The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held Monday, December 18, 2000 at 4:00 P.M. in the District Office, 10300 N. W. 11 Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.

            Present and constituting a quorum were:


            Robert Fennell                                      President

            Clint Churchill                                      Secretary

            Karl Miller                                              Vice President


            Also present were:


            Gary L. Moyer                                       Manager

            Rhonda K. Archer                                 Finance Director

            John McKune                                        Gee & Jenson

            Roger Moore                                           Engineer



FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS             Roll Call

            Mr. Fennell called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and Mr. Moyer called the roll.


SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS         Approval of the Minutes of the November 20, 2000 Meeting

            Mr. Fennell stated that each Board member had received a copy of the minutes of the November 20, 2000 meeting and requested any additions, corrections or deletions,

            There not being any,


On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Churchill with all in favor the minutes of the November 20, 2000 meeting were approved as submitted.


THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS            Consideration of Engagement Letter from Hoch, Frey & Zugman to Perform the Audit for Fiscal Years 2000 - 2004

            Mr. Moyer stated the engagement letter is included in your agenda package and it outlines what the auditor will do, what management responsibilities are related to the audit, and they also provide a fee which for the general fund is $4,400 and for the water and sewer fund is $11,000.  As it compares with other Districts, the fee is in line.  Hoch Frey is the company that has been doing our audit for a long period of time.  

            Mr. Fennell asked was there some kind of warning letter included with their proposal?

            Mr. Moyer responded the issue that will have to be dealt with by all governments is that you depreciate assets even in government funds, which we don't depreciate currently.  As an example we don't depreciate that pond outside and they are saying, you should and you should depreciate roadways and anything that has a useful life that has to be replaced.  All governments are going to have to wrestle with that.  Most of what we are doing is water and sewer which is an enterprise fund and that is depreciated already.  On our water management system we will have to depreciate the pump stations which we just rehabilitated and we will probably have to put a value on culvert pipes and things like that and depreciate them.  I think all they are saying is that their fee does not include any work to reformat our financial statements but we are going to have to do that within the next couple of years. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I think that is a good idea because it tells us how our assets are depleted.  We have gone over that before when we put together our capital plan but it is another way of saying, assets don't last forever, they wear out.  I don't have a problem with that and I think that is a fair way of stating it.  It sounds like we need a plan of when we are going to do this. 


On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Churchill with all in favor the engagement letter with Hoch, Frey & Zugman was approved.


FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS        Review of Water Treatment Plant Improvements Project - Stephenson Engineering Group

            Mr. Moyer stated the report was included in your agenda package which deals with the water plant, not the wastewater plant.  Based upon the plans and specifications that were bid, they identified several areas that they commented on and they met with Gee & Jenson and Mr. Moore to talk through those issues.  In my review of this material there are some things that need to be changed but in terms of the overall integrity of what was designed, bid and what is currently going to be constructed, there is not a lot of changes to be made to that. 

            Mr. McKune stated I agree.  There were quite a few points they specifically brought up and roughly half is what I would call designer preference, there are many ways of doing the same function.  There is not a right way, just different ways.  An item that represents a differential in cost is item 2 on page 2 that has to do with the type of check valve.  Right now we have simple mechanical check valves.  Mr. Stephenson recommended double cushion electric operating check valves which are much more sophisticated and operate slowly based upon the electrical input.  They are designed to minimize if not prevent water hammer which is a result of rapid change in a pump speed or a power failure that would cause pumps to immediately stop pumping.  There is a reversal of flow and the water slams a check valve shut.  Our mechanical check valve is designed to have a hydraulic operating cylinder on the slam mechanism such that instead of being free to slap shut like a screen door does, it is allowed to shut with the pressure against it.  The slam feature is minimized.  The electric operating valve is something that would be closed with a motor at a preselected rate of closure.  It accomplishes the same thing and eliminates the slam check valve.  In our opinion the electrical closure mechanism adds another system to the piping system.  If it is not operating properly, the check valve does not function as a check valve.  We have used them in the past.  We have no objections to them but I think for this type of operation we are better off with a mechanical system so we don't have to worry about the extra electrical operating system.  We have agreed to sit down with the electrical operating system manufacturer and go over the pros and cons with District staff and weigh that against the additional cost and then proceed from there.  It doesn't slow up the project. 

