MINUTES
OF MEETING
CORAL
SPRINGS
IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the
Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held
Present and constituting a quorum
were:
Bob Fennell President
Glen Hanks Vice President
Sharon Zich Secretary
Also present were:
Dan Daly Interim Manager
Ed Goscicki Co-Manager –
Dennis Lyles Attorney
John McKune Engineer
Isabello Rodriguez CH2M-Hill
Jane Early CH2M-Hill
David Green CH2M-Hill
Sean Skehan CH2M-Hill
Cory Johnson CH2M-Hill
Randy Fredericks Field
Supervisor
Doug Hyche District Staff
Daryl Kissoon
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr.
Goscicki called the meeting to order and called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of
the
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr. Hanks stated the second
paragraph on page six should be deleted.
On page 12, “Mr. Mike Robinson” should be “Mr. Mike Levinson”.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich
with all in favor the minutes of the
Mr. Fennell asked do we have a copy
of the presentation given by CH2M-Hill on the rates?
Mr. Goscicki responded we have a
copy on file.
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
There not being any,
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms.
Zich with all in favor the minutes of the
Mr. Hanks stated we asked for
follow-up from Mr. Goscicki on re-writing our service contracts. Did he provide us with anything?
Mr. Goscicki stated this will be
discussed under the seventh order of business.
You did not receive anything from me.
Mr. Hanks asked is the quality of
well water in
Mr. Skehan responded the water
qualities are similar.
Mr. Hanks stated on the west coast,
you have the Floridian Aquifer.
Mr. Skehan stated the aquifers are
different but similar as to the quality of water.
Mr. Hanks stated so we will not be
seeing a substantially different operating cost.
Mr. Skehan stated correct. The handout provided at the last meeting by
Mr. Cory Johnson compared the costs of similar facilities to what was required
for a Lime Softening Plant and a Nano Filtration Plant. For the physical components, I think the
numbers were fairly well defined in the handout.
Mr. Hanks stated I wanted to make
sure we were not comparing ourselves to a Water Treatment Plant in
Mr. Goscicki responded no, she is a
CSID employee.
Mr. Hanks asked what about Mr.
Darryl Kissoon?
Mr. Goscicki responded he is employed
by Severn Trent Services.
THIRD ORDER OF
BUSINESS Presentation
by CH2M-Hill of the Final Conditions and Assessment Report for Pump Stations 1
& 2
This item will be discussed later in
the meeting.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Current Status and History
of Open Work Authorizations
Mr.
Fennell asked does this item deal with work authorizations from CH2M-Hill?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes. We are working
with CH2M-Hill to put together a summary report identifying all currently
opened work authorizations. The report
will state what the work authorizations are for, the dollar amount and provide
a percent complete and percent spent so we can review these work authorizations
on an ongoing basis. We can present them
to the Board as required. We envision
increasing the activity significantly in the next short period of time. This will be the tool for tracking these work
authorizations.
Mr.
Hanks stated we are making use of a considerable amount of engineering
services. I want to make sure we keep
this in mind with our budget and we are not over-reaching. As we go through these engineering studies
and are bringing many services to conclusion, we need a final report to take
action on. I want to make sure we close
these work authorizations out and have a recommendation, such as for the
stormwater components.
Mr.
Skehan stated I understand. You want to
bring each of these work authorizations to closure. As Mr. Goscicki just pointed out, we are
working on a summary of these documents and pull together whatever is open so
you can see what the status is on any given month and the Board can see what is
taking place. It may be of interest to
any one of the Board members to be able to sit down and look at the status on a
monthly basis. There should be some
regularity to know where things are at.
Mr.
Hanks stated not only just the Board but any interested party such as the party
or agency. So we have some way of
demonstrating we are making progress on a lot of endeavors.
Mr.
Skehan stated Mr. Goscicki said very well that with the exception of the
pending Capital Improvement Plan near in the future, we have a lot more work
out there. It would be a good idea for
everyone to put their arms around what is taking place as a whole.
Mr.
Hanks stated we need to ask whether this is a project we want going forward
with or want to close it and take it off of the books and know we have the
funds available for allocation someplace else.
Mr.
Skehan stated absolutely.
Mr.
Hanks asked do you think you will have this at the next meeting?
Mr.
Skehan responded absolutely.
Mr.
Daly stated we have a lot of history but there may have been a two year gap of
knowing when the initial work authorizations started versus when the service
was started. There is a great deal of
research involved with the odds and ends.
Mr.
Goscicki stated what we want to make sure we focus in on is identifying all
current work. What Mr. Daly is saying is
we are finding as we go through this history, we are finding work
authorizations that have been authorized but sitting open back to the 70’s.
Mr.
Hanks stated my point exactly.
Mr.
Goscicki stated lets get them closed and be done with it. We will get all the current ones by the next
meeting. It should not be a problem.
Mr.
Fennell stated along with this, what we have been asking for to be included in
a report each month is a summary of the open orders; work authorizations and a
summary of the schedule of ongoing construction. I do not see either one of those. You started off good by looking at a chart
for various construction programs. I do
not know why we cannot take this chart and show the current projects and a
construction plan going forward. This
can include the work orders.
Mr.
Hanks stated I still want to see what we have going on with the drainage
construction projects. One of the issues
coming up frequently is the need for change orders balancing this out with competitive
bidding. We need to have a tally of what
work is taking place and where we stand.
We do not have anything to risk by putting it out for bid. Whether we have a finished product or not, we
want a report.
Mr.
Fennell asked for the next meeting, could we have a list of programs, projects
and their status?
Mr.
Daly responded Mr. Goscicki and I have been emailing back and forth on this
matter for two weeks. Unfortunately it
did not get completed, which I apologize for.
