MINUTES OF MEETING
CORAL SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
A regular meeting of the Board of
Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, October
20, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. at the District Office, 10300 NW 11th Manor,
Present
and constituting a quorum were:
Robert
Fennell President
Sharon
Zich Vice
President
Glenn
Hanks Secretary
Also
present were:
Kenneth
Cassel District
Manager
Sean
Skehan CH2M
Hill
Brenda
Schurz Severn
Dan
Daly Director
of Operations
Jim
Aversa Chief
Operator, Wastewater Plant
Doug
Hyche Utilities
Director
Randy
Frederick Drainage
Supervisor
Kay
Woodward District
Accountant
Jan
Zilmer Human
Resources Manager
FIRST
ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Cassel called the meeting to
order and called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes
of the September 15, 2008 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the September 15, 2008 meeting and requested
any corrections, additions or deletions.
There not being any,
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Ms. Zich with all in favor the minutes of the September 15, 2008 meeting
were approved.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’
Requests and Audience Comments
There not being any, the next item
followed.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Bids
for Purchase of Chemicals for Aquatic Weed Control
Mr. Cassel stated we
went out to bid and the bids came in.
Before you are the bid
specifications. The total projected for
fiscal year 2009 is $105,941.90. You can
see the breakdown. Most of them will be
coming from Helena Chemical Company.
There are a couple of chemicals which are supplied by either UAP or
ProSource at the same price. We are
requesting you approve by motion the ability to pick up the chemicals from one
of the other companies at the same price that was bid from Helena Chemical
Company, if they are out.
Mr. Hanks stated under UAP and
ProSource I saw they had other products listed for Induce and Reward. I see they are slightly less then the
specified chemical. Is there any benefit
to going with the lower price?
Mr. Cassel responded we are not sure
if they are equivalent. One of the
things we discussed was possibly getting some this year, testing it to see if
you get the same effect with the same type of chemicals; then, it would be a
savings. Right now, there is no
equivalency we are aware of.
Mr. Hanks asked will you get a
couple of gallons, test them side by side and see how it goes?
Mr. Cassel stated exactly.
Ms. Schurz stated on the original
bid specifications we did state “or equivalent” for some of the chemicals.
Mr. Cassel stated this was partially
because of a comparative analysis; not having the information to say there is
an equivalent and knowing what the equivalent might be.
Mr. Hanks asked how would you like
to have this motion worded?
Mr. Fennell asked what did we pay
last year?
Mr. Frederick asked for which
chemical?
Mr. Fennell responded for any of
them, let us say Reward.
Mr. Frederick stated Reward was the
same. It is a manufactured set price as
are the three at the bottom; Hydrolthol 191, Aquathol K and Aquathol Super
K.
Mr. Fennell stated we think we went
out for a bid and received three different bids. They are all exactly the same thing.
Mr. Cassel stated it is a
manufacturer price.
Mr. Frederick stated that is why
these other two are bidding a different product for a cheaper price. I am not sure how good that product is going
to be. You should try it. If you like it, we can use it. If you do not, we want to reserve the right
to go back to Reward which is what we always used.
Mr. Cassel stated the bid does not
necessarily lock us in to only purchasing from Helena Chemical Company.
Mr. Hanks asked let us say we test
it for three to four months, are we going to run into trouble if after three or
four months we decide to go with Timberland 90 instead of Induce?
Mr. Frederick responded no.
Mr. Cassel stated we should know
after a couple of test shots whether it is going to be feasible to use the
other chemical or not.
Mr. Hyche asked are we going to be
in trouble with the vendor?
Mr. Cassel responded it is a price
set to lock the prices. It is not an
exclusive use of this vendor only.
Mr. Fennell stated in some years we
actually bought from several different vendors.
Mr. Frederick stated we may possibly
do that. It is easier for me to go
through one vendor. We can do this with
the ones who have set prices from the manufacturers if we want to spread our
business around a little.
Mr. Fennell stated the problem is,
even though we are getting them from different vendors, we are not really. It sounds like it is all the same.
Mr. Hanks stated let us go ahead and
get a couple of gallons of these other products to do a test. I suggest we go with Helena Chemical Company
as a low bidder with the ability to go with an alternate supplier should Helena
Chemical Company not be available to provide the materials.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the Board awarded the bid for aquatic weed
control chemicals to Helena Chemical Company with the option of going to an
alternate supplier if Helena Chemical Company cannot provide the materials and
staff was directed to purchase a couple of gallons of the alternate products to
test.
Mr. Fennell stated this is a
$100,000 a year expense. Do some
investigating to see if you can come up with an alternative.
Mr. Hanks asked where do we stand on
our budget for this product? Are we
right about where we thought we were?
Mr. Frederick responded I think we
are over what we put in the budget. As
far as the quantities, it is all an estimate.
We are only going to spend what
is in the budget.
Mr. Hanks stated yes and if we can
get people to cut back on how much fertilizer they use…
Mr. Frederick stated this is the
best I can estimate I would use throughout the year.
Mr. Cassel stated this also depends
on the heat, the temperatures, the water, what is growing, what is not growing
and which chemical needs to be applied for which type of weed.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Interlocal Agreement with Sunshine Water Control District
Mr. Cassel stated we
received this late on Friday from SWCD that they wanted to add and modify to
paragraph six. At this point in time I
do not think we should use it as an addendum.
We have the signed Interlocal Agreement as it is presented to you from
SWCD. I believe we should do the agreement
as they originally signed it. Then we
can work with the attorney and SWCD on an addendum that would come back because
we are not comfortable with the wording of how it would play out and impact
CSID’s liabilities.
Mr. Hanks stated that was affecting
paragraph six.
Mr. Cassel stated that is
correct. It has to do with insurance.
Mr. Fennell stated I am looking at
this and I still do not grasp what it is.
Mr. Cassel stated they are looking
for something equating to an agreement between SWCD and CSID for their
employees to participate in our health program, our insurance program,
etcetera. We really do not have a
formalized agreement at this point in time.
It looks like they were trying to add it to this.
Mr. Hanks stated let us go back to
the big agreement.
Mr. Lyles stated they both touch
upon insurance. Paragraph six of the
Interlocal Agreement is very important in that it provides for insurance to be
carried by SWCD, liability type insurance, and that this District be named as
an additional insured on those policies so if one of their employees does
something and there is a lawsuit, we are covered by their insurance. That is not where this amendment
belongs. It really belongs in the scope
of services, which is attached to Exhibit A.
As the manager said, it is something we would come back to you with as
an addendum to this agreement. It does
not really accomplish what we think they want to do. This is why we are recommending you approve
it the way they have it signed by SWCD and then work manager to manager as well
as staff to staff to get acceptable language everyone is comfortable with. Does what they think they want, and then we will come back to you with
it.
Mr. Hanks stated so basically they
want to help with our purchasing power on insurance abilities.
Mr. Cassel stated currently their
employees are on our health insurance and they participate in the CSID pension
plan.
Ms. Zich asked does it help us to
have them on our insurance? I would
think it would not.
Mr. Daly responded not anymore.
Ms. Zich stated I would think it is
not a good idea to have them on our insurance.
Mr. Zilmer stated at one time the
qualification for being a large group was higher. I believe it was a little over 100. At one time we had everybody on our
plan. We got a lower rate. They have changed this. I believe a large group is down to 50
people.
Ms. Zich asked do we pay these
people?
Mr. Zilmer responded no.
Ms. Zich asked if they have their
own health insurance, why are they on our insurance?
Mr. Zilmer responded they always
have been .
Ms. Zich stated if you get seven
employees who all have a terrible illness, it affects our rates.
Mr. Daly stated they are definitely
benefitting by being on our plan because they would not qualify for a large
rate.
