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 Manager
Dan Cox Attorney (via Telephone)
Ron Benson Engineer
Tom Mack Staff
Bruce Holecek POI RV Resort
Christopher
Shucart POI
Hotel &
Chief
Wilson
George Kramer Resident
Peter Saalprank, Sr. Resident
Numerous Residents
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 May 26 and
Mr. Gatti stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr. Lambert asked were these minutes typed by two different people since the first half is terrible and the second half is better?
Mr. Goscicki responded this is possible since one person may have been on vacation. However, we try to keep the same teams of recording secretaries working on the same districts.
On MOTION by Ms. Dillon
seconded by Mr. Ziko with all in favor the minutes of the
Mr. Gatti stated each Board member
received a copy of the
Mr. Lambert stated on Pages 49 through 51, we should probably give the last name of the gentleman who owns the hotel.
Mr. Goscicki stated for the record it is Mr. Motwani.
Ms. Dillon stated on Page 18 in the third paragraph from the bottom, the workers compensation premium should be 50990. On Page 35 in the first paragraph under the fifth order of business, should SFWMD forward the information to the Board should replace to afford the information on the SFWMD to the Board. On the top of Page 36 forward should replace afford. On Pages 54 and 56, Mr. McKay should be Mr. Gasaway.
On MOTION by Mr. Bissell
seconded by Mr. Lambert with all in favor the minutes of the
Mr. Gatti stated there are a number of people from the fire department. Do you have any reports?
Chief Wilson responded yes, but I
can wait until Mr. Gasaway arrives.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s Report
A. Continuation of Discussion of the Proposed Fiscal Year 2007 Budget
Mr. Goscicki stated this is an open item for discussion today before our public hearing at next month’s meeting. Otherwise, we will hold our formal public hearing to adopt the budget in August.
Mr. Gatti asked will this take place at our regular meeting?
Mr. Goscicki responded that is correct.
Mr. Lambert asked did we adjust the assessment amounts for maintenance, water and sewer?
Mr. Goscicki responded we kept the totals the same but decreased the general fund assessment and increased the water and sewer to reflect where the actual expenses are. I will email each of you a revised budget next week.
B. Discussion of Auditor’s Fee for 2004 Audit Preparation
Mr. Goscicki stated the Board will recall we used Dufresne & Associates for both the 2004 audit and rehired them for 2005, which they are currently working on. We had issues on the 2004 audit. This Board made it clear in the 2003 audit they were not happy with the previous auditor’s additional fee. Dufresne & Associates submitted a proposal. We hired them for the 2004 audit and they identified what they believed were additional scope items back in December. Our new Fiscal Manager internally agreed with these items, which was beyond her authorization. She was new to our organization and did not understand this requires the Board’s authorization. Severn Trent authorized Dufresne & Associates to expend additional dollars for the audit in the amount of $7,000, which we paid because they refused to start the 2005 audit until the 2004 audit was paid. We paid them the additional dollars because we authorized it. I was not going to bring this to the Board since we had additional issues with them at the time. I am bringing it to you now because I paid $7,000 of Severn Trent money to do the audit and we believe there were additional services involved. I want to determine whether or not the Board is amenable to discussing this, and we will bring back a detailed report outlining why we believe there are additional fees. Most of it revolved around the closeouts of the claims on properties and the trimming involved which created additional work involving all of the auditors determining where everything stood. They sent me a letter detailing the calculations for standby reservations, journal entries for the Marchand bankruptcy settlement, payroll reconciliations, changed journal entries and how pensions payable to different groups worked as well as a few other issues I need to get a better understanding of. Are you willing to have me come back and consider this?
Mr. Gatti asked how does the Board feel about this?
Ms. Dillon asked how much is this going to cost?
Mr. Goscicki responded we are talking about $7,000.
Ms. Dillon asked is this over what we already paid?
Mr. Ziko responded they doubled their contract.
Ms. Dillon stated some of the issues you cited seem normal in the scope of an audit. One of the reasons we hired Dufresne & Associates was because of the cost and suddenly we are almost paying double. How does this compare to other auditors who submitted their proposals?
Mr. Goscicki responded if you recall we went through the selection process and we decided price should not be a significant factor because you should be selecting your auditor based on their qualifications, and Dufresne is a qualified auditor. However, price is not always a driving force and 2004 was the first time they were doing your audit. They did not have all of the history even though they did the review. The documents needed the scope of work, and in their engagement letter to us they did qualify by telling us they reserve the right to come back and ask for additional dollars. The real problem occurred during this timeframe and it should have been brought back to this Board and myself. We had new employees who saw the auditors as their responsibility. They authorized the work to be done and in doing so, authorized payment. We paid them to date. I will ask my finance people to explain the details because this involves complexities which I do not have the background to explain.
