My husband was off a little How much? >> $1.9 million first year total 3.2. Oh, now they're working. >> All right. Good evening, everyone. It's 6:01 p.m. I'd like to go ahead and call
tonight's meeting to order. It's June 1st, 2026, and this is our workshop meeting. Mary Han, can I get roll call? >> Mayor Young >> here. Vice Mayor Painter, Council Member Brandon, Council Member Story >> here,
>> Council Member Stone >> here. >> Thank you. And I know we do not do a uh um motion to approve tonight's agenda, but I do think the manager has something he needs to add to the agenda tonight. >> That's right. I sent you guys an email with that letter of support for Jupiter.
They have uh passed a bill through the legislation um and they're waiting the governor's signature. So, I sent you guys a letter. I didn't bring the printed copy, but um I don't know if you guys had a chance to look at it and get you guys a copy while we're waiting, but we do want to add
that to the agenda so we can have that discussion and I'll get that copy to you guys. >> Thank you, Jeremy. All right, our first agenda item tonight, agenda item one, discuss the village of Dquesta water treatment master plan to address the upcoming EPA compliance regulations.
Allison. >> Good evening, Mayor Council. Um, thank you so much for taking the time tonight to review our water treatment master plan that was completed by Kimley Horn. Um just as a refresher which Nick will go through a lot of this more in depth but um this master plan the whole
purpose of the plan was to address the PAS um that we have seen and observed in our finished water that we produced at the water treatment plant um and find out the next steps and our kind of our road map to meet compliance by the compliance
deadline of 2029 and then um how to move forward in the most fiscally responsible and best operational way we can. Um and just a reminder that at the November council meeting, the work authorization was approved for Kimley Horn to complete this master plan. Um we did have some
intermittent meet uh meetings internally with staff to go over kind of current conditions um possible paths forward looking at all of our operational data um and making sure that whatever route we present to you tonight is the best not only from a paper standpoint but
from an operational standpoint. So Nick is here to give you that presentation. Um, and afterwards we can answer any questions. So, this is Nick Black. >> Thank you, Alison. Good evening. Thanks for having us. Uh, Nick Black with Kinley Horn with me
here. I've got Marlon Ramirez and Ashlin Hirs. They're here. They did a lot of heavy lifting on the report and the development of the report. So, just to kind of help keep me in line here in case I I uh tread off base here, but thanks for the opportunity to walk through this master plan. Um, it's been
some time since we kind of discussed why we're doing this. Uh, so I figured it'd be good for us to do a little bit of a refresher, talk about the water system background a little bit, provide that context. We're going to talk a little bit about what PAS are and the regulatory requirements that we need to meet. Um, the last meeting we did
discuss the master plan objectives, things we're going to explore to maintain compliance. So, we're going to do an overview on what we reviewed and the associated costs, pros and cons associated with each alternative. And then we'll dive into the findings of that evaluation and the recommendations
moving forward. So, there's a lot of content to cover. I have a lot of slides that are at the end of this that are hidden so we can dive into details. If you want to please at any time if you want to probe or make this uh dialogue, feel free, be my guest. I I I don't want
to put anybody to sleep here. So, Um, just a overview of the water treatment plant. Rated capacity is 6.3 million gallons per day. That's how much water the plant can physically treat and send out to customers while meeting the
drinking water standards. There are 10 uh surficial aquifer wells that feed the 2.73 million gallon per day rated filtration plant. And there are four Florida aquifer wells that feed the 3.6 6 million gallon per day reverse osmosis
treatment plant. So, as you can kind of tell based on the numbers, there's quite a few uh quite few floor and wells when compared to the surficial well field. Uh and they're able to produce a lot more water and that's going to be a topic of discussion um throughout this master
plan uh overview. So, just a brief overview of the well field. Uh we mentioned surficial wells. Those are basically shallow groundwater wells. They're um unconfined which means they're susceptible to contamination. They are where the PAS is is being found
in and in in the uh source wire of the plant. Surficial wells are characteristic of having higher hardness, higher alkalinity. Those are kind of the good traits associated with that well field because it provides that stability on your finished water. The Florida wells are an alternative water
supply. Um they come from the a Florida noer which is about 800 or so feet deep. 8 the wells are typically drilled 800 to,200 feet deep very saline water so very brackish. It requires that reverse osmosis treatment to to remove the
salts. Um but that's the workhorse for your facility whereas the surficial is used primarily as blend water. Any questions on that? So let's talk about PAS regulations a bit. So what are PAS? These are manufactured chemicals. Uh they come
from consumer products, non-stick items. It also comes from firefighting foam. Um it's a chain of linked carbon and florine by um atoms. Uh which is anything with a carbon bond is very very strong and it's very persistent in the environment. It doesn't naturally
degrade. So it's very hard to treat. Um and there are potential uh adverse health effects associated with consumption. PAS are measured in parts per trillion. We had a whole bunch of analogies up here to try and set the scale for what a part per trillion is. Grain of salt and
10 million gallons of water. One I like to use is an inch and 16 million miles, which seems ridiculous. Um, if you I run 2 miles and I feel like an inch would be such a small minute uh number there, but uh it's tested through EPA 533 and EPA
537.1. Main thing to note with that is these tests go down to the parts per trillion. And when these test results have a sway of plus or minus 20%, if you're at three parts per trillion actual and they measure positive on 20 uh 20% on that
margin of error, you you might have a regulatory complian uh compliance issue could go the other way as well. So it's a very sensitive test. So, it requires folks to, you know, not have contact with uh Mcbiscuits or any type of wrapper in the morning because it is is
that susceptible uh to contamination. >> So, just so I'm Yes, sir. >> Just so I'm clear, we're talking about one drop or one grain of salt in one days of production or less than one more than one day's production. >> Yeah. Yeah. So, uh, one grain of salt.
The village produces about 3 and a2 million gallons per day on average. >> So, it's about Yeah. So, it's about one grain of salt in 3 days of water production, which is crazy. >> Good luck. >> Yeah. >> To set the scale for quantifying that.
>> Thank you. >> There are uh six PAS contaminants that were of concern. There was a press release two weeks ago that we'll dive into here that kind of narrows it down to two. um 29 PAS constituents that were on the unregulated contaminant
monitoring rule. Uh number five, which essentially is a a list of contaminants that are on a a a list to be regulated in the future potentially that they're going to be monitoring. Um there's thousands of PAS uh contaminants identified. Not all of them are measurable. So it's a very uh
challenging problem that the industry is being faced with. These are the results of testing that was performed in the villages. well field. I want to stress that this is in the this is purely at the well itself. It's not at the point of entry to the
water system. But how the water plant works is you're producing this high this high quality RO permeate from the reverse osmosis process and that's the workhorse for the system. the surficial aquifer is providing that hardness and that alkalinity for blending so that
you're you're providing um non-corrosive very stable finish uh drinking water so you don't have corrosion out in the pipes and uh customer complaints and whatnot. So it's a very important um source water for your system. These are the the uh levels that were
noted in the surficial in the surficial aquifer. Um I think the village is blending about 30 to 33% of their total their total uh capacity with the surficial. Um so once you start doing the math you see that the the actual
concentrations are higher than what is going to be regulated in the upcoming rule. And that upcoming rule is for PFOA and PFOS. Uh the maximum contaminant uh level which is also called MCL is four parts per trillion. Uh two weeks ago
they had a press release um there's been kind of an evolving uh story here with the different administrations as to what what was going to happen with this rule. Uh but they uh essentially said that there's going to be a compliance date of April 2029. That's the date and
utilities can opt to request for an extension of two years but it would be up to the discretion of the authority having jurisdiction to grant that extension which in for the village of Tqua would be Palm Beach County Health Department and part of that criteria has
not been established yet. So we're still learning more as this thing's getting rolled out. >> So just help me understand the four parts per trillion in one day's production kind of a concept is it now smaller than the one grain of salt. >> So the four parts per trillion is what
you're going to be regulated to. The one grain of salt in 10 million gallons of water is essentially equivalent to one part per trillion. So if you were to have this volume of water and have one grain of salt in there, that would be a part. If you were to have four grains of
salt, you would essentially be non-compliant. Got it. >> Okay. So four grains of salt in three days of production. >> Correct. So as part of the master plan um we wanted to kind of evaluate every every alternative u some of the lowhanging fruit on site to understand what would
be uh cost-effective and operationally friendly um alternatives for the for the village. So the first thing that we looked at is what treatment alternatives exist for that existing 2.73 million gallons per day of of surficial aquifer
water. So what could be added in addition to existing infrastructure to polish that water and remove the pete fast? The next alternative would be what could the village do in terms of their capacities with their ex with their
existing equipment to try and shift capacity from the surficial over to the Florida maximize the RORO production and then offset the surficial with that with that um RO capacity. what other ancillary components would be needed to
support that. So the master plan dove into that as well. And then the final thing was what if the village converted to a full reverse osmosis treatment process. That all make sense. So as part of this uh we wanted to define uh timelines for these
improvements uh near-term being within the initial 5 years. know when we developed the the scope we were looking at that 2031 compliance deadline obviously that's shifted up a little bit which um where where we land we don't think there's an issue with that but the near-term evaluated within the next 5
years short-term 5 to 10 years out and then long-term improvements would be that 10 to 20 year window sorry these are the surficial treatment options that were explored uh in the evaluation Again, this would be uh if we
built a brand new system adjacent to what's currently there. Um just do a memory refresher. Uh a couple months ago, the village wrapped up construction on their iron or their iron treatment filter vessels. As part of that project, two of those vessels uh were rem removed
from the contractor's scope of work because there was the concept that those two vessels could be rehabilitated and refurbished to be a PAS polishing system and support that kind of shift in capacity. If any one of these alternatives were pursued for the full 2.73,
those two filter vessels would would need to be rehabilitated and then um re rebedded with sand and anththerite and then a new treatment process would be uh constructed adjacent to it. So from a from an outsers's perspective,
what the first the first process is ion exchange. And what is that? It's a steel tank that's loaded with resin and that resin is very discriminatory. It's very selective in its treatment where it targets the the PAS contaminants. Um, this type of treatment has been very
effective in in uh utilities elsewhere, most notably at the city of Stewart, which is right up the road from here. Um, at the time that was the largest um PAS um largest municipal PAS treatment system uh in the states was constructed
several years ago. And basically what they did was they built four vessels. It was kind of an innovative approach and loaded it with different resins from different suppliers to see which one works the best as far as removal. Um and as they went through that process and tested each resin, they're to hone in on
what works best for for the city and for uh their compliance. So that's that's a nearby example. So it's proven technology and it works. Uh some chemistry description as far as what ion exchange is. um basically exchanging
ions with uh chlor with the uh PAS uh with the chloride or the sulfate in very minimal amounts. It's not noticeable in the water, the chloride and the sulfate, but being a proven technology for a treatment. One of the things about this process is it's very selective. It's not
um it doesn't handle everything, right? So, this is purely this if you were to pursue down this track, it would be purely for a PAS treatment. It won't handle color. It won't handle organics. It won't handle anything else that comes up on the EPA's radar as far as what's
the next emerging emerging contaminant. It's a selective treatment. Um you'll see in this photo they're a little squattier vessels. So it's a little smaller capital cost uh as far as the uh the uh um options are concerned is going
to be a you know one of the lower ones because the infrastructure needed isn't that isn't that large. Uh, and essentially for the village's sake, it would be a new pump station to pump through this system because it just hydraulic hydraulically requires it. >> Quick question on the the ion exchange
process. Does it it doesn't address other contam uh contaminants that you just listed off, but does it would it um address all of the PAS? >> Yeah. So, >> because there's how many there's 30 plus or whatever? I I it would be incorrect
for me to say it addresses all of the PAS. It would address the ones that are going to be POS and POA that are going to be required for uh regulatory compliance. It h has demonstrated success with treating short-term or short short chain um PAS contaminants
which tech generally tends to be the more difficult one to treat. Um but does it treat all of them? The answer is is likely not. But it has proven success at the ones that will be uh critical for compliance.
