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, November
15, 2010 at 3:07 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
Randy Frederick Drainage
Supervisor
Kay Woodward District Accountant
David Macintosh Wastewater
Department
Ed Stover Water Department
Gerrit Bulman CH2M Hill
Jim Ravenue CH2M Hill
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 October 25, 2010
Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each
Board member received a copy of the minutes of the October 25, 2010 meeting and
requested any corrections, additions or deletions.
Mr. Hanks stated on page 20 it says
‘affluent’ well. It should be
‘effluent’. We also have “lime ponds”
and un-lime ponds” on page 21.
Mr. Bulman stated it should be
corrected to lined and unlined.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the minutes of
the October 25, 2010 meeting were approved as amended.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’ Requests and Audience Comments
Mr. Fennell asked are we going to have
somebody else give us a status?
Mr. Cassel asked on the construction
status?
Mr. Fennell responded yes. Mr. Cassel stated I will bring you up to date
on that. We had a meeting last Thursday
with the Lanzo representatives, the representative from the bonding company for
Intrastate, CH2M Hill and I were at the meeting discussing the issues with
Plant F. We walked the site and looked
at the conditions and the issues. In the
paperwork situation they ask for an executive decision. The meeting we held last Thursday was the
first part of it. We agreed to meet
again on December 3, 2010 at which time the bonding company is supposed to be
coming back on or before December 3, 2010 with a solution to the weld issues
and the other issues which have been brought up with the air piping and
etcetera.
Mr. Fennell asked who is this
gentlemen?
Mr. Ravenue responded I am Jim
Ravenue from CH2M Hill. Mr. Johnson
asked me to come here today. He could
not make it so I am filling in for him today.
Mr. Hanks asked you are filling in
for Mr. Johnson?
Mr. Ravenue responded I am filling
his position in here for the meeting if anything needs to be addressed.
Ms. Zich asked have you been working
here?
Mr. Ravenue responded yes. I have been associated with the project since
the inception of it. I have been onsite
once every two weeks on an average over this past year.
Mr. Cassel stated Mr. Ravenue has
been in the loop with all of the issues.
Mr. Fennell stated as I gathered;
there was a thought they might be able to fix the well. Did that come out in the meeting?
Mr. Cassel responded their initial
response was they think they can fix the wells.
Mr. Ravenue stated it was our
contention all along that it cannot be, but we are willing to entertain
anything they come up with. In our last
correspondence we asked them to give their final recommendation on how they are
going to repair this or address this issue.
With The Hartford coming on Board and with Lanzo stepping in a more
prominent role, we agreed at the meeting last Thursday to give them an
additional timeframe for The Hartford and Lanzo to prepare their response or
their rebuttal. That is where we are
now. We have given them additional time
to see how their bonding company and Lanzo are going to address this issue and
we are going to take it back up on December 3, 2010.
Ms. Zich asked what about the
thickness of the steel?
Mr. Ravenue responded that is pretty
much the main item discussed with Lanzo and the bonding company. If the thickness of the steel, which we
contend, is inferior, then they have to take it out. That is where the bonding company obviously
is getting involved. Obviously it boils
down to dollars.
Mr. Fennell stated but there is also
the issue of not just the thickness, but the grade of steel. Is that right?
Mr. Ravenue responded no. The grade of steel is what they brought
up. They are bringing up this new item
on a different grade of steel. The
tensile strength of it is more superior to what was specified and what we
thought we had. In our opinion it does
not really matter because it boils down to the weakest link, which is the
weld. If you have an inferior weld; yes
you can go out and cut all of those welds out and reuse the steel which is
there, but it gets to how are you going to cut the weld out, what damage are
you going to do to the steel which is there by heating it, cooling it and
cutting it and also we have a code issue that says in black and white the
minimum size is 5/16 inch.
Ms. Zich asked and is this ¼ inch, correct?
Mr. Ravenue responded yes. We are offering them the opportunity to
respond since Lanzo has taken a more prominent role and The Hartford is
involved. Short of encasing it in 12
inches of concrete or coming up with some wild idea like that, our contention
is it needs to be taken down. We will
see what they come back with.
Mr. Hanks stated so CH2M Hill has
been through the design procedure the tank designers have referenced in their
calculations. Is it the professional
engineering opinion of CH2M Hill that the thickness is not meeting the
requirements of the code as specified?
Mr. Ravenue responded yes. That has been our position all along from day
one.
Ms. Zich stated we need to get
moving on this because it has just been sitting there month after month.
Mr. Ravenue stated we realize that
and I think we brought that up. We
agreed at this meeting we had last Thursday to another seven days for these new
parties to get involved and that we give them an opportunity of seven more days
to come up with something since they were new parties to it. We will see what they come up with.
Mr. Hanks asked do you have it in
your procedures that any solutions presented will be checked versus the
reference and codes, whether it is the LRFD or reliable strength design method,
it will be checked versus that to see that it is compatible?
Mr. Ravenue responded yes. Anything that comes up now we are going to
look at it very closely.
Mr. Hanks asked where do we
stand in terms of the rest of the sewage treatment plant operations without
Plant F being online?
Mr. Macintosh responded we should not
have any issues right now we are entering the dry part of the season. I do not know how long we are looking at with
Plant F, but we have gone through almost a year without Plant F and we have
been able to keep up with the flows.
Mr. Hanks asked are we still meeting
the conditions of the permit in terms of redundancy?
Mr. Macintosh responded yes. We are meeting the conditions of the permit.
Mr.
Hanks asked are we under the permitting capacity by 20% to 30%?
Mr.
Macintosh responded yes.
