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, January
25, 2010 at 3:02 p.m. at the District Office, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral
Springs, Florida.
Present
and constituting a quorum were:
Robert
Fennell President
Sharon
Zich Vice
President
Glenn
Hanks Secretary
Also
present were:
Kenneth
Cassel District
Manager
Dennis
Lyles District
Counsel
Dan
Daly Director
of Operations
Kay
Woodward District
Accountant
Jan
Zilmer Human
Resources
Randy
Frederick Drainage
Supervisor
Ed
Stover Water
Department
David
Macintosh Wastewater
Department
Gerrit
Bulman CH2M
Hill
Cory
Johnson CH2M
Hill
FIRST
ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Cassel called the
meeting to order and called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes
of the December 21, 2009 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each
Board member received a copy of the minutes of the December 21, 2009 meeting and
requested any corrections, additions or deletions.
Mr. Hanks stated on page ten, the
third paragraph states, “Mr. Hanks stated it is a lot of money you have to
spend for improvements on a water scenario.”
I think that is a “what if” scenario.
Mr. Fennell stated on page three Mr.
Brown stated, “We are on schedule to meet the April 3, 2010 deadline.” I think he meant for the wall
construction. I think the actual
deadline to finish is still a year and a half away. Other than that there was quite a wide range
in discussions.
Mr. Cassel stated in regards to that
statement he might have been referring to Plant F as well. I will go back and listen to the minutes
carefully because Plant F is scheduled to come on the end of March or the first
part of April.
Mr. Fennell stated okay. Maybe that was what he was talking about.
Mr. Cassel stated he might have been
referring to Plant F being online. I
will go back and have her double check the records.
Mr. Fennell asked are there any
other corrections?
Ms. Zich responded no.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by
Mr. Hanks with all in favor the minutes of the December 21, 2009 meeting were
approved as amended.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’
Requests and Audience Comments
Mr. Hanks asked was it just last
month that we got our draft infiltration report?
Mr. Fennell responded we got part of
it.
Mr. Hanks asked when will we get the
remainder of that infiltration report?
Mr. Cassel responded I went over it
this past week with Mr. Schwarz and there were some issues we are still looking
at. We are still doing some additional
field observations and supplying it to Mr. Schwarz so we make sure the data we
are using starts at the same point
Mr. Hanks stated one of the other
issues was we were also looking at some different periods between when the
water was actually measured.
Mr. Cassel stated we are reconciling
those issues as well as the standards as to what to project a potential return
on wastewater would be; is it 60 gallons, is it 80 gallons, based upon the
standards that are agreed upon from the different regulatory agencies. We are also looking at pump curves, pump
pressures, from internal. We are
supplying this information to complete the analysis.
Mr. Hanks asked with regard to Plant
#3 and the catwalk where we were going through the emergency repairs; when is
Plant #3 scheduled to be retired? Is it
going to be retired when the nanoplant comes online?
Mr. Cassel responded sometime after
that. We have not come up with the
actual timeframe for dismantling that.
That would be the last plant to go.
The two smaller plants would probably be abandoned first.
Mr. Hanks asked even though they are
newer?
Mr. Johnson responded in our design
report provisionally we assumed that Plant #2 would stay operational because it
is the newest or the one in the best shape.
Mr. Hanks stated so you do
anticipate taking down something assuming it can be reached at a later date
once it actually comes online to take a look at repair costs versus operational
costs.
Mr. Fennell asked will we look at
the I&I later on?
Mr. Cassel responded at the next
meeting.
Mr. Fennell asked has anyone gotten
samples of pipes?
Mr. Cassel responded we actually
looked at the definition of “crumbling pipe”.
In talking to staff it does not actually crumble. It is vitreous clay pipe. It shatters and cracks if you are not careful
handling it. It does not crumble like a
burned piece of paper would in your hand per se. It is more of a fracturing of the pipe.
Ms. Zich asked in how many places
did this occur?
Mr. Cassel responded the crew has
run into this in two or three different places during repairs.
Mr. Daly stated a lot of it has to
do with the fact the bedding underneath it is not stable so naturally when you
get some pressure on top it will crack.
I do not think it is the material at all.
Ms. Zich stated that is a
relief.
Mr. Fennell stated I guess we will
get more from this later. It is still a
good topic. Will we find out next time?
Mr. Cassel responded we should have
the final report by the next meeting.
Mr. Fennell asked will it include
pictures of some pipes inside?
Mr. Cassel responded I will find out
if we will have any pictures of actual pipes.
Ms. Zich asked will someone keep
track of what dates they find this is happening so we know how often we are
really talking about?
Mr. Cassel responded we will go back
to our records and look.
Ms. Zich stated that sounds
important; whether it is a really big problem we need to take care of soon or
whether it is a wait and see problem.
Mr. Daly stated no matter what, we
are going to evaluate the numbers. Mr.
Cassel has exhaustingly analyzed it nine ways to Sunday, kudos to him, to see
if what we are reading here really is what it says. He is still looking at that. We are talking about it. We are getting Doppler measurements as far as
flows and pressure. There is one lift
station area in particular and I think they just moved to another one so maybe
two within that area will be six that were giving us some issues.
Mr. Fennell stated okay so you are
going to do flow checks, you are going to do more in depth work, look more at
the pipes to try to find the cause of the problem.
Mr. Daly stated there will be some
real time data. It will not be during
our wet season. That is the only bad
part of about it.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Interlocal Agreement with Broward County to conduct Feasibility Analysis and
Design Study Related to the Development of Alternative Water Supplies
Mr. Cassel stated the Board will
remember we applied for a grant for matching funds for reuse study and
alternate water supplies and usages. We
have not done any work on the project yet.
This is the county responding to the fact they will cost share grant up
to the amount of $41,500 for the project.
It is not saying we have to spend the whole $41,500, but we have up to
that. We have to look at the actual
scope that we originally anticipated in this and make sure we are on track with
it before we institute any of that work being done. This is to accept the grant from the county
so that we can. If we do not respond by
February 12, 2010 the grant goes away and any reuse study we would have to do
for any of our permits, we would have the full burden of the cost.
Mr. Fennell asked so what do we need
to do?
Mr. Cassel responded approve
entering into the interlocal agreement with the county.
Mr. Hanks asked would this still
require us to have expenditures in the amount of $40,000?
Mr. Cassel responded not necessarily. We can spend up to $41,500. If we decide to scale back our scope of work,
we can.
Mr. Hanks asked what are the
requirements? Are we under any
obligation by permits or by regulation to update the reuse feasibility study?
Mr. Cassel responded our wastewater
permit application requires a reuse component.
We did the reuse component initially in 2005 and it was submitted. What we have done for now is put a letter on
top of that with our permit application stating nothing has really changed. There are no clients out there for the
reuse. Our position right now is not to
move ahead with anything. It is coming
back to me through the engineering firm that DEP will probably require some
kind of an update of the reuse permit as part of the application process. I am trying to see if we can make sure that
whatever we do with this information covers two birds with one stone to make
sure we are covered without having to spend money on an update on one thing and
do something else after that.
Mr. Fennell asked who is doing the
actual study?
Mr. Cassel responded initially it
was authorized to CH2M Hill.
Mr. Hanks asked by us going forward
with this interlocal agreement and the reuse study, is this going to trigger us
to go forward with any capital expenditures?
Mr. Cassel responded that is my
biggest concern. I do not want to get
incrementalized into a position where it requires the District to go further
than we absolutely have to. This is why
we are going to look at the scope of that work authorization to make sure we do
not get incrementalized by a regulatory agency by doing something we may be
able to attack by a different direction.
Mr. Fennell stated I just want to
make sure there is a return on investment.
If we put money into this, what is the return on it? It would have to be economically feasible.