>> Thank you. >> Um the other thing I was gonna I'm glad you asked a question because brought this mind this to mind. Uh this is a resin. So it's basically a media that's loaded in the steel vessel. The water it's a single pass system. So the water
just passes through and the PAS for lack of a better term just absorbs to the media. So over time, if you think about it, their PAS is just taking up more and more sightes on the on the surface area of this media. There will come a time when that resin is exhausted and then
the PAS tends to pass through. So what has to happen from an O andM standpoint is the resin has to be removed uh and hauled off site. there would be have to be a chain of custody um handoff associated with transporting a hazardous
material and then new resin would have to be loaded into the vessel. So it is a bit of a an on andm expense as far as acquiring new resin and disposing of the resin and there's very few locations in the state that can handle and incinerate
it up to a certain temperature to destroy that PAS. So that this this type of treatment does present itself with with some challenges as well. There's folks that do it. Um but that would be a cost in perpetuity. Question is is how
quickly is that resin exhausted and how frequently um are you going to be uh be doing that work? And really the answer comes to how much your blend is going to be and how much more you're going to rely on the Florida as opposed to the
surficial. Um, >> you said Steuart has these, >> correct? >> Have they had to change the resin yet? >> Yes. Yes. They're changing resin, I think, once every 10 months. That sounds right. >> Okay, that's quick. >> Yeah.
>> Yep. So, uh, that's the first one. There's a whole bunch of list of advantages and disadvantages and technical stuff we can get into, but I'll I'll spare you unless you ask for it. um GAC or granular activated carbon.
You can see these vessels are much bigger. And again, the big thing with this process is it requires more time with that water to interact with that carbon uh for the PAS to be absorbed to that media. Essentially, all the activated carbon is is just porous
charcoal. That's it. Um it's very effective at the longchain PAS. So, PFOS, PFOA, what would be regulated? Uh the big challenge with this treatment process is that it has competing interest and it's not as discriminatory
as the ion exchange. Whereas the ion exchange is selective. It's going to try and find that carbon florine bond to adhere to. This is going to take out organics. It's going to take out um color. it's going to take out a whole bunch of other stuff which in turn competes with the removal of the PAS
which in turn uh would make it easier to pass through uh the carbon. That's a challenge with treating the water in South Florida where the water's shallow groundwater is relatively high in organics. It's high in color or we're we're in a swamp. So, we can kind of expect some of those characteristics of
the groundwater here. Um and those are some of the challenges that that this system faces. uh similar to the the ion exchange, the carbon can actually be reactivated. So what does that mean? They'll come uh
haul the the u media offsite. They'll provide new media and that media that they haul off site will be uh brought to another fac incineration facility to be burned. I'm so sorry I keep hitting that trying to talk my hands too much.
um it to and burn everything off before they uh use it for another another location. So any questions on GC? Okay. And then last but not least is uh nanoiltration. A lot of a lot of utilities employ this
treatment technology. Uh essentially the main driver for the plants that have nanoiltration or disinfection byproducts. So once that started becoming regulated, uh, Florida went um, basically looked at what are the treatment technologies available to remove organics from the water and
membrane treatment was was first and foremost. There are a lot of plants that are nano that treat surficial water that look very much like your your Florida NRO plants. This is kind of the same infrastructure. It's just lower operating pressures, different types of
um of uh physical pre-treatment, maybe not as much in terms of post- treatment stabilization, but um it's the same process for lack of better description. Generally operates at lower pressures. The RO system, I would be remiss if I didn't say it was expensive to run the
feed water pumps. They're pumping at 250 270 PSI. Nano filtration's probably in that 60 to 80 range. uh it requires chemicals for stabilization. Uh but the biggest u biggest item that's required for a nano plant would be disposal of a
pasaden concentrate. So if you can en envision it, it's not a filtration process but more of a separation process where you know the raw water comes in, clean water comes out but so does a PAS uh laid in stream. So uh the challenge
we have is what do we do with that stream that would be environmentally sound and also cost effective for the village. Uh one of the best available technologies for uh disposal of concentrate is a deep injection well. Unfortunately going right for an
injection well do dual zone monitoring well in this area of the state is around 20 some odd million dollars. So, it's a very expensive alternative. And with that, you've got all the other infrastructure that goes to support the membrane plant, the building, the electrical service, the emergency
generator, the trains, the pumps, the piping, all that good stuff. So, it's the most costly option, but it is also the most resilient uh in terms of emerging contaminants and and treatment. One thing I I do want to point out though is that the surficial aquifer
wellfield for the village is um I would say it's been around since the inception of the village's water system. That is what has carried the the weight of producing water since the village was was incorporated. Um so those wells are old. They require a lot of maintenance.
Uh because they are pumping out of an unconfined unconfined aquifer. They do scale up. Uh production is a challenge. So the village does have a significant um uh operating budget investment into those wells just to keep that part of
the the treatment system uh operating. So this is a summary of just the treatment options for the 2.73 million gallons per day. Uh we looked at ion exchange, looked at granular activate carbon, you looked at nano. Um we broke those down based on near-term and
short-term costs. And what you'll find is the near-term costs are are what would be needed to kind of drive that that regulatory compliance um with uh ion exchange and nanoiltration providing more assurance
for for compliance than GAC associated with the the bed volumes that uh would result in PAS breakthrough sooner. So again this is based on the study the infrastructure that would be needed to support the treatment process. So there's a little bit of a contingency
built in there. Um you like to think that the subtotal that's that's provided would be more closely representative of the cost that you'd see. But unfortunately uh given the times especially in municipal utility projects
we've seen capital costs skyrocket over the last five or six years just due to material shortages and in the labor market. Where's the potential risk that you're showing that nano filtration as a viable option when you're looking at these these numbers here? It's obviously
spiking up to the point to where it's like what am I missing? Um it it sounds like there's perceived potential new regulation that might come down the pipeline that would make that one make sense. But is that what you're saying? Yeah, that's that's essentially it is um
again with with the treatment technologies presented membrane treatment is really non non-discriminatory. It's got a what we what we refer to as a molecular weight cut off. So as the water passes through if it's above a certain molecular weight it gets rejected. It's gone. Um so and
PAS has been one that has demonstrated that it can be successfully moved short long train through nano filtration treatment and that's a that be u a very beneficial infrastructure to have for the utility. The challenge is is the significant capital cost with the deep
injection well the on andm cost associated with maintaining the bellfield to be actually be able to draw the 2.73 million gallons per day out of the water or out of the groundwater I'm sorry. Um, and then the other thing I failed to mention too, uh, the membrane treatment processes is they operate on
what's called a recovery rate. So, uh, take the RO plant for example, it's 3.6 million gallons per day. It operates at 75% recovery, which essentially means that out of every 100 gallons per day that we send to it, 75 gallons gets
recovered. So, the 3.6 six is really not representative of what the groundwater is capable of supporting for um for the RO treatment process. >> Similarly, if you were to apply that to a nano, which is kind of um what the surficial aquifer, it's kind of a
stressed water resource right now, you'd need more of it to treat to treat that >> less than 75%. >> Yeah. So, typically with nano, it's 80 85%. With RORO, they tend to be 75 to 80% recovery. Um that's just
characteristics of this area. Okay. Again the bigger O andM cost associated with each of these is uh disposal acquisition of new resin or uh carbon. And then for the annual filtration treatment process would be the chemical
costs because there are um because you're removing a lot of those constituents. You've got to stabilize the ground water by adding costic or lime or CO2 back into it to bring up that hardness and alkalinity so it doesn't doesn't uh have those corrosive
properties. Okay. So, this was the the option that we really wanted to hone in on tonight and we'll we can discuss in detail. And I think going back to when we were we were um doing the filter rehab project, we came up with this concept of shifting
capacity and um reusing infrastructure that was there already there to kind of be a cost-effective solution for the village. So, we're going to dive into that. And essentially, this option is squeezing or ringing the towel dry on the floor in the RO system and shifting capacity from the surficial over to the
Florida and then treating the PAS um to the best to the best of your abilities um to maintain that blend rate as an immediate uh solution to maintain regulatory compliance. I kind of already said that um shifting
capacity. Uh one of the biggest things that we were looking at as part of this evaluation was energy efficiency with the RO system. Uh there are a lot of avenues to help improve the the the RO system as it as it currently stands to make sure you're getting more water out of it. Talk about um some of the energy
improvement um um components that the village is is doing right now. um some others that are integral to the skid such as energy recovery devices, things just to kind of capitalize on the on the um on the the technology that's
available to reduce your energy bills but also enhance the recovery of the RO system and how much water you can produce out of the RO system. So, uh those items were were outlined in the report. Uh we talked about the different treatment
techniques to treat for PAS u ion exchange being one of them has demonstrated success. We're going kind of focus on that as far as this exercise because of the size of the vessels that are currently on site that treat the surficial aquifer. Uh what we found with
the two vessels that we pulled out of that that construction contract would be they would be enough uh to treat your average daily flows and be PAS compliant. Um and uh you know the remaining capacity that we pulled out of
that surficial could be made up by the RO system. So yeah, so these are the existing and proposed capacities that were discussed for each system. Um, typically the village is operating at a 7030 blend. We talk about
what your rated capacity of the plant is 6.3 MGD. Your typical flow rates are 3 and a half up to 4 million gallons per day. So it's not like you're producing rated capacity every day. there's a in a buffer that's inherently built into the rated capacity of the plant to handle
those peak flows that you need due to seasonal variations, fire flow, you name it, right? And typically that buffer is about 20 25%. So once the uh press release was issued
two weeks ago, uh we started looking at alternatives to try and fasttrack uh compliance. And the biggest thing would be uh looking at the near-term improvements and breaking it out into two se two distinct phases. Phase one which would be treatment of the the
surficial aquifer and then phase two would be treatment of the Florida aquifer to help make up for that reduction in capacity. Now we're talking about these as phases. The way the project would have to roll out is you'd have to complete the
permitting for the project almost as if it was one because if you were to start by derating a surficial plant and putting in the PAS system that would derate the entire facility. So you'd want to have all of that work done and permitted and then the work could be constructed into two separate
construction contracts. So and generally construct or construction permits are fiveyear duration. So that make sense? So in looking at this um the alternative yielded uh two filter vessels that would need to be retrofitted. So there were um
fortunately with these vessels you have no idea what the condition of them are until you pull the media out. You look inside. Um I think the vessels were were in a little more worse shape than we had we had hoped uh for the last project. I would expect that the same uh for this
one. Uh but essentially doing welding repairs, doing coating on the insiding of the vessels, uh removing the gravel bed, doing some minor piping, and then loading it with resin instead of sand. So, it's a very simple uh rehab. The only difference with what would be
proposed is how the water flows through those tanks and what pumps would need to be applied where to make sure that water moves from point A to point B. Um, one other thing that we're in the process of investigating with the village is u potentially a stripping
tower for disinfection byproducts. Uh, there is the way the water is injected with chemicals, uh there is a concern that by moving one of those injection points to support the ion exchange system would potentially raise an issue elsewhere as far as DBPs. So,
we're going to be performing some um some uh formation potential testing just to confirm that that last item, the stripping tower, would be would be warranted. Talked about the two distinct phases. Phase two would be the RO system improvements that would include some piping upgrades, new energy recovery
devices on the trains, um and then some various other items there. and we talked about how the projects would need to be rolled out so that you could secure a permit from the health department with a goal of being regulatory compliance by 2029.