Mr.
Fennell asked are there any other comments about this?
There
not being any, the next item followed.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
A.
Manager
·
Red Flag
Identity Theft Prevention Program, Resolution 2011-1
Mr. Fennell asked who is putting
forth this resolution?
Mr. Daly responded the Federal
Trade. It is actually something that was
up for two or three years. Each time it
would come up and Congress would vote on it, the parties got together
afterwards and said they could not do this and needed an extension. It has been extended out and right now the
latest target date is December 31, 2010 that everyone is supposed to have
one. It is pretty much free form, free
flowing identity protection for the residents we serve. We map out and put down exactly how we do
things here, what we do not do, who we will notify and etcetera.
Mr. Fennell asked what is our
responsibility?
Mr. Daly responded our
responsibility is to know who is actually living in a home and to know who is
actually paying a bill or calling us.
Mr. Cassel stated also to protect
whatever data we do have about the individual homeowner and to ensure we do not
take false social security numbers and other things like that, as part of our
protecting their identity; being able to verify the person in the home is the
proper homeowner or renter without taking too much information, which can be
used in identity theft.
Mr. Fennell asked how do you know if
someone is not there under a stolen identity?
How do you know if they are who they are?
Mr. Daly responded you do and you do
not. We do not expect them to show up
here because we are closed to the public.
We cannot expect them to show up here when they want to open a new
account, pay the deposit, have all the documentation and paperwork that is
needed for us to know, including IDs. We
cannot do that. What we can do is make
an effort or an attempt to acquire, when they say they are a tenant, a copy of
the lease and then contact the owner of the property to verify it is being
leased to this person. It is kind of a
backdoor effect which is going to cost us a little money as far as man hours
go.
Mr. Fennell asked do we have to
investigate people?
Mr. Daly responded yes; to a degree.
Mr. Fennell asked is this not a
police function?
Mr. Cassel responded a number of
these things we have been doing already.
We do check to see if it is a renter.
We do try to get a confirmation.
Mr. Fennell stated we do that for
our own business.
Mr. Cassel stated that is
correct. This is not requiring us to do
a whole bunch more than what you would do in standard business to make sure you
have the right person paying the bill, that the right person is attached to the
property you are billing as we would normally do in our day to day operations.
Mr. Fennell asked if you find
something is wrong, what are you going to do?
Mr. Daly responded then we contact
the City of Coral Springs Police Department and/or other agencies.
Mr. Lyles stated there is a bit more
to this than informing the resident the proper person. There are some criterion factors that the FTC
has published that we are going to, by this resolution, adopt as our own guidelines,
which sort of give an indication that you might be getting inquiries about
account information from someone other than the true account holder. If those boxes get tipped, then we do not
disclose the information over the phone.
It is a way of not giving information we do have to anyone who asks for
it. We do have that kind of burden, but
it also benefits the public and it puts it a little further out of reach for at
least the casual identity thief who wants to use utility information to get, potentially
a credit card number or social security number.
It should not be involved in our database.
Mr. Daly stated we have never taken
social security numbers.
Mr. Fennell stated I can understand
us keeping information, but it also makes us have to figure out who people are,
do identity checks and then report. If
we find someone, do we report them? Is
that the idea?
Mr. Daly responded pretty much,
yes.
Mr. Lyles stated we make an attempt
to confirm with the proper account holder that something is going on and
confirm their status as well as whether they want the information released or
not. It certainly puts a bigger burden
on the staff here.
Mr. Hanks asked do you have any
concerns about how this is structured?
Mr. Lyles responded I think it is
one of those typical Federal Government programs where they are saying they
insist everybody do this. Yes, I think
we would be better off not doing it than doing it, but I do not think we have
an option.
Mr. Fennell asked what if we decided
not to?
Ms. Zich asked what if we do not
accept the resolution?
Mr. Daly responded we actually wrote
the resolution. It is our own
encumbrance and it is pared down considerably to what other agencies or other
cities are doing.
Mr. Lyles stated Mr. Daly worked a
lot on this with Mr. Pawelczyk at my office and I think it would be fair to say
that you shaped this to a form and a format that I think our staff can handle.
Mr. Daly stated and pretty much is
handling anyway.
Mr. Lyles stated and is doing anyhow
to a certain extent. We did not just
accept this blindly.
Mr. Cassel stated it was not
something where we had to do whatever they said. We customized it to do 99% of what we were
already doing; to check that we do not give out the wrong information about
someone and that we do check that whoever is in the house is the proper person.
Mr. Hanks stated even some of the
things you have listed here such as “limit access to employees with a
legitimate business need.” That makes
common sense. It is a fairly common
sense document. Yes it is a little bit of
“extra work”, but I would hope we were doing this anyway.
Ms. Zich stated that is why I was
wondering why we really needed the resolution.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the
consequence if we vote no?
Mr. Daly responded we would not be
in compliance with the FTC.
Mr. Lyles stated I cannot tell you
whether there is a fine associated with that or not. I did not consider that the Board might not
want to do this so I regret to tell you I do not know what the penalty is if
you vote no. Based on what I received as
input from staff, it is my understanding these are things we are reasonably
doing and can do and it is not a big burden for the District. That was my understanding. I think Mr. Daly is confirming this.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms.
Zich with Mr. Hanks and Ms. Zich voting aye and Mr. Fennell voting nay
Resolution 2011-1, adopting the red flag identity theft prevention program, was
adopted.
Mr. Lyles stated I will have a
report on the penalty for your next meeting.
If there is no penalty, I will advise you of that. You can always rescind a resolution which has
been passed.
