[Call to Order]
          [00:00:21]
          >> HEAVENLY FATHER, I THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE YOU, TO SERVE OUR COMMUNITY AND THESE TIMES THAT HAVE A TENDENCY TO STRESS US ALL OUT. 
          I PRAY THAT YOU GIVE US CLARITY ON WISDOM AND PEACE TO MAKE CLEAR CALM DECISIONS FOR THE BETTERMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY, IN JESUS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, 1 NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH 
          LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL >> PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> ROLL CALL. 
          [A. SET THE AGENDA]
          IS THERE A MOTION TO SET THE AGENDA OR ANY CHANGES? >> SO MOVED 
          >> SECOND >> PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> ROLL CALL. 
          [B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
          >> IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? >> MADAM CHAIR, MAKE A MOTION 
          TO APPROVE THE JULY 21ST MINUTES. >> SECOND. 
          >> PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> ROLL CALL. >> ANY COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? SEEING NONE, WE WILL GO TO THE LETTERS OF APPRECIATION. 
          [E. LETTERS OF APPRECIATION]
          >> A CUSTOMER SERVICE CARD WAS RECEIVED FROM KENNETH CASTLE THANKS KEVIN MCDONALD FOR FIXING A WATER PROBLEM AT HIS HOUSE. MR. CASTLE SAID KEVIN PROVIDED EXCELLENT CUSTOMER SERVICE. A LETTER WAS RECEIVED FROM CALETA SCOTT THANKING MELISSA MARTIN OF CUSTOMER SERVICE, FOR HELPING HER GET SERVICE RECONNECTED. 
          MS. SCOTT SAID MELISSA POLITELY SHARED WHAT HAPPENED AND WALKED HER THROUGH WHAT SHE NEEDED TO 
          DO AND FOLLOWED UP WITH HER LATER IN THE DAY. >> NEW BUSINESS. 
          MR. TOMPECK. >> CHAIR. >> SORRY. 
          >> CLARIFICATION OF THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ON IT. 
          >> NO ITEMS IN THE CONSENT AGENDA TODAY, MR. MATTHEW. >> THE FIRST ITEM IS AN UPDATE 
          [G.1. COVID-19 Verbal Report by John Tompeck – For Information Only.]
ON COVID-19, IN LIEU OF A VERBAL REPORT BY ME, WE DEVELOPED A MORE DETAILED 
          POWERPOINT. >> THANK YOU, MR. TOMPECK GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. QUICKLY GO OVER SOME OF THE PROTOCOLS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE FOR COVID-19 AND THEN WE'LL FOCUS ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON HOW WE PROPOSE ON HANDLING DISCONNECTS IN THE NEXT MONTH OR SO. SO AS MR. TOMPECK MENTIONED, WE HAVE COVID-19 PROTOCOLS IN PLACE FOR FPUA AND I'LL REVIEW THOSE. 
          STRICT PROTOCOL FOR ISOLATION FOR OUR CONTROL ROOMS. WE HAVE THREE CONTROL ROOMS AND ONLY THOSE EMPLOYEES THAT WORK IN THAT SPECIFIC AREA ARE ALLOWED IN THOSE ROOMS. REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT'S A SMALL GROUP OF PEOPLE. ANY KIND OF SICKNESS THERE IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE GROUP. WE ARE CONDUCTING DAILY TEMPERATURE CHECKS. 
          THEY GO TO THEIR OFFICES AFTER THEY'VE BEEN CHECKED. WE DO HAVE IN-STATE TRAVEL THAT IS LIMITED. WE HAVE SUSPENDED OUT OF STATE TRAVEL. 
          THE IN-STATE TRAVEL IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE ARE QUITE A BIT OF EMPLOYEES THAT REQUIRE CERTIFICATION AND CONTINUING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THEIR LICENSES SUCH AS ENGINEERS, ACCOUNTANTS AND LAWYERS. WE HAVE A LAWYER IN THE OFFICE, IN THE COMPANY NOW. WE DO HAVE MANDATORY USE OF MASKS IN ALL COMMON AREAS. 
          WE DON'T HAVE TO WEAR IT IN OUR OFFICES. IF YOU'RE IN A COMMON AREA, YOU HAVE TO WEAR IT. WE TRY OUR BEST TO HOLD ALL MEETINGS VIRTUALLY, IF POSSIBLE. IT'S NOT ALWAYS EFFECTIVE, BUT WHEN POSSIBLE, WE TRY TO HOLD MEETINGS VIRTUAL. AS WE'VE EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST COUPLE OF BOARD MEETINGS, IT'S HARD TO DO THAT FOR A BOARD MEETING. WE ARE FOLLOWING STRICT GUIDELINES FOR SOCIAL DISTANCING. ANY GROUP LARGER THAN TEN, WE TRY TO BREAK UP INTO SMALLER GROUPS. MAJORITY OF STAFF IS WORKING FROM HOME. I BELIEVE THAT IS AROUND 60 PERCENT OF THE FOLKS ARE STILL WORKING FROM HOME. THE CUSTOMER LOBBY DOES CONTINUE TO REMAIN CLOSED TO 
          [00:05:05]
THE PUBLIC, BUT WE HAVE ALLOCATED THOSE STAFF MEMBERS WHO TYPICALLY WOULD DEAL WITH THE PUBLIC TO HANDLE PHONE CALLS FOR ANY KIND OF CUSTOMER INQUIRIES. 
          SO THE BIG TOPIC OF THE DAY IS WHERE ARE WE WITH DISCONNECTS. SO IN EARLY JULY, WE HAD REACHED A PEAK OF AROUND 2100 CUSTOMERS ELIGIBLE FOR DISCONNECTS. 
          THAT NUMBER HAS DROPPED, AS OF LAST FRIDAY TO 1470. THAT HAS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS SIGNED UP FOR A PAYMENT PLAN. IF YOU SIGN UP FOR A PAYMENT PLAN, YOU AUTOMATICALLY COME OFF THE LIST. THAT IS A THEME THAT YOU'LL SEE HERE TODAY. BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION RELATED TO THAT. 
          SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR A CUSTOMER TO BE ON A PAYMENT PLAN? SO AS I MENTIONED, IF THEY GET ON A PAYMENT PLAN, THEY AUTOMATICALLY COME OFF THE DISCONNECT LIST. THEY WILL NOT BE DISCONNECTED. SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FINANCIALLY FOR A CUSTOMER? THE AVERAGE CUSTOMER, ABOUT 75 PERCENT OF OUR CUSTOMERS ARE JUST, MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR DISCONNECT. MEANING THEY'RE TWO MONTHS BEHIND. SO THE AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER BASED ON THE DATA THAT WE EVALUATED FOR TWO MONTHS, A TOTAL OF $455. AVERAGE 225 PER MONTH. 
          SO FOR COMMERCIAL IT'S 829, APPROXIMATELY $415 A MONTH. SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT IF YOU SIGN UP FOR A PAYMENT PLAN, YOU BECOME CURRENT. YOUR BILL IS NOW CURRENT AND THE $455 IS DIVIDED OVER 12 MONTHS. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS $225, PLUS $50 IS WHAT THE CUSTOMER WOULD HAVE TO PAY AT THEIR NEXT BILL. 
          WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW AS OF MONDAY, WE HAVE 702 RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS SIGNED UP FOR A PAYMENT PLAN. AMOUNTS TO $444,000. AND 44 COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS SIGNED UP FOR A PAYMENT PLAN, UNDER $52,000. AND THAT AGAIN IS A THEME THAT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING HERE SHORTLY. ONE THING ABOUT THE PAYMENT PLAN IS FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS, WE DO HAVE A 12-MONTH PERIOD, SO ANY PAST DUE AMOUNT WILL BE SPREAD OVER A 12-MONTH PERIOD TO MAKE IT MANAGEABLE. 
          COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS, WE HAVE A SIX-MONTH TIME FRAME FOR A PAYMENT PLAN. 
          HERE ARE ADDITIONAL EFFORTS, WE WAIVED ALL PENALTIES AND LATE FEES, WHICH IS ABOUT $211,000 THAT THE CUSTOMERS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PAY. FPUA HAS DEVELOPED A SPONSORSHIP OF A ONE-TIME ASSISTANCE FOR UP TO $400, FOR ANY CUSTOMER THAT QUALIFIES. 
          $50,000 BETWEEN MUSTARD SEED. ALLOCATED ADDITIONAL $100,000 TO THE RELIEF FUND, AS APPROVED BY THE BOARD, DIRECTED BY THE BOARD AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING. 
          HERE IS A QUICK RECAP ON WHAT MUSTARD SEED HAS DONE. 92 VOUCHERS FOR $28,000, AND THEY HAVE 11 VOUCHERS PENDING FOR $4,000. ALBE, PENDING 38 VOUCHERS FOR $12,000. JOHN TOMPECK, JAN AND MYSELF DID MEET WITH ALPE LAST WEEK AND WE DID LEARN A LITTLE BIT THEIR PROCESS. WE HAVE ASSIGNED AN EMPLOYEE TO THEIR OFFICE AND THEIR FIRST DAY WAS THIS WEEK. SO FAR THE PROCESS SEEMS TO BE WORKING REALLY WELL AND WE HOPE TO GET POSITIVE FEEDBACK BY THE END OF THE WEEK. 
          THE VERIFICATION PROCESS IS INVOLVED. SO OUR EMPLOYEE THERE IS HELPING THEM VERIFY THE UTILITY RELATED INFORMATION FOR THE APPLICANT. 
          WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT PROCESS. BECAUSE IT CAN BE VERY TIME-CONSUMING. 
          DURING THE LAST BOARD MEETING, WE TALKED ABOUT CONTACTING OUR CUSTOMERS AND WE HAVE DONE THAT. ON THE CURRENT CUT LIST, WE HAVE 1470, ELIGIBLE FOR CUT. 
          WE'VE CONTACTED 992. OF THE CUSTOMERS WE CALLED, 451 HAVE NOT RESPONDED. 
          THEY DO HAVE A VALID NUMBER AND THEY DO HAVE A VALID VOICEMAIL AND WE HAVE LEFT THEM A MESSAGE AND WE HAVEN'T HEARD BACK FROM THEM YET. WE'LL CONTINUE TO REACH OUT TO THOSE CUSTOMERS. 184 HAVE PAID. WHEN WE CALLED IN, THEY PAID. 
          PAYING SOON, 118 SAID THEY WERE GOING TO COME IN TO PAY. AND THAT INFORMATION IS OF LAST WEEK. OUR LINE IN THE DRIVE-THROUGH THIS WEEK HAS BEEN VERY VERY LONG FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF DAYS. 189 CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE MADE PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS. WE HAD ABOUT 50 OR SO CUSTOMERS, WAITING UNTIL THE 
          [00:10:01]
DEADLINE, I THINK THOSE TWO ARE RELATED, AND PAYING SOON. I REALLY DO. 
          BUT WE DID HAVE CUSTOMERS ACTUALLY TELL US THEY'RE WAITING UNTIL THEY KNOW WHEN THE ACTUAL DATE IS GOING TO BE ENFORCED. BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KNOW HOW TO MANAGE THEIR MONEY THAT THEY'RE GETTING FROM RELIEF, ANY KIND OF RELIEF FUND. 
          THAT IS INTERESTING. I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE. 
          HERE IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING, WE'RE CONSIDERING PROPOSING TO THE BOARD, WE HOPE THE BOARD CAN CONSIDER IT PART OF THE WORK THAT WE'RE DOING IS TRYING TO REACH OUT TO THESE CUSTOMERS TO PUT THEM ON A PAYMENT PLAN. WHAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT IS TO AUTOMATICALLY PUT THEM ON THE PAYMENT PLAN SO NOBODY GETS DISCONNECTED. IT BRINGS THEM CURRENT WITH THEIR CURRENT BILL PLUS FOR AN AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER, $50. 
          AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMER WOULD HAVE TO PAY THEIR NEXT BILL, 225, PLUS THE 50. 
          THERE ARE CUSTOMERS ON THE LIST THAT DO OWE MORE AND THERE'S SOME THAT OWE A LITTLE BIT LESS. AND IT DOES ELIMINATE THE WHOLESALE NEED FOR DISCONNECTS. 
          I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT. BECAUSE A LOT OF CUSTOMERS IN A SHORT TIME FRAME. 
          AND A LOT OF WORK TO DISCONNECT THEM AND RECONNECT THEM. I THINK WHAT IT DOES FOR THE BOARD, IT ALSO ELIMINATES THE NEED TO EXTEND THE DISCONNECT DATE, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. 
          IT ALLOWS CUSTOMERS A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO SEEK ADDITIONAL RELIEF SUPPORT FROM THE CARES ACT AND MUSTARD SEED. WE TOOK A QUICK LOOK AT OUR RESOLUTION, WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING DOES NOT VIOLATE OUR RESOLUTIONS AT ALL. 
          UNUSUAL AND SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CAN MAKE SPECIAL PAYMENT ARRANGEMENTS. 
          AT THE CUSTOMER'S REQUEST. BUT HERE, I THINK BECAUSE OF A PANDEMIC, WE CAN GIVE THAT, WE CAN AUTOMATE THAT PAYMENT PROCESS FOR ALL OF OUR CUSTOMERS ON THE CUT LIST. 
          THERE IS A DOWN SIDE. OBVIOUSLY IT DOES EXPOSE FPUA FINANCIALLY. 
          BUT WHAT I THINK IT DOES IS, WHAT THIS RECOMMENDATION DOES, IT DOES BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN THE CUSTOMER'S NEEDS DURING A PANDEMIC AND FPUA RESPONSIBILITY AS A UTILITY. 
          THAT IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'RE ASKING THE BOARD TO CONSIDER TODAY. 
          AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT ANY APPLICATIONS TO EXPEDITE THEM FOR ALPE AND MUSTARD SEED AND THE CARES ACT. AS I MENTIONED DURING THE LAST PRESENTATION, THE CARES ACT DOES HAVE A SECTION FOR SOCIAL SERVICES, AROUND $16.6 MILLION. AND THAT PROVIDES A ONE-TIME ASSISTANCE OF UP TO $4,000 TO INCLUDE UTILITY BILLS. I'LL BE WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE COUNTY. I DID GET THIS INFORMATION LAST WEEK, ABOUT 56 PERCENT OF THE APPLICATIONS OF THE 1800 APPLICATIONS THAT WERE MADE TO THE CARES ACT HAVE A CITY OF FORT PIERCE ADDRESS. SO 44 PERCENT, ARE ST. LUCIE COUNTY ADDRESS. 
          I THINK THAT IS AN INTERESTING NUMBER. WE SHOULD GET GOOD RESULTS FROM THE CARES ACT IN THE NEXT COMING WEEKS AS WE CONTINUE TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THEIR STAFF. 
          WE ARE GOING TO TAKE, WE ARE GOING TO GIVE THEM THE CUT LIST, WE ACTUALLY HAVE PROVIDED THE CUT LIST TO THEM AND THEY'RE GOING TO CROSS REFERENCE THAT WITH THE APPLICANTS WHO HAVE APPLIED FOR ASSISTANCE SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO REACH OUT TO THEM AND MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THEIR ACCOUNT SQUARED AWAY. SOME OF THOSE FOLKS ARE ON THE CUT LIST. A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WE'VE DONE SO FAR. 
          OUR OUTREACH COMMUNICATION CONTINUES TO INCLUDE FPUA'S COVID PAYMENT PROGRAM AND THE CARES ACT INFORMATION. SO THEY WILL HAVE PLENTY OF DATA AND INFORMATION TO GO REACH OUT TO THESE ORGANIZATIONS AND HELP GET ASSISTANCE. 
          WE HAVE SENT OUT INDIVIDUAL LETTERS TO OUR CUSTOMERS. WE'VE GIVEN THEM PERSONAL CALLS. WE ALSO HAVE PRESS RELEASE JUST ABOUT EVERY OTHER WEEK OR SO ON TC PALM, VERY ACTIVE ON FACEBOOK WITH OUR PRESS RELEASES AND ACTIVE WITH RADIO ADS ON WFLM AND WQCS. WITH THE PAYMENT PLAN, IF THE BOARD APPROVES THAT RECOMMENDATION, WE WILL SEND EACH CUSTOMER A LETTER THAT GETS ADDED TO THE PAYMENT PLAN WITH WHAT THEIR PAYMENT PLAN IS AND ANY INFORMATION ON FINANCIAL RELIEF RESOURCES. 
          SO THAT IS THE QUICK VERSION OF THE COVID RELIEF UPDATE AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS 
          THAT YOU MAY HAVE. >> I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD MENTION, BY DOING THIS, WE 
          [00:15:01]
WOULD PROBABLY TAKE A COUPLE OF WEEKS TO GET THE LETTERS OUT AND EVERYTHING. 