Mr. Zilmer stated because their was
some discussion about this I rated them for their seven employees. It would actually cost them an additional
$1,000 a month to carry their own health insurance.
Mr. Hanks asked the nuts and bolts
of the Interlocal Agreement, what does it do?
I am not talking about the addendum.
What purpose does this serve?
Mr. Cassel responded the nuts and
bolts of the Interlocal Agreement before you is to formalize and put forth the
fact they have equipment stored here, their people come here and we provide the
facilities for them to store their materials.
We also do payroll for them and it lists all of the personnel services we provide for
them.
Mr. Hanks stated these items are
listed on Exhibit A.
Mr. Cassel stated that is
correct.
Mr. Hanks stated what happens if we
incur a layoff? If someone is laid off,
we will be in a situation similar to our bookkeeper situation where we had to
have an outlay.
Mr. Daly stated no, because it is
their own employee.
Mr. Hanks stated we are providing
them with services to help manage those employees, provide benefits to them and
lease space as well as other items like it.
What risks will we incur by accepting this agreement? Is there a downside?
Ms. Zich responded the health
insurance part. I am concerned about
that. In the event of catastrophic
health insurance costs to them, it will go against our health insurance for
next year.
Mr. Fennell stated perhaps. You have to remember what we are doing here
is disentangling ourselves.
Mr. Cassel stated we are beginning a
clean up.
Mr. Fennell stated we are bringing
clarity to what was an extremely murky thing.
It was not clear who was an employee of which organization. We had cases where people were full time and
part time of several organizations. This
goes a long way towards clearing it up.
It is a good thing we are doing, but it is also raising good
questions. What relationship should we
be in and what relationship should we not be in?
Mr. Daly responded part of my
discussion with the management over there was even if they went out and got
their own health insurance, we would make sure it went through Mr. Zilmer as
far as the human resources component we would administer for them.
Mr. Cassel stated as part of this
deal.
Mr. Hanks stated if there was an
increase in the cost, I guess it would be a group wide thing; but what are the
chances of seven people coming down with a catastrophic illness.
Ms. Zich stated well not all seven,
but just one or two.
Mr. Daly stated I do not think there
is anything in the agreement, which states we must provide this next year. Our rates are set until September 30, 2009 at
the current rates.
Ms. Zich stated but next year will
be based on this year.
Mr. Daly stated that is true.
Mr. Fennell stated we are better off
being larger than smaller because of what you are saying. Unfortunately, insurance companies have
targeted small businesses when someone does get sick. It can easily eliminate what they would call,
“people with high expenses.” It is
inherently unfair of insurance companies.
They cannot do it very easily to larger groups, which is why you want to
ban together.
Mr. Zilmer stated we are doing the
same thing with NSID and PTWCD. The only
difference is the manager. With all four
districts combined, we have 103 employees on the plan.
Mr. Hanks MOVED to approve the
Interlocal Agreement with the Sunshine Water Control District, which was
executed by the Sunshine Water Control District and presented in the agenda
package.
Mr. Lyles stated the record is clear
we are not including the addendum as part of the recommendation today. We think it needs to be accomplished in a
different fashion and it is not part of your motion. You specifically limited your motion to the
Interlocal Agreement, which has been previously executed by SWCD and is before
you as part of your agenda package.
Mr. Hanks stated and this letter
from Mr. Cramner will be dealt with by staff and manager.
Mr. Lyles stated if it is to be approved;
it will be brought before you at a different time.
Mr. Fennell asked Mr. Cassel, what
do you recommend?
Mr. Cassel responded I recommend
doing it as we are doing it. The
agreement we hashed out without any changes should be going for approval at this
point in time. The letter that came in
dated October 15, 2008 should be addressed in a separate manner with the
attorney and with the two districts.
Mr. Fennell asked Mr. Lyles, your
recommendation?
Mr. Lyles responded I believe the
recommendation before you is a continuation of a process the full Board, and I
think the Board prior to your membership, directed staff to pursue, straighten
out, formalize and put into a sound independent contractor relationship between
CSID and the other districts.
Ms. Zich asked did you work with
them on this?
Mr. Lyles responded we prepared
it. I do recommend it as it is presented
by management today.
The MOTION as previously outlined
was seconded by Ms. Zich and on VOICE vote with all in favor was passed.
Mr. Fennell stated I think we are
going in the right direction. You might
notice this was from Mr. Wrathell who is actually an independent source as far
as managing SWCD and a direct competition to our present management. We are in fact taking on duties from others,
which is fine with us because we have an overhead here we have to pay for.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Change Orders
A.
Final
Balancing Change Order No. 6 for Rehabilitation of Wastewater Plants C and D
for a Net Decrease in the Amount of $29,771.10
Mr. Cassel stated I
picked up on this when we were asking for the retainage. I realized it as I went through the request
with Ms. Woodward. We went over it and
there was approximately $29,000 left in the contract, which had not had a
deduct change order balancing the contract out to zero; since they are asking
for their final retainage on a project that is closed out. The bottom line I want to make sure of for all
our projects as we come to conclusion and we do the final payout on the final
retainage, is that any line item which showed as a contract amount is reduced
if it is not spent and shown properly in the accounting as well as in the
project to show it was not spent or allocated.
It was reduced out of the project.
Mr. Hanks asked are these
allocations or allowances within the framework of the contract?
Mr. Cassel responded yes. There were things in there that were not
spent. The contract came in under the
potential charter.
Mr. Hanks stated Change Order No. 6
& Final and Change Order No. 3 are on completely different projects.
Mr. Cassel stated that is
correct.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Ms. Zich with all in favor Change Order No. 6 & Final for Rehabilitation
of Wastewater Plants C and D for a net decrease in the amount of $29,771.10 was
approved.
B.
Settlement
Change Order No. 3 with Intrastate Construction for Wastewater Treatment Plant
Phase II for a Net Increase in the Amount of $84,000
Mr. Hanks asked what is
going on here?
Mr. Fennell asked am I reading this
right? Are they charging us $85,000 in
delays?
Mr. Skehan responded this is related
to the beginning of the project. There
was an amount of time where the contractor was on hold from proceeding on this
work after he had been mobilized to the site. There were a number of days, as you can see in
the change order, that he requested in addition to the contract time, which is
183 days. The total was 204 days. After going through and haggling with them on
several occasions, this is what we came up with between the managers. Mr. Daly, Mr. Cassel, Mr. Hyche and I were
involved in going through and realized what we have at this point is a pretty
good deal given the amount of time he had been delayed at the beginning of the project.
Mr. Hanks asked what were the
sources of these delays?
Mr. Skehan responded permits related
to
Mr. Hanks stated so we went with this
contract before we had a permit from the City of
Mr. Skehan stated there had been an
earlier interpretation prior to my involvement that the city was not going to
get involved with some of the permits and then the city became involved. As a result, their review held things up in
several different areas.
Mr. Hanks asked so there were six
months where we were waiting for a permit?
Mr. Skehan responded close to that,
183 days.
Mr. Fennell asked what does the city
say about this?
Mr. Skehan responded the city really
takes their time in many respects. Their
feeling is they have to do their due diligence.
There is an earlier interpretation that CSID did not have to necessarily
follow all of the city’s requirements for permitting.
Mr. Hanks stated give me the
physical components this is related to that the city was having issues with. This is for WWTP Phase II.
Mr. Skehan stated there was no
anticipation that permitting was needed for the stormwater drainage involved. This had to go through. I believe there was an expired permit which
was supposed to be in place by CSID.
There was reviewing of the site plan and such. There were several different components to
it. The entire structure of it is not
here. This is what it boiled down to at
the very end. If the Board would like
the rest of the details to this, we can pull it all together.