·
Discussion and
Action on the Purchase of Hypochlorite Tanks
Mr.
Cassel stated I would like to postpone the discussion on this for a few minutes
because we do not have some of the information with us. In the meantime I would like to bring up a
couple of things. This is a notification
you will be receiving in the mail regarding elevated levels in one of our
testing situations. This is one of the
requirements for compliance. We have to
mail this out to every consumer. If you
look at it, the important part is at the bottom where it says “What is being done.” We have done analysis of sampling, handling
and chain of custody. We looked at some
double blind sampling detections to try to find out why the anomaly
occurred. Five percent of your samples
can fail. We had one more than five
percent fail so it triggered a re-test, which failed. Then the re-test of the re-test passed. So we are not sure whether it was an issue
with the chain of custody.
Mr. Hanks asked how did this fall
relative to the change in laboratories we authorized?
Mr. Daly responded it was after.
Mr. Hanks stated we were with
Spectrum and then we went to somebody else, Xenco. It was after we had changed, but not directly
after.
Mr. Cassel stated not immediately.
Mr. Daly stated the laboratories are
supposed to be pure. We still think it
has to do with the change in custody and not what was coming through people’s
pipes. The problem is this happened in
September and all of a sudden we were contacted by the Department of Health
telling us to put this letter out. They
did not tell us why we had to do it 45 days later when there was no danger;
based on the fact we had subsequent tests which passed. Again, it has to do with bureaucracy and
things are written in stone.
Mr. Fennell asked where were the
samples taken?
Mr. Daly responded we have 45
different samples of places.
Mr. Fennell asked are they out in
the field?
Mr. Daly responded it is always out
in field and persons homes. Suppose a
dog was near the outlet before hand to see.
It is really interesting to see.
Even when you pop the top of it if your finger gets on the cap, it could
have contaminated it.
Mr. Cassel stated if you breathe or
sneeze or anything.
Mr. Fennell asked is this in the
same area?
Mr. Daly responded no. It is throughout the District.
Mr. Cassel stated we had one site
that failed so it caused a re-test. The
re-test failed, but then the re-test of the re-test passed and the subsequent
re-tests passed again. Why did it fail
the two times? No one can really
pinpoint the reason.
Mr. Hanks asked was it the same
location?
Mr. Cassel responded it was the same
location.
Mr. Daly stated we have even gone so
far as to take dual samples for the November testing and send it to both
laboratories so we can compare them side by side. It may cost us more money, but the fact is
our hands are tied. If we think we are
doing everything possibly that is in the right category, yet we are held
accountable to something that happens after it leaves here. I even contacted Xenco to see how much it
would cost for them to do the full chain of custody. They take the samples, transport it, test it
and give us the results. That would be
an additional $23,000 a year.
Mr. Fennell asked was this the same
location each and every time?
Mr. Daly responded I believe it
is. I think one or two they changed
because when trees and shrubs grow up around it and you cannot get to it any
longer, you have to go to a different location.
Mr. Cassel stated on this sample
cycle it was the same location. It you
exceed the five percent you have to do a re-test and then two tests after
that. The first test failed so then we
had to do a re-test and then another test at the same location. The third and fourth tests and I believe the
fifth test at that site, all passed.
Mr. Fennell stated okay, but there
were six failures total from all of those tests.
Mr. Cassel stated we take 45 and we
ended up to 58 because we had to take some re-tests for the ones that
failed. All of the rest of them passed
except for the one site that we had to continue to test, which pushed us over
the thresholds.
Mr. Daly stated Mr. Stover is
here. He is our Chief Operator. At these sites that were tested, where the
failed samples all from the same site?
Mr. Stover responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated this is someone’s
house.
Mr. Stover stated yes, but it is
outside. The taps were outside.
Mr. Fennell asked who takes the
samples?
Mr. Stover responded we do. It is done every month. You have to be in compliance. You have a certain percentage of your
population; ours is five percent. That
is 40 tests we take every month.
Mr. Fennell asked do these people
know we take samples?
Mr. Cassel responded yes. The homeowners know we take samples.
Mr. Hanks stated it is not
unusual. Every so often a utility comes
up with one of these issues.
Mr. Cassel stated occasionally it is
an anomaly you cannot pinpoint.
Mr. Fennell stated I am wondering if
he might have a real problem at his house.
Mr. Cassel stated all of these
samples need to be taken where the water enters the house.
Mr. Stover stated what happens
between the times that my sampler touches it, puts it in the ice and it gets to
the lab, there might be 8 to 15 people who handle it. We were in compliance. We only failed 2 out of 40 so we are in
compliance. When I called to find out
why they are making us do this again if we are in compliance, they told us we
had to re-sample. Four of the six
re-samples were out of compliance. You
have to take upstream and downstream for the two addresses so that is six
samples for those two. That put us over
the five percent. When that happens we
have to get this letter written.
Mr. Fennell asked what else can you
do to look around that area and try to determine what may have caused this?
Mr. Stover responded they are not
ongoing the same. We change them every
year. The addresses are changed every
year.
Mr. Cassel stated but the months
prior to and the months subsequent to the testing issue all passed. We are looking at it as an anomaly on the
samples of that site. Something went on
with the samples at that site. Something
occurred that triggered that particular site.
Mr. Stover stated it really has
nothing to do with what is going on in the area. It has to do with the handling
procedures. Florida Spectrum has a
school. That is how they train. If you get a finger smudge on it, there are
oils. This is why we re-test.
Mr. Hanks stated I would not worry
too much about this. I was doing a job
out by the Coral Springs Medical Center.