          SO YOU CAN ASSUME THAT WE WOULD SEE NO CUTOFFS AT LEAST UNTIL THE END OF SEPTEMBER. 
          >> RIGHT. IT WOULD TAKE TIME TO PROCESS THE DATA. 
          JOHN IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. >> YES, SIR. >> YOU NEED TO COME TO THE MIC. 
          >> WE WILL CONTINUE TO CALL THEM. THE QUESTION WAS THE NO RESPONSE, HOW WE WILL FOLLOW UP ON THOSE FOLKS, WE WILL CONTINUE TO CALL THEM UNTIL 
          WE'RE ABLE TO GET IN TOUCH WITH THEM OR SEND THEM A LETTER. >> (INAUDIBLE) 
          >> THERE IS A SMALL LIST. I BELIEVE IT WAS EIGHT ACCOUNTS THAT WERE NOT OCCUPIED. 
          THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE CLOSED. SO THOSE WILL BE WRITTEN OFF. >> (INAUDIBLE) 
          >> WE SEND THEM A LETTER IN THE MAIL. YES, WE DO GIVE THEM A LETTER IN THE MAIL, THAT THEY'RE PAST DUE. THE ONLY NOTICE THAT WE CURRENTLY PUT ON THE HOUSE ARE MEDICALLY ESSENTIAL CUSTOMERS. WE DO NOT DISCONNECT THEM WITHOUT GIVING THEM A CERTIFIED LETTER AND POSTING SOMETHING ON THEIR HOME. 
          >> MADAM CHAIR >> YES, SIR. >> I WANT TO COMMEND THE EFFORTS OF STAFF AND DIRECTOR FOR THE PROPOSAL THEY BROUGHT BEFORE US. 
          BEFORE I GET INTO MY DEEP CONCERNS, I WANT TO ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. 
          ON THE ONE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHOLESALE DISCONNECT, GIVE ME THAT DEFINITION AGAIN, 
          WHAT YOU CALL WHOLESALE. >> SO WE, SO THE 1470, WE WOULD WORK IN A VERY SHORT TIME FRAME TO DISCONNECT THOSE CUSTOMERS. SO THAT IS WHAT I MEAN BY WHOLESALE. 
          IN A SHORT TIME FRAME. WHATEVER OUR RESOURCES ARE ALLOWED TO PERFORM IN A DAY. 
          I BELIEVE THERE WAS 40 OR 50 CUSTOMERS A DAY. >> WHOLESALE JUST REFERS TO THE ENTIRE GROUP AT ONCE. THAT IS WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT, WHOLESALE. 
          >> MY OTHER CONCERN IS THE COMPLAINT. I'M GETTING THIS PROBABLY TWICE FROM THE SAME PERSON. IT'S VALID. THEY SAID THEY WENT DOWN TO MUSTARD SEED. THEY GOT A CALL. THEY SIT DOWN. 
          BUT THE COMPLAINT IS THEY WANT A COPY OF THE DRIVER'S LICENSE, COPY OF THE ANNUAL SALARY, SOCIAL SECURITY CARD AND THEY NAMED ABOUT FOUR OTHER THINGS. WHAT BOTHERED ME IS THAT PEOPLE ARE RELUCTANT TO WANT TO DO SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS TOTALLY. 
          IF SECOND IS I CAN IMAGINE IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 66 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE WHO GO IN AND TRY TO APPLY FOR THE CARES ACT, FILL OUT THE CARES ACT PROBABLY DON'T EVEN HAVE A CAR. 
          SO DRIVER'S LICENSE LOOK LIKE (INAUDIBLE) AND THE PERSON HOPPING A RIDE, GETTING A RIDE WITH SOMEBODY, THEY DON'T HAVE A CAR NOR A LICENSE. BUT THEY STILL GOT A LIGHT BILL. SO I WISH THAT COULD BE CLEARED WITH WHAT COULD BE THE DEFINITION ON WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO HELP FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE. 
          MY OTHER CONCERN IS, YOU SAID ABOUT $455 IS ABOUT AN AVERAGE DELINQUENT. 
          NOW IF WE'RE GOING TO ADVANCE 400 TO SOMEONE, ONLY $55, COULDN'T WE JUST SET THEM UP IN A PLAN RATHER THAN STRETCH IT OUT 12 MONTHS. COULDN'T WE SAY PAY $55, THEY 
          COULD PROBABLY DO IT IN LESS TIME? >> RIGHT. 
          SO IF I UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION ABOUT THE 455, THE 455 WILL BE SPREAD OVER THE 12 MONTHS. 
          DID I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? >> WE ARE ADVANCING 400 TO THEM 
          UP FRONT, AM I RIGHT? >> ONLY FOR MUSTARD SEED. EACH APPLICANT CAN GET ASSISTANCE FROM THOSE ORGANIZATIONS UP TO $400. THAT IS COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF THE PAYMENT PLAN. THE PAYMENT PLAN WILL BE FOR THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE PAST DUE 
          BALANCE. FOR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS. >> I WANT TO TWEAK THAT A LITTLE BIT BEFORE WE GO HOME. LET ME MOVE ON. THE OTHER THING THAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT, WE ADVANCED A TRANSFER OF MONEY 94,000 PLUS. WHEN ARE WE GOING TO INCLUDE 
          [00:20:08]
THAT INTO THE OVERALL PROGRAM? BECAUSE IF YOU GO BACK, YOU SAID MUSTARD SEED HAS APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH MONEY THEY GOT LEFT. AND THE OTHER PAGE WE TALKED ABOUT, ALPE. IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S ALL MONEY, BUT THERE ARE OTHER HIDDEN AGENDAS OF MONEYS THAT WE'VE GOT. WHO IS MANAGING THAT MONEY? 
          >> THERE IS NO HIDDEN AGENDA WITH THE MONEY. THE $100,000 IS THEE AND WHEN WE EXHAUST THE ALPE MUSTARD SEED FUNDS, WE WILL SIMPLY SEND IT OUT. 
          WHAT WE WERE THINKING ABOUT DOING IS HAVE OUR STAFF DO SOME OF THE EVALUATIONS. 
          >> I WISH THAT WOULD BE PLACED IN ONE OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. I STRONGLY THINK THAT WE OUGHT TO MANAGE ANY OTHER MONIES OTHER THAN WHAT HAS BEEN SET ASIDE. 
          >> I AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE LOOKING AT BASED ON THE LAST MEETING. PART OF THE PROBLEM THERE IS WE HAVE THE CUSTOMER LOBBY CLOSED AND THE LOGISTICS BECOME MORE DIFFICULT. BUT YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION OBVIOUSLY AND THE IDEA HERE IS REALLY THE ONLY PROOF THAT WE NEED IS SOME KIND OF PROOF THAT THEY ARE AFFECTED BY COVID-19. AND I THINK THAT IS FAIR. 
          WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR THEIR LIFE STORY. WE'RE JUST LOOKING TO SEE IF 
          THEY'VE REALLY BEEN AFFECTED BY COVID-19. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. 
          WHEN FOR EXAMPLE, MUSTARD SEED IS ASKING FOR THIS INFORMATION, DON'T WE ASK FOR THAT SAME 
          INFORMATION TO TURN ON THEIR UTILITIES? >> YES, MA'AM, WE DO. 
          WE DO ACTUALLY -- THE REASON THEY REQUIRE IDENTIFICATION IS TO VERIFY THAT THEY'RE NOT 
          GIVING THE MONEY TO SOMEBODY WHO IS NOT THE ACCOUNT HOLDER. >> IF JOHN DOE COMES UP TO FORT PIERCE UTILITIES, HE COMES UP WITH A DRIVER'S LICENSE AND A CREDIT CARD AND ALL OF THIS 
          OTHER INFORMATION >> PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTY OR LEASE AGREEMENT OF 
          SOME SORT. >> SO THE SAME INFORMATION IS BEING REQUESTED BECAUSE JOHN 
          DOE MAY NOT BE JOHN DOE. >> THAT IS DISCRIMINATORY THERE. 
          BECAUSE I DON'T DRIVE, WHY DON'T YOU PENALIZE ME? >> WELL, DID YOU PUT ON 
          UTILITIES IN YOUR NAME BECAUSE HOW DID YOU DO IT? >> WELL, IF I OWN A HOUSE, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN I OWN A CAR. I MAY BE TOO OLD TO DRIVE. 
          TOO SICK TO DRIVE. >> WELL, ARE YOU GOING TO COME UP TO FORT PIERCE UTILITIES WHEN THEY HAVE THEIR IN-HOUSE PLAN. WE DON'T GO TO THEM. 
          THEY HAVE TO GO TO US. >> NUMBER ONE, HOW CAN YOU GIVE LICENSE WHEN YOU DON'T OWN 
          >> YOU CAN GET A VALID PICTURE ID. >> YOU DON'T NEED A DRIVER'S 
          LICENSE. IT CAN BE A VALID ID. >> IT DOES NOT INDICATE THAT YOU DRIVE. AND MANY THINGS THAT YOU DO IN LIFE REQUIRE A PICTURE ID. 
          SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND IF YOU DON'T DRIVE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU GET IT. 
          >> IT'S THE SAME DMV. >> OKAY. SAME PLACE. 
          >> TERMINOLOGY. I'LL GO ALONG WITH THAT. >> I THINK IF YOU DON'T HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE OR ID, I THINK A SOCIAL SECURITY AND A BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS REQUIRED. 
          BUT TYPICALLY WE HAVEN'T RAN INTO THE ISSUE OF NOT HAVING IDENTIFICATION. 
          EITHER ID OR A DRIVER'S LICENSE. >> MADAM CHAIR. 
          >> YES. >> GOOD WORK. I LIKE THE OUT OF THE BOX THINKING ON THIS. I LIKE THE FACT THAT WE ARE ACTUALLY REACHING OUT AND BEING PROACTIVE WITH OUR CUSTOMERS. I THINK IT'S A LITTLE UNUSUAL WHEN WE ARE TRYING TO GIVE SOMEBODY MONEY FOR THEM TO TELL US WHY THEY CAN'T TAKE IT. YOU KNOW, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW SOMEONE CAN OPERATE IN 2020 WITHOUT SOME FORM OF A PICTURE ID. 
          SO MAYBE WE NEED TO START INCLUDING IN OUR BILL INSTRUCTIONS TO OUR CUSTOMERS TO LET THEM KNOW, HEY, YOU CAN GO TO THE DRIVER'S LICENSE BUREAU, EVEN THOUGH YOU MAY NOT WANT TO DRIVE, YOU CAN GET A STATE ID WITH YOUR PICTURE ON IT. 
          BECAUSE THAT IS IMPORTANT TO DO BUSINESS ANYWHERE IN THE COUNTRY. 
          IS A PHOTO ID. I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. MIMMS SAID THAT THE CITY WOULD CHIME IN AND HELP US WITH THIS. I WONDERED IF THERE WAS ANY PART OF THIS THAT THE CITY HAS 
          HELPED US WITH. >> WE DID HAVE A CONVERSATION, I DON'T KNOW IF JOHN WANTS TO 
          TACKLE THIS. >> WE LOOKED AT, BASED ON THE LAST MEETING, WE LOOKED AND DECIDED THAT WE NEEDED TO DO. THE ONE THING THAT MAYOR HUDSON DID WAS A PUBLIC SERVICE 
          [00:25:04]
ANNOUNCEMENT. THAT WAS VERY MUCH APPRECIATED. WE FELT WE HAD ENOUGH STAFF TO EITHER ASSIST MUSTARD SEED AS REQUIRED. WE THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH STAFF TO GO THROUGH THIS PAYMENT PLAN OPTION THAT WE'RE SUGGESTING TO YOU TODAY. 
          SO I DIDN'T REALLY CONTACT THE CITY BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE HAD ENOUGH PEOPLE TO DO THE JOB. 
          >> OKAY. VERY GOOD. MR. MATTHEWS TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT DRIVING, NEARLY 99.9 PERCENT OF THE CUSTOMERS ON A PAYMENT PLAN HAVE BEEN DONE OVER THE PHONE OR INTERNET, THROUGH E-MAIL. SO WE'VE HAD VERY LITTLE INTERACTION WITH CUSTOMERS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT ON A PAYMENT PLAN. 
          >> APPRECIATE WHAT THE MAYOR SAID ABOUT THE WORD ID. BECAUSE I WAS THINKING YOU WERE 
          TALKING ABOUT DRIVING THE CAR DOWN THE ROAD. >> BUT I SEE YOU TALKING ABOUT 
          A FLORIDA ID. >> MADAM CHAIR. >> SO I'VE WORKED A LITTLE BIT WITH STACY MALANOWSKI WITH MUSTARD SEED. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT SHE DOES, REQUIRED OF HER BOARD, SHE HAS TO VERIFY, FOR ANY SERVICE, THE PERSON HAS TO LIVE IN ST. LUCIE COUNTY, SHE HAS TO VERIFY THAT. THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO VERIFY. AND IT'S NOT MEANT TO GIVE ANYBODY A HARD TIME. 
          IT'S MEANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MONEY IS SPENT, WELL SPENT AND IS SPENT THE WAY THE BOARD, HER BOARD WANTS IT TO BE SPENT. ND SHE IS A REALLY INCREDIBLE PERSON ABOUT TRYING TO HELP PEOPLE SOLVE THEIR PROBLEMS, WHEN THEY ARE HAVING FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES AND THEY COME TO HER. AND THEY COME TO HER FOR ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT REASONS. 
          THEY DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO LIVE. THEY DON'T HAVE DIAPERS. 
          THEY DON'T HAVE FOOD. THEY WANT A BLANKET. THEY WANT TO SLEEP OUTSIDE. 
           MEAN, PEOPLE GO TO MUSTARD  SEED FOR ALL KINDS OF NEEDS AND SHE IS VERY EXPERIENCED IN DEALING WITH PEOPLE AND HELPING THEM. 
          AND SHE'S VERY HELPFUL. BUT SHE IS NOT SOFT. SHE IS NOT HARD. 
          SHE FOLLOWS HER, THE MISSION OF MUSTARD SEED. SHE HAS BEEN DOING IT A LONG TIME. I FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE THAT MUSTARD SEED, MUSTARD SEED HAS BEEN OUR GO TO ORGANIZATION PRIOR TO COVID. I MEAN, THEY'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A LONG TIME. AND SO SHE IS VERY EXPERIENCED. AND I JUST FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE THAT MUSTARD SEED HAS THE SYSTEM DOWN PAT. I HAVE TALKED TO HER SINCE OUR LAST MEETING ON ANOTHER SUBJECT. SHE CALLED ME ON SOMETHING ELSE. I ASKED HER ABOUT THE COMPLAINT THAT SOMEBODY CAME THERE AND THEN THEY SAID THEY HAD TO GO AND MAKE AN APPOINTMENT. SO ACTUALLY HAD A VISITOR FROM SOMEBODY, FROM THE NAACP. AND SHE WALKED HIM THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS, SHOWED HIM THE ROOM WHERE THEY WERE FILLING OUT THE APPLICATIONS AND TOLD THEM EXACTLY HOW THAT SHE HANDLES PEOPLE. AND I KNOW SHE DOES IT WITH SENSITIVITY. 
          SO I JUST -- I REALLY FEEL LIKE OUR MONEY IS IN GOOD HANDS IF IT'S THROUGH -- EVEN IF WE HANDLE IT. IT'S NO PROBLEM. I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE SHOULDN'T HANDLE IT OURSELVES. BUT I JUST DON'T WANT IT TO BE THOUGHT THAT MUSTARD SEED IS SOMEHOW YANKING PEOPLE AROUND BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY DO. 
          >> I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THAT. AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT MUSTARD SEED IS INTERESTED IN A HOLISTIC SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM, NOT JUST TO PAY A BILL. 
          >> RIGHT. >> SO WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH MUSTARD SEED. 
          >> SAME EXPERIENCE WITH ALPE, WHEN JOHN AND I VISITED, WE ASKED THEM YOU KNOW, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE GETTING TURNED AWAY AND THEY TOLD US ABOUT 50 PERCENT OF THE PEOPLE THAT COME THERE ARE NO APPOINTMENT FOLKS. SO I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH, QUITE A BIT OF FOLKS WALKING UP TO THE DOOR WITHOUT AN APPOINTMENT. WHAT THEY BOTH HAVE SAID. 
          >> DESPERATE TIME. I CAN SEE WHY THAT IT MIGHT SOMETIME BE OVERWHELMING FOR THE ORGANIZATION. YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE TO MANAGE. AND THEY HAVE TO MANAGE SOCIAL 
          DISTANCING ALSO. >> YES. YES. 
          OUR EMPLOYEE WHO IS WORKING AT ALPE RIGHT NOW WAS INTIMIDATED BY THE TIGHT QUARTERS AND LARGE 
          GROUP OF PEOPLE. >> RIGHT. I'VE BEEN UP THERE. 
