The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, June 20, 2005 at 4:05 p.m. at the District Office, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.


Present and constituting a quorum were:


Bob Fennell                                                President

Bill Eissler                                                   Vice President

Glen Hanks                                                Secretary


Also present were:


George Keller                                             Manager

Dennis Lyles                                               Attorney

John McKune                                             Engineer

Dan Daly                                                    District Staff

Joni Hayworth                                            District Staff

Susan Walker                                             District Staff

Roger Moore                                             Severn Trent Services

Marsha Moore                                           Guest

Nick Navarro                                             Navarro Security Group

Frank Reyes                                               Navarro Security Group

Louis Sorrentino                                         Navarro Security Group

John Hart                                                   Wrathell, Hart, Hunt & Associates

Craig Wrathell                                            Wrathell, Hart, Hunt & Associates


FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS                         Roll Call

            Mr. Keller called the meeting to order and called the roll.


SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS                    Approval of the Minutes of the May 16, 2004 Meeting

            Mr. Fennell stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the May 16, 2005 meeting and requested any additions, corrections or deletions.

            Mr. Eissler stated on page nine, in the fourth line from the bottom of the page, “CDD” should be “CDBG”


On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the minutes of the May 16, 2005 meeting were approved, as amended.


THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS                       Discussion and Presentation by Navarro Security Group

            Mr. Navarro stated I would like to thank the Board for putting their trust in us for the last three years.  We have had a healthy relationship and appreciate that very much.  We are very proud to be your security company and have done the best job we could and will continue to provide you services as well as we can.  This presence is necessary.  You were the first provider to request security at the water plant.  There were some others, but you were our primary concern because you were our first clients.  This is a very special company as you service a great number of people in this community.  You have a great responsibility and we share this responsibility with you.  We have been fortunate to have never had a problem since our presence here.  However, that does not mean there is not an enemy somewhere.  The enemy is always lurking around, looking for the time, place and way of doing damage to this country.  I would like to thank Mr. Reyes and Mr. Sorrentino for all of their help in establishing the relationship we currently have with you. 

            Mr. Sorrentino stated the last time we met with the Board, there were some issues as far as the uniform security and I would like to provide some clarification on the direction we are going in the future.  We received a letter on March 28th, directing us to reduce the amount of uniformed security.  We provided Mr. Moore a reduction in armed security officers to unarmed officers and how we look to reduce the current manpower to suit the current needs of the District.  Not knowing what direction the Board wants to go in, we would like to work with you and see how we can continue to have a presence at the plant.  From what we are hearing from different cities, the county and federal government, it is prudent to have uniformed security at these types of facilities.

            Mr. Fennell stated we are happy with Navarro’s services.  Our problem is it was a significant part of our budget.  We are spending anywhere between $250,000 and $300,000 for security per year.  At the time this happened, we had several different people trained in these area.  At this point in time, we have not received the aid from the county, state or the federal government.  It does not seem like we are going to be receiving any money from those sources or that they are willing to spend any funds.  In fact, I can think of several places like Port Everglades and other areas that are more secure from the people who live here than anyone with a boat.  A small firm like us cannot afford going on this way and at this point, I think there is less of a danger than there was before.  Therefore, since we cannot afford these services, we are going from armed to unarmed security. 

            We recently put out a bid and were surprised you did not submit a proposal to strengthen our fencing and security system.  We were also looking for ongoing on-site security.  Nevertheless, we are going to try to strengthen our security system by building bigger fences and having a better alarm system.  At that point, we are going to see if we need to do anything beyond that.  Before September 11, 2001, from time to time, I hired the local police to patrol the area at night.  At that time we were not concerned about terrorists but teenagers causing vandalism.  We have also reduced some of the other significant issues as far as customer safety by changing our foreign agent methods to a point.  Our biggest issue was chlorine safety.  We have reduced that risk substantially by investing money.  We are hoping the federal government and state will protect us and in the meantime, we are going to cut back on our security to a point where we end up calling the police.  We would like to thank your group for the job you did.  Not only did you keep the terrorists away, but you kept the teenagers away as well.