Mr. Hanks asked Mr. Johnson, did you
get a chance to look at any of the things we discussed as far as potential
changes to this? Mr. Johnson caught up
with me on Friday at the Water Resources Task Force and picked my brain about a
few different things. One of the items
we discussed was onsite use, treated water or freshwater for the solutions and
products into the wastewater treatment plant.
I just do not know if this is something we have the ability to do; if
this falls under the feasibility study that we can pursue. There may be something where we can eliminate
some of our finished water treatment that we have to pump into our
wastewater. We may be able to spin it
off of wastewater instead.
Mr. Johnson stated we are going to
be meeting with management and staff to take a closer look at whether or not
this makes sense. Right now you use a
significant amount of water out of your water treatment plant over here for carrier
water and wash down water. The thinking
is you can potentially install some type of a reuse package system where you
could use the water from your wastewater treatment plant rather than using the
water plant water, thereby freeing up that capacity in the water plant and
reducing the load on your deep injection.
You would essentially be using treated wastewater for wash down and
chemical carrier water over in the wastewater plant.
Mr. Fennell asked is that a
significant part of the system?
Mr. Johnson responded we looked at
some flow data from Mr. Bulman’s project when he was doing the well project
over here. We were looking at flow
coming into the wastewater plant and flow going down the deep injection well. It was in the order of 200,000 to 300,000
gallons a day used from this plant over here for wash down and chlorine carrier
water. It is a significant amount of
water. That could be or would be one of
the things we would look at as part of this.
Mr. Hanks stated but then we have an
example of something that could be somewhat of a return on our own money. On one side you are treating the wastewater
to a higher standard, but on the other side you do not have to treat the other
water to drinking water standards.
Mr. Johnson stated you would have
some type of a filtration system and you would chlonnate the water whereas over
here you have lime softening and sludge handling. The cost difference between a reuse system on
an O&M basis is going to be significantly lower than the O&M cost for
your water plant over here. We have to meet with Mr. Cassel and staff to
look at how much this makes sense.
Mr. Hanks asked if we approve this
interlocal agreement, what is it we are immediately on the hook for?
Mr. Lyles responded you are on the
hook for a not to exceed fee of $41,500 as the matching 50/50 share of the
funding the county has agreed it will not exceed for this consulting work. I want to point out to you, as you have
already been told by Mr. Cassel, that if the costs go higher the county does
not pay anything further. TI is 100% the
District’s responsibility. Obviously if
the costs are lower, the county’s number goes down. We do not have the right to terminate this
agreement once you authorize, enter into it and it starts. The county can terminate it for convenience,
but we cannot. They want us to finish
this study and come up with a product as described in the scope of services. We do not have the ability to say this does
not make sense and we are going to stop.
It would have to be based on a breach by the county that they do not
cure within a 10 day period. There is a
bit of a commitment over and above what the county is committing to us.
Mr. Hanks stated so once we go ahead
and do this we have made the commitment to move forward with the study period.
Mr. Lyles stated even if the cost
exceeds the projected $83,000.
Mr. Hanks stated under the project
description it lists something about NSID.
Where was that?
Mr. Lyles responded on page 17.
Mr. Johnson stated as part of the
grant application we originally discussed the idea of regionalization because it
scored additional points with Broward County.
Part of this was what kind of agreements there could be with other
communities; whether it be the City of Coral Springs, NSID or Tamarac. That was part of it on a feasibility or
planning level.
Mr. Hanks asked can we piggyback in
the issue of the plant incubus study or is that going to be something the
county will look at and say no that was not part of your grant application; no
we cannot go on and match this grant?
Mr. Johnson responded in researching
the report and the regulations my understanding is as long as we fill the
requirements of the scope that could easily be a part of the study or the
recommendations for at least a part of the discussion. If it does not make sense to do a regional
facility and a local facility, then obviously the feasibility of one versus the
feasibility of another is the District’s right to choose.
Mr. Hanks asked counsel, are there
any other concerns about modifying, amending or expanding the scope to include this
component?
Mr. Lyles responded no sir. Given the nature of this type of agreement
and the county’s use of this form, to modify any of it including the language
of the scope would be problematic at this point unless we want to start
over. I think the way it is, as long as
we are comfortable with the financial commitment that is being made, I think
the document itself is fine.
Mr. Hanks asked do you think it
allows enough flexibility?
Mr. Lyles responded I believe so.
Ms. Zich asked is this really a
necessity?
Mr. Fennell responded as part of our
renewals we agreed to go through this and see whether or not this is
feasible. It was part of our water bond
issue to look at feasibility. Now we are
getting the county to put in half of what we needed to just go look at it. This is a good deal for us. So yes, we probably would have had to do this
anyway sooner or later.
Mr. Hanks asked if the county’s
matching grant opportunity would not have arisen, would you see us as having to
proceed with a similar scope feasibility study?
Mr. Cassel responded we would have
to do at least an upgrade as part of our wastewater treatment plant permit
renewal that is in place now. I am
trying to figure out if we can utilize part of this report to meet the
requirements of that as well.
Mr. Johnson stated the requirements
of the feasibility study and these requirements align pretty well. In doing this study it does actually cover
the feasibility study for the wastewater treatment plant.
Mr. Hanks asked when were we
required to have the study for the wastewater treatment plant application?
Mr. Cassel responded technically the
application went in with the 2005 study with a cover letter to see if that
would be acceptable.
Mr. Hanks stated it is now 2010.
Mr. Cassel stated we used the 2005
study with an updated memorandum.
Mr. Hanks asked is that in process?
Mr. Cassel responded that is already
in process with DEP.
Mr. Hanks asked have we heard any
comments yet?
Mr. Cassel responded no. The feedback is they will probably want at
least an update or at least some kind of revised study. The question now in discussions with the
engineers is how we tie it together to make sure we do not have to do two
studies.
Mr. Hanks stated within the next
month or two we can get a letter from DEP saying we need a reuse feasibility
study as far as our application for the wastewater.
Mr. Cassel stated that we need to
update our 2005 study to current conditions; according to Chapter 403. There are a couple of sections that require
as part of the permit application for any new, renewal or modifications.
Mr. Hanks asked how would we pay for
this?
Ms. Zich responded that is what I
was thinking of. I was just talking to
Ms. Woodward about an hour ago. I
usually go over financials with her. When
you look at the financial statements and you look at how much engineering is
already over budget. We did not plan for
any of this so we are going to be what; $135,000 over this year already?
Ms. Woodward responded right now in
water and sewer operations the engineering is scheduled to be over budget
$122,000.
Ms. Zich stated and then we are
going to add this amount to it. It is
going to be $165,000 over.
Mr. Cassel asked is this included
Ms. Woodward?
Ms. Woodward responded this is
included; Work Authorization #56.
Ms. Zich stated this is why I
brought this up. I just went over it
with her an hour ago. This is a
lot.
Mr. Johnson stated as part of the
bond report there are a number of projects.
There is obviously the phase one projects, which include the
nanofiltration plant, Plant F and the other thing, if I remember correctly, a
reuse study design was part of that initial bond.
Ms. Zich asked was that in there?
Mr. Johnson responded I believe it
was a bond requirement.
Mr. Daly stated phase two if the
District decided to go that direction.
Ms. Woodward if not, it stays as
part of the operational budget. Right
now I have to make the assumption it starts out as an operating budget item
until something changes in the future.
Mr. Fennell stated we said we would
look at feasibility. We did not say we
were going to do it because it has to be feasible, but we said we would study
that.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the risk if
we do not, as far as pursuing future grants with Broward County, if we back out
of it at this point?
Mr. Fennell responded I think it is
a good deal.
Ms. Zich stated yes, but I just
wanted to bring it to everyone’s attention.