Mr.
Fennell stated the business or day-to-day items are well covered by the Accounting
Department but we need better reporting on the $41 million we are spending and the
$6 million we already committed to.
Mr.
Hanks asked are you lacking the man-power to do this or is it a question of compiling
the information?
Mr.
Goscicki responded some of this has been due to timing issues. This goes back to your previous question on
the analysis of management services. In
the last month, we have been focusing on the capital improvement program,
short-term financing, long-term financing, budgets, working with Bond Counsel,
General Counsel and Auditors. This is a
peak time of year where you have budgets as well as the major Capital Improvement Program. I could not agree with you more on the importance. We are looking at a $40 million Capital
Improvement Program and we need a mechanism in place for us as your management
team and you as the Board to see what projects are on the way, what monies we
recovered, what we spent to date and where we are in terms of the
schedule. We are meeting here tomorrow
at
Mr.
Fennell asked who will be putting this report together?
Mr.
Goscicki responded I see a combined effort between the engineer as the primary
person reporting on the percentage complete on the projects and tying it to the
financial information and preparing the final report.
Mr.
Fennell stated I suggest Mr. McKune prepare this report as he has the technical
knowledge. It does not have anything to
do with how busy they are.
Mr.
Hanks stated I agree with Mr. McKune having input on the upcoming projects but
as far as preparing this report, I do not want to take him away from other
projects.
Mr.
Fennell stated I thought the purpose of hiring Mr. McKune is here for was to
watch these programs.
Mr.
Hanks stated since it is a management task, it should remain with management.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we certainly recognize the resource here. Mr. McKune is certainly part of the resource
we will use in putting this together along with the engineer and accountant in
managing the report going forward. We
will get it done. I promise!
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Award of
Contract for Culvert Cleaning
Ms. Zich asked why is there such a
big difference in the bid amounts of $42,000 versus $123,000?
Mr. Frederick responded most of it
has to do with the equipment. The low
bidder plans to use a high suction power pump and says he will take no time at
all to do the work. We called other
clients who said he moves through these areas fairly quickly.
Mr. Hanks stated I noticed there was
a requirement in the bid tabulation for a minimum of $1 million in liability
insurance. Maybe you can alleviate some
of my concerns. If a culvert collapses
during the cleaning, is $1 million enough to cover any damages?
Mr. Hyche responded I cannot answer
this question as I do not know the cost to replace circumcised culverts. $1 million is what is typically asked by the
District for any contractor to come on-site and do the work.
Mr. Hanks asked do we have to meet a
requirement from the insurance company of a specific rating?
Mr. Goscicki responded I have not
seen this from either side of the business where we are providing services to
clients and someone asks for a rating from an insurance company. It is an interesting question.
Mr. Hanks stated whenever I have to
put in an RFP, they ask me to provide insurance of $1 million per occurrence of
professional liability but they also want to know the rating of the insurance
company.
Mr. Lyles stated some government
entities require this and some do not.
It is not a statutory threshold requirement. It is a matter of the preference of the
entity. It certainly gives you the comfort
level you are dealing with an A rated insurance company if end up having to
make a claim as opposed to a generic insurance company who does radio
advertising and does not have much money behind their company.
Mr. Daly stated I was at the last
Sunshine meeting and they had the same shock and awe regarding the prices. They awarded the contract to the low bidder.
Mr. Hanks stated I will award to the
low bidder but I would like to discuss the insurance matter further.
Mr. Lyles stated I suggest we get the
rating from Great American Insurance Group.
Staff will obtain the information and provide to the Board. I have seen this company on quite a few jobs. We can give you a report at the next meeting
as to the level we think we should set the liability at for future contracts.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich
with all in favor the contract for the culvert cleaning was awarded to Fish
Tech in the amount of $42,000.
SIXTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Manager
i. Distribution
of Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2008 and Consideration of Resolution 2007-5
Approving the Budget and Setting the Public Hearing
Mr.
Goscicki stated I distributed the proposed budget for fiscal year 2008. Today the Board is approving the budget for
the purpose of setting the public hearing.
We will schedule the public hearing for the next meeting, at which time
you will consider any input from the public as well as your own consideration
and adopt the budget.
Mr.
Daly stated I reviewed the budget today and made some changes based on
questions that arised.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we re-worked the budget in terms of presentation to try to show
the fund balance at the end of the year and give more clarity.
Mr.
Daly stated the changes I made, make the budget easier to understand.
Mr.
Goscicki stated changes were made in terms of the way the numbers were
structured. Page three gives a summary
of how we traditionally created some of the reserve funds. As the team went through the budget, it
became confusing in terms of rolling this all in. At the beginning of the current fiscal year,
you had an unaudited fund balance of $1.2 million. These are uncommitted reserve funds you can
use.
Mr.
Fennell stated this is due to the fact we doubled our levies and continue to
receive funds from the government.
Mr.
Goscicki stated this was at the beginning of the fiscal year;
Mr.
Fennell asked what are you projecting for the end of the fiscal year?
Mr.
Goscicki responded we are saying at the end of the fiscal year, you will have a
surplus of $100,000 in the reserve.
Mr.
Fennell asked is this added to the $1.2 million?
Mr.
Goscicki responded no. At the end of the
fiscal year, you will have less money in reserves than you started with at the
beginning of the fiscal year. You are
spending down some of those reserves to meet some of your capital and operating
expenditures. The rate increase showed
you are not generating enough revenue to even meet general operating expenses
this year and you will wind up short.
This is what we are trying to show in the new format.
Mr.
