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, May
18, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. at the District Office, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral
Springs, Florida.
Present
and constituting a quorum were:
Robert
Fennell President
Sharon
Zich Vice
President
Glenn
Hanks Secretary
Also
present were:
Kenneth
Cassel District
Manager
Jane
Early District
Engineer
Sean
Skehan CH2M
Hill
Gerrit
Bulman CH2M
Hill
Brenda
Schurz Severn
Trent Services
Dan
Daly Director
of Operations
Doug
Hyche Utilities
Director
Randy
Frederick Drainage
Supervisor
Kay
Woodward District
Accountant
FIRST
ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Cassel called the
meeting to order and called the roll.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the
Minutes of the April 20, 2009 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member received
a copy of the minutes of the April 20, 2009 meeting and requested any
corrections, additions or deletions.
There
not being any,
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the minutes of the April 20, 2009 meeting were
approved.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Distribution of the
Proposed Water and Sewer Budget for Fiscal Year 2010 and Consideration of
Resolution 2009-5 Approving the Proposed Budget and Setting the Public Hearing
Mr. Fennell stated the big deal
today is the proposed water and sewer budget for fiscal year 2010. I believe we did this.
Mr. Cassel stated not on this.
Mr. Lyles stated it is a two step
process. The proposed budget is
submitted to you by the manager. Your
actions today are limited to accepting the proposed budget, approving it or
not, and setting the public hearing. The
proposed date is for your August meeting.
Today is just to start the process.
A notice will be published and there will be a public hearing in
August.
Ms. Zich stated I was noting the
delinquency, processing fee and our revenue.
It does not look to good. Are we having
a lot of problems? We are just getting a
lot of money there.
Mr. Daly stated we are not having
problems. The residents are. We expect to make $100,000 this year in
delinquent and turn on fees. This is
what happens in an economy like this one with the housing market the way it
is.
Ms. Zich stated I just noticed how
this was jumping.
Mr. Daly stated we cannot count on
it. This is why the dollar amount for
next year is considerably lower. The
housing market is going to get better and hopefully the rest of the
economy.
Mr. Hanks asked and you have those
increased fees because it means increased work for your administration to
collect?
Mr. Daly responded that is
correct. Every time we have to take
action to notify a customer they are going to be disconnected we hand deliver
the door hanger. It is not mailed. We hand deliver it to make sure they have it
in their hand in ample time to get the bill paid.
Mr. Fennell stated my biggest
question is with regard to interest income for the 2007 Series Bonds. Is there any prospect of us earning
anything? We still have $35 Million we
have not spent.
Ms. Woodward responded you have $29
Million in the construction account. The
problem you have right now is that it is an ever decreasing balance. As we pay each series of requisitions on the
work, the balance continues to go down and we do not have an ongoing source of
revenue funds to go back into the account.
Right now at US Bank you are looking at maybe half a percent per year. I have been in touch with one of the officers
in Orlando and US Bank is currently offering a new product to their trusteed
funds accounts. For minimum balances of
$5 Million you can go into what is the equivalent of laddered CDs where you
would basically purchase sums you know you are not going to need for three
months, six months, etcetera. Right now
I need to know exactly how it works because we would need to be in a position
to have better guesses on when we specifically need those construction funds. This is one of the options for what could
happen. Other than that, basically for
budget purposes, we tend to be ultra conservative and underestimate revenue so
we are certain the expenditures we have we can cover; if revenues come in
higher, than it is better for you.
Mr. Fennell asked can we ladder
T-Bills? Even T-Bills are paying more
than half percent.
Ms. Woodward responded we can check
on it. It is still the same
problem. The real issue is being able to
take the $29 Million and give a reasonable estimate as to when those funds will
be expended. If you ladder in on either
one of those investments and you guess wrong having to pull out funds, then
there are penalties involved with it.
Mr. Fennell stated but on the other
hand we have $2 Million or $3 Million of unrestricted funds. Is this correct?
Ms. Woodward responded yes.
Mr. Fennell stated it could
certainly act as a cushion.
Ms. Woodward stated it acts as a
cushion, but it is outside of the trustee funds. The problem you have right now, whether the
funds are trusteed with US Bank or they are separately in either CDs or
operating funds elsewhere, are the interest rates across the board are not magnificent. You are suffering relative to what you have
been able to have in past years. The
issue here is to whittle away and get as much as you can. It is not going to be large amounts. You are going to have to pay attention and
sort of save your pennies and dollars as you go.
Mr. Fennell stated we probably do
need a better estimate. I guess I am
going to ask engineering to get together with accounting and really do a cash
flow analysis of these projects. You
know when the work is being done. There
is a minimum amount of time you know the work can be done and there is probably
a maximum flow out. If we can get a
really good handle on the work and when the payouts would be from engineering,
at that point accounting could look at it and say there is no way we will ever
need any more money than this by this time.
Then there is a worst case scenario for payout. The reason I am pushing this is because we
were counting on interest to come in and actually build up part of it.
Ms. Woodward stated that is correct,
but at the same time when you went out for the bonds the expectation was the cost
of the project was going to be $23 Million to $25 Million and it came in at $17
Million or $18 Million. You have
benefited and suffered for the same reasons.
Mr. Fennell stated nevertheless, it
would still be good to go and do a real cash flow for an understanding.
Mr. Hanks stated from that
standpoint yes, I agree. We also need to
be careful against locking ourselves in at a low interest rate now so we may
not have the potential to benefit from higher interest rates later on.
Ms. Zich stated well we only do it
short term, hopefully.
Ms. Woodward stated short term is
all you are dealing with here because this is an ever decreasing balance. It is just the construction funds.
Ms. Zich stated we would not want to
do anything long term with this money.
It has to be short term.
Mr. Fennell stated but we probably
need the cash flow thing anyway.
Mr. Skehan stated we have looked at
this very closely thus far, but we can go back and reevaluate it.
Mr. Fennell stated let us do this so
we can really see how this works. This could potentially be hundreds of
thousands of dollars in interest we could be earning.
Ms. Zich stated no. The rates are so low now.
Mr. Fennell asked how can the banks
claim you still can get money? Everybody
is still in T-Bills?
Ms. Zich asked what is the rate on
the money market account we have with Wachovia?
It is so low. It is like .01%.
Ms. Woodward responded it is all so
low.
Ms. Zich stated it is really
terrible.
Ms. Woodward stated you do have a
total of $1,250,000 we spread out into certificates of deposits; funds we know
we can keep rolling over and rolling over.
On average those funds are earning you approximately 2.5%. I will grant you this is not a large sum, but
when you are looking at .01% and .04% it is an improvement. We simply have to watch for any opportunity,
even though the timeframe is short and the interest rate is only marginally
higher. We need to examine it and try to
capture as much of those opportunities as they come along.
Ms. Zich stated Ms. Woodward has her
eyes open and I have my eyes open too.
The rate of return right now is so minimal.
Mr. Fennell asked do you remember
about 20 years ago when they had helicopters flying from a building to another
building so they could pick up cash that day, deposit it that night and invest
it in Eurodollars?
Ms. Zich responded I remember that. I worked for a builder and we were getting
interest on the float overnight at the bank.
Those days are gone.
