give us an opportunity to clean up the
problem we have here.
Mr. Lambert stated perhaps Mr.
Benson can put a plan together and we can see how it fits on our things to do
list. It is not something which needs to
be done immediately. It appears there may
be a couple of other solutions.
Mr. Benson stated I believe it is a
good long-term solution. I thought about
adding this as a CID project. At this
point in time we have water service which we have to maintain to everyone in
the community, and I want to protect the water line since it provides water to
everyone on this side of the development.
A longer term solution is to install a new line. The line out here is newer and the lines in
here are older, to the best of my knowledge.
I believe it is a separate line from this development.
Ms. Dillon stated you should ensure
this entrance also has water.
Mr. Benson stated they are in the
middle of the SDP Process, which is a
Mr. Goscicki stated I want to recess
momentarily to discuss this privately with Mr. Cox.
Mr. Gatti stated I want to talk to
the Board about this because the more we think about it the less we get
done. We have to potentially take on the
responsibility.
Mr. Ziko stated if we come down here
or right over here this is our property.
Mr. Gatti stated this is our
property over here.
Mr. Ziko stated this is not our
property.
Mr. Gatti stated this side is our
property.
Mr. Ziko stated we come up here and
we run this piece of line. Now we have
one meter here, one meter here and another meter here.
Mr. Gatti asked why do we have two
meters here?
Mr. Ziko responded this is going to
eliminate all of the meter reading and everything else which goes on the
property and create a clean connection.
The line is not far from this building.
We are going to have some big piles going down here, and if we crack
this line everyone on
Mr. Gatti stated there is also a lot
of asbestos.
Mr. Bissell asked did he say this
pink line is on the south side of the road?
Ms. Dillon responded the roadway is
above it.
Mr. Gatti stated I believe this will
be easy and we are not talking about too much money.
Ms. Dillon asked how much is it
going to cost?
Mr. Ziko responded it will probably
cost $150,000.
Mr. Gatti stated there is very
little restoration involved.
Mr. Ziko stated $150,000 is
inexpensive if we break the pipe here.
This is all repaved and if we had to dig around here in order to
determine how to fix it, we are better off doing this.
Ms. Dillon stated we should also get
a new line.
Mr. Gatti stated I believe we should
give direction to do this.
Mr. Lambert asked is it an 8” pipe?
Mr. Ziko responded it is an 8”
existing water pipe. What is the scale
on this?
Mr. Gatti responded it is probably a
40” scale.
Mr. Ziko stated it is 14” x 40”
which comes to 560’.
Mr. Gatti asked is this for the
entire thing?
Mr. Ziko responded yes.
Mr. Gatti stated we can round it off
to 600’. An 8” line is $60, for a total
of $360,000.
Mr. Ziko stated perhaps we can get
this out for bid in order to get a better price. This project will certainly clean the big
mess out here.
Ms. Dillon stated from the
developer’s standpoint, I am sure they prefer this in the long run.
Mr. Gatti stated I suggest we give
Mr. Benson direction to come back with more detail.
Mr. Lambert stated I want to see
where he is on some other issues we have out here.
Mr. Ziko stated he has a fire main
coming in here.
Mr. Goscicki stated Mr. Cox and I
discussed other options which the Board may pursue with regards to approval of
this overall site development plan. One
suggestion is to ask the developer to run this new water line and create the
loop for the District. The District will
then deed back to the developer all on-site pipe in the event you run out of
it, and allow them to proceed with their development.
Mr. Benson stated you want them to
basically approve what they have.
Ms. Dillon stated I believe it is in
their best interest not to mess around with the old pipe.
Mr. Ziko asked do you believe they
will be willing to do this?
Mr. Goscicki responded there are
pros and cons to this. There is the
obvious cost of installing the water line.
There are benefits to moving forward with this development as well as benefits
to not using some of these water lines with isolation valves which may break.
Mr. Ziko stated it will be a clean
operation.
Mr. Gatti stated I suggest we do
this on a participation basis. Asking
the developer to incur the entire project is going to make it difficult to
sell.
Mr. Ziko stated Mr. Benson does a
good job of negotiating and we should leave it up to him.
Mr. Benson stated I want to make one
thing clear. The connections to the
utilities for each of these buildings are shown here, and we are not going to
change this. The CID purchased these
water lines as there is an existing bill of sale, but it may not be clear where
the lines were located because probably no one knew at the time. Basically, you are going to give him back
those lines in exchange for completing the loop and everything else he is doing
here.