Mr. Gatti asked does the Board need this detail?
Mr. Ziko responded the last auditor did the same thing. I do not mind paying a legitimate expense, but I do not believe they should dictate to themselves an almost 100% increase in the contract price.
Mr. Lambert asked can you give us a description of the added scope items?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes.
Mr. Gatti stated the problem here is the auditor is not the one who is going to get hung on this, it is Severn Trent. I do not want this to happen.
Mr. Ziko stated I agree with you, but if they brought it before the Board before they paid the bill, they would not have been in this situation.
Mr. Gatti stated I agree. I am just asking the Board if we can settle this now without much further investigation and discussion.
Mr. Lambert stated I want to see what the additional scope items are.
Mr. Goscicki stated we will bring this back to you along with a memorandum of explanation with their memo attached. I can just give you their memo, but it does not give enough of an explanation in my opinion. Therefore, I want my staff to explain these items.
Mr. Ziko asked can you send a memo to them stated we do not want a big surprise at the end of this audit?
Mr. Goscicki responded we let them know we were not happy.
Mr. Ziko stated if they want $7,000 for 2004, what do you think they will want for 2005 when they are under contract?
Mr. Goscicki responded I will go on the record to say that I was a disappointed they refused to start this year’s audit until we resolved these payment issues.
Mr. Gatti stated I have confidence in Severn Trent, and I know you would not have authorized this without your being completely satisfied of its justification. I am more concerned about what the circumstances were which lead you to go ahead with this because it has to be done rather than the specifics of it.
Mr. Bissell stated the $7,000 was over and above the $4,000 audit. The 2005 audit is still $9,500.
Mr. Goscicki stated in 2005 it was $9,500 and this is $7,000 above this.
Mr. Ziko asked is this more than the 2005 audit?
Mr. Goscicki responded I was referring to the 2004 audit.
Mr. Bissell stated this is just a one shot deal to get caught up to speed. Therefore, I agree with Mr. Gatti; we do not need to go any further on this issue.
Mr. Goscicki stated we are talking about the audit for Fiscal Year 2004, which was completed. It is not the audit we are working on now.
Mr. Gatti stated in essence do we want to see Severn Trent lose $7,000? Do we have to exhaust this any further? Can we make the decision now?
Mr. Lambert responded if we do not have the confidence in Severn Trent to make a decision like this for us, then perhaps we have the wrong people handling this position. I will say I did not believe this company was the best qualified, and now we are seeing that with this issue.
Mr. Bissell moved to approve payment of $7,000 to Severn Trent Services for reimbursement of the auditor’s fee which Severn Trent paid to Dufresne & Associates for the 2004 audit without the consent of the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District’s Board of Supervisors.
Ms. Dillon asked will we get a proposal for next year?
Mr. Goscicki responded we have a contract with Dufresne & Associates for the current year’s audit, which they are working on right now. When they complete it we will bring it back to the Board for approval.
Mr. Lambert seconded the previous motion.
Mr. Ziko stated I want to ensure this does not happen again this year. If they ask for more money, I do not want you to give it to them.
Mr. Goscicki stated I made it clear to my group that if the auditor asks for additional funds it needs to come to this Board for approval.
Mr. Gatti stated we should not have to pay $7,000 after the fact. We want to have the opportunity to decide ahead of time.
On VOICE vote with all in favor a payment of $7,000 to Severn Trent Services for reimbursement of the auditor’s fee which Severn Trent paid to Dufresne & Associates for the 2004 audit without the consent of the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District’s Board of Supervisors was approved.
Mr. Lambert asked can we get a copy of the memo you spoke about?
Mr. Goscicki responded absolutely.
C. Use of Developer Agreements
Mr.
Goscicki stated I put this on the agenda for discussion as a result of emails I
received from Board members on the Orchid Cove issue and what processes and
procedures we have in place to deal with developers. The District has the utility rulebook, which
is adopted by resolution by the Board and establishes the rules the developers
need to follow and basically sets down the law of the District and how things
work. From my review, what is lacking in
the process is having a set of rules which state here is how the developer has
to work but there is no relationship established with the developer where they
state they understand, read and will implement the rules and in turn tell us
how they are going to move forward with the process. In most local governments, on the utility
side, we will enter into a developer’s agreement. A developer’s agreement is a contract between
the developer and the government, in this case the District, which takes your
rules and applies them to a project. We
do not establish fees and costs nor do we reaffirm how the rules work. A major part of the issue in the developer’s
agreement is establishing the fee structure for their structure and when they
pay the capacity fees or other fees and whether or not they pay a standby fee
and how the process works. The other fee
element is how the system gets accepted by the governmental entity as well as
the review and inspection. We need to
know the standards they have to meet, and how the District formally accepts the
utilities. Again, there are rules in
place which say the developer has to pay inspection fees, but there is nothing
which the developer has signed off on to agree to pay those fees. I brought this up for discussion to see if
this is something the Board wants to do.