Mr. Fennell stated that is the
biggest issue I see as far as revenue because we are saying we are going to be
$250,000 less than the 2008 actual. When
does our next…
Mr. Daly responded July 1,
2009. The last rate increase. We approved three years.
Mr. Fennell asked does this schedule
include that?
Mr. Daly responded yes it does.
Ms. Woodward stated yes it does, but
one of the things we had to take into account is we have to give the benefit of
the full 14% increase for the July billing because it goes up for that and goes
down for drought water restrictions. We
tended to be conservative even on the revenue side.
Mr. Fennell asked even so, given all
of that, as I look at the bottom line in the next page over we are still; does
this include the debt service requirement?
Ms. Woodward responded yes. We are required to have 10% over the debt
service as reserve. So that 1.10 we have
in fact budgeted from this that we should be hitting the mark at 1.91. We are not even marginally close to having an
issue. This basically says we will have
twice as much money as we need to expend on principle and interest. Even if other issues come up and require
funds, you can be very secure in knowing that we are being conservative.
Mr. Fennell stated as I am looking
at the first page the debt service through 2010 the only thing we are paying
off is $75,000.
Ms. Zich stated remember we are
paying it early this year.
Ms. Woodward stated yes. The 1992 Series is being paid in full. That is the $3,075,000 you see in the next to
last column for the principal. One the
2002 Series, the only portion of the principal is $75,000. The 2007 Series’ principal has been postponed
until 2014. There is no money being
expended on it. You will note, even
though our interest expense for the 2007 Series runs $1.9 Million per year, we
are only having to fund $1.5 Million because the rest of those funds came by
way of closing of the bonds.
Mr. Fennell asked looking at 2011,
what debt payment will we have in that year?
Ms. Woodward responded we will be
paying $1.9 Million in interest on the 2007 Series. On the 2002 Series there will be $75,000 in
principal and $280,000 in interest. The
$1,978,000 will be the interest on the 2007 Bonds. No principal will be paid on the 2007 Bonds
in 2010.
Mr. Fennell stated I am looking
ahead into 2011.
Ms. Woodward stated still nothing
until after 2014. Then you will be
paying principal.
Mr. Fennell stated I am just trying
to look forward. This looks awfully
good. We are going to be $1.7 Million in
surplus, even with downed revenue, but I know we have this window coming at
some point where we have to start paying.
Ms. Woodward stated you have a
couple of windows coming. Number one, on
the principal and interest for all of the debt you have to pay for. After this first year where we reap the
benefit of paying off the 1992 Series Bonds early, our debt service will run $4
Million a year on all issues combined. In
addition to that, once we have built out the nanoplant, there will be certain
items of operating expenditures; which right now we might have a rough estimate
that certain items might be going up, but we do not have a true feel for how
electricity will be affected by this, payments related to purchase and
installation of filters and all sorts of things which will be involved in this. This is one of the reasons why you want to
work towards being conservative and hold down on your expenditures as much as
possible in anticipation of something unknown that we might need in the future
when the plant comes online.
Mr. Fennell stated this year we will
not have very much thanks to the fact we are paying off the 1992 Series early,
but coming up is a $4 Million a year boat we are going to have to carry;
essentially a $10 Million business.
Ms. Zich stated we still have really
good rates for our customers. We have
great rates. Talk to anyone in our
surrounding area and you will see how good our rates are.
Mr. Hanks asked what were
Hollywood’s rates? They just announced a
big increase.
Mr. Daly responded I am not familiar.
Mr. Hyche stated I think they are
all looking at the drought condition surcharges. That is what they are all going to try to
implement.
Mr. Daly stated that is true. We just received that email again. Who is that from?
Mr. Hanks responded I just read
something in the paper this morning about Hollywood, Dania, and Pembroke Pines
or Pembroke Park, I always get those two confused, will have a 30% or 40%
increase.
Ms. Zich stated like I said, we
still have really good rates in this District.
Mr. Hanks stated one thing we are
benefiting from is we do not have an ocean outfall, which the other wastewater
treatment plants that have ocean outfalls have to get rid of them by 2025. What are they actually going to do?
Mr. Skehan responded injection wells.
Mr. Fennell stated that is a huge
amount of water. They are going to need
to have 5 times the amount of injection wells we have or something like it.
Mr. Hanks stated they are going to
have to go reclaimed because they are limiting how much you can put down your…
Mr. Skehan stated they are still
going to need to have back up.
Mr. Hanks stated yes, full capacity
back up. You are looking at some huge
numbers to change it around. They also
have issues with the saltwater infusion, which we do not have to deal
with. This is why we are going through
with the water modeling. It is all tied
together. SFWMD looks at this and says
if we are withdrawing the water here and making use of it, then it is not
available through Pompano, Dania or Deerfield. So they have other issues. It is something to be thankful about. We are fortunate for the system we do
have.
Mr. Fennell asked are there any
other questions?
Mr. Daly responded the only other
highlight on the proposed budget would be the meter replacement program at
approximately $106,644. They are going
to actually start with residential meters again. It has been 10 or 12 years since we did it
the last time. We actually put some
temporary help in the budget for it too, which will be a part-time, non
permanent position. It will probably go
into the budget for the next couple of years.
We will have them work alongside one of our permanent full-time
employees. That is all they will do all
day long for 30 hours a week.
Mr. Fennell asked are you doing it
area by area?
Mr. Daly responded area by area, subdivision
by subdivision.
Mr. Fennell asked did you ever find
something which was less expensive that we could actually read the meters electronically?
Mr. Daly responded yes. I found it 12 years ago. I think Ms. Mossing brought it to the Board,
but it was $250,000 at the time. It is
pretty much electronic.
Mr. Fennell stated it has to pay for
itself in a reasonable amount of time.
Mr. Daly stated yes. You will basically not have a meter reading
department any longer.
Mr. Fennell stated eventually.
Mr. Daly stated as soon as they are
all changed. You would actually replace
the meter readers with people who repair the meters. We are paying $29 for meters now in the last
10 or 12 years so when you really add it up and look at it, plus the meter
readers do our door hangers aside from doing that position. They do our running to the bank. Some of them even input payments when some of
our people are on vacation. They are all
cross trained to do a lot of different things.
When you look at it you can add up their salaries and look at it over a
period of years, but you would not save all of that. You would save a portion of it.
Mr. Hanks stated you still need
someone to go out and do a drive around every so often to check and see that
they were still accessible.
Mr. Daly stated the whole idea with Mux,
which is an electronic device, since we double gang our meters, is one would
work for both and things like that. The
problem is all it takes is a bad wire, a bad battery and all of a sudden you
are not getting readings with it. So you
really could not get rid of all your personnel.
At the time when we spoke years ago about this, Ms. Mossing wanted to be
able to sit at your desk and press a button to see the meter reading at “Mrs.
Smith’s” home. She was light years ahead
of her time on that. You would have to
have the city allow antennas on every block.
That was not about to happen. We
did look at this opportunity years ago.
I can look at it again if you would like.
Mr. Fennell stated the criterion is
a minimum of a five year payback. Once
you hit anything over a 10 or 15 year payback it becomes questionable. You do not really know if you are going to
get a payback.