            Mr. Navarro asked have you considered having another reduction but still maintaining a presence?

            Mr. Fennell responded our goal is to reduce it to a point where we are going to increase our hardwire and other systems first.  If we need it after that, we may.  I think we are going to wait and see what happens.

            Mr. Navarro stated you said you put out a request for proposals, but we never received such a request.

            Mr. Fennell stated after we went out for bids and had some firms bid, we were surprised you never submitted one.

            Mr. Hanks stated there will be opportunities as our improvements commence throughout the facility where we will be looking for input on ways to continue to improve security to keep up with new technologies and we will contact you.

            Mr. Keller stated my understanding was there were some discussions with our staff to provide a personal notice.  That did not take place.  There was the required legal notice in the newspaper but the personal notice did not reach them until after the fact.

            Mr. Moore stated there are two issues.  We solicited bids from four firms, approximately six to eight weeks ago and brought those to the Board at the last meeting.  We spoke with TEM, ADT, Sanders and Navarro and received three quotes.  We spoke with Navarro several times before the written prices came in and they did not provide the written prices to us in time and neither did Sanders.  Therefore, we only had two proposals to provide to the Board.  Approximately a week after the bids were closed, Navarro’s staff looked at the security system.  However, immediately after the last meeting, discussion was held between Mr. Keller, the Attorney, and I and decided we did not want to just take the written bids and went ahead and re-bid the operations.  We advertised a public bid into the newspaper with the same specifications as before.  Some of Navarro’s people had spoken to our staff and we made a mandatory pre-bid meeting.  Three companies attended the pre-bid meeting, which Navarro did not attend.  This was a requirement of the advertisement.  I believe at one point in time, one member of our staff spoke to Navarro and said they would send them documentation and not fax them directly.  We had the advertising, the pre-bid meeting and receipt of bids.  Those tallies are in the Board’s agenda package to discuss later in the meeting.

            Mr. Navarro stated I never received notification that the pre-bid meeting was mandatory.

            Mr. Moore stated it was in the newspaper.

            Mr. Navarro stated I very seldom read the newspaper.

            Mr. Moore stated we did not notify the other companies either. 

            Mr. Eissler asked is that normal?

            Mr. Moore responded that is the way we have always done it. 

            Mr. Fennell asked where do we stand?

            Mr. Moore responded later in this meeting, I am going to ask you to approve award of a bid for the gates and fences. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what did we do last month?

            Mr. Moore responded you gave authorization to go forward with the informal bid but it was determined it would be best to formalize the bidding process and advertising.  We do this to save money.

            Mr. Sorrentino stated we have been doing this for 12 years now.  When I spoke to Mr. Doug Hyche, I did not know it was going out to bid and brought my prices to him.  I was told it would go out for bid but he would send me a copy of the proposal package.  He never mentioned a pre-bid conference.  I am used to going to pre-bid conferences.  We are not here to complain or argue.  We are here to make sure that we knew the direction the Board needed us to go in as far as uniformed security. 

            Mr. Fennell stated uniformed security is going away.

            Mr. Sorrentino stated we were prepared to present a proposal prior to it going out to bid and likewise provide a package for the bid itself. 

            Mr. Fennell asked where do we stand, legally?

            Mr. Lyles asked are copies of the bid notice and package available?  Without having looked at it, local governments generally reserve the right to reject all bids and re-advertise if you see a flaw in the way the process was done.  That may or may not be necessary.  I need to see what is in the bid documents, before I can give you a firm opinion.

            Mr. Eissler stated I would like us to do that because if we neglected to notify these people as they served us well, we should reject all bids.  They have a right to bid.

            Mr. Keller stated I will provide the documentation to Counsel for his review.

            Mr. Lyles stated I can review the documents while the meeting is taking place.

