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, April
19, 2010 at 3:05 p.m. at the District Office, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral
Springs, Florida.
Present and constituting a quorum were:
Robert Fennell President
Sharon Zich Vice President
Glenn Hanks Secretary
Also present were:
Kenneth Cassel District
Manager
Dennis Lyles District Counsel
Jane Early District Engineer
Dan Daly Director of Operations
Kay Woodward District Accountant
Jan Zilmer Human Resources
Randy Frederick Drainage
Supervisor
Ed Stover Water Department
David Macintosh Wastewater
Department
Cory Johnson CH2M Hill
Gerrit Bulman CH2M Hill
Carl Easton CH2M Hill
Chris Sunberg CH2M Hill
Stephen Bloom Severn Trent
Services
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr. Cassel called
the meeting to order and called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Tour of Onsite Construction
Mr. Fennell stated one of the things
we have wanted to do is to take an official tour of all the construction we
have going on. Although it is raining on
and off here today, we are a trepid group who is willing to take it on. What do we do?
Mr. Lyles responded you are going to
be in session during the inspection trip to comply with the Sunshine Law. This is why the meeting was opened
first. The manager is going to take
minutes of the observations and discussions.
I do not expect you will be voting on anything while you are being
informed of what you are looking at, but there will be minutes taken and any member
of the public who wants to join the tour and listen to what the Board is
hearing is welcome to do so. With that;
you are not recessing, you are merely leaving this particular location and
walking through other portions of the District’s property prior to coming back
and resuming your normal agenda.
Mr. Cassel stated I will turn the
recorder off at this time and take notes of the tour to present to the
recording secretary.
The
record will reflect the recording was turned off during the onsite tour. The following is a summary of what was
transpired.
The
Board was accompanied by Mr. Cassel, Mr. Daly, Ms. Woodward, Mr. Johnson, Mr.
Easton and Mr. Sunberg to the construction area of Tank F and the
nanofiltration building. On the way to
the construction area the Board had the opportunity to see the tractor trailer
truck, which staff is recommending be replaced.
The Board commented on the poor condition of the truck.
Mr.
Johnson explained the current status of Plant F as well as some of the concerns
with the contractor’s construction techniques.
Mr. Sunberg thoroughly explained the welding issues that are trying to
be addressed with the contractor. The
Board then went inside Plant F and saw the diffusers as well as the central
missing equipment. The Board asked
questions with regard to analysis of welding issues and possibly having third
party evaluations.
The
Board then moved to the east end of the site, which overlooks the
nanofiltration building. Due to the
weather conditions there was no construction activity at this time. The layout of the building was
explained. The Board had several
questions for the different CH2M Hill representatives regarding the different
portions of the project that were under construction.
Lime
Softening Plant #3, which will be undergoing rehabilitation in early June, was
also shown to the Board as a point of interest.
The Board then walked back to the meeting room where the tape recorder
was turned back on for the meeting to continue.
Mr.
Cassel stated we are back in from our tour of the site.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the March 15, 2010
Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each
Board member received a copy of the minutes of the March 15, 2010 meeting and
requested any corrections, additions or deletions.
Mr. Daly stated on page 14 it
states, “this lake”.
Mr. Fennell asked what should it
read?
Mr. Daly responded “the
slaker”.
Mr. Fennell asked are there any
other corrections?
Ms. Zich responded I just wanted to
say Mr. Bloom was also present at the last meeting.
Mr. Cassel stated we will correct
that. It was my oversight. I forgot to put him on the list.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the minutes of the
March 15, 2010 meeting were approved as amended.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’ Requests and Audience Comments
Mr. Daly stated I have one quick
comment. Mr. Stover and Mr. Johnson took our entire water plant crew on a
tour last week. Where did you go?
Mr. Stover responded to the Florida
Keys Aquifer.
Mr. Daly stated they actually got to
see it first hand and ask questions.
Mr. Hanks asked what was the
eco-interest down there about the Florida Aquifer?
Mr. Johnson responded we just
designed and provided SDC for a six engine ERL.
Mr. Hanks asked SDC meaning?
Mr. Johnson responded services
during construction.
Mr. Hanks stated okay.
Mr. Johnson stated it is similar in
that it is a membrane plant. There are
four trains instead of three. There are
a lot of similarities between that and this.
It was good for them to be able to see it.
Mr. Fennell asked is it operating?
Mr. Johnson responded it is.
Mr. Fennell asked so do we have some
contacts down there to call if we need to?
Mr. Daly responded sure.
Ms. Zich stated I did not see Mr.
Blooms name, but he was going to give us some more information about the method
of putting our money into financial institutions.
Mr. Cassel stated we can do that
under the financial section.
Ms. Zich stated okay.
Mr. Fennell asked anything else?
Mr. Hanks responded I have a request
for whoever puts together these charts.
Is that Mr. Frederick?
Mr. Cassel responded no.
Mr. Hanks asked can you throw in a
running 12 month average on these things?
When we start seeing the variations from 18% loss down to zero for some
months, I think we took a longer look on it, if you can throw a running average
for the preceding 12 months it will be a better way to take a look at it.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Manager
·
Consideration of
Truck Bid
Mr. Cassel stated as we walked by
you saw our excuse of a tractor we use to move the sledge trailer around. We went round and round to figure out a way to
replace it. Most of the prices we were
getting locally were in the $10,000 to $14,000 range. We looked on Craig’s List and found one in
Cape Coral for $6,800. It is in good
shape. We advertised as required for
individuals to submit proposals for selling us a vehicle which met a certain
description within parameters. We had
one individual who submitted and it turned out to be the individual we
originally contacted in Fort Myers. His
proposal was to sell the 1996 dual axle, single cabin, international tractor
trailer truck; it has approximately 560,000 on it with a clear title, in the
amount of $6,800. That is the proposal
we have. We have some pictures as part
of the package. It came in late.