Mr. Daly stated what I see a lot of
utilities or cities doing are going to touch screens. All that does is allow the meter reader not
to have to bend down to look at the meter pit and get stung by ants or
bees. Pretty much it is the button which
pushes and shoots into the gun. It still
does not negate the fact you have to have a body which knows where to go and
which house to be at. There was a cost
involved with that. Mr. Hyche and I
looked into that with another gentleman who used to work with us. The labor alone of putting the mechanism in
the meter box lid where they can just touch it was cost-prohibitive. You have to drill it out and secure it. We would have to have hired a crew just to do
that.
Mr. Hanks stated there is also a
reason ductile iron is still the preferred material. It works.
Ms. Early, do we have enough money in here for your engineering fees?
Mr. Daly responded Ms. Early’s fees
normally come from our general fund budget, which is the one you received last
month.
Mr. Hanks stated so we have $6,000
in this budget for engineering.
Mr. Daly stated Mr. Cassel and I
talked about it today and we might bump it up a bit. This is primarily due to the fact the Board
may ask for special services. Mr. Skehan
and others in the group are going to attend these meetings because they have
million dollar projects out here. It is
part of the deal. There should not be a
fee for them to show up. The money which
is in there is for the Board asking for studies to be done or something like
that.
Mr. Fennell asked we only have
$6,000 in the budget, right?
Mr. Daly responded because most of
the other costs are associated with the projects. It is the best way to track it.
Mr. Cassel stated one of our things
we started doing is linking engineering fees to specific projects so we know
what the engineering fees are for that project.
This is why if you look at what the engineering fees were before, they
have been dropping. We have allocated
from being just a general number they have been moved to the specific targeted
utilization.
Mr. Daly stated five years ago you
could not have said “this is how much this project cost” because not everything
was in one place. Now it is all in one
spot and with the touch of a button Ms. Woodward can pull it up and say it cost
you X amount of money.
Ms. Woodward stated we can also give
you the breakdown so if you have five jobs running simultaneously, we can give
you the cost by project in total and we can also tell you by project the amount
of the engineering as well as the amount of the hard cost. It is not a lost number. You can still retrieve it and know what the
number is.
Mr. Fennell stated that assumes we
actually end up with a project. We might
want to look at things and decide not to do them. How do we fund that?
Ms. Woodward responded we can fund
it through general engineering. If it
does not convert to a project at year end, it remains as an expenditure and
closes out into the equity at the end of the year. It would stay on the general engineering
expense line. If it became part of a
project, it would be moved over to either capital outlay or capital
improvements. Ultimately, on your
audited financials, it would then be moved out and into a fixed asset which you
would be depreciating.
Mr. Daly asked would you have more
of a comfort level if we doubled this number?
Mr. Fennell responded yes. The only question I might have here is on
postage where we might be spending $48,000 on just sending out bill
notices. Is it possible for us to notify
people by email?
Mr. Daly responded it could be. I would have to spend some money on having
the program.
Mr. Fennell stated I just look at
how most of my bills and banking I get by email. I do not really get much paper anymore. I do not know if it would save us any money.
Mr. Daly stated I believe it is $.24
because we do the postcards.
Ms. Zich stated not everyone is
going to have a computer. It is not
going to be 100%. There is still going
to be a certain amount of people who are still going to want to get
postcards. You cannot force them to have
a computer.
Mr. Fennell stated I have automatic
billing. It shows up and gets directly
billed to my account. You can just as
easily send me an email.
Mr. Daly stated I will have to take
a look at this. We actually have
everyone’s bill online. They can go
online and look at their account.
Mr. Fennell stated my electrical
bill is like that.
Mr. Daly stated we have had this for
years, but no one takes advantage of it.
The whole idea is they get on the website to pay their bill. It is not a bad idea.
Mr. Fennell stated you are already
paying for internet.
Mr. Hanks asked what do you need
from us to move this forward? Do you
need a motion to adopt Resolution 2009-5?
Mr. Cassel responded that is correct.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to fill
in any of the blanks on the amounts?
Mr. Cassel responded no. As it is worded it is approving the budget as
attached with the adjustment in the one line item. The total is not going to change. It is the resolution with the attached budget
as amended.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Ms. Zich with all in favor Resolution 2009-5, approving the proposed water
and sewer budget as amended and setting the public hearing for August 17, 2009
at 3:00 p.m. at the District Offices, was adopted.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Award of Bid for Road
Repair and Resurfacing Project IH-2009-A
Mr. Fennell asked is this the area
we are doing it?
Mr. Hyche responded we are doing
some patch repair on the back side. From
the island in the front we are doing a relay all the way around encompassing
this entire parking lot and road.
Mr. Daly stated there are lots of
places in the past due to 20 years worth of work on the property that patches
needed to be made, but they never were.
Mr. Fennell asked how come there was
500 square yards difference?
Mr. Cassel responded it depends on
how the individual measured. We went out
and marked off the areas we decided on.
We told them we would also do this whole area as an overlay. They came up with the amount of square yards
they thought was necessary to do it. That
is what they bid on.
Mr. Daly stated I know, Mr. Fennell,
you had a question on our area back here where it was kind of sinking. Mr. Hyche had one of the field guys take the
back hauler and dig it up. There is no
pipe underneath there. We thought
perhaps there might be a pipe which was broken.
Mr. Fennell stated okay. Good.
Are there any other questions on this?
Mr. Hanks responded we are just shy
of $10 a square yard. That is not a bad
price.
Ms. Early stated that is a pretty
good price.
Mr. Hanks stated it is tied in quite
heavily with the cost of oil.
Ms. Early stated I am surprised only
two people bid.
Mr. Hyche stated we had a lot more
than that show up, but only two people actually bid.
Mr. Daly stated they will stripe the
parking lot afterwards.
Mr. Hyche stated yes. This includes the marking.
Mr. Hanks stated the price is
good. Do we really need it?
Mr. Daly responded we can go a few
years and then do the whole place when all the projects are done. Mr. Cassel and I were thinking since this
area here is pretty much done with the construction it would not be a bad idea
to do this now. There are some parts of
our driveway out front where you actually see dirt. It is actually worn down that badly.
Mr. Cassel stated this will also
correct our semi-permanent lake out here.
Mr. Hyche stated this includes in
front of the fueling station; pulling it up, re-rocking it, re-leveling it and
adding some more around the pumps.
Mr. Hanks asked just out of
curiosity, how come you are not going with concrete around the fueling station?
Mr. Hyche responded there is
concrete right around the station.
Mr. Cassel stated this is the
approach.
On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded
by Ms. Zich with Mr. Fennell and Ms. Zich voting aye and Mr. Hanks voting nay
the road repair and resurfacing bid was awarded to Pavex Corporation.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Surface Water Management Permit for Taravella High School Addition PE Building
Located at the Southeast Corner of Riverside Drive and Coral Springs Drive
Ms. Zich asked where are they
putting it?
Mr. Hanks responded just off the
football field.
Mr. Fennell stated that is where
they had the temporary buildings.
Mr. Hanks asked did they provide
calculations demonstrating they meet our storage criteria?
Ms. Early responded they provided
calculations. I think we asked them for
additional information.
Mr. Hanks asked do they meet our
storage criteria?
Ms. Early responded yes. We put some special conditions in there with
regards to the weir and cleaning the system.
Mr. Hanks asked are we requiring
them to have a PRB prior to discharge to our system?