The background samples failed and the line it was in passed, but the
Health Department was giving us grief about the background. We re-tested it several times and at the end
it was a problem with the laboratory.
Just keep an eye on it.
Mr. Fennell stated it does say there
was a problem. I thought it was in the
water or in the laboratory, but with that many things, there was a problem.
Mr. Cassel stated this is why we
took the actions we did; to try to figure out and minimize.
Ms. Zich stated they keep re-testing
so they would catch it if it was happening again.
Mr. Fennell asked is it the same
location?
Mr. Stover responded yes. We do the upstream and the downstream.
Mr. Fennell stated okay; discussion
and action on the purchase of hypochlorite tanks. I think you showed us something. There was something about the connections
were such that they deteriorated or something.
Mr. Cassel stated we initially went
out to get some quotes for repairs and replacement of the tanks. It exceeded our threshold so we went out to
bid. We had two people show up for the
mandatory pre-bid meeting at which time one of the individuals walked out of
the pre-bid meeting and we only had one individual stay and one bid come in. We had anticipated that some of the prior
accounts’ cost estimates were about $30,000 to replace the tank, but it did not
include removal and disposal of the existing tanks. The bid that we received includes not only
supplying the tanks, installing the tanks, but removal and disposition of the
new tanks. That bid came in at $55,706.
Mr. Fennell asked is it for both
tanks?
Mr. Cassel responded all three tanks.
Ms. Zich asked can we do it with
just one bid?
Mr. Lyles responded yes. If the process was followed, published two
times as specified in your special act and only one bidder shows up, then you
can accept the single bid or negotiate with the bidder if appropriate. If you only have one, it actually gives you
more flexibility then if you have several.
Ms. Zich asked is $55,000
reasonable? You said it was $30,000.
Mr. Cassel responded it was about
$30,000 on several of these.
Mr. Stover stated some of these
initial quotes were just for the tanks themselves. There are different applications you need to
apply to them for them to work properly.
Mr. Hanks asked refresh my memory;
are these sodium liquid chlorine tanks?
Mr. Stover responded that is
correct.
Mr. Hanks asked when were these
installed?
Mr. Cassel responded 10 years ago.
Mr. Hanks asked has it been that
long?
Mr. Cassel responded yes.
Mr. Hanks stated I remember the
discussion about getting rid of gaseous chlorine that we had onsite. We were trying to get rid of it along with
the sodium hypochlorite.
Mr. Cassel stated according to the
records it was replaced in 2000-2001.
Mr. Daly stated it could have
happened in 2001, but it was probably completed in 2002 or 2003 like most of the
projects in here.
Mr. Hanks stated that may be
why. So they have to be pulled out and
new ones have to be put in. How long
should they be lasting?
Mr. Stover responded they have a
five to ten year life expectancy. This
is simply because the space where the sumo fittings go, those holes are
weak. They are not the full shell and
unless you use a certain fitting in there, like a titanium fitting which they
did not do in the original, that will happen.
They will still cracking at all of those holes and that is what happened
over there.
Mr. Daly asked so are you saying
they are only going to last five to ten years we use?
Mr. Stover responded these may last
a little longer because they are a little bit better strength than they were
back then. We are going down from 8,000
gallon tanks to 5,000 to 6,000 gallon tanks, which put less head pressure on that.
Mr. Hanks asked what are the poly
tanks? We do have a building that has
the containment in it and that has good poly tanks.
Mr. Cassel responded these are the
poly tanks.
Mr. Hanks asked they are cracked?
Mr. Cassel responded yes.
Mr. Hanks stated actually around the
fittings.
Mr. Fennell stated it is not so much
the tank itself. It is the fittings.
Mr. Stover stated that is
correct. Once they are gone you cannot
do anything else with them.
Mr. Hanks asked how much are we
talking about?
Mr. Cassel responded $55,706 was the
bid. We would like to get approval for
that amount and authorization to negotiate with the contractor and see if we can
negotiate them down on it and then go ahead and make it happen.
Mr. Fennell asked how do you know
this contractor can fit it correctly?
Ms. Zich asked have we used him
before?
Mr. Cassel responded no we have not.
Mr. Stover stated he has some good
references.
Ms. Zich asked have we checked them
out?
Mr. Stover responded yes.
Mr. Cassel stated we have also done
some investigation in-house with the tank manufacturers as to proper ways to
installation with flexible couplings, types of fittings and etcetera to make
sure what the manufacturer says should be going into the tank is what we get
from the contractor.
Mr. Hanks asked was this followed
before?
Mr. Cassel responded I am not sure
what was followed before. The before was
hard piped in. The information we
received said it should have had flexible fittings between the fitting and the
pipes; for whatever reason, what is out there is not.
Mr. Hanks asked have these been
built into the ongoing maintenance of the plant?
Mr. Cassel responded not yet.
Mr. Hanks stated you know where I am
getting at. We are going to be in an
ongoing situation. We need to figure out
how much it takes to maintain this.
Mr. Cassel stated now that we are
aware of it I think we can build it into our ongoing long term repair and
replacement program that we need to set money aside for.
Ms. Zich asked is the money there?
Ms. Woodward responded yes it
is. It is in renewal and replacement.
Mr. Hanks asked what happens if we
do not do anything with this?
Mr. Cassel responded if one of them
splits, you have a lot of sodium hypochlorite all over the place.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr.
Fennell with all in favor the purchase of hypochlorite tanks was approved and
staff was authorized to negotiate with the bidder.
Mr. Cassel stated before we go into
the water charts there is one other thing I want to bring up for the
Board. Each of you needs to get with Mr.