Ms. Zich asked has anyone gone over
to look at it?
Mr. Cassel responded yes. We sent one of our people over to look at it
before we ever went down this road to make sure it would be something that
would be viable for our usage.
Mr. Daly stated some of the trucks
we looked at had 1.5 Million miles.
Ms. Zich stated it looks a lot nicer
than the one sitting out there.
Mr. Daly stated the one out there is
actually a danger and they should not use it.
It does not stop properly.
Mr. Cassel stated we have had some
issues with it.
Mr. Daly stated it is dangerous so
the sooner we can do this the better.
Mr. Cassel stated as I understand it
they have to pull a certain wire to do certain things; either to get it started
or to get it stopped out there. We
looked at it and said it was unsafe to have it around. We need to change it. The key was to find out the best way to change
it at the least expense to the District.
Mr. Fennell stated that is pretty
cheap, actually.
Mr. Cassel stated yes.
Ms. Zich stated and we are not going
to be using it on the road. It is just
to drive within the facility.
Mr. Daly stated only inside, not
outside.
Mr. Cassel stated when we walked by
it was parked at the filter press. It
fills up and then they take it over to behind Tank F where we were. There is a pavilion where it is parked under
cover. Then we have an outside
contractor who comes in and picks up the loaded trailers there, takes them out,
then dumps them and then brings the trailer back.
Mr. Fennell asked as far as the
budget, where does it come out of?
Mr. Daly responded because it is so
inexpensive it would not be worth going under renewal and replacement.
Mr. Hanks asked how long do you
think this thing might last?
Mr. Cassel responded at least 10 to
15 years.
Mr. Hanks stated counsel it looks like
we passed the…
Mr. Lyles stated believe it or not I
was involved in this every step of the way.
I am fine with it.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms.
Zich with all in favor the bid to replace the tractor utilized to move the
sludge trailers onsite at a cost of $6,800 was approved.
·
Monthly Water
& Sewer Charts
Mr. Cassel stated Mr. Hanks made
mention to this already. Do you have any
other questions?
Mr. Fennell asked did you ever
figure out whether the pumps versus hours were correct for the actual amount of
water pumped?
Mr. Cassel responded we are still
working on some analysis and feeding Mr. Hanks some data on it.
Mr. Hanks stated I met with Mr.
Cassel and Mr. Crowell out in the field.
I got a better understanding of how the data is being collected. We still do not have a full amount of data.
Mr. Cassel stated we do have some
rain data.
Mr. Hanks stated when we were out
there; was it lift station one or two we looked at?
Mr. Daly asked was it four?
Mr. Cassel responded I think it was
four.
Mr. Daly stated I believe it was
four.
Mr. Hanks stated the pumps were
running fairly frequently and the manhole was not in a surcharge
condition. It had been dry for about a
week. There are some issues out there with
the system.
Mr. Fennell stated here is my
complaint about the I&I report. It
is a wonderful report which talked about all of the ways we could have
problems, but there was nothing that actually told me what the problem was. I could get a junior CE from the University
of Florida to write that paper. He could
go through his text book and write a paper like that. It would be well done, but unless there is
actual real data which says something about what the problem actually is, I do
not think we got our money’s worth. I
expected some actual conclusive results about what the problem is.
Ms. Early stated I do not think we
did 100% of the scope because of the lack of data.
Mr. Fennell stated we have been
going on and on about this for a year maybe.
Mr. Cassel stated it has been six
months.
Mr. Fennell stated even so, I would
expect less fluff and more insight.
Mr. Hanks stated somebody light up a
fire under Mr. Crowell so that the data is distributed to them and us so we
have something we can be working on to try to narrow down the problem.
Mr. Daly stated that is not a problem. We will see him tomorrow. Is the data which goes to CH2M Hill via Mr.
Crowell an expansion of the already existing work authorization which has been
closed out?
Ms. Early responded no. He has not billed 100% because we did not
complete 100% of the scope.
Mr. Fennell stated I expect to see
some conclusive engineering results. I
used to teach problem solving in engineering so I know what to look for.
·
Utility Billing
Work Orders
Mr.
Cassel asked are there any questions on these?
Mr. Fennell responded no.
Mr. Cassel stated in this section I
put before you, because it was not an agenda item, the Six Sigma Analysis that
I started to get some feedback from the Board to go forward on the total
nitrogen. This is data from 2005 to I
believe 2009 on one site. The total
nitrogen along with the curves; the mean of the data, the standard deviations
and the curves. After discussion with
Mr. Fennell I will be converting this data of the five years into a
conglomerate data to see what it looks like as a whole for that particular site
over a five year period. Then I will do
the other sites similarly.
Mr. Fennell stated once we do that I
would like to compare it to any other data out there. You must have some from other groups or other
districts. There must be some kind of
data. I would like to see how it
compares.
Mr. Cassel stated there is some from
the Florida Association of Special Districts.
I will put an email out to them as well.
Mr. Hanks asked what were the limits
imposed by DEP?
Mr. Cassel responded they were down
in the .4 or .5 range for total nitrogen or lower.
Mr. Fennell stated this just shows
us the first year the mean was 1.02. The
six sigma value was 6.1.
Mr. Hanks asked what does that mean?
Mr. Fennell responded that means
that the six sigma is the current quality standard if you were going to have a
very high quality or something. You
would be out six standard deviations from your mean. If you were trying to include something like
that in a quality, you would want to be at least that far out. That means if you are going to have a
specification and you want to make sure all of the parts could in fact work in
your design, you design to a six sigma standard and you make sure that the six
sigma, either when you design the water or you actually put your specification
at 6.1. That is just for the first year.