Ms. Early responded they all have to
before it discharges. If they are
connecting into it, the last structure before it outfalls has to have a PRB. That is our standard condition. We are now requiring them to make sure the
system is clean too.
Mr. Fennell stated it will not be as
used since they have cut back 25% of the athletic activities in high school,
except for football.
Mr. Daly stated we just met with the
engineer for this project. He said the
reason they are going forward is because they lose a lot of money if they do
not have a stadium for football and it has to go to another school. They lose a lot of revenue.
Ms. Early stated yes because they
charge for parking and admission.
Mr. Fennell stated my kids went to
Taravella.
Ms. Zich stated I had one go to each
one; Taravella and Coral Springs High School.
Mr. Fennell asked is there a motion
for this one?
Mr. Hanks responded hold on.
Mr. Fennell asked is the engineering
and everything okay?
Ms. Early responded yes.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the surface water management permit for
Taravella High School addition PE building located at the southeast corner of
Riverside Drive and Coral Springs Drive was approved.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Manager
·
Discussion
of Water Reuse Workshop
Mr. Cassel stated as we have been
looking at the water use permit in discussions with SFWMD, also looking at the
potential need for reuse or options for reuse, we would like to set a workshop
meeting with the Board in the first or second week of June to get together with
the engineers as well as staff to look at potential opportunities for reuse,
impacts on the District and opportunities for the District.
Mr. Fennell stated the first week we
are actually going up to that meeting.
Mr. Cassel stated so it will have to
be the second week of June.
Mr. Fennell stated I will have to
check my calendar.
Mr. Cassel stated I will have Ms.
Schurz send out an email. Is there any
particular time of the day, which is better for the Board?
Ms. Zich stated in the afternoon.
Mr. Fennell stated this time is not
too bad.
Mr. Cassel asked around 3:30 p.m.?
Mr. Fennell responded at 3:00 p.m.
Ms. Zich asked are we looking at any
particular date? Are we looking at the
second week in June?
Mr. Cassel responded yes, June 8th,
9th or 10th.
Mr. Hanks stated I prefer June 8th
or June 9th.
Ms. Zich stated I prefer the
ninth. Let us try for Tuesday, June 9,
2009.
Mr. Hanks asked what time?
Mr. Fennell responded I have to
teach a class at 6:00 p.m. so it will have to be 3:00 p.m.
Mr. Cassel stated okay, Tuesday,
June 9, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.
Mr. Hanks asked does this give us
ample time to provide proper notification?
Mr. Lyles stated yes.
Mr. Cassel stated we will get it
advertised and there will be a follow up email to the Board.
Mr. Fennell asked which group is
pushing the water reuse?
Mr. Cassel responded it is a
combination. SFWMD is always interested
in reuse processes and projects. It will
tie into our consumptive water use permit.
In all of our planning documents it is out there in our long range
planning documents that we would look at or consider. We have not committed to doing it per se, but
it is always out there; when the timing is right, if it is feasible, if it is
the right time for investment, etcetera, we would consider it.
Mr. Hanks stated the City of Coral
Springs is looking for a 20% increase in their allocation. We are looking at a smaller increase to
accommodate the additional waste stream from the nanoplant.
Mr. Cassel stated that is correct.
Mr. Hanks stated we have somewhat of
a unique ability in Northwestern Broward County because we have our own
wastewater treatment plant. The City of
Coral Springs does not have the ability to make any of their decisions in terms
of reclaimed water or alternative sources.
They are pretty much stuck with having to go to the Floridan, which can
result in some substantial costs.
Reclaimed also can result in some substantial costs as well, but it may
break even, it may be better or it may not be.
This is why we are trying to have some of these workshops to flush out
some of these issues.
Mr. Fennell asked how come the
arguments do not center around the canals also?
Mr. Hanks asked when you say center
around the canals?
Mr. Fennell responded I can remember
a time when we had a billion gallons of water we could have reused. We could have given it back and no one would
take it.
Mr. Hanks asked are you talking in
terms of stormwater discharges?
Mr. Fennell responded yes. We are talking maybe 10 million gallons here.
Mr. Hyche stated they are looking at
ASR, aquifer storage recovery, wells for the purpose of collecting the
stormwater.
Mr. Fennell stated I am getting the
impression the argument has been framed in not a correct end. We are talking about 1% of the water as
opposed to 99% of the water; 99% of the water in our canals ends up going out
to the ocean. We are talking about the
1% or so we actually use for personal consumption and trying to do something
with that. I do not see where this is
the biggest bang for the buck. Maybe I
am missing something.
Mr. Hanks stated part of the issue
is the geology we have. There is a very
pervious system so if we were able to store excess water in the canals in terms
of a higher elevation, it would have the effect of pushing on out then in the
dry season when we really would need it, it would not be there because it will
have filtered out to the adjacent lower areas.
Mr. Fennell stated well it would not
be here for us, but it would be there for Margate, Tamarac, North Lauderdale
and others because they are right in the flow.
Mr. Hanks stated that is one of
those discussions we can still have. One
of the other options on the table as far as the South Florida region is to tie
into a C-51 reservoir. Up in Northern Palm
Beach County they have some geology which is almost impervious so they have the
ability to store that runoff in the area and then distribute it over the course
of the year on a daily basis throughout this area without impacting wetlands
and without causing additional saltwater intrusion. They are talking about some of those issues,
but then again some of the challenges are how to get from one place to actually
where we are using it.
Mr. Fennell stated well in some cases,
not so much ours, we have pumps which can pump back towards the
Everglades. We have C-14, which goes
right out to the Everglades. All we have
to do is install a pump which goes in the other direction.
Mr. Hanks stated there are a lot of
issues; one of which is the pending litigation between Miccosukee and SFWMD
over the quality of water. Just because
it is in the canals it does not mean you can necessarily move it from one place
to another. You may have to treat it and
bring it up to water standards. That is
a big fight right now. There is a whole
mess of issues which are bigger than just SFWMD that are waiting to be
determined.
Mr. Fennell asked is that water more
clean than what we have coming out of our sewer line?
Mr. Hyche responded not unless it is
disinfected.
Mr. Fennell stated there is an issue
there, but it is not really an issue of water.
Mr. Hanks stated there are a lot of
issues and most of it is different camps trying to push different agendas. Little people like us are caught in the
middle. We are trying to see what our
available options are. We can control
our destiny over some components of it.
Mr. Fennell stated my point is I
think the question is being framed with an answer already in mind.
Mr. Skehan stated part of the
purpose of the workshop is to look at the different aspects and components that
would be evaluated in a feasibility study for reuse. One of the significant components is cost and
what is going to be better financially to pursue alternate water sources. In pursuing alternate water sources you have
to choices ultimately. One would be the Floridan
Aquifer and then looking at all the implications tied to that. The other alternate source would be reuse and
doing a cost benefit analysis with those associated costs so it meets the role
of the District and/or the policy which is out there in trying to achieve goals
from SFWMD or from DEP for both the water use permitting and/or for the
operating permits for the wastewater plants at the same time. There are multiple components here as Mr.
Hanks was pointing out and we are just trying to get those all in front of the
Board so you give a fair evaluation to that.
One of the things we were able to submit a week ago was a grant
application that was available from Broward County for doing feasibility
studies. They are giving 50% of the
funding. With any luck the grant
application we submitted on behalf of the District will be able access some of
that, going in the direction of studying this specifically.