            Mr. Fennell stated at one time we talked about this and I was amazed that we didn't have a tower of some type and how you keep pressure on that system has always been a question to me.  This is one of the concerns I had because you can have real shocks go through the system.  Can you actually burst pipes and things like that if you didn't handle this right?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.  Most of the time if you have a problem with bursting pipes then you have a piping system that is conducive to a water hammer problem and that is a long straight pipe without branches on it.  In a distribution system such as this one, we have branches every block so any shock, tends to transfer itself through the piping system and is immediately dissipated by the many branches in the system.  Water hammer is a function of the rate of change in velocity.  If you slow a pump down slowly you don't have any water hammer.  If you immediately stop a pump that causes a water hammer.  The check valve stops the water from moving and if it stops it instantaneously we get a big slam.  If we engage the check valve slowly we don't have a slam. 

            Mr. Fennell stated there are two ways to do this so it is a question of which is more reliable and which is better.

            Mr. McKune stated that is correct. 

            Mr. Fennell stated that decision is up to you.  We don't care which way you go but whichever way, it should be the best.

            Mr. McKune stated I would not describe either one as better than the other.  They all require maintenance.  In our opinion as the designer we want to provide staff with something they are best able to operate.

            Mr. Churchill stated do I understand you to say that the mechanical one is more fail-safe.

            Mr. McKune responded that is correct.

            Mr. Churchill stated this will happen whether you have an electrical charge in the system or not, the pressure of the water will close it.  The problem they are pointing out in this report is that it may close it too fast.  It will still close, whereas the electrical valve will not close if we don't have electricity.

            Mr. McKune responded depending upon the type valve selected.

            Mr. Churchill stated that has to be considered but I think that is your decision.

            Mr. McKune responded we will evaluate the two.  That was the major item.  There were some electrical items having to do with code requirements which we all understand and the contractor understands and we will cover these when necessary with the City of Coral Springs. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what is item 8 about?

            Mr. McKune responded item 8 is a recommendation to make arrangements with Tamarac and/or Coral Springs to use interconnections if necessary during an emergency caused by construction activities.  At the present time the water system has two interconnects.  We have one with the City of Coral Springs in the vicinity of the Ramblewood Subdivision.  We have an interconnect with the City of Tamarac at the bridge crossing on Coral Springs Drive.  The interconnect with Tamarac is the larger of the two and it has never been used because it has not been needed.  There are at least verbal agreements with the City of Coral Springs and Tamarac between the operating staffs such that if either system is in trouble, one can call the other and arrange for the line to be opened.  If for some reason we lost our ability to pump water into the system, we now have two interconnects that will allow us to get some emergency relief from these two cities.  It works both ways.  The interconnects are something that the South Florida Water Management District has been promoting for a number of years. 

            Mr. Churchill asked is it money well spent?  It may be money well spent in that they didn't find any big problems.  There is a stamp of approval on what you have done and that is appreciated.  Do you think that stamp of approval is worth the amount of money we paid for it?

            Mr. McKune responded in my opinion it is like paying the cost of an insurance policy.  Do you need it?  I don't know.  Is it good to have?  I would say yes.  In that respect, yes it was worthwhile.

            Mr. Churchill stated I agree.

            Mr. Fennell asked have we ever reaffirmed those interconnects in recent years?

            Ms. Archer responded we have a written agreement with Tamarac and a working relationship with Coral Springs.  We have used the interconnect in the past.  Operators have full authority on both sides to open them in an emergency. 

            Mr. Fennell stated item 14 deals with radio equipment to be spread spectrum.  Specifications call for fixed frequency radios. 

            Mr. McKune responded that was an error in the specification.  It is fixed frequency radios.