Fennell asked are you talking about the General Fund only?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes. The reason why
we re-worked this number is if you look at the revenue, there is a carry
forward surplus of minus $489,000. When
I saw this I said, “Starting the year with a negative cash forward of $489,000,
is going to raise a few questions”. The
question is how we ended up with a negative cash forward number. The reason is it takes the $1.2 million you
started with at the beginning of the end and removes not “committed”
reserves. You have a pump station
project of $450,000, first quarter operating reserves of a few hundred thousand
and reserves for emergencies of $200,000.
All of those items added up to $900,000 in reserves, which you need to
account for. Then you look at $2,000,000
in projected revenues for the balance of this year and $2.4 million of
projected expenditures, which gives you a net of minus $100,000 at the end of
the year. This number carries forward to
page one of the budget. If you look at
page one at the projected total at the end of this current fiscal year, you see
minus $107,000.
Mr.
Hanks stated this is confusing.
Mr.
Goscicki stated this is why we tried to re-work the budget into a two page
summary document and said, “For this budget year, we are still going to have a
negative $100,000 going forward”.
Mr.
Fennell stated the problem is you do not usually have normal operating costs in
cashflow.
Mr.
Goscicki stated this is traditionally the way your budgets have been prepared
in previous years. It is complicated
because of the way your numbers went this year.
You spent a great deal of money this year taking care of issues. This implied you were $400,000 in the hole
because it took the reserve off the cash balance, which you traditionally
carry. It shows a negative number and
then below you recover it again as revenue.
When we re-worked the number and the negative $400,000 went to $2,000,
we took the negative out of the revenue side and said, “Your revenues going
forward will break even this year as you are carrying next to nothing going
forward to next year.” We took the
reserve funds on page three and put them into the budget as expense items. They are now shown on page two.
Mr.
Hanks stated they are actually not revenue; they are an expense.
Mr.
Goscicki stated they are an expense.
When you treat it as an expense against cash forward, you wind up with
negative revenue. I had the same
reaction when we went through this budget and said, “Let’s clean this up and
say your cash balance forward is essentially going to be zero from this year to
next year”. The reserves are expense
items and will show as reserve for first quarter operating and reserve for
R&R and the pump station expense is shown as an item projected for the next
five months. We tried to get the expense
items priced.
Mr.
Hanks asked is the money from the assessments changing?
Mr.
Goscicki responded no.
Mr.
Hanks stated even though it has the appearance we are dropping our revenues by
$2 million on the new scenario, we are not changing our revenues.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the top line on the revenue statement on the tax levy is stays
the same. We are only shifting around
the cash forward surplus. Under the
expense numbers, you will see the reserves changing dramatically from year to
year because of the way they were treated.
We will treat the reserves as expenses and put them on the expense side
and put revenue and only net revenue forward on the revenue side.
Mr.
Hanks asked are the accountants happy with this format?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes. We discussed
this format with your accountants today.
We did not change the dollars at all.
Mr.
Hanks stated you are still truing them up.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the bottom line is coming out of the same place. This is a presentation item in terms of where
you present this, which varies from district to district in terms of how you
treat the carry forward cash.
Mr.
Hanks stated the carry forward surplus is being used because we are taking out
some of this money and using it in the Capital Improvement Program.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we are showing it as a Reserve Fund rather than a cash surplus.
Mr.
Fennell stated there seems to be a big change of format on the water and sewer
side. Having a negative carry forward is
hard for me to envision because revenues mean money is coming in. You do not usually put in a negative amount
on the revenue line. You could put it
under expenditures.
Ms.
Zich stated when you look at your total income, the $500,000 almost goes
against it. Why are we not putting it on
the expense side?
Mr.
Goscicki responded in the revised format, we took the $489,000 in negative cash
forward and reduced it. As we clean up
the final budget for adoption, we will net it out by changing the reserves on
the other side to zero.
Mr.
Fennell stated the revised format looks easier to understand. Are we going to have $1.75 million in
cashflow?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes.
Ms.
Zich asked is this always going to be the case?
Mr.
Fennell responded no. We set up the
amounts every year.
Mr.
Hanks stated we set the budget based on the improvements and expenditures that
we feel are necessary. Based on the
budget, we figure out the assessment based on the number of units within the
District.
Mr.
Fennell stated in the revised budget, we budgeted $230,000 for repairs and
maintenance.
Mr.
Goscicki stated this is the big change from your current year on where you are
projecting to spend $1.68 million for repairs and maintenance compared to next
year where you are back down to normal levels of $238,000.
Mr.
Hanks stated the $1.68 million related to the hurricane cleanup.
Mr.
Daly stated we financed Phase 2.
Mr.
Fennell stated we are going to get reimbursed.
Mr.
Daly stated this is why the amount is so large.
We were reimbursed for Phase 1.
Mr.
Hanks asked did Phase 2 go through? I
thought we had problems with the City of
Mr.
McKune responded yes. We did not get the
permits from the city to remove the 175 Ficus Trees. They were taken out of the job.
Mr.
Hanks stated engineering fees decreased by $60,000.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we think your engineering fees will be in the CIP Budget rather
than the operating budget.
Mr.
Hanks stated overall, we are averaging $30,000 in administrative costs,
primarily from engineering but we had an increase in Technology Sharing.
Mr.
Daly stated last year you had a $50,000 hit under Capital Outlay with the
computer. The $400,000 for three years
was reduced to $200,000 over five years as it should have been. This is the General Fund portion.
Mr.
Fennell asked can we continue this item to the next meeting?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes.
Mr.
Fennell stated at the next meeting, I want to see a cashflow analysis showing
the operating costs and when the bills will come due. There should be a projection for the end of
next year after the bills are paid on what the remaining cash reserves. I do not see this.