          IT'S NOT CONDUCIVE TO SOCIAL DISTANCING. >> NO.  IT'S NOT. 
          WE GAVE HER PLENTY OF SUPPLIES. >> YEAH. >> MAYOR, IF I MAY ADD, WHICH YOU PROBABLY KNOW, THE MUSTARD SEED DOES THE VETTING FOR OUR WEATHERIZATION PROGRAM AS WELL. 
          [00:30:01]
          WE'VE HAD A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THEM. >> RIGHT. 
          VERY FAMILIAR WITH US AND WITH THEIR PROCESS. DOING IT A LONG TIME. 
          >> I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A SECOND TO MENTION SOMETHING, BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT THE QUALIFICATION FOR MUSTARD SEED AND ALPE, DURING THE LAST CONFERENCE CALL FOR THE CARES ACT, BECAUSE I'M FPUA'S REPRESENTATIVE, THEIR VETTING PROCESS WILL BE LOOSENED UP QUITE A BIT. SO THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR ANY RESIDENT TO KNOW. 
          WHETHER YOU LIVE, ANY ST. LUCIE COUNTY RESIDENT, THE VETTING PROCESS WILL BE VERY 
          >> FOR THE COUNTY. >> YES. FOR THE COUNTY. 
          I DON'T WANT TO SAY THE WORD EASY, BUT IT WILL BE VERY RELAXED. 
          VERY VERY RELAXED. AND AS SOON AS THEY OPEN UP THE APPLICATION PROCESS LAST WEEK, AND THAT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE. BECAUSE IT'S TOUGH. 
          BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GETTING THIS ASSISTANCE BUT THERE IS NOT A VOUCHER SYSTEM IN PLACE, HOW DO YOU MAKE SURE THAT THEY PAY THEIR UTILITY BILL OR SOME OTHER KIND OF BILL THAT THEY HAVE OUTSTANDING. SO A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN THERE. 
          BUT THEIR PROCESS IS GOING TO BE RELAXED. MUSTARD SEED AND ALPE'S 
          VERIFICATION PROCESS IS GOOD. >> MADAM CHAIR. >> YOU MENTIONED THERE WAS GOING TO BE PERHAPS A LITTLE BIT OF EXPOSURE TO US. FINANCIAL EXPOSURE. 
          SO CAN YOU TOUCH ON THAT LITTLE POINT. >> SO I WANT TO SAY IT WAS $880,000, INSTEAD OF COLLECTING THAT WITHIN YOU KNOW, THE NEXT 30 TO 45 DAYS, WE WOULD SPREAD 
          THAT OVER 12 MONTHS. >> IT'S JUST ABOUT ARREARAGES BEING CAUGHT UP. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A GOOD PLAN HERE. IT'S NOVEL AND IT'S A GREAT WAY TO THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX TO HELP THESE CUSTOMERS. AT LEAST FOR THIS SHORT-TERM. 
          WE'RE GOING TO KNOW QUICK WHICH ONES CAN PAY AND WHICH ONES CAN'T PAY. 
          WHEN WE GET THIS PAYMENT PLAN. I THINK THAT NARROWS DOWN THE FIELD. 
          >> I THINK WHAT IT DOES, IT HELPS THE CUSTOMER NOT GET INTO A DEEPER HOLE AND NOT CONTINUE 
          TO EXPOSE FPUA'S FINANCIAL POSITION. >> THE PLAN IS TO GET LETTERS 
          OUT TO LET THEM KNOW THE PAYMENT PLAN? >> THE PLAN IS TO AUTOMATICALLY PUT THEM ON THE PAYMENT PLAN AND TELL THEM THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO PAY FOR YOUR PAST DUE 
          AMOUNT OVER THE NEXT 12 MONTHS OR 6 MONTHS. >> DO WE HAVE A PERSON IN 
          CUSTOMER SERVICE MAKING PHONE CALLS? >> YES, SIR, WE DO. 
          WE HAVE, I WANT TO SAY THREE OR FOUR CUSTOMERS MAKING CALLS. BECAUSE WE HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF EMPLOYEES TAKING CALLS THROUGHOUT THE DAY. NORMAL CALLS THROUGHOUT THE DAY. WE'VE DEDICATED A COUPLE OF EMPLOYEES TO JUST CALL THE CUSTOMERS ON THE CUT LIST. 992 OUT OF THE 1670. THAT 992 CAME FROM THE 1670 
          THAT WE HAD ON THE 21ST. >> FACEBOOK, ARE WE GETTING POSITIVE RESPONSE? 
          >> POSITIVE RESPONSE? I DON'T KNOW. BUT WE DO OUTREACH ON FACEBOOK QUITE A BIT. YOU KNOW, FACEBOOK, RADIO. PRESS RELEASES. 
          TC PALM. VERY ACTIVE IN ALL OF THOSE AREAS. 
          >> WE HAVE A POPULAR DJ BY THE NAME OF JOE JENKINS. I SEE HE OPERATES OUT OF 91.1. 
          IS THERE A REASON WHY THEY'RE NOT ON THE PROGRAM. >> WE CAN CERTAINLY ADD HIM TO 
          THE DISTRIBUTION LIST. WE CAN DO THAT. >> I THINK 91, THAT PARTICULAR STATION IS MORE TARGETED LIKE WFLM TO OUR PARTICULAR MARKET. I MEAN, NO KNOCK AGAINST WFLM, BECAUSE I LISTEN TO THEM A LOT. I THINK THE MARKET THAT WE'RE AFTER IS LISTENING TO WFLM OR 
          91 >> WE CAN ADD THEM. >> I THINK I ALSO DID TWO RADIO 
          SPOTS, 15 AND 30. BUT WE MIGHT CONSIDER -- >> 1590 AND 1530. 
          >> YEAH. SO MAYBE THAT OTHER, THIS STATION WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE THE PSA ON TOO, IF THEY WOULD DO IT. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO SAY THAT I REALLY THINK THAT WHAT YOU'VE SHOWN IS THAT WE'RE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND TRYING TO MAKE, TRYING TO HELP PEOPLE OUT. AND THAT IS WHAT I HOPED WOULD HAPPEN IN THIS TIME PERIOD. SO I THINK THAT THE CUSTOMERS, IF THEY'RE LISTENING OR WATCH 
          [00:35:03]
THIS, OR SOMEHOW I'M GLAD YOU MADE THIS REPORT, SO WE ALL KNOW ALL THE EXTRA LENGTHS THAT YOU'VE TAKEN TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CUSTOMERS ARE NOT IN CRISIS. 
          BECAUSE SO MUCH ELSE IS GOING ON IN THEIR LIVES AND SO I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT 
          THAT WE SHOW THAT KIND OF CARE. SO I APPRECIATE IT. >> I HOPE THIS WILL ADDRESS MR. 
          SESSIONS QUESTION FROM LAST NIGHT. >> RIGHT. 
          YEAH. I HOPE HE IS LISTENING. >> I WAS SMILING, BUT MAYBE OUR 
          CUSTOMERS WILL WRITE US A LETTER OF APPRECIATION. >> DO YOU NEED ANY ACTION? 
          >> I THINK IT'S OBVIOUS THAT EVERYBODY IS IN FAVOR. WE DON'T NEED ANY MOTION. 
          WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO IT. >> DO IT. >> AND I WOULD LIKE TO BE UPDATED AT THE LAST MEETING, NEXT MEETING TOO. TO SEE HOW WE'RE DOING. 
          >> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT. MR. TOMPECK 
          [G.2. Emergency Power for the Energy Services Center – For Information Only.]
          >> NEXT ITEM IS INFORMATION PRESENTATION ON THE EMERGENCY POWER UPGRADED ENERGY SERVICE 
          CENTER. MAKE THAT PRESENTATION. >> I'M GLAD THE LAST PRESENTATION WENT REALLY WELL. A LOT EASIER. SO TODAY WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT EMERGENCY POWER, FOR CRITICAL SERVICES AT THE ENERGY SERVICES CENTER AND SOME OF THE FUTURE PLANS TO STORM HARDEN THIS VERY VERY IMPORTANT BUILDING. SO OVER THE LAST 18 MONTHS, THIS PROJECT HAS CERTAINLY KEPT US ON OUR TOES AND I PERSONALLY CONSIDER THIS THE CLOSING CEREMONIES. AND WE, THE GROUP, THE TEAM THAT WAS INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT WILL DEFINITELY HAVE ADULT BEVERAGES TONIGHT. SO A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE ENERGY SERVICES CENTER, WHICH IS OUR LARGEST BUILDING IN OUR FLEET. 
          BUILT IN 1992, COMMISSIONED FOR OCCUPANCY IN 1993. HOME TO THE ELECTRIC, REALLY CRITICAL OPERATIONS, ELECTRIC FPUA NET, AND CORPORATE SYSTEMS. HOME TO 99.9 PERCENT OF ELECTRIC MATERIAL FOR ANY KIND OF ELECTRIC CONSTRUCTION AND MAJORITY OF OUR WASTE WATER GAS AND NET MATERIAL. AND I BELIEVE I BELIEVE THREE OF THE FOUR BOARD MEMBERS IS COMMAND SYSTEM, HURRICANES AND OTHER EVENTS THAT WILL GO UNNAMED. ESE BECOMES THE CALL CENTER, ALL OF OUR REPS GO TO THE BUILDING AND HELP MAN THE PHONES. IT IS ALSO HOME TO BOTH OF THE ENGINEERING GROUPS. GAS OPERATIONS AND T&D, ALL OF THE LINEMEN, ELECTRIC OPERATIONS. ALL OF THE METER READERS. FLEET SERVICES. 
          PRIMARY FUELING STATION FOR OUR FLEET. ALSO HOME TO OUR NATURAL GAS FUELING STATION. AND SO THAT ACCOUNTS ABOUT APPROXIMATELY 40 PERCENT OF OUR WORKFORCE CALLS AT HOME. BECAUSE OF THAT ESC DOES REQUIRE EMERGENCY POWER. 
          THREE MAIN COMPONENTS FOR THIS BUILDING. AUTOMATIC TRANSFER SWITCH, 500 KW NATURAL GAS GENERATOR. VERY LARGE PIECES OF EQUIPMENT THAT WORK IN TANDEM. 
          WE ALSO HAVE AN UPS, SIMILAR TO THE ONE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE AT HOME FOR YOUR COMPUTER BUT ON A MUCH LARGER SCALE. THE REASON WE NEED AN UPS, IN THE EVENT THAT WE HAVE AN OUTAGE, UTILITY OUTAGE, IT TAKES ABOUT 45 TO 55 SECONDS FOR THE GENERATOR TO TURN ON, GET UP TO SPEED AND THEN GET THE BUILDING BACK IN POWER. SO DURING THAT 45, 55 SECOND GAP, THE CRITICAL SERVICES, CORPORATE SYSTEMS CAN NOT HAVE ANY LOSS OF POWER. 
          SO THE UPS FILLS THAT GAP BY PROVIDING UNINTERRUPTED POWER DURING AN OPEN TRANSITION SCENARIO. SO A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE ORIGINAL EQUIPMENT, ESC, EMERGENCY CENTER WERE INSTALLED WITH THE BUILDING. 28 YEARS OLD. 
          BOTH OF THE PIECES OF EQUIPMENT HAVE PIECES AND PARTS THAT ARE VERY VERY HARD TO FIND. 
          SPECIFICALLY THE GENERATOR IS AN OLDER, OLDER DIESEL MODEL CONVERTED OVER TO NATURAL GAS. 
          SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOMEBODY WHO KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE DOING TO REPAIR THE UNIT. 
          I'LL TELL YOU A QUICK STORY. WE HAD AN OIL LEAK ON THE GENERATOR, NORMAL MAINTENANCE ON THE GENERATOR. AND WE HIRED CUMMINGS TO DO THE REPAIRS AND SIX TO EIGHT MONTHS LATER, THREE OR FOUR TEAMS OF TECHNICIANS, THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO GET IT RIGHT. 
          [00:40:02]
WE FINALLY CALLED CUMMINGS AND ACTUALLY THE BOARD APPROVED THE PAY REQUESTS TO GET THIS SQUARED AWAY. WE CALLED AND SAID WE CAN'T HAVE THIS ANYMORE. 
          THEY ENDED UP SENDING BOBBY STEEL. HE GOES AROUND THE COUNTRY TO FIX THESE TYPE OF GENERATORS. HE SHOWS UP TO THE SITE. HE SAYS I REMEMBER THIS UNIT. 
          HE WAS THE GUY WHO ORIGINALLY INSTALLED THIS UNIT. WITHIN 15 MINUTES, HE FIXED THE ISSUE. CRAWLED UNDERNEATH THIS BIG SUPPORT BEAM THAT HOLDS UP A 20-FOOT EXHAUST FAN. HE CRAWLED UNDERNEATH AND HE WROTE HIMSELF A NOTE ON THE BAR. BOBBY STEEL, 1992, TURN THREE QUARTERS OF A WAY OPEN. 
          AND HE FIXED THE PROBLEM. SO YOU JUST CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP. 
          SO ALSO THE ATS. ATS WAS A NON-SERVICE RATED ENTRANCE, DANGEROUS PIECE OF EQUIPMENT. POTENTIAL, NOBODY WANTS TO OPERATE IT WHEN THE DOOR IS OPEN. ALSO WE DIDN'T HAVE IT CONFIGURED FOR US TO ADD AN ADDITION AL CONNECTION FOR A GENERATOR, IN THE EVENT THAT WE HAD AN OUTAGE. 
          WE HAD THE GENERATOR, LONG OUTAGE WITH THE GENERATOR. SO WE HAD TO DO QUITE A BIT OF WORK TO BYPASS THE ATS AND THE GENERATOR TO GET A PORTABLE GENERATOR TO FEED THE BUILDING. 
          PRETTY IMPORTANT FOR US TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. LAST WE HAD THE BUILDING UPS, BRIDGES THE GAP BETWEEN LOSING POWER TO RESTORING POWER. THE OLDER UNIT WAS A SINGLE PHASE UNIT. FULL CAPACITY, WHICH WE DID EXPERIENCE QUITE A BIT OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS, WE HAD ABOUT 45 MINUTES OF STAND-BY POWER. 
          SO 45 MINUTES SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME. TWO O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, IT'S NOT A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME. SO HERE IS WHAT THE OLD ATS LOOKS LIKE. I'LL TRY TO HIGHLIGHT IT HERE. THIS IS THE OLD ATS. 
          I BELIEVE THEY INSTALLED THAT ATS AFTER THE DOORS WERE INSTALLED. 
          BECAUSE IT BLOCKED ABOUT 20 PERCENT OF THE DOOR. AND SO IF YOU'VE EVER WORKED ON ONE OF THESE THINGS, IT'S SCARY TO OPERATE. IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN ESCAPE ROUTE, IT'S EVEN SCARIER. SO THE WAY THIS THING OPERATES, IF WE LOSE UTILITY POWER, THIS GENERATOR WILL COME ON AND 45 SECONDS THE ENTIRE BUILDING WILL BE BACK IN POWER. 
          THAT IS THE WAY IT WORKS. HERE IS THE NEW ATS. THIS THING IS SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER. ATS HERE. SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER. 
          AND WE ADDRESS IF EGRESS ISSUE. WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE ADDED A MAINTENANCE BYPASS. 
          I MENTIONED THAT WAS AN ISSUE EARLIER. YOU SEE THAT HERE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THAT ROOM. WHAT THAT DOES, GIVES US THE ABILITY, IF WE LOSE POWER, THE GENERATOR WILL COME ON AND LET'S JUST SAY THE GENERATOR WERE TO NOT WORK FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE COULD GO GET A GENERATOR AND WE COULD GET THE BUILDING BACK IN POWER WHILE WE ADDRESS THE ISSUES HERE AT THE GENERATOR AND THE ATS. WHICH IS EXACTLY THE ISSUE THAT WE HAD. PRETTY IMPORTANT. SO WE'VE INTRODUCED A NEW MAINTENANCE BYPASS, WE MADE THE UNIT NEW ATS TO BE SERVICE ENTRANCE. 
          WE ARE GOING TO AIR CONDITION THE ROOM. SO WE EXPECT THE EQUIPMENT TO LAST SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER. UPS, I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT QUICKLY. 
          THE OLD UPS WAS A SINGLE PHASE UNIT. WE HAD ABOUT 45 MINUTES OF STAND-BY TIME. THE NEW UNIT, WE'VE UPGRADED TO THREE PHASE, WE HAVE PLENTY OF ROOM TO GROW THERE. WE ORIGINALLY SIZED IT FOR A 30 KW UNIT, FROM 12 TO 30. 
          WE OPTED FOR THE HIGHER CAPACITY UNIT. WHAT THAT DOES, IT GIVES US ABOUT 4 HOURS OF STAND-BY WITH OUR CURRENT LOAD. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT WE WANTED WAS A ONE-HOUR REQUIREMENT. GIVE US AN HOUR TO RESPOND IN THE EVENT OF AN ISSUE. 