I have personal expertise in writing developer agreements having done
this in the past for a number of clients during my engineering and management
days. If this is something you want to
direct me to do, we can draft something and bring it back to the Board.
Mr. Gatti stated I want to know about the enforceability. I can see where the county has their control. Can we overlap it?
Mr. Goscicki responded the real focus is the protection of your utility system, which is the focus of this developer agreement. If the developer does not satisfy the condition of the developer agreement, the valve does not get turned on.
Mr. Benson stated you can go one step further in the county process. They need a letter from the utility saying you are providing them utility service and you have their plan. You can put it in the policy you will not review their documents until you have an agreement in place. Therefore, they will not be able to obtain the county permits.
Mr. Gatti stated we have an agreement with the county in which we are supposed to give the developer a letter agreeing to fix our roadways before we approve their plans and we are supposed to sign off on this. The county has not done anything on this that I am aware of.
Mr. Lambert stated we should get something like this in place because I do not want to see the same fiasco they had at Orchid Cove.
Mr. Gatti stated we all believe this
is a good idea and we should go with it, however, we should have had something like
this in place five years ago.
Mr. Bissell stated the county
approved the plans for their entrance and they were under the impression Orchid
Cove had our permission to vacate our boulevards and cut our roads, otherwise
they would not have approved it.
Mr. Gatti stated in the past we argued the roadway is our property, but the county disagreed saying they had authority on traffic matters and other issues. I told them I was glad since the roadway needs to be repaired.
Mr. Goscicki stated we will do this as an additional service because it is not part of our normal management, but I believe it will cost approximately $3,000 for us to draft something like this and it will still have to be reviewed by the attorney.
Mr. Ziko asked can we fast track
this since we do not want it after the project is complete?
Mr. Goscicki responded we can do this, but it will not have any bearing on this project since it is already underway, but for future development we will utilize it. We can use this as a learning experience to ensure we get the process right.
Ms. Dillon stated there is not much left to develop.
Mr. Gatti stated it is not anything new, but it is formalizing what we should have had in place to begin with.
Mr. Goscicki stated it is putting into a contractual arrangement the rules and procedures you have in place and the ability to better enforce the rules.
Mr. Lambert asked do you need a motion from the Board?
Mr. Goscicki responded no, I think I
have consensus from the Board to move forward and we will start the process.
On MOTION by Mr. Lambert seconded by Mr. Ziko with all in favor the implementation of the Developers Agreement at a cost not to exceed $3,000 for preparation was approved.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion
of Open Items
Mr. Mack stated we had a meeting two
weeks ago with Mr. Colletta, who held a Planning Session for
Dennis stated I have not heard from Randell Henderson. He assured me if he purchases Mr. Holecek’s land he will follow in the same footsteps for the fire station.
Ms. Dillon asked is this in writing?
Dennis responded I hope so.
Mr. Lambert asked are we looking at an additional three years?
Mr. Mack responded we have another plan to go into effect. We can lease with an option to buy next to the water plant in order to put up a temporary station which Chief Wilson said he is prepared to do while the other process goes through development or rezoning.
Mr. Lambert asked is lease with option to buy acceptable to the county and the fire department?
Mr. Mack responded a 15 year long term lease is acceptable.
Mr. Ziko stated I understand the
Chief Wilson responded the station here will not die. (Inaudible) It may take three to five years.
Mr. Lambert asked can we sign a lease now in order to move this forward?
Chief Wilson responded Ms. Marchand put another option on the table as well. (Inaudible referencing the county attorneys office)
Mr. Bissell asked will a temporary station qualify for insurance? My insurance company tells me there are procedures to be followed. They will inspect it to see if it meets their qualifications.
Chief Wilson stated your insurance company can do anything they want. We apply to the Insurance Service Organization who tells your insurance company what we are going to do and this is how it works as long as we are a 24/7 operation.
Mr. Gatti stated we told Commissioner Colleta we had a plan of action. Please go through this with the Board in order for us to know where we are headed.
Mr. Mack stated we have to apply for rezoning of the three acres on the gun club property because it is zoned for conservation. The person in charge told us he was not able to let us know whether or not he would approve it or look favorably upon it. Our three acres may possibly remain as RT land, and they will get the RT rating.
Mr. Gatti stated that goes back to the question of rezoning. The idea of doing a trade here is that we are supporting the rezoning.
Mr. Mack stated the fact is they are donating land for a fire station.
Mr. Gatti asked do we have to take action on our part?