Mr. Gatti stated be careful with the
ERCs.
Mr. Benson stated this does not
relate to ERCs. This will allow the CID
to sign his DEP application and for us to write a letter saying we approve it.
Mr. Gatti asked does everyone agree
to the concept?
Ms. Dillon responded I agree.
Mr. Gatti asked do you need some
action on the Board’s part?
Mr. Goscicki responded we need a
motion from the Board to authorize the engineer to negotiate looping the water
system as part of this site development approval process.
Mr. Benson stated you should also
allow me to issue the letter, which I will revise. You should also issue the approval for the
two buildings they requested which are within the ERCs.
Mr. Ziko stated the letter is
contingent upon this being done.
Mr. Benson stated you are
correct. I will revise the letter to
accommodate and authorize us to proceed.
I also need Mr. Gatti to authorize signature of this application for the
sewer on the same property. It is for
removal of 200’ of pipe and installation of 152’ of pipe.
Mr. Lambert asked who is doing this?
Mr. Benson responded the developer
is doing this. It is on their private
property, but their engineer believes we may be able to get a DEP application
since private counties pass more applications.
Mr. Lambert asked is there anything
else with regards to the sewer which is involved with this project?
Mr. Benson responded they are
booking the existing manholes on their property.
Mr. Lambert asked are you referring
to the area which is fairly clean?
Mr. Benson responded yes.
On MOTION by Mr. Lambert
seconded by Mr. Bissell with all in favor Mr. Benson was authorized to negotiate
looping of the water system as part of the site development plan approval
process in order to restore the underground water lines in the area of the
hotel and Mr. Gatti was authorized to execute a DEP application requesting
approval to remove 200’ of old sewer pipe and install 152’ of new sewer pipe.
B.
Fire Hydrant
Relocation
Mr.
Benson stated the contractor who is doing our road rehabilitation work is
mobilized and he is fitting us in between two large projects. There were some fire hydrants which needed to
be relocated. We discussed in general at
the previous meeting we were going to get this taken care of. I arranged for the contractor, Kyle
Construction, who has done miscellaneous work for us in the past to do this
work.
Mr. Goscicki stated in terms of the process,
Mr. Benson came to me, I went to Mr. Gatti and got his authorization for the
emergency action to authorize the relocation.
We are bringing this back to the Board now for ratification.
Mr. Ziko asked is it three or four
hydrants which have to be relocated?
Mr. Benson responded I believe it is
four hydrants. The water line is running
this way, they come off over on this side of the line, and now we are going to
have to bring them off to the other side of the line and extend them in order
to get them out of the way. We thought
all of it could be done on the same side of the pipe, and it is $1,500 per
hydrant which is the exact same price we paid Florida State Underground when
they did this work. Since they are doing
additional work, it is going to cost more than $1,500, but I do not have the
exact cost. However, we are negotiating
with them based on what projects in the area are bidding for. I believe we are getting a fair price.
Mr. Lambert asked will we be able to
do the work so as not to delay the paving?
Mr. Benson responded yes, which is
why we had this done without seeking formal authorization from the Board. Mr. Goscicki, Mr. Gatti and I discussed this
and believed the Board would agree to the work under the circumstances. Kyle Construction relocated four fire
hydrants.
Mr. Goscicki stated Mr. Gatti
already authorized us to do the work, and this motion will ratify the
authorization.
On MOTION by Ms. Dillon
seconded by Mr. Ziko with all in favor authorization by Mr. Gatti for Kyle
Construction to relocate four fire hydrants so as not to delay the roadway
paving was ratified.
Ms. Dillon stated you were working
with Mr. Goscicki on the water conservation brochure we authorized a couple of
months ago. Where does this stand?
Mr. Goscicki responded I am actually
working on this and I sent it to our graphics department to put together. I looked at the material Mr. Bissell sent
from
Ms. Dillon stated we discussed a
cost of approximately $1,200.
Mr. Benson stated this was in the
permit you received. We said we will do
this.
Mr. Lambert asked do we have any
other open items with the DEP at this point once we get this permit issued and
the work done at the wastewater plant?
Mr. Benson responded we have the
permits which allow us to do this work, and everything is tied to this one
permit. We also anticipate proceeding
with the project across the way at the fire irrigation station.