          WE FAR EXCEEDED THE REQUIREMENT THAT WE WANTED. WE'VE ALSO INTRODUCED, NOT ONLY DID WE HAVE A MANUAL TRANSFER SWITCH ON THE MAIN UTILITY SIDE, WE INTRODUCED AN MTS IN THE UPS ROOM. THERE IS A DIAGRAM HERE THAT I'LL SHOW YOU IN A SECOND THAT WILL EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BETTER. ALSO WHAT HAPPENED EARLIER, I WANT TO SAY IT WAS MIDDLE OF LAST YEAR, THIS UNIT FAILED. SO THE UNIT DIDN'T FAIL, BUT THE MODULE THAT CONTROLS IT TO TAKE IT BACK TO YUTILITY POWER FAILED. 
          [00:45:11]
WE HAD COMPUTERS THAT FAILED, IMPORTANT COMPUTERS. SO WHAT WE DO NOW, WE HAVE THESE PANELS. SO EVERY COMPUTER WILL HAVE A UTILITY OUTLET AND AN UPS OUTLET. SO IN THE EVENT THAT ONE OF THE ITEMS FAILS, THAT COMPUTER OR THAT SERVER WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET POWER FROM ONE OF THE OUTLETS. 
          SO IF THE UPS FAILS, NO PROBLEM. WHEN THE UTILITY POWER IS RESTORED, WE'RE ABLE TO GET BACK IN BUSINESS. WE'VE ALSO, I MENTIONED THE MTS. I'LL SHOW YOU A DIAGRAM HERE IN A MINUTE. 
          HERE IS A HIGH LEVEL WHERE WE WERE AT BEFORE. IF THIS TRANSFORMER FAILS, THIS GENERATOR COMES ON AND FEEDS THE ENTIRE BUILDING. BUT IF WE HAVE ANY ISSUES HERE AT THE ATS, WE DIDN'T HAVE A QUICK EASY WAY TO GET POWER RESTORED TO THE CRITICAL SERVICES. HERE IS WHERE WE'RE AT NOW. IF THE UTILITY POWER FAILS AND ANYTHING HAPPENS TO THE GENERATOR AND WE'RE NOT ABLE TO GET THIS RESTORED QUICKLY, THEN WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADD A NEW GENERATOR AND BYPASS THE MAIN ATS SWITCH. 
          WHAT THAT ALSO DOES, WHAT THIS NTS SWITCH DOES, WHEN WE DECIDE TO REPLACE THIS GENERATOR HERE, WHEN WE DECIDE TO REPLACE THIS GENERATOR, WE'RE ABLE TO USE THIS NTS TO DO THAT WITHOUT ANY INTERRUPTION OF SERVICE. THAT WAS A BIG HEADACHE. WE LOST A LOT OF SLEEP OVER THIS. SO AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE ADDED AN MTS DOWNSTREAM SO THAT IN THE EVENT THAT WE CANNOT GET A GENERATOR OF THIS SIZE, WE CAN GO GET ONE OF OUR OWN GENERATORS TIED UP TO THE MTS AND PROVIDE POWER IMMEDIATELY TO THE CRITICAL PIECES OF EQUIPMENT. WE'VE ADDED A COUPLE OF LEVELS OF CONTINGENCY THERE THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THE ISSUE. TOTAL PROJECT COST, $570,000, UPS, 176. 
          AND I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING THAT I CAN, THAT WE TAKE AWAY FROM THIS IS THAT WE ARE PREPARED FOR THE FUTURE. THE ATS IS MODULAR. MEANING WE HAD TO REPLACE THE EXISTING UNIT. BUT IF THEY HAVE TO REPLACE THE ATS IN THE FUTURE, IT'S JUST PIECES THAT THEY HAVE TO REPLACE AS OPPOSED TO THE ENTIRE UNIT. 
          WE'VE SIZED THE UNIT TO GROW FOR THE NEXT WELL BEYOND THE BOARD MEMBERS, ME AND JOHN OR ANYBODY IN THE COMPANY. SO THAT IS HOPEFULLY THE NEXT GENERATION FOR WILL APPRECIATE THAT. SOME OF THE FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS, WE DO PLAN ON REPLACING THE GENERATOR. CURRENTLY HAS A FIVE-YEAR LIFE EXPE EXPECTANCY. WE DID APPLY FOR A GRANT FOR $650,000 AND THAT WOULD COVER THE COST TO REPLACE THE GENERATOR. SO WE HOPE TO GET THAT. 
          AND IF WE GET THAT, WE'LL REPLACE IT NEXT YEAR. BUT I'M ESTIMATING THAT FY 2022, YOU'LL SEE THAT ON THE CAPITAL BUDGET. WE HAVE NOT, ANOTHER THING THAT WE NEED TO DO, WE NEED TO REPLACE THE ROOF AT ESC. I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THEY DID THIS BACK IN WHATEVER YEAR THEY DESIGNED IT. BUT THERE IS THREE SKYLIGHTS. 
          THOSE THINGS HAVE NEVER STAYED DRY. WE ARE GOING TO ELIMINATE THOSE. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF ELEVATION CHANGES THAT WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO ELIMINATE SO THAT WE CAN MINIMIZE ANY POTENTIAL WATER INTRUSION, AREAS SUSCEPTIBLE TO WATER INTRUSION. WHAT WE THOUGHT ABOUT IS INSTEAD OF REPLACING THE UNIT, WE'LL STORM HARDEN THE EXISTING ROOF. BECAUSE IT'S GENERALLY IN GOOD SHAPE. THERE IS A LIFE EXPECTANCY TO IT. 
          BUT WE'LL PUT A ROOF ON TOP OF IT. MINIMIZE ANY INTERRUPTION TO THE BUILDING. THEY DO HAVE SYSTEMS WHERE YOU CAN BUILD STORM HARDING ROOFS ON TOP OF EXISTING ROOFS. COST ESTIMATES OF 1 MILLION TO 3 MILLION. 
          INTERESTING PROJECT. FY 2022 BUDGET, DEPENDING ON OUR RATE STUDY AND WHERE WE'RE AT. WE HAVE GOT TO REPLACE THE WINDOWS. 
          IT TAKES A LOT OF TIME AND RESOURCES TO BUILD UP THE BUILDING. 
          IT'S WELL OVERDUE. THOSE WINDOWS ARE NOT ENERGY EFFICIENCY. 
          [00:50:05]
WE'LL FOCUS ON REPLACING THE WINDOWS WITH IMPACT RATED UNITS. 
          THAT IS ESTIMATED BETWEEN 500 TO $750,000. BIG TICKET ITEMS. IT'S GOOD FOR THE BOARD TO KNOW THAT BECAUSE THEY WILL SEE THAT IN THE COMING BUDGET REQUEST. 
          I GOT TO GIVE SPECIAL THANKS TO THE TEAM BECAUSE THEY DID LOSE A LOT OF SLEEP OVER THIS. 
          AND THEY ALSO DID A FANTASTIC JOB. IT'S GOOD TO WORK WITH A LOT OF THESE GUYS. ERIC, JOEL, POOR JOEL, HE'S BEEN ON STAND-BY FOR ABOUT THREE AND A HALF MONTHS. SO IT WON'T TAKE HIM A LOT TONIGHT TO GET, TO HAVE A GOOD TIME. STEVE, EVERYBODY WORKED REALLY WELL TOGETHER BETWEEN THE ATS AND UPS PROJECT. HAD A LOT OF FUN WITH IT. IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE CONTRACTORS. WE HAVE A REALLY GOOD TIME WITH GOBLE TECH AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT. THEIR SUBCONTRACTOR, ENERGY EFFICIENT. 
          HAS DONE WORK AT SEVERAL SITES AND THEY'VE DONE FANTASTIC WORK. 
          BOTH WERE PRETTY GOOD ADVOCATES FOR US WHEN IT CAME TO THE ATS. WE DID RUN IN TO TECHNICAL ISSUES. ALL FLORIDA CONTRACTING DID A FANTASTIC JOB MAKING SURE THAT THEY HELD THE MANUFACTURER OF THE ATS TO THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR THEM TO PERFORM WHAT THEY, TO PROVIDE WHAT THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO PROVIDE. 
          GRAYBAR, GOOD EXPERIENCE TOO. THEY HANDLED ALL OF THE WORK WITH THE UPS. 
          THAT WAS AGAIN, A GOOD PROJECT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THE TEAM. 
          HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. >> MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE ONE. 
          >> WOULD YOU GO BACK TO THE PAGE BEFORE SUMMARY. YOU WAS TALKING ABOUT GENE GENERATORS. DO WE HAVE A SYSTEM WHERE, LET'S SAY A GENERATOR, YOU KNOW IT'S ACTING UP AND IT MOVES ON OVER TO THE NEXT GENERATOR. 
          SUPPOSE ONE GENERATOR IS STILL GOOD, BUT IT'S HEATING EXCESS HEAT, DO YOU HAVE A WARNING, 
          SOME KIND OF A SYSTEM THAT GIVE YOU A WARNING? >> YES, SIR, THEY DO. 
          THEY SHUT OFF IF THERE IS AN OVERHEATING CONDITION, THEY SHUT OFF. 
          THIS GENERATOR IS A BIG ONE. THE SECOND BIGGEST ONE THAT WE HAVE IN THE COMPANY. 
          THE LARGEST ONE WE HAVE NOW IS AT THE WATER RECLAMATION FACILITY. 
          BOTH OF THE UNITS DO HAVE AN OVERHEATING COMPONENT. THEY WILL SHUT OFF. 
          >> THANK YOU. >> THIS IS REALLY INTERESTING. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. 
          >> I AGREE. >> YEAH. ARE WE EVER GOING TO NEED BOBBY 
          AGAIN? >> HE IS NO SPRING CHICKEN, SO I HOPE NOT. 
          WHEN WE REPLACE THE GENERATOR, HOPEFULLY IT WILL BE THE NEWER TECHNOLOGY, THE LESS SEASONED PROFESSIONALS WILL BECOME TECHNICALLY SAVVY WITH THE NEWER TECHNOLOGY. 
          >> DOES HE HAVE A JUNIOR? >> NO.  HE ACTUALLY WORKS ALONE. 
          >> WE DO HAVE A GENERATOR MAINTENANCE GUY THAT WE WORK WITH AND BOTH OF THOSE GUYS, THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING. HE IS ALSO NO SPRING CHICKEN. THAT WAS A STRESSFUL TIME TRYING TO GET SOMEBODY TO FIGURE OUT IF THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING WITH THE UNIT. 
          ESPECIALLY THOSE OLDER NATURAL GAS UNITS ARE PRETTY HARD TO WORK ON. 
          >> SOUNDS LIKE IN THE FUTURE TELL THE TECHNICIAN TO LOOK UNDERNEATH THE UNIT FOR NOTES. 
          Ô> OH, MAN. I COULDN'T BELIEVE IT. >> I WANT TO SAY IT WAS TWO OR 3 MONTHS OF OVERHEATING. PUT THE WRONG GASKET IN. NEW GASKET IN. 
          AND THEY STILL COULDN'T GET IT RIGHT. HE SHOWS UP, 15 MINUTES LATER, THE ISSUE IS SOLVED. MAY HAVE BEEN HALF AN HOUR. I DON'T KNOW. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU 
          >> MR. TOMPECK >> NEXT ITEM IS ELECTRIC RELIABILITY UPDATE THROUGH MAY 
          [G.3. Electric Reliability Update through May 2020 – For Information Only.]
OF 2020. AND PAUL WILL MAKE THE PRESENTATION. 
          >> THANK YOU, MR. TOMPECK, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. 
          I'M HAPPY TO PRESENT TO YOU THE  BEFORE I SHOW YOU THE NUMBERS, I WANT TO PUT A DISCLAIMER IN THIS. 
          [00:55:02]
THIS IS THE FIRST MONTH THAT WE STARTED HAVING SPRING AND SUMMER STORMS. DON'T BE SHOCKED BY THE NUMBERS BUT WE ARE WORKING THROUGH THAT. 
          THEY WILL ROLL OFF AFTER 12 MONTHS OR WHEN WE START HAVING OUR BETTER MONTHS. 
          SO THE FIRST ONE WE LOOK AT IS THE FREQUENCY OF OUTAGES. RIGHT NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT 1.2 OUTAGE PER CUSTOMER. I THINK LAST MONTH WE WERE AT 1.08. 
          IT DID BUMP UP. A LOT OF IT HAS TO DO WITH AFTERNOON THUNDERSTORMS ROLLING THROUGH. WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON WAYS TO IMPROVE THE NUMBERS AS WELL. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS CHART, WE'VE DROPPED DOWN QUITE A BIT. 
          MIDDLE OF THE PACK RIGHT NOW. WE WANT TO BE IN THE TOP TEN. SO WE'RE GOING TO STRIVE TO GET UP TO THE TOP TEN TO TRY TO BE THE NUMBER ONE. AS YOU CAN SEE, WE ARE BELOW WHAT THE LARGE MUNICIPAL AVERAGE IS FOR AVERAGE SERVICE INTERRUPTIONS. 
          THE SECOND ONE WE LOOK AT, YOU GET AN INTERRUPTION, HOW LONG IS THAT CUSTOMER GOING TO BE INTERRUPTED FOR. WE'RE AT 56.88 MINUTES. THIS HAS GONE UP ABOUT FOUR MINUTES FROM OUR LAST MONTHS. SAME REASON WITH THE NUMBER OF OUTAGES AND CUSTOMERS AFFECTED BY THOSE OUTAGES. THE SECOND ITEM HERE IS THE COMPILATION OF ALL OF THE MUNICIPAL UTILITIES. WE'RE ABOUT IN THE MIDDLE. THIS ONE WE'RE ACTUALLY ABOVE WHAT THE LARGE MUNICIPAL AVERAGE IS. ONCE AGAIN, WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO LOOK AT ADDITIONAL MEASURES THAT WE CAN DO TO BRING THESE NUMBERS BACK DOWN. 
          THE LAST RELIABILITY STATISTIC WE LOOK AT IS OVERALL FROM AN OVERALL CUSTOMER'S PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE ABOVE THE 60-MINUTE MARK, WHAT YOU'LL SEE IN A SECOND IS WHAT OUR STRATEGIC GOALS ARE. 
          WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO LIKE I SAID STRIVE TO GET THESE ALL PUT TOGETHER. 
          PRETTY MUCH THE SAME STORY AS THE OTHER ONES AS WELL. THIS ONE WE ARE BELOW THE LARGE MUNICIPAL AVERAGE. SAW THIS CHART LAST TIME. COMPARISON OF WHERE WE WERE FOR 2019. AS YOU CAN SEE, ALL OF OUR NUMBERS HAVE GONE UP. 
          WE WILL BE WORKING ON CORRECTING THAT. AND AS WE SAID BEFORE, IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT OUR STRATEGIC GOALS WERE. WE'RE IN YELLOW. 
          WHICH MEANS WE'RE NOT TOO FAR OFF. BUT THE ONE THAT IS BELOW, WE'RE JUST BARELY BELOW. WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO PUSH TO GET THESE NUMBERS AS LOW AS POSSIBLE TO PROVIDE OUR CUSTOMERS THE BEST SERVICE POSSIBLE. 
          WITH THAT, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF UPDATE REGARDING HURRICANE ISIAS. WE DID EXPERIENCE A FEW OUTAGES OVER SUNDAY, OUR LARGEST OUTAGE WAS FOR TEN CUSTOMERS. LASTED TWO AND A HALF HOURS. BLOWN DOWN POLE OVER BY HOLIDAY INN. WHOEVER WAS STAYING IN THE HOTELS WERE OUT OF POWER FOR A WHILE. THE MAJORITY OF THE OUTAGES WERE SMALL. 
          TREE RELATED THINGS, NOTHING MAJOR THAT WE HAD TO DEAL WITH. AT ONE POINT, I SAW 150 CUSTOMERS, BUT OUR CREWS WERE WORKING THROUGH THE STORM. BECAUSE THE WIND SPEEDS DID NOT GET ABOVE 35. SIX A.M. TO DARK TO GET EVERYONE BACK IN POWER AT THAT TIME. BUT THE CREWS DID A GREAT JOB. WE'RE LUCKY THAT IT DID NOT HIT. MY DAUGHTER GOT HIT. SHE LIVES OUTSIDE OF WILMINGTON. SHE LOOKED ON DUKE ENERGY, 200,000 CUSTOMERS OUT. 
          ORIGINALLY SHE GOT A REPORT THIS MORNING THAT HER SERVICE WOULD BE BACK RESTORED BY NOON AND THEN AN HOUR LATER AND SAID MAYBE 11:30 P.M. I HAVEN'T TALKED TO HER SINCE. 