Mr. Fennell stated we have been
talking about this for a while.
Obviously there are political issues from different political
groups. I will be asking a question
starting more from a rational basis. Why
do we have a water shortage? How much
water do we actually need for this? How
much is this District actually a part of the water problem? I lived out west. Where I was born we had 15 inches of rain a
year. We were near a desert. There were real water issues there. We have 40 inches a year and our pumps all
run towards the ocean.
Mr. Hanks stated there are a lot of
these issues being floated around. I
again extend the offer on the first Friday of each month we have the Broward
County Task Force meeting. I can send
you as an alternate and anyone else is welcome to attend. You get quite a sense for what these issues
really are. We really do not have a
problem. We have a lot of opportunities. There are other utilities which have
problems. Imagine if all of a sudden we
had to come up with another solution for our deep well injections, which is
where we send all of our wastewater. Broward
County, Hollywood and Fort Lauderdale are in this scenario. Their disposal methods are changing. They can no longer do what they have
historically done. That is being forced
down from the legislature.
Mr. Hyche stated the Clean Water
Act.
Mr. Hanks asked Mr. Skehan; in
advance of this workshop will you be able to put together a list of some of the
background and topics for the rest of the Board members such as reclaimed,
Floridan and conservation? Those are
some of the issues we are going to want to take a look at the cost and
potential savings; also, look at what is really the driving force behind our
issues. How much do we have to achieve
in terms of either a reduction in our use or increase in our capacity?
Mr. Skehan responded we can do that.
·
Monthly
Water Charts
Mr. Hanks asked what is RAA percent
loss?
Mr. Hyche responded on an annual
average.
Mr. Hanks stated thank you.
Mr. Fennell asked so did you
actually find out anything out there?
Mr. Hyche responded we know it is
the laterals. That is all we found
out. I do not think the engineers had a
chance to look at it yet.
Mr. Fennell asked are the laterals
the main pipes going in?
Mr. Hyche responded that is the
surface laterals.
Mr. Fennell asked where the pipes
meet?
Mr. Cassel responded at the
connection lines.
Mr. Hyche stated you talk to some of
the guys who have been around since day one.
Some of those plumbers put those laterals together into the mains
without the boots.
Mr. Fennell asked who is responsible
for this?
Mr. Hyche responded the surface
laterals would be the owners. We are
responsible to the main.
Mr. Hanks stated we are responsible
within the right-of-way.
Mr. Lyles stated how this is suppose
to work and the prototypical construction, dedication and public responsibility
is the right-of-way line is where the public’s property interest ends and the
private property interest begins. This
is where we typically should have a meter, but there have been instances within
the boundaries of this District where for one reason or another, I think this
goes back long before the involvement of anyone in this room, we have meters
and we have lines in places that extend beyond the right-of-way line. While the simple answer, based on how it
normally works, there are instances where we have found that is not how it was
constructed and we are going to have to sort through the issues of future
access if there are any and liability.
We have at least one lawsuit where it has been alleged, and so far the
evidence seems consistent with, one of our meters being inside a commercial
property line, hundreds of feet from the nearest right-of-way line. It is the way it was installed. It is the way it has been read over the
years. The case is being defended in
part on the basis that we do not own this property, we do not have an easement
on it and we are not responsible for what goes on when people are walking into
this mall. We have some situations that
are anomalies and not the way it would be done would the application for a
permit come before you today.
Mr. Fennell stated okay, well, you
think you know where the problem is at.
Is it worth fixing?
Mr. Hyche responded I do not think
so. It is cheaper to treat it.
Mr. Cassel stated at this point.
Mr. Hanks asked for how long? Are we talking about a ten year return
period?
Mr. Cassel responded as with all
infiltration, you go down to the last percentage of the infiltration and the
cost benefit to eliminate it from your system.
The payback period is a 15, 20 or 25 year scenario. They kind of draw a line and say below this
it is not worth messing with it.
Mr. Fennell asked how much would it
cost to repair each one of these things?
Mr. Hyche responded I would not even
begin to estimate. We are talking about
an area of Ramblewood and three lift station runs.
Mr. Hanks asked how many houses,
500?
Mr. Hyche responded there are approximately
1,500 in the Ramblewood area.
Mr. Hanks asked are we in jeopardy
of violating any of our permit criteria?
Mr. Hyche responded not even during
periods of high flow.
Mr. Fennell asked can you actually
go and do a sampling? I guess if you
have some things you can look at and actually see if there is a way to find out
the specific problems?
Mr. Hyche responded smoke tests.
Mr. Skehan stated you can do flow
testing in the lift stations.
Mr. Fennell stated it depends on how
extensive it is. I know when I built my
pool the guy came out and dropped the pump.
The amount of water having to come out just to keep a small hole open is
tremendous. If you have a pipe which is
disjointed and under water, you are going to pick up a lot of water.
·
Utility
Billing Work Orders
Mr. Fennell asked are there any questions?
There not being any, the next item
followed.
B. Attorney
There
being no report, the next item followed.
C. Engineer
·
Work
Authorization No. 32 for Engineering Services During Construction for the
Wastewater Plant Improvements Phase 2 in the Amount of $161,709.90
·
Project
Status Report
Mr. Fennell stated it seems like we
have gone backwards in our progress with the nanofiltration plant. When are we going to keep going?
Mr. Skehan responded the demolition
has taken place with the different components of the wastewater plant that
needed to be brought down. That has been
completed. They are waiting to get a
construction permit from the city. There
has been some frustration with this. One
small item I can share with the Board is we had the preliminary review of the
wastewater drawings a couple of months ago.
Everyone is aware of that. Those
drawings were sent back to the contractor a week ago. Two of the drawings were not satisfactory
according to the city. They needed to be
signed and sealed. Those two drawings
were sheets with abbreviations on them.
The contractor is somewhat frustrated with that. We are a little frustrated that the city is
calling for this level of stopping what is taking place in the permitting
aspect. We were told last week that all
took place and we did get them all signed and sealed for the one day turnaround
time. They are back in their hands and
supposedly things are suppose to be getting resolved this week. We will wait to see how this comes
together.
One thing I discussed with the
District manager is we will also have another meeting with some of the same
people we had a meeting with the last time on the water plant aspect of it and
be able to try to avoid some re-reviews which really do not need to be taking
place. We are trying to streamline the
review process. The contractor is ready
to go and he is potholing to know where are pipelines are out there. They are hoping they will get the green flag
this week to move on the wastewater plant.
Mr. Fennell asked what about the
nanofiltration plant?
Mr. Skehan responded that is the
subsequent review of their plans. We had
a discussion last week about fuel storage.
Fuel storage was a huge issue the last time when permitting was taking
place out here on the plant. We met with
the chief fire inspector for the city.
He shared with us the codes have changed related to fuel storage
onsite. They no longer have limitations
on fuel storage for facilities which are dividing utility type services. Any utility which is providing water or
providing emergency type services will be able to have as much fuel as is
necessary.
Mr. Hanks asked is that the city
code?
Mr. Skehan responded it is either a county
code or state code. It is a change that
just took place in January. He was very
helpful with that and the people at the county are on board where we are
going. They have said they are able to
help facilitate this also.