So, we broke these out into the phase one phase two costs. And one thing we'll point we'll talk about here shortly is the short-term conceptual cost. That's a that's a a big a big uh not there. And I just want to make sure I go over that and why why it's included. Uh but
essentially the phase one the PAS system around 3 million and then the RO system expansion would be around three and a half based on the master plan level study um capital costs. So, for this near-term improvement, that five-year window, uh we work with the
village to kind of determine what what would need to be done when uh to roll this thing out, provide a year construction timeline for a contractor to mobilize, build a pump station, retrofit the vessels. Um we're looking at if we'd start tomorrow or today, you'd probably be an eight or nine month
design permitting uh window to get that done, get that through the health department. uh from and some of this some of this can overlap too with the bid the bid timeline. Uh if you're able to get secure the permit, you can start bidding bidding sooner prior to um as
long as plans are finalized and then a three-month bid window is pretty pretty typical with the project being out on the street for 45 or 60 days and then getting a notice of award to a contractor a month later. So, we think
you you you definitely can make uh the compliance deadline. Um but there's not much wiggle room. So, I mentioned that short-term improvement. Uh this is an item I wanted to wanted to touch on because it is significant. The way the water plants
configured, it's got what what's called a a clear well structure. Um the RORO permeate the water from the Florida and aquifer goes through the RO system and then it goes on top of those white towers right there where the blue pipes go in there. Essentially what that's
doing is that's removing all of the eggy smell that hydrogen sulfide gas from the water and then water from that degass fire drops into that clear well structure and in that same clear well structure the surficial water flows right into it. The challenge with the
way that the plant is configured is that is a single point of failure for the entire facility. Now, the clear well itself, if I'm not mistaken, is about 30 years old. Um, you can even see stress stress cracks on the top of it. It's not I wouldn't say it's near failure or any
anything like that, but I would say maintenance is something to consider on a structure that's a single uh point of fail failure for the entire facility. um you know for for water production. And the way it's configured, you cannot take
the water plant offline uh without or you can't take the clear wall offline without taking the entire water plant offline. You talk about concrete repairs, you talk about coding systems that needs cure time that presents a lot of challenges associated
with it. uh so presents itself as a single point of failure and the biggest the biggest concern is that as you look forward towards relying more so on the Florida aquifer as a opposed to surficial what's going to happen is that water is going to be more more permeate it's going to be more aggressive in
there so to overcome that more chemicals are going to have to be added in the clear well costic soda it could be lime slurry it could be CO2 and what that does is that brings the pH to different levels um just kind of just to maintain the desired chemistry uh at the end of
the at the end of the clear well. So that environment becomes more aggressive. So, while this isn't an improvement that needs to happen um within the near-term improvements uh phase, the 0 to 5 years, 5 to 10 years out, I we would highly recommend
budgeting a new clear well um with redundant uh capabilities so that if you do need to take a bay out of service, if you have a broken, you know, something broken, clear well fra um coating failure, you name it, uh you can take a side down without killing the entire
plant because right now the way that's configured. If something happens in that clear wall, we're we're at a we're we're in a bad spot. >> What's our storage capacity? >> Storage capacity is 2 million two and a half on site.
>> So, how long will that last? I mean, I don't >> less than a day. >> Less than a day. >> And you never really want to take a take down zero. So >> my point in asking is like we really don't have >> enough storage. >> We would at that point if something were
to happen, we'd be opening the interconnects and depending on the other part of our >> So in um I'm glad you brought up the storage tanks. the the the Florida rags require that utilities have 25% of their
max day storage plus fire flow, which in your case would be I can't do the math in my head. 25% is 6.3 MGD plus 180,000 gallons, whatever that math ends out to be. Um, so I'm I'm sure you guys
are meeting that with the two and a half that's on site. Uh, but it's not m it's not max day. Okay. Yeah. >> 2.75. >> Yeah. >> In our the um conceptual plans that we
just saw for the the facil facility plans that um Song presented to us, wasn't there a new storage facility or storage tank added? There was there was another something. I don't know if it was another um treatment vessel or if it
was a storage. We have included in our permits the ability to construct a new storage tank. Um that would be about the size of the 2 million gallon storage tank that's on there. So we have a two and then a 75 that's down below by the filter plant. Um we have it permitted just if we ever need to do it down the
road for expansion. Um there's no current plans to construct it. Um but it does increase redundancy and and resiliency in case there is some type of emergency. That's a separate initiative and has nothing to do. >> No, the only reason Song and Associates included it was to make sure we didn't put anything in case we ever had to
build it down the road. >> Okay. Thanks. >> Put some uh conceptual planning level exhibits together as part as as part of the study just to make sure there wasn't any overlap with uh the infrastructure because it is a it would be a tight a tight site and constructibility and
space to construct tanks, things like that. it's it's um it can get congested quickly. So the the final alternative that we want to look at here is the full RO system conversion. So basically um for lack of a better term mothballing
the surficial and going all towards Florida. Um now if you were to back up to what we just talked about really what that is is that would be a step towards this RO convert this full RO conversion. Um so do by doing anything in um
shifting capacity really the only thing that would become sacrificial would be the selected PAS um ion exchange system to target the PAS for compliance that would really be the only sacrificial item. Uh but as far as that that's kind
of migrates towards what this concept is which is all all Ford and treatment. So shifting that 2.73 MGD over to the RO system. Uh essentially what would be acquired is two new Florida wells uh deep injection well. We're estimating a deep injection well. Right now the
village disposes of the concentrate uh in the in the Jupiter inlet. Uh the rated capacity of that is 1.3 million gallons per day if I'm not mistaken. Um, and if we went up to 6.3 MGD of all RORO really kind of aggressively that you
would be at one and a one and a half up to 2 MGD of concentrate depending on the water quality. Uh, so you would want to have um an alternative means to dispose of the concentrate. Primary other primary costs would be uh
the chemical systems for stabilization which we had discussed. Um and this was this of all the options is the second highest capital cost item that we explored. Um and again the thought with this item would be um you know you'd
have to start from from right now to move towards towards full RO conversion. We didn't break the report out into do this part do this first and then do this you know full RO conversion in the future. Um these are just kind of the the the paths that you could follow and
based on the recommended path it leads you it leads you to the ability to migrate towards this in the future. >> So the deep injection well for this is that is is that would be the same kind that was necessary for the nano filtration. >> Yes. Yeah.
the the um there are a lot of permitting challenges associated with sending concentrate to um a water body of the state. Even even Florida and concentrate, well, you think about it, if you know enough about the system, you
have salt water and you're putting it in the ocean, you wouldn't think that that's a a bad a bad deal for anybody. Um really, it's just kind of diluting the ocean, but neither here nor there. with the nano concentrate because it is PAS laden that type of surface water
disposal is not on the table uh for for municipalities because it would be it would be contaminating but from a Florida standpoint that's why you all have that ocean outfall or the the outfall in the inlet right now. So if you were to again take a bite off
bite out of the apple right away heading towards this this is the conceptual cost associated with going a full full Florida a full RORO. So it' be the new clear well immediately it would be a building expansion immediately new RO train new electrical service new
emergency standby generator the whole kitten kaboodleoodle to support what what you you would uh you would need to have that rated capacity. And again, this kind of gets back to why we wanted to look at how much you could squeeze out of the current system. Um, because
those costs once you trip into building expansion, injection well, uh, clear well, those things start to explode. They really do. And electrical is a big one. This is a table that summarizes
everything. If you want to read through all these numbers, I should have removed the sense. I apologize for keeping those on there, but um those are just just an overview of all the all the work that was done. Again, evaluating the existing infrastructure that's on site and what
could be done um to to get towards compliance. And there is an inherent amount of contingency that's built into a master plan level study. Um, we believe the subtotal numbers are probably more reflective, but again, as
these projects evolve, as time evolves, things get more expensive and there's, you know, more that you you understand as you get into a full design and construction for that matter. This is a um basically like a life cycle cost graph that we wanted to show. Um
the red dotted line is the nano system. Essentially you see the steeper costs and the high capital costs because of the deep well a new building all that good stuff that we talked about. Um and those are what would be needed today um to support regulatory compliance by
2029. That's why it's outlined as a near-term improvement. Um so the blue line is the full RO conversion. The green line is the uh alternative where we're shifting capacity and then the light gray and the I guess magenta line
represents ion exchange in and GAC with uh what we've seen uh think we're pretty aggressive in terms of estimating what GAC could could do for you all just to try and beat make a level playing field. What we're seeing with pilot testing, what we've seen elsewhere is
that GAC it gets spent very quickly and it's not a it's not a reasonable uh it's not a logical solution for the village. So with that um this is a shot of the filter vessels that were um during construction. The
one on the left is the one that was not not addressed during construction, but uh the recommendation is to shift capacity from the surficial to the Florida. Um get the get the permit pulled together for that shifting capacity. the improvements to the RO
system, retrofitting the two existing filter vessels to be ion exchange um and uh moving forward with those as being the near-term improvements and then begin planning for the short-term improvements for future clear wall additional ground storage if that's if
that's deemed necessary from a redundancy standpoint. Uh but really the recommendations are are geared towards following the track of uh lesser of a reliance on the surficial aquifer, the contaminated aquifer and more reliance on the existing workhorse which is the
Florida aquifer and the RO system. Okay. Any questions on this graph? Just engineers we like to complicate things. So, uh, why not? Um, what I wanted to communicate out of this graph is if you, if you can see it,
there's a yellow dash line at the top. That's a rated capacity. There's a couple lines, the blue and the red line, which track average day flows. And then the red is the max day. So, on your peak day, there's sometime in the in the in the winter, um, your your capacity was
up to the four million gallons per day. So, why why am I showing you this? The big thing is is that your flows are not at where your rated capacity is. And as you look at what each treatment plant is producing, there's a means to being
compliant without doing the full conversion immediately. Like if you were to go straight to LRO, that's not necessary for and it's not practical because who has, you know, that would be a significant expense to jump jump
straight to that that point. But you can develop a phased approach to towards maintaining compliance by shifting capacity, doing minor improvements, and continuing to look for funding alternatives to get to your eventual eventual goals for treatment.
And with that, open up for questions. I have a bunch of slides at the end here if you want more details. I don't know where each one of them are at, so I'd have to cycle through, but by all means, if you have any questions, let me know. >> Thank you, Nick. Council, I'll open it up for discussion.