Mr. Hanks stated looking at this in
hindsight, it may have been better for us to go ahead and get remobilization on
this.
Mr. Skehan stated I am not sure
exactly how it would have turned out.
Mr. Hanks stated you know where I am
going.
Mr. Skehan stated I do.
Mr. Hanks stated I know the time
implications on it as well.
Mr. Skehan stated that has certainly
been one of the things we talked about as we move forward with the other
projects right now as well as making sure, prior to any notice to proceed being
issue, it will not be issued up until the time where all of the permits are in
place so the contractor is not out there, told to mobilize and then told to
wait at the same time.
Ms. Zich asked what were they doing
during these 183 days?
Mr. Skehan responded they were
trying to stay busy with some work. This
is why the full impact of what their fees could have been is not here. Their fees could have been significantly
higher. They had some dirt work. They were removing dirt from the site,
getting things cleared away and they had some work that was taking place. This is not the full impact of what they
could have established a claim upon. The
claim could have been close to $1,000 a day.
Claims add up very quickly with a contractor when they are not able to
do all of the work they have, which has been specified and laid out. There could have been significantly more fees
they could have claimed or tried to claim.
We negotiated closely with them all the way through this. They were looking for additional time. Initially there was 330 days they were
looking for. There was some overlap we
looked at and we said it was not appropriate for them to be claiming it because
of additional work they were doing, which was not part of what we would call
the critical path to the overall project.
Once there is a delay which begins to impact the critical path of the
project it becomes more costly. I think
the contractor has negotiated in good faith with me and with the entire
management team which sat in and looked over this to make sure everyone was
satisfied prior to bringing this to the Board’s attention.
Mr. Hanks asked how long did the city
have these permits for?
Mr. Skehan responded they reviewed
them back and forth. They were looking
for additional information. You have
probably seen how the city can delay projects or they become wrapped up in the
details that arenot pertinent.
Mr. Hanks asked do you have any
input on this?
Mr. Cassel responded I worked with
Mr. Hyche and Mr. Daly. Coming in after
the fact I was a little disturbed at the delays which occurred. It was approximately a six month delay
between the time the notice to proceed was given to when we received the
permits and started the work. We did
incur some delays at the end with receiving the blower units from the
manufacturer. There was another two week
delay.
Mr. Hanks asked have these given us
trouble before?
Mr. Cassel responded yes.
Mr. Daly stated that was at the tail
end of it.
Mr. Cassel stated we have it all
worked out. What we have been able to
work out with the contractor is this nails down any potential claims for
delays. Basically, this is any time or
any delays they are getting out of the project until completion. They have a set completion date. There are no more delays, no more times and
no more extensions. We are holding to
the completion date. If I recall
correctly, we are still under our total budget even with this delay issue.
Mr. Hanks asked is this wrapped up
now?
Mr. Skehan responded they are seeing
a realistic completion date in the first week of December. The blowers have been delivered and they have
been installed. We are looking at some
of the start up services taking place right now. A lot of it is going to take close
coordination, similar to the work we were doing with the standby generator back
in August. We have to get the operators
familiar with the new equipment. The
sequencing of the operation with Mr. Hyche and Mr. Aversa is going to be the
closest thing we need to do.
Mr. Hanks asked are we substantially
complete?
Mr. Skehan responded we are not
substantially complete, but we are close to being substantially complete.
Mr. Fennell stated they are also
asking for some additional money here too.
I guess we have a holdback right now.
Mr. Skehan stated that is their
retainage. The retainage reduction was
requested and typically the project will start off with 10% retainage. It is then brought down to 5% retainage. Given the current status of the project and
where we are it is typical to have it reduced to 2.5% or perhaps even lower.
Mr. Hanks stated when I do a
construction project and we have a 10% retainage, it is not until the end of the project where we
punch out. That is what the 10% is there
for. Has there been any punch out by
CH2M Hill to see if the components are being installed accordingly and are
functional as appropriated?
Mr. Skehan responded yes. We have looked closely at what the amount of
money is held in retainage right now and 2.5% will fairly and easily represent
any issues that could come up. They used
a retainage on this side of the project to be able to clear off their
subcontractors in making sure what we are getting final releases of liens on
the project resolved, which is important as we get closer to the end. The 2.5% retainage is there. If any issues come up, the bond is always
there.
Mr. Hanks asked are we getting final
releases?
Mr. Skehan responded yes we
are.
Mr. Hanks asked counsel, is this
according to the contract we have?
Mr. Lyles responded first of all I
have to tell you I have not been part of what I understand are extensive
negotiations and discussions with the contractor. I cannot give you an answer based on the
details of this transaction. I can
observe, generally, that there is wiggle room.
For instance, when the blowers are delayed and there is a claim for it. The contract, which is a standard form of an
agreement CH2M Hill put together. Generally
provides these things entitle the contractor to ask for more time, but not for
delay damages. They will contest
it. They will be back blaming it on us. I think the most important observation I can
offer is there are some contractors that would have been adding this time up
all along and counting on both being paid for the work to be done and a delay
claim against the owner at the end of the contract. It appears to me they have identified some
genuine delay issues. They sat down with
the staff and they negotiated a number.
The number could have been, as Mr. Skehan said, substantially higher;
three to four times higher. This
business about getting the contractor off of the critical path results in a
great deal of litigation on big public works projects like this. Delay claims can be very extensive to defend
in the first place, even if you win. If
you lose, they can be very pricey. I
really cannot tell you if this is a good deal or a bad deal because I have not
been part of the negotiations. I am not
in a position to comment on that. I am
in a position to tell you by just looking at the number of days and dollars
involved, it seems like this has been negotiated downward to the benefit of the District.
Mr. Hanks stated it was not so much
a question of whether it was negotiated well.
I have great confidence in that.
My question is; did the contract have provisions for delay clause?
Mr. Lyles responded the contract, I
am sure, like the other contracts you have approved has a no damages for delays
clause. When these things go into
litigation we start to get into very exhaustive and time consuming discovery
and proof of issues such as whose fault the delay was; not just acts of God or
storm events, but the owner actively impeded for some reason the progress of
the work. The fact that we gave a notice
to proceed and had them mobilized before permits were issued by the city, we
are going to hear about it. That is an
active act of negligence by the owner in their mind.
Mr. Hanks asked is there anything in
this change order, which will protect us from future claims relating to the
delay from this nature?
Mr. Lyles responded the language
which is in the next to last paragraph, just above the signatures.
Mr. Hanks asked “In addition to the
above compensation,” starting off that way?
Mr. Lyles responded no, “This change
order provides for.”
Mr. Hanks stated sorry, wrong
page. “This Change Order provides for
all costs, schedule adjustments and delays associated with or arising out of
performance of this work, including materials, labor, equipment, bond,
insurance, overhead, extended overhead, profit, impact and any and all related
items or associated costs incurred or resulting from this Project No. 328104
from the date of execution of the contract through the date of this Change
Order No. 3.” That one?
Mr. Lyles responded yes. That is language I asked CH2M Hill and
District staff to include in every single change order document which comes
before the Board. The purpose of the
language is to ensure that when you approve a change order for any reason they
are also waiving any claims for delay damages up to the time of the change
order. This is Change Order No. 3. I do not know what was in Change Order No. 1
and Change Order No. 2.
Mr. Skehan stated about $104,000.
Mr. Lyles stated when was Change
Order No. 2 approved?
Mr. Skehan responded it goes back
over a year ago; 45 days were tied to Change Order No. 1 and Change Order No.
2.