I think it was interesting. That mean was 1. In the 2006 data the mean was at .94 and the
six sigma is now at 7.3. The 2007 data
had a mean of 1.995, which doubled the mean.
That is unbelievable. When I was
talking about how high the six sigma values were that anticipated you could in
fact have this kind of variance. Here
the six sigma standard is 8.25. If you
go to 2008 the mean drops back to .94, the six sigma is around 6.45. The 2009 data had a mean of .6125, but the
six sigma was at 5.5.
What you do is you put all of this
data together and see where they really come out. Frankly, the specification you should be
looking at is the six sigma specification.
I am not even sure you have enough data here to have enough
sampling. This is the way you actually
talk about specifications and meeting specifications. You can see right away if someone just came
in and took a mean, for instance we took the .5 specification, I do not
know. You did not go down low in that. Well you can anticipate that. The standard deviation was .84. The probability of making the specification
is 30%. There are obviously some issues
here as far as specifications. Let us
put together a specification with six sigma and with the mean through all those
years. I still question the data as far
as there being enough data statistically.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the
standard? Is it based on daily or
quarterly?
Mr. Cassel responded I believe they
are proposing a 12 month average or a number which cannot be exceeded in a
particular quarter. There are some
different things they are proposing. One
of the biggest questions which arose is that the waters in the state, the
rivers, canals and etcetera, flow from the north to the south. The south part has a tighter standard,
meaning lower allowable limits, than the north and central part. They are allowed to contribute, but we end up
having to treat and bite the bullet on the issues because a lot of it does flow
south and come into our areas.
The other issues which come into
play are fertilizer from homes and the special districts perspective is we have
no control of the sale or control of what fertilizers people use on their lawns
or anything else, but yet it ends up in a waterway that we are now responsible
for. There are a number of issues with
this, coupled with the fact that our systems were designed for flood control
not nitrogen and mogul. As one engineer
put it, in order to do one of them they would have to take a an area east of
I-95, about a half a mile wide and six miles long, to have enough retention
area to do one district’s removal or lowering of the nitrogen to allow it to
come out of the water. Space, how to do
it and technical expertise are difficult.
In our situation it does not become an issue until it leaves us; it goes
into the canals, it goes into the drainage and it goes out to a tide. That only occurs when we are under a heavy
rain situation and how do you treat, if you have all four pumps going, 200,000
gallons a minute.
Mr. Fennell stated I think those are
two additional issues. One is how to
even fix it if you knew what it was. The
other question beyond that is; why is it harmful? I am not sure that someone just throwing out
a specification will necessarily…at this point now what we know is we do not
even know of any particular issues here with nitrogen levels. Have there been actual studies done on what
the maximum levels are which can be tolerated?
Mr. Cassel responded my
understanding from the EPA, DEP and the environmentalists is the issue becomes
where we flow into C-14 and into the Hillsborough inlet where it goes to the
tide, the potential damage of the bended communities along the coast, etcetera,
and the degradation of that.
Mr. Fennell asked someone has tied
that to nitrogen content?
Mr. Cassel responded yes; nitrogen
and phosphates.
Mr. Daly asked what is their
suggestion for remedy? Filter it? There have to be a couple of remedies out
there.
Mr. Cassel responded from the
information I have seen the EPA has not come up with a remedy per se or
specified a remedy. It is; here are our
criteria. This is also part of the
lawsuit EPA was enjoined in, in the State of Florida. DEP, because we were a descriptive stormwater
quality issue on secondary, they wanted a numeric value.
Mr. Fennell stated I like that and I
think we are getting a good description of where we are at.
B. Attorney
Mr. Lyles stated I have a couple of
things. You asked last month that I
investigate the District’s ability to buy a portion of its own outstanding
bonds. I talked to bond counsel, Ms.
Ganz, about this matter. She, in turn,
needed to go to their tax partner to get ramifications of it. The bottom line is unfortunately Federal Tax
Law would prohibit such a transaction.
Once the District, which is the issuer, obtains title to what are now
the bonds out in the investment world it affects a merger back into the District
so they are deemed at that point retired.
They are cancelled. There is no
more interest to be paid. When the bonds
come back to the District they are no longer issued. There is no longer an amortization schedule
or an interest component so we would hold the bonds, but there would be no
interest in the transaction that was hypothetically discussed.
Mr. Fennell stated okay.
Mr. Lyles stated if you think about
it for a second it makes sense that the Federal Government would not let people
issue bonds, then own the bonds and pay itself interest it raises from its own
taxpayers.
Mr. Fennell stated I actually see it
all of the time in the Federal Government when one agency owns the bonds of
another.
Mr. Lyles stated I do not have an
actual example to give you, but I did get an opinion from bond counsel and from
their tax counsel.
Mr. Fennell stated which is
essentially to retire them.
Mr. Lyles stated they would retire
the bonds.
Mr. Fennell stated so if we did
that, so what.
Mr. Lyles stated when you asked me
the question I said you could redeem the bonds and buy the debt down. You always have that power. The issue was whether we could pay the
interest to ourselves and that is what we cannot do. We can certainly go through a process called
early redemption in which case we buy back the debt and we wipe it out because
we do not need that debt outstanding. I
think in some instances what we are talking about is we have issued the debt
and we do not need it yet, but we are going to for a capital project and we
happen to have at this moment in time a bit of operating revenue that we do not
have committed to an operating expenditure.
The time is going to come through this construction process where the
capital costs require the construction account to fund it. It might or it might not work. It is always possible, and it does occur,
where special districts, cities or counties issue too many bonds, the bids come
in and the project gets done for less.
So do you leave the bond outstanding for 20 or 30 years? No. You
buy it back. You pay it down to what you
actually need to spend on the project.