>> Wow. Um, I don't have any questions. Wow. Overwhelming. Um, I guess the recommendation is what I'm hearing is the most expensive option. the the recommendation that you're hearing is in
the long in the long term is the second most costly option if you were to do it all right now. Um now obviously costs increase over time but by doing this initial project where you're phasing in uh more RO and less surficial and treating that lesser surficial to
maintain compliance that's the most cost effective thing that you could do for treatment. One thing we didn't present in this in this um in this um in the presentation here was a cost per gallon of water treated. And that's a really significant uh number to look at because
as you look at drilling a Florida well, you're getting 1,700 gallons a minute, 1,600 gallons a minute. Pick the number. It's a lot of water. 2 and a half million gallons per day. You drill a surficial well right nearby, you might get 300, 400, 400 gallons per minute out
of it. So if you're paying two and a $2.5 million per number for a Florida well and you're paying a million and a half for the surficial well, your cost per gallon on the Florida side is actually more you're more cost effective on there and producing the water than you are on the surf on the surficial
side. Um, so I kind of wish I had presented that too, but um, yes, if you were to take a bite to go towards that full building expansion, all those other those other items to go full RORO right now, that would be the second most um
costly alternative. Um, but again, going back to this this graph, it's really not warranted. And you could look at your your light baby blue line right there at 4.62 MGD.
If you were wanting to just treat all of your average day flows with the RORO system, you could do that with this initial near-term improvement without spending the $100 million on the full RORO conversion. Does that make sense? And you can almost use the surficial as
like a ready reserve. And the benefit out of that, too, is that the resin that you need for when you need it won't be spent, too. >> There's Yeah, because you're not flowing the water through it as as high of a rate. Did I answer your question? >> Yes. Thank you.
>> I have a general question. Municipalities now have these regulations to meet. In addition to those, is there some some sort of filtration system that you believe
is productive um for home residents to put on their houses? I I I don't know enough about point of use home treatments um to to speak well to that. >> Okay. I only bring it up because I know um even our EAC in the years ago like
were discussing PAFS and stuff and there's definitely people out there that want to do more and I was just curious on behalf of them if there's even more they can do in addition to the municipality. Um when you're talking about the different aquifers, you know, it's funny. I when I grew up
here and you think you have all this water because we're surrounded by water, but then we have years where we don't have a lot of water. Um, so that's big my biggest concern is if we were to whatever you guys recommend and we start looking at funding for it, you know, one of the things I think about is the water
>> sourcing. Yeah, cuz I mean if we're going to put all that money in it, you know, residents going to expect water and obviously those are things we can't control. mother nature and south flow and water management. But um those are things I'm also considering too as I'm
listening to you is you know do we have variety sources or do we kind of focus more on one end >> right and that's that's a really good point because like everything there's a double double-edged sword. So surficial aquifer could be very well impacted by by droughts which you have seen in the
state. Um whereas you look at the Florida and maybe capacity and the actual volume isn't of concern but saltwater intrusion becomes a concern. Mhm. >> You have a lot of utilities that are nearby that are pumping that aquifer and they're seeing the TDES levels and that's just the saltiness, the water
climb. And um operationally, what tends to happen is operators pump the better wells, the ones that don't have it. And then couple years, fast forward a couple years, that well's been used and abused, and now that one's a troublemaker of a well, and it's constant whackable in
terms of um in terms of uh treating for the form. One thing I will say the biggest benefit of an RO system that has variability in source water it's not necessarily just within the aquifer itself but it's within the number of
wells that you have too. So by distributing pumpages, like if you instead of pumping one well really hard, pump two wells moderately and together and that kind of might not be the most energy efficient thing, but it preserves
the the lifespan of that of that well field and the u the uh saltwater degradation that you can see. That is a big challenge. There's a lot of utilities that are seeing that and then that it becomes a game of whack-a-ole and you're kind of trying to catch up
from behind in terms of drilling new wells, you know, pumping good wells that you have until those wells get constructed and then just constantly chasing your your tail to get that. So, um, if there's anything I' I've learned is, you know, distribute the pumpages in Florida. That's a very important thing.
But that could go sideways on you on you, too. >> Okay. I'm just I'm thinking about those things when you guys are kind of presenting what you're, you know, kind of recommending for us to kind of think about. I mean, I even just think like when we're out in our woods property and we have to find water literally um
sometimes, you know, you can't be picky. You find water and you find a way to treat it and again, but we're providing water for a lot of people, >> right? Right. >> Okay. That's really all my my mind is wrapped around like that right now for these cost numbers of making sure we're just efficient with where we're pulling
from. And as we as we looked into this too, we evaluated the number of wells to provide that redundancy and resiliency and that number is built into those those costs. >> Okay. >> So So we currently have four wells, >> correct?
>> How many you might have said, how many additional wells would you want to drill? >> Yeah. So as part of this initial phase, zero. You you really don't need them based on the average day demands. Again, we're not as concerned about the times that are peaks when you're stressed um or the system stressed because it's not
a whole lot. Um so, as long as you guys are hovering around that 3 million gallons per day, you're you're good for quite some time. I would start planning and budgeting for a fifth well, but as part of this initial step towards more Florida, we're recommending a different
operating protocol for the RO system to run an additional well per per RORO train. And that will help distribute the pumpages of that too. >> Yeah. >> And just going off of that as well, um we've included in our um proposal for
FY27 budget, and we kind of mentioned it previously at another council meeting, um the renewal of our water use permit through South Florida Water Management District. And so we decided, if you notice on one of the very first slides, the wells, the surficial wells that we have, well 24 has very low PAS levels.
Um when we went to South Florida and asked if we could increase the consumption because that's the only well that has a limit on it that we come close to. Um they said that we would have to open our permit back up. We're like 3 years from when we would start working on that permit again anyways. So we said if we're going to open the
permit up now, we may as well open up and renew it cuz it's a 20-year permit. Um so in that we do plan to go ahead and site um at least two more Florida wells and possibly a third that there's no time requirement for when you drill those. It's just the consumption the amount of
water that you're allowed to pull from the aquafer. So we would go ahead and permit those now so that in the future if there's other users that come up, we wouldn't be impacting any potential other users. We would have that dedicated water allocation first. Um so we're going to go ahead and kind of kill two birds with one stone and include
those in our water use permit renewal. Now, um some of the other items that we're doing just in conjunction with this master plan and the budget coming up and everything, um and trying to move forward and kind of the next steps with what comes from this, um with the recommendations from Kimley Horn, the phase 1 and phase 2, we would consider
um the construction of phase 1 in fiscal year 27 and phase 2 and fiscal year 28. Um the design for both of those, like Nick said, has to be completed at the same time and be permitted at the same time. So, the design and permitting, the work authorization proposal for that is
going to be coming to you um next Thursday at the June council meeting. Um I can go into more details at the council meeting, but it will be unbudgeted. We propose using the rest of the settlement funding to cover most of that cost. There is going to be some that would be uncovered. Um but we can go into that at the next meeting. Um but
that as well as the um previously approved at the previous council meeting work authorization for Holtz to develop our PAS SRF facilities plan. So that plan will include all of the recommendations from the master plan including the long-term conversion to
full RORO which is the eventual plan because it's the most resilient um treatment that we can foresee in the future especially with our source water. So, it will include all of those components and projects within that plan and we'll start pursuing funding right away. Um, that facilities plan, the type
of funding that it goes for is the emerging contaminants SRF. So, it's kind of similar to the other SRF loans we have except it's 100% principal loan forgiveness. Um, the reason why we hadn't done it thus far is we thought all the money would was expended from that fund. We recently found out from
FDP that potentially there could be more funding now that they're not extending the deadline for the PAS compliance date. So there may be funding available. So we're trying to get that facilities plan approved as fast as possible so we can start requesting money for these projects that would be 100% principal
loan forgiveness to try to cover some of those larger expenses like the clear well or like a deep injection well. Um the other funding that we can go for and plan to go for like Nick mentioned is the alternative water supply. It's a grant program through FD. So with the conversion from surficial and depending
more on the Florida, it's listed as an al alternative water supply because it's less prone to drought. Um so we can go through grant funding to try to get money for drilling our Florida wells or a deep injection well or something of that nature. Um so there's a lot of
different avenues that we're pursuing. Um Nick mentioned our RO concentrate permit. We're currently renewing that cuz that expires in December. Um it is a very um sensitive permit. So we didn't go for any type of increase in um allocation for that. I believe in
speaking with Tom Jensen when that line was originally constructed, it can hold up to 1.6 million gallons a day. Um but it max permit is 1.3. Um so even if we wanted to send go full RORO and send all of the concentrate out there, it wouldn't be enough. We would have to
either build a bigger pipe or an injection well. So that would be the plan eventually. Anyways, um I'm trying to think if there's any other small little projects. The settlement, we are still ongoing with the settlement. The work authorization that will hopefully get approved at the next council meeting. Um as long as we
encumber the funds before the end of June, um we can submit that purchase order for a request for partial reimbursement through the settlement funding as well. And I think that's it for now. Just so I'm clear, what is the average um PAS parts per trillion
now that we're getting tested >> in our finished water? Um for PFOS um which is our main area of concern, I believe it's around maybe a 6.2. It depends on the day and it depends on the flow. And then PFOA is just under which
is at like 3.2. >> Down to four. >> Correct. >> Wow. Okay. >> Any other questions? All right. >> All right. Um I actually had the same question as council member Brandon. Um because as I was reading through this
and especially the cost, uh you know, it it came to mind, are there other stakeholders that are, you know, looking at potential long-term environmental impacts and permitting permit capacity impacts because I'm assuming we're not
the only water utility in Florida that has to pivot like this. Um, so you know what if we were to invest all this money in a system, but then all of a sudden like our permit capacity is drast drastically reduced because like everyone's doing the same thing. I mean
is that even feasible or is there so much supply that that wouldn't happen with the FAS? >> You mean for our water use permit specifically? >> Um, I would say that the Florida aquifer is much more resilient compared to the official aquifer. And um whenever you go for these permit renewals or request any
type of increase in allocation, you have to do hydraulic studies. So you have to show the hydraulic models and show that you're not impacting any other existing users. Um and every permittee that goes for an increase in allocation or a new allocation has to go through the same steps. So they would always be demonstrating that they're not having a
negative impact on us. And the way that the law is written is that any pre-existing user has the has more right to the water than the next user that comes down the line. Um, but overall I don't think there's an issue with quantity. Um, like Nick mentioned, it's it's quality. I know that the town of
Jupiter has been for a very long time studying the the TDS or the salinity of the the Florida aquifer over time. Um, and they have seen a slow increase. Um, with putting more wells online, like Nick said, you can spread out the input, so you're not increasing the salt water
as much. Um, but theirs has sort of I wouldn't say fully plateaued, but it has slowly decreased in the amount that it's increasing for the saltiness. The saltiness is all you have to worry about with the Florida aquifer. I don't think uh quantity is of concern.