            Mr. Fennell asked what are we using radios for?

            Mr. McKune responded this is part of the monitoring and control system that we have for the wells.  The flows of the wells are radioed into the central control unit at the plant.

            Mr. Fennell asked do we have that now or is it going to be added?

            Mr. McKune responded we have that system now but it is not functioning because it is made up of old components that no longer work.  We basically updated that system.

            Mr. Fennell asked do we have our own assigned frequency?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.  During construction the sub-contractor will install that system and gets a license from the FCC based on what is available.  We have one now and we hope that the one we have is adequate to continue to use it. 

            Mr. Fennell stated if you have your own frequency and nobody else is on it, you can use that for a lot of things.  We have talked about control systems for other parts of the system.  That is a valuable asset.  You can have the control system that will monitor not only the wells but the lift stations which we have talked about in the past and other things. 

            Mr. McKune stated the plan is that eventually the central station at the plant will be used for the lift stations and the storm water. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what do we have for emergency communications?  How do we communicate with one another?

            Mr. Moore responded we have two radio systems at this time. One is through the Nextel phone system and the other is through Motorola sub frequency space and mobile units. 

            Ms. Archer stated I distributed a letter to the Board which indicates the County is concerned that we are running out of capacity for wastewater and we are saying, we are also at build-out and that is the way it was planned.  They felt they needed to contact the local governing authorities and advise them that we are out of capacity.  Our concern was that that will send up a red flag that is not necessary with the local governing authorities because it is not necessarily a bad thing that when we are at build-out we are running out of capacity.  We have plenty of capacity for the requirements of build-out.  We have had meetings and correspondence back and forth with the County and we responded to their request and I wanted to copy the Board on it to make sure all of you are aware of what was going on.  I did not want the County to say that management is not keeping this Board advised of where its system is in relation to the build-out of the community.  That was my purpose for copying everybody.

            Mr. Fennell asked are they using a different criteria as to what to build as opposed to what we had?  Is there another criteria?

            Mr. Moyer responded there are certain triggers in which they are required under their operating policy to do certain things such as when it appears you are going to be at capacity they need to tell the local building officials and several other agencies that there is a possibility that there may be a capacity problem.  It doesn't matter that we are not adding any more units or not, the reality is when they get to that trigger they write their letters. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we already decided to expand beyond our capability.  What was their response to that?

            Ms. Archer responded they thought that was all well and good but that doesn't stop them from writing their letters.  Mr. McKune has a schedule of our time table.

            Mr. McKune stated Phase 1B calls for certain piping modifications to be constructed by July 9, 2001.  Phase 1B piping is modified additional piping going to Plants A & B and modification of Plants C & D influent piping.  Basically for the four existing plants is all new piping up out of the ground and into each of the plants incorporating new flow meters and new isolation valves at each plant.  These are items that for the four existing plants no longer function as well as they should.  We have always known that we needed to have better control and better meter monitoring of the flow into each of those four existing plants and that work was to be part of the overall project to put Plant E on line.  To do this piping as part of this overall project will take quite some time.  To isolate just the piping would be Phase 1B which can be done by July 9.  If you think about when it rains, July 9 is usually into the rainy season.  The rainy season usually starts in May.  I would like to be able to get the Phase 1B piping complete and operating with a little spare time left prior to the start of the rainy season.  The bid and award of contract process is approximately a two month period.  The way to shorten that time frame is by not going to bid but turn this work into a change order to an existing contract on site.  We still have the open contract for the surge tank and that is the same contractor who is now starting on the water plant modifications.  He is moving his trailer in next week and we already have one pump for the water plant project.  The amount of the piping is about $100,000 and I am asking if we can do this by change order.

            Mr. Churchill asked is the $100,000 part of Plant E?  This is not an additional $100,000, it is just moved forward.

            Mr. McKune stated it is just moved forward. 

            Mr. Moyer stated under State law if it is under $200,000 you need 21 days to advertise and if it is $500,000 you need 30 days.  We are under the 21 days which puts us into bidding what is a reasonable time for contractors to respond.  If the Board isn't comfortable doing a change order, are we to a point where we can put it out for bid now?