Mr.
Goscicki stated I know exactly what you are looking for.
Mr.
Hanks stated I noticed our insurance rate is going to increase another 10% this
year. Does it make sense to shop around?
Mr.
Goscicki responded there are few people out there who are willing to provide
insurance.
Mr.
Hanks asked what type of insurance do we have?
Mr.
Goscicki responded general liability insurance.
We had a number of districts dropped, even by the Florida League of
Cities. We went to Marsh as a backup on
a number of districts.
Mr.
Hanks asked does this relate to hurricane damage?
Mr.
Goscicki responded yes.
Mr.
Hanks stated I think we should consider increasing repairs and maintenance or
re-allocate funds for property the district has access to. The city and the deed restrictions in many
instances are requiring property owners to maintain down to the water line but
the property owner’s idea of maintenance may not be what our idea is. If they start putting in shrubs, we should
know about it. We should maintain
especially along the Sawgrass Expressway where we had a problem with Brazilian
Peppers. What is the right way to go
about this?
Mr.
Daly responded doing it as a company or a crew.
Mr.
Frederick asked are we talking about mowing everyone’s backyards above the
canal?
Mr.
Hanks responded SFWMD takes their big tractor down their canals once or twice a
year. It does not matter if the lawns
are cut. They run it down there
regardless.
Mr.
Frederick stated even after the tree removal, there are still plantings in the right-of-way. We did not do a Phase 3 removal because the
city did not allow us. We still do not
have a clear right-of-way where we can run a tractor down. In some cases, you do not have room to run a
tractor.
Mr.
Goscicki stated maybe an alternative is once a year we have our crews or
outside help to walk the right-of-way to identify plantings or structures and
send notices out to affected property owners saying, “You planted trees that
were not in our ROW last year and need to be removed”. You made a good point of making sure we keep
these encroachments out of your right-of-way.
Mr.
Hanks stated these trees started out as shrubs.
The reason why we ended up having to do this restoration of the canal
banks and the tree removal is because the trees were allowed to grow in the
first place. We went through the process
of expending money on the removal. We
are talking about $1 million for the exotic removal.
Mr.
Frederick stated even after we removed the exotics, there were still trees
fully grown that we could not remove.
You still have a number of these trees in your ROW. Your problems are not going to be completely
solved if you get another hurricane.
Mr.
Hanks stated I understand.
Mr.
Frederick stated your problems are not going to be completely solved if you get
another hurricane.
Mr.
Hanks stated not completely solved by any means. If we choose to do nothing, what is going to
be accomplished?
Mr.
Frederick stated I agree.
Mr.
Hanks stated this is why I suggest putting it out to bid for a private company
to bid on because I have no idea what the cost is. If you mow down an Australian Pine when it is
a certain height, it does not have a chance to grow 50’ tall and after the next
hurricane end up in the canals. Someone
please tell me why we should not be doing this.
Mr.
Fennell stated we were so beat up by the city we are afraid to approach them.
Ms.
Early asked do you have a crew going onto every canal and spraying?
Mr.
Frederick responded yes. We are going to
do our best to make sure the Australian Pines and Hollys do not grow back. However, there is nothing we can do about the
other trees the city will not let us remove.
Ms.
Early stated your crew would notice any new plantings.
Mr.
Frederick stated we had some instances already.
Mr.
Fennell stated you bring up a good point.
This is the right time to do it.
Mr.
Frederick stated they are trying to replant non-nuisance plantings and trying
to slip it in there. It is hard for us
to monitor every house, every canal, every day.
If someone plants a tree and I say something to them, they are going to
say, “Well this tree has been there for years”.
Mr.
Fennell stated currently the City of
Mr.
Goscicki responded typically they do this through their own local ordinance.
Mr.
Lyles stated they adopt it by reference and making a municipal ordinance
violation to violate a water usage restriction imposed by SFWMD.
Mr.
Fennell stated we need to once again work with the city to come up with what we
want the regulations to be along those ROW’s and get the city to agree and
enforce it.
Mr.
Hanks asked is there an ordinance already on the books or deed restrictions in place
relating to the maintenance of properties down to the water line?
Mr.
Lyles responded yes, generally both in
Mr.
Hanks asked such as WCI?
Mr.
Lyles responded correct. They have it in
the Master Declaration, which was recorded before they ever sold their first
home. The City Ordinance requires the
property owners maintain down to the water.
Mr.
Fennell stated a question came about the maintenance. You are correct. We need to go back and face these issues
other than in a crisis.
Mr.
Hanks asked is the maintenance defined?
Mr.
Lyles responded I do not believe so. I
am certain it is not defined in such a way it precludes someone from planting a
tree.
Mr.
Frederick stated I spoke with some of the code enforcement people regarding
residents who had plantings in the right-of-way I wanted to be removed. They said they cannot do anything unless it
is a permanent structure. I do not know
what they mean by permanent.
Mr.
Lyles stated they are referring to a fence.
Mr.
Fennell stated we were supposed to write a letter to the city saying what we
wanted and what we wanted our canals to look like. I want staff to come back to us with such a
letter. At that point, we are going to
have to ask the city to pass a co-ordinance and enforce it, just like they do
with SFWMD. This is the only way I see
this going forward.
Mr.
Daly stated you will have a problem enforcing an ordinance for only a portion
of the city unless the other districts adopted the same policy.
Mr.
Fennell stated since the city is doing this with SFWMD, there is precedence for
how these things can be done. There
needs to be a common idea of what is needed.