Mr. Lyles stated what I am
suggesting, again it is a question I cannot answer for you, but this same
language would have appeared in Change Order No. 2 and may or may not have
covered some of the period we are talking about. At the same time the dollar figure Mr. Skehan
has described is a significant reduction, from what I can tell from listening
to today’s discussions, from what could have been claimed. This language prohibits them from going back
to the beginning of the job and making a claim for any delay up to the date of
the change order.
Mr. Hanks stated so up to October 9,
2008.
Mr. Lyles stated yes, up to the date
of this change order. What I heard the
manager say is in these negotiations the contractor had agreed that this figure
represents the entirety of their claim for delay and we might want to get this
in writing in terms of a release, in addition to the change order. If this is their bargaining position as well
as our bargaining position, and it has been agreed to, I suggest we get a
release separate and apart from this change order to that effect, before the
change order is approved and the money changes hands.
Mr. Hanks asked so what language do
you suggest?
Mr. Lyles responded we will have to
prepare a whole instrument.
Mr. Hanks asked how do you suggest
we provide this direction in a motion?
Mr. Lyles responded I think if you
are okay with the $84,966 figure, you can approve Change Order No. 3 subject to
execution by the contractor of a full and complete release for any delay,
claims or damages from the beginning of the job through the completion date of
the job; whenever that is. How about a
motion to approve Change Order No. 3 subject to the limitations described by
counsel?
Mr. Hanks MOVED to approve Change
Order No. 3 with Intrastate Construction for Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase
II for a net increase in the amount of $84,966 subject to the limitations
described by District counsel and Mr. Fennell seconded it.
Mr. Fennell asked any discussion?
Ms. Zich responded this is a lot of
money. I am not too familiar with
this. I am sure you guys are more
familiar with it than I am. You guys are
feeling better about it than me.
Mr. Fennell stated not really.
Ms. Zich asked what does this mean?
Mr. Skehan responded as a general rule in looking at a project of this
size, approximately $7 Million, what you will typically see in the market on an
average is 3% to 5% of the overall value.
So 5% can be $350,000 of total change orders throughout the course of
the project. For this project, we are
substantially below this. Given the
nature of the work, some of the additions which went into this and where we
are, I think $200,000 is about 2%.
Ms. Zich asked is this going to
happen with all the projects as we go along?
Mr. Hanks responded yes and no. Mr. Skehan, one of the things which is going
to come out of this is really watch how you guys are doing things.
Mr. Skehan stated we do.
Ms. Zich stated keep track after
days. Keep after the city.
Mr. Hanks stated that is what I am
saying.
Ms. Zich stated I know it is hard,
but look at how much this is costing us.
Mr. Skehan stated as I mentioned,
this is one particular item we already paid very close attention to. We have had a lot of discussions on this.
Ms. Zich stated we could afford to
have an employee who just sits there and does nothing, but try to keep up with these
things.
Mr. Hanks stated it still would not
prevent this from happening. My
understanding is this is mostly a city related issue. I can easily see how the city can take four
to six months or longer to go through and approve a permit. It happens.
Mr. Cassel stated part of what we
put into place, Mr. Skehan and I have had some candid discussions as well as
with Mr. Hyche and Mr. Daly, is that we all internally are going to be on top
of this so we have a better handle on it.
It has been my directive that we are not going to issue a notice to
proceed without having permits in hand.
We are not going to have an open ended finish date. We are going to hammer them on a production
schedule; a finish date, a delivery date.
I am going to be looking at it very carefully. I am going to be on the engineer’s back and
Mr. Hyche’s back. Mr. Hyche is going to
be on the engineer’s back and the contractor’s back along with Mr. Daly to make
sure everyone is nailing those time factors and those delivery targets as well
as that the projects get started, they get done on time and we hold the change
orders down.
Mr. Hanks stated here is what I am
looking for you to be taking care of.
One, make sure these guys are following drill, providing the plans,
calculations, etcetera, in a timely manner to be reviewed with appropriate time
at the city level. I am also going to be
looking for you to make sure these guys are staying on top of the contractor
when it comes time for finalizing the project and they have not gone over the
time they were scheduled. If we are
going to be hit for a delay change order, the only thing which sticks in my
mind is be on your best behavior and make sure you have the project done when
you say it is going to be done.
Mr. Cassel stated that has been my
directive. One of the other things we
have done is Mr. Hyche is more critically in the loop now. No monthly draw goes through the process
without Mr. Hyche signing off on it early on.
I am looking at the monthly draw process early on, making sure everyone
is on target on getting done what we have to do. The next project is coming out. I have been pushing to get these cleaned
up. I want these cleaned up, done and
out of here. I want these projects gone
before we start with the next project because this overlapping of projects on
the site is killing us. Bits and pieces
are out there. We are stressing to get
these cleaned up. At this point we can
get this cleaned up and get the project out of here. We want to get them to clean up the site
before we start awarding the bid for the next two projects coming along.
Mr. Hanks asked did we vote on this?
Mr. Fennell responded no. It has been moved and seconded.
On VOICE vote with all in favor
the motion as previously outlined was passed.
Ms. Zich stated we should do
everything we can to make sure this does not happen.
Mr. Skehan stated there is an awful
amount of effort which goes into putting together a set of plans and
specifications for projects. The initial
change order was for approximately $100,000.
Sometimes you will see there is something you want to do. Mr. Hyche may see something as an added
feature for a project which if you have an allowance, you can have it taken
care of in the course of the project.
Because it is not detailed in the project, but you can get the
contractor to agree to do it, you will have a change order for it. Also, if there is something underground you do not
know is there, then the contractor runs into a pipeline which may not be noted
on a plan, that will be a problem which will show up. There are incidental things.
Ms. Zich stated those I can
understand.
Mr. Skehan responded we do not like
those either.
Mr. Hanks stated I am going to
request you provide our manager with the background on this, including a
timeline.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Surface
Water Permit for CSID Water Treatment Plant
Mr. Cassel stated this is approving
your own application for a stormwater permit for the new plant and project.
Mr. Hanks stated before we get into
this I would like to repeat my request to provide plans associated within the
permit requests.
Ms. Schurz stated they were.
Mr. Fennell stated we have to
approve ourselves. Does the city approve
themselves too?
Mr. Lyles responded if they are
building a city building somewhere they do issue a permit to themselves. All cities do.
Mr. Fennell asked are we paying
ourselves $2,500?
Mr. Hanks stated Mr. Skehan, talk us
through this since Ms. Early is not here.
Is this Ms. Early’s specialty?
Mr. Skehan responded this is not
mine. This is Ms. Early’s. I can get her on speaker phone if you want.
Mr. Hanks asked is it going to delay
anything if we hold off on approval?
Mr. Cassel responded the Board can
approve it subject to your final review Mr. Hanks.
Mr. Lyles stated not really. I think it will be a problem if you give one
Board member final approval.
Mr. Fennell asked are we going to
delay anything?
Mr. Skehan responded I do not think
it is going to delay anything if this goes to the November meeting. This is where the impervious area is going to
be going in for the new plant. The .5
acres and the other various components of the new facility do not have a
negative impact on the drainage. It is
going to be held onsite as much as possible.
There is nothing significant impacting the canals.
Mr. Fennell asked is there not a lot
of work to be done here? I guess we
really ought to see what we are going to be doing.
Mr. Skehan responded this is the first
time I have looked at this.
Mr. Fennell stated we have a good
voice to stand up with this one. You are
telling me it is not going to seriously delay anything or cost us any
money. This is our own site. We need to really understand what we are
going to be doing here.
Mr. Skehan stated this really should
be tabled until the November Board meeting.
Mr. Daly stated it is three weeks
from today anyway.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by
Mr. Fennell with all in favor consideration of the surface water permit for
CSID water treatment plant was tabled until the November 13, 2008 Board of
Supervisors meeting.