Mr. Fennell asked do we have non
recallable bonds or non recallable to a certain date?
Mr. Lyles responded there is an
annual.
Mr. Fennell stated there is a way we
can actually force the bond back.
Mr. Lyles stated yes.
Mr. Fennell stated the second way
would be to go into the open bond market and buy them. So we could do that.
Mr. Lyles stated yes.
Mr. Fennell stated why would one do
that. We are paying 5% or 6% interest on
these things.
Ms. Woodward stated my issue on this
is I believe what we have been looking at is the item which has been considered
to be unrestrictive net assets and the assumption is that large number is
uncommitted for future needs. The truth
is that number, which is approximately $8.7 Million right now, 80% of that is
already committed for future use.
Mr. Fennell stated I was hoping we
could bring them back in and then have them go out again when we need it
to. It would be nice to be able to issue
bonds every week like the Federal Government if we needed to, but we obviously
do that about every ten years and then in a lump sum.
Mr. Lyles stated or in our case 30
years.
Mr. Fennell stated so we cannot just
bring them back and resell them, but we could bring them back if I really
thought I had money I was never going to use.
Mr. Lyles stated that is called
early redemption.
Mr. Fennell stated we found another
option.
Mr. Lyles stated the down side is if
you determine that you do need some additional capital, there is a cost
associated with reissuing the bonds and you do not know where rates are going
to be when you decide to do that. They are
low right now, but they may not stay that way.
Mr. Fennell stated for some reason,
I do not know why, utility costs still pay very well. The premium may be $102 or $103 for a bond or
something, but they are paying very well as compared to the Federal Bonds. The only reason I can think of for that is
because no one really trusts the local utilities. If you do not know them, I can understand
that. I happen to know this one so I
know we are in good shape. Thank you for
answering that question. I am not sure
what to do with it yet, but there is an option we did not know about.
Mr. Lyles stated it is something to
continue to look at and then run the numbers.
The other thing that came up at last months meeting which I followed up
on is to track and report back on any bills of interest or concern that are
making their way through the process in Tallahassee. We talked about the one with the referendum
requirement for dissolving; not only did we decide it is no harm to us, the
Florida Association of Special Districts is actually supporting that bill. It has not passed. It is still going through the system. They are actually supporting this bill. They think it is a good bill for special
districts.
Another one I think is making its
way through the committee process is Senate Bill 376. It pertains to public notices and advertisements
by local government agencies such as this one.
If passed, it will allow us to use a publicly accessible website run by
the District to meet requirements of law for publishing notices and
advertisements; bidding, meeting notices, public hearings and other
things. It will be optional, not
mandatory, but it will reduce the expense and complexity of putting everything
in the newspaper that comes along.
Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like we
should start doing that.
Mr. Lyles stated it has not passed.
Mr. Fennell stated yes, it has not
passed. It is not a bad thing to do, but
I do not know there are actually many people coming into our website.
Mr. Hanks stated you would be
surprised at who would take a look at it.
Mr. Fennell stated if it passed, you
are right. Someone could use the right
software program and would probably do a computer search all of the time.
Mr. Daly stated well even on Google
Search you could put down bids in Coral Springs or Broward County and it would
come up.
Mr. Hanks stated Ms. Early, your
company looks all the time or you have people full-time looking for work,
looking at the City of Lighthouse Point, etcetera, to see what comes up.
Ms. Zich stated that sounds like a
good idea.
Mr. Fennell stated I do not see any
harm in that one at all. It is a good
thing.
Mr. Lyles stated I think it is a
good thing. It gives us an efficient and
inexpensive tool because we are probably at the very bottom of the barrel in
terms of state and local agencies in this whole state with cumbersome,
burdensome and expensive notice requirements for things we do. It would relieve us a bit of that
burden. The last thing I want to tell
the Board about is something called House Joint Resolution 493, which is a bill
that would amend the state constitution.
If passed at a referendum in the fall, it would require any special
district or government body that has the power, not that it does, but it has
the power in its authorizing document, its charter, or in our case our special
act, to impose a millage rate or levy ad valorem taxes. We do have that power. We have never done so, but we do have that
power. If this constitutional amendment
passes, it would require that members of this Board be elected in a popular
election by the electors and not by a vote of the landowners.
Mr. Fennell stated wow.
Ms. Zich stated that would be a big
one.
Mr. Lyles stated it has a phase in
schedule. Obviously people cannot just
change the way they do things over night, but right now it is only scheduled to
be January 1, 2013, which is not that far away.
First of all it has to pass the legislature. Strangely enough the Florida Association of
Special Districts is merely monitoring this bill. It is not opposed to it. It is monitoring it so it is not actively
opposed to it. It is one of those things
which would probably be difficult to go to Tallahassee and oppose; popular
elections in an election year. It has to
pass the legislature and then it has to be on a referendum on the ballot in
November. The voters have to pass it,
but I think you can expect they will. The
schedule of phasing then begins.
I believe in our case, if for
instance the Board decided that going through the expense and trouble of doing
this on a mandated basis as opposed to voluntarily doing it, which this Board
has been on record for a number of years as supporting, it would be as easy as
amending our special act to take out the ad valorem taxation power. It is a power you have never used in the
history of this District. You would
still levy assessments the way you do and you can issue bonds. If you did not have the power to actually
levy a property tax, you would not be subject to the constitutional amendment. So this is something we have to discuss
further before we actually get to the point of actually doing something.
Mr. Fennell asked what about the
general fund where we do tax everybody?
Mr. Lyles responded you do not.
Mr. Cassel stated it is not a tax,
it is an assessment.
Mr. Lyles stated it is not
millage. This is what I am saying. Since you do not and have not ever done it,
it seems silly to have us brought within the sweep of this enactment because of
a power that is technically in our special act, but one you have never chosen
to exercise.