            Mr. Eissler stated we will contact Navarro upon making our decision.

Presentation by Craig Wrathell

            Mr. Wrathell, Managing Partner with Wrathell, Hart, Hunt & Associates gave a presentation on his company and highlighted the following:

·                    Specializes in managing Special Taxing Districts and local governments throughout the State of Florida.  Provides management, administration and financial and operational services.


·                    Founded in February of 2005.


·                    Partners and Senior Associates have over 80 years experience related to serving Special Taxing Districts and local governments throughout the State of Florida.


·                    Serve 12 plus District clients.  Nine clients are fully operational on the West coast of Florida acquired from Severn Trent Services and three being created.


·                    Corporate office is in Delray Beach.


·                    Detailed four main components of the CDD; residents, Board, staff and State of Florida to be provided by the manager.  The CDD has some infrastructure needs to be addressed from a water and wastewater and surface water management perspective.  Assist with community program in identifying financing programs. 


·                    Recommends increase in levels of communication with the State.


·                    Mr. Wrathell grew up in Coral Springs and worked for Severn Trent Services for 60 CDD’s.  Provided services from the creation of Districts, public financings, ongoing administration and served as First City Manager for City of Marathon.






·                    Mr. John Hart served two terms as County Commissioner in Broward County.  Has been in public service for over 30 years.  Was a partner and chief executive with an engineering firm with 275 engineers within the firm.  Served as senior level executive with an engineering firm in South Florida.  Mr. Hart is currently working as an Underwriter for Gardner, Michael Capital, which primarily focuses on public financings to municipalities throughout the State.


·                    Mr. Chuck Adams, Senior Associate joined three months ago.  Served with Severn Trent Services for 16 years.  His main focus is in the operational aspect of serving Districts throughout the State.  Has strength in working very closely with resident dominated communities.  Secured Florida recreational development and systems program grants for recreational needs for the City of Marathon as well as the Gateway Services District.


·                    Does not take a “cookie cutter approach” to dealing with each client and caters to the specific needs of the community.


·                    The management team would comprise of Mr. Wrathell as Manager, Mr. Phil Hunt, Mr. Hart and Mr. Adams to supplement the team; certified municipal clerk to prepare agendas, post public notices and retain public records; in-house accounting and administrative support.


            Mr. Eissler stated thank you for coming.  It is always nice to have options.  I feel Severn Trent has served us well.

            Mr. Fennell stated the Board decided at the last meeting management services would be discussed.

            Mr. Eissler stated at the last meeting, we decided each year we would review where we spent our money.  The timing is good.

            Mr. Hanks stated most of the presentation focused on the management and financial side.  Severn Trent provided services at our facility.  How does Wrathell & Associates handle that?

            Mr. Wrathell responded Severn Trent was lucky to have Mr. Roger Moore in-house.  You usually have the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act, which requires you to put out the request for qualifications over a certain threshold of $25,000 and go out for bid for engineering services.  The most successful formula is to have a separation between the engineer and management as well as your attorney.  In many respects it can be very positive but it reduces your flexibility to change managers or engineer.  It has been beneficial for the client to have them separated. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we could have an operations manager, not necessarily an engineer.

            Mr. Eissler stated Mr. Moore has done an outstanding job.  We operated extremely well during the hurricanes thanks to our engineer.

Mr. Wrathell stated it has to do with Mr. Moore’s unique qualifications and abilities.  I have seen it done different ways.  In one District, the operations manager had more of water and wastewater utility management experience to oversee the utility side and more strength in the surface water management component.  It depends upon the individual and their qualifications.  You may find someone who is not an engineer that may be equally as qualified or almost as qualified as Mr. Moore to oversee the two departments.  In the case of CSID, the two main functional components is the water and wastewater utility perspective and surface water management.

            Mr. Fennell stated we have distinct areas such as finance, engineering and general management. 