Mr. Hanks asked Ms. Woodward, can
you make this work?
Mr. Fennell responded the $40,000 is
not the problem. The problem is spending
several more millions on something.
Ms. Woodward stated you have several
problems. The initial item is the missed
schedule that went in the Board’s package.
We summarized the work authorizations and this is what Ms. Zich is
referring to. The reuse feasibility
study, the five year permitting and the injection well pump station mechanical
evaluation. Those three work authorizations
threw us over budget in operating funds for water and sewer. If a feasibility study is done and it is
ultimately determined that you should go forward, and going forward means using
funds from the bonds, then what we have spent in this particular work authorization
can be crossed over and paid for out of bonds.
If you decide in the future that we have done the feasibility study, we
are not going forward with it, then it has to be absorbed by operations. Right now it is showing as operations just so
you know the status of where we are today.
Mr. Hanks asked which are the three
work authorizations you mentioned?
Ms. Woodward responded Work
Authorizations #55, #56 and #57.
Mr. Hanks asked #55 and #56 I can
understand being somewhat of an unusual thing we could not have budgeted for,
but FDEP permit renewals; why was not that in our budget?
Ms. Woodward responded it was
actually a fluke in the timing of personnel changes here. I have been here for two years. I was not aware of it so I did not know to
put it in the budget. Mr. Cassel was new
to the procedures as well. He was not
here back when the original five year permit was done. For some reason during the process of drawing
up our budget for the year, no one else brought it to the forefront and we
basically did not know to look for it. So
yes; that is an ‘oops’ on the part of the preparation of the budget.
Ms. Zich stated okay.
Mr. Fennell asked is there a motion?
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Ms. Zich with all in favor the Interlocal Agreement with Broward County to
conduct feasibility analysis and design study related to the development of
alternative water supplies was approved.
Mr. Fennell stated I think it is a
good thing to find out how we can best use the bonds. We do not want to radically go out and spend
a lot of money to do that, but if there is actually some good rational way that
we can do that or cease things going forward, then we should look at it.
Ms. Zich asked does every district
do this or something like this?
Mr. Hanks responded no. There are very few systems in the county that
are looking or have existing reuse programs.
Pompano Beach has a reuse where they irrigate some of the golf courses,
Broward County has some purple pipe, Coconut Creek is putting in some purple
pipe.
Ms. Zich stated it seems like this
would be such a big thing that Broward County would just do it themselves. They are helping us pay for this, but it just
seems like it would make sense for them to do it.
Mr. Hanks stated there are not too
many sewer treatment systems that are up other than Broward County. You have Hollywood, Broward County, Fort
Lauderdale and Sunrise. You have very
few.
Mr. Fennell stated but this is all a
part of us trying to support a greater overall plan of water usage throughout
the counties. I think that benefits us
all. We do need a rational approach; not
only for us, but everybody.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Proposal from Hillers Electrical Engineering, Inc. for Plant F Programming
Services
Mr. Fennell asked what is going on
here?
Mr. Cassel responded this is a
direct proposal from Hillers Electrical Engineering, Inc to the District
instead of through CH2M Hill for the programming services connected to Plant
F. I think it also ties into the monitoring
well. I will let Mr. Johnson speak to it
further.
Mr. Johnson stated as part of the
construction project there is a portion of programming that needs to happen in
order to control pumps turning on and off.
Hillers Electrical Engineering, Inc has a lot of background knowledge of
the facility here. They have been doing
work here for years and we felt it is important for them to stay engaged on
this project too. We are recommending
Hillers Electrical Engineering come in and do programming as part of it. They will do the programming which is going
to tie it into the computer system in the wastewater operations. This is needed to tie the new project into
the existing facility from a monitoring program control system.
Mr. Fennell asked what does staff
say about this?
Mr. Macintosh responded I have not
seen this proposal.
Mr. Johnson stated the people at
Hillers Electrical Engineering, Inc will program it in part of the specification. As to whether or not it will turn the pumps
on or off, or the control pumps on or off automatically, I am assuming there
are automatic controls to your pumps for lead and lag pumps.
Mr. Macintosh stated no.
Mr. Johnson stated I cannot speak to
what is happening on the previous plants, but on this one here they will be
programming to control the system.
Mr. Fennell asked where are the
controls actually at? It just sounds
like software here.
Mr. Cassel responded the controls, I
believe, are being installed as part of the project per se. This is the programming portion of making
those controls work. We took the
programming out of the contract with whatever general contractor because we did
not want a third party programming contractor coming in who is not familiar
with all the programming that is currently going on within the District; how
things are tied together, how they interact, making sure the programming is
rational and fits with what we are used to working with.
Mr. Fennell stated I would like to
get our staff directly involved; the guys who are going to have to operate from
day to day.
Mr. Johnson stated up until this
point I believe that Hillers Electrical Engineering, Inc has pretty much engaged
with Mr. Aversa.
Mr. Macintosh stated Mr. Aversa was
before me on that. I took over from
him. I have been involved with Hillers
Electrical Engineering, Inc. I am just
not aware of the particulars of this.
Mr. Fennell stated he has come in
and done some work for us before.
Mr. Macintosh stated I took over for
Mr. Aversa.
Mr. Cassel stated Mr. Macintosh has
been instrumental in monitoring; working with not only the injection well, but
he has been monitoring Plant F and the construction to make sure it complies
with how he will have to operate it down the road.
Mr. Fennell stated my only
suggestion here is that Mr. Macintosh be part of this programming. It has always been a wise thing to have the
person who is actually operating the thing be part of the programming and
operations of what you are actually going to put in.
Mr. Macintosh stated I believe what
Mr. Cassel is saying is the normal instrumentation of what you have done. It is now being done under a different
contract. From what I understood from
Mr. Johnson was that you would be setting it up differently from the rest.
Mr. Cassel stated we should tie it
all together, tie it into our system.
Mr. Hanks asked are we in agreement
this needs to be done?
Mr. Cassel responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked is it budgeted
someplace?
Ms. Woodward responded it was never
budgeted. It will be part of your
capital project bonds.
Mr. Hanks asked Mr. Johnson and Mr.
Macintosh, do you feel the $23,000 being requested by Hillers Electrical
Engineering, Inc. is a fair and reasonable price for the service?
Mr. Johnson responded
absolutely. We did an internal
assessment and felt that was a very reasonable price.
Mr. Hanks asked counsel, do we have
any issues with CC&A, bidding or anything like that with regards to this
threshold and the services provided?
Mr. Lyles responded no. This is not a CC&A event.
Mr. Hanks stated so we are good to
go.
Mr. Lyles stated we are good to go.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the proposal from Hillers Electrical
Engineering, Inc for Plant F programming services in the amount of $23,000 was
accepted.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Manager
Mr. Fennell asked do we have a few
additional items?
Mr. Cassel responded yes I have a
couple of additional items under the manager’s report. The first item is purely informational. It is a report from the Fish and Wildlife Research
Institute regarding widespread fish kills in Florida due to the cold weather. It explains something which has been going on
with fish and they are looking at it.
According to Mr. Daly we have had crews out. We had some extensive fish kills. We have been picking up fish.
Ms. Zich asked our fish that we put
in the canals?
Mr. Frederick responded no the carp
are the only ones which have not died; most of them are exotics, the tilapia,
peacock bass and the iguanas.
Mr. Fennell asked how many iguanas
did you find?
Mr. Frederick responded a lot of
them. They get up on the trees
overhanging the canals and then fall out.
Mr. Hanks asked how many surprises
did you have?
Mr. Frederick responded we had a big
surprise the other day. Last week we cleaned
the canal across from the iguana park.
We had some big fish in there. I
was surprised. They were bigger than our
carp. There were all types of fish that
I have not seen before. They are not
native to this water.