Mr. Mack responded we cannot do anything until Mr. Holecek settles on what he is going to do with his property.
Mr. Gatti stated the entire issue boils down to us getting some sort of handle on the property.
Mr. Ziko asked is there a timeframe?
Mr. Mack responded they are working on it is all I know.
Mr. Lambert stated nothing has changed since last month.
Mr. Mack stated I think we are further along, but he has to take care of his business and he wants to do the best he can for his property.
Mr. Lambert stated I understand and would probably do the same thing. However, we have to do something to get a fire station here.
Mr. Mack stated the only other
option is we know what the hotel offered, which probably changed by now; it was
$480,000 for the parcel. The other
option is over here on
Mr. Ziko stated Chief Wilson mentioned you were here with Ms. Marchand to discuss another possibility for a fire station.
Chief Wilson stated Ms. Marchand has a trailer located on the property over here. (Inaudible referencing speaking to Mr. Holecek) at one time it was moved to the final piece of property. We are trying to put things together to have options as long as we narrow it down. Once it is in place what does count and I have seen this in other counties. They operate out of trailers with appropriate overhangs.
Mr. Lambert stated perhaps we should look at the condemnation process for the property.
Ms. Dillon asked are you referring to the eminent domain?
Mr. Gatti asked did you hear this?
Mr. Cox responded you want to know whether or not we want to do an eminent domain.
Mr. Gatti asked is the timeframe for this a couple of years?
Mr. Cox responded not necessarily. There is a provision in the statutes which allows the local government to take title quickly through the quick take provision. It is basically before the condemnation is complete. You will have to show the judge it was taken for public purposes and deposit the money with the court registry and once the title conveyance occurs, you may argue over the joint compensation afterwards. However, according to Chapter 180 of the Statute, this must be done with the consent of the county for the general purpose local government, which is a matter of petitioning the county for authority and should take a couple of months to get done.
Mr. Gatti asked do you want to let this sit?
Mr. Mack responded we should wait another month.
Ms. Dillon stated I agree since I hate to spend the community’s money.
Mr. Lambert stated we already have spent it.
Ms. Dillon stated I am referring to purchasing the property.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s Report (continued)
Mr. Dick
stated since the last meeting we had a water main break by the Orchid Cove
project. It was a previous repair which
came apart; Florida State Underground made the repair. We incurred some lost water and I have sent a
boil water notice.
We are trying to improve on our boil water notification. Mr. Benson provided some signs and I do not know if they were beneficial to the public. Hopefully, we do not need them often but I believe it is a good method of notification.
Mr. Gatti asked Florida Underground did the repair?
Mr. Dick responded yes.
Mr. Gatti asked did they charge us?
Mr. Dick
responded no.
Mr. Lambert stated I did not get the location of the break.
Mr. Dick stated it was at the site of a previous break where they made a repair. One of the transition couplings from the AC pipe to the PVC pipe pulled out.
Mr.
Lambert asked is this on the road going back towards the north North hotelHotel?
Mr. Dick responded yes.
Mr. Lambert asked is this because they have been driving over it with trucks?
Mr. Dick responded there was some compaction and settling which caused the separation.
Ms.
Dillon asked is this the area we were concerned about when they were digging?
Mr. Dick responded no, that pipe did not break.
Ms. Dillon stated we did say we want a timeframe if the pipe breaks again.
Mr. Ziko asked the one which bridges the opening?
Mr. Dick responded the 40’ storm drain is not the one.
Mr. Ziko stated yes, it broke there the first time and then the coupling pulled apart the second time. There were two days in which we lost water because of them.
Mr. Dick
stated I was only aware of the one.
Mr. Ziko stated it broke because they did not compact it underneath the pipe.
Mr. Lambert asked who is keeping track of the expenses when the system is breached? We have talked about it and, at some point, push is going to come to shove and we will need documentation.
Ms. Dillon stated they paid to fix it but what about our people at perhaps overtime cost.
Mr. Dick stated we did incur overtime.
Ms.
Dillon stated it should not be our expense.
Mr. Ziko stated Hole Montes had an engineer here as well for two or three days.
Mr. Cox stated I sent a letter to Orchid Cove regarding what we felt they were responsible for I had the cost involving Mr. Benson’s group and my time for all of the phone calls and such; this totaled about $4,500, maybe more. I did not have the overtime but I specified in the letter it was the reimbursement to you for your professionals’ cost.
Mr. Ziko asked what was their response?
Mr. Cox responded it was, what a generous offer, but we regrettably cannot accept.
Mr. Ziko stated in other words, we caused the problems and know the price but we are not going to pay you.
Ms.
Dillon stated we had to change the letter due to the breaks which happened
before the letter was sent.