            Mr. Eissler stated our accountants do work for other Districts.  Are you aware we are undertaking a $17 million improvement project under the five-year plan, which will require more bonds to the plant for the next 20 years?

            Mr. Wrathell responded yes but not to the level of detail.

            Mr. Eissler stated we have CSID employees, employees that work for other Districts and Severn Trent.  We have good loyal people.  We need to discuss this matter among ourselves and no decision will be made today.  I am happy to have options.

            Mr. Keller stated if the Board chooses to do the contract in pieces, there is a way to prepare agreements.

            Mr. Hart stated the reality is we are pleased to be here.  We feel extremely confident that we have been able to acquire some very professional people who bring a variety of different skills to us.  This industry had been dominated by one group with 30 years experience and by the natural order, some of their domination has changed.  We felt we could assemble an effective District oriented client responsive team to provide services traditional to the CDD marketplace.  The ultimate decision is always your own.  We just wanted to make you aware we are here, capable and desire to do business with you if you choose to do so.

            Mr. Wrathell stated with the clients we brought in and the client’s coming on-line, we will cater our services to meet your current needs.  Working with an in-house staff is not a problem.  We have shared relationships with some CDD’s we have on the West Coast.  Four different Districts’ share the same operations manager for cost efficiencies.  There has been some opportunity to bid out certain services and share those cost savings.  The Department of Community Affairs wants local governments to cooperate with each other to improve efficiencies and ability to serve constituents.  This is a perfect example of local governments working together.  We can provide recommendations.  I view my role as manager as being an advisor to the Board and provide the Board with the best information so you can make an educated decision.  You may not always agree with the approach but you are the policy making body.

            Mr. Fennell stated thank you for taking time to make a presentation to us.


FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                    Consideration of Work Authorization No. WA-27 for the Wastewater Plant Improvements Phase 2

            Mr. McKune stated at the last meeting, one of the items we discussed was the replacement of Wastewater Plant A, which is the 30-year-old plant that is falling apart.  This would be part of the $17 million program that Mr. Eissler alluded to.  The description of this project would be to demolish the existing plant, retaining the foundation and constructing a new plant at that site to provide 1.25 million gallons per day of capacity, which is 25% more than what Plant B produces.  The tank foundation, influent and effluent yard piping, process air lines and access walkways would be modified to conform to a new plant configuration.  The return sludge and waste sludge process streams will be provided with a new pump and piping system that will tie into the new sludge processing system authorized three months ago.

            Mr. Hanks asked is the sludge processing system currently under design?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.  The way the new plant will be increased in capacity is by expanding the foundation and increasing the diameter of the tank.

            Mr. Fennell asked how many plants will we end up with?

            Mr. McKune responded we have five plants.  This will be replacing one of the plants.

            Mr. Eissler stated demolishing the plant is the cheapest way to go.  Using the existing foundation is very tricky.

            Mr. McKune stated the bedrock is down 3 to 4', which makes it somewhat easier.  We estimate it is outside the limits of the existing foundation.  We can fill it in to provide a base and extend the old tank foundation.  The way the exterior steel shelf is mounted to the concrete base by casting a large channel section into the concrete foundation, which is circular.  A steel tank shelf is then welded to the top of the channel.  We would be able to put the channel into the new poured concrete base section.

            Mr. Hanks stated there could be leakage between the old foundation and the new foundation.

            Mr. McKune stated we anticipate the cost to be $250,000 when it is completed.  To start from scratch, you would need to add $200,000 to $300,000 for the concrete excavation.  This project would improve the drainage around the south end of the site.

            Mr. Fennell asked would you be preparing the plans?

            Mr. McKune responded to prepare the plans and specifications.  We are ready to go to bid.  The plan is to put this out to bid as part of the package of the other sludge project. 

            Mr. Hanks asked is there going to be a separate engineering work order?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.

            Mr. Hanks asked do you aim to have a single, complete set of deliverable documents for bidding?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.

            Mr. Hanks asked will this delay the current sludge project?