Ms. Zich asked do you think someone
just dumped them in there?
Mr. Frederick responded yes. They get dumped out of fish tanks and then
grow. I was surprised. I was shocked.
Mr. Fennell asked how cool did the
water get?
Mr. Frederick responded we had a
whole week of temperatures in the 30s and 40s.
Ms. Zich stated my pool was down to
52 degrees. It has never been that cold.
Mr. Fennell stated so they think it
is temperature related. Or is it oxygen
related?
Mr. Frederick responded no. I do not think it is oxygen related. Like I said, we are not pulling any of our
grass carp out. Grass carp can handle
cold temperatures. Up north my aunt had
carp like fish. She said they used to
freeze solid and ice. Then when the ice
would melt they would swim away.
Mr. Daly stated Mr. Frederick even
had some crew out on Saturday.
Mr. Fennell stated so I guess this
memorandum was put out by Florida Fish and Wildlife.
Mr. Frederick stated this is just so
you know that it is not just our water, but it is throughout the whole state.
Mr. Fennell stated you might want to
put a copy of this on our website.
Mr. Daly stated I have a link on the
first page of the website. This way it
encompasses all four districts.
Mr. Fennell stated okay. What is the next item?
Mr. Cassel responded the next item
is Resolution 2010-4. It is regarding
the Polaris Ranger item we had around here that we purchased in 2005. The cost of repair is more than half of the
cost of a new one so we are asking the Board to declare it as surplus equipment
so we can get rid of it. It is just
sitting out here. The reverse in gone on
it and the internal battery charging scenario within its intern to the engine
is also shot. We replaced it with the
utilization of one of our small pickup trucks for the staff to go around the
yard to make their measurements and meter readings. It is no longer needed as a piece of
equipment.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Mr. Fennell with all in favor Resolution 2010-4, declaring surplus
equipment, was adopted.
Mr. Fennell asked is this usual for
us?
Ms. Zich asked and this is a 2005?
Ms. Woodward asked what is the limit
on that, Mr. Cassel? If it is under $4,000,
can you just declare it surplus or how does that work?
Mr. Cassel responded we had Ms.
Demarco go back and look at the threshold.
I do not remember the actual threshold, but she went back, looked at the
threshold and decided the threshold did require the Board to adopt a resolution
on this one. Some of the other items we
eliminated last year were underneath the threshold. We had some old computers and other equipment
which were underneath the threshold that we could declare surplus, advertise
and get rid of.
Mr. Fennell asked do we have
depreciation rates on items?
Ms. Woodward responded we keep
depreciation for financial statement purposes.
Mr. Fennell stated in for profit
corporations we are constantly talking about depreciation, how many assets you
actually have on your books and that kind of stuff. Computers are gone in three years.
Mr. Daly stated technology has gone so
far that it can be brand new in a box, but it will not be worth anything
because the technology is so old.
Ms. Woodward stated your situation
now with computers is that they are so inexpensive that they do not even meet
the threshold for being depreciated.
Ms. Zich stated it is an expense
right off the bat.
Ms. Woodward stated you still need
to keep track of it for insurance purposes, but you do not have to worry about
depreciation.
Mr. Cassel stated the third item is
the email I received yesterday from the Task Force Association of Florida
Special Districts regarding a potential request that if we decided, as well as
the FASD, to send a letter to the EPA administrator requesting an extension in
the 60 day response time to the proposed numeric nutrient level regulations, we
should do so. I prepared a letter from
the District based upon the letter sent by the Florida Pulp and Paper
Association Environmentalist Affairs group with the same position, which is the
position that FASD and other entities opposed to the potential levels that EPA
is proposing in their rulemaking. I am
putting forth the letter for your consideration to either have Mr. Fennell sign
as President or me as your District manager to send off to the EPA
administrator.
Mr. Fennell asked are we just asking
for more time?
Mr. Cassel responded that is
correct. The main issue is they are
putting out a 60 day comment period.
Those of us in Florida cannot get the data or analysis to look at unless
we go to Washington DC. We cannot review
if the analysis is proper or if it accounts for the right issues so we can
formulate a proper response. The letter
asks that it be either sent to interested parties via a DVD, CD ROM or put on
an FTP site where we can download it with our consultants. FASD does have several consultants working on
this for them. As a member we are
working with FASD regarding this.
Mr. Fennell stated the EPA is
proposing a statewide nutrient criterion.
What does this mean to us?
Mr. Cassel responded my understanding
from FASD is that the proposed 1.6 part per million total nitrogen and the 42
parts per billion of total phosphorous are significantly lower than the
existing. The ability to get down to
that would cause serious issues on all of the districts which were originally designed,
maintained and utilized for stormwater conveyance; not rivers, lakes and
aquatic utilizations. The FASD is
concerned would put an onerous burden upon the residents and rate payers of
those special districts.
Mr. Fennell asked is there a
rationale behind this?
Mr. Cassel responded when they
propose rules they give a 60 day comment period for those who will be impacted
by the rules. In this particular
instance those who are impacted cannot get the data to look at it and see where
the data came from, what the baseline was on it and do their own analysis to
come back with comments.
Mr. Hanks asked like why are total
phosphorous contents less than a half of the natural streams a couple of
counties to the north?
Mr. Cassel responded exactly; those
kinds of issues.
Mr. Hanks asked counsel; do you have
any concerns with this?
Mr. Lyles responded there really is
not a legal issue here. It is technical
in nature. We are requesting that time
be given to comment after receipt of the relevant data supporting it. I do not think there are any legal issues
that we might be running afoul of. It is
a judgment call on the part of the Board.
Mr. Fennell asked what are the
typical values we have in our canals these days?
Mr. Cassel asked Mr. Frederick; do
you remember what your total nitrogen phosphates are? I know they are higher than what is being
proposed.
Mr. Fennell stated these are almost
like values they are trying to put out in the middle of the Everglades.
Mr. Hanks stated if you look at the
last page of the Everglades protection area, the total phosphorous is .01
milligrams per litter. That is
approximately 10 parts per billion. You
would have to cut it down to 25% of what we have.
Mr. Fennell stated I need to understand
and we need to put forward what we think we can live with.
Mr. Cassel stated that is what FASD
is doing through its consultants.
Mr. Fennell asked do we have a
number for ourselves?
Mr. Cassel responded I do not have
that number off the top of my head.
Mr. Hanks stated right now you are
just requesting extra time as well as the information.
Mr. Cassel stated that is correct. We are requesting that the comment time be
extended so that FASD and those who are impacted can look at the data and make
a proper comment back to them.
Mr. Fennell asked are we making
these measurements all of the time?
Mr. Cassel responded we do sampling
every time we pump.
Mr. Frederick stated we sample it
quarterly. Because NSID has the ability
to pump out to the Everglades, they have to sample every time they pump.
Mr. Fennell stated I would
appreciate seeing this given that we are doing this every quarter.
Mr. Cassel stated I can forward it
to you.
Mr. Fennell stated forward them to
all the Board members so we can see what it looks like.
Mr. Hanks stated I do not see any
harm in going ahead with sending this letter out.
Mr. Fennell stated as far as asking
for a delay, but I think we need to put forth our own policy here. One thing is obvious. They are treating the Everglades the same as the
residential areas or farm areas for that manner.
Mr. Hanks stated South Florida
canals outside the Everglades protection area.
Do you need a motion from us? Do
you need direction from us?
Mr. Cassel responded no. I just need to know if the Board prefers to
send the letter with Mr. Fennell’s signature or my signature.
Mr. Daly stated the last sentence
says, “Please feel free to contact me at the numbers listed,” which is our
number. This would mean Mr. Fennell
might receive a call here.
Mr. Fennell stated let us send a
letter out. I’ll sign it.