Daly on a direct deposit because we have gone to direct deposit on all of our
expenses. Sometimes in the next 30 to 40
days, please give Mr. Daly the proper information so your checks can go direct
deposit for your compensation.
Mr. Daly stated it is a matter of
security. About six months ago we had a
check come through, cashed by the bank, written years ago, signed by Mr. Moyer
and Ms. Archer. If have an employee
leave our facility, we send him a final check, then he calls two months later
and claims he never received it so we send him another check, they can go cash
another one a year later.
Mr. Cassel stated or two years or
five years.
Mr. Lyles asked can you void the
first check?
Mr. Daly responded you can void it,
but the bank will still cash it.
Ms. Zich asked does the check say on
them, void after 60 days?
Mr. Daly responded it does not
matter.
Ms. Woodward stated no. They do not say on there they are not good
after 180 days because they are good.
Ms. Zich asked do we still have the
same checking account?
Ms. Woodward responded yes.
Mr. Daly stated we have a few of
them out, which never showed back up. It
does not amount to a lot.
·
Monthly Water
& Sewer Chart
Mr. Hanks asked who made this first
one?
Mr. Cassel responded Mr. Stover.
Mr. Hanks stated I like the old
format more.
Mr. Stover stated I can go back to
the basic format.
Ms. Zich stated I thought it was
pretty interesting.
Mr. Fennell stated I think the
interesting thing is there is an influent, total hardness; calcium hardness and
alkalinity also vary as the water is available.
So it depends on how much water we have.
Mr. Stover stated the more water you
have, the more lime you need to treat that water. Then your alkalinity and your hardness will
fluctuate with that flow.
Mr. Fennell stated that is like a
total amount. So it should vary with the
amount of water.
Mr. Stover stated that is correct.
Mr. Fennell asked what does this
mean to us? Can I draw any conclusions
from this?
Mr. Stover responded I can draw
conclusions from it. It is just telling
you the progress of the plant on a monthly basis.
Mr. Hanks stated your PH is high
compared to New York City water.
Mr. Stover stated it is not really
that high. We keep it around 9.0. When the nano plant comes in, the way that is
treated, your PH comes way down out there so consumers are going to taste a
different kind of water. This is one of
the best waters in South Florida.
Mr. Hanks asked Mr. Stover, are you
doing the distribution versus bill chart or is that Mr. Daly?
Mr. Stover responded I do the chart
based on the billed numbers.
Mr. Hanks asked can you throw in a
12 month running average?
Mr. Stover responded yes.
·
Utility Billing
Work Orders
This item is for
informational purposes only.
B.
Attorney
Mr.
Lyles stated I just have one quick follow up item. The President asked that we try to find out
again what was behind the request for certain information regarding elections
and other things from Mr. Porth’s office.
It originally came to Mr. Daly from their Mr. Dailey. We did finally get a response that was
essentially not very informative. They
were satisfied and happy with the information they received. They did not have any follow up and did not
have any information to provide us with respect to how all of this came about
or whether or not there was something particular on their mind; only that they
were satisfied with what they heard back from staff, Mr. Daly and our
office. They thanked us very much, but
that is all we got. They are not saying
and you can only push something like that so far.
Mr. Fennell asked what was the
information we provided?
Mr. Daly responded they wanted to
know about elections and when they took place.
Mr. Lyles stated they do not intend
to elaborate and it was clear that no further information would be forthcoming.
C.
Engineer
·
Consideration of
WA-55 Amendment (Final) for Injection Well Pump Station Mechanical Evaluation
There being no
questions or comments,
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr.
Fennell with all in favor WA-55 Amendment (Final) for injection well pump
station mechanical evaluation was approved.
·
Monthly Aerial
Photographs
·
Project Status
Report
Ms. Zich asked how are we doing on
our nano plant? I know we were supposed
to be finished in November.
Mr. Bulman stated November 23, 2010
is substantial completion. Obviously we
are not there yet. The roof trusses are
all on right now. They are finishing with
the painting and the final securing of them.
They say we will have some roof decking on there by Thanksgiving. Then they will be able to put equipment
inside. Once the decking is on and they
consider it is dried in, they can start putting electrical and mechanical
equipment inside. From there it is a lot
of mechanical and electrical work which needs to be done. With the roof on a lot of areas will be
opened up for many of the subcontractors to be working simultaneously. The electrician and mechanical people can all
be working on a piece of the project. A
lot of regular walls will need to go up in the control room area of the
building.
Mr. Hanks asked what is your best
guess as to when it will be completed?
Mr. Bulman responded I do not have
it in front of me, but I think they are saying they are six months behind or
eight months behind.
Mr. Cassel stated the last I heard
on the analysis from Mr. Johnson was close to six months. That was 30 days ago. I do not know where they are right now.
Mr. Bulman stated we are thinking
from the January 24, 2011 final completion date about a June timeframe. We are looking at about five months
behind. With Lanzo taking more of a hold
on this project we are hoping that a lot more attention from them gets put on
this job and we actually start meeting some of the deadlines they said. That is our hope at this time.
Mr. Cassel asked are we at a point
and time where once the deck gets on they can really kick it in high gear?
Mr. Bulman responded once the deck
is on, yes. The electrician is foaming
at the bit to start putting equipment in there.
Once he sets his equipment he has a lot of work to do. This will open a lot of work for him. Right now he has just been onsite doing what
he can to keep a couple of people. Once
the deck is on he can get a good crew in here to get some work done.
Mr. Cassel stated so mechanical,
electrical and other items can kick in at high gear.
Mr. Bulman stated then we can start
talking about putting the motors on where right now it does not make sense to
do it because it would be in the weather.