>> Okay. Yeah. My I went more my went quantity standpoint versus quality. Um, and then you listed a bunch of different funding sources and we're on a pretty tight timeline and these funding sources depending on when the applications are open, when it's due, how I mean we've seen water
projects that have got punted for months and months and months because I think like D or Army Corps didn't meet and so they're meeting next quarter. So that's great. We want to obviously apply for any funding source we can, but if we're on this really tight timeline, is
the do we have a backup funding plan for phase one and phase two? We have enough money in reserves to cover the cost if we don't for phase one. We're not there's we don't have enough time to get any security funding for phase one. Um phase two, which would be FY28,
um we can try to go for some funding. Um the facilities plan still has to be accepted by FD and then we'd have to get for on a request for inclusion meeting. Um the first request for inclusion meeting is August. We're not going to make that deadline. Um and so then we would have to hit the next one and at
that point you're just fighting for less money that's available. Um so there is a chance down the road that we would have to be looking at other um possible funding avenues. a regular SRF loan that would have an interest rate
that we would pay back over time. Um, it's not a favorite solution, but we would have to look at possibly um changing our plan for the water main replacements and kind of shifting some things around to make sure that we can cover some >> cover some costs. Um, right now that is
not um being proposed because the SRF funding, who knows when that's going to be gone. So, right now we get it. It's very low interest rate. We get the money back. So there's not a huge um upfront cost to those projects and it is aging infrastructure. We saw into Questa Drive, we had two breaks just in the
time that we've had this project. Um so it they are projects that still need to be done. So I don't want to delay them too much. Um but obviously when it comes to compliance that's more of a priority. Um so it's difficult, but right now there's no proposal to change that timeline, but it could possibly
depending on if we get any funding or don't. >> Okay. And then two kind of my last two questions, they're kind of super high level. If um funding wasn't an issue, would your recommendation still be at the same?
>> I would say yes because I don't think the RO conversion could happen in a time that we would meet compliance. >> Yeah. For to get a get a contractor, drill a deep deep injection well, outfit it, you're probably looking at a all of a year and a half. I mean,
>> and they're back. >> It would it would it would be it would be tight. It would be tight. >> Which leads me to my next question. If timing wasn't an issue, would this still be your recommendation? >> If timing wasn't an issue, um, yeah, I mean, yes, it would be it would
be our recommendation. Yes, it's the challenge of how do you get from from A to B and and you know bridge the gap while that other path happens essentially. So the getting the injection wall drilled and all that stuff is still it I mean all that would
need to happen and the challenge would be is maintaining that desired you know zero parts per trillion of PAS in the water that you're sending customers between now and then. So if timing wasn't an issue and you can have it all
today it'd be the full RO conversion which is the um that would be funding and time. Oh, it would be number three up there then. >> Number three. Absolutely. Um but because you don't have, you know, time working in your favor or or you know funding,
you know, um is a challenge too, you got to step through it methodically. And luckily with the infrastructure that you already have on site, really the main costs of the ion exchange treatment system would be the resin itself and then some plumbing changes and a new
pump station to be able to move the water from A to B. So as far as like lost assets to maintain compliance, that would be that would be it on the path towards full RO system conversion. >> And the cost that you see listed under
one phase 2 RO expansion and EX retrofit. Um a lot of those costs are duplicated into if you just did an RO conversion today. So that price will come down because you're making all of these improvements now. Like the 14 million for the clear well under the
short term that's included in that 54 million for the RO conversion. So some of those costs will come down as we complete some of the RO expansion now. >> Okay. there. It's it's a very diffic it's very difficult to kind of break it out and compare apples to apples where
it's like if you start today and you were to choose one of those options, here's what the overall cost would be and here's the timing of those costs. But if you're kind of dovetailing three after one, the C subtotal for three would be drastically reduced and the
phasing of that because again we're looking at regulatory compliance for that option um would would uh benefit the costs for sure. Okay, thank you for entertaining those questions. >> That's all I have. Any other
comments? Okay. And uh there is no public here, so I am not taking any public comment. All right. I think uh thank you for your time. This was a big endeavor and you uh were able to present it in a way that was very understandable
>> to us people that are not in the water utility business. >> Thank Thank you for the time. >> We appreciate it. And I guess we'll see you next week for the contract for design. >> Okay. All right. Thank you. >> Thank you all. >> Thanks. >> You're welcome.
>> Right. Allison, you're still on deck. Agenda item two, discuss census water meter incorrect resolution incident and council policy options. >> Yes. Thank you, Mayor Council. Allisonberg, utilities director. Um tonight I'm here to talk to you about a recent incident we had um with our
census water meter um water meters that we have out in the distribution system. These are the meters that are at customers homes that record how much water the customers are using that we use to then bill the customers for actual water that they have um used and consumed. Um so in this presentation I'll just go over a little bit of a
history on our meters and our AMI transition that we did an overview of the incident that occurred um our back billing options our procurement options and corrective actions moving forward and then we'll open up for some questions. So just a little bit of
history. Um pre2020 all of these meters that we have in the distribution system um which is just over about 2800 um they were all read manually. Um so or in a driveby mode. So they were in
really back in the day they were all manually. So a lot of them were in backyards. If you were here a while ago you may have known that people came in your backyards open the leader meter lid and read the number. and the difference in the number they read last month from this month is what was used to calculate how much water you've used in that
month. Um during this time the meters read in thousand gallons. Um at the time that wasn't really important because they were going and manually reading it. Um but then in late 2019 we selected corn mine and their census system which is a proprietary system that corn mine
sells. um they were selected based on the existing equipment that we had in the system which was census meters um and then they were also selected for meter accuracy compared to some of the other meters that were out there they read um more accurately. So then in May 2020 we transitioned from these manual
reads or driveby reads to the advanced metering infrastructure which is basically where we have cell towers the meters transmit a signal and we can read it automatically. Um, even during um, this type of operation, we sometimes have read errors where the number doesn't come back or comes back and it's
a little bit weird. So, we'll send somebody out there to go and manually read it, possibly pull the meter, put in a new meter, take the meter back, and all almost all the meters that we have installed recently are still under warranty. Um, so in May 2020, we did that
transition. In July of 2020, during the transition, there was an issue with corn main. Um we corn was completing some of the driveby reads and the cornmine representative had some personal issues going on. Um there were some estimated
reads instead of actual reads. Um and in that incident corn mine acknowledged the issue. the employee actually stepped down from their position and Cornmine came and they manually read all of the meters um and worked at a fast pace to
correct the issue and um make sure that our transition was completed and everything was reading accurately. Um so going over this incident specifically cuz ever since then we've been operating as normal. Any issues we send the meter
for warranty. um it comes back, we install it. That's how things have gone historically. Um but on March 17th, Cornmine reached out to us and they had run a report to see what the meters were reading and were they reading in 1,000 gallons or one gallon. When the
transition happened, all the meters that were installed at the time were transitioned to read in one gallon. So that when the reads were reported to the cell tower and then reported to us, we could see exactly how many gallons to the one gallon the customers were using.
And when they ran this report, they noticed that there was about 60 meters that were reading in thousand gallons, which was the pre AMI transition um resolution. So they um notified us on March 17th. On March 19th, all those 60 meters were
corrected to read in 10,00galon resolution. Um there was a small handful that were installed in March, so there was no issue with um billing or meter readings. So you won't see all 60 accounts that were affected from that incident um because some were corrected in time to avoid any billing
discrepancies. Um also moving forward, once that was corrected, we bill on the 15th. So, we had our customer service team reach out to the affect the affected customers that were going to see a bill that increased by more than $50 to let them
know, hey, this is what had happened in the past. Um, you may see an increased bill to account for your actual water usage moving forward. Um, and we're still trying to figure out the next steps, but we'll keep you informed with whatever decisions are made. On the 15th, we build at all applicable step
rates. On the 20th, we met with Cormine to review the revenue impacts and paths forward. Um, our goal was really try to work with them and acknowledge that um there was a lot of different parties involved in this transition. A lot of different things could have went wrong um that led to the point that we're at
now. Um and then on the 12th of May, we met with Cormine again and received their final decision um on the fact that they were not going to provide any financial assistance for this incident. Um but
they were open to assisting with retraining, developing a meter install checklist, um so that this incident wouldn't happen again. and then ensuring that all meters that we currently have, whether they're installed or sitting on the shelf that aren't they weren't live, so they couldn't reset them to one gallon to make sure that they were in
one gallon when we went to go install them. Um so with that being said, um we legally are allowed to back bill up to one year for um accounting errors that were on the utility side. Um, so we have
three different options for back billing for the affected customers. The first one is to back billill at their applicable tier rates. So the way that our water rates work, as you use more water, you step up in rate. So a cost per thousand gallons is more if you
use more water. Um, so if we were to pursue that path, the estimated revenue recovery would be approximately $94,000 for the past year with the maximum bill being $30,140. um nine accounts would be greater than $1,000 and the average bill would be
about $325. So that's a graph of all the bills there. You can see there are some larger ones with the largest one being a multif family unit. Option number two is to back bill at the lowest tier rate. Um so the estimated revenue recovery would be about $33,200.
The maximum bill would be $10,22.71 with seven accounts being greater than $1,000 and the average bill being about $164.95. Um, with both of these options, we can also provide possible payment plans for the accounts, whether that be 6 months,
1 year, 2 years, whatever um, council would like to do. Um, the only caveat with providing a payment plan is if for some reason the person decides to move in the next 6 months, year or two years, you could potentially have lost revenue with them not paying back on that payment plan.
And then option three is to not back bill and continue billing at the appropriate rates, which these customers have been receiving those appropriate build rates since that April 15th bill. Um the village would have to absorb the unreovered utility revenue loss but all affected customers would be continued to
be build at the applicable step rates. Um procurement options and corrective actions. So for procurement options um I spoke with our team um the issue really stems from the fact that um all metered systems not just the one we have but all of them are proprietary. So corn main
has one. Um different supplying companies have different types of meters. When we originally looked into the meters, um we compared them and we decided that Census was the best one. If we decided to go with a different company, the meters that are in place,
they can be retrofitted with a different um like transmitter on top. Um so it wouldn't be as big of a cost of replacing the all of the meters, but there would be a pretty large capital cost for replacement of that transmitter. Um, and then there also is typically an increased connectivity
issue with that transmitter and the actual meter. So, we'd have a couple more work orders um, compared to sticking with the Census transmitter. Um, additionally, we do have the warranty, a 20-year warranty for the meters that were installed. So, um, we would be losing out on that warranty,
and they have been pretty good about that warranty. Um, and we do buy Cornine's a pretty large company. We do buy a lot of parts from corn mine um that other suppliers sometimes don't have or cornine's cheaper for. So the procurement avenues are a little bit limited. Um however there are other
avenues we can go down if that is um what is requested. Some corrective actions we've already taken is that we have an ongoing report to identify accounts registered no usage or incorrect resolution reading. So this um in our case in the area that we live and
work, it's a little difficult because we have a lot of people who leave for 3 months. And so having a report that's specific to no usage for 3 months is a little bit difficult cuz there'd be a lot of accounts. However, we can can still run that report and follow up if it's a new address that we're not
familiar with um going out of town for that period of time and we can reach out to them and just ask are they there? We can send somebody out to the meter to make sure that there is no usage actually recorded on the meter. Um, and then incorrect resolution readings. Just like the report that was ran that brought all of this up, we can continue
to run that report to make sure that meters that are installed are reading in one gallon instead of 1,00 gallons. Um, we also are developing a meter installation checklist. And this will be in uh integrated into our um work order system. So, it'll be an installation checklist that when they go
out and pull a meter and install a new one, they're checking everything. The way that they can tell if it's reading in one gallon or thousand gallons is there's just a bar over the number that it's reading in. So if it's in thousand gallons, it's on the fourth number. If it's in gallon, it's on the first number. Um, so it's it's not something
that's difficult to do, but never something that was a normal thing for us to check on. Um, and then uh staff training. Hormain has offered to complete staff training, not just on meter resolution, but meters as a whole. Um, so that would be free staff trading
that we're pursuing as well. And then, um, returned meter resolution requests. So all of this came because when a meter was pulled from the system and sent, they would fix the meter and send it back to us and it would be sent back in its original configuration, which was the pre AMI 1000 resolution. So it was
never um the case of something wasn't programmed correctly. It was just never reprogrammed to go back into the system. Um, and now we're aware of that and we can make requests that when the meters returned, it be returned in a certain resolution. So, Corin Main is adopting that new procedure on their end.