Mr. Cassel stated I have a letter
prepared for your signature or my signature.
The letter is the same.
Mr. Fennell stated I know all three
Board members are part of the FASD. Are
you?
Mr. Cassel responded I believe
Severn Trent is also as a whole.
Mr. Fennell asked what about you,
Mr. Daly?
Mr. Daly responded no I am not.
Mr. Fennell stated you should become
one. You guys need to get active in that
for a couple of different reasons. There
are many different memorandums which come towards me all the time for a variety
of different reasons. Our interests are
at stake and we might actually pick up some business as well. You should be really heavy into that. When you go to these meetings you find out
they actually have these booths trying to sell services to special
districts. Sometimes the districts have
their own booths as well. Is anyone else
sending a letter out?
Mr. Cassel responded yes. The Florida Pulp and Paper Association
Environmentalist Affairs group, FASD and they have asked a list of the FASD
Task Force to do so to speak as a united voice.
·
Monthly
Water & Sewer Charts
Mr. Cassel stated the next items are
the monthly water and sewer charts.
Mr. Hanks stated we are still all
over the place.
Ms. Zich stated it is confusing to
look at. The two at the end say November
of 2008 and December of 2008.
Mr. Hanks stated those are probably
typos.
Ms. Zich stated it is just confusing
to look at.
Mr. Daly stated those have got to be
typos.
Ms. Zich asked do they mean 2008 or
2009.
Mr. Cassel responded they mean 2009.
Ms. Zich stated okay.
Mr. Fennell stated distribution,
billed and loss.
Mr. Hanks stated we are still losing
over 10% of our water. Is that accurate?
Mr. Fennell responded this is
distribution.
Ms. Zich asked what happened in
November? It is so high.
Mr. Daly responded that had to be a
skewed number.
Mr. Fennell stated what you are
taking is how much water went out versus how much we paid for it and what the
difference is. Is that correct?
Mr. Cassel responded that is
correct.
Ms. Zich stated the loss is the
thing to look at.
Mr. Daly stated we are going on
versus what we billed.
Mr. Hanks asked where are these measurements
taken? Is the stuff that Mr. Johnson is
talking about where water goes back to the plant for operation? Is that were you are getting the loss
percentage?
Mr. Johnson responded no.
The record will reflect the recording picked up several people
talking at the same time.
Mr. Hanks stated I do not think we
can look at it on a month by month basis because you are going to have
differences where your meters and where your bills are.
Mr. Fennell stated it is looking
like a 10% overall number. That is a lot. I can understand where we have wastewater
intrusion, but this is water going out.
Mr. Cassel stated against water
billed.
Mr. Fennell asked what would be
normal?
Mr. Cassel asked what is the
accuracy rating of the meters?
Mr. Fennell responded I thought it
was supposed to be 1%.
Mr. Daly stated I think it is 2%.
Mr. Cassel stated so you would end
up with a 2% variation here.
Mr. Daly stated Mr. Cassel, the
Field Supervisor and I were discussing this.
One of the interesting things is when you have a large meter you get a
large amount of water which passes through it for it to actually read
accurately. Small trickle water will
probably not be caught. It probably
would not register. We have so many
shopping centers with master meters that are empty as well as restaurants. This may have something to do with it. It may be something we need to look into.
Ms. Zich asked what do you mean they
are empty?
Mr. Daly responded for example
Linens ‘n Things at the corner. They are
gone.
Ms. Zich stated I thought you meant
the meters were empty. I
understand.
Mr. Hanks asked do we have standby
chargers on our meters?
Mr. Daly responded we do not. We have base chargers.
Mr. Hanks asked is that based on the
size of the meter?
Mr. Daly responded it is based on
ERCs associated with the facility. What
happens is you get a place like Roadhouse Grill and let us say they had ten
ERCs; ten ERCs would get ten base charges of water and ten base charges of
sewer. Now it is a church.
Ms. Zich asked now Linens ‘n Things
as it sits there; do we have collect any money every month or nothing?
Mr. Daly responded base charges, but
we are going to bill water pumped versus what we billed gallon wise.
Mr. Hanks stated let us take
Roadhouse Grill. I am assuming you have
a two inch meter out there.
Mr. Daly stated probably.
Mr. Hanks stated in a church during
the course of a week a three quarter inch meter would be fine. That would pick it up normally whereas the
bypass slippage on a two inch meter you will miss it. Is there any mechanism that we can go ahead
and suggest for them to size down that meter?
Mr. Daly responded it was paid for
by somebody up front.
Mr. Hanks stated but if there is
leakage going around the meter not detected than that is another issue.
Mr. Daly stated the other issue
would be that we would get one commercial base charge, which is maybe $20 for
water and $20 for sewer as opposed to something with a higher reading. It depends on the ERC. In this case it would depend on the meter
size.
Mr. Hanks stated I am also wondering
if we have a bypass meter that when you deal with a little flow it goes through
the bypass and it gets picked up.
Mr. Daly stated we have irrigation
meters out there that we are not allowed to touch the timer. It is a hands on type of a thing, but there
is no house valve or anything to turn off.
I told the crew to change those meters.
It turns out that they had 562,000 gallons last month. It was about 150,000 the month before because
we changed a little bit of the billing period.
We knew they were using water, but the meter was broken. When we go out there to see if they have the
thing up or if it is on, it becomes more than tedious. It is quite a job because you need to have
someone out there at 6:00 a.m. or 4:00 a.m. seeing if the water comes on.
Mr. Hanks stated the other thing is
you can go through your list of uses. You
know Red Lobster is using water. It is a
reasonable amount they are using.
Mr. Daly stated we suspect they are
using water outside.
Mr. Cassel stated irrigation only.
Mr. Daly stated only irrigation
right now because you know what is going on in the inside. I get reports that say extremely high or
extremely low. We check it out and it
might happen to be a toilet or something like that. It is the outside part that we were missing
the boat on. We decided to look at that
and opposed to just changing meters willy-nilly we are paying attention to some
of the establishments that have a vested interest in how they look.
Mr. Fennell asked do we have any
kind of a cap on meters that can look at flow?
Mr. Daly responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked is that the Doppler
meter?
Mr. Daly responded yes, which is
probably what we should do now. We
actually just purchased it. We were
renting it. We found out it would be
less expensive to purchase it and we will have many years worth of use out of
it.
Mr. Hanks asked are we tracking the
age of the meters and deciding which ones to bomb out?
Mr. Cassel responded yes. We are on a ten year meter replacement
program.
Mr. Daly stated in the past couple
years have budgeted $75,000 each year for large meters. This year we are starting on the smaller
meters, the house meters; however, we went into a little side cut where we
found out we had some lift stations that did not have backflows on them. We paid attention to that. It is where a lot of the money went to and a
lot of the time. We are getting back on
track.
Mr. Hanks stated safety comes over
profit.
Mr. Daly stated I agree.
Mr. Fennell stated Mr. Johnson
mentioned earlier about using water from our own plant to do some things on the
other side. Do you meter that in any
way?
Mr. Macintosh responded no.
Mr. Cassel stated you meter what
goes off the site. What Mr. Macintosh and
they are using is not off of that number.
Mr. Macintosh stated the water in
this whole compound is not metered.
Mr. Stover stated you are metered on
the way into the wastewater plant and you are metered going into your injection
well.
Mr. Fennell stated once again there
is another opportunity for cost savings.
Mr. Daly stated we are working on
the irrigation ones right now. We are
going to go through that and see what we can find out. We are going to see if we can find some
people who do not have a problem watering like crazy, but will have a problem
when they have to pay for it. We now
have the Doppler and we will see what happens.
Mr. Johnson stated just a word of
caution. The Doppler works on wastewater
flows. You would need an ultrasonic
meter to monitor water overflow.