Mr. Fennell stated since we are a
built out District this is really not an issue for us. The only reason we really have not done that
is because it was going to cost us a lot of money to. We actively tried to get bills passed and
they got vetoed by the Governor. I can see
where this can be a real issue for developers because essentially developers
control the districts because they own the land, but they usually put their
land up as collateral to the district.
Mr. Lyles stated it would have a
sweeping and dramatic affect on the 550 plus Chapter 190 CDDs in the State of
Florida. A lot of those are already run
by popular elected boards. They have a
transition statutorily imposed on them, but for the first six years it is a
landowner election. That would no longer
be permitted under this constitutional amendment. It would be an unconstitutional statute
because they also technically have the authority, under certain circumstances,
to levy a property tax. I have never
heard of a Chapter 190 CDD doing that, but because they have that power they
would fall under this enactment.
Mr. Fennell stated any land
developer would be adamantly opposed to this.
Mr. Lyles stated well their
situation is somewhat weakened right now.
They are not developing right now in the whole State of Florida with a
couple of really minor exceptions. It
may be seen as an opportunity to change something, but the fact of the matter
is how do you really get a district set up and under way without the ability. They may carve out some kind of an exception
by the time they get the whole thing implemented.
Mr. Fennell stated it is a gigantic
change for the way Florida develops.
Mr. Lyles stated they can amend
Chapter 190, which is the 800 pound gorilla when it comes to new developments
because nobody goes through the trouble to set up a discreet special custom
district like this one is anymore. This
would be a Chapter 190 CDD if somebody were to do it today. The authorizing legislation for a CDD could
provide that during the transition from raw land to popularly elected boards,
that six year period, the board would have no power to levy taxes. They could only levy assessments. There are ways they can get around it, but it
is a big idea and a big change. It is
not one I think would be easy to stand up and oppose. Again, the Florida Association of Special
Districts does not oppose it. They are
monitoring it. Even they are the group
that, by far, represents the largest number of districts with landowner votes
and landowner elections. Their core
constituents are that type of district and they are not opposing this bill.
Mr. Fennell stated I do not know how
Florida would actually react. Counties
and cities would have to actually step up and do real development or not do it
and then it does not get done. That
would stop development. Does the person
who wrote this really understand the implications? Maybe he does.
Mr. Lyles responded the
representative who has filed this bill is Representative Domino and I do not
know that name. I cannot give you any
information about the sponsor.
Mr. Fennell stated thank you very
much.
C. Engineer
·
Revised Work
Authorization for Reuse Feasibility Study
Mr.
Cassel stated we had initially authorized Work Authorization 56 several months
ago when we were doing the matching funds for grants. We continued to look into that work
authorization and decided the scope of that work authorization exceeded where
we needed to go. It could possibly put
us into an area where we did not want to go as far as reuse. It could box us into a corner. I went back to CH2M Hill and with Ms. Early
and Mr. Morales we reworked the scope.
What you have before you is a revision which decreases the work
authorization from what I believe was originally $83,000 down to $53,000. We cut out a lot of the design. It had to do with the preliminary design of a
reuse facility here for .8 MGD.
Ms. Early stated yes, onsite.
Mr. Cassel stated through
discussions at this point in time based upon our process of water reuse permits
and other permits, we believe it is probably not a good thing to put us in that
box to potentially commit ourselves to building a reuse plant here with
potentially no customers or usage for it.
This is where we stripped it out.
This revised work authorization will also be part of this feasibility
study that ends up getting submitted with our permit renewal for the wastewater
treatment plant. We have to update it
for that as well. It will take care of
two items.
Mr. Fennell asked does this talk
about reusing the canal water?
Mr. Cassel responded no. This is strictly wastewater effluent
reuse.
Mr. Fennell stated that is a small
part considering the amount of water that we actually pump out of the canals,
including the C-14, and dump in the oceans.
If we really want to conserve water, would we not figure out how to use
the canal water?
Mr. Cassel responded as I understand
it the canal water is considered the surficial aquifer, which you are only
permitted to pull a certain amount out of already. Anything that would come out of the canals
would also be out of the upper aquifer, which you would be prohibited from
using anyway.
Mr. Fennell stated but every year we
have more water fall on us than we can actually use. We dump a bunch of it out in the C-14 canal
and it goes out. Would the smarter thing
be to figure out how to use that C-14 water instead of dumping it in the ocean?
Mr. Hanks responded yes, but we are
talking about government here.
Mr. Cassel stated you are also
talking about peak cycles. If I remember
correctly Mr. Bulman, they a project in Dade County where they were doing two
things, probably 15 years ago; one was they were pumping to the Everglades and
then back pumping. They had issues with
that for phosphorous and then there was another issue where they were going to
do deep well injection into a dome and then pull it back for storage and
recovery.
Mr. Hanks stated there are
environmental issues associated with that.
Mr. Fennell asked is the canal water
cleaner than our wastewater?
Mr. Bulman responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated I remember at one
time billions of gallons of water went out to the tide and at most we are
talking about 100 Million gallons a year here.
It does not make sense that we are not figuring out ways to use perfectly
good water and trying to figure out ways to use bad water.
Mr. Bulman stated even when we were
doing our groundwater modeling the Hillsborough Canal, C-14 and the L-36 are
all considered an impact to a regional water body. That is part of your impact for the overall
environment; even though the canal was discharging billions of gallons a day to
tide.