I'll open up for questions. >> Thank you, Allison. Council, I'll open it up for discussion. >> Um, thank you. I know this is a um not a great situation to be in. Uh, and I'm quite disappointed in Cormine that that's there no accountability
whatsoever. But I I I nothing angers me more when people aren't held accountable or don't accept accountability. Um but I also think our residents um they're going to get if FBL doesn't send a bill, they got to pay their light bill, you know, and so I think I would like I'm
glad that we can maybe work into a understanding that the the danger of putting a a payment plan together for somebody knowing that they might sell. Uh I might move on, but um I think they're accountable. I think people I I would pay know that I owe it. So I think we should go with the first option to to
bill at the full rate. It's what they would have been paying anyway and it's unfortunate how it happened. Uh but I think they still need to pay for it. So and if a payment plan would work then you know try to limit those but I think they need to be accountable and and the the individual homeowner the water user
needs to be accountable. like to see us move forward with the first option >> question. When you say that when they check the meter now, they can tell it's reading single versus thousand just based by a line, do they
do any kind of quick like one gallon, two gallon tests to make sure that it's actually reading the water correctly? >> No, we would have to. It'd be very difficult because you'd have to go somewhere on the property owner side. They could open up a hose bib or something. But to get the water to actually move, you would have to open something on the customer's side.
>> So, if a if a homeowner is getting a new meter, are they notified that they will be getting a new meter? >> Um, >> rather than just without you knowing. >> No, it depends on the situation. Um, but there could potentially be a situation
where yes, we change it and they don't know. Um, sometimes if we have like if there was a connection issue and the meter reader went out there and they're like, "Yep, it's breeding right, everything's fine with the actual meter, but there's an issue with the transmitter." They're not going to sit there and mess with the meter. They're going to pull it out and just put a new
one in and connect it and go and send the meter off. They're not going to notify the resident. Um, I always ask that cuz I feel like that's a really easy customer service um, part of the checklist where we put like a door knocker thing like, "Hey,
like this week we're replacing your meter um, with the new one and then our technicians or whoever the contractor is does their thing. Make sure it reads to the tower and all that." And then, you know, or maybe the door hanger goes afterwards saying, "Hey, we just changed
your meter. um if you want, you know, run a sink or a hose. And I don't know, I just feel like that's kind of like a really lowcost way to kind of make sure right off the bat that a customer has the option to almost like check their meter themsel for one or two gallons.
>> I think that's a great idea. >> And again, they don't have to do it, but let's say we have documentation like how we have documentation for code violations just to have paper trail. That's the homeowner's decision. And I would be one. I can just run a hose for two gallons and just be like, "Okay,
yeah, looks like it read." Okay, if it's coming out crazy, like, "Wait a minute." And we can fix the problem a lot sooner versus, "Hey, you just ran up like a $2,000 bill." >> I fully agree. >> I feel like that's just really like low cost customer service, easy. >> Um,
I kind of feel a little bit 50/50 on it. I would much prefer legally almost approach the contractor because they are in my opinion responsible and need to be held accountable. Um I put myself in
these customer shoes. I'm you know kind of um very detail- oriented. So I mean if I get a bill for like $10 and I have a house full of kids, I might say something. But there's, you know, maybe people thought that's what the water costs, too. So, I mean, is that do we
punish them for maybe not truly knowing how much their water actually costs? I mean, ours isn't as expensive as like were, so maybe that's just what they thought. So, I would be open to either doing no back billing and just eating the cost cuz this is just highly
unfortunate. And I don't think it's really all in the village. I think it's more on the contractor. I just think that's really hard to explain. 100% resident, you owe this. Out of fairness, they do, but maybe truly there's a lot
of logistics to it where they didn't know. Um, and we didn't catch it obviously right off the bat cuz like you said, we do have seasonal residents. So, how do you really monitor that 100% for all the addresses? Um, the second option I would based on what I hear up here, I
mean, I'd be open to the lowest tier rate if we kind of are all thinking get something back, but I really kind of lean with we might have to just eat this and just maybe unfortunately be a little more eagleeye when these meters are put in.
>> That's it. >> So, I lost sleep back in uh 2020 when that issue happened took place. Yes. like I don't want to re retrofit these. >> That was that was a fun time. Um Jeremy remembers that, don't you? >> Lost some sleep, too.
>> Yeah. >> Um I I I know who didn't make a mistake and and that would be the residents. Um yes, there are probably some residents that recognize that their water bill was lower. And I'm going to say there's probably residents that did not
recognize it. Um and I agree that Cormain probably should have should have done more. um and take some ownership of it. Um but I I don't think that we should uh back bill everybody. There's a reason the state puts a limit of one year. Um
you this has been going on for more than one year. Um so there's there's there's a greater significance here. Um maybe it was a time of change. They thought this was who knows who knows what people think. Um, I'm in favor of eating it, but I think it's really, really
important that we notify the residents the amount of dollars over the previous three years that they have not paid. Um, and if they would like to make up a payment for that, then great, let them. But um I'm not sure they're going to or
I would enforce it either. But I do think they should know um how much um mistake that we that we made and Cor and Maine made together, but I don't think they should be held accountable for. >> Yeah, I agree. I I don't want to back
billill the customers. I think too, you know, all you hear about every day is the affordability crisis and like we don't know these individuals and you know these both figures whether it's option one or two that could be really impactful a month to those individuals and I just um I
>> hard lesson to learn. >> Yeah. And I you know I can't I can't stomach that you know knowing that impact that could have monthly on a family because we don't know who the individuals are. Um so yeah I don't I don't want to back bill. I think your corrective actions are great.
>> You know, I think uh most cases I'm a firm believer that everyone has a little skin in the game. I think Corine had more skin game, >> but uh I think you guys saw what need to be done on RN and are jumping on that right away. So, I appreciate I
appreciate that. Um yeah, I have no other no other comment. So what's what is action on this if any if we don't the consensus is we don't want to well you were still torn or did you make up your mind? >> My first choice is to eat it and not
back bill but if consensus kind of was like thinking about back billing I would definitely go for a lower rate and not just >> okay >> do the full back bill. >> So for the fake for the sake of debate we'll take the debate out of it and we'll bring back a resolution. you guys
can vote on that and that way you have Mr. Painter here as well, Rick and you know whatever the vote comes out we'll we'll do that way. So we'll bring back a resolution um with you guys to vote on. >> What's the resolution? >> The resolution is going to be not to back bill but if you guys have the
ability you know if you guys give it second thought or you know change your mind that can obviously be amended at the at the dis if there's some additional thought or you guys hear from residents. So >> okay sound like a plan everyone good with that? Okay. All right. Thank you, Alison.
>> And there's still no public hear, so I'm not taking public comment for the record. >> That'll probably likely be in July just because the June agenda is formalizing >> like >> today. Yeah, I was going to say overnight, but no one's doing it overnight. So,
>> um just if that's the case, I won't be here. >> That's fine. We'll be fine. We'll work on that. going on vacation and honeymoon and all that stuff. So, she's making sure she doesn't miss out on that. >> Well deserved. >> Quick question. Is Catherine here for
number four by any chance? >> I'm here, but she she was here. She's right there. >> Well, no, but like should we swap three and four so she can leave or are you just here to observe? >> Oh, no. I warned her that she was going to be here all night. That's fine. So, >> wow. >> Would you guys like to swap three and four so Catherine doesn't have to stay?
>> I'm here all night so I don't I don't care what order. Oh, you're going to leave me here by myself without staff, man. >> Yeah, you'll survive. >> Just kidding. >> The residents are here. >> Just kidding. Yeah, if you guys want to do that. >> Okay, so we're going to we're going to
swap three and four. We'll move to four. Consider the revised annual merit pay program. >> Thank you, Mayor Council. Um, so starting back in 2015, so almost 11 years now, the village uh has maintained
a career service and merit award program for non-union employees. Um, it's it's really a lump sum um payments based on years of service and satisfactory performance. Following a review of the Florida statute and related attorney general opinions regarding the extra
compensation for employing center program, staff has evaluated alternative compensation structures that more clearly align with the Florida law and modern public sector compensation practice. Florida law generally prohibits retroactive bonuses or extra compensation after services that have
been rendered useless uh unless the compensation is provided present to pre-established performance-based compensation program. So with all that being said is that we we have a program that's based on years of service almost like a longevity pay that is not a legal
process. The other part and we did try to they did try to tie it to merit which was that if you had a satisfactory performance review we have satisfactory or unsatisfactory. So, the biggest problem with our plan that we currently had is that it never formally got
adopted. And that's what council has to do in order for us to continue this program. And when we adopt it, make sure that we include uh some performance measures that makes it makes it the legal um makes it legally binding. Um
and so what we're looking for tonight is is direction. Make sure we're on the right path. We typically been doing it for 11 years now. budget roughly somewhere and I had a running t total for these history started back in the day with like $36,000. we're up to like
$52,000 um just over the time. But um so this is pretty pretty budget neutral as far as from last year. We won't see a huge increase. Um we're not anticipating a huge increase, but we did through my conversation with council um with some
feedback I got is to really uh instead of making it pass or fail, we're going to rework our performance um our performance reviews to make sure that it's it's kind of a tiered approach. So if you meet expectations,
you'll get a you'll get a a valuation. You'll get that lump sum. If you exceed expectations, you'll get a a different level. Um and so what we have in front of you is kind of those tiered approaches for part-time, full-time employees, and directors. Um and this so
uh and we have ran I have ran this by legal. Um and we this will meet the legal requirements for us to do this program. I can answer any questions if there's more. I think the the biggest part that we'll come back um when we actually adopt this program formally in
a in a meeting, we'll make sure that we have kind of the the review performance, make sure this kind of aligns with that. Uh you guys don't necessarily need to be a part of that process, but more the tiers and how we how we formulate that. So, Katherine is still working on that
portion of it of the performance review because we've been doing the same performance reviews for years. And so, it will be a little bit of a culture change, but if our employees want this and and want the incentive to of this program, we'll have to make sure that we align with that.