Mr. Cox
stated it did not require a lot of modification. It was pretty much the same letter stating
you did trespass and continue to trespass.
This is what we suggest you can do to remedy it and they rejected it.
Ms.
Dillon asked how can we force Orchid Cove to talk to us and take some
responsibility?
Mr. Cox
responded I understand it is frustrating.
As Mr. Dick said, Florida State Underground is doing the work, caused
the break and they did repair it.
Ms. Dillon stated there are a lot of other issues associated with Orchid Cove which they have not addressed. We have the trespassing issue; we asked for a year on the pipe in case of a break, there is more than this one isolated $4,500 charge.
Mr. Cox stated I do not dispute that.
Mr. Ziko asked what recourse do we have?
Mr. Cox responded your recourse would be to litigate.
Ms. Dillon stated we decided rather than go into a lawsuit right away we would send them the letter. You are telling us they are more or less thumbing their noses at us and saying goodbye.
Mr. Cox stated
that is correct.
Mr. Ziko asked is there anyway we cannot turn on the water until they pay the bill?
Mr. Cox
responded those are different things and this is not related to provisional
water. This is damages caused to you and
I do not think it will be appropriate to hold their project hostage in terms of
water.
Mr. Ziko
stated they are holding us hostage. Let’s
do the same and let them litigate with us.
Mr. Cox stated this is not the posture you want to be in.
Ms. Dillon stated the other issue they have not talked to us about is paving the road.
Mr. Cox
stated their letter does say they will repair the damage to the
Ms. Dillon stated I have not seen a letter.
Mr. Cox stated I received it yesterday.
Mr. Bissell asked can we have an executive session to talk about our lawsuit?
Mr. Cox responded you can go into executive session in certain circumstances and threatened or pending litigation is one of those circumstances.
Ms.
Dillon asked do we need an executive session to do it?
Mr. Cox
responded this is what I am wondering.
Usually you only go in private when you want to talk about potential
settlements.
Mr.
Lambert stated I believe we should wait until we see what additional charges
may develop. There is no sense doing
something we may have to do later as long as waiting does not penalize us.
Mr. Cox
stated this is a tort action and the statute of limitation will probably be
four years.
Mr. Lambert stated lets gather the cost as they go along for when the time comes.
Mr. Bissell asked what about them violating the boulevard when they put their entrance in?
Mr. Cox responded they are on notice it is a trespass.
Mr. Bissell asked should we enforce the trespass?
Mr. Cox
responded personally, I do not think it is a good idea. We need to determine what our damages are and
go from there. The people working are
just doing their jobs.
Ms. Dillon stated somebody is responsible.
Mr. Cox stated it is not the people doing their jobs day to day.
Mr. Ziko
stated if they cannot do the job it will get back to the top and then perhaps
the top will talk to us.
Mr. Cox stated I am giving you my advice.
Ms.
Dillon asked how do you put a cost on the community being without water for
hours?
Mr. Cox responded you present the evidence to a judge and he will take it into consideration to assess punitive damages.
Mr. Lambert stated this is why we have to document this as it goes along.
Mr. Gatti stated let me suggest to Mr. Dick that any cost you or your staff incur as a result of this be recorded. This would also apply to Hole Montes and Mr. Cox. The gray areas, such as loss of water, will have to be decided.
Mr.
Bissell stated they should be notified that they are not to hook up the fire
system until Severn Trent has been notified and is present. If they do connect without this, it is
another violation.
Mr.
Benson stated as a note to the documentation, each time a break has occurred we
have notified the DEP; there is a logbook and I am sure there is a record of
the occurrences for dates and times.
Mr. Dick
stated with the clearing of the RV Park, a couple of service leaks were brought
to my attention. We do not know the
whereabouts as far as the physical connection to the main; they are basically
un-metered services. We can isolate the
leaks and we want to start doing some exploration while we have the opportunity
to dig along the main to see how many of the un-metered services we can find because
it is a possibility these are contributing to the loss of water.
Mr. Gatti asked is this approach going to solve the loss of water problem?
Mr. Dick responded I believe so.
Mr. Ziko asked is there one main or a number of services going in there?
Mr. Dick responded there are a couple of services.
Mr. Lambert asked are the services owned by the property owner?
Mr. Dick responded yes.
Mr. Benson asked is it possible to relocate the water meter on the 2” lines leading to the property with anything beyond it being the responsibility of the property owner? In this way he can have as many breaks on his personal property as he may.
Mr. Dick responded we isolated the 2” valve and the leaks did not stop.
Mr.
Benson stated they will be coming around from the north hotel into the
property. When we put in the new water
line this year it would have only connected a couple of places. Anything connected to the old water line would
have been disconnected and not reconnected.