            Mr. McKune responded no.  There is one modification to the proposal.  The fees to be paid section will be reworded to say “a not to exceed amount unless authorized by the District”.


On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor Work Authorization Number 27 for the Wastewater Plant Improvements Phase 2 in the Amount of $85,000 was approved as amended.


FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                         Award of Contracts

A.                 Rotary Lobe Positive Displacement Blower

            Mr. McKune stated at the last meeting, we discussed this blower and decided we needed to go out for bid.  We went out for bids and received bids this past Thursday.  I informed the Board we would provide the results of the bidding process at this meeting.  We had one responsive bid and another bid turned in late electronically into the wrong office. 

            Mr. Hanks stated Barney’s has been around for many years.  This industry has gone through a lot of consolidation.  Who else is out there?

            Mr. McKune stated Barney’s is a local Coral Springs company who packages equipment.  This is a roots blower system.

            Mr. Eissler asked is this the same type of blower?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.  The second bidder we did not accept was $69,000.  The price from Barney’s is a good price.

            Mr. Hanks asked how does Barney’s compare with others in terms of service?

            Mr. McKune responded they provide excellent service.  A couple of years ago they went through a rocky period but as they have grown their business, they have more personnel. 


On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the rotary lobe positive displacement blower contract was awarded to Barney’s Pumps Inc. in the amount of $29,750.


            Mr. Moore announced he was going to be resigning from Severn Trent as of the end of July as he accepted a position in Tallahassee with a large firm to head up the utilities operations.  It has been a pleasure. 

            Mr. Eissler stated you will be missed.

            Mr. Fennell asked will you be at the next meeting?

            Mr. Moore responded yes.

            Mr. Fennell stated you provided exemplarily service to our group.  You gave straightforward, honest opinions and substantially improved the utilities of the entire area.  Thank you from the bottom of my heart, not just as a President of the Board but also as a resident of Coral Springs.

            Mr. Keller stated on behalf of the District and Severn Trent, we would like to thank Mr. Moore for all of his years of service.  It is much appreciated.  We are sorry to see him go and we will have to work to fill that gap.

            Mr. Moore stated I am only a phone call away.

            Mr. Lyles stated I reviewed the bid specifications and the bid package all bidders received as well as the notice published in the newspaper two times to solicit bids for this project.  I think the Board has some discretion.  You have three bids in response to the notice, had staff review and a recommendation from staff done prior to the explanation given by Navarro Security.  While they were aware of the process, had initial discussions and were expecting a package, they did not receive one.  Therefore, they did not submit a response.  In light of the circumstances explained to you by staff and representatives of Navarro, this bidding process, through no intentional act on anyone’s part had a substantial flaw in that one of their interested parties was not aware of the submission requirement and deadline.  On the other hand, there was an ad in the newspaper, which other firms responded to.  If you want to take the position you received three good bids and want to go with one of those bids and not except the one from Navarro, which did not meet the time requirements and submitted the proposal late and ask it to be considered, you can award the bid based on what is in front of you. 

            Mr. Eissler stated I recommend postponing the bids for one month.

            Mr. Moore stated you would not postpone them.  You can authorize us to re-bid and I can get it out to bid as quickly as possible.  There is a chance I will have it next week.  If I advertise tomorrow, we can publish for two consecutive weeks and take bids fairly quickly.

            Mr. Hanks asked did District staff have conversations with Navarro staff and there was agreement for something to be provided?