Mr. Hanks stated I respect Ms. Early
and I respect CH2M Hill. I just do not think
it is a good idea for the same engineer to be reviewing their own product for a
permit. What can we do in order to have
another engineer review the plans CH2M Hill is preparing for our District?
Mr. Lyles responded I think your
concern is understandable. Depending on
the cost, we have the CCNA threshold of $25,000 on a project. I do not know what a review, on behalf of the
District and the Board, of the permit application and related plans would cost,
but you can certainly hire an independent contractor, an engineering firm to
take a look at it and get back to you directly.
Mr. Hanks stated it is a $4,000 bid.
Mr. Fennell stated we used to have a
District engineer, but he is gone now.
Mr. Hanks stated Mr. Moore knows
this site pretty well.
Mr. Fennell asked does Severn Trent
have anyone?
Mr. Cassel responded we can have
someone look at it. There are other
engineering firms we deal with that we can do one and two time shots. It is not an ongoing scenario that we are
going to be doing a lot of permits. I
have a number of relationships with other engineering firms. I’m sure I can get a review on it.
Mr. Hanks stated the same firm who
did the design should not be reviewing it.
Mr. Fennell asked how much are you
willing to do this?
Mr. Hanks responded the average
permit reviews from a PE will run approximately $150 per hour. If they were to spend 10 hours, which is a
long time on one of these things, the cost would be $1,500.
Mr. Skehan stated it should be less
than $2,000.
Mr. Fennell stated Mr. Cassel can do
that.
Mr. Cassel stated I can find someone
who can do this.
Mr. Fennell stated you are directed
by the Board to get this reviewed.
Mr. Skehan asked is the intent to
have this permit application in front of the Board by the next meeting?
Mr. Cassel responded yes.
Mr. Hanks stated we want a
recommendation from a consulting engineer.
Mr. Cassel stated I will talk to two
or three of them and see who I believe can put it out for me the best.
Mr. Hanks stated there are some local
firms who are familiar with the site.
Mr. Cassel stated there are a number
of firms who can do this.
Mr. Hanks stated okay.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
A.
Manager
i. Landscape
Berm Update
Mr. Cassel stated you can see from
the memorandum in your agenda that I did get to speak with Mr. Power. The city is not going to “sign off” on the
berm which is there; however, there is no impact tying to any of the permits or
CO’s for any of the projects currently in place.
Mr. Hanks stated we need to get a
letter to them confirming this discussion.
Mr. Cassel stated I sent him an
email confirming the discussion we had.
Mr. Hanks stated thank you.
ii. Protecting Public Funds
Mr. Cassel stated we have looked at
this. Severn Trent has also been in
discussions with Ms. Woodward. We went
back and looked at your resolutions on investment policies. Resolution 2001-1 mirrors the State Statutes,
which pretty much say you have to be in protected services. If you look at the letter from Mr. Bloom, the
accounting manager to the Board, there are some options we can do if you are
not comfortable. Right now our funds are
protected. I even have a listing from
the state’s Qualified Public
Depositories. Your dollars are
there. The issue is it might take you a
little more time to get it if you want it right now, but they are there. The other option you can do, which I asked
Ms. Woodward to look into, is you can take the money which is there and put it
in CDs of the $250,000 scenario; spanning it over a six month, nine month or a
year type situation. It does create more
paperwork and accounting issues to keep track of it, but it is an option for
you.
Ms. Zich asked so we are good up to
$250,000 like a regular person until December 31, 2009, but what about the
money which goes over that? Is there any
limit to the amount? We have about $4
Million in cash or something like that.
Mr. Fennell responded I think it is
$6 Million.
Ms. Zich stated whatever we have; we
have a lot of money sitting in there. Is
there any cap? All of that is called
qualified?
Mr. Cassel responded my
understanding is it is. It is all
covered eventually. If the banks or if
this issue happens that public depositors get their dollars first, it just takes
you time to get to it. You can get the
smaller amount faster. The other amount
takes time to get through the system. The
difference is if you go ahead and put it in CDs overtime and you split it up
into smaller CDs, those are all 100% which you can get immediately.
Ms. Zich asked if it is a money
market account, you can get it all? Does
it make any difference what kind of an account it is in; CD, regular checking
account or a money market account? We
have a lot of money here.
Ms. Woodward responded it is my
understanding, with our funds all in Wachovia, that anything in excess of the
FDIC level, they have made certain that the accounts we opened with them are in
fact accounts which are covered under this Qualified
Public Depository. If there is a
problem, what is not covered by FDIC, will be covered by the state. If the issue is the timing of when we can
pull it out, then we have an option you and I did not discuss. I know for a fact that when I look between
the water and sewer fund and the general fund, in total between those two
funds, we are spending more than $900,000 per month. If we have a rough idea that it might take
two months to get those other funds out and available to us, we will probably
want to make sure $2 Million of our funds are in another bank where we can just
take an extra two block drive and pull the money out so we can still operate
until we file, claim and get what we need.
Mr. Hanks stated take our single
deposit, split it in two, decrease our risk and double our availability should
something happen.
Ms. Woodward stated so that we would
still be in a position to go ahead and form the funds we need. One of the things which is happening for us
is that every month in water and sewer, because we are actually collecting that
month’s revenues as we go, those funds are being deposited into Wachovia. On a monthly basis it can run anywhere from
$600,000 to approximately $800,000. We
do have some options. I do not
necessarily think we need to take every penny we have and find 30 banks we can
put $250,000 in. What we need to do is
make certain we can keep going for two or three month periods until the process
allows us to get our claims in for our funds, if we need to do that.
Mr. Hanks asked so if we split it
between two banks, do you think it will provide us with an additional measure
of assurance?
Ms. Woodward responded it may be a
little more than two banks if what we are looking at is $2 Million we would
need to run for a couple of months. It
is something we can certainly look at.
Mr. Fennell asked what is Qualified Public Depositories?
Ms. Woodward responded it is a list
of banking institutions throughout the state, which the state recognizes as
being a part of this insurance program. If
you pull out the list, you will see Wachovia is in fact one of the institutions
listed. This is why we have our funds
there. I am not certain of how this
insurance works.
Mr. Fennell asked what does pledged
collateral mean? We had our money with
the state and apparently the state did not have it. Was the state a pledged collateral?
Ms. Woodward responded as of
yesterday, that was not a guaranteed account.
Mr. Fennell asked how can the state
not be part of that, but they require people to be pledged collateral?
Ms. Woodard responded I cannot
answer that.
Mr. Fennell stated I am interested
in knowing what pledged collateral means and to what amount. They are saying there are two types of
protection. FDIC insures up to $250,000. I know on many accounts if you have up to $1
Million or $2 Million for a lot of stock accounts, I guess the question is,
what do you do for them? That is our
problem here. We have $4 Million or
more.
Ms. Woodward stated that is
basically going through US Bank. What we
are talking about here is the operating funds that are outside of the trustee
funds for the bonds.
Mr. Fennell stated there is still
the same issue. What happens if
something goes wrong with the trustee funds for the bonds? Is there a pledged collateral there?
Ms. Woodward responded I am not
sure.
Mr. Fennell asked what does this
mean? Is there actually any collateral?
Ms. Zich responded I would love to
know about that.
Mr. Lyles stated the bond funds are
not deposited with the bank. They are
held in trusts. It means there are
segregated trust funds and they cannot be used by the banks for any other
purposes or to support pledges. The bank
is acting as trustee in the setting we are talking about with US Bank. US Bank is the trustee for the bond funds.
Mr. Fennell asked where is that
money if the trustee goes broke?
Mr. Lyles responded if the trustee
goes broke, the funds are still there.
Mr. Fennell asked how come?