The only ones which should be coming off of the north/south line should
be two 2” lines. There is the potential
that another line near the north hotel may have been tapped off of.
Mr.
Gatti stated your point is very well taken.
Putting meters will tell us two things; for one we can look at the meter
to see if, when nobody is there, water is going through and secondly if someone
is using it.
Mr. Ziko
stated Mr. Dick said the breaks would have been upstream of the meters and it
will not do us any good to install the meters until we isolate the leak.
Mr. Gatti stated I think Mr. Benson is suggesting placing the meter right after the main.
Mr. Benson stated we can close the valve and still have a leak.
Mr. Ziko
stated it would be a leak at the main.
Mr. Gatti stated it makes sense for us to meter the 2” immediately adjacent to the main. If there are any problems in the 2” main, it is not going to be our problem.
Mr. Ziko stated you still have to find the leak.
Mr. Lambert asked in our effort to solve where the water is going does installing the meters make sense as the next step?
Mr. Gatti responded that is what we just said.
Mr. Dick
stated next is mosquito control.
Obviously, with the rain, it is becoming an issue. We are taking a different approach in
bringing in Clark Environmental rather than doing it internally. They will be here tomorrow to do the first
spraying. They will do monitoring for
the next couple of weeks and evaluate our equipment to make sure it meets DEP
standards and they are going to provide training to several Severn Trent
employees. I have become licensed for
pest control; the current operator is no longer going to be doing the mosquito
spraying.
Ms. Dillon stated we have not sprayed this year at all and the mosquitoes are terrible. When will they spray?
Mr. Dick responded tomorrow. It was the only time I could get them scheduled. They will do the monitoring on an as needed basis going forward for the next two weeks. The week of the 24th they are going to evaluate all of the equipment we have and provide training to my staff and two other people. Once we are competent and fully trained we will use Clark Environmental only on an as needed basis and Severn Trent will take over the mosquito control.
Ms. Dillon asked what is the cost?
Mr. Dick responded $650 per application.
Ms. Dillon stated I noticed in the check register $10,000.
Mr. Dick stated this is for the chemicals for us to do it.
Mr. Lambert asked is this a year’s supply?
Mr. Dick responded a season.
Mr. Ziko asked will the Severn Trent employees be the employees at the plant now?
Mr. Dick
responded in the future they could be.
Mr. Stephens is no longer going to be doing the spraying and we are
coming up with other options. Clark
Environmental is an interim option to relive you of the mosquito problem. We want people properly trained in the
application, safety aspects, time of day, and proper monitoring and reporting
to the state and it will take two to three weeks to get this accomplished.
Ms. Dillon asked what is the cost of the other items?
Mr.
Dick responded there is no cost since we buy the product from them.
There being no report, the next item followed.
Mr. Benson stated I am distributing the once a year engineers’ report. It covers the items we have discussed throughout the year.
Ms. Dillon stated Chief Wilson, a quick question before you leave. I talked to Lt. Bovaney and he said something about coming here but it was mainly about painting the hydrants. Are you aware of this?
(Chief Wilson’s response was inaudible.)
Mr. Benson stated we have to have a
written report to be sent to the bondholders
Ms.
Dillon asked is it current?
Mr. Benson responded the operations data is through the end of the fiscal year but as far as actual condition of the systems it is current as of last month.
Ms. Dillon stated this is through
Mr. Benson stated that is correct.
Consideration of Award for
Road Resurfacing Project R-1
Mr. Benson stated we received the bids for the road, which was authorized at the last meeting. We sent request for bids to A1 Asphalt, Ajax Paving, Bonness, Better Roads and APEX. Only two companies were interested in bidding; Bonness and Better Roads. The bids received are included in the agenda package with a letter from me identifying the bids.
One
item I would like to bring to your attention is a question I had as far as the
actual bids, which is the item for widening the road at
Mr.
Gatti stated the edges of
Mr.
Benson stated this is reason we paved the bike paths on
Mr. Lambert asked did they bid the job this way because it is easier for them?
Mr. Benson responded right now there
is so much work going on in the area and that is the reason we only had two
bidders. If they did it the other way it
would be too much trouble and they need to get in and out because there is so
much work.
Mr. Bissell asked what is your recommendation?
Mr. Benson responded to go with the low bid.
The
other question was do you bid just the
Mr.
Lambert stated Better Roads made no mention of cost of material increases. The other bid spells it out. Are we getting a locked in price?
Mr.
Benson responded if you decided today this is the price. The bid specifications did not include an
escalation clause. Better Roads filled
out the proposal we gave them and they are not making any exceptions. The other contractor filled out his own form
and submitted it which had conditions not in the original specifications.
Mr.
Lambert asked what are our chances, if we go with both parts of the project, of
negotiating away one of the mobilization/demobilization charges?