            Mr. Moore responded at the last meeting, we aggressively searched for three to four written bids.  We constantly called Navarro for the bid.  At the last meeting, I reported to you Navarro did not provide a written bid just before the meeting.  They were contacted several times as well as other firms.  After the meeting, it was decided by staff and management, instead of written bids, we wanted to do an advertisement in the newspaper.  After the written bid was prepared, Navarro came out here and talked to our people.  They were told we were not going to take written bids but to advertise.  At that point in time, Navarro said “can you fax us a copy of the specifications when it becomes available?”  Whether or not they called back and harassed our people, I do not believe they did.  We had eight items out to bid and that person may not have called directly and faxed it, as we did not do with the other firms.  We put it out for bid and anyone who called us and asked for it, we provided a copy of the bid.  We had three bidders based on our advertisement.  The other day when they called and said they wanted to bid, we told them it was too late as we publicly opened the bid.  I believe they called Mr. Keller and were not happy with the situation.  I will do whatever the Board decides to do.  They did not respond to the first request for the written proposal.  It may have been staff’s fault for not telling them when it was but that is why we advertise.  We did not specifically invite the other bidders.  No one was treated any differently.

B.                 Automatic Gate Opening System

F.                  Chain Link Fence

            Mr. Fennell stated I see two bids, one is $7,000 for the fence and the other is $22,335 for the automatic gates.

            Mr. Moore stated I thought Federal Security Corporation made a mistake on the $22,335 proposal.  We actually had them go through every single item to make sure they did not miss anything.  They were $16,000 less than the second lowest bidder.

            Mr. Keller stated I have seen the name before.

            Mr. Moore stated ADT was lowest last time and came in second this time. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we should go ahead and proceed with the fence.  To be honest with you, we already paid $32,000 for security.  If we can save paying one month of security, we can pay for this expenditure.

            Mr. Moore stated Navarro did not give me a bid.

            Mr. Eissler asked does Navarro install equipment?

            Mr. Moore responded yes.

            Mr. Hanks asked is Federal Security Corp legit?

            Mr. Moore responded I checked out their references and they seem to be a qualified bidder.

            Mr. Hanks asked do they possess the necessary contractor’s license?

            Mr. Moore responded that is part of the execution of the contract. 

            Mr. Eissler asked is the total less than $30,000?

            Mr. Moore responded it costs $1,500 to advertise again in the newspaper.

            Mr. Keller stated part of the discussions at the last meeting was predicated on the timing issue.  We realize those savings earlier.  We had given notice to have all of the uniform services discontinued no later than September 30th.  Therefore, we want to make sure we have all of this work in place and it has been tested.  Since we met the legal process and Mr. Moore had a chance to check out the firms, we recommend you move forward.


On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the automatic gate opening system contract was awarded to Federal Security Corp. in the amount of $22,335.08 and the chain link fence contract was awarded to Action Fence in the amount of $6,565.


            C.        Stormwater Pump Engine Replacement Project

            Mr. Moore stated I recommend this item be deferred to the next meeting as the bids had to be postponed to this Thursday.  You will have bids at the next meeting.

            D.        Potable Water Well Rehabilitation Project

            Mr. Moore stated we have three wells on-site that need to be rehabilitated.  They are not pumping the required quantity.  We put it out for public bid and received two proposals.  We recommend this contract be awarded to GIS Water Systems in the amount of $32,300 each or $96.900.

            Mr. Fennell asked where are we moving these wells?

            Mr. Moore responded we are not moving them.  They are staying exactly where they are.  I recommend we award to the lowest bidder, GIS Water Systems.  They have been checked out and are legit.

            Mr. Fennell asked are these the wells in front?

            Mr. Moore responded two are in front and one is around the side.

            Mr. Fennell asked do we have more than enough capability during this time of year?

            Mr. Moore responded yes.  We need these to be rehabilitated so we have alternating wells.

            Mr. Eissler asked how deep are these wells?

            Mr. Moore responded 120'.

            Mr. Hanks asked what is at issue with these wells?

            Mr. Moore responded some of the pumps are broken.  After not using them, they get calcified.


On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the potable water well rehabilitation contract was awarded to GIS Water Systems in the amount of $96,900.