>> Thank you, Jeremy. Council, open it up. >> Um, I think this is great. I always believe that we need to keep our people and pay our people and um this helps with longevity. I think people will continue to see and not just leave us. So I think it's great and if staff is
comfortable with this and our HR director something I would be supportive of. >> No questions. >> So I I see the meets some expectations meets expectations and then exceeds expectations. Are those the three criteria? Are there is there any below
expectations? Um, yeah, that's the first one. Does not meet expectations. That would be like the lowest one. And we probably already had conversations with that employee way before we get to performance reviews. If not, we probably got some supervisor
conversations we're going to have. But um then you're going to get into maybe like meeting some of those expectations or only being here half a year or um and then you'll get into hopefully where we're meeting those expectations which they'll start to receive some of that merit pay and then exceeding
expectations hopefully you know our bar is high and we we have employees that are exceeding expectations and getting there which I I I mean I believe we're going to have some you know quite a few employees that are eligible for that because we have some very high performing performing employees. Um, so
I think we'll we'll get there. >> What is the oversight to make sure that maybe not everyone is exceeding expectations because that's wouldn't necessarily be the reality, but see a lot. So the way that this this reads or the way the program is going to be set up that you know if you're and and our
our supervisors do a very good job providing feedback during performance reviews but in general if you just meet meet expectations I mean in theory a supervisor could you know have some highlevel bullet points and and make
that checkbox but if you're getting exceeding expectations they have to actually document how they met those expectations and have a really detailed and those will have to get approved by me if they're meeting expectations and and it creates another layer for me to
review, but Katherine's going to vet those before they get to me. So, I like the idea of the program. I think it's a good one. I I I think the way you communicate it to the employees is very, very important. I think when you communicate to them, I think their supervisors should let them know based on last year's performance, you would be
at this level. >> And that way they understand where they are and potentially are they going to get that potential bonus or do they need to do something more to get it? >> So, we have some uh we've drafted um some some slideshows, some presentations
to both the supervisors and the employees. And when we roll it out, that's is where I test uh Katherine that she's going to roll it out and have meetings with each department and and go through those processes. Um and so we we
borrowed the program. I say borrowed, we're stealing the program from from Green Acres who had some of these presentations already done. They did it several years ago. And you know, the important thing is communication. Just really making sure that everybody understands what those expectations are.
>> Okay. So, I hear you. >> I'm in favor. >> Um, just one question. On section five, merit pay administration item three. It says merit awards may be issued as a one-time lum payment or incorporated
into employees compensation as approved by administration. But I'm I'm still kind of like well who decides that is it is it just going to be a lump sum but if someone asks for it to be incorporated to their salary that you I don't >> No. So I mean and when I when I put that in there and I almost took that out just
because of the thing but every year when we look at employees salaries you know when when employees fault and so council approves ranges for all employees all when we do that every year with a budget from time to time when we do uh you know
our colas or we do the increases every year we look at every position we sit down with HR look at every position there are some employees that even fall below the range because of the cola or it just increased so much versus where
the CPI was. And we did we had a couple of those situations through CO that that happened. So we had to we from time to time um there's some positions that have been severely um not meeting the market and so we we made some adjustments like a one or 2%
increase to their base pay. So in a situation like this, instead of giving them that, we may if if in lie of just giving them 2% plus the merit, we may give them the that increase to help meet the market. And it would be within the
the confines of what I have the authority to do. If it was anything outside of those ranges, then I'd have to get council approval. >> Okay. So I mean that answer my question. Who decides it? And it's you basically. >> Yeah. So the HR director would typically
bring those um to me and then I would be the one that decides it. >> Okay. >> So I don't like that. >> Um I I think that if a merit should be a merit and it shouldn't be a supplement to increase their salary. If there's under if they're underpaid then that's an HR issue. That's a that needs to be
fixed. >> So it's completely separate and completely separate >> issue. How I mean we just did the compensation study what was it last year and got everyone within the ranges and I mean how often are we doing that to where I think CO was an anomaly. I mean
hopefully we don't see that kind of you know economy madness again. Um >> so I know of we've we've taken a look at that already. Um and and there's no major changes to to what we did because we just did the salary study
last year. Um there there is a few people on the low end of the range where um a starting employee is coming in at basically the same level as like a four or five year employee. So there is a little compression on the very low side
of of that but it's really minor. We're talking about I think three employees or four employees. Um but the rest of everybody really aligns. It's just that compression at the bottom of a new employee starting versus where uh a four or five year employee might be. And aside from COVID, this predates you, so
you might not know like how often have we been outside those ranges. >> Year to year, we've had a couple of those where somebody was on the low side. Now, typically on the high side, we do have um there are there have been a few employees on the high side, but
like similar like fire or police, if they I know fire for sure, if they're outside on the high side of it, uh we just give them a lump sum to make up the difference. it doesn't count as their base salary, but that's that was per the agreement that we did. So, you know,
generically, if if the range goes to 100,000 and they got a 4% increase because they've been here for 20 years, right? They got a 4% increase, we would just give that 4% increase as a lump sum and it doesn't count toward their base salary, if that makes sense.
>> We did I know we had in CWA, we had it in fire. Um, obviously CWA is not here. I don't remember if it's in police. It might be, but our PBA. So, >> okay. Could can Katherine come up to the podium and add her because she's I mean, well, I know you came from Palm Beach. I
don't know where you were before then. Like, what's your what have you seen for that? >> So, recently, just to answer your question, the market is driving the minimum of your range higher. So, the
village is having to increase a few a few maybe three or four. as Jeremy mentioned of your position minimum of your range is up. So your employees have now gone below the minimum. So we're having to bring them up a percent or two
in addition to your CPI. So whatever your whatever you decide in the next month or two for your fiscal year 27 budget increase uh 1% 2% 3% will decide how much more that individual will need in order to
bring them back up to the new minimum to make them competitive with the market again. So from your experience with merit pay, have you have you seen this done where at uh the manager or director, whoever's discretion that it's added to their salary versus a lump sum?
>> Yes. In fact, at the town of Palm Beach, it differs by fiscal year that our manager at the time would be able to decide whether it was going to be put onto their base pay or whether it was going to be a lump sum and whether it was going to be base pay and if it was
going to exceed the maximum. As Jeremy was just explaining, if it was then going to be the difference of getting them to the max pay and then the difference was the lump sum, keeping in mind that if it's on their ba base pay, it's then pensionable. Correct. So, it's an additional expense to the village.
But yes, it was town manager's discretion and um council's um approval as well. >> Okay. I I don't think I'm I mean since it's obviously happening elsewhere I don't know if it's
full common practice but you're familiar with it. I guess I'm not super against it >> even wor I think marriage marriage speed lump sum it's it kicks the complexity away from everything pensionable catching up things employees getting something that
they really should be getting through salary merit to merit >> I believe that would be consistent what we're doing now I include that in the policy in case we want to do it but I don't I think I think would be good if we did that allows us to to evaluate
each end employee and make sure they stay within the the you know current market for their position. >> It works on the high end. It should work on the low end too. >> Yeah. >> Merit to merit. >> Any other comments on that one? >> Thank you for pointing that out for me. >> Hey, you're welcome. No charge.
>> No, but I would be in favor of keeping it simple like Mr. Sona saying. >> Okay. Council member, >> I'm I'm agree with it. >> So remove that second bullet point. Okay. I'm I'm fine with it. All right. Any other questions, comments?
>> No, ma'am. >> All right. And there's still no public, so I'm not taking public comment. >> Thank you, Katherine and Jeremy. >> All right. Now, back on to agenda M3, discussion regarding village of Dquista boards and committees. Jeremy.
>> All right. At a previous meeting, uh, Mr. Stone introduced the the concept of establishing a budget advisory board. While there was not clear consensus regarding the creation of such board, the village council did express support for holding a broader discussion regarding advisory boards at a future
workshop. The village currently maintains an environmental advisory board and has at various times established advisory groups for spec specific initiatives. Examples include the rec center advisory board um during the planning and development of the rec center and then the steering committee
formed as part of the master corridor planning effort. Historically the village also operate a budget advisory board. However, the board eventually sorry business advisory board. However, the board eventually became inactive due to the limited participation declining activity levels and challenges in
sustaining engagement for from the local businesses at the time. In addition, the village previously explored creation of a youth youth advisory board or youth council, but recruitment efforts did not um generate sufficient interests to establish an active and effective board
structure. Uh the village also benefits from resident uh engagement through volunteer organizations such as the Chesta residents advisory committee, the track, which is uh handled through the PD u which has provided valuable community input and neighborhood concerns and quality of life issues. For
tonight's discussion, staff has prepared several topics for dis for council consideration regarding the potential use of advisory boards and committees. These topics may include the establishment of new boards, board composition, membership requirements, meeting
frequency, term limits, sunset provisions uh for existing and future boards, the overall purpose of the effectness of the advisory structure within the village. As the council considers these matters, staff disrespectfully requests that, you know, consideration be given to operational
requirements associated with advisory boards. Advisory boards are subject to Florida Sunshine Law and public records requirements, and they require significant investment of staff time and resources to support meeting preparation, administration, coordination, follow-up activities. Uh,
with that, open that up for you guys to discuss. >> You're not going to read the the whole thing. You're not going to read all the boards. >> I try I try to like high five high points, but try to cut it out a little bit. >> All right, council. You have the backup with the suggested committees. So, yeah,
I'll just open it up for little discussion, little brainstorming, I guess. >> Yeah, I I I don't want to create a committee for the sake of creating a committee if there's a purpose to it. Um, and there's a need. Um you we've had trouble filling vacant spots before, but
I think some of these things um are interesting that are on here. Um but I as long as it doesn't take away from staff time. So, you know, I saw that there was minimal fiscal impact, but it may require, you know, additional time for a staff person, that's always a
concern. Um but I'd really like to hear more comments. I mean, as long as if there's a need for it, then I let's do it. Um but I don't want to create a committee for the sake of creating a committee. That's it. >> So I I I agree. Um I think that we can
use this opportunity to create some structure around advisory boards. Um when I was thinking about this um I do like the idea of us treating all advisory boards the same. Meaning um that there is I'd like to add sunset to
to the boards. I'd like to add term limits to them. um maybe a three-year term limit, but if you have to step off, then you step off for a year and you come back to a advisory board. I'd also want to maybe limit the the meetings to quarterly
um and put a limit on three advisory boards so that way they can rotate them to where there's one a month and the staff doesn't necessarily have to do multiple meetings a month. >> Um so that would be my recommendation.
what type of boards we pick. Um, I'll let the staff say see this as an opportunity for more community engagement to help foster that involvement. I think that is excellent. Um, but I would recommend that we do no more than three quarterly meetings,
sunset term limits. >> Two questions. First, Jeremy, um, is the track volunteer committee under sunshine or no? >> No. And what about the coops? Is that technically like a committee? It's like its own little organization. >> They're like volunteers kind of like our
historians. Same. The coops are in that same boat. And then the track is just kind of an advi not they're not an advisory board. They're just volunteers get to they they bring their suggestions to the chief so the chief can hear them out. But they don't even make necessarily advisory. They they just
discuss issues that are going on the committee. >> But no, those are useful. So I'm just trying to compare again what we need right now if there's an issue like a problem we're trying to solve but in the future maybe there's something that comes up and we need to create one um to be beneficial. So that's what the
typical and you know you've been here typical what the council has done is when something come up like the recreation center when we were discussing that council created a board that >> you know was in place for a couple meetings just to discuss and and you know I think both of you and and Mr.