Mr. Fennell asked so when are we
going to get busy?
Mr. Skehan responded as soon as he
can get the wastewater permit, they will be busy the next day.
Mr. Fennell stated it seems like,
just from driving through here, I do not see anything happening with the
nanofiltration plant. I am not sure if I
really understand what that has to do with the wastewater.
Mr. Skehan stated there is another
portion of the project related to the wastewater plant also. That is where the demolition took place.
Mr. Fennell asked but how come the
nanofiltration plant is not moving forward?
Mr. Skehan responded because of some
of these permitting issues I just mentioned.
Mr. Fennell stated that was for the
wastewater.
Mr. Skehan stated it was for
both.
Mr. Hanks asked do they have the
abbreviation issue on the nanoplant?
Mr. Skehan responded no. The abbreviation was on the wastewater side
and the fuel storage was an issue we have been trying to get squared away also;
then just going back to the city to make sure if there are questions and make
sure they do not re-review.
Mr. Hanks stated it has been a month
since we went out. I can understand a
few days or maybe even a week for a review, but we are talking about a month.
Mr. Skehan stated they said they
decided they had to re-review the reviews they had done before.
Ms. Zich asked is there any way we
can speed this up?
Mr. Skehan responded this is why we
are going to have another meeting.
Ms. Zich stated I thought we were
going to be started by this week and the way it is looking it may even drag on
further.
Mr. Skehan stated we certainly hope
that is not the case. This is exactly
why Mr. Cassel and I have talked about having another meeting with the people
at the city.
Mr. Fennell asked does the city know
they are holding us up?
Mr. Skehan responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked do they care?
Mr. Skehan responded no.
Ms. Zich asked who is the person we
can talk to? Is there somebody?
Mr. Fennell responded we are talking
money here. I know you guys are talking
about how you are going to have people onsite who are going to be watching out
the door from the trailer. As far as I
can see they are not seeing anything but the canal.
Mr. Skehan stated we were assured at
the time we had the preliminary review done that it would be a streamlined
process for the second run of the permitting process. They gave us a list of questions they
wanted. With the wastewater plant there
were 11 questions they wanted clarified for the structural only.
Mr. Fennell stated it should take
two, three days, a week maximum.
Mr. Skehan stated it is going on to
three weeks, at least.
Mr. Fennell stated that is my point
and I am not getting from you that you are going to have this done by such a
date. I am not getting that feeling.
Mr. Skehan stated I was on the phone
multiple times last week, and the week before, trying to better understand what
is missing. The one particular lady who
is the coordinator there conveyed they were going to re-review what was handed in.
Mr. Fennell asked when will that be
then?
Mr. Skehan responded that is what we
are trying to get done even now. Two
weeks after the signed and sealed drawings were submitted we learned the
abbreviation sheets on two of the drawings were missing the sign and seal. That was a huge a deal.
Mr. Hanks asked when did the permits
go in?
Mr. Skehan responded about three
weeks ago.
Mr. Hanks stated the initial review
was back…
Mr. Skehan stated the initial review
was two and a half months ago.
Mr. Hanks asked was the initial
review in February?
Mr. Skehan responded I think so.
Mr. Hanks asked when did the permits
go in?
Mr. Skehan responded towards the end
of April.
Mr. Hanks asked the third week or
fourth week of April?
Mr. Skehan responded the fourth
week.
Mr. Hanks asked and now we are?
Mr. Skehan responded into the third
week of May.
Mr. Hanks stated so in that time
they identified there was an issue with those drawings and now they are
requesting clarification. Are they still
reviewing the process?
Mr. Skehan responded when I spoke to
this coordinator last week she conveyed each of the different departments were
re-reviewing; this includes mechanical, electrical and the fire department for
this tank. The first preliminary round
was only structural questions.
Mr. Hanks asked so electrical,
mechanical and all of those people did not look at it at all during the initial
review?
Mr. Skehan responded they wrote off
on it and had it approved. You can look
at their approved sheet online, but she just conveyed all of the different
departments had to look at it again.
Mr. Cassel stated we had the meeting
where they gave us the list of issues; they had the plans for several weeks and
had gone through their review process.
We understood at that time if we brought in the corrected issues, it
should be a week to two weeks and we were done.
Those were addressed, sent in and for whatever reason they appear to want
to go back through a complete re-review of what they already reviewed. I do not understand why.
Ms. Zich stated what is amazing is
there is not a lot of construction going on in the city right now. If there was a lot of construction, we would
really have a problem. There is hardly
anything going on in the city.
Mr. Fennell stated there are about
two other site projects about our size going on.
Ms. Zich stated yes, but back in the
day everything was being built at one time.
Mr. Fennell stated this is a case
where we just cannot let this thing happen.
We need to keep pressing for this.
I want to give you the opportunity to talk to the Assistant City Manager
and see if we can get some clarity. Otherwise,
I will call commissioners and do whatever we need to do. This is too much money to have people sitting
around and have projects not starting. We
are counting on this. You really cannot
have quibbling going on of re-reviews and more re-reviews without a definite
understanding of what it is about, when we are going to get it back and
understanding that in fact there has been a delay. As I understood it we were ready to go and we
are not going.
Mr. Cassel stated our understanding
when we came out of the last meeting with their list of things we needed to
correct on the drawings, even to the point of putting specification sheets in
the back pages of the drawings so they could refer to them quickly is that once
we did that it should have been a simple process. We made those corrections, got them in and it
should have been out within 15 days ready to go. Some of the issues as part of their permit
review criteria is they are requiring shop drawings of the trusses prior to
issuing the permits for the foundation.
Those kinds of things, which typically you do not do, they are requiring
because of issues they had with single family residences. This is also causing a delay. We tried to iron out and work through those
things, but for whatever reason they are balking at what they originally said.
Mr. Skehan stated our observation
has been that as a rule they are not familiar with this kind of construction
work. They are much more familiar with
residential type work or lighter commercial work. This is something which is not in their
purview at all.
Mr. Fennell stated there are some
fairly good sized buildings in Coral Springs.
Mr. Skehan stated there are and I
have spoken with several different contractors along the way. The reputation the City of Coral Springs has
is it is difficult to get through the process.
Mr. Fennell stated I think we need
to go back. This is too important. We are serving 11,000 households, roughly
40,000 people. We need to get this
done. It needs to go forward with vigor
and not with the kind of answers we are getting. I think we can get the cooperation if we push
hard enough.
Mr. Cassel stated we will push.
Mr. Hanks asked can you give me a
timeline as to when we had the different submittals and meetings for tomorrow
night?
Mr. Cassel responded yes.
Mr. Hanks stated there is a city
commission meeting and I believe some of us were invited to attend.
Mr. Fennell stated a lot of those
guys are there early before the meeting.
If you get there early, you can talk to them.
Mr. Cassel stated we will get it for
you tomorrow.
Mr. Hanks stated thank you.
Mr. Fennell stated I have to teach
school tomorrow night. I think it will
be a good opportunity to impress upon the other city commission members that
this is important to us and we need their cooperation going forward.
Mr. Hanks stated I took a look again
at Bru’s Room and it looks like they raised the patio and are doing some
substantial work out there.