Mr. Lambert stated I want to ensure
everything is done since there was a whole list of items on one of those
letters we received some time ago.
Mr. Benson stated we will bring you
the items for doing the work within the next two months since we do not have
bids on all of the work yet. Some of
these are CIP projects which are in line to be done next.
Mr. Lambert asked will we be moving
forward in taking some more items off the list?
Mr. Benson responded we will be
taking items off of the list, but you will be spending money. Some of these items will cost $200,000 each.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion
of Open Items
Reuse Water for
Irrigation
Mr. Benson stated it has been
permitted. The item across the street is
basically designed and we need to get the use agreement from SFWMD. We are probably going to have to bid the
project, and I believe it was on the CIP in the amount of a quarter million
dollars. We will be able to move forward
on this and it will get built in 2007.
Entrance Monuments
Mr. Lambert stated we should tell
the landscaping company to plant some flowers there this year. We were holding off doing this out of concern
someone was going to walk on the flowers, which I do not believe we should
worry about.
Ms. Dillon stated I believe we
should also have the lights installed.
Mr. Ziko asked what will happen if
we put our signs on the monuments?
Mr. Cox responded we will be
penalized.
Mr. Ziko stated I was going through
some old paperwork. This item has been
on the open items list for two years.
Mr. Lambert stated this has been
going on for close to four years when they came here with a whole packet of
what was wrong.
Mr. Cox stated we fought with them
for two years.
Mr. Ziko stated there is still no
closure.
Discrepancy Between
Gallons of Water Pumped and Gallons Billed
Mr. Dick stated I put a spreadsheet
together which shows an average of 30% to 40% of the water still being lost.
Mr. Benson asked is this the
combination of irrigation and potable water?
Mr. Dick responded this is just
potable water. I broke the numbers down
per day, hour and minute, and it literally works out to 19.3 gallons per minute
since January. That is not a volume
which you are going to potentially see bubbling out of the ground if there is a
cracked pipe. The leaks are probably
minimal in nature. Cumulatively, this is
a big number, but on a gallons per minute basis it is small.
Mr. Ziko asked was this measured on
a 24 hour per day basis?
Mr. Goscicki responded it is
equivalent to a couple of hose beds running full time.
Mr. Dick stated this means it may be
difficult to find. There is an
irrigation meter in one of the medians which is possibly tied into the potable
water line and is being billed as irrigation.
Mr. Ziko stated the GPM at your
house is approximately five GPM. Are you
looking at four of these leaks?
Mr. Dick responded I do not believe
so since you are not using five gallons per minute, 14 hours and 40 minutes per
day. It may be four unmetered
connections to a house.
Mr. Ziko stated 19 rounded off to 20
GPM is the equivalent of four of those running all the time. Could it possibly be tied to unmetered
connections?
Mr. Dick responded the volume is too
high. You must have several hundred
unmetered connections.
Mr. Ziko asked have you noticed a
decrease since the RV park was taken down, as there were many connections in
there which were unmetered?
Mr. Dick responded we found some
which were leaking continuously. If you
look at the chart under water loss in the next to last column, there are two entries
made in June which were positive. We
actually sold more water than we made.
Mr. Ziko stated I am not certain
about this because the financials show we never received any income in July.
Mr. Dick stated the March and April
bills were actually done at one time.
Mr. Goscicki stated you have some
continuous data for a period of time in one of the columns. We are going to add to this a six month
running average since it starts showing you some real trends. We look at the water produced from the first
day to the last day of the month, but the meter reading and billing is across
the month and the dates do not line up.
Depending on what happens during the month, they may never line up with
exactly how you are producing the water and measuring the production. A three to six month running average
determines whether the trend is increasing or decreasing.
Mr. Ziko asked since we lost one
entire billing cycle this year already, where does this figure in?
Mr. Goscicki responded it is
determined as if you averaged across those two months.
Mr. Benson stated in April we took
the homes using potable water for irrigation and put them under the irrigation
system, and the total gallons decreased and stayed there. Also, those were the old meters which we
replaced because we were concerned we were not charging for all of the water
going through them. Therefore, there is
a chance we may see some improvement in the long term. Starting in May the percentage of lost water
was less than it used to be.
Ms. Dillon asked why was July so
high?
Mr. Benson responded some of the
water which showed as negative in the months before was unmetered, and you
cannot sell more water than you make.
Mr. Dick stated we brought in our
meter readers from