          SO I'M GUESSING IT WILL BE SOMETIME TOMORROW BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF DAMAGE THAT THEY HAD. 
          WE CAN COUNT OUR BLESSINGS. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE PREPARED AND S QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY 
          THER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> MADAM CHAIR. 
          >> YES, SIR. >> THE GOALS THIS YEAR, BETTER THAN THE LAST SAY THREE YEARS 
          IN COMPARISON? >> WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS THAT OUR NUMBERS HAVE TRENDED DOWN AND NOW THEY'RE STARTING TO TREND UP A LITTLE BIT. WE'RE GOING TO REVISIT THE WAY THAT WE DO TRIM TRIMMING AND FUSING. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MAY SHOW AN UP TICK. ONCE WE GET INTO FULL DEPLOYMENT FOR AMI SYSTEM WE'RE GOING TO KNOW THE CUSTOMERS ARE OUT BEFORE THEY CALL IN. I ACTUALLY DID LOOK AT THE AMI OUTAGE DASHBOARD THAT THE VENDOR HONEYWELL HAS SUPPLIED US DURING THE STORM. 
          I FOUND ONE CUSTOMER OUT AND FOUND OUT THAT CUSTOMER WAS DISCONNECTED BECAUSE THEY WANTED THEIR SERVICE PULLED FOR MAINTENANCE IN THE BUILDING. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF 
          [01:00:03]
INTEGRATING IT WITH OUR SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE. WE'RE GOING TO STRIVE TO MAKE SURE THAT CUSTOMERS KNOW ABOUT THE OUTAGES AND KNOW WHERE THEY ARE IN THE CUE TO BE RESTORED. 
          >> ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. TOMPECK. 
          >> NEXT ITEM IS THE FINANCIAL OPERATING RESULTS FOR MAY 2020. BARBARA MICHAEL WILL MAKE THE 
          [G.4. Financial Operating Results for May 2020 – For Information Only.]
          PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU, MR. TOMPECK. MADAM CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS, I WILL PRESENT TO YOU TODAY THE MAY 2020 FINANCIAL OPERATING RESULTS. 
          AFTER THE ADJUSTMENT FOR THE DISTRIBUTION TO THE CITY, OUR MAY YEAR-TO-DATE INCREASE IN THAT POSITION 1,094,000. OPERATING REVENUES ARE LOWER THAN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. 
          FISCAL YEAR-TO-DATE FIGURES BY 2.6 MILLION. THE MAIN REASON FOR THE DECREASE IN GENERAL SERVICE SALES AND THE PCA THAT HAD BEEN BILLED. 
          ABOUT 1 MILLION RELATES TO THE 2019 REVENUE CHARGES THAT WERE RECORDED IN EXCHANGE FOR THE CAPACITY REDUCTIONS. WE HAD YEAR-TO-DATE OPERATING EXPENSES, WHICH WERE DOWN BY 1.2 MILLION FROM THE PRIOR YEAR.  AND THAT WAS MAINLY DUE TO THE DECREASE IN COST OF THE PURCHASE POWER THAT WE HAVE EXPERIENCED. OUR ELECTRIC REVENUES LESS POWER COSTS AND CONSUMPTION, ELECTRIC OPERATING REVENUES LESS POWER COSTS, THE COST TO PURCHASE POWER HAS BEEN FAIRLY CONSISTENT FOR THREE YEARS IN COMPARISON. 
          FISCAL YEAR 2019 BROUGHT A TWO PERCENT INCREASE IN THE ADJUSTED OPERATING REVENUE, ALONG WITH TWO PERCENT INCREASE IN CONSUMPTION. AND THEN THE CURRENT YEAR-TO-DATE CONSUMPTION WHICH REMAINS FLAT FROM 2019, THE REVENUES ARE DOWN BY TWO PERCENT, WHICH BRINGS US BACK IN LINE WITH THE 2018, REALLY NOT TOO MUCH GOING ON. 
          A LITTLE DOWN, BUT PRETTY CONSISTENT. WATER OPERATING REVENUES AND CONSUMPTION, ARE SHOWING A CONSISTENT UPWARD TREND IN FISCAL YEAR 2019, REVENUES INCREASED OVER THE SAME PERIOD, IN 2018 AS A RESULT OF INCREASED RESIDENTIAL AND GENERAL CONSUMPTION. 3 PERCENT INCREASE. THE 2020 INCREASES IN THE OPERATING REVENUE WERE SEVEN PERCENT HIGHER, WHICH WAS ACCOMPANIED BY AN INCREASE IN CONSUMPTION OF FIVE PERCENT, IN 2020, WE ALSO HAD CONTINUED INCREASES IN RESIDENTIAL AND GENERAL SERVICES AND WE HAD A BUMP IN THE BULK WATER SERVICE SALES OF ABOUT $650,000 YEAR-TO-DATE. IN 2018 AND 2019, WASTE WATER OPERATING REVENUE LEVELS WERE INCREASED. AND THAT WAS DUE TO THE CAPACITY REDUCTIONS THAT WE DID NOT EXPERIENCE IN 2020. AND 2020 CONSUMPTION WAS UP THREE PERCENT WITH RESIDENTIAL AND GENERAL SERVICE SALES, UP SLIGHTLY. AND THERE WAS A FALLOFF IN REVENUES AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THOSE GRCS. PRETTY MUCH THE SAME INFORMATION COMING THROUGH. NATURAL GAS OPERATING REVENUES LESS THE COST OF GAS PURCHASED AND CONSUMPTION CONTINUES TO SHOW AN UPWARD TREND IN BOTH REVENUES AND CONSUMPTION. 
          WHILE INCREASES ARE MOVING TOGETHER, THE REASON FOR THE SMALLER, THE SLIGHT SMALLER INCREASE IN FISCAL YEAR 2020, THAT CAME AS A RESULT OF GENERAL SERVICE SALES THAT WERE DOWN COMPARED TO 2019. AND THE SAVINGS OF THE COST OF PURCHASE POWER, PURCHASE GAS FROM 2019, WHICH WAS ABOUT $287,000. OUR OPERATING INCOME AND DEBT SERVICE, DEBT SERVICE COVERS RATIO FOR THE 12 MONTHS AVERAGE INCOME FOR DEBT SERVICE 
          [01:05:01]
PRINCIPAL -- EXCUSE ME. DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE RATIO IS THE RATIO OF OUR 12 MONTH AVERAGE OF NET AVAILABLE INCOME FOR CURRENT DEBT SERVICE. DEBT SERVICE RATIO 2.71, WHICH MEANS THAT EVERY DOLLAR OF DEBT, WE HAVE 2.71 AVAILABLE TO PAY THAT DEBT. 
          OUR BOND COVENANTS REQUIRE WE HAVE A RATIO OF 2.5 TIMES. SO WE'RE WELL WITHIN OUR COMFORT ZONE FOR OUR DEBT SERVICE. THIS ITEM IS FOR INFORMATION 
          ONLY AND I WILL ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. >> ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? 
          THANK YOU. >> BARBARA WILL STAY WITH US AND DO THE STATUS REPORT ON THE 
          [G.5. Power Cost Adjustment Update for June 2020 – For Information Only.]
          PCA FOR JUNE 2020. >> I HAVE HERE TODAY TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION ABOUT JUNE'S POWER COSTS AND UPDATED PROJECTIONS THROUGH JUNE OF 2021. 
          THE POWER COST ADJUSTMENT OR PCA, IS THE MECHANISM BY WHICH FPUA RECOVERS POWER COSTS IN EXCESS OF THE 79.52 INCLUDED OUR BASE RATE. THE COST OF POWER PURCHASED FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE WAS BILLED TO FPUA AT THE RATE OF 68.60, FOR 1000 KILOWATT HOURS. 
          DECREASE OF 5.23 CENTS AS COMPARED TO MAY. IN JUNE, UNDER RECOVERY OF POWER COSTS OF $435,000. AND THE CUMULATIVE RECOVERY AS OF JUNE 30TH, 2020, WAS JUST IN EXCESS OF THREE MILLION DOLLARS OVER RECOVERY. IN THIS CHART, THE BARS DEPICT THE BALANCE OF THE PCA OVER RECOVERY AND DARK BLUE LINE ON THE BOTTOM REPRESENTS THE PCA. 
          PCA FOR JUNE WAS SET AT NEGATIVE $13. THE BLUE BARS REPRESENT THE ACTUAL AMOUNTS THAT WERE OVER RECOVERED WHILE THE ORANGE BARS DEPICT THE RECOVERY, WHAT IT WOULD BE IF THE PROJECTIONS THAT WE HAVE HERE ARE CORRECT. PROJECTIONS HAVE BEEN PAID BY RALPH TELLIS, BASED ON PROJECTIONS PREPARED BY FLORIDA MUNICIPAL POWER AGENCY. 
          THE COST OF PURCHASE POWER FOR THE UPCOMING 12 MONTHS HAS DECREASED BY 6.7 PERCENT, ESTIMATES. THIS GRAPH TAKES A LOOK AT THE TRENDING THROUGH SEPTEMBER. 
          IT IS LOOKING BETTER SINCE LAST MONTH, PROJECTION, DUE TO THE DECLINE IN THE ANTICIPATED COSTS WITH ST. LUCIE NUCLEAR AND THE ALL REQUIREMENTS PROJECT. 
          THIS IS A LONG RANGE LOOK AT SEPTEMBER, WE CAN SEE IN THE GRAPH THAT THE PCA OVER COLLECTION IS EXPECTED TO REMAIN WITHIN THAT ACCEPTABLE RANGE INTO THE SECOND QUARTER OF THE FISCAL YEAR, THIS IS AS SAVINGS ARE PASSED ON OUR CUSTOMER'S BILL. 
          THIS IS PUSHING IT OUT FURTHER DUE TO SOME LOWER PROJECTED COSTS THAT WERE UPDATED. 
          FPUA CONTINUES TO EXPERIENCE UNDER-RECOVERIES FROM OUR CUSTOMERS. 
          SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE FISCAL YEAR, WE HAVE UNDER RECOVERED $1.6 MILLION. 
          IT IS THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF THAT THE PCA REMAIN UNCHANGED AT THIS TIME AS WE WAIT AND ANALYZE UPDATED PROJECTIONS. CONTINUE TO EVALUATE EVERY 
          MONTH. >> ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU. 
          MR. TOMPECK. >> OKAY. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. 
          THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS A DISCUSSION ON THE VOLUNTARY TAX CREDIT SALES PROCEEDS. 
          [G.6. Discussion on Voluntary Cleanup Tax Credits Sales Proceeds.]
THIS ISSUE HAS A LONG HISTORY, WHICH I COULD DISCUSS FOR SEVERAL HOURS BUT I'LL TRY TO GIVE YOU A MORE SUCCINCT SYNOPSIS OF THE ISSUE. FIRST AND FOREMOST, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE BOARD RECOGNIZE THAT THE FPRA AND FPUA HAVE AN AGREEMENT. 
          THE CORE OF THAT AGREEMENT IS THAT FPUA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COST TO REMEDIATE THE KING PLANT PROPERTY, IN RETURN, THE FPRA WOULD GIVE FPUA ALL PROCEEDS FROM THE SALES OF TAX 
          [01:10:04]
CREDITS WERE IN EXCESS TO THE PAYMENTS FOR LOAN OBLIGATIONS RELATED TO THE CLEAN-UP. 
          FPUA HAS MET THEIR OBLIGATION AND CLEANED UP THE KING PLANT SITE AS AGREED. 
          THE FPRA HAS NOT UPHELD ITS PART OF THE AGREEMENT AND DID NOT PAY ONE DOLLAR TOWARD THE CLEAN-UP. IT'S OBVIOUS THAT THE FPRA HAS NO INTENTION OF RETURNING ANY TO FPUA AS AGREED.TAX CREDITS - AT THE END OF THIS DISCUSSION, STAFF WILL REQUEST DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD ON HOW YOU WOULD LIKE US TO PROCEED TO RESOLVE THIS AGREEMENT ON THIS ISSUE. 
          IN YOUR PACKET, THERE IS BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE HISTORY OF THE ISSUE. 
          THE BEST OVERALL SUMMARY IS CONTAINED IN THE MEMO THAT I WROTE TO THE FPRA BOARD ON OCTOBER 28, 2019, WHICH SUMMARIZES A HISTORY OF THE TAX CREDIT SALES AND PROCEEDS AND PROVIDES THE BACKGROUND ON WHY FPUA SHOULD RECEIVE THE PROCEEDS FROM THE LAST CERTIFICATE. A COUPLE OF QUICK NOTES ON THAT MEMO. 
          THE FPUA BOARD PASSED RESOLUTION 2015-12 AT THE JULY 7TH, 2015, BOARD MEETING. 
          THAT RESOLUTION DIRECTED THAT THE SURPLUS PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE OF THE TAX CREDITS BE REPAID TO FPUA TO OFFSET FPUA'S COSTS RELATED TO THE CLEAN-UP. THE ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED AT THE JULY 20, 2015, FPRA MEETING AND THERE WAS A GENERAL CONSENSUS WITH THE AGREEMENT WITH THE FPUA RESOLUTION AND THE FPRA PASSED A MOTION DIRECTING THE STAFF TO DEVELOP A SIMILAR RESOLUTION. THAT DIRECTION WAS NOT CARRIED OUT BY THE STAFF BUT FOUR SUBSEQUENT FPRA RESOLUTIONS CONTAIN WORDING WHICH MIRRORED THE FPUA RESOLUTION. 
          EACH OF THOSE FPRA RESOLUTIONS REQUIRED THAT ANY EXCESS FUNDS FROM THE TAX CREDIT SHOULD BE RETURNED TO FPUA TO REPAY ITS CUSTOMERS FOR THE COST OF CLEAN-UP. 
          IN THE SIMPLEST OF TERMS, NOW THAT THE LOANS HAVE BEEN REPAID, THE FPRA HAS DECIDED TO IGNORE THE PREVIOUS AGREEMENTS AND KEEP THE PROCEEDS FROM THE TAX CREDIT SALE. 
          THESE PROCEEDS DO NOT BELONG TO THE FPRA AND SHOULD BE RETURNED TO FPUA. 
          JUST A VERY QUICK REFRESHER ON THE TAX CREDIT PROCESS. UNDER THE BROWNFIELD PROGRAM, YOU'RE ELIGIBLE FOR TAX CREDITS UP TO 50 PERCENT OF THE AMOUNT OF MONEY YOU SPENT FOR THE CLEAN-UP IN A CALENDAR YEAR TO A MAXIMUM OF $500,000 IF ONE MILLION OR MORE IS SPENT IN THAT YEAR. LET ME ILLUSTRATE QUICKLY WITH AN EXAMPLE. 
          IN 2014, WE TOOK A $300,000 LOAN FROM THE TREASURY COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL. 
          FPUA PUT IN ONE MILLION FOR THE CLEAN-UP THAT YEAR, MAKING US ELIGIBLE FOR THE ENTIRE $500,000 IN TAX CREDITS. WITHOUT FPUA'S CONTRIBUTION, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ELIGIBLE FOR ONLY $150,000 IN TAX CREDITS BECAUSE OF THE $300,000 LOAN. TO PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT, WE OBTAINED $2.6 MILLION IN TAX CREDIT CERTIFICATES, WITHOUT FPUA'S CONTRIBUTION WE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED $850,000 IN TAX CREDITS, NOT TO MENTION THE FACT THAT THE CLEAN-UP WOULD STILL BE GOING ON. SO LET ME SUMMARIZE WHAT I JUST SAID. THE TAX CREDITS CERTIFICATE P WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WOULD NOT EXIST IF NOT FOR FPUA'S CONTRIBUTION TO THE PROJECT. SINCE LAST OCTOBER, WHEN THEY RECEIVED THE LAST TAX CERTIFICATE, FPRA HAS FAILED TO ACKNOWLEDGE ITS OBLIGATION AND FPUA'S LEGITIMATE CLAIM TO THESE FUNDS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MAYOR HUDSON. 
          HEIR FIRST ATTEMPT TO S THE MONEY WAS IN THE FORM OF A REDEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM WHICH THE FPRA EVENTUALLY TABLED FOR LATER CONSIDERATION. 
          LAST TUESDAY, THE FPRA COMMITTED 170,000 OF THE TAX CREDIT SALES PROCEEDS TO AUTO BAHN DEVELOP TO REMOVE SUB SURFACE STRUCTURES ON THE KINGS LANDING SITE. 