Ms. Early stated he called me. I guess Mr. Crowel went out there and gave
them my name and number. He told them
they had to submit for permits. He
called me and did not know what we were talking about. I explained it to him and told him to contact
Ms. Schurz for the application form so he can submit it to her with a
check. I explained the whole process and
he asked why they needed to do this. I
explained they were increasing the impervious area, putting in an addition and
we need to have the drainage calculations.
He said okay, but apparently he never called her.
Mr. Daly stated we are going to go
out there and heavy handedly make sure they do not have any water. That could be the solution down the line
unless they take care of it.
Mr. Hanks asked have we established
what he changes or improvements are?
Mr. Daly responded we are waiting
for plans.
Ms. Early stated yes, they do not
have any plans.
Mr. Cassel stated when Mr. Crowel
went out there the gentleman told him he would get the plans, contact Ms. Early
and get her the plans. It has not
happened.
Mr. Hanks stated I would go ahead
and write a letter to the building official.
Request a set of the plans and let him know we suspect this construction
has the potential to impact the drainage for the District. As the reviewing body we request a copy of
the plans.
Mr. Cassel stated okay.
Mr. Hanks stated we will see where
this goes.
Mr. Fennell stated moving right
along. There is something here about
some money.
Mr. Cassel stated it is Amendment
No. 1 to Work Authorization No. 32.
Mr. Fennell asked what is this
about?
Mr. Skehan responded we are trying
to bring to a close the current construction project for the wastewater plant
work which has been taking place. We had
a work authorization signed in July of 2006.
The construction work which has been taking place has taken up through
the beginning of this month to get complete.
We have accumulated in this time is additional engineering costs related
to the additional construction time which has taken place. The additional time is well over a year,
approximately 16 months.
We itemized a number of additional
items, which have been a part of the work we have engaged over this period of
time. Those additional items include
having to permit drainage which was not part of the original design
package. There is work related to blower
which had to be redesigned from an original blower that was selected to
different blowers. There is some rework
which took place for routing of traffic in the plant that came after the fact;
also a roadway for a potential new reuse facility in the back of the
plant. There are a number of different
items, as I said, which have been itemized.
If you have a question about any one
of those specifically, I can try to address it.
We have submitted for additional costs that cover approximately one year
of our time. It does not cover the
additional time which is over and beyond that.
We have stated in the amendment that there is a significant amount of
money we are not going to be invoicing for, which is close to $70,000, which
would have been part of services we would have been doing otherwise. We do not feel that we would be justified in
requesting this. The additional costs
have accumulated as you can see from the table at a fairly low spending
rate. Looking at the costs accumulated,
our costs are probably in the order of about $105 an hour and our costs went
down significantly over the period of 12 months.
The way we discussed being
reimbursed for this was to be done through the funds left in the contractor’s
contract at the close of the project.
This was discussed with the District manager. We brought the contractor’s contract
basically to a close and we have a final invoice in our hands. Any of our costs are going to be adjusted
against what funds were left in the contractor’s contract.
Mr. Fennell asked Mr. Cassel, is
this all legitimate? Have you gone
through this in detail?
Mr. Cassel responded we have gone
through it. I believe Mr. Daly and I
started going through it last July. In
the discussion at that time when we were talking about the contractor’s overrun
in timing, my clear direction to Mr. Skehan was that; yes there is extra
engineering time caused on the project and any fees they were going to pick up
has to come out of the contract. I was
not going to increase the total cost of the contract to cover their fees. It has to come out from within the budgeted
amount for the contract and there needs to be dollars left at the end.
Mr. Fennell asked is the contractor
going to come back and want some of this money?
Mr. Cassel responded he has his
final in and we are squared. Is this
correct?
Mr. Skehan responded we are holding
his final pay request right now because he has a couple of small things which
need to be resolved before he will be given his final pay request. He needs to get his final releases in the
next week or two.
Mr. Cassel asked is he coming back
for any additional funds?
Mr. Skehan responded no. There are no additional funds he is
requesting.
Ms. Zich stated I was amazed to find
out about all of these things I had no idea about and now they are coming back
for $161,709.69 for all of this stuff which has been done over a year ago. You guys are probably more familiar with this
type of thing than me. I am not familiar
with this.
Mr. Hanks asked was your original
contract for $27,000 per month or was it $20,700?
Mr. Skehan responded it was
approximately $27,000 per month.
Ms. Zich asked and did we pay that?
Mr. Skehan responded that is
correct.
Ms. Zich stated this is the
overages. Why do you wait until the very
end of the project and then come up with all of this?
Mr. Hanks responded because it is
the way engineers work.
Mr. Skehan stated we did bring it to
the table for discussion last July. As
both Mr. Cassel and Mr. Daly have mentioned, we discussed it at the time and
what was shared with me was the only way we would get compensation would be if
we managed the contractor closely to make sure we were getting everything
wrapped up the way it was supposed to be done and to look at the funds which
were there and manage it closely.
Mr. Hanks stated you can pay for a
project in two ways. You can cut back on
engineering and pay quite dearly in construction, in quality or in construction
redos or you can pay your engineer. That
being said, one of the things I want CH2M Hill to concentrate on is being very
careful about the delays such as what we are going through right now with the
delays in the permitting. Let us be very
careful as to what our benchmarks are and how we are measuring our success on a
project.
Ms. Zich asked will this happen with
these projects also?
Mr. Fennell responded I do not think
necessarily. Mr. Cassel tried to
suppress that. They are not just getting
a free ride here.
Mr. Cassel stated the new contracts
are under lump sum agreements with the engineers.
Mr. Zich stated I thought this was
lump sum, but I do not understand.
Mr. Hanks stated the other thing is
this was going through Mr. Flavin and Mr. McKune. There were some slight changes in the scope. Did
the District buy some equipment and then have it installed to cut back on costs
associated with the contractor supplying and installing?
Mr. Skehan responded initially there
was a blower that preceded the beginning.
It was unacceptable. The
specifications for that particular blower were in these specifications, but
after it was installed in the one year of operation it was determined there was
an awful lot of calling the service company to get it repaired.
Mr. Hanks stated anytime you run
into a situation, when you are an engineer, where you are having to deal with
quality issues on an installed piece of equipment, they are incurring
additional costs to address those issues.
I am sitting on the fence. I
understand their side of it and the fact they are incurring extra costs, but I
am also sitting on this side saying it is a lot of money. I am feeling conflicted.
Mr. Fennell asked Mr. Cassel, what
is your recommendation?
Mr. Cassel responded having looked
at this, Mr. Daly and I have gone over it with Mr. Skehan several times, I
believe this is appropriate. Also, of
this $161,709.69, $31,000 has already been paid to their sub, Hiller’s
Engineering, for extra time involved in electrical work, redesign, etcetera as
well. Cleaning up the last of the messy
jobs, I would say this is probably appropriate to get it out of our hair and be
done. We are still under budget of the
total budget for the project. It closes
it out and cleans it all up.
Mr. Fennell asked are there any other
comments?
Mr. Hanks responded we need CH2M
Hill to be on top of the contractor. We
need them to be on top of schedule and on top of yourselves in terms of the permitting.