Mr. Johnson stated from a treatment
standpoint, treatment water is going to depend on what your end use is. If you are looking at an end use of that
being potable drinking water, the treatment requirements for that are
significantly higher than what they are for lime softening and rain
treatment. So pulling it out of the
ground and treating it that way is going to be a lot easier. The other issue is you have a lot of stuff in
that canal, if you were using it for potable water, which include runoff of
fertilizers, pesticides and other constituents you would not want to be
bringing into a potable scenario. If you
are talking from a non potable reuse standpoint, treating the wastewater here
is going to be easier than treating the canal water.
Mr. Fennell stated I hear you, but
as far as I can see almost every person who lives on a canal is doing reuse.
Mr. Johnson stated sure, if you have
a reuse distribution system.
Mr. Fennell stated I believe they
are just pumping it from the canal and putting it in their lawns. It is working. What is your recommendation? Why do we have to do this thing?
Mr. Cassel responded my
recommendation is that it takes out approximately $30,000 out of the work
authorization and reduces the work authorization from $83,000 to $53,000.
Mr. Fennell asked did we have a
previous authorization that we previously authorized?
Mr. Cassel responded yes.
Mr. Fennell asked are we authorizing
to spend less?
Mr. Cassel responded yes.
Ms. Zich stated $30,000 less.
Mr. Cassel stated and it is still
part of the grant system 50/50 with the county for this. My understanding is we were to be approved
last week with the county board on that grant.
I have not heard that we have not been approved so my assumption is we
have. We will need to go back and notify
them that instead of needing the higher amount we will need less money.
Mr. Hanks asked is the scope we are
representing here compatible with the grant application scope we presented?
Mr. Cassel responded yes. The one modification is the preliminary
design for the onsite reuse facility.
Mr. Hanks stated okay and this is
why we have item 11.13. Is that in
here? There is reference here that any
amendment or modification to the executed Interlocal Agreement shall be in
writing.
Mr. Cassel responded that is right.
Mr. Hanks asked is that being
covered within this work order?
Mr. Cassel responded yes. We are going to go back to it.
Mr. Fennell asked is there a motion?
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr.
Fennell with all in favor the Work Authorization 56A, amendment to development
of reuse feasibility study, was approved.
·
Project Status
Report
Mr. Fennell I asked for this to be a
little easier to read. To be honest I am
still having difficulties understanding it; even though there is a lot of
detail. I still cannot see the forest
through the branches. Do you have an
executive summary schedule?
Mr. Cassel responded this is the
full detail. Mr. Johnson, can we get it
rolled up into a milestone report?
Mr. Fennell responded yes. I had a hard time understanding it. It is kind of like looking up a forest and
counting the leaves. I want to make sure
the forest is still there. It is okay to
have this, but I would like to have something that tells me…
Ms. Zich stated the bottom line.
Mr. Fennell stated yes. Are we one week behind, two weeks behind or
three weeks behind?
Mr. Hanks asked what do we need to take
away from this wonderful back up material we have? I apologize, but my patience is not
sufficient to dive through all of this and digest it.
Mr. Johnson responded that schedule
is the contractor’s schedule. What you
probably need to take away from it is that CH2M Hill has a difficult time believing
that schedule is correct and they have an on time finish.
Mr. Cassel asked which line item
would show that on time finish?
Mr. Johnson responded whatever the
last thing on the schedule is. I think
they are showing a January 2011 finish.
Our biggest concern we are looking at is that there are a lot of
concurrent tasks which will be happening going forward; mainly when we get to
August, September and October where you would have a lot of people working in a
confined space around each other. The
walls are going up in the membrane building.
You have a lot of people working on different components of the same
system; electric, IC, HDAC, Building Services and what have you.
Mr. Hanks asked are you saying you
have some concerns that the electrician is going to be trying to water the
pumps while the plumber is trying to hook them up?
Mr. Johnson responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated it is good to
know somebody has these schedules. Are
you saying these came from the contractor?
Mr. Johnson responded yes,
Intrastate.
Mr. Fennell asked did they look at
them?
Mr. Johnson responded I cannot speak
for Intrastate.
Mr. Fennell stated okay. We need a summary of this so we can
understand it. I still do not know if I
came away understanding. How many weeks
are we behind now?
Mr. Hanks responded it does not
matter how many weeks we are behind now.
It only matters how many weeks we are behind at the end.
Mr. Johnson stated the substantial
completion on Wastewater Plant F was April 3, 2010. That was when it was supposed to be. We are now at a substantial completion date
of plus ten calendar days.
Mr. Cassel stated as of today.
Ms. Zich stated and we know there
are a lot of issues out there.
Mr. Fennell stated during our tour a
lot of issues came up regarding several different items. I guess, from our manager here, we need to
have you report back to us next time because I did not walk out of there with
great feelings. I saw two or three
issues I think are substantial. One was
a question of the welding. There was a
question of the thickness of the material.
Unfortunately when I ask our own engineering group what they think is a
sound design, they tell me it is not their job to know whether or not it is a
sound design. They just write the
specifications for what it should be. So
I do not really have an answer that says this is a sound design.
Mr. Cassel stated as I stated before, this is one of the reasons why we are
having a meeting after this meeting to go through those issues to make sure the
District is receiving or will receive what it contracted for through this whole
process.
Mr. Fennell stated in walking out of
there with concerns, I do not know how severe this problem is.
Ms. Zich stated I did not feel very confident
out there either; especially knowing it was supposed to be done on April 3,
2010.
Mr. Johnson stated substantial
completion means you have beneficial use of the…
Ms. Zich asked beneficial use?
Mr. Johnson responded substantial
completion should mean they have water flowing through that treatment system,
it is treating the water correctly and all there is left to do are going to be
punch list items.
Ms. Zich asked when will we be able
to use it?
Mr. Johnson responded I cannot give
you an answer on that.
Mr. Fennell asked how much money do
we still have to pay on this?