Otherwise, we are going to find ourselves with another $2 million bill
in another couple of years. We need to
put money in the budget; $50,000 to $75,000 for canal maintenance. I do not think we can go out and mow 100
miles of canal but we can look at ways for this to be legislated. This way, the codes are already set up and we
are in agreement with the city on what the canals should look like. It is just a question of issuing the citation
and not a question of us fighting the city for it. In other words, we have to find common
ground.
Mr.
Hanks stated I suggest having a round table discussion between the District and
the City of
Mr.
Fennell stated good idea. There are
several issues we can discuss with them such as the street issue. Another important issue is the culvert
cleaning issue, which we never resolved.
Mr.
Hanks stated another issue we have is regarding shared employees. We have shared employees and are making the
decisions on the allocation of these employees.
We should get some feedback from the other districts who use those
employees. I do not want to get a report
from Mr. Daly one day that NSID decided to stop sharing employees with us and
hired their own employees.
Mr.
Fennell stated this is something we need to work on. I agree with you. Over the past six weeks, I talked to NSID
about the sharing of employees going forward.
Mr.
Hanks stated we want to hear their concerns.
We are part of the solution; not part of the problem. This has been a big problem to date with our
relations with the city and other local areas.
In regards to the budget, I want a line item for canal maintenance.
Ms.
Zich stated this should be a specific account.
Otherwise, you will not have a good handle on it.
Mr.
Goscicki stated the chart of accounts is not arbitrary. It is established by state statute. We cannot just create accounts.
Mr.
Hanks stated under repairs and maintenance, we have a $50,000 line item for
canal dredging/maintenance. Do we want
to add a $50,000 line item for bank maintenance?
Mr.
Goscicki responded you can do this if $50,000 is the number you want to use.
Mr.
Frederick stated it depends on what you anticipate this money going
towards. $50,000 will not repair much of
anything.
Ms.
Zich stated we are not repairing; only maintaining.
Mr.
Frederick stated it will not cover the price of maintaining as we have hundreds
of miles of bank.
Mr.
Fennell stated it could be enough for one person to inspect the bank and report
on individuals not complying.
Mr.
Goscicki stated at this point, what we are discussing is how much money we want
to put into the budget and then figure out what we want to do with the
money. We provided a handout regarding
this matter at the public hearing.
Mr.
Daly stated option one was to raise assessments another $50 from $153.81 to
$158.36. This would take care of your
$50,000.
Mr.
Fennell stated put in $75,000 for an inspection.
Mr.
Hanks stated call it vegetation
management. In regards to the
reserves for renewal and replacement, we have $600,000. Maybe I am approaching this the wrong way but
we will be more responsible by putting away $300,000 a year for renewal and
replacement rather than $200,000.
Mr.
Goscicki stated this was part of the chart we just showed you. If you want to increase it to $300,000, you
will have to increase the assessments.
Mr.
Hanks asked is there a reason why we did not have it this way?
Mr.
Daly responded we originally planned to keep the amounts the way they were last
year.
Mr.
Fennell stated we had the pump replacement not long ago. Where do we stand on our engines?
Mr.
Frederick responded they are currently being replaced. In Pump Station 1, all of the engines have
been replaced. The engines in Pump
Station 2 are currently being worked on.
The old ones were removed and the new ones are being installed.
Mr.
Fennell asked when will they all be installed?
Mr.
Frederick responded probably by the end of this week. They had to remove the old engines before
installing new ones. Since the old ones were
removed, they are going to pick them up and deliver new ones. It is going to be awhile before I will be
pumping anyway unless we get an excessive amount of rain. SFWMD told me even when we get rain; they do
not want me to pump. They will direct me
when to pump and how many gallons of water because they want to know when we
are pumping and be able to direct the water back into the conservation area
instead of letting it flow out to the intercoastal and be lost. When I pump the C-14, they will open the gate
instead of letting the water go to the east.
Mr.
Fennell asked is there any way to reverse pump the C-14?
Mr.
Frederick responded no. They just have
gates. All they need to do is to open
the gate and let water flow back in.
They want to re-direct the water to where it is better used.
Mr.
Fennell stated I understand.
Mr.
Hanks stated there will be another increase.
Mr.
Fennell stated hopefully we can provide some type of preventative maintenance
to prevent us from spending another million.
We should have an agreement with the city.
Mr.
Goscicki stated if it is the pleasure of the Board, we will add additional
dollars into the reserve, which will mean an increase in assessments. We will go back and re-work these numbers to
show what will be in the reserve if we assess by a certain amount. If we do an increase in assessments up to the
amounts between options 2 and 3, we will show what the reserve will look
like. We will bring a report to the
Board at the next meeting. CDD’s require
a 60 day notice period from the time the budget is approved until the time the
budget is adopted. We do not have this
requirement so we only have to do a 30 day advertisement to stay on schedule
and meet all of the requirements. Rather
than shoving numbers into the budget and having the Board approve something we
have not cleaned up, I suggest approving the budget at the next meeting and set
the public hearing for 30 days later.
Mr.
Hanks stated if we have a modest increase, we can have reserves in the bank if
we have another hurricane and need to do restoration.
Mr.
Fennell asked how much money do we need to have sitting in the bank?
Mr.
Goscicki responded you do not have enough money in the bank.
Mr.
Fennell asked what should we have?
Mr.
McKune responded $1 million should be sufficient. There are thousands of non-evasive trees left
in the ROW. I doubt all of them would
fall into the canal.
Mr.
Hanks stated I doubt all of them will stand.
Mr.
McKune stated true.
Mr.
Fennell asked how much did our total cleanup cost?
Mr.
McKune responded the total amount for Phases 1 and 2 was $2 to 3 million.
Ms.
Zich stated we are not going to have another hurricane as bad as Wilma.
Mr.