            Mr. McKune responded we don't have the plans and specs separated for this small project because it was originally done as part of the overall plans for Plant E.  In order to meet this schedule we have given ourselves up until the day after Christmas to start the bid process.  We are a week away.

            Mr. Churchill asked is this necessary for any reason other than to comply with what was set forth in the letter?  Do we really need this?

            Mr. McKune responded yes, the reason is one of hydraulic necessity.  Fortunately, we are in the dry season and we have no problem with overflows at the headworks structure.  As you will recall during the rainy season we had some times when if we were not fast enough in opening the by-pass to allow the flow to go around the headworks structure, the headworks structure filled up and overflowed.  These modifications will totally address that issue but until the headworks is modified to account for that we will still in the rainy season run the risk of overflowing the headworks unless we can distribute the flow to all four plants equally in some other manner.  At the present time when we take the headworks off line and put flow through our by-pass piping, the way the existing piping is configured, Plants A and B receive a constant flow rate, they do not receive their proportionate share of any peak flows that come in as a result of a heavy rain and all of the excess flow goes to Plants C and D.  Plants C and D fortunately, have been able to take the excess flow but they are at the edge.  I would like to take some of that peak excess flow rate during heavy rains and send it to Plants A and B also.  As you know, A and B were recently rehabilitated, they have new air systems and they do a good job treating wastewater.  By doing this piping modification we will be able to use the by-pass system and get peak flow proportionately to all four plants.  That is a definite benefit. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what is the surge tank doing through all of this?

            Mr. McKune responded it is dampening the effect of the peak on the entire system.  If we didn't have this the peaks would be even higher than they are. 

            Mr. Moyer stated I think you also need to put it into perspective.  We are not talking about the type of rain where we get an inch of rain or inch and a half.  We are talking about the rare occasions when we get eight inches of rain and we get hit with infiltration or massive amounts of run-off from commercial areas that end up in our sewer system because of the way they have to do dumpsters or manholes that are under water because the drainage system is backed up.  There is a variety of things that contribute to the overflow problem that Mr. McKune has mentioned but I want it on the record and I want you to be comfortable that this isn't something that happens when we get a little afternoon shower in the middle of June. 

            Mr. McKune responded that is correct.

            Mr. Fennell asked does the flow go from the headworks to the surge tank or from the surge tank to the headworks?

            Mr. McKune responded all the wastewater comes into the headworks and when it exceeds an elevation in the headworks it automatically flows through a gate into the surge tank.  The excess flows automatically go to the surge tank. 

            Mr. Miller asked is this part of the project that we previously authorized?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.

            Mr. Miller asked was there always a need for the additional piping?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.  Mr. Lee is aware of this hydraulic issue and they were glad to hear we were going to do this piping to address it until the plant is completed.  They are aware of the need and the benefit of this project.  I would like to get it done before the rainy season because they are going to come out here in the first heavy rain.

            Mr. Fennell asked how much does the surge tank hold?

            Mr. McKune responded it holds one million gallons. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what kind of surges are we talking about?

            Mr. McKune responded it is a rate of flow problem and not a quantity problem.  If we get a million gallons during the day, the problem is we get it in less than a day. 

            Mr. Churchill stated you are trying to get it out of the surge tank faster by putting it in four treatment plants.  As I understand it, there is no additional cost, we do need it, it was part of our plan and you are asking that it be moved forward and in that request is a request to by-pass the bid process and do it by change order.

            Mr. Moyer asked are there unit prices in either one of these contracts?

            Mr. McKune responded no. 

            Mr. Moyer stated then it really is new work.

            Mr. McKune responded it is new work to be negotiated, but these are easily negotiable items, piping, valves and meters because we work directly with the manufacturer and know exactly what the contractor is paying for them.

            Mr. Churchill stated this work has never been out for bid as part of Plant E.

            Mr. McKune responded that is correct.