Mr. Cassel stated you do have the
other meter calibration that you can stick your adaptor on to check the meter against
your calibrated meter. We have ways to
check to see if the meter that is in the ground is registering properly.
Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like
you obviously need to do this. We are
talking 12%. I would suspect 1% to 2% is
normal.
Mr. Cassel 5% is the industry
standard. We need to eliminate the fact
of whether we have meters we are not billing for and if we have meters where
consumption is occurring, but there is not enough volume to trigger the meter
accurately. Once we eliminate those and
take them out of the calculation we will see what really is our loss in our
distribution system.
Mr. Fennell asked once water leaves
the plant do we have any other large meters out there for one of the major
pipelines or any other way of judging the flow down the lines?
Mr. Daly responded distribution
wise; probably not.
Ms. Zich asked is there any way that
someone can fool with their meters so they can use a lot of water and it would
not show?
Mr. Daly responded there used to be
an old trick way back when.
Ms. Zich stated I know people do it
with electricity and their television.
Mr. Daly stated our registers do not
pop off with just any kind of screwdriver.
Mr. Stover stated that would be
minimal anyway. An other issue is the
fire department. They do a lot of
flushing and training. They use quite a
bit of water that is not metered.
Mr. Daly stated there is really no
way to find out when they do it because it is always after the fact. They do not have that kind of communication
with us right now.
Mr. Hanks asked do you ever see them
flushing hydrants?
Mr. Daly responded I personally do not.
Ms. Zich stated I do not
either.
Mr. Stover stated every once and a
while we get a call from the police department telling us the fire department
is out flushing hydrants.
Mr. Hanks stated I do not think that
would account for 12% day in and day out.
Is our distribution number accurate?
Mr. Stover responded yes.
Mr. Daly asked is it calibrated
quarterly?
Mr. Stover responded it is
calibrated quarterly.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the bill
rate per 1,000?
Mr. Daly responded it is like $3.15. We have three increases and we are going to
have three more.
Ms. Zich asked what do you mean?
Mr. Daly responded it was in our
bond report. It said even if we did not
do phase two we would probably have to come through with a 3%, 4% and 5%
increase.
Ms. Zich stated I remember the first
increases, but I do not remember that we were going to do any more after that.
Mr. Daly stated I was reading
through it the other day and it says even if we do not do phase two, we will
have to do these three incremental increases.
We have been miserly and we have paid attention to every dime so we may
not have to. We might have $6 Million
sitting there that did not go for this project, which could pay the bonds
down. There are different ways of
looking at it. Mr. Cassel is on board
with seeing what we really need to do and analyzing this as opposed to going by
a document that is 40 years old. There
were so many assumptions made when that was written and many things have
changed.
Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like this
needs a lot of attention. Thank you for
doing this. This is another case of
seeing if we have to keep both plants alive because we need additional back up. If you can actually find another 7% to 10% of
water, that can go a long way towards back ups, capacity and reserves.
Mr. Cassel stated or at least we can
make sure we get paid for it.
Mr. Hanks stated if we find where
those losses are and bring it down from 12% to 5%, we are looking at bringing
in perhaps $375,000 a year in lost revenue.
Mr. Cassel stated this is why we are
trying to narrow it down to see where those losses are internally as to where
we are coming up with the numbers. What
is real.
Mr. Hanks asked would it also be
another $3 on sewer rates?
Mr. Daly responded yes it would.
·
Utility
Billing Work Orders
This item is for informational
purposes.
B. Attorney
There
being no report, the next item followed.
C. Engineer
·
Project
Status Report
Mr. Johnson stated it is my
understanding you wanted to have an update on what is going on with the
infiltration construction.
Ms. Zich stated we would love it.
Mr. Bulman stated I can give you a
few minutes. I can honestly say
everything is good right now with the deep well. Construction is good.
Ms. Zich asked is it finished?
Mr. Bulman responded it is not
finished. The monitoring well has to be
plugged and abandoned. Right now we are
collecting data from both monitoring wells.
All of that is going to DEP so they can look at it because they want to
carefully consider removing any data point.
Plugging and abandoning the monitoring well, which we are authorized to
do under the current permit, is still something they need to give us final
authorization on based on the construction of the monitoring well #3.
Mr. Fennell asked we put another
monitoring well in, right?
Mr. Bulman responded yes.
Mr. Cassel stated we are plugging
and abandoning monitoring well #2 because we installed monitoring well #3.
Mr. Hanks asked was monitoring well
#2 leaking?
Mr. Cassel responded monitoring well
#2 was a dual zone. One of the zones
went bad. Initially they were going to
put a monitoring well in that was only a single zone monitoring well, but
during the process of evaluation we realized there was an interconnection
between the other two zones and monitoring well #2. This made it a non useful monitoring well. This is when we changed monitoring well #3 to a two zone monitoring well. We just installed it. Both zones are working. Both zones have met all of the criteria. They have flown through all of the test
qualifications and criteria standards.
Until DEP is satisfied that the monitoring results off of the new
monitoring well are good, accurate and stable they will not give us permission
to abandon and plug the old monitoring well.
That is the stage we are in right now.
Everything else is tied in. All
of the telemetry is tied in. Everything
is going back to where it is supposed to be going. We are down to the final aspects of DEP
saying they agree with the data we are sending them and that we can go ahead
with plugging and abandoning the monitoring well as well as the little wells we
had to dig when we were doing the initial drilling of the well.
Mr. Bulman stated it is a formality
at this point.
Mr. Fennell asked did we ever have
another back up injection well out there?
We said we could not put enough stuff down there. The well was fine, but somehow something got
lost in the pipes.
Mr. Bulman responded that is the
evaluation we are doing now. What they
did last month is replace the flow meters on injection well #1, which is the
older one. The back up. Now with reliable flow meters, that component
of the work is done and we can evaluate the rest of the system to start solving
where the problem was.
Mr. Fennell stated so we still do
not know yet.
Mr. Bulman stated we still do not
know. It is still in process.
Mr. Cassel stated we are gathering
the data and telemetry so we can make an appropriate assessment of the
issues.
Mr. Bulman stated we will have to do
a hydraulic model with the pump curves, the system, the lines and everything to
determine exactly what is going on and why we cannot get water down the well.
Mr. Fennell asked did it ever work?
Mr. Bulman responded it was not
tested at rates high enough to determine whether or not it could take that
amount of water. For years it was
believed that you tested it at this rate and everything was fine, but during
the course of the MIT in May we said we had to bring it up to a higher capacity
to get rid of that water when the primary well is offline. Operation said it could not happen. It could not go any higher. The question is; why?
Mr. Fennell asked or why should it?
Mr. Bulman responded it is rated at
a higher capacity and it needs to have a higher capacity for redundancy.
Mr. Fennell stated now you are at a
point to where you can actually look at the flows and you can see what is
flowing. In the end you are going to
have to try to inject down that to see.
Mr. Bulman stated that is the
process of what we are gathering right now.
Mr. Fennell stated okay now the
nanofiltration construction status update.
Mr. Johnson stated I hoped to
discuss this with you last month when Mr. Brown was here. I had flown back from Colorado and got in
about 15 or 20 minutes late and missed him.
Then I had to fly back out at the end of the meeting so I was not able
to present some of this information.
Ms. Zich asked is this updated as of
now?
Mr. Johnson responded yes. I am going to talk about the current status
and where we are.
Ms. Zich stated it actually looks
like a lot is going on out there.
Mr. Johnson stated I am going to
walk through some of our schedule issues, the status and contract.
Mr. Cassel stated they were actually
pumping some concrete and making some headway.