Mr. Lyles responded because they are
segregated, they are held in trusts and they cannot be used for deposits or
loans. They are not like other bank
deposits they can use to do business with.
They are held in trust.
Mr. Hanks stated in other words, it
is like putting it in a safety deposit box.
Mr. Lyles stated it is not like a
safety deposit box. It is more like
someone’s 401K, which is administered by a bank. The bank cannot use its proceeds for its
operation.
Mr. Hanks stated there is an
administrative barrier between having these funds available for making good
loans or bad loans and these funds here which are funds delegated to specific
trusts.
Mr. Lyles responded that is my
understanding. Bond proceeds are held in
trusts. You still have millions of
dollars in other kinds of accounts, which do not have this type of
protection.
Mr. Fennell stated I just know of
cases where people who were trustees in banks for people end up going in and
somehow investing that amount of money; suddenly they come back, look at the
account and the money is not there. I
understand what you are saying, but how do I know that no one touched that
money. Suppose somebody did, who would
be the person to pay it back? Where is
the collateral?
Mr. Lyles responded there are
instances of fraud. In the past, the
institution behind it has stepped up. In
this day and age, I do not know if that protection is as good as it once
was. Maybe it will be helpful to get
something from US Bank to specifically advise the District and this Board as to
what are the mechanics of their administration of these trust funds and what
are the protections. Rather than having
the staff give their group understanding as to how it works, I think hearing it
directly in writing from your trustee might be a good idea.
Mr. Fennell stated let us do
that.
Ms. Zich stated so we are basically
talking about $2 Million in the general fund and about $5.5 Million in the
water and sewer fund. It is
approximately $7.5 Million we are really talking about. We are not talking about $36 Million.
Mr. Fennell stated I question the $36
Million. They can send us a nice strong
letter saying they are trustworthy, they are the trustee and they will never
spend our money or do anything with it, but I say, “Where is the collateral?” Who backs that up? We are just good people or is there some kind
of collateral behind it saying this is backed in trust of who, US Bank or is it
the US Treasury? Who is it? In the end, that is the question for
this. It is the same thing for the other
$7.5 Million too. Pledged collateral
sounds good. It sounds like we have
money where there is pledged collateral.
What does this mean? What is the
collateral exactly? Are we talking about
T-Bills? Are we talking about stock in
the bank? Are we talking GM stock or
Countrywide stock? I think we really
need to mine all the way down to understand exactly what this is. Maybe the pledged collateral is enough and we
do not need to go through FDIC. Before
we go through all this work we need to dig deeper. Ms. Woodward, can you do this?
Ms. Woodward responded sure.
Mr. Cassel stated in
combination. Ms. Woodward and I will
work together and report back.
Mr. Fennell stated even a
certificate of deposit still has the same issue. The only thing I know of that we can do, and
there is still a guarantee, is to buy T-Bills.
That is backed by the full faith of the US Government.
Mr. Hanks stated we can split it up
into a couple of different places, but you are still talking about a big chunk
of change out there. There is not 34
Million different places to park the money.
Ms. Woodward stated now that these
various banks and brokerage houses have been in the forefront of the news and
the fear, they are coming up with different products that apparently they are
trying to make available to institutional investors like local governments and
small businesses relating to FDIC insurance.
I am starting to receive phone calls and emails related to this. We definitely need to pull it together and
see exactly what they are offering.
Obviously, they want the funds invested in whatever pool they are
talking about so they in turn have money they can turn around and lend, which
is what they are in the business of doing.
But, we also want to make sure we do not just jump at it. We really need to look into how it is
protected. I think it is just the
beginning of new products being offered under the bank.
Mr. Hanks stated I am more concerned
with preservation of capital. Right now
you will not be getting much yield.
Ms. Woodward stated if you go into
T-Bills right now, you will protect the capital with a small amount of interest
and that is good too. It may be
something you want to do until you are in a position to know a bigger or
different move you want to make.
Mr. Fennell stated we talked about
this before. A few meetings ago we asked
how we knew our banks were safe and the answer was we did not.
Mr. Hanks stated the truth of the
matter is we do not know anything.
Mr. Fennell stated well according to
this there are two direct things we can invest in. One is US Treasuries and the other one is
debt obligation to Israel.
Ms. Zich stated I could not believe
it when I saw that.
Mr. Fennell stated it is on page
three of six.
Ms. Zich stated letter ‘f’, near the
bottom.
Mr. Fennell stated “Rated or unrated
bonds, notes, or instruments backed by the full faith and credit of the
government of Israel.”
Ms. Zich stated we have the full
faith of Israel and we are having all of the problems we have here. I have
never heard of this before. Why Israel
and not Great Britain or Canada? I
cannot believe it is in here.
Mr. Cassel responded I guess we need
to ask the people who wrote the State Statutes.
Mr. Fennell asked so where does this
lead us?
Mr. Cassel responded this was just
an update. Ms. Woodward and I have an
understanding of where we need to go back, find some more information and report
back to you in November as to where we might be able to make sure the District’s
funds are protected to the best degree that it can be in today’s market.
Mr. Fennell stated I am glad you are
taking a role to actively pursue this.
It looks to me like the Federal Government was late to call this
one. It almost looks like they were
trying to delay this until after the election.
It must have reached a crisis. We
saw this a year ago, if you think about it, when it happened at the state
level. I have to say we are in much
better shape than most other groups who are out there right now. We were lucky enough to get our bond issue
out there and we have the money. There
are a lot of other groups now who will have a hard time getting it if they
really need the money now, or they will have to pay a much higher interest
rate. We just do not want to lose what
we have.
iii. Bi-Annual
Management Report
Mr. Cassel stated this is a brief
description. I think the District is in
better shape than the rest of the country.
Mr. Fennell stated you might be
right.
Mr. Cassel stated as we discussed
when I first came on Board, some of the things I listed here are things we were
looking at as I came in and I wanted to make sure we cleaned up. The staff here has been working with me very
well. The staff has stepped up in a lot
of areas all the way down the chain. The
guys are picking up and taking ownership in areas where they either did not do
it before or were not allowed to before.
Everybody is coming on Board. I
think we are all grasping the vision of where we want to go in the management
of the District to make sure we are running effectively and efficiently.
I started off with the
engineers. We have cleaned up a lot of
the issues of how we are checking the engineering fees, how we are attaching
them to the right projects, billing and getting all of it straightened up. We have come a long way. There is still some fine tuning as there is
in any operation. We are focusing on target
dates for projects. We are making sure
we are starting the implementation of formalization of agreements with other
districts as we provide services. We
have gone through and looked at the hurricane preparedness plan. We are fine tuning it.
Next are some of the goals I am
looking at for fiscal year 2009. The
budget process has improved. We are
working with staff to make the budget process even easier. Ms. Woodward and I looked at a three year
budget history as the guys are looking at it so they can project where they are
at and where they are going on some of these items. As you can see, we are looking to continue to
fine tune some of the things we have already begun and continue to move the
District forward in a cost effective, efficient way. I think everyone is stepping up and doing
what they need to do. This is a good
group of people to work with.
Mr. Fennell stated I would like to
add to your goals.
Mr. Cassel stated okay.
Mr. Fennell stated preparation of
long term water use philosophy; above and beyond what we are doing. Look at every aspect. We need a long term policy which fits in with
the rest of South Florida. We should be
in a leadership position to try and push this.
Mr. Cassel stated okay.
Mr. Fennell asked are there any
other things?
Mr. Hanks responded the other thing
we should be cognitive about and plan for is the eventual deterioration of our
wastewater collection system, our water distribution system and also our
culverts. We want to keep them on the
horizon. Yes, these things have been
paid for, but they are not going to last forever.