          THIS WAS CHARACTERIZED AS AN INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. STAFF BELIEVES THAT 170,000 REPRESENTS FPUA CUSTOMER MONEY TO AID A PRIVATE DEVELOPER WHO DID NOT PERFORM HIS PROPER DUE DILIGENCE. DEVELOPER PERFORMED GROUND PENETRATING RADAR AFTER THE DEAL WAS FINALIZED CERTAINLY BEGS THE QUESTION WHY HE DIDN'T DO IT BEFORE THE DEAL WAS FINALIZED. LET ME SPEND JUST TWO MINUTES OFF TOPIC TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT ON THE DISCUSSION AT THE FPRA MEETING LAST TUESDAY. THERE WAS A LOT OF MISINFORMATION AT THE MEETING. THE CLEAR MESSAGE FROM THAT BOARD WAS FPUA HAD NOT DONE THE 
          [01:15:06]
REQUIRED CLEAN-UP DURING DEMOLITION OF THE PLANT AND REMEDIATION OF THE SITE. 
          THE ONLY PERSON WHO KNOWS ALL OF THE DETAILS OF THIS PROJECT IS THE PERSON SPEAKING RIGHT NOW. THE DEMOLITION SPEC WAS DEVELOPED IN 2007. 
          JACK ANDREWS AND I WORKED TOGETHER ON THAT SCOPE AND AGREED ON REMOVING ALL STRUCTURES TO THE FOUR FOOT GRADE LEVEL. WE AGREED ON GOING FOUR FOOT BELOW GRADE BECAUSE WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE STABILITY OF THE SEAWALL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PARCEL, WHICH WAS EVENTUALLY REPLACED AND GOING BELOW THAT LEVEL WOULD REQUIRE EXTENSIVE DEWATERING OF POTENTIALLY CONTAMINATED WATER. WE SHOULD ALL REMEMBER THAT THERE WERE NO PLANS FOR THE PROPERTY AT THAT TIME. REDEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY AS A HOTEL HAD NOT BEEN DISCUSSED. THE REMEDIATION THAT FPUA PERFORMED MET ALL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS AND ALLOWS FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. EVERYONE, I MEAN EVERYONE KNEW THERE WERE STRUCTURES FOUR FOOT BELOW GRADE AND TO SAY THAT THEY DIDN'T IS NONSENSE. FPUA FULLY MET OUR COMMITMENT FOR THE REMEDIATION OF THE KINGS PLANT SITE AND IT IS DISINGENUOUS TO SUGGEST OTHERWISE. LET ME GET BACK TO THE REAL ISSUE, HOW THE FPRA MAY WANT TO SPEND THE MONEY IS IRRELEVANT. THERE IS AN AGREEMENT TO RETURN THE EXCESS FUNDS TO FPUA CUSTOMERS AND THAT IS WHERE THE MONEY BELONGS. THE LAST TAX CERTIFICATE WAS RECEIVED IN LATE 2019. FOR THOSE OF US WHO FOLLOW THIS ISSUE, IT'S OBVIOUS THAT FPRA HAS NO INTENTION OF RECOGNIZING FPUA'S CLAIM TO THE FUNDS AND NO INTENTION OF RETURNING THE FUNDS TO OUR CUSTOMERS. THERE HAVE BEEN THREE MEETINGS IN WHICH THE FPRA HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO RETURN THESE FUNDS AND HAS NOT DONE SO. IT IS OBVIOUS TO ME THAT THE FPRA INTENDS ON USING OUR CUSTOMERS'S MONEY FOR ANY DISCRETIONARY ITEM THAT THEY SEE FIT. SO THAT BRINGS US TO A DISCUSSION ON THE NEXT STEP TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE. AND I THINK WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS. 
          IF THE BOARD IS OKAY WITH THE FPRA SPENDING THIS MONEY, WE CAN DISCONTINUE EFFORTS TO RECOVER THE MONEY THE FPRA IS OBLIGATED TO RETURN TO US OR THE SECOND STEP IS TO TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO INITIATE THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEDURE WITH A GOAL OF RECOVERING THESE FUNDS FOR OUR CUSTOMERS. I PROVIDED THE BOARD WITH THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEDURE. 
          IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON IT, MR. COBELGUARD CAN ANSWER THEM. 
          IF I THOUGHT MORE TIME WAS REASONABLE FOR THE FPRA TO DO THE RIGHT THING I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT. STAFF FEELS THAT WE OWE IT TO OUR CUSTOMERS, WE HAVE A FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PURSUE THESE FUNDS. ACCORDINGLY FPUA STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE INITIATE THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION PROCEDURES AS IDENTIFIED IN MY JULY 29TH MEMO, WHICH IS IN YOUR BOARD PACKAGE. ONE QUICK PERSONAL NOTE, FPUA IS ENCOURAGED TO HELP THE CITY. IN THE CASE OF THE KING PLANT DECOMMISSIONING, DEMOLITION AND CLEAN-UP. FPU SPENT AN EXCESS OF $8 MILLION, INCLUDING $3.3 MILLION FOR THE CLEAN-UP. WITHOUT BEING ASKED, WE DONATED A PARCEL OF LAND ON THE WEST SIDE OF SECOND STREET TO MAKE THE PROPERTY MORE ATTRACTIVE TO DEVELOPERS. 
          COOPERATION IS A TWO-WAY STREET. WE'RE SIMPLY ASKING THE FPRA TO MEET THEIR COMMITMENTS. THAT ONLY SEEMS FAIR TO ME. SO BEFORE WE OPEN THE GENERAL DISCUSSION, I THOUGHT MR. COBBLEGUARD MIGHT HAVE A FEW WORDS THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO 
          ADD. >> I THINK JOHN HAS COVERED IT ABOUT AS WELL AS HE COULD. 
          I KNOW THE HISTORY OF ALL OF IT. HE'S TOTALLY ACCURATE AS TO WHAT HE HAS REPRESENTED. BUT TO GO BACK TO THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION, I KNOW I'VE BEEN ASKED IS IT APPROPRIATE TO DO THAT BETWEEN THE UA AND THE CITY FPRA. 
          [01:20:04]
AND AT FIRST WHEN I TOOK A LOOK AT IT, IT DIDN'T SEEM RIGHT. IT DIDN'T SEEM TO FIT. 
          I THOUGHT IT REALLY MEANT A RESOLUTION OF AN ISSUE BETWEEN TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES, LIKE THE UA AND PORT ST. LUCIE AND THE UA AND THE COUNTY COMMISSION. NOT SOMETHING WITHIN THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. JODI HAD A DIFFERENT POSITION. HE SAID BASED UPON THE CHARTER, YOU HAVE A SEPARATE BOARD, SEPARATE AND APART FROM THAT, YOU ARE FREE FROM THE GOVERNMENT OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE FPRA. THEY HAVE CONTROL OVER BONDS. 
          THEY HAVE CONTROL OVER BUDGET. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, YOU'RE GOING TO BE LEFT ALONE TO MAKE YOUR OWN DECISIONS. YOU HAVE YOUR OWN BOARD. I FEEL THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO BRING THIS UP WITH THE FPRA. AND I NOW AFTER THINKING ABOUT IT, I FULLY AGREE WITH HIM. 
          IT'S FOR THIS BOARD TO DECIDE IF YOU WANT TO GO FORWARD, TO PASS A RESOLUTION, WE HAVE TO SERVE THAT ON THE CITY WITH FIVE DAYS, I THINK IT'S REGISTERED MAIL. 
          THEY HAVE X DAYS TO RESPOND. THE MEETING BETWEEN CITY MANAGER, JOHN AND IT'S BEEN RECOMMENDED THE MAYOR AND ATTORNEY SWEENEY FOR THE CITY AND ME.  AND WE WOULD THEN DECIDE THEN IS THERE ANY WAY TO RESOLVE IT. SHOULD WE GO FURTHER, SHOULD WE GET, AS THEY CALL IT, A FACILITATOR TO TRY TO HELP US OR DO WE WANT TO MOVE ON WITH IT. IF WE CAN'T COME TO AN AGREEMENT, IT GOES ON TO THE NEXT STEP AND THAT MEANS THE TWO BOARDS WOULD HAVE TO MEET TOGETHER AND DISCUSS IT, FPRA OR THE CITY COMMISSION AND FPUA. IF WE DON'T RESOLVE IT AT THAT LEVEL, THEN IT HAS TO GO TO MEDIATION. AND WE HAVE TO AGREE ON A MEDIATOR. BUT AT NO POINT THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROCESS IS IT A MANDATORY POINT THAT IT IS RESOLVED. I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE MAY NOT BE A REASON TO DO IT. 
          I KNOW WE STARTED THIS PROCESS ONCE AND I THINK IT WAS WITH THE CITY, WHEN THE CITY ALL OF A SUDDEN SAID THEY WANTED A PCA ADDED TO THE TWO PERCENT. WE TOOK THEM TO TASK OVER THAT. 
          IT ENDED UP BEING RESOLVED. THERE WAS ONE OTHER TIME THAT INVOLVED PORT ST. LUCIE, WHEN WALMART WAS PUTTING IN THEIR BIG DISTRIBUTION CENTER AND THEY TRIED TO CLAIM THAT AS THEIR TERRITORY. WE I THINK INITIATED THE PROCESS, I THINK IT TAKES THREE-FOURTH MAJORITY TO DO AWAY WITH THE PROCESS AND GO ON TO COURT AND THAT IS WHAT WE DID. AND WE WON THAT. THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE THAT I'M AWARE OF THIS BEING USED BEFORE. BUT IT'S CERTAINLY AN APPROPRIATE METHOD, IF THE BOARD SEES FIT TO DO THAT. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL 
          BE HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER THEM. >> I SUGGESTED THE EXACT SAME THING, GET TOGETHER BEFORE THEY MAKE A DECISION. I ALSO IN THE MINUTES SHOWS THAT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS DONE BEFORE I CAME ON THE BOARD, AS A CITIZEN, I'VE BEEN RESEARCHING DOING, THE SECOND THING IS ATTORNEY BECK SERVED AS A COMMISSIONER, WHO JUST HAPPENED TO SAY WHENEVER THIS TAX CREDIT COMES BACK, IT BELONGS TO UA. I DON'T KNOW WHAT MADE HIM AT 
          [01:25:02]
THAT POINT, BUT HE WAS I GUESS DOING THE FAIR PLAY SITUATION. IF YOU KEEP READING THE MINUTES OF ANY OF THE MEETINGS OF THE FPRA, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT WAS NOT TOLD TRUTHFULLY THE RECORD. 
          YOU CAN SEE FROM COMMON SENSE, SOME THINGS WEREN'T TOLD TO THE ELECTED BODY. 
          AND THAT BOTHERS ME TO THIS POINT THAT WE'RE NOW IN THIS SQUABBLE. 
          BUT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF HAVING A BANKING EXPERIENCE IN MY LIFE, I SPOKE ABOUT THAT, ANY TIME YOU GO INTO A BUSINESS DEAL LIKE THAT, AUTOMATICALLY GO BACK TO, I SAID IF THE UA GETS THE MONEY BACK, ANY PORTION OF THE MONEY, THEN LET THE UA DECIDE DO THEY WANT TO GIVE IT AS A GIFT. BUT TO MAN HANDLE IT, TO TAKE CHARGE, I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR. AND I'M NOT PREPARED TO SUPPORT ANYTHING BUT RIGHT. 
          >> MR. MATTHEWS, IN RESPONSE TO WHAT YOU MENTIONED, YOU'LL ALSO SEE THAT THAT MEETING WHERE EDDIE BECK SPOKE OUT, A MOTION WAS MADE AND PASSED TO GIVE US OUR MONEY BACK. 
          AND THAT MOTION, LIKE I SAY WAS PASSED AND THEY DIRECTED STAFF TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON IT. 
          AND STAFF DID NOT DO THAT. NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF AT THE NEXT MEETING IT CAME UP AGAIN, IT WAS CHANGED IN SOME FASHION. BUT ACCORDING TO THAT MEETING, THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR THAT WAS PASSED THAT SAID WE GET THOSE FUNDS. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT IS EVER GOING TO, LIKE I SAID, IT MAY BE THE SECOND MEETING SOMETHING CAME UP AT THAT POINT BUT I'M NOT AWARE THAT THAT MOTION WAS EVER MODIFIED OR RESCINDED, FOR WHATEVER BENEFIT 
          THAT MAY BE, I DON'T KNOW. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> MADAM CHAIR, I WAS AT THE MEETING LAST NIGHT. SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT MR. TOMPECK SAID THAT THE FPRA, OR THAT WE SAID THAT FPUA DIDN'T DO ITS JOB. AND THERE WERE A COUPLE OF COMMISSIONERS THAT SAID THAT. BUT THAT WASN'T THE WHOLE CITY COMMISSION THAT SAID THAT. 
          IT WAS A COUPLE OF COMMISSIONERS WHO WERE KIND OF TALKING ABOUT THAT. 
          AND SO OBVIOUSLY I'VE BEEN AT ALL OF THE FPRA MEETINGS WHERE IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED. 
          AND I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS NO, I BELIEVE THAT MR. TOMPECK IS RIGHT, THERE IS NO INTEREST ON THE PART OF THE FPRA TO GIVE THE MONEY BACK. AND THERE ARE VALID POINTS THAT PROBABLY COULD BE RESPONDED TO WITH MR. TOMPECK THAT I WON'T GO INTO HERE BECAUSE I CAN'T KEEP THEM ALL STRAIGHT MYSELF. BUT I'M WONDERING, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC AND I DON'T THINK, I PERSONALLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE A WAR WITH THE CITY. AND IN THE MIDDLE OF A PANDEMIC. 
          BECAUSE THEN WE'LL JUST KICK OFF SEBASTIAN OFF THE FRONT PAGE AND IT WILL BE FORT PIERCE ON THE FRONT PAGE. I THINK WE HAVE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO THINK ABOUT. 
          SO I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WORRYING ABOUT THIS AT THIS PARTICULAR JUNCTURE. 
          PERSONALLY. AND I ALSO DON'T KNOW WHY WE CAN'T HAVE THAT KIND OF MEETING WITHOUT STARTING SOMETHING UNDER A STATE STATUTE. I MEAN, WHY CAN'T WE HAVE THAT MEETING WITHOUT STARTING THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION. CAN WE HAVE THE MEETING WITHOUT 
          STARTING THE DISPUTE, WE CAN HAVE THE MEETING. >> INFORMAL MEETING. 
          >> THE SAME MEETING, SAME PEOPLE. >> RATHER THAN STARTING THE 
          CONFLICT OF RESOLUTION. >> YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE BOARD MEETINGS. 
          >> WITH THE TWO ATTORNEYS, TWO DIRECTORS AND ME. OR WHOEVER. 
          WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT? >> YOU CAN MEET ANY TIME YOU WANT. 
          ONE THING I WOULD POINT OUT IS THAT IF YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE VIRUS AND HAVING YOU KNOW, MEET WITH SAY, BOTH BOARDS AT ONE TIME NOW, THE TWO ENERGIES CAN AGREE ON EXTENSIONS. 
          >> YES. RIGHT. >> TO BE MOVED FAR IN THE 
          FUTURE, IF IT'S APPROPRIATE TO DO THAT. >> RIGHT. 
          RIGHT. >> YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND INITIATE IT NOW BUT CHANGE THE 
          TIME FRAME. >> YEAH. >> IF BOTH SIDES AGREE. 
          >> IF BOTH SIDES AGREE. AND I DON'T KNOW YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I CAN'T SPEAK FOR ANYBODY ELSE ON MY COMMISSION OR FPRA EXCEPT MYSELF. 
          BUT I FEEL THAT THERE IS A PRETTY STRON THAT THE MONEY THAT WAS SPENT THE OTHER 
          [01:30:07]
NIGHT WAS TO CLEAN UP THE SAME PROPERTY THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE CLEANED UP AND THAT ALTHOUGH TECHNICALLY IT WASN'T THE SAME TYPE OF CLEAN-UP, I THINK EVERYBODY FELT COMFORTABLE IN SPENDING THAT MONEY. SO I DON'T KNOW IF -- I'M WORRIED ABOUT DOING THIS DURING A PANDEMIC. AND I'M WORRIED ABOUT STARTING SOMETHING THAT IN THE END, WE MAY WIN THE BATTLE, BUT NOT THE WAR. AND I JUST THINK WE NEED TO THINK THAT THROUGH. BECAUSE FROM THE CITY STANDPOINT, I CAN, THAT THEY BELIEVE THAT WE'RE ALL ONE ORGANIZATION. SO IT'S -- THEY DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE TWO SEPARATE ORGANIZATIONS. AND I DON'T BELIEVE OUR CITY ATTORNEY BELIEVES THIS STATUTE IS APPLICABLE BECAUSE I TALKED TO HIM BRIEFLY TODAY, I DON'T WANT TO QUOTE HIM, BUT HE LED ME TO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS THE MOST UNIQUE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FPUA AND THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. AND THE FPUA IS A CREATURE OF THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE. SO THAT IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE. BUT I'LL LET HIM SPEAK FOR 
          HIMSELF. >> MR. COBBLEGUARD, IS THERE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UA AND FPRA THAT REQUIRES THAT ANY EXCESS OF THESE PROCEEDS FROM TAX CERTIFICATES BE PAID BACK 
          TO THE UA? >> THERE IS NOT. WHEN THEY PASSED THE LAST RESOLUTION, THEY CHANGED THE ONE THAT WE HAD PASSED FOR THREE OR FOUR YEARS BEFORE THAT. THERE IS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO HONOR THAT, 
          NO.  THERE IS NOT. >> WE'RE RELYING ON AN ORIGINAL RESOLUTION THAT SAID WE'RE 
          GOING TO PAY IT AND NOW FPRA HAS CHANGED THEIR MIND. >> AT THE TAIL END, ONCE IT GOT TO THE POINT THAT ALL OF THE DEBTS WERE PAID BACK, THERE WAS MONEY THAT COULD COME BACK TO US TO GO TO THE RATE PAYERS AND REIMBURSE US FOR 3.3 MILLION TO $8 MILLION SPENT WITH RATE PAYER MONEY, I SUPPOSE, MOSTLY, THEY SAID NO.  WE'RE GOING TO KEEP IT. 