Mr. Johnson stated they are actually
starting to move right now. One of the
issues we had during this project is we have been having a tough time
administratively with the contractor. That
goes from getting schedules, submittals, timely progress payments and what have
you. When Mr. Brown comes in here, you
ask if there is anything you can do to help and they say to pay them; he is
kind of his own worst enemy. We have
been working on this project and it took a while to get from the contractor a
baseline schedule.
What we use a baseline schedule for
is to judge project progress throughout the duration. There was a significant amount of back and
forth with the contractor so we could try to establish their baseline schedule
early on in the project. The preliminary
schedule should be ten days after the notice to proceed. The notice to proceed was April 3, 2009. So fast forwarding it was approved October
15, 2009. The detailed progress
schedule, which then becomes the baseline that everything is judged against,
should be within 60 days of the notice to proceed so you can get an early count
for how your project should look or what you need to judge yourself against on
the project. Fast forward to November 6,
2009; that is when we finally got the approved baseline schedule.
There have been a lot of problems
along the way with trying to gage the contractor’s progress on this project
simply because there has been all of this back and forth. That bleeds over into the progress
payments. On a construction project
there are a number of things we need to have in order to be able to gage
progress and then pay them accordingly.
One of those things is the schedule, but there are other things which
factor into that including progress documentation, project progress narratives
and things like that. There has been iteration
for the duration of this project in trying to incrementally get forward to
where we have all of this documentation that we need for our progress
payments. Mr. Cassel has been there and
it is pretty interesting. We have been
saying that in order to get paid they need to have this documentation. If you do not do the documentation and the
administrative things, we are not going to pay you. They would just sit on it and it would drag
out.
Mr. Fennell asked why would they do
that? Obviously you are holding their
money.
Ms. Zich responded that is what I
have seen out here. It just does not
look like anything is happening. I know
there is a lot of underground work, but you are talking April of last
year.
Ms. Woodward stated the
documentation that gets turned into us, up until the last month, has been
inaccurate, late, not fully supported and returned to them because it cannot be
processed. The payment problems do not
exist here. They exist with Intrastate
Construction and Lazlo in the scenario.
Mr. Johnson stated it is push, pull
and drag to try and get what we need.
Ms. Zich stated I thought we used
these people because they have done so much work for us in the past. I would have thought that by now they would
have gotten the idea that in order to get paid you need to have
everything. Have your ducks in a row and
you will get paid.
Mr. Cassel stated from my
perspective coming in and not having dealt with them, except at the tail end of
the last project; when I came on board in April they were supposed to have been
done four to five months later with the last project. It was a year later before we finally got the
documentation from them to close out the $6.9 Million project.
Ms. Woodward stated that was after
requesting the closeout documentation every month for six months.
Ms. Zich stated this is why I am
concerned. As I keep getting these
vibes, I do not get vibes like everything is going like clockwork; like it
needs to go. I have been in construction
for a long time too. If you do not have
this done, this done and that done, you do not get paid. I am not seeing it get done fast enough out
there.
Mr. Johnson stated I think there is
a yin and a yang this. I cannot speak
for the contractor, but maybe it is looked at as the administrative side of
things is not as important as getting the job done. In our opinion…
Ms. Zich stated both are important.
Mr. Johnson stated that is correct. Here we kind of have a yin and a yang where
they are saying they cannot get this done completely because they are not
getting paid fast enough. We are not
going to pay them until they give us what we need with the payment applications
and all the processes.
Ms. Zich stated I am disappointed
because I thought the reason we were using these people is because they had
been on our projects before and they knew what we expected.
Mr. Cassel stated I am not sure that
the level to which we are holding them accountable on this project was the same
level to which they were being held accountable on other projects.
Ms. Zich stated someone should have
thought about this before we gave them the contract.
Mr. Hanks stated it is also subject
to bidding requirements.
Mr. Cassel stated you have your
bidding requirements. They have
performed. They got the projects
done. There was really nothing to say to
not award them the contract.
Mr. Hanks stated welcome to bidding
requirements.
Mr. Cassel stated yes. They have begrudgingly improved with the last
two payments; nine and ten have been coming in the door accurately.
Ms. Zich stated I wish I was getting
a nice feeling about this.
Mr. Johnson stated you and me both.
Ms. Zich stated I am glad Mr.
Johnson is saying that because I have not been happy with the way things are
going and I was afraid that it was just me being an accounting person; wanting
the ducks in a row. I am not as happy as
I wanted to be about this project.
Mr. Fennell stated there should be
somebody on their side who is interested in cash flow.
Mr. Johnson stated I do not want to
get into this public thing and bash the contractor, offering up a subjective
analysis of what is going on here. The
reality of the situation is that as the owners representative we have a limited
ability to dictate their schedule, their means and their methods. We hold them to meet the requirements of the
specifications. We cannot direct them. We can advise them. Once we direct them, CSID or CH2M Hill are on
the hook at that point because we are overstepping our boundaries. We cannot tell them how to do this. Our status as of November 15, 2009 is the
contractor is behind 25 days on substantial completion and five days on final
completion. If you look at five days on
final completion, it is really not that far over. Again, we cannot tell them how to put their
schedule together. We can only comment
on their schedule. We are in the process
of reviewing December and January. The
scheduler that was working on this had to take a leave. I am finding a replacement scheduler right
now, which I should have tomorrow to start reviewing December and January’s
schedules. We will have comments back to
them.
Mr. Hanks asked when you say the
District and CH2M Hill is on the hook if we start directing them, are you
referring to acceleration?
Mr. Johnson responded what I mean
is, “you should sequence this instead of that” because the minute we tell them
how to sequence something that they should be able to do this in this time,
then all of a sudden we are responsible for their schedule. We cannot do that. Once we see there is a problem with the
schedule and they are behind schedule, there are mechanisms in the contract for
them to have to men load, re-baseline and figure out ways to get it done in
time. There are mechanisms and once
December and January have been vetted I am pretty sure that is the course we
will be taking.
Mr. Hanks asked when are we looking
to have things completed out there? What
was the contract completion date?
Mr. Johnson responded the contract
completion date for Plant F is April 3, 2010.
From our estimates it looks like they will be done on Plant F in time.
Mr. Hanks asked okay and on the
nanoplant are we looking at some time in 2011?
Mr. Johnson responded we have a
January 24, 2011 final completion date.
We have a November 24, 2010 substantial completion.
Mr. Hanks stated so almost exactly a
year from today they should be done.
Mr. Johnson stated what is happening
on the November 1 schedule is they are compressing the time between substantial
and final completion. We gave them 60
days between substantial completion when the plant should be up and running,
you should be producing water, and final completion. As it stands right now I cannot say they are
behind schedule other than to say they are slightly behind.
Ms. Zich stated I just want you to
be aware and keep it going.
Mr. Johnson stated believe me, time
is money. If it were us at CH2M Hill, it
would be a different story.
Mr. Hanks stated you can remind them
what the contract schedule is and what the contract completion date is, but you
cannot tell them you need to do this.
Mr. Fennell asked do you have
someone onsite?
Mr. Johnson responded yes. He documents everyday. My man on the field has done a terrific job
of documenting, making sure the specifications are followed and the contractor
is meeting the requirements of the specifications. Things are getting built correctly.
Ms. Zich stated that is good.
Mr. Johnson stated if anything, I
would say we are really on top of that.
That is the most important thing; to make sure this is done correctly.
Mr. Fennell stated my only comment
is that this is January 25, 2010. The
last time you really had a schedule understanding was two months ago. If someone is out there checking the work,
there should be a schedule in front of you where it is just a matter of you
checking it off.
Mr. Johnson stated when pay
applications are submitted to the District for processing that is when we see
the progress schedule. If we are on a
normal payment schedule, they submit on the 15th of the month the
progress documentation, the schedule and the payment application.
Ms. Zich asked did we get it for
January?