            E.         Portable Generator

            Mr. Moore stated approximately six months ago, we discussed lift stations and hurricane season.  We are recommending having between two and three portable generators for our lift stations.  We have one generator and set aside money in the budget for a second generator.  Hopefully, we will obtain one right before hurricane season.  I bid one for NSID and one for this District.  I received two bids.  Both companies check out and I recommend award of the contract to National Generators in the amount of $26,923.  We were amazed by this amount because we paid $34,000 for the last generator we purchased.  I thought the bid would come in at $38,000.

            Mr. Hanks asked is this generator identical to the generator you have now?

            Mr. Moore responded yes.  They are even going to be painted the same color.

            Mr. Hanks asked will we have an issue where a field crew goes out to the lift station by Maplewood Isles to set up the generator and find out they have the wrong plug?

            Mr. Moore responded no.  All of the plugs for both generators are the same and made compatible.  They are also compatible with NSID’s generators.


Mr. Hanks moved to approve the purchase of a portable field lift station generator from National Generators in the amount of $26,923 and Mr. Fennell seconded the motion.


            Mr. Fennell asked how many lift stations do we have?

            Mr. Moore responded 42.

            Mr. Fennell asked how much do we have to pump per day?

            Mr. Moore responded the average pump runs six to eight hours a day.  We have a lift stations pump out sequence developed a year ago.  A third of the stations have high pumping, a third have medium pumping and a third have low pumping.  With that list, our guys know which lift stations we pump down first.  We also have three inch jockey pumps that can pump some of the stations down.  Other generators we can plug in and leave.  With three generators and three jockey pumps, you can take care of everything.  You also have to have equipment, trucks and people.

            Mr. Hanks asked do we have the crews?

            Mr. Moore responded yes. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what about the third generator?

            Mr. Moore responded if it is left in place and chained down, we can use the crews we have.

            Mr. Fennell stated we have been lucky so far.  We only lost power in part of the District.  However, we could lose power in the entire District, not to mention the entire city. 

            Mr. Moore stated it depends if your lift stations is a top priority.  In reality, there are some stations that need more attention than others.  Those are the ones that would have to be pumped down every three to four hours.  At that particular point in time, you are acting to survive and trying to minimize how much goes into the street.

            Mr. Hanks stated in that type of situation, there has to be an expectation there will be sewage in the street.

            Mr. Fennell stated we could spend another $26,000 and use what we need.

            Mr. Moore stated I budgeted one more generator for next year.  NSID has three and you will have three generators so you could have access to six generators, depending if they are hit bad.  If three lift stations are hit, we might be able to interchange the generators.  There is a chance they could get power back sooner than us or vice versa.  In the last hurricane, we lost power to five stations for less than eight hours and we did not get a direct hit.  Coral Springs lost 11 stations.

            Mr. Fennell stated I have relatives in Orlando and Cocoa and they were without power for a week to 10 days.  That could be a disaster.  I recommend we spend another $26,000.

            Mr. Eissler asked is there enough crew to handle three generators?

            Mr. Moore responded the generators are easy to handle.  It is just a matter of plugging them in.

            Mr. Hanks stated Mr. McKune has done a fair amount of design work for Coral Springs.  What are the elevations of the roads?

            Mr. McKune responded house pads are 100 plus.

            Mr. Hanks stated I am referring to the arterials.  It does not do us any good to have three generators if the roads are going to be flooded.

            Mr. Moore stated if the roads are submerged, that means we are pumping back the stormwater.

            Mr. Fennell stated I was here during the 1978 flood.  Some of the roads were impassible but you could get around them.

            Mr. Moore stated our trucks and our trailers could get through six to eight inches of water.

            Mr. Eissler asked do you have enough fuel to run the generators?

            Mr. Moore responded there is a 150-gallon tank, which would run a day and a half.  Under our hurricane preparation, we top off our diesel tanks.  Palm Beach County Utilities ran off of fuel for hours.  You do the best you can with what you have.  Your top priority is to get fuel.  Since the last hurricane season, FP&L has the addresses of all of our lift stations.  Hopefully we are on a higher priority. 