          >> ANOTHER QUESTION, MAYBE MADAM MAYOR CAN ANSWER THIS. THE FPRA, HOW MUCH MONEY DID 
          THEY CONTRIBUTE TO THE CLEAN-UP? >> NONE. 
          >> THEY DID CONTRIBUTE SOME, BUT IT'S BEEN, THE ACCOUNTING HAS BEEN MADE BUT I DON'T KNOW 
          THAT. BUT I CAN GET THAT FIGURE. >> DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THE 
          CITY CONTRIBUTED TO THE CLEAN-UP OR DID THEY? >> NOT NECESSARILY. 
          >> WE'RE THE SAME, IT'S THE SAME BOARD, THE SAME PEOPLE. BUT YOU HAVE DIFFERENT, I THINK THAT IS ALL -- FINANCES GOT ALL THOSE FIGURES. IT'S NOTHING COMPARED TO WHAT 
          THE FPUA >> MINOR ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH MANAGING, THOSE 
          WERE THE COSTS. >> MOSTLY STAFFING I THINK. WE HANDLED THE LOANS. 
          DIDN'T WE HANDLE THE LOANS? >> WE PUT THE COLLATERAL UP FOR THE LOANS. 
          >> I KNOW, BUT WE HANDLED IT ADMINISTRATIVELY. >> I THINK IF YOU PUT ALL OF THAT TOGETHER, IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN $100,000. 
          >> WAS THE CITY REIMBURSED FOR ITS COSTS? >> I THINK IT WAS. 
          BUT DON'T HOLD ME TO THAT. I BELIEVE WE REIMBURSED THEM FOR THAT BUT I'M NOT SURE. 
          I KNOW WE REIMBURSED THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR SOME FIGURE MAYBE FOR HIS TIME. 
          BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT COVERED EVERYTHING OR NOT. >> SO IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME WE PUT UP THE COLLATERAL AND THE FINANCIAL BALANCE SHEET, SO THAT THE CITY OR THE FPRA COULD GET THE LOANS. THEY GOT THE LOANS. YOU SOLD THE CERTIFICATES. 
          PAID OFF THE LOANS, CORRECT? >> REIMBURSED YOURSELF FOR YOUR COSTS. 
          >> AS FAR AS I KNOW, YEAH. >> OKAY. AND YET, ALL RIGHT, I KIND OF SEE -- NOW I'M GETTING KIND OF THE PICTURE. I THINK I SEE WHERE THE BEGINNING WHERE I WATCHED THE MEETING BACK IN 2015, I SAW THE RESOLUTION THAT EXPRESSED THE SENTIMENTS, I BELIEVE YOU AGREED WITH IT. NOW WE HAVE A NEW BOARD ESSENTIALLY, WHO DEFINITELY DOESN'T SEE EYE TO EYE, THEY THINK WE'RE ALL ONE ENTITY AND THERE SHOULD BE THE MONEY. PERSONALLY, I GUESS THE CLEAN-UP WAS AGREED TO MANY YEARS AGO. WE HAVE THIS GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY OF FORT PIERCE TO ADVANCE ITSELF AGAIN. THERE IS A NEED FOR MONEY TO GET THAT ACCOMPLISHED. 
          [01:35:03]
I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE MONEY BEING USED TO FURTHER THE CLEAN-UP. 
          BUT I AM OPPOSED TO THE FPRA WHO ALREADY REIMBURSED ITSELF ITS COSTS TO KEEP THE REST OF THE MONEY TO DO AS IT WELL. I THINK THE MONEY NEEDS TO COME BACK TO THE FPUA. 
          I'M SURE WE COULD FIND SOME WAY TO MAYBE USE THAT MONEY IN THE FUTURE. 
          RIGHT NOW WITH THE PANDEMIC, PEOPLE ARE ALMOST ON THE CUTOFF LIST TO USE THAT MONEY FOR DEVELOPMENT WHEN IT MAY BE ABLE TO USE OVER HERE TO HELP DEFRAY COSTS I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT THIS BOARD NEEDS TO THINK ABOUT GETTING THE MONEY BACK TO HERE. 
          IT'S BEEN TEN MONTHS. IS THERE ANOTHER METHOD THAT WE CAN USE TO GET EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM TO GET IT DONE? MAYBE. BUT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, THERE IS GOING TO NEED TO BE A FORMAL PROCESS. BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THE NEW DYNAMIC OF THE NEW BOARD ISN'T MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. OR AT LEAST DOESN'T WANT TO 
          MOVE IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. >> I WANT TO CLARIFY. MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME. 
          THE CLEAN-UP, WE COULDN'T DO THE CLEAN-UP LEGALLY. SOMEBODY ELSE HAD TO DO IT. 
          >> THE CITY WAS CONSIDERED A WRONG-DOER. >> THAT IS WHY WE SWITCHED IT 
          TO THE FPRA. THAT IS WHAT WE DID. >> YEAH. 
          RIGHT. THE ACTION WAS TO SPEND 170,000 AND RESTRICT THE OTHER. 
          >> I MEAN, AGAIN, WHERE DOES THE FPRA GET THE ENTITLEMENT TO RESTRICT IT. 
          IT SOUNDS LIKE TO ME THE INTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED IF YOU HAVE A SURPLUS IN THE TAX CERTIFICATES. AT THE SAME TIME, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE FPRA DID NOT CONTRIBUTE AS MUCH AS THE FPUA DID. I THINK THAT IS WHERE THERE IS INEQUITY HERE, IN THAT THE BALANCES NEED TO BE REALLOCATED. 
          WE'LL FIND A METHOD TO GET THIS ACCOMPLISHED. BUT IT DOES SOUND LIKE A FORMAL PROCESS OUTLINED BY STATUTE. SEEMS TO BE PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO GO. 
          IF WE CAN'T ENCOURAGE A RESOLUTION SOONER WITHOUT HAVING TO DO IT. 
          >> MADAM CHAIR. >> YES, SIR. >> YEAH. 
          I WAS -- I HAPPENED TO BE ON THE BOARD AT THAT TIME. AND I REMEMBER EVERYTHING. 
          SOMETIMES I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT I ATE FOR BREAKFAST. BUT I REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT MEETING. AND BECAUSE I'M OLD AND SINCE I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT I HAD FOR BREAKFAST OCCASIONALLY, I WENT BACK AND I WATCHED THE MEETING THAT TOOK PLACE DURING THAT TIME, WHEN MR. BECK SUGGESTED THAT THE MONEY COME BACK TO US, THERE WAS LIKE AN INFORMAL AGREEMENT THAT THE MONEY WOULD COME BACK TO US. BUT WHAT I ALSO DID, I WATCHED THE FPRA MEETING, WHEN THEY FIRST STARTED TALKING ABOUT USING THIS MONEY FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STOOD OUT TO ME, IT WAS LIKE THE BULLY THING, IT'S LIKE YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS MONEY AND DO WHAT WE WANT WITH IT. AND INSTEAD OF DOING THE RIGHT THING. 
          AND YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH THE FPUA AND THE CITY HAVE THIS UNIQUE RELATIONSHIP, WE ARE STILL TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES. AND TO ME, THAT IS A WEAK ARGUMENT TO SAY OH, WELL, WE THINK THAT WE'RE ONE ENTITY SO THEREFORE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE YOUR MONEY AND DO WHAT WE WANT WITH IT. I THINK IT'S WRONG. I'VE TALKED TO JOHN NUMEROUS TIMES ABOUT THIS. I THINK THE FACT THAT JOHN IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE TAKE LEGAL ACTION ON THIS MEANS THAT THE CHANCE OF US NEGOTIATING WITH THOSE GUYS IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. I THINK YOU KNOW, WHAT REALLY SADDENS ME, I'VE BEEN ON THIS BOARD FOR ALMOST EIGHT YEARS AN ANDIVE I HAVE CONSTANTLY HAVE TO HEAR THE CITY FPRA SAY FPUA THEY'RE BAD GUYS, WE DON'T PLAY WELL IN THE SAND BOX. 
          YOU KNOW, WE HAVE JUST TONS OF MONEY JUST SITTING AROUND THAT WE DO WHATEVER WE WANT TO WITH. 
          AND THAT SORT OF THING. AND THEN WHEN I THINK ABOUT HOW WE HAVE TRIED TO HELP THE CITY, WE TRIED TO HELP REBUILD THE CITY, WE'VE DONE ALL OF THESE THINGS AND THEN THEY SAY FORGET 
          [01:40:01]
Y'ALL, WE'RE JUST GOING TO TAKE YOUR MONEY AND DO WHAT WE WANT. THAT IS WRONG. 
          I WILL NOT SUPPORT THAT. AND I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION. 
          BECAUSE I DON'T TRUST THAT THEY'RE GOING TO CHANGE THEIR MIND ALL OF A SUDDEN AND SAY WELL, WE'LL JUST GIVE YOU YOUR MONEY BACK. I SUPPORT JOHN'S RECOMMENDATION THAT WE TAKE THIS ACTION. AGAIN, THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION. I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT. 
          AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HOLD THEIR HAND TO THE FIRE BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THEM 
          CHANGING. I JUST DON'T SEE IT HAPPENING. >> IS THAT A MOTION? 
          >> YES. >> FOR DISCUSSION. I SECOND. 
          >> OKAY. >> WE'RE OPEN FOR DISCUSSION AGAIN. 
          >> THIS HAS TO BE BY RESOLUTION. >> OKAY. 
          >> FIRST CHOICE. >> OKAY. >> I'M TRYING TO PUT IT IN COMMON SENSE. FIRST OF ALL, IF FAIRNESS WOULD START EXISTING, WE WOULD HAVE HAD TWO THINGS, FIRST ONE WE WOULD HAVE HAD ALL OF THE PLAYERS WHO SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVOLVED BEFORE THAT HIT TO BE AN AGENDA ITEM, WE SHOULD HAVE HAD THE DIRECTOR, ENGINEER OR THE CONSULTANTS AND THE ATTORNEY. THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. 
          THE SECOND SITUATION THAT STUNG ME AND PUT THE MONEY $270,000 IN RESTRICTION, I MEAN, FROM A STANDPOINT OF BUDDY ON THE STREET, IF YOU BORROWED $50 FROM ME, AND YOU DON'T HAVE BUT 25, GIVE ME MY 25, BUT IN THIS CASE THEY TOOK THE WHOLE 400 SOME THOUSAND AND THEN RESTRICTED 270,000. SO THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. THE THIRD CONCERN I GAVE A SUGGESTION WHEN I WENT TO THE MICROPHONE, AS A CITIZEN, FOR THE TWO HEADS OF ADMINISTRATION, THE DIRECTOR AND THE CITY MANAGER AND THE TWO ATTORNEYS, UA ATTORNEY AND CITY ATTORNEY, TO HAVE A MEETING. THIS IS BASICALLY WHAT THE MAN IS TALKING ABOUT NOW. BACK THEN, BEFORE IT WAS EVER ANYTHING TO THIS LEVEL, I AS A CITIZEN JUST MADE THAT SUGGESTION. IT LOOKED LIKE WE WILL START BEING FAIR. FROM IT'S THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE OR CITY ATTORNEY OR WHATEVER. I'M SHOCKED AND APPALLED THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY WASN'T BROUGHT INTO THIS SITUATION BEFORE IT GOT TO BE A VOTE BY THE FPRA BOARD. 
          SO I'M PREPARED TO VOTE. >> FOR DISCUSSION. >> YES. 
          >> YOU KNOW, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT GUYS, IT'S A REASON THE FOUNDING FATHERS SAID WE NEED TO HAVE AN FPUA OVER HERE AND A CITY OVER HERE. BECAUSE IF THE CITY AND THE FPUA WOULD HAVE BEEN ONE AND THE SAME, WE WOULD BE IN BIG TROUBLE. 
          WE NEED TO HOLD THE FPRA, WE NEED TO HOLD THEM TO THE FIRE. I'M DONE. 
          >> REMEMBER THE UA USED TO BE RUN BY THE CITY AND THEY DECIDED THEY DIDN'T WANT TO. 
          THAT IS WHY WE WERE SPED OFF. >> SO I NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE MOTION IS. 
          >> WELL, I GUESS THERE IS, COBY IS SAYING IT'S GOT TO BE A RESOLUTION. 
          >> IF YOU'RE ADOPTING 164, IT'S GOT TO BE BY A RESOLUTION. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THAT A GROUP GET TOGETHER AND DISCUSS IT, THAT IS OUTSIDE OF 164. 
          >> OKAY. SO YES, DARRYL. >> SO IF THE RESOLUTION IS WHAT JOHN IS SUGGESTING, THEN I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT JOHN'S RECOMMENDATION ON HOW WE'RE 
          GOING TO HANDLE THIS. >> SECTION 164 AND CONFLICT DISPUTE RESOLUTION. 
          >> YES. >> SECOND. >> YOU'RE SECONDING IT. 
          >> OKAY. >> MADAM CHAIR, THE NEXT MEETING THE RESOLUTION WOULD 
          COME TO THE BOARD? >> THE RESOLUTION WOULD COME AT THE NEXT MEETING. 
          >> RIGHT. RIGHT. >> SO CAN I HAVE THE FLOOR FOR 
          A SECOND? >> YES. >> SO I THINK I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I THINK THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS STEP THAT WILL BE SEEN AS A VERY SERIOUS STEP. I UNDERSTAND HOW YOU FEEL, DARRYL. 
          AND I JUST WANT TO -- I'M THE ONE WHO INSISTED THAT JOHN PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA TODAY BECAUSE THIS HAS BEEN GOING ALONG AND HE HAS BEEN WRITING TO THE FPRA BOARD AND SAYING OUR POSITION IS THIS. I WAS CONCERNED THAT THIS BOARD WAS NOT FULLY INFORMED AND 
          [01:45:01]
HADN'T HAD THIS KIND OF DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE HAVING RIGHT NOW. 
          AND I WANTED TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION. AND I WANTED EVERYBODY ON THIS BOARD TO KNOW THAT, WHAT HAS TAKEN PLACE AND YOU KNOW, YOU'VE KIND OF HEARD ONE SIDE. 
          THERE IS ALWAYS ANOTHER SIDE. AND THERE IS GOING TO BE ANOTHER SIDE WHEN THERE IS ANOTHER MEETING. THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS. AND SO THE CITY IS GOING TO TAKE THIS AS A VERY SERIOUS STEP. THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE IT AS A LEGAL CHALLENGE. AND I AM JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE THAT WE ALL RECOGNIZE 
          WHAT WE'RE DOING IF WE START THIS. >> ALL RIGHT. 
          >> DISCUSSION. >> OKAY. >> GO AHEAD. 
          >> MADAM CHAIR, I GOT ONE THAT WILL PROBABLY SATISFY THE MAYOR. 
          THE MAYOR, THE CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY, THOSE THREE, UA DIRECTOR, AND THE UA ATTORNEY CAN GET TOGETHER BEFORE THIS RESOLUTION COMES BACK TO US AND WE MIGHT NOT NEED TO GO ANY 
          FURTHER. >> GOOD POINT. VERY GOOD POINT. 
          >> PART OF THE PROCESS. I THINK WE, I THINK IT'S IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO START THE PROCESS. AND RECOGNIZE, I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT, THAT THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATION UNDER CHAPTER 164 FOR THE CONFLICTS THEY WANT TO GET THE CONFLICTS RESOLVED TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE WITHOUT LITIGATION. THE IDEA HERE IS LET GET THE PROCESS GOING, THEN WE CAN GET THE PLAYERS TOGETHER AND THEY'LL HAVE A LITTLE MORE SENSE OF URGENCY BECAUSE THEY'LL KNOW WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT IT. 