Mr. Johnson responded yes. We got that schedule. The problem we are facing is the December
payment application came in the first week of January.
Mr. Fennell asked are you using
accounting to keep track of the schedule?
Mr. Johnson responded that is when
the contractor submits the schedule.
Mr. Fennell stated but you should be
looking.
Mr. Cassel stated they are looking
at the schedule on a daily basis from what has been provided. What happens is when he puts in his schedule
for the payout against what was done, they need to go back and look at it, compare
it against what the base schedule was, how much flow time, are they on
schedule, how many days behind their schedule on each item they are. They have to do that analysis on a monthly
basis as well as looking at it daily.
They cannot say, “you need to do this, you need to do that”. All they can say is it said there was
concrete to be poured and no concrete was poured. They make their daily reports and then go
back and say you are so many days behind.
What are you going to do to fix it?
Mr. Fennell stated there is a real
schedule and there is a payment schedule.
The real schedule is the key.
Mr. Johnson stated the schedule is
considered a submittal. That points to
one of our other issues. We have a
number of submittals we require to review what they are proposing. Let us say they are proposing to install a
certain piece of equipment that we specified in our specifications. We receive it. Our engineers look at it and say it is good
or no it is not and this is what you need to do to correct it. This is another example of administrative
issues. We have been having trouble
getting submittals out of them for the duration of this project. I think we are on top of it now, but with the
schedule being another submittal; dragging it out of these guys, aside from us
going into their trailer and doing it for them, our people are limited on how
to enforce them to do this.
Mr. Fennell asked where is your guy
at? Is he in a trailer?
Mr. Johnson responded yes.
Mr. Fennell asked but they are not
in the same trailer?
Mr. Johnson responded no, not the
same trailer.
Mr. Fennell stated I have done joint
projects with other companies such as Seiko and HP. You actually get to a point where you have
your people working in the same place at the same time and doing the same
thing.
Mr. Johnson stated there are two
trailers there. There is the engineer’s
trailer where he has all of our as built drawings, our submittals, our CMs, our
inspectors or what have you. They have
their trailer where all the contractor’s magic happens. Just a quick look ahead; we received the
contractor look ahead before our construction progress meeting, which we are
having on Wednesday. The list of items
for the look ahead; you are in piping, installation of underground electrical,
place and finish standby generator slab, it looked like they had actually done
that when I came through the gates today so we are seeing an uptake in
activity, but it has taken some effort to get to this point. The wastewater treatment plant we have taken
a look at. We feel pretty comfortable
that they are going to be able to finish it on time. A lot of this is internal to the wastewater
treatment plant so we feel this is going to be something they can meet. The problem is the nanofiltration plant. Again, until we have something more to say
that they are not going to meet the schedule we have to take their cues. This is at the top of our priority list right
now; getting the December and January schedules.
Mr. Fennell asked are there any
questions?
Ms. Zich responded it sounds as good
as it can be.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of December
Financials and Check Registers
·
Summary
of Cash Transactions
·
Projected
Cash Flows
·
Engineering
Projects
Mr. Fennell stated we still have a
little money with the SBA.
Ms. Woodward stated yes.
Mr. Fennell asked is it about
$75,000?
Ms. Woodward responded yes. We basically wait each month or sometimes
every six weeks, whenever they transfer funds out of the toxic asset fund into
Fund A and then we transfer it into our operating funds. The last estimate that I have seen is they
expect it can take as much as five or six years for the rest of the funds to
free up.
Mr. Fennell stated it is amazing to
me that its not a major issue in the press.
Ms. Zich stated on the assessment
collections; that is incredible. We
collected almost all of our money for the general fund. People are paying their property taxes. I was talking to Ms. Woodward about it. Interest rates are so low now that if you
have the funds, you are not going to get any more money in the bank. You might as well pay your property taxes. I think a lot of people feel that way.
Mr. Hanks asked do a lot of people
pay through the escrow account on their mortgage?
Ms. Woodward responded but that was
also true last year. Apparently
something has leveled off out there.
Something has changed. We are
basically about $200,000 ahead of where we were last year on collections.
Ms. Zich stated things are looking
good there.
Mr. Fennell asked what happened? Did the county decide to really tighten down
and get the money or something?
Ms. Woodward responded I do not
think they do anything different. They
send out the notices and people pay however people are paying.
Ms. Zich stated it is not just
people. It is businesses too.
Mr. Cassel stated business and
banks.
Ms. Zich stated when you think
business and banks, you are not getting any money if it is sitting there. You get a percentage off for every month you
pay your taxes early.
Mr. Fennell stated I was looking at
our operating flows; total expenditures and revenues.
Ms. Woodward asked on what fund?
Mr. Fennell responded water and
sewer fund. The total expenditures
prorated was going to be $2.5 Million.
We are only at $1.4 Million. The
next line down for excess revenues is prorated to be negative. Is that just an error? Are we making any money or not?
Ms. Woodward responded you are fine
on that. The issue is when you come down
to the excess revenue line one of the items which normally goes into that also
includes some of the computations on your reserves. Also, there will be a major discrepancy when
you go back to the debt service on principal and interest payments. What happens there is because we are still on
the construction phase on our project we are capitalizing interest
expense. So while we budget that we will
spend it as an expense it actually gets reclassified up into the balance
sheet.
Mr. Fennell stated as a negative
expense, which is positive.
Ms. Zich stated it is difficult to
understand.
Mr. Fennell stated it is the
expenses which are negative. Are we in
good shape?
Ms. Woodward responded we are
good. One of the things Mr. Daly and I
spoke briefly about is that this will probably be a good year, when we go
through our budget process for next fiscal year, to attempt to do a true up on
the budget for the current fiscal year and do a budget amendment mid year. Simply because we have certain changes within
the engineering portion of this.
Hopefully by the time we get to March we will have some indication of
whether or not the feasibility is going to result in items becoming capital in
nature versus operating expenditures.
Also, one of the items you might have noticed as you went through the
financials is that while our general liability insurance has been capped and is
doing very well in total, the portion we have allocated to the general fund
versus the water and sewer fund has been flipped slightly so that we will be
under budget on the general fund and over budget on the water and sewer
fund. When we renewed the insurance this
year we did a physical inventory of all the assets being insured and we
recomputed the appropriate percentage of the premium, which should have been charged
between the two. We found that in the
past years we were too heavily skewing it towards the general fund. This will allow us to true it up so that it
will more accurately reflect what is going on in your financials.
Mr. Fennell asked I do not know if
you can do this or not, but when I look at the excess revenue can I have
another line in there that puts it in without the capital costs? I just want to look at the operation and see
if these guys are doing the right thing as far as running the plant
efficiently.
Ms. Zich responded you can look at
just the field operations and see that.
That is what I do. I look at them
individually and then it is not as confusing.
Mr. Fennell stated I am just
suggesting a line called total operations and you can add in the additional capital. I know from your standpoint all money is
money, but for me I see it as how can I judge how these guys are doing.
Ms. Woodward stated let me check and
see what I can do with that. Part of
this happens to be the nature of government budgeting. Where you are really flowing over on this is
the fact that you have $907,000 which is showing as a prorated budget amount as
an expenditure for debt service. If you
take that $907,000 out and add it back to the negative $500,000, you are really
in the black by $400,000. That is really
what you are looking at.
Mr. Fennell stated I see debt
service like paying bondholders and paying maybe the owner, or something like
that, above and beyond what the operations are doing.
Ms. Woodward stated except in the
case of the water and sewer fund where your debt service is in fact part of
your operations. It is not the same debt
service as in the general fund and general obligations. That is why it is presented this way.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by
Mr. Fennell with all in favor the financials and check registers for December
were approved.
EIGHTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There
being no further business,
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.
Glen Hanks
Robert
D. Fennell
Secretary President