Either the finish or the weather would get the equipment damaged. Now we can start talking about getting some equipment
in and not worrying about it getting wet or damaged. We can start wiring and connecting it.
Mr. Cassel asked do we have a date
on the skids delivery?
Mr. Bulman responded the skids are
here as far as I believe.
Mr. Ravenue stated they are not onsite.
Mr. Bulman stated most of that has
been released and I think we are just waiting for a place to put it for it all
to be shipped here or shipped by the manufacturer to here.
Mr. Cassel stated okay.
Mr. Bulman stated they come in 8
inch diameter tubes and they are 15 to 20 feet long. Each tube is separate and then they set them
on a ‘tree’ as we call it. All of that
has to be assembled. There is some
mechanical work which needs to be done. With
a roof on, you can have a crew in there doing all of that work while the
electrician is doing something.
Mr. Cassel asked do you know if it
is the intent of the contractor to boost his personnel on all of the subs after
he gets the roof on or have you gotten any word back from them?
Mr. Bulman responded we have not
gotten any word back from them on that.
I called just before this meeting.
The electrician really wants to get busy. When they have the roof on they will be able
to get the electrician’s crew in there.
It is still a very confined space so if you put 30 electricians in
there, it will be counterproductive.
Mr. Cassel stated I understand that.
Mr. Bulman stated you get a
reasonable number that can work in there and then we will get some progress in
moving forward with this. At the same
time that is going on the outside finishing will continue; the painting and the
side work. It can go parallel to what
they are doing inside. We should start
seeing a lot more progress.
Mr. Fennell asked what about the
canal side; the joining of those two canals?
Is there anything further along on that?
Mr. Cassel responded we received the
agreement from the FEDs to be executed last week. You all had made the motion to go with
it. There are a couple of things we need
to change in it such as who they have listed as the project manager and where
some of the information is supposed to go.
There are a couple of other things we need some clarification as to some
of these Federal registers and the Cash Management Act of 1990; some of the
other parameters they are saying we have to comply with to make sure we
understand what they are saying.
Mr. Lyles stated one of the things
we are going to get clarification on before we bring it to you for a signature
is that design is covered by this grant and their share will go towards
design. There is a budget that is
proposed which shows a design cost, but yet other parts of the agreement seem
to speak to them funding only hard construction costs. We do not know the answer to that and until
we get the answer we do not feel comfortable taking it any further and getting
it signed. We have a little bit of
addition work to do with the engineer’s help.
This grant has serious strings attached to it and we have learned the
hard way what can happen years later with an audit.
Mr. Fennell asked do you think there
is something we need to do additionally with this? Do we need to have someone part-time just to
watch how the money flows in this thing?
Mr. Woodward responded this is the
first I heard that we had this to look at so I am not sure how to answer that.
Mr. Cassel stated it is one of those
things we are going to have to seriously consider on how we administer this
grant to make sure we have all of the documentation; however we build it,
whichever method we choose to have it actually constructed, we want to make
sure we have all of the documents for the five years so we make sure they
cannot come back five years later asking us for them.
Mr. Fennell stated I am just saying
one of the overhead expenses we may need to do is get someone to watch this
thing continuously.
Mr. Cassel stated it may be
advantageous to us to have someone handling that for the duration of the
project.
Ms. Woodward asked what is the loan
amount on this grant?
Mr. Cassel responded this is a $2
Million grant. This is the grant from
FEMA with an estimated dollar they will fund up to $2 Million of the
project. They will fund 75/25 of the
project that we had gone out for. They
came back and awarded the grant to us and they sent the documents for us to
execute, but there are a couple of things in their document to execute that
raise some questions to ensure we do not get hung out to dry.
Mr. Fennell stated we think we have
enough money in our account to actually pay for this, which is what we have
been trying to build up to doing it. The
fact that we were able to get this grant, we should be able to pay for
that. This is the thing we thought we
could do that would help us have a better drainage district.
Mr. Hanks stated we should also keep
in mind, on this drainage endeavor, that if we think it is a good project with
the Federal money, we should think it is a good project with our own
money. If we do not think we have a good
project and a valuable project where we are getting our monies worth in it,
even if we were paying 100% of the bill, if we do not think that, then we
should not go after it.
Mr. Cassel stated understood.
Mr. Fennell stated I think it is
good. I think the real question is the
amount of money we have on the project. My
feeling was that we need to do this project, which will probably cost us $2
Million to $3 Million to do. In the
meantime we always want to have a fairly comfortable reserve for the next
hurricane that comes along because we saw that cash in hand aid the ability to
clean up your areas is what counts.
Anyway, I think it is a good
project. It is the best thing we could
do around here. I am still concerned as
I go looking at the canals with the number of trees which in the past five
years are still growing up on the edges of canals. We are still going to have to do something
about that too. I do not think we
actually voted to go ahead on this.
Mr. Cassel responded you voted to
apply and I think we voted to accept the grant, but the execution documents
were coming in. We were waiting for the
documents to come in so we cold execute them.
Mr. Fennell okay, because I have not
signed anything.
Mr. Cassel stated no. This is why we are not bringing it to you to
sign until we figure out a couple of more questions we have.
Mr. Fennell stated one of the things
we want to see is we are going to have set up one person either by name or
position, who is going to track all of these funds, working with Ms. Woodward
not only from a project standpoint, but also from a financial standpoint.
Ms. Woodward asked are we
comfortable with the $2 Million that is being allowed in the grant? Is that what this is going to cost or is it
just a maximum they will allow?