Stone were on it. Um the corridor master plan that committee was created specifically for that. um that's typically how the council has has acted with these advisory boards except for the environmental advisory board. >> So with that in mind,
I fully agree on sunset dates or time frames. Um because again for me even some of the ones that were created like the EAC it was created as a need at the time and I know periodically it gets brought up or revisited if it's still technically
needed or if it's being beneficial um for the village. So, sunsets. Yes. I'm very I'm very um like cautious of how much we do create because I know even with the EAC, their time limits had to get whittleled down because it takes a lot
from the clerk's office and the clerk's office is already kind of stretched thin. So, if we created something and if there is an someone bringing one up tonight to create, you know, I want to know, how does that affect, say, the clerk's office? Because do we have to
add a position then like semi part-time or part-time cuz that obviously that's a committee or a board that's going to cost money now and I have to take that into account. The other one that comes up a lot is the PNZ and because we do
factually have now several people that either reapply to try and get a seat or they're coming in for the new time. So would it be possible to look at adding I think it would be two more seats to
keep it an odd number in addition to the alternates and then later in time again reevaluating if it needed to go down. Is that an option? >> Sorry. Are we talking I thought we're just advisory boards. Is is the PNC that's not an advisory board, correct? >> Well, it's it's PNZ. I mean, it's
committee and advisory boards the way I have it framed in here. Okay. >> Um I would say there's >> legally you you just can't sunset the P&Z. But if you want to consider additional members, you guys can make that part of your conversation tonight. >> Okay. That's my fault cuz I know
>> term limits as well >> and term limits are a possibility for B and Z as well too but you just can't sunset it. It's a legally we have to have that board. >> Okay. That's my fault. I always say that cuz um at one of the meetings when it was brought up like a budget advisory committee I was kind of thinking that
same angle like a P&Z. So that's my fault. I didn't word that right. Um but that's kind of it. Again I'm not against anything being created. Um, I agree maybe if staff asked for like that direction because then we would have a
little more goal oriented what are we trying to do and solve and help versus just creating things for fun which government does like to do not our government but other areas. >> So that's it for now.
>> Okay. Yeah, I agree. If if a committee or advisory board is um if we are to create one, I definitely want to make sure there's a need for it. Um because we have seen some recent in interest resulting from the residence
academy. Um but is that trend going to continue? I mean we had an open council seat. We couldn't even get anyone to file for someone filed last minute. Right. So, and we have had uh troubles filling our EAC uh open seats and but
with the pension board seats as well. We have had difficulties in the past filling those. Um but I do think the hope is the more you know we continue to have our residence academy and that does start to garner a lot more interest. So, we won't be having that situation where
we have empty seats we can't fill. Um but so if we do decide to do a committee, we there should be a need and then um knowing that there hasn't been um you know a ton of interest in the past filling some of these seats. I would
suggest we would have them at five to start with. I've said it up here before. I think the EAC should not be seven seats. I think it's too many. Um so I would say five would be the max. I wouldn't start adding seeds right now until we maybe start to see more interest, you know, resulting from the
residence academy or or other means. Um, I do agree. I I I had down by monthly or quarterly maybe depending on what the need is. Um, but monthly, you know, could be too much because I again I know the EAC cancels their meetings because they don't have anything to talk about.
>> So my suggestion is quarterly, but the council can can make changes on the needs basis, but just starting at that point. >> Yeah. And then um yeah, I mean I'm not against looking at term limits for boards and committees as well. I I I brought up the
sense that last time we talked about this too. So I'm I'm in favor of that. I do think we need to make sure if we do create a board or committee that we're really taking the time and being thoughtful with the resolution of what their role and responsibility is. I think there's some current ones that we could even revisit what their roles and
responsibilities are. Um, so a very Oh, and I know a resident had reached out to us about adding a you see. I'm not against that. I think that's a good idea. I would I'd be comfortable if 16 was the minimum age um
if we were to go to go that route. >> So, I'm I'm not sure. I know. I think I just saw an email come across about is there an age limit requirement? >> So, there's for for an advisory board. Um, no there's not. But it is be
beneficial if you created an age limit if it's a true like planning zoning. No, you have to be at least 18. I believe that's what I that's >> like quasi judicial quasi judicial. That there you go. That's that's what it was on. >> So I would say we would take applicants
of 16 and older and the council can pick whether or not that student is a is a good addition to that board. I don't I wouldn't force a student. What I would say is >> Oh, right. Yeah. No, no, that makes sense. I agree. >> They're 16 and older. Great. And they come and apply and they're they're appropriate for the for the board.
Great. >> Yeah. I mean, think some I know they have hours and what, you know, stuff that they have to do in high school and that, you know, a high school student might be interested in that to, you know, get credit for school, right? >> But yeah, I I wouldn't be comfortable with younger than 16. >> And would we put a limit on the amount
of children under the age of 18? Yes, >> I would think one one per Okay. Yeah, >> I agree. >> And then in regards to the the committees that you had offered, you know, the parks and and wreck parks wreck and waterfront advisory board. I
think the the senior services and healthy aging advisory committee, I almost feel like that could go under that. Those could maybe be combined as you're kind of looking at what the need is and what to bring back to us. Um arts, culture, and community events. I would think if if we think that's a
need, maybe we would know better too if we reached out to some of our local organizations and also the cultural council to see if there's opportunities to collaborate or assist with them. Um, and then the budget advisory, I just like what would their timing be versus
our budget workshops. And um you know that one probably would have the highest amount of staff resources because staff would have to go through I mean the budget is one of probably our you know we have what three workshops for that and then the two hearings and Jeremy has
to go through you know pretty much the whole you know all lines with all of us. So that's going to be in my role probably the highest amount of staff resources. So we need to be considerate of that. Um, those are just some high level comments on the committees that were were offered to us here.
>> We'll figure out how to package this so we we can maybe have a policy for these, but I'm not hearing any desire to create any. I am hearing that we would like to look at sun setting. And just a reminder, you know, and I think everybody knows this, but in case anybody watches it, you know, sun
setting doesn't mean it goes away. Sun setting means that we'll take we'll analyze it, maybe just renew it if it's going well. And so, um, just for the sake of not giving anybody fear like we're trying to get rid of the EAC, we're just going to evaluate it and in that with any board that comes, we'll
look at term limits. Um, look at bringing that back to you what that looks like. Three-year terms. I heard that three-year come out. Um, did not hear anything about adding any seats to P&Z. I think I heard one comment, but I didn't hear consensus. and then um maybe
one seat on the EAC for 16 under or at least allowing 16 under to apply for that advisory board. Um and so we'll look at how we can package that as like a policy future policy decision for the council. Um but I'm not hearing that we're going to bring back any any
committee for you guys. >> Would the sunset be one year? >> No, typically sunsets are like five, three years, five years, something like that. But we'll bring it. We'll throw a number on there. We'll look at some other cities what they have sun setting and you guys can always change it with
the with the policy. But I would say it's probably mean like the three to five year range. >> I guess it would depend on the terms though. Like so I I can't is EAC three or twoyear terms. If it's two-year terms I would say like sunset at four years. So we l you have like two term cycles or
if it's three years it would sunset at six years. So you would have >> Maryanne saying they're three-year terms for EAC. So >> so maybe like if so if it's a three-year term have it six years because then you'd cycle through >> see the advisory board based on the issue not necessarily the candidates or people serving it. So it might not be
something that is needed for six years and it might only be needed for a year. So I see it. >> I'm just doing it and if it's needed then we just approve it and move on. >> Just my thought. >> Yeah. I think for a new advisory board I'm just thinking out loud right now. Shouldn't do that with the mic open, but
a new advisory board, you you you can look at how many years you want to put on, but with a current EAC, what do you guys want to put on that for the next sunset? >> Look at that. >> I'm just saying generalities, it's it's nice to have that come up every year. Is
this of adding value to everybody? And and is this something that we want to continue doing or >> Let me let me put something together and you guys can beat it up later or whatever. So that way you guys have something in front of you to look at and contemplate and talk to residents or even the board members.
>> Yeah. My my only caution is like if they're only meeting quarterly and we do a one year >> like I mean you know up here it takes you a while to get in your group up here to know to learn everything. And so I think I guess whatever that time is I want to make sure there's enough time that they were actually able to do their
role and get something started. So it I guess it would depend on how often they're meeting that, you know, particular committee and then um maybe what the terms are, but so yeah, just factor that in because we want to make sure they at least had a chance to do what they're, you know, supposed to do
via whatever resolution gets approved. >> I'll just screw that. >> So it'll be another workshop item we'll bring to you guys at some point in month or two. We'll we'll see. We're starting some the budget workshops. So, we'll try to, you know, obviously we're going to
prioritize those other than the the committees at this point, but >> Okay. >> And um the final agenda item that we added, item five, it's a Well, I'll let Jeremy you explain this since Town Jupiter
reached out to you. >> Yeah. uh from time to time I I think when we were doing the appropriation for um you know toquesta park and then subsequently trying to get the get the ownership at Questa Park. Town of Jupiter has supported us with letters.
The town of Jupiter did put an appropriation request for this project um that I gave you guys a letter for and I sent you guys an email. It was approved through the legislators um sitting on the governor desk similar to our process for Toquesta Park. The
process is to try to send send letters or letters of support to the governor's office. So, you know, hopefully it gets signed and not vetoed. And so, Town Jupiter today asked us if we could do a letter of support. I maybe their process
is their manager signs does a letter of support. I don't feel comfortable that. So, it's in front of you guys. Uh, if you guys want to support it, I have provided a letter with a mayor signature since you guys would be giving consensus for the mayor to sign. Um, um, I guess
that's really all I have unless there's any questions, but I can't get super specific with their actual, but I think Allison looked at they they are doing like a park with this and so it's a legitimate ask. It's not like they're doing it for a development or anything like that. It's a a park or a natural
natural use space. I think they have a matching a matching dollar amount of like $169,000 that they matched and they're hoping to get $169,000 from the state. So, it's a matching appropriation similar to what we kind of went through with to Questa
Park. So, all you guys are looking for is a consensus to to give a letter support or not. I so I I talked to Jeremy about this and I um he sent the draft and I felt especially since it impact flux at Hatche River and they have been a good
uh partner of ours and did support letters for our appropriations that would be good to do and I um I like I said I reviewed this I edited I it was two pages I got it down to one because I didn't think it had to be had to be so long so I'm in favor of it.
>> I'm I'm good to support a friend. >> What do you always say? Be a good neighbor. Yep. >> Be a good neighbor. Exactly. You go with it, Council Member Brandon. Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. >> I see it's their lowest lying piece of their town. >> Where? I'm trying to figure out where
what street is that. Where is that on the map? >> This is uh A1A. Let me >> behind. Yeah. >> Behind where is that? >> Everyone knows that. >> I've heard I've heard of Ralphs. Don't >> say that. everyone know
>> that is the original municipality >> um office was right >> right there is where Jupiter started >> Wow. >> Okay. So, we're good to go. And with that, can I get a motion to adjurnn? >> Make a motion. >> Second. >> All in favor?
>> I >> Well, I threw you guys a bone, but you still stayed until super exciting stuff. >> I know a lot about water now. >> Yeah. One grain of salt.