Mr.
Benson responded the way the bid documents read, he is giving us the total of
the two and giving the bottom line price for the two, but we can ask.
Ms. Dillon stated Bonness did not include relocation of irrigation, mailboxes and signs. I did not see it on Better Roads.
Mr.
Benson stated they bid what was on the document. They are pricing saying they are going to do
what we asked for. The other contractor
included some qualifiers and he was already the higher bidder.
Mr.
Ziko stated I noticed on the east side of
Mr. Benson responded we measured them as did the contractor and they are legal.
Mr. Ziko stated on the west side they are farther back.
Ms.
Dillon stated there are existing sidewalks on
Mr. Benson responded no. Those are concrete sidewalks and a small job. We can get a price because there are only a couple of sections.
Ms. Dillon asked how soon can they start once this is approved?
Mr. Benson responded I believe 14 days.
Mr. Bissell moved to accept the bid of Better Roads, Inc. for a price of $485,292.50 and Ms. Dillon seconded the motion.
Mr. Lambert asked money wise?
Mr. Goscicki responded I noted to the Board in an email these two projects, R1 and R2, on your current proposed budget and the total cost is about $40,000 higher than the budgeted amount. The good news is the general fund has a significant fund balance and even with the $40,000 you will still have $500,000.
Ms. Dillon asked are there other projects we will not be able to do?
Mr. Goscicki responded no, you will
still be able to fund all of the projects in your proposed capital improvement
program and still carry $500,000 at the end of the fiscal year.
Mr. Lambert asked when you did the engineering was it just for the bid or did you do the other area on the east side?
Mr. Benson responded we only did the engineering for the bid sections.
Mr. Lambert stated we have engineering left when the time comes.
Mr. Benson stated the Stella Maris
sections will be postponed because there is still construction activity. Also, the section on
Mr. Gatti asked do those sections need paving?
Mr. Lambert responded I do not
believe they are that bad. I was trying
to determine if we had done all the engineering at one time.
Mr. Benson stated we did the engineering for the projects the Board thought would be done in the first two stages of the paving project.
Mr. Lambert stated I mentioned the area at the end of Venus where it seems to have collapsed.
Mr. Benson stated there are a number of areas like it we identified at the time we did the work. The paving contractor was to mill out the pavement and bring it back up. When we looked at it before we did not believe what we saw on the surface was a concern for a water leak or something. It is typical of meter boxes to have settling.
Mr. Lambert asked when they pave, will they excavate around it?
Mr. Benson responded yes, it will be
brought back up to where it should be.
Mr. Lambert asked are those types of fixes part of the contingency?
Mr. Benson responded they are part of the bid items. If there was a little more work then we have the line item for owner directed changes for a total of $15,000.
Mr. Bissell asked is it included in
the $485,000?
Mr. Benson responded yes.
Mr. Lambert asked do we need overview on this project?
Mr. Benson responded I believe there is some provision in our contract to do some inspections.
Ms. Dillon asked how do they get paid?
Mr. Benson responded we pay them by the amount of work completed. They submit a pay request stating what is complete and we say yes, we agree this is the amount done. If not, we will mark up the bill.
Ms. Dillon asked will you be inspecting it?
Mr. Benson responded yes.
On VOICE vote with all in favor the bid of Better Roads, Inc. for a total cost of $485,292.50 was approved.
Mr. Benson stated I have some information
to distribute to the Board. The last
couple of meetings we have discussed SFWMD permits. I have not received anything back and think
at this point in time they will be approved without anymore questions.
We have also talked about
water conservation because our water usage in inches per week is high. They are going to allot us a lower amount
than we asked for and require us to do conservation. With your authorization I sent the response
saying we will provide educational materials and implement a conservation block
rate structure to encourage conservation.
I previously gave you some information I downloaded from
You did not know what a
conservation block rate structure was when I said I would include it, so I
created a handout. For instance, this
includes Collier and
Mr. Ziko asked is this a combination of irrigation and potable water?
Mr. Benson responded no, this is the
potable water because those utilities use the same source for those
waters. We will use this for our
irrigation water, which is our largest use and the one SFWMD is concerned about.
Mr. Gatti asked why would they be concerned as long as we are using effluent for irrigation purposes?
Mr. Benson responded because the amount of irrigation we use changes from month to month, but on average, your effluent is going to be less than a third of your total irrigation and is why they are concerned.
Mr. Goscicki stated it takes three homes to produce enough water to irrigate a lot the size here.
Mr. Lambert stated a lot of times the canal water is not suitable for irrigation.
Mr. Benson stated what SFWMD is allowing us to do during those periods of time, is use the raw water from our potable water well field. When we are using fresh water from the canal they look at it as competing with the environment. If we are using water from the wells, again, they look at it as competing with the environment and they want us to use as little as possible.