Hyche stated Wilma was not considered to be a bad storm.
Ms.
Zich stated this was the worst storm in the 37 years I have lived here.
Mr.
Hanks stated this is why we need to be proactive in what we are maintaining and
how we are maintaining it.
Mr.
Goscicki stated you are assessing the residents for future hurricanes.
Mr.
Fennell stated it became apparent no one was coming to our rescue with
money. There were promises to pay later.
Eventually we got some money. All the city wanted was to make sure we had
the money. If we did not have the money,
we could not have cleaned it up. Because
we took longer and went out and bid the project, we probably saved ourselves
anywhere from $500,000 to $1 million.
However, this was at the considerable, political expense of the city.
Mr.
Hanks stated I do not think we could have waited to acquire those funds through
a bond issue.
Mr.
Fennell stated the bigger these trees are, the more funds we are going to need
on hand.
Mr.
Goscicki stated we will provide you with a scenario on what reserves you will
generate with a proposed assessment and show you how many years it will take
you to build this money to $1 million.
Mr.
Lyles stated I just want to make sure we stay in our timetable. The budget is required to be prepared and
submitted as of last week and it was in accordance with our Special Act. Staff now wants to take the proposed budget,
make changes to it with what the Board directed and bring it back to the next
meeting. At that point, the Board will
adopt the resolution setting the public hearing.
Mr.
Hanks asked do we need to take action on this resolution tonight?
Mr.
Lyles responded no.
Mr.
Daly stated I request the Board have the engineer’s report at this time as Mr.
DaSilva has to leave the meeting.
C. Engineer - Permit Criteria Manual
Revisions
Mr. DaSilva stated I provided some
revisions to the Permit Criteria Manual, which we prepared with Mr. Hanks
assistance. We are cleaning up some
housekeeping items. The major change was
to Table II where we added surface storage data.
Mr. Hanks stated one of my problems
with the current Permit Criteria Manual was as you increase the size of your
building on a site, your requirements for storage of your 10 to 100 year storm
increases. Theoretically, if you had a
building covering 100% of your site, you did not have to provide any
storage. I worked with Ms. Early and Mr.
DaSilva on re-working some of the language in the Permit Criteria Manual so
this loophole was closed.
Mr. DaSilva stated basically if you
had a one acre building, you have no open area and there was no
requirement. As a result, we included
the following:
“Please refer to Table II and Sample Calculations for
storage requirements which is determined by AF/AC per acre of Project
Area. For projects exceeding more than
40% of impervious, it will be necessary that the Project Area includes the
building area when calculating the required storage area”
Ms. Early stated a homeowner is not
going to come to the District to add an addition on their home. They will have to go through the city.
Mr. Fennell stated suppose there is
new business like a parking garage. How
will this be affected?
Mr. Hanks responded their storage will
increase.
Mr. Fennell stated this means they
could have made a bigger one.
Ms. Early stated they could have but
they will have to provide exfiltration trenches or retention areas. What they have to provide increases.
Mr. Fennell asked by what percentage?
Ms. Early responded it depends on
the size of their lot and the building.
Mr. Fennell asked would Honda have
been able to build the new garage?
Ms. Early responded they applied for
a permit.
Mr. DaSilva stated they have a big
storage retention area.
Mr. Hanks stated if you take this to
the extreme. You could end up having a
project exporting their stormwater, especially in the east basin.
Ms. Early stated I think we need to
re-visit the permit fees. Some permits
had to go back to the engineer a number of times. This takes up more of our time.
Mr. Hanks asked is there an
opportunity for cost recovery?
Mr. Lyles responded yes. We could have the following fee structure;
have an administrative storage fee for every reasonable relatively minor permit
application and provide a mechanism for cost recovery going beyond a certain
amount of effort.
Ms. Early stated we talked to staff
about this and we will keep track of the number of hours and our rate. Staff will go to the permittee and say, “You paid
$350 but now you have to pay an additional $200”.
Mr. Lyles stated it has to be put
into the Permit Criteria Manual in the fee schedule.
Ms. Early stated it is in there.
Mr. DaSilva stated in Exhibit 11.
Ms. Early stated if we do not change
the fees, staff will have to take an extra step in obtaining the extra fee from
the permittee or we can charge a minimum of $350 for someone wanting to put a
fence on CSID property. However, for
something involving more review, we can charge $500 or $550. We can base the fee on the type of permit.
Mr. Daly stated I suggest we get the
money upfront and refund the difference, such as a permit deposit.
Mr. Hanks stated the City of
Mr. Daly stated this is an easy way
to handle this. Accounting-wise, it will
be on the system and it is revenue towards the expense and the remaining gets
credited to the applicant.
Mr. Hanks asked is there a legal
issue with this?
Mr. Lyles responded you have a cost
recovery system in place as part of the permit criteria. If you want to do this as part of your Permit
Criteria Manual, we will have to notice a public hearing for rulemaking
purposes.
Mr. Hanks asked do we really need
it? How many projects are we talking
about?
Mr. DaSilva responded we keep saying
the District is built up, but we keep receiving permits. Sometimes it takes two months for review.
Ms. Early stated we get a lot of
redo’s. Many times they change the
building or the engineer is not familiar with the District and we have to keep
going back and forth with them and getting calculations. It is not an everyday occurrence but it has
come up.
Mr. Fennell asked what action do you
need us to take?
Ms. Early responded whether to
increase the permit fees or if we should keep a record of it and have the
District go back to the permittee for an additional cost if it goes over $350.