Mr. Fennell responded there was an
estimate from the engineering group of what it would be. We actually have not gone out to bid on
this.
Mr. Lyles stated the estimates put
it at $2,750,000, which is our $750,000 plus the Federal government’s $2
million budgeted for the whole project, including design.
Mr. Fennell stated until we get Plant
F nailed down I am hesitant to push anything else. I think there is some more work to do out
there; such as revising the streets and/or some of these pumps back here. I want to see the finances get straight first
on Plant F. Do you guys think that way
too?
Ms. Zich responded definitely.
Mr. Hanks stated I think we should
just bear in mind what kind of expiration there is on this grant.
Ms. Zich stated yes. Work with the grant, but as far as any other
ongoing projects.
Mr. Fennell stated I see that
completely as separate because it is from a separate pot. It is not the same money at all.
Ms. Woodward stated it is coming
from drainage.
Mr. Fennell stated the drainage is
separately funded. As far as the other
side goes, we need to get Plant F completed.
I think there are things we should be doing, but I do not want to do it
until we, you know.
Mr. Hanks stated we need to
concentrate on resolving Plant F issues, getting that resolved, and once that
is cleared up then we have direction to where we are freed up and we can
start. Collectively, engineers, counsel,
management has a limited amount of time, realistically speaking, that we can
all throw at those issues. I agree 100%
on that.
Ms. Zich stated I definitely want to
get Plant F figured out; at least a solution to the problem. That is the number one priority. Number two priority is getting the
nanofiltration plant finished.
Mr. Hanks stated we need to keep in
mind, as far as having the nanofiltration plant, what happens because we are
adding another 500,000 gallons into the monitoring well. That issue is kind of tied in as well. We cannot lose sight of them, but we still
have to be careful where we focus our energies.
Mr. Cassel stated there is one more
thing I would like to update you on. If
you remember, we had the interlocal agreement with the county on the
feasibility study. We sent our paperwork
in.
Mr. Hanks asked was this the re-use
feasibility?
Mr. Cassel responded yes. It was a re-use feasibility study.
Mr. Fennell stated there was a
report on that.
Mr. Cassel stated there was a report
on that. We accepted the report. The main report went off with our wastewater
permit that is up there waiting for review.
The information went to the county.
I spoke with the county last Friday.
They received it. There was a
typo. We corrected it and they are in
the process of cutting a check back to us for the county’s share of that
study. We should get the reimbursement
within the next three or four weeks for 50% of that.
Mr. Hanks stated I was talking with
our friends at NSID and they are going forward with some reclaimed up
there. What do we know about that?
Mr. Lyles responded they plan to put
it into the wedge only when they
purchase it and start developing. They
will have re-use only for the wedge.
Mr. Hanks asked where is that coming
from; the county?
Mr. Daly responded I do not believe
so.
Mr. Lyles asked where is what coming
from?
Mr. Hanks responded the re-use.
Mr. Lyles responded it is all going
to be generated within NSID at the expense of the properties generally known as
the wedge.
Mr. Hanks stated I was just
wondering where the source of the reclaimed water was coming from. Is it going to be sourced from the county’s
plant?
Mr. Daly responded their own
wastewater treatment plan.
Mr. Hanks stated oh, they have their
own.
Mr. Lyles stated they do not. This is going to be part in parcel of (unintelligible). Apparently the county, in the long term, is not
interested in continuing to have a large amount of users and handling all of
the waste. They want to push it back to
the District. It involves ocean outfalls
and all kinds of issues.
Mr. Fennell stated so they must be
talking about bond issues. I bet they
are talking about $20 to $30 Million.
Mr. Lyles stated I do not know the
figure.
Mr. Fennell stated they have to do
wastewater treatment. They have to put
in pipes. They have to put in secondary
treatment of the water.
Mr. Hanks stated it is a lot.
Ms. Zich stated it would have to be
a lot.
Mr. Fennell stated the only other
thing was a request from our counselor on increased rates.
Mr. Lyles stated I submitted to the
manager, prior to the beginning of the month, a new fee schedule that we had
reluctantly, but after seven years, felt we had to adjust our fees. I think you saw the letter submitted to the
manager and indicated it was going to be taking effect November 1, 2010. It is significantly less than the changes in
the CPI published by the Department of Labor.
I submitted some statistical data along to support that. We only adjusted our fees once over the last
14 years. This would be the second
time.
Mr. Hanks stated I get the
opportunity to work with a variety of attorneys throughout South Florida. When I do get to see their fees, Mr. Lyles is
not even close to what we see elsewhere.
Mr. Fennell stated you are saying it
is fairly priced.
Mr. Hanks stated more than fairly
priced and his service is up there.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms.
Fennell with all in favor the District attorney’s new fee structure was
approved.
Mr. Fennell stated but we have to
keep seeing Mr. Lyles.
Ms. Zich stated you are staying with
us.
Mr. Lyles stated there could be
occasions where there might be a conflict.
I am your primary attorney and intend to stay that way for the
indefinite future.
Mr. Fennell stated we have been well
served. Thank you and your firm very
much for the effort you have done. You
have not only protected us. You have
protected the people also. Thank you
very much for all of the efforts you have done.
Mr. Lyles responded you are welcome.
Ms. Zich stated I also thank you.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of October Financials and Check
Registers
Ms. Woodward stated for the October
financials we expanded some of the detail in the water and sewer fund. The major thrust of financial information is
that we need to meet the bond covenant requirements that we generate sufficient
revenues in water and sewer to cover not just operations, but after operations
are paid for there are sufficient funds left over to pay off the debt service
for the year; plus an extra little buffer of 10% in case something else comes
up. Because those financials run for
three or four pages and it is easy for it to get lost in the detail, we added a
summary in a section at the end of the water and sewer financial statements
that allows you to see the detail summarized to prove to you that every month
we are looking to make certain that we are on track to cover the debt service
requirements. The bond covenant for us
is that we need 1.1 coverage. As you can
see from the financials we have 1.63 coverage.