Mr. Johnson responded we have
retainage on it and we also discussed the next steps if we need to hold money
back because of uncovering defective work.
Ms. Zich stated I am disappointed
with the welding. I would think anyone
who knew what they were doing would know that is not acceptable.
Mr. Johnson stated it is one of
those things where the contractor is supposed to provide the welding and the
QAPC procedures. The codes specifically
call for testing, which as we are finding out with the testing we keep
requesting it in writing and they have not come forth with testing results. We will discuss this after the meeting today.
Mr. Fennell asked is there anything
else?
Ms. Early responded yes. I believe Mr. Bulman wanted to give an update
on the wells.
Ms. Zich asked are we totally done?
Mr. Bulman responded no. There lies one issue. The schedule has been slipping. The quality has not been compromised. Their original completion date was
October. That was delayed to November
25, 2010 as a result of the dropped tubing which occurred last summer. We are now in the middle of April and if you
can look outside when you walk out there, they have the sod down. They are doing site restoration and punch
list items. As of this morning the
contractor anticipates being completely done the first week of May; including
the installation of our submersible pump for the monitoring well. That places them about six months out on the
revised estimate. In terms of the
product you are getting it is excellent.
All of the work which has been done has been specified and observed by
us. DEP has so far been clear in
accepting everything which has been done.
There were a couple of issues on the plug and abandonment of the
monitoring well. They were done in
accordance with the permit. So it is
done now. There were some delays by DEP
which probably amount to a month and a half of review time on their part. It still does not get you back to the six
months. Other issues were the linearity
of the way the work progresses as opposed to doing things in parallel.
Mr. Fennell asked did anyone find
out what the flow restrictions were?
Mr. Bulman responded as a part of
the current project we have to do an operations and maintenance with a higher
injection system. What we have done in
the past couple of weeks has been pretty interesting and difficult at the same
time; going through District archive records, trying to find out exactly where
the piping is. In fact we had help from
some staff members who were going up there and using some piping locators so we
could truly monitor that system.
Mr. Hanks stated we have a bunch of
surveyors who are pre-qualified. Have we
been making use of them to help map this out so we know in the future or is
that something that you do not think is needed?
Mr. Bulman responded I do not think
we used a surveyor; just a District staff member.
Mr. Hanks stated what I am saying is
so we can have an accurate record of where things are.
Mr. Bulman stated what we are going
to produce from this, because we are not licensed surveyors and we did not
locate them, we just measured off existing survey locations, what we provide
will have to be labeled schematic. I
think it is a good idea for the District to have something done by a licensed
surveyor.
Mr. Cassel stated at the same time
we will at least have it on written documents what pipe is there or within a
couple of feet of where it should be versus what we have now.
Mr. Hanks stated we want to know
where it is within a couple of feet and not whether it is on this side or that
side of the tank.
Mr. Cassel stated right. I think that is the point we are going to be
at when we are finished. I am not sure
whether we need a surveyor to survey it in, go with depths and everything
else. As we do projects we might do a
section of pipes, but at least we know where the pipes are or how many pipes
are potentially in that location.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of March Financials and Check Registers
·
Summary of Cash
Transactions
·
Projected Cash
Flows
Mr. Bloom stated at our last meeting
we started talking about the emergency CDs we had. We had five of them we started out with. Out of the five only one is still
invested. The other four are either in
money market accounts in the same bank or the money has been returned to
Wachovia. The first decision we needed
was whether the Board wanted us to reinvest all five of those emergency CDs regardless
of those poor rates.
Mr. Fennell asked what was the
second option you had?
Mr. Bloom responded the second
option was related more to some of the other excess money. For some of the additional money we had
talked about CDARS, which had some better rates at the time. That has changed since the last meeting. That is the bad news. The rate has gone down. We have contacted Bank United, which has a
local branch here, and they are willing to offer a money market account for
1.35%. This is better than what we were
seeing in the CDARS. This would allow
you to withdraw money, I believe it is six withdrawals a month, and gives you
the same protection you have with Wachovia.
That is the best rate option I can provide you with right now. CDARS are still available, but unfortunately
the rates are still going in the wrong direction.
Ms. Zich asked what rate do we get
for the money market account with Wachovia?
Mr. Bloom responded you are getting
less that .5% right now. You would be
able to move some of that money into a money market account with the same
access as you have with Wachovia, the same protection and will give you the
same interest you are going to get with a CD, and with a CD you have it tied up
for 12 months.
Mr. Cassel stated I think you also
need to point out the issue which has been occurring as we have been moving
dollars to different banks.
Mr. Bloom stated yes. Every bank has their asset level they want to
have when it comes to these deposits.
What we are seeing is some of the banks are saying they do not want any more
deposits. This is why we are constantly
reaching out to different banks. As you
can see with Wachovia, SunTrust and Bank of America, the larger banks, their
rates are close to zero now because they are not interested. Some of the smaller community banks have the
better rates because they are looking at some of the deposits and that is their
incentive to get in some more deposits.
With some of these smaller banks, when they have reached their
saturation point, they kind of cut you off at that point too.
Mr. Fennell asked what do you
recommend Ms. Woodward?
Ms. Woodward responded I would like
to know if Bank United has a minimum requirement for a minimal deposit.
Mr. Bloom stated they request you
open up a checking account. It is a free
checking account. You put in a small
amount like $1,000. We are still working
with Bank United to maybe get some longer term CDs that are breakable. If we can get a stronger relationship with
them, it might be something we can work on.
This is something I wanted to present and see if it would maybe clarify
things a bit.
Ms. Woodward stated in the water and
sewer fund, in these undesignated funds which have been committed for future
use, some of these future uses are spread over the next four years with the
increase in principal that is coming up on our bonds. We are talking about $4 Million we cannot
spend any other way that we could potentially put in there with no trouble and
earn just 1.35%.