            Mr. Fennell asked what are our legal restrictions?

            Mr. Lyles responded I think the engineer has laid out a case to be made.  The contractor will be mobilized and on site, theoretically it could result in changes.  It is an extension of a kind of work he is already doing.  The normal situation that you see with a change order like this is where you are using the same materials or equipment and you are using a larger quantity.  As an example, instead of laying 150' of pipe you want to lay 200' of pipe so you get the same unit prices and just add 50' of pipe at so much per foot and that per foot price was bid.  You are in a fashion using a competitive bidding process, you are just expanding the scope of the work.  Unfortunately, we don't have that situation here so it is a toss up.  I don't know what you are seeing as a practical matter in the infrastructure building community on prices that are coming in now, whether we might because of the timing look to get a better unit price or we might be shooting ourselves in the foot. 

            Mr. McKune responded I can say that prices are going up, more so than usual.  Parts that are hard to get are increasingly hard to get because one of the major valve manufacturers closed down one of their plants. 

            Mr. Lyles stated they are going to go to the manufacturers and get current prices because we don't have any unit prices for this work.  That probably isn't going to change things.  The contractor who is on site and who will be expected to bid if you do bid it, will be able to bid a lower price and beat the other contractors because he is already on site. 

            Mr. Moyer stated we have a contract in the North Springs Improvement District which I assume contains piping, valves and all of the things we are talking about here. 

            Mr. McKune responded some line work but not the water plant itself. 

            Mr. Miller asked are you projecting the total cost of this project will be about $100,000?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.

            Mr. Miller stated I feel that we have to bid it.  We have known this has been a problem for awhile and it is hard to make the case that this is an emergency situation.  There might be benefits to getting the contractor who is on site to do it but I think for appearances sake it should be bid in the standard fashion. 

            Mr. Churchill stated I feel the same way. 

            Mr. Moyer stated my concern is that we just went through the process of bidding the water plant and probably could have put this in the water plant contract.  Is there anything additional to Phase 1B that we ought to package that is ready to go that has the same type of critical impact as this and put all of that out to bid?  Are there other things out there that are going to be part of the Plant E expansion that we ought to do in this contract so that you are not coming back in March of next year saying this is critical and we have to do it right away.  I would like to do as much under one bid as we can.

            Mr. McKune responded the critical item is to get Plant E on line.  That entire project is necessary.  What we have done with Phase 1B is simply factor out one small portion.  We could keep taking little bits and pieces of the total project and extend the cost and time every time we add a little more to it.  Could there be another piece or two added to this, yes.   You need to draw the line somewhere where it is easily definable.  You have to understand that if we bid this first and get a contractor and then bid Plant E, whether it is bid or we use the contractor we have, we may end up with two contractors on site at the same time.  We want these lines of demarcation between the work to be easily identifiable so if there is a problem, we know which contractor to look to.

            Mr. Fennell stated when you put the project out to bid then is it a matter of the Board meeting to award it?

            Mr. McKune responded after the bid period we put together whatever is necessary to check out the contractors who bid in order to make a recommendation to the Board.  We have the Board meeting and then prepare the contract documents and that time adds up.

            Mr. Fennell stated maybe we can look at doing this another way.  Instead of expediting the no bid process, let's expedite the process in every way we can.  In other words, get it out to bid as soon as we can.  How long is the bid period?

            Mr. Moyer responded there is no State law that tells you at this price, how many days it has to be out to bid.  You need to be reasonable to give contractors enough time to understand the project and bid it.  Generally, we have never gone under 14 days.

            Mr. Fennell stated if we go with three weeks, we can meet earlier if necessary to award the contract and it looks like if we do that we can probably take a month off the process. 

            Mr. Churchill stated I don't think we should try to tighten the design period.

            Mr. Fennell stated the design is supposed to be almost done.

            Mr. McKune responded all the mechanical is done and we have to run some wires for the electrical.

            Mr. Fennell stated some of the time is just waiting and I am sure the Board members are willing to meet earlier to accommodate an earlier bid date.