Mr. Cassel stated I believe we
already have part of that taken care of in our plan, which Ms. Woodward is
working on to see where we are setting out in our assets. We are looking at our assets and what their
lifespan is. We are making sure we are
preparing for funds for the pump stations, pumps, motors, etcetera. We are going through it and looking at a 5 to
10 year horizon right now, but we can look at a 15 year horizon.
Mr. Hanks stated but there are other
facilities we have on the ground which may have a year of life.
Mr. Hyche stated we currently have a
program for that as well. We are
tracking all of the breaks; making sure we see in what locations they are
occurring. We may need to look at
starting to replace some of these things.
Mr. Hanks stated especially if we
have areas which are petrified clay.
Those are probably going to be more problematic.
Mr. Hyche stated we know where those
are at already.
Mr. Hanks stated put it in a vacant
land situation. What happened when CSID
was created in a farmer’s field, basically, or pasture land?
Mr. Cassel stated as I mentioned
with staff, these are things Mr. Hyche, Mr. Daly and I have been kicking around
in our weekly staff meetings. We are
looking to see how we can make sure the District is set up for the long haul to
continue to run effectively and efficiently at the best price to our current
residents and future residents.
Mr. Hanks stated there is one program
out there, it was on public television a couple of nights ago, called Liquid
Assets. It is about an hour and a half
program about water, wastewater and stormwater.
It provides a very good explanation of those three systems and how they
are interrelated. It presents them in
terms that a layman, or laywoman, would be able to understand. If you get a chance to watch it, I recommend
it.
Mr. Fennell stated Atlanta is going
through a $3.2 Billion revision of their sewer and waterworks. Basically their infrastructure is falling
apart and they got sued by citizens because they were polluting the Chattanooga
River. They won the lawsuit and they
forced the city to come back and do something about it. They are doing a lot. There are some interesting things; trenchless
replacement water pipes and the lining of pipes.
Mr. Skehan stated we have actually done
some lining here as well. The trenchless
piping is taking place. Directional
drilling is going on. We have done an
awful lot of that. The entire infrastructure
replacement of Fort Lauderdale has been managed by CH2M Hill over the past five
years. They have spent close to $700
Million just in Fort Lauderdale. We have been involved in a lot of the work in
Atlanta as well. If you have any
interest in looking at what is taking place in Fort Lauderdale, we can arrange
that.
Mr. Fennell asked the first question
is, are we close to that yet or are we just keeping our eyes open? Is it 5 years out or 15 years out? I hope it is 15 years out.
Mr. Hanks stated I contacted Mr.
Fredericks on Thursday or Friday. There
is a section of road I have driven quite a few times and all of a sudden I
noticed part of the road happens to coincide with a location of our
culvert. I asked Mr. Frederick to check
it out, but that is what got me started thinking. We are talking about driving an alternate
means here by the District offices, but we may have ancient culverts which have
been in the ground for 30 years. When
they start corroding, we need to consider that.
There are a number of things we need to be on the lookout for.
Mr. Skehan stated as I understand it
the bypass for all of the raw waste is coming into the plant here. If there was a break in the line somewhere in
the neighborhood here, it would be a problem.
Mr. Hanks stated start putting
things like that out there. Get them to
Mr. Cassel. Look at our redundancy. It does not do us any good to have redundancy
in our plant if we do not have redundancy in our supply or collection.
Mr. Fennell stated Mr. Cassel, thank
you for your report. We expect another
one in six months. I have to say
this. We are very happy with the job you
have done here for the first six months.
You have managed to work well with a determined staff. This District has the advantage of having
well seasoned individuals who know their jobs.
Thank you very much. The other
person is Ms. Woodward, who I think is our secret weapon here. Thank you both.
iv. Annual
& Monthly Water & Sewer Charts
Mr. Fennell asked are there any questions
on the water and sewer charts?
Mr. Hanks responded yes. I was looking at the water loss. Am I reading this right? Was there a 15% loss?
Mr. Hyche responded this is an
anomaly. As you look at last month’s
chart you will notice we collected more
than we produced.
Mr. Hanks stated water loss is a
good indicator of how good our system is performing and 5% is a good number to
shoot for.
Mr. Hyche stated we are running
average. On an average we are below 5%.
v. Utility Billing Work Orders
There being no questions or
comments, the next item followed.
B.
Attorney
Mr.
Lyles stated I do not have anything additional today.
C. Engineer – Monthly Project Status Report
and Charts
Mr. Fennell stated I do not know if
this would help, but maybe we should consider a running total of days lost.
Mr. Skehan asked days lost for?
Mr. Fennell responded for the
purpose of keeping track of things so we are not surprised by 183 days of
billing at the end of a project. I am
looking at a way to control that aspect.
Ms. Zich stated that is what I
said. We should have an employee who
just keeps track of this.
Mr. Cassel stated if you look at
your project manager chart, your schedule, this rolls up all of the
projects. If you take out the wells
project, right now it only occupies 11 line items. If you take the individual projects, Mr.
Skehan probably has close to over 100 lines of items listed which all have to
occur in the process. They roll up to
these target dates. What I look at as
the manager is if they are meeting the dates they said they were going to
meet. Have we done the FDEP
meetings? Do we have the design at
100%. Are we in the bidding? Are we on target for the bidding dates? These are the dates I use to make sure they
are on target. Now they split out even
down to almost the day of the week something is supposed to be done. They run a projected project and then they
run current times. Any time you hit a
delay, you will see it move out in the chart.
They keep track of that and I keep track of where we are on our end
time.
There are some items by line item,
which do not necessarily affect your end days, but they affect that particular
component. That component may not be a
critical line item, which can slide and not impact your project. The ones you focus on are your critical path
issues. Those we make sure we nail on
target. One of the other things I am
going to be working with them over the next year as we go forward is sometimes
you can parallel like applications.
Sometimes you parallel the application because you know you are going to
get kick back from both entities so you put them into both entities at the same
time. Sometimes they want Entity A to
review it before Entity B, but there are times you can put them into the same
entity at the same time. You get both
feedbacks and do one set of corrections for both and go back in shortening your
time. We are going to be looking at some
scenarios of how we can take our initial timeframes and compress them as a
project management style to how we can do multiple tasking, multiple
applications, anything we can do to parallel tracks to compress our timelines
and make sure we get it done sooner than later.
Mr. Fennell stated that sounds
good. Do you have these schedules?
Mr. Skehan responded it is a
schedule we generate.
Mr. Fennell asked do we have access
to this? Can you see it on a day to day
basis?
Mr. Skehan responded what we are
going to do on the upcoming projects is have the database available to two or
three different people or the management team.
Mr. Cassel, Mr. Hyche and Mr. Daly are going to have access to what we
call a workflow. They will not be able
to have interaction with it on a day to day basis, but they will be able to see
what is taking place on a day to day basis.
Mr. Cassel stated we will be able to
review it on a daily basis so we can keep track of it. They said they were going to send something
out on Friday. Mr. Skehan, is it
out? Yes, it is out.
Mr. Skehan stated with the new plant
which is going to be constructed we can anticipate over 150 different submittals
which will be coming in, or different materials and equipment; odds and ends
all the way through the project. That
gets entered into our system controlled by a person when it comes in. It gets sent off to whomever is going to be
reviewing it. We have a target number of
days in which this is supposed to take place.
That gets put into the schedule also.
On and on, by the time it comes back, gets reviewed, gets approved, gets
disapproved or gets approved as noted, then that will be sent back to the
contractor. There is going to be an
entire series of dates that will be entered into the workflow program, which
everyone will be able to take a look at and see what is taking place.
Mr. Fennell asked who is everybody? Does that include the contractor?
Mr. Skehan responded the contractor
will have access to it also.
Mr. Fennell stated okay, because the
schedule does not do you too much good if the contractor is not looking at it.