Mr. Gatti asked are you recommending we prepare documents for this?
Mr. Benson responded at some point
we will have to put our money where our mouth is.
Mr. Ziko asked is there a baseline for gallons per square foot or square yard a lot area should be allowed before we get into a block which is going to be a penalty?
Mr. Benson responded I do not
remember the exact numbers but in the past we used more than 1 ½ inches per
week of water. They want us to use less
than one inch per week. You have to
remember not just Port of the
Mr. Gatti asked do we need any action from the Board?
Mr. Benson stated I do not need any action I am just trying to give you information periodically before the SFWMD says you must do it in 30 days.
Ms. Dillon asked why are we waiting?
Mr. Benson responded I wanted to talk to Mr. Goscicki about some of his other districts possibly having some materials and with the other examples whoever gets the assignment can put together some information.
Mr. Gatti asked are you suggesting we ask them to prepare a program for us?
Ms. Dillon asked why are we going to wait for the county to tell us we have 30 days?
Mr. Goscicki responded there are two elements the Board is discussing; one is a public information program on water conservation and if the Board would like us to look at it, as the manager, it is something we can come back with a proposal to put it together and we have done it for clients. The second element is do you want to get into a water conservation rate structure. Utility rates are a specialty skill and not something we do as the utility manager. The are two elements in a conservation rate structure and we can make recommendations as to what the structure might be but then there is the other side you need to go through to look at the impacts of the structure on consumption and on the revenue stream and how it all matches up. There is an economic analysis which goes into this. We understand it, but we do not typically do this type of work; we can facilitate it by bringing in a third party. We can put out an RFP for the Board to consider and we have worked with a number of firms.
Mr. Benson stated we have done it in the past but we do not do it too much lately. At the last meeting the Board did say they would do the conservation block rate schedule as one of the items to offer to the water district. I think we have to do it, but it is a question of what rate. The other side of it is how many days or months when they give us our permit are they going to make us do it.
Mr. Goscicki stated I can come back in August with a proposal to put together a water conservation education program for the community; let me speak to my people who do this, and come back with something realistic in terms of what it will cost to put together the brochures, do the mailings, and get the artwork developed. There is a lot items we will pull from such as SFWMD, who allows you to download those items at no cost.
Ms. Dillon stated it does not have to be a work of art. The community needs to be aware of the situation we are in and that we may have to go to this but these are some things you need to know ahead of time.
Mr. Lambert stated I think it is a good idea to do it but I also do not think it will do much as far as conservation so let’s keep the price reasonable.
Ms. Dillon stated at least this way
if we do come back to them in 90 days to say we are going to this they will
know about it.
Mr. Ziko asked do you know what percentage higher we are than SFWMD would like to see us at? How much do we have to drop to make them happy?
Mr. Benson responded they have not
given us the allocation. I reduced the
original number I asked for by 15% to 20% and they came back wanting more. When I replied, I did not say I would accept
what they were offering us, but I went with the other half of what they were
asking for, which was the water conservation measures. They are going to give us what they give us
based on what they give everybody. We
may have to try to use 75% of what we traditionally use. Some people do not realize what they are
using because their water bill is not very high. If you implement a conservation rate
structure and their water bill doubles or triples they will start looking at
what is going through the meter. The
water management district encourages everyone to reduce the number of watering
days.
Mr. Lambert stated last week
they had a meeting in
Mr. Benson stated some of the
utilities in
Mr. Lambert stated lets have Mr.
Goscicki bring us back something at the August meeting for the mailing.
Mr. Benson responded I do not think we did all of the work.
Mr. Bissell stated we put in an elbow, did several things and paid someone to dive down there.
Ms. Dillon stated I remember it as well. We spent a lot of money raising the intake and moving it.
Mr. Bissell stated we also do not get as much saltwater because we raised it considerably.
Mr. Benson stated I do not think it will have much effect on the salt content.
weirwier?
Mr. Benson responded we called the DEP last week because they told us the month before everything was okay and they were writing the permit. The latest is they are short staffed and they are trying to get someone out.
Mr. Lambert stated last month we were not ready because of an easement question.
Mr. Cox responded it is a
work in progress. I actually got one of
the letters I wrote to the owners of the entrance monuments back late last week
as undeliverable as address. We did some
research and got it back out. Hopefully,
we will hear something. The other is
Ms. Dillon stated he was.
weirwier?
Mr. Cox responded that is SFWMD. We are working on some graphics to send to the district to show what we are proposing and hopefully get it approved expeditiously.
Mr. Lambert stated it would be nice to get the paperwork done so when we get the permit we can do the work.
Mr. Benson stated this part of the project has not been put out for bid yet.