            Mr. Lyles stated the next meeting is January 22.

            Mr. Fennell stated let's try to have it ready to award by then and we will save a month just doing that. 

            Mr. McKune stated if this is presented to the regulatory agencies, there is sufficient time that we can do the work and there are numbers for them.

            Mr. Fennell stated given that we think this is important and we believe it is important to obey the laws, if we are willing to put in the extra effort to make it happen, let's make it happen.  We will expect to have the bid at the next meeting.

            Mr. Fennell asked how are we doing on the new wells?

            Mr. McKune responded we are waiting for final approval of the revised locations.  I don't expect to get anything until after the first of the year.

            Mr. Moyer asked have we submitted the plans for building permit?

            Mr. McKune responded not for the wells.  I am still trying to get the contract ironed out. 


FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS            Staff Reports

          A.    Attorney

            Mr. Lyles stated as you are aware we have a claim submitted by Centex on behalf of the homeowners immediately adjacent to the plant site and I told you I would keep you advised of things as they were happening and I am not sure whether I am happy or not about this but the letter writing and contact sort of stopped over a month ago.  I don't know if there is any basis for reading anything into that and at this point I will say there is not until we get more information but they are not as aggressively pursuing it as they once were. 

            Mr. Miller asked is this the insurance company or Centex?

            Mr. Lyles responded this is Centex's claim against us.  We still have one of the two insurance companies that might have been involved in this, looking at this claim and they have not made a final decision one way or the other.  They requested certain information from us, we provided it and they are looking at the claim from the standpoint of coverage and whether or not or how they would defend it if they do accept it.

            Mr. Miller asked under their reservation of rights, how long do they have to make a decision on it?

            Mr. Lyles responded we are talking about a second company now.  We haven't gotten a letter with a reservation of rights.  We just got a request for information from them.  The first company ultimately denied coverage, in part because of timing issues and in part because of the nature of the claim.  At this point, a period of about 60 days has gone by with no real activity in that litigation on any front but I will stay in the middle of it and as soon as something happens, you will know.  They gave us a claim letter under the State's limited waiver of sovereign immunity.  You have to notify a public agency of your claim in writing and they have six months to either compromise it or deny it and if at the end of six months they have done neither of those things, it is deemed automatically denied and they can go ahead and file suit.  Prior to the expiration of six months, they can't sue unless we deny the claim in writing.  None of those things have happened.  At this point the statute of limitations continues to run. 

            Mr. Fennell asked how much time is left?

            Mr. Lyles responded it goes from year to year.  Some of the things they accused us of occurred before 1996 and at this point my position is going to be the statutes of limitation run on that type of claim.  We continue to have problems at the plant and I can't remember the date of the most recent violation we received but that was probably 1997.  It is a four year statute of limitations.  We will continue to do things as we have been doing them.  Nothing has occurred during our involvement in this matter that has been negative in terms of defending the District's interests except the initial denial of coverage by one of the two carriers involved. 

            The only other item to report on is I think we told you at a previous meeting that under State law we are required this year to prepare a codification of our Special Act and in our case, the single amendment to the special act, update the whole thing and submit it to the Legislative Delegation as a local bill.  It will then go to the full Legislature along with all the bills of the other special districts around the State.  We had our first hearing today before the Legislative Delegation.  We anticipated that we would get questions from one of the Representatives and in fact as that part of the meeting began she asked the Legislative Delegation Attorney if she could address questions about one of the bills in the package that would be coming forth to them and he advised her that at this point she could not.  The bills today were read by title.  In reality a Delegation member can do or say anything they really want to.  All the other members were in the mood to just get through the meeting, get it in the public record that these bills are going to be acted on in this session.  The final and full evidentiary hearing will be February 1, and we will be there as well.  As of today it was a routine matter, there were no other local bills filed today concerning this District and we will stay on top of this. 

            Mr. Miller asked can you explain the bill that you filed?