Mr. Skehan stated this has been an
item Mr. Cassel and I have had extensive conversations about. He has mentioned it here today. We have gone through it on several different
occasions. The approach to these current
projects is significantly different than what was put in place back in
2006. I was not involved with the
projects at the time. I only became
involved in the projects late in 2007. I
looked back and there was a significant amount of history related to some of
the items which took place early. One
item was fire code. Another item was the
blowers.
Mr. Hanks asked were the invoices
back on the beginning part of the project before construction hit high gear
billed out fully for $27,000?
Mr. Skehan responded at different
points in the early part of the project there were permitting issues related to
drainage which took some time. There
were other issues related to the fuel storage onsite, which was rather
significant.
Mr. Hanks stated you guys are our
drainage engineers.
Mr. Skehan stated the original
drainage was not included.
Mr. Hanks asked was it in our work order
to you?
Mr. Skehan responded it was not part
of it. What came after the fact was when
it went to the county, the county had passed it through initially and then it
came back water quality.
Ms. Early asked do you remember the
change order we had for Intrastate Construction to install all of the drainage?
Mr. Hanks responded yes.
Mr. Skehan stated there was
pollution control and a number of items which accounted for a significant
percentage of this.
Mr. Hanks asked is some of this
additional design work?
Mr. Skehan responded yes.
Mr. Hanks stated it occurred once
the contract with Intrastate Construction was left. It is not just straightforward for
construction administration costs.
Mr. Cassel stated that is
correct. It is for the blower redesign,
the relocation of the shed, the drainage design which needed to be
included. It was all additional design
and redesign scenarios, which is captured as part of this time as well.
Mr. Hanks stated presentation of
those issues is really key about what you said there. You have done this in Section Two, Additional Scope of Services. I recommend we accept Work Authorization No.
32.
Mr. Cassel stated Amendment No. 1.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Mr. Fennell with Mr. Hanks and Mr. Fennell voting aye and Ms. Zich voting
nay Amendment No. 1 for Work Authorization No. 32 for engineering services
during construction for the wastewater plant improvements phase two in the
amount of $161,709.69 was approved.
Mr. Fennell asked what is your plan
moving forward?
Mr. Cassel responded you have your
construction costs and you have your engineering costs. The engineering costs are lump sum for the
work to be done. What we are doing is
making sure those costs are captured in our total cost of the project where
before a lot of those costs were not captured.
It would be different work done on a work authorization and that work
authorization never got rolled over to the cost of the project. By tying engineering time to a specific
project we know, for example, if we are going to do a reuse, what it really
cost us to do the design, construction services, etcetera, to have a reuse
plant out here. We knew exactly. In the past the study might be done under one
work authorization, something else would be done under a separate work
authorization, something else would be done under general and it never got
rolled up so If I ask Ms. Woodward what it cost us to put it in place, they had
no idea. We are trying to consolidate
this so the District knows exactly what Plant F cost us; what it cost us in
hard costs, what it cost us in soft costs for engineering fees. We can allocate all of this and track our
assets knowing the full value of the asset plus the soft cost is really the
value of that asset. We are trying to
make sure this is consolidated and tracked at this point in time.
Mr. Daly asked would it be prudent
to have someone act as a liaison who is a permitting expert? I do not know if you company has one, but
someone who would be dedicated to getting these permits pushed through. It seems like we are going over the same
thing we did 18 months ago when we started this other project for which we
wound up paying the costs for.
Mr. Skehan responded we are ahead of
that right now.
Mr. Daly asked do you have a really
talented individual who can stand there and nail them when they ask for things
out of the blue?
Mr. Skehan responded we have tried
to nail them already.
Mr. Daly stated but to no
avail. Is there another method or
approach?
Mr. Cassel responded I think it is
going to require several more meetings between various individuals at the city
and myself.
Mr. Skehan stated the contractor has
relayed this is as bad as he has ever seen any type of permitting activity to
be taking place.
Mr. Daly stated we have heard this
every three years when we do a project.
Mr. Fennell stated we should try to
avoid it.
Mr. Cassel stated when we had the
last meeting, where they came back with a list of 11 on one and 15 or 20 on the
other, we thought we had done a preliminary, we had to correct these items to
get it in for their review and it should be out in no period of time. That is not the case.
Mr. Hanks stated Mr. Skehan and Mr.
Cassel are doing what should be done.
They are not the problem.
Ms. Zich stated I know they are not
the problem. Will you do me a favor and
slip me an email when you do get the permit?
Mr. Skehan responded sure.
Ms. Early stated I do not know if
you remember the pump stations. I could
not get a change order on the pump stations because the contractor put on a Schlage
lock set and the plans said a Kwikset lock set.
Schlage is clearly a better lock.
They wanted us to take it off. It
was not Kwikset. I forget what the name
of it was. They actually went out of
business. I had to research this company
and find out they were out of business.
Mr. Fennell stated let us resubmit
our relationship with the city and reforge it to keep going forward.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Financials and
Check Registers
·
Summary
of Cash Transactions
Mr. Fennell asked are there any
questions?
There not being any,
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by
Mr. Fennell with all in favor the financials and check registers for April 2009
were approved.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’ Requests
and Audience Comments
Mr. Hanks asked where do we stand
with our friends over at Eagle Trace and the canal banks?
Ms. Early responded Dunkleberger was
supposed to get started today and could not.
I think they are starting tomorrow.
Mr. Hanks asked will they start to
run some drills?
Mr. Cassel responded yes. I believe he is starting on the ones in the
back.
Ms. Early stated I believe so.
Mr. Hanks asked what location are we
starting off at?
Mr. Frederick responded they have
not made a decision yet. They are going
to meet here with us tomorrow morning because we are providing a boat for them
and a driver to get them to the location.
Ms. Early stated he sent us an
email, but it did not say exactly which on.
They said they were going to do the eight hand augers on the 15th,
but I think they got delayed until tomorrow.
Mr. Hanks asked are we as a District
in coordination with the HOA to get access?
Mr. Cassel responded they have been
notified and Mr. Frederick is coordinating with them as well.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to get
any written consent back from the Eagle Trace HOA?
Mr. Lyles responded not the HOA, the
individual owners and not just a notice that we are going to come do this, but
have they given us permission to go on their property for access?
Mr. Cassel responded we are
accessing it from the water from our property.
Mr. Lyles stated so we are only
doing it in our easement.
Mr. Cassel stated yes.
Mr. Lyles stated then the notice
should be sufficient.
Mr. Hanks asked but when it comes
time for the street side in these private communities, what documentation do we
need to obtain?
Mr. Lyles responded the streets are
private, but we have an easement in there.
Are our borings going to be in the front yard and not where our lines
are?
Ms. Early responded it depends on
the situation per house, but we have a release for SWCD that we might want to
use that we had the homeowners sign.
Mr. Lyles stated that would be the
optimum way to do it. In the rear where
we are accessing it by water we do not technically need permission to walk
across their yard. When we get to the
front we are going to need individual homeowner acknowledgement or
releases.
Mr. Hyche stated we have one we used
for CSID as well.
Mr. Lyles stated so we have a
previous document from CSID which SWCD probably borrowed from this District.
Mr. Hanks asked they borrowed from
this District?
Mr. Lyles responded it is a public
record. They can ask for it if they want
to and you have an interlocal agreement with them to give them administrative
as well as other types of support.
Mr.
Hanks stated okay. Keep us posted on how
things are going.
NINTH
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