          IF WE HAVE ANOTHER MEETING, WE'RE NOT SERIOUS ABOUT IT. >> RIGHT. 
          >> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THE COVID-19 AND HOW THIS MAY NOT LOOK GOOD. 
          BUT WEIGH THAT AGAINST WHAT THE FPRA DID LAST WEEK. THEY GAVE A DEVELOPER $170,000 
          >> JOHN, I THINK YOU OUGHT NOT TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD. THAT CAN COME OUT LATER ON. 
          THAT CAN COME OUT LATER ON. BUT I THINK YOU'RE WAY TOO PERSONALLY INVOLVED IN THIS. 
          AND YOU HAVE A PERSONAL AND STRONG OPINION. I DON'T THINK THE FPRA LOOKS AT 
          IT THAT WAY. I WOULD NOT GO DOWN THAT ROAD. >> MR. FEE HAS COMMENTS. 
          >> I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS. YOU MENTIONED THERE IS TWO SIDES OF THE STORY. WHAT IS THE FPRA'S GENUINE SIDE OF THE STORY HERE? WHY THE SUDDEN CHANGE OF ATTITUDE TOWARDS RELEASING THE FUNDS? 
          >> I THINK IT'S BECAUSE THE FUNDS ARE THERE. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING, IF YOU WANT MY HONEST OPINION, I AM NOT SURE THAT ANYBODY EVER THOUGHT THERE WAS GOING TO BE 
          LEFTOVER FUNDS. >> SO NOW >> THIS IS JUST MY SPECULATION. 
          I DON'T KNOW THIS FOR A FACT. >> WE KNEW THERE WAS GOING TO BE MONEY. 
          >> ALL RIGHT. MY NEXT QUESTION, AND THIS IS KIND OF MORE TOWARDS FOR MR. COBBLEGUARD, NATURALLY WE WERE CREATED BY CHARTER, FPUA IS. AND WE CAN SUE AND BE SUED. 
          I'M NOT SURE WHETHER WE HAVE STANDING TO SUE ANOTHER ENTITY ESSENTIALLY WITHIN THE SAME UMBRELLA IN A WAY. AND THAT HAS ME SCRATCHING MY HEAD BECAUSE THEN THE CITY OR THE FPRA COULD SAY YEAH, YOU CAN START THE CONFLICT RESOLUTION, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING BECAUSE THERE IS NO REMEDY IN THE COURTS WHATSOEVER. 
          >> I AGREE WITH YOU AND I'VE ALWAYS SAID, NOT COUNTING THIS, JUST ANY ISSUE, THE LAST THING WE WANT TO DO IS HAVE A LAWSUIT INVOLVING THE CITY AND THE UTILITY AUTHORITY. 
          BECAUSE THINK OF HOW BAD THAT WOULD LOOK. HERE WE ARE SPENDING BOTH ENTITIES'S MONEY TO FIGHT ABOUT SOMETHING IN COURT. AND IT'S JUST I DON'T THINK IS THE RIGHT WAY TO DO BUSINESS. JUST MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION. YOU CAN GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AND TRY TO RESOLVE IT. BUT I DON'T THINK YOU TAKE THE NEXT STEP OF GOING TO COURT. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ACTUALLY LEGALLY WE COULD DO THAT. 
          BECAUSE WE'RE PART OF THE CITY IN ONE WAY, BUT I DON'T THINK IT GOES, WE'RE SEPARATE FROM THE CITY IN ONE WAY, BUT I DON'T THINK WE'RE SEPARATE IN THE RESPECT TO WE CAN SUE THE 
          CITY OF FORT PIERCE. >> OKAY. MY NEXT QUESTION, THE RESOLUTION THAT WAS PASSED WHEN THEY AGREED TO TURN OVER THE FUNDS BACK IN 2015, HOW MANY MORE ADVANCES DID THE UA MAKE AFTER THAT POINT TOWARDS CLEAN-UP? 
          >> I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE TO GO BACK TO LOOK AND GET THE EXACT NUMBER. 
          REMEMBER AFTER THAT THERE WERE ESSENTIALLY FOUR RESOLUTIONS WHICH TOOK CARE OF THE TAX 
          [01:50:04]
          CREDITS. >> NATURALLY THE UA LOOKED AT IT AND SAID THAT IS INCENTIVE 
          FOR US TO CONTINUE >> NOT ONLY THAT, THE LAST ONE OF THOSE RESOLUTIONS ACTUALLY FINISHED PAYING OFF THE LOANS AND THE FPRA DID RETURN A PORTION OF THAT MONEY TO US. 
          SO THEY RECOGNIZED THAT THAT WAS AN OBLIGATION. >> WELL, NOW THE STORY STARTS TO CHANGE A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE IT'S ONE THING TO SAY THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO TURN OVER FUNDS, BUT ONCE THEY PASS A RESOLUTION AND PERFORM, THAT TO ME IS YOU 
          KNOW, THEY'RESTOPPED FROM SAYING. >> FINE DIFFERENCE. 
          THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS THERE WASN'T A RESOLUTION PASSED FOR THE LAST TAX CERTIFICATE. 
          THE OTHER ONES IT WAS ALL PASSED AND THE LAST RESOLUTION DID HAVE LEFTOVER. 
          THIS TAX CERTIFICATE THERE WAS NO OBLIGATION OF THE LOANS. IT WAS ALREADY GONE. 
          SO THEY DIDN'T PASS THAT RESOLUTION TO RETURN THE MONEY TO US. 
          CERTAINLY AT THE VERY WORST, THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WAS DECIDED IN 2015. 
          AT THE VERY WORST. >> MADAM >> DARRYL IS WAITING. 
          >> I WANT TO MAKE ONE THING CLEAR, I THINK IT WOULD BE EMBARRASSING TO HAVE US FIGHTING AGAINST THE CITY. YOU KNOW, WITH THE LAWSUIT. IF WE COULD. 
          I MEAN, IF I THOUGHT THAT WE COULD NEGOTIATE THIS THING AND WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO THERE, I WOULD BE 100 PERCENT FOR THAT. I DON'T WANT IT TO COME OFF LIKE I'M READY TO FIGHT. 
          BEFORE I'M READY TO FIGHT, I'M READY TO TRY TO NEGOTIATE. BUT I JUST DON'T THINK THAT, I THINK OF ALL THE TIME OF ALL OF THE ATTEMPTS THAT WE'VE MADE AT TRYING TO REASON WITH THE FPRA, THEY HAVEN'T DONE IT. WHICH IS SHOWING ME THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY INTENTIONS OF 
          DOING IT. >> LET ME SAY ONE THING, IT MAY VERY WELL BE THAT DURING THESE DISCUSSIONS SOME ISSUES WILL COME UP RELATING TO THE KING PLANT THAT MIGHT MAKE THE CITY WAY MORE AMENABLE TO LEAVE THE FUNDS. THAT IS FOR LATER DISCUSSION. 
          >> I'M READY FOR A VOTE. >> I DO THINK THE MAYOR HAD SOME COMMENT. 
          >> WHAT MY MEMORY IS THAT EACH TIME -- THERE WAS A SEPARATE RESOLUTION AND THEY SAID IF THERE IS ANY MONEY LEFT OVER AND IT APPLIED TO THAT PARTICULAR APPLICATION. 
          SO THERE WAS NEVER A GLOBAL ONE. THERE WAS NEVER A GLOBAL ONE FOLLOWING. BUT ALL OF THIS CAN COME OUT IN THE DISCUSSION LATER ON. 
          >> JUST SOUNDED LIKE TO ME A PATTERN OF COURSE OF DEALINGS. THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN CHANGED. 
          THAT HAS WHAT HAS GOT ME KIND OF HEMMING AND HAWING A LITTLE BIT. 
          >> EXCUSE ME. MADAM, THERE WERE PROJECTIONS THAT AT THE END OF THIS THING WHEN ALL WAS SAID AND DONE THAT THERE WOULD BE MONEY LEFT OVER. I CLEARLY REMEMBER THAT. 
          >> DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? >> NOW, HERE IS SOMETHING THAT I DON'T REMEMBER, I DON'T REMEMBER THE DOLLAR AMOUNT. BUT THERE WAS PROJECTIONS THAT THERE WOULD BE MONEY. 
          BECAUSE I THINK MY QUESTION TO, I THINK IT WAS THE DIRECTOR AT THE TIME WAS WELL, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS -- THAT WE'LL MAKE SOME MONEY ON THIS DEAL IN TERMS THAT THERE WILL BE MONEY 
          LEFT OVER AND HE SAID YES, BECAUSE OF THE PROJECTIONS. >> I DON'T REMEMBER IT. 
          >> BARBARA, CAN YOU ANSWER ANY OF THAT? >> NOT TO SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNTS. BUT I KNOW THAT WE WERE TRACKING THE LOAN 
          >> CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MIC. >> WE WERE TRACKING ALL OF THE PAYMENTS TO THE FPRA THAT THEY IN TURN BILLED US, AND THE TAX CREDITS ARE BEING APPLIED FOR. YES, WE DID ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WOULD BE MONEY LEFT OVER. WE HAVE SCHEDULES SOMEWHERE THAT WE WERE TRACKING ON FOR 
          SURE. >> COULD YOU GET US THAT SCHEDULE PERHAPS? 
          >> WE PROBABLY STILL HAVE IT. >> I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US, EVEN THOUGH WE MAY VOTE ON THIS TODAY, WE MAY RECONSIDER BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. 
          >> WELL, IT'S NICE TO HAVE ALL OF THE FACTS. AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE SOME FACTS AND SOME CONJECTURE AND SOME MEMORIES BUT WE DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE FACTS. 
          >> BUT AN ACCOUNTING SCHEDULE IS ALWAYS THE BEST TO SHOW US HOW MUCH WE PAID, HOW MUCH 
          [01:55:03]
          WE'VE BEEN REIMBURSED AND WHAT IS LEFT. >> DEFINITELY CHARGED IT TO 
          SCHEDULES. >> MADAM CHAIR, I'M PREPARED TO VOTE. 
          ALSO COMMON SUGGESTIONS, ONE FINANCE BRING US ANY PAPERWORK OR ANY FACTS THAT THEY GOT IN FIGURES, NUMBER TWO, THE MAYOR AND THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY ATTORNEY, ALONG WITH THE UA ATTORNEY, ALONG WITH THE CITY UA ATTORNEY WORK ON A SCHEDULE TO MEET SOMEWHERE BEFORE ALL OF THIS COME IN. BUT I THINK THE RESOLUTION OUGHT TO CONTINUE. 
          >> JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, TODAY WE'RE GOING TO VOTE TO START THE PROCESS. 
          AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A RESOLUTION AT ANOTHER MEETING AND WE'LL VOTE TO APPROVE THAT 
          RESOLUTION. CORRECT? >> SO IF THERE IS ANY NEW INFORMATION, ESPECIALLY DEALING WITH SCHEDULES, IT WOULD DEFINITELY BE APPRECIATED IF WE 
          CAN GET THAT CIRCULATED. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE THE VOTE TODAY IS TO START THE PROCESS. 
          >> IT'S TO START THE PROCESS, BUT WE HAVE TO PASS A RESOLUTION ON ANOTHER DATE. 
          >> DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE THE RESOLUTION. >> AND THEN WE HAVE TO PASS THE RESOLUTION CORRECT? AND THAT WILL PUT US IN THE SYSTEM, AS YOU SAY. 
          >> AND WE MAY, AFTER GETTING ALL OF THE FACTS AND FIGURES BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING, WE MAY DECIDE WE DON'T WANT THE RESOLUTION AT ALL. OKAY. 
          >> MAYBE THAT WILL GIVE SOME TIME FOR STAFF TO GET TOGETHER WITH CITY AND SOMETHING CAN GET 
          WORKED OUT. >> RIGHT. >> OKAY. 
          SO WE ARE NOW READY TO VOTE. DO YOU KNOW THE MOTION? >> BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER. 
          >> OKAY. YOU CAN CALL THE ROLL. >> MR. FEE. 
          >> YES, MA'AM. >> MR. MATTHEWS >> YES, MA'AM. 
          >> MAYOR HUDSON. >> NO, MA'AM. >> MS. CAVACANTE. 
          YES, MA'AM. >> ALL RIGHT. I'VE LOST MY AGENDA IN ALL OF THIS. I BELIEVE WE'VE GOT TO MR. TOMPECK'S COMMENTS. 
          [J. DIRECTOR]
          BUT I CAN'T FIND MY RESOLUTION. I MEAN, MY AGENDA. >> JUST A COUPLE. 
          THE CITY COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE 2021 BUDGET AND I WANTED TO THANK BARBARA MICAH FOR HER VERY EFFECTIVE PRESENTATION AT THE CITY COMMISSION MEETING. 
          ON JULY 22ND AND 23RD BO HUTCHINSON AND I LEFT WITH THE CITY INDIVIDUALLY, YOU'LL RECALL THAT THE BOARD HEARD THAT PRESENTATION A FEW WEEKS BEFORE THAT. 
          THAT WAS IN PREPARATION FOR THE JOINT FPUA CITY COMMISSION, COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING SCHEDULED FOR AUGUST 13TH. THAT MEETING HAS BEEN POSTPONED. 
          THE DISCUSSION WAS THAT THE MEETING IS REALLY MORE LIKE A MINI STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION THAT WE THINK IS BEST SUITED AS AN IN-PERSON MEETING. IT WOULD BE RESCHEDULED WHEN WE CAN FIND A FACILITY LARGE ENOUGH AND WILLING TO TAKE US TO HOLD THE MEETING, MEETING OUR COVID-19 PROTOCOLS. LAST ITEM IS DUE TO RECENT DECLINE IN THE INTEREST RATES IN RESPONSE TO COVID-19, INTEREST RATES ARE NEAR HISTORICAL LOWS. 
          FPUA HAS A REFUNDING OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR SERIES 2009 BONDS. 
          WITH THE NET PRESENT VALUE SAVINGS OF APPROXIMATELY $5 MILLION IN ANNUAL SAVINGS IN THE BALLPARK OF $670,000. WE'LL BE BACK TO THE BOARD WITH MORE INFORMATION SHORTLY. 
          I THINK THE REFUNDING OPPORTUNITY IS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD. 
          THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE, I'M STRUGGLING WITH A LITTLE BIT IS THIS MIGHT BE THE TIME TO FACTOR IN SOME OF THE CUSTOMER EXPANSION AND THE AMI PROJECTS AT THE SAME TIME. 
          BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT EVENTUALLY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FINANCE THEM. 
          SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND SEE HOW WE CAN FIT THAT INTO THIS REFINANCING. 
          >> AND THAT IS ALL I HAVE. >> ALL RIGHT. MR. COBBLEGUARD DO YOU HAVE ANY 
          FURTHER COMMENTS? >> NOT AT THIS TIME, MADAM CHAIRMAN 
          >> COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD, ANYONE? >> YES. 
          [L. COMMENTS FROM BOARD MEMBERS]
          >> I'VE BEEN NOTICING A PATTERN THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS THAT WE'VE BEEN GETTING A GOOD AMOUNT OF COMMENDATION LETTERS FROM OUR CUSTOMERS. AND I'M REALLY HAPPY TO SEE THAT. SO I WANT TO THANK ALL OF OUR EMPLOYEES AND STAFF FOR DOING A GOOD JOB. AND TRYING TO YOU KNOW, PUT OUR BEST FOOT FORWARD. 
          I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. THAT IS ALL I HAVE. 
          >> YES. >> MADAM CHAIR, MR. BAY MUST HAVE READ MY SIDE NOTE. 
          [02:00:06]
I'M THINKING FURTHER WITH THAT. I THINK WHEN THE COMMENDATION LETTERS COME IN FOR THE STAFF, MAYBE THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO COME FORWARD AND LET US SEE WHO THEY 
          ARE. >> GOOD IDEA. >> STARTING IN JANUARY. 
          AT LEAST GIVE THEM A CHANCE TO COME AND MINGLE WITH THE BOARD FOR A MINUTE AND LEAVE AND GO 
          BACK IF THEY HAVE TO. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          I HAVE ONE COMMENT. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE PEOPLE FROM THE WATER DEPARTMENT. THERE WAS A WATER MAIN BREAK ON SATURDAY, JUST AS THE HURRICANE WAS COMING. AND IT LASTED THROUGH SUNDAY. AND THEY WERE OUT THERE OVER ON BENNY DRIVE AND GRENADA AND FERNANDINA WORKING LIKE CRAZY SO WE WOULD HAVE WATER ON THE ISLAND, RIGHT AT THAT POINT IT WAS EXPECTED TO BE A HURRICANE THAT CAME TOWARDS US, I THOUGHT 
          THAT WAS ABOVE AND BEYOND AND I THANK YOU. >> WITH THAT, IF NO ONE ELSE HAS FURTHER COMMENTS, WE ARE GOING TO
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.