This gives you a brief recap of what we are looking to accomplish in
that fund.
Mr. Hanks asked okay and is it
saying we have some excess revenue for this month above the expenses?
Ms. Woodward responded yes. This is going to fluctuate during the
year. The issue for us is that when you
look at it you should try to determine that we are not going down, down, down
and getting marginally close to the 1.1.
That allows us in that particular month to start looking to see if there
is a true issue or if it is just the timing on when revenue and expenditures
were being recognized. We thought this
might assist you if you just wanted to see this little recap, it might be
sufficient and if you want to delve into the detail, you can go line by line in
the financials.
Ms. Zich stated I think this is very
nice. Thank you.
Mr. Fennell stated I do too.
Ms. Zich stated it really shows you
and you do not have to think about what you are looking at.
Mr. Hanks stated it looks like you
did some things different on the proceeding page as well on the presentation.
Ms. Woodward stated yes. We re-sorted the order in which it was
presented so that the reserve information pops up separately, and so would the
debt service, and it would allow you to see how this computation is
derived. I suggest next month we add
more detail on the general fund. The
general fund does not require a large summary section as the water and sewer
does. The general fund is slightly
different in that you are trying to make certain that when the assessments come
in, they are sufficient to cover all of your expenditures for the year. Even though there is no debt service
associated with that, we want to make sure that we are not marginally close to
meeting a budget amendment at year end.
This allows us to see what our status is.
Mr. Hanks asked can you explain to
me why at the very bottom we have excess revenues for the actual month ending
October 31, 2010 in the amount of $210,506 and then we have an unfavorable
balance of $267,160 in the next column order?
Mr. Fennell responded it says,
“available for debt service” and it says it is a negative $267,160. To me it looks like the reserve for R&R
and our profit together, which is actually how much we made.
Ms. Woodward stated it should be
positive. I put a wrong formula in
there.
Mr. Fennell asked is that the first
month we had our rates in?
Mr. Daly responded yes.
Ms. Zich asked how are our customers
feeling about it?
Mr. Daly responded we received a lot
of calls from people wanting to know why their water bill went up.
Ms. Zich asked what about our
newsletter?
Mr. Daly responded the last we
talked Mr. Fennell I think we said maybe January.
Mr. Fennell stated yes, but I think
we might need to explain a little bit about the increased rates. We need a good explanation to tell people
what we are doing. In order for us to
build a new plant we need to come up with more capital and payoff capital and in
order to do that we had to raise the rates.
I think we need to do that.
Mr. Daly stated I think maybe in the
message from the President.
Mr. Fennell stated we need to tell
them the truth; we have not been charging as much money as we need to in order
to keep building capital. We actually
pay back our bills, but the amount of money that was invested initially is
gone. We do not actually have a capital
reserve per se. Then we go and borrow it
again. We have discussed a couple of
times whether this is a good thing or not, but we do not. Every time we need to do something new we
have to raise capital, which means we have to go out and borrow again in order
to borrow that money we have to raise rates.
Mr. Daly stated unless we retire the
debt.
Mr. Fennell stated even then you
still have to account for the amount of capital that you should still have in a
firm. A publicly traded firm would in
fact keep the capital in there. We do
not actually go out and put out stock per se.
Other utilities do. We kind of
get away with low rates for a while, but that is partially due to the
efficiencies of the people running it. Enough
of that; it looks like we are in good financial shape. Is our water billing back up to where it was
historically?
Mr. Daly responded it looks like it
is about the same. We are doing some
more meter change outs with some of the bigger meters. We replaced it and now a couple of years
later it seems like the two inch meters were not performing properly in that
the District was at a disadvantage. So
we just did two of them last week again.
We are talking about a million gallons that we were not getting. We spotted it quickly and gave an estimated
bill as opposed to just giving the low bill.
The consumption is being billed.
We are spending a lot more time trying to be analytical.
Mr. Hanks asked how much is one
million gallons in terms of revenue?
Mr. Daly responded it depends on how
many ERCs. The whole idea is when we are
looking at billed versus made, a million gallons is a million gallons. When you look at it and find a few of those
it can help out. One of the mall meters
is in. It was a tough deal where they
had to rent a lot of equipment to shore up the sides so that we were compliant
with safety issues. The other meter by
Washington Mutual they are going to try to get done before the Christmas rush
because once Black Friday hits they are open until 11:00 p.m.
Mr. Hanks asked have you taken a
look at the plans for the mall and can they be sourced from the north
side? Do they have a loop running down?
Mr. Cassel responded it is a loop,
but there is no way to isolate it.
Mr. Daly stated they are actually
looking to use a couple of fire hydrants just for that period of time. They are trying to be a little inventive
because otherwise, it is going to be an all nighter. They did this a couple of weeks ago. They started at 8:30 p.m. and ended at 5:30
a.m. We had two crews out there.
Mr. Hanks stated it may be a
situation where you would want to investigate using a line stop.
Mr. Daly stated they did do all of
that. Once they were doing that they
went ahead and put a new valve or two because they knew what they had further
down was either covered, abandoned or broken.
Mr. Fennell asked anything on the
check register?
Ms. Zich responded everything looks
good.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr.
Fennell with all in favor the financials and check registers were
approved.
SIXTH 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