Mr. Bloom stated if there is
something you do not believe you will be spending for two years or three years,
we can look into longer term CDs. Most
districts do not because their cash flow is much tighter, but I can see if I
can bring back some longer term CDs for some of that.
Ms. Zich stated these rates were so
low there is no point in tying up the money if you can get it for 1.35%.
Mr. Bloom stated exactly, but if you
can get something for two and three years, my suggestion is you put some of it
into this money market account. You can
always pull it out if you wanted to do something else.
Ms. Zich stated it is liquid, which
is great and we can earn more interest.
Mr. Bloom stated it is not as liquid
as a checking account.
Ms. Zich stated but we are not going
to use it as a checking account. Ms.
Woodward would be taking it out, maybe, once a month, if that much.
Mr. Fennell stated so let us make a
motion to do it.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr.
Hanks with all in favor the Board authorized Mr. Bloom to check into Bank
United and if the District can obtain 1.35% to move some funds to be determined
by Ms. Woodward into a money market account with Bank United.
Mr. Bloom asked with regard to the
five emergency CDs, do you want me to invest them into the five local banks?
Mr. Fennell responded talk with Ms.
Woodward. If this money is going to go
into the money market account, then at that point if we have a certain amount
of money you say is two years out or four years out, then at that point we look
for CD rates, but they are going to have to be in the 2.5% or 3% in order to be
worthwhile of doing.
Ms. Zich stated but he said they
dropped and they were less than that last month.
Mr. Fennell stated even so there are
at least two year T-Bills that probably have at least 2%.
Mr. Bloom stated I am seeing that a
one year T-Bill right now is .3% or .4%.
Mr. Fennell stated that is one year.
Mr. Bloom stated two year is
better.
Mr. Fennell stated there is a three
year too.
Mr. Bloom stated there is a three
treasury note. We can look into that.
Mr. Fennell stated we can buy
T-Bills if it is two or three years out.
Ms. Woodward stated part of the
concern on that is our discussion right now is centering on interest rate. The purpose of putting this money aside was
not for the interest rate. It was for
the safety of working capital should there be a leveling of this campus during
a storm. We would want to be in a
position to basically locally go out and secure cash to run this District for a
two month period for both the general fund as well as the water and sewer fund
if something catastrophic happened. The
initial concern on those five CDs, which were $1.25 Million total, was strictly
for operating cash. We were willing to
at least entertain a slightly lower interest rate in order to have a safe and
secure piggy bank we could access immediately should the need arise.
Mr. Bloom stated if we have the
money market account, which can be counted as one of the CDs. Then First Southern still has a good rate,
which would be two. Really what you are
deciding on is whether you want the other three to still be CDs for the
emergency or do you want to pull them back and put them into a money market.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the rate?
Ms. Zich responded the rates were
terrible.
Mr. Bloom stated one of the banks
was .18%, but again, it was not about the rate.
It was about having somebody within a driving distance where you could
pull that CD out and have it available in the case of an emergency.
Mr. Hanks asked what were the
amounts we were talking about Mr. Bloom?
Mr. Bloom responded right now we are
talking about $750,000 from three CDs.
Mr. Hanks stated so a portion of
these things were not being covered by FDIC anyways.
Mr. Bloom stated they were being
covered by the Florida Collateral Pool. That
is what happens. Anything over $250,000
gets fully covered by the Florida Collateral Pool.
Mr. Hanks asked are we taking a risk
by putting it into a local money market as opposed to having it from the other
bank?
Mr. Bloom responded you are not
changing the risk; however, if something were to happen to Bank ‘X’ you could
go over to Bank ‘Z’ and that bank should have no problems.
Mr. Fennell asked so what is the
question to us?
Mr. Bloom asked do you want to still
have those three CDs, up to five, so five separate banks that you would have
cash available locally?
Mr. Fennell asked what do you
recommend?
Ms. Woodward responded I recommend
we do it, but we also have one other thing we could consider on this, which is
the likelihood of us actually needing this is pretty slim. As a result of this I do not have any problem
in setting this up in a two or three year CD if you can get a more beneficial
rate because on the off chance that you ever needed it we would be willing to
give up and forego some of the interest we would have earned in order to have
access to those funds.
Mr. Hanks stated and honestly if you
have a catastrophic failure like a hurricane which wipes out this plant, you
are going to be seeing a Federal disaster area and there will be other
opportunities for loans or whatever to help get us back on our feet.
Mr. Fennell stated it seems like the
input is come back next time. Look at
two or three different options; whether they be CDs, T-Bills or whatever it is
and give us a comparison.
Mr. Cassel asked do you want to drag
it out for another month or do you want to put forth parameters and say if it
is within this set of parameters, let us get it in there.
Ms. Zich stated let us set parameters. You guys know now what we want.
Mr. Fennell asked so what are you
thinking?
Mr. Cassel responded direction from
the Board to get the money invested into the different banks within the
parameters discussed.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr.
Hanks with all in favor the Board authorized District staff to invest funds
within the parameters discussed.
Mr.
Fennell stated we are basically trusting you, Ms. Woodward and Mr. Cassel to
make the best decision.
Mr. Cassel stated we will report back
with where they are.
Mr. Fennell stated I think the
economy is in better shape than it was six months or a year ago. We are not out of it yet. There are still 10 Million people out of work;
however, I think the banks are sound now and I do not think they are going to
let them fail. A year and a half ago
that was not true. Banks were failing,
but I think we are in much better shape now.
Okay, check registers. Does
anybody want go through this?
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Fennell
with all in favor the check registers and financials for March were
approved.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There being no further business,
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr.
Hanks with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.
Glen Hanks Robert
D. Fennell
Secretary
President