Mr. Lyles stated the problem you
just described is in the Permit Criteria Manual but apparently staff has not
been doing it. This may be something you
can do by recovering the cost without any further rulemaking. Ms. Early is correct. As soon as you tell a homeowner who has some
minor modification to their house they have to write us a check for $1,000, you
are going to hear from them. We do not
know how much trouble it will be to administer it the way it is already written
and no one has ever refused to pay a permit fee.
Mr. Hanks stated let’s leave it the
way it is and start calculating the moment you get the permit application.
Mr. Goscicki asked is any
notification given to the permittee at the beginning of the process informing
them of any additional fees?
Ms. Early responded they have the
Permit Criteria Manual.
Mr. Goscicki stated there should be
something on the permit application. If
one comes in that we know is going to be a significant effort, it is in all of
our best interests to put the permittee on notice.
Mr. Hanks stated it is on the permit
schedule fee. Many times the engineer’s
fill out the application and not the developer.
The developer signs the application and the agent submits it. This should be where the verbiage is.
Ms. Early stated they can download
the application and fee schedule from the District website.
Mr. Fennell asked what needs to be
done?
Ms. Early responded we are going to
keep track of it and if it goes over $350, we are going to notify the District
to tell the permittee. We need you to
accept the modifications to the criteria.
Mr. Fennell stated let’s put this
off until next month.
A. Manager
ii. Consideration
of Billing Services Contracts with Lake Powell Residential Golf Community
Development District, Bayside Improvement District and Bay Creek Improvement
District
Mr. Goscicki stated these are the
three CDD’s you are currently providing utility billing services for. This is formalizing the structure.
Mr. Hanks stated this only adds up
to $250 per month.
Mr. Daly stated correct.
Mr. Goscicki stated some of these
districts are fairly small like
Mr. Daly stated
Mr. Hanks asked how do you come up
with these numbers? Are they based on $1
per unit?
Mr. Daly responded we will follow Severn
Trent Services lead because they assume the contract.
Mr. Goscicki stated this formalizes
the relationship and allows you to go back next year and make changes.
Mr. Daly stated Bayside has 750 to
800 accounts while Bay Creek has 135 accounts.
You make $9,000 for the year for all three districts.
Mr. Goscicki stated we are happy Mr.
Daly wants to continue providing this service.
Mr. Hanks asked are we losing money?
Mr. Daly responded no.
Mr. Fennell stated we should have
agreements with NSID and the other
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich
with all in favor the Interlocal Agreements with Lake Powell Residential Golf
Community Development District, Bayside Improvement District and Bay Creek
Improvement District were approved.
iii. Monthly Water & Sewer Charts
iv. Utility Billing Work Orders
v. Complaints Received/Resolved
There not being any, the next item
followed.
B. Attorney
Mr. Fennell asked how are we doing
with our bill?
Mr. Lyles responded our bill has
successfully passed both the House and Senate.
I received two inquiries from the Governor’s Office for background
information. I checked today with our
Tallahassee Special Counsel about exactly where we were. It is not on the Governor’s desk yet but it
is on its way there. Once it hits the
Governor’s desk he has 15 days to sign it.
So far so good!
Mr. Fennell stated I signed the
letter prepared by your staff, which was sent to
Mr. Lyles stated it was delivered
one week ago.
SEVENTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Discussion Item
– District Management Options
Mr. Fennell asked what has been
happening?
Mr. Goscicki responded Mr. Daly and
I have been working together amicably.
Mr. Daly stated we rely on each
other. I do not believe the District has
been as well served by Severn Trent Services since Ms. Archer left. It is a shame that the interim managers
between Ms. Archer and Mr. Goscicki paled in comparison to what Mr. Goscicki
accomplished in the past. It is the
truth. When Mr. Goscicki takes a hold of
something, he initiates and sees it to the end.
Mr. Fennell stated the problem is
Mr. Goscicki cannot stay here very long.
He is at a much higher level.
Mr. Daly stated this is a problem.
Mr. Fennell stated we need someone
here on a day to day basis.
Mr. Goscicki stated this is
something we are working on. You heard
our commitment and Mr. Dana Kaas commitment for me to stay here until we find this
caliber of person to make sure the District is in good hands. Currently, the working relationship between me
and staff here is working well. We are
getting good clarity on the programs going forward. We are working with District Counsel, Bond
Counsel, the Engineers, Consulting Engineers and internal staff to move this
program. I realize we are at a critical
juncture for this District in terms of getting the Capital Improvement Program
off the ground, getting the programs into place and proceeding. My commitment is to not let go of these
things until it reaches the end, even if we get a replacement. I will still stay actively engaged until we
can get this program off the ground and running and this Board is comfortable.
Mr. Fennell stated there is a
problem. The issues you are dealing with
are not inconsequential.
Mr. Goscicki stated not at all.
Mr. Fennell stated there are many
complicated issues going on and not notice type issues. Bringing in a new MBA student to try to
figure which way is up is not the way to go.
Mr. Goscicki stated we are looking
at seasoned, experienced persons. This
is not a principle part of what I would normally be doing. However, when you hire Severn Trent Services,
you hire our expertise. We are here for
you and will continue to be.
Mr. Fennell stated you provided us
with a flowchart at the last meeting. Do
you still agree on the hierarchy? We
show you reporting to Mr. Daly.
Mr. Goscicki responded this is the
chart I put together.
Mr. Fennell asked do you agree with
it?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated for the next
meeting, we are looking for final agreement between our own staff and your staff
on our ongoing relationships. It looks
to me like you are doing okay. I want to
get good representation on what is taking place. We are getting the type of support we need
from Mr. Daly, which is good on a strategic standpoint. We want to see a yearly contract from you
showing what we are going to get per year.
We are looking for something with more detail. Certain services should be enumerated and
cost out. Can we continue working in
this manner?