            Mr. Lyles responded I prepared and filed on the District's behalf a single bill that a State law that was recently passed, requires Districts such as this one to prepare and file, which combines the amendments and the original act into one readily accessible, available piece of legislation.  One bill will now be passed by the Florida Legislature this coming session that will have our boundary, powers, duties and it will have nothing that substantively changes the act.  There were a few things that were out of date which I just deleted but basically it combines the original bill and the changes in the bill into one easily accessible package.  This District was easy because you only had one amendment.  North Springs had nine amendments so that is going to be a little rougher but they are not due until 2003.  That was required by State law.  Our concern was that that puts us and our bill in front of the Legislative Delegation at a meeting when issues relating to this District can be discussed.  We were there to make sure they did not get discussed or if they did, we would make sure that we got our spin on it.  We are continuing to work somewhat behind the scenes and we will attend the hearings about the District.

            Mr. Fennell asked what will the Legislature do with this bill?

            Mr. Lyles responded it has to be passed technically by the full Legislature not just the local delegation.  Because it is a local bill, those are given great deference by the full Legislature and they don't generally get denied, once the local delegation says they support this bill.  This particular bill you are required to do for the convenience of the public and the regulatory agencies and that is what we are doing.  We are just reducing to one bill, anything that may have happened in terms of an amendment over the years.

            Mr. Fennell asked if it passes, what happens?

            Mr. Lyles responded nothing.

            Mr. Fennell asked and if it doesn't pass?

            Mr. Lyles responded that is not a possibility.  I am concerned that it gets passed with an amendment tacked on by the legislative delegation, not requested by us.  That is what we are watching out for.  We do not want it to be amended and in fact I will take the position that the statute doesn't allow it to be amended.  If they wanted to amend it, they should have filed a local bill before December 18 and done it that way.  They didn't, so they are out of luck and that is going to be our position. 



          B.    Engineer

                 1.     Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

                 2.     Update on Construction

            There not being any, the next item followed.


          C.    Superintendent

            Mr. Moyer stated you did get a copy of the newsletter.  I believe it is our collective recommendation that we not do anything with the newsletter especially the sections dealing with legislation until we know more about what the legislation is going to be.  What I provided to you is a first draft.  Edit it as you see fit.  Give us your suggestions.  We know there are politically sensitive things in there that we took a stab at and we probably need to take a couple of more stabs at.  If we have room , we can do a profile of some of our employees who have been with us for awhile.

            Mr. Churchill stated that is a good idea.


SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS            Supervisor's Requests and Audience Comments

            There not being any, the next item followed.


SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS      Approval of Invoices

            Ms. Archer stated at the last meeting you requested an analysis of the surplus funds.  Mr. McKune and I looked at the five year plan he has been working on and I took a look at our surplus funds and the first page is nothing but a schedule I provided to you several years ago that was through 1996 and I carried it forward to show where we project we are in surplus funds and that is on the bottom of the page and is shown as $12,111,664.  These are the unrestricted funds.  We have more cash than that in the bank but those are considered restricted funds that are restricted for debt service on the bonds.  Taking that number, the next couple of pages is the five year program indicating the amount of money we will need over the next five years for our plant expansion program.  I think that adds up to about $15 million.  If we continue to generate the surplus that we have been annually, throughout the next five years, this shows that we anticipate having enough money to pay for the capital improvement program without issuing debt for that purpose.  The third page is a detailed itemization of the cost that Gee & Jenson put together for the wastewater treatment plant which is part of that program.  The last page shows these funds are unappropriated at this point in time, you take the $12 million out of our audit and add to it what we project will be shown in our audit for the end of fiscal year 2000, and we come up with about $13 million in surplus.  What does that mean to each of our users and I did it on an ERC basis and that equates to about $1,022 in surplus funds for every single family residential unit, $852 for the multi family medium density, $567 for the multi family high density and $738 for each commercial user. 

            Mr. Churchill stated that is a wonderful analysis. 


On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Churchill with all in favor the invoices were approved for payment.


            Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.






Clinton Churchill                                                   Robert D. Fennell

Secretary                                                                  President