Mr. Skehan stated the contractor is
required to submit his own schedule so that we are keeping track.
Mr. Hanks stated you are going to
have two separate things. You are going
to have your design permitting schedule, which the contractor has nothing to
deal with. It is just CH2M Hill and a
Severn Trent management issue. Then
there is a separate one, once it gets to a construction phase which is the
contractor’s construction schedule.
Mr. Skehan stated yes.
Mr. Fennell asked does he have his
own scheduling machine?
Mr. Skehan responded it is not
imprinted. We do not want his schedule
integrated with how we are tracking what he has given us. What we have is a scheduling person who will
look at the initial schedule when it is submitted to us. We will look at it. What is really important to the course of a
project like this is to be able to track what changes are taking place in the
contractor’s schedule so his milestones for particular items on the critical
path are not slipping and he is not allowing those to slip on his
schedule. We want to know on a month to
month basis so if he is slipping we know it when he shows it on his
schedule.
Mr. Hanks stated you do not want to
get in a position of providing direction on means or methods.
Mr. Skehan stated absolutely
not. We cannot tell them how to do their
work or when to do their work. We have
to say whether their schedule looks reasonable or not reasonable at the very
front end of the project. They have to
be able to provide us with a schedule that is going to meet the goals we have
set up in the plans and specifications.
Mr. Hanks stated so you are always
going to be going back to them saying, “we are concerned you are not meeting
this component.”
Mr. Skehan stated that is right.
Mr. Fennell asked how often are they
giving you feedback?
Mr. Skehan responded once a
month.
Mr. Fennell stated no, no, no,
no. Not even close.
Mr. Cassel stated there are weekly
construction meetings that occur which Mr. Hyche and the engineer are at. That is part of the process. When you are in those weekly meetings you ask
the questions. You challenge the
contractor at those meetings on an ongoing basis to make sure he is meeting his
schedule that he gave you. This is a
function of Mr. Hyche and the onsite engineer who is working with Mr. Hyche on
the project. As I meet with Mr. Hyche at
our weekly meetings, he is updating Mr. Daly and I as to the status of the
contractor’s schedule. We look at the
impacts and if something is a critical path item or a non critical path
item.
Mr. Skehan stated whether it becomes
a factor in all of this also, whether there is a hurricane, they have to shut
down for a certain number of days; a lot of this is factored in at the very
beginning. It is tracked very closely to
their pay requests and then monitoring those schedules is an important
component of what we do.
Mr. Fennell stated Mr. Cassel, we
were wondering about this and it sounds like you are stepping up to this
issue. It is probably the primary issue
for this fiscal year; project management of upcoming dollars we are about to
spend and making sure it is spent well.
If you can bring this to your services, we really need it.
Mr. Cassel stated with the staff and
the team we have in place right now, we have already taken a great step towards
that. With everybody understanding what
I am looking for, what I am requiring from everybody and where I see the vision
of how we are going to handle these things, I think everybody understands and I
think we will be able to do this well.
Mr. Skehan stated we have talked
about those roles in significant detail at this point. I think we captured some of the questions
and/or concerns Mr. Cassel has had along the way. We will invite the Board out on a monthly
basis to take a walkthrough if you are interested in seeing the progress of the
construction.
Mr. Fennell stated I would like to
see a nice schedule up on the wall every time we come in.
Mr. Skehan stated we will do that. We will provide it for you.
Mr. Fennell stated we have to get
going here. I think we are running out
of time.
Mr. Skehan stated I have one last
thing on the engineer side. Over the
next couple of months there will be a couple of work authorizations coming your
way for our additional services for the services during construction. We just completed, all of the packages were
delivered today at 10:00 a.m., the pre-qualification packages. I think there were nine or ten packages that
came in from contractors. We are in the
process, starting today, of going through the pre-qualification packages. We are getting those laid out and getting
evaluations done of those. This will be
completed by the end of the week. By the
end of this week, I think on either Saturday or Sunday, we plan to have an advertisement
in the newspaper so the project will be advertised. It has to be legally advertised. The monitoring well is going to be coming up
for bid soon. The next couple of months
there will be quite a bit taking place.
I just want to advise you of what is taking place. There is a lot going on in the
background. If you would like to make
time for half of the next Board meeting, we would like to take you out. You expressed some interest in taking a look
at the pilot testing we were doing. If
you can plan on that, we will have it on the agenda.
Mr. Fennell stated by the way
everyone, it is a Thursday.
Mr. Cassel stated Thursday, November
13, 2008.
Ms. Hanks asked Ms. Schurz, will you
make a note to call the entire Board on Wednesday, November 12, 2008?
Ms. Schurz responded yes.
Mr. Hanks stated thank you.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of
September Financials and Check Registers
A.
Projected
Cash Flows
B.
Summary
of Cash Transactions
Ms. Zich stated I have looked this
over. We are a little short on our
revenue for water, but we knew that was going to happen. I think we have done a good job.
Mr. Hanks stated we are short on our
revenue by about $200,000.
Mr. Cassel stated if I recall, it is
a lot less than what was projected when I first came in on April 1, 2008.
Ms. Zich stated people must have
been watering.
Mr. Daly stated the permanent water
restriction may be going into affect for good as of November.
Mr. Hyche stated we will see. There have been some petitions going around
from municipalities.
Mr. Hanks asked what about the
question I had imposed regarding the Mobil Station on Coral Springs Drive and
Atlantic Boulevard?
Mr. Daly responded it was done. It was all sent out. In fact we have sent out 80 letters since we
took this project over and we have gotten 43 of them back. The Mobil Station is one of them. I believe it was hand delivered.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by
Mr. Fennell with all in favor the September financials and the check registers
were approved.
Mr. Daly stated I just need 30
seconds of your time. You will notice
the mock up of a newsletter you requested.
We are trying to get this out the first week of November. Mr. Fennell, I would like to invite you to
take this entire first left column.
Mr. Hanks asked now are we a
reversed osmosis plant?
Mr. Hyche responded it has not been
clearly defined yet.
Mr. Skehan stated this is why we are
still planning on the now. There is
latitude to be able to adjust to the water quality which would be coming from
the Floridian Aquifer.
Mr. Hyche stated we should change
that to membrane treatment.
Mr. Fennell stated good idea.
Mr. Daly stated if you take a look
at the screen over here, this will be the new look of our website. It is not fully functional yet, but it is
getting there. We will get it up and
running within the next two to three weeks.
It runs along the same lines. It
keeps the same colors. We are going to
have some continuity from now on.
Mr. Hanks asked have you taken a
look at what other domain names are available for the website?
Mr. Daly responded yes I did and I
emailed you. The problem with that is we
also share our domain with NSID, PTWCD and SWCD. They all link to fladistricts.com. You may have noticed the turnabout when you
came in. Mr. Hyche worked with the city
to get the asphalt. What was the cost
for that?
Mr. Hyche responded nothing.
Mr. Daly stated it has been taken
care of in-house. We are doing a sewer
plant tour. We invited some people from
the neighborhood, a high school class, to come in.
Mr. Hyche stated it is a high school
senior class from the charter school here in Coral Springs.
Mr. Daly stated Ms. Zich, you saw
pictures of the carp. Those are for
you.
Ms. Zich stated very nice. So we now have our carp in there.
Mr. Daly stated that is
correct.
Mr. Fennell asked when do you need
the first column by?
Mr. Daly responded a week.
Mr. Fennell stated I will see if I
can do it.
Mr. Daly stated if not, we will
draft something and get it approved.
Mr. Fennell stated okay.
NINTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There being no further business,
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by
Mr. Hanks with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.
Glen Hanks
Robert
D. Fennell
Secretary President