Mr. Hanks responded you managed to
save a rocky relationship, at least for the time being.
Mr. Goscicki stated I appreciate
that.
Mr. Hanks stated we are in a
difficult position and you are indeed making things work as well as Mr.
Daly. We need to figure out the mix of
balancing out the internal qualities and external qualifications.
Mr. Goscicki stated we can have
something for you at the next meeting.
Mr. Skehan stated in moving forward,
we recognize Mr. Goscicki and Mr. Daly are working to push forward the funding
and at the same time, we want to relate to the Board we are trying to get the
final questions answered. We thought we
had most of our questions resolved on the authorizations. We were working closely with Mr. Goscicki and
Mr. Daly.
Mr. Hanks asked are you working
towards an agreement?
Mr. Skehan responded we met last
week and the authorizations are close to being finalized. I thought we would have them today for your
review but recognizing they are not, we want to convey we will get these
resolved before the next meeting.
Mr. Hanks stated the Capital Improvement
Program is important but I still want to make sure we are putting ourselves out
there in the right type of contract. I
want to make sure you guys are still talking to each other and still making
progress. If you stop making progress,
let us know because we are going to need to make a decision on what we need to
do.
Mr. Fennell stated the big progress
that has to be made is for the bond issue going through and seeing the
short-term money. Then we will talk
about moving forward. I want to resolve
our current financial issues before signing off for any new work. If it seems like we are reluctant to move
forward, this is why. I want to have a
firm fiscal foundation going forward.
You show us where to spend the money but I do not have the money in my
pocket.
Mr. Skehan stated we have a meeting
tomorrow morning to review some of these issues to make sure everyone is on the
same playing field; answering some of those questions and making sure those
items are at the forefront of consideration.
Mr. Fennell stated we only have one
project considered to be extreme, which is the one we have currently taking
place. The others have to be done and the
viewpoints considered with good rational judgment. Now that we have a plan, we need to get the
money. We want to see the bond issue and
the money go through and have a firm, good viewpoint of the money flow. All of these things should be done.
Mr. Hanks stated they are not urgent
matters but they are important.
Mr. Rodriguez stated some things need
to be taken care of as soon as possible.
In regards to Wastewater Treatment Plants A & B, Plant B has to be
repaired as there are some problems with the diffusers. Nothing has been done at Plant A. The diffuser is just sitting there. In addition, the Water Use Permit expires
this year. We are working with SFWMD to
get this matter addressed. However, we
have a request from SFWMD to do some monitoring. We are calculating the entire area for the
allocation. They are asking for the regional
reclaimed water system not only for CSID but for NSID and the City of
Mr. Hanks asked where do we stand on
the short-term financing?
Mr. Goscicki responded this is
something we are currently working on.
We met with Bond Counsel and are looking at three different scenarios of
how to put together the short-term financing.
There is a straight outright loan, Bond Anticipation Note or possibly a
short-term bond. This would be
subordinate to the longer term bond as it ties into the structure of the
long-term bond. Depending on when we need
to pull the trigger on the long-term financing, dictates the best option to
move forward on the short-term financing.
The crux of tomorrow’s meeting is to look at the schedule and
programming.
Mr. Hanks asked have you estimated
the release of funds?
Mr. Goscicki responded we are
looking at 60 days.
Mr. Hanks asked when does the rate
increases for the water go into effect?
Mr. Goscicki responded on July 1st.
THIRD ORDER OF
BUSINESS Presentation
by CH2M-Hill of the Final Conditions and Assessment Report for Pump Stations 1
& 2
Ms. Early stated the third item on
today’s agenda was a presentation on the final conditions and assessment report
for Pump Stations 1 and 2. You received
the final report. We met with District
staff and they agreed to do some of the work if the District purchases the
equipment.
Mr. McKune stated if the District
agrees to purchase the materials.
Ms. Early stated we discussed with
District staff on what they felt as far as high, medium and low priority
items. The next step is to prepare the
plans and specifications and bid out the work.
Mr. Hanks asked do you prepare the
plans and specifications for the replacements?
Ms. Early responded some of the
items are structural and mechanical changes.
They want to add a catwalk and fuel tanks. The fuel tanks are one of the big items. Other items are small.
Mr. Fennell asked is this the
$600,000 item we do not have in our budget?
Ms. Early responded yes.
Mr. Goscicki stated let us talk to
the engineers about this project and what we can afford to do.
Mr. Hanks stated what we are coming
into is deferred maintenance, cost savings and not keeping up with things.
Mr. Goscicki stated the hurricane
took a lot out of you. You had a
philosophy in this District of building significant cash reserves in both
funds. However, due to inflation plus
hurricane damages, we lost those reserves.
The issue now is how we go forward with developing a Renewal and Replacement
Fund and funding these items as we move forward.
Mr. Fennell stated we were never
hesitant to spend money when we thought we needed it. We were proactive as far as installing new
pumps. I understand what you are saying.
Mr. Hanks asked have we made contact
with public utilities about getting propane out there?
Ms. Early responded no.
Mr. Fennell stated they were
supposed to replace the gas lines.
Ms. Early stated I do not think so.
Mr. Fennell stated we inspected the
tanks and found they were not in good shape.
We replaced one of them.
Mr. Hanks stated we need to speak
with the gas company to extend the line.
It is not our responsibility to maintain the tanks. We may have to look at replacing our propane
tanks with electric pumps, like
Ms. Early stated we looked into this
option.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor Requests and
Audience Comments
There not being any, the next item
followed.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of April
Financials and Check Registers
There not being any questions,
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Ms.
Zich with all in favor the financials and check registers for
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There being no further business, the
meeting was adjourned.
Secretary President