            Mr. Fennell stated if the main powerline goes down, everyone goes down.  I recommend we purchase two generators.

            Mr. Eissler asked do we need two?

            Mr. Fennell responded Mr. Moore is recommending three.

            Mr. Moore stated we can purchase one in the budget for next year.  I am hoping in the next several months to have a power outage simulation.

            Mr. Fennell stated this is already June.  If we decide today, we can purchase it for this hurricane season.  If we do not decide today, then we are not going to have it in time for this season.

            Mr. Moore stated we have some spare money if that is the Board’s desire.

            Mr. Eissler stated I would go by Mr. Moore’s recommendation to purchase two.

            Mr. Fennell asked if two is enough, why are you purchasing another one next year?

            Mr. Moore responded the plan I created was to ultimately have three generators. 

            Mr. Keller asked what is the life cycle of generators?

            Mr. Moore responded at least 10 years.  We have a service contract.

            Mr. Eissler asked do we have a place to put them under cover?

            Mr. Moore responded no.

            Mr. Eissler stated you need people to haul them and fuel to feed them.

            Mr. Hanks stated it does not do any good if a tree falls on it.

            Mr. Moore stated we have assigned parking areas during a storm.  Fairly shortly, we are going to expand our storage shed from 15 x 15 to 30 x 30. 

            Mr. Eissler asked will that hold three generators?

            Mr. Moore responded it will hold all of the utility parts.  The generators are in decent sound attenuated cases that are weatherproof.  They are made for outside use.  If they were stored inside, they would have a longer life.

            Mr. Hanks asked are they such a size that there will be an air quality issue?

            Mr. Moore responded no.  However, there are some new regulations from the Federal Transportation Agency stating that generators with wheels of certain sizes have to meet a certain air quality.


On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the prior motion was amended to reflect two portable field lift station generators will be purchased from National Generators at a cost of $26,923 each.


            Mr. Moore stated we have done studies and I am almost positive that this generator would run this building.

            Mr. Eissler asked how big is the motor?

            Mr. Moore responded 75 horsepower.

            Mr. Eissler stated the price is good.

            Mr. Moore stated next year we are going to have to remove the FP&L building and change out the transpowers.  That means we will be out of power for approximately three to five days.  We will either bring in a portable generator for this building and run the plant off of generators or bring a new power supply to the wastewater plant.


SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                        Consideration of Irrigation Right-of-Way Permit Request Submitted by Coral Springs Auto Mall

            Mr. McKune stated we approved the permit but Mr. Hanks had some concerns.  They want to withdraw water from our canals for irrigation.  They had an irrigation pump consisting with a withdraw pipe but it was never permitted.  They tried to put in another withdraw line and we caught them.  Now they are going to permit the entire system.  The pumps are not located within the District right-of-way, just the piping, which will be crossing our right-of-way.  That is what this permit will allow us to do.

            Mr. Moore asked would they have to obtain a permit from SFWMD?

            Mr. McKune responded not unless it is in excess of 100,000 gallons per day.

            Mr. Eissler stated it is 43,000 square feet.

            Mr. McKune stated there is a stipulation in the letter of recommendation where if they exceed 100,000 per day, it is up to them to get the permit from SFWMD.  This is strictly an occupancy permit for them to put the pipes in.

            Mr. Moore stated this is the fourth pump.  There are three existing pumps.

            Mr. McKune stated I was told there were two existing pumps. 

            Mr. Moore stated we approved one previously for the new facility as part of the stormwater management.

            Mr. Hanks asked did they pull a permit for the stormwater management for the existing sites?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.  It required a permit.

            Mr. Lyles asked are these lines covered with PVC?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.

            Mr. Lyles stated in addition to the conditions your Engineer’s have already specified, you should make sure they are installing these at their own risk.  If we put our equipment in there and they break their irrigation lines because they have to cross our easement for maintenance purposes, that is at their expense and not the District’s expense.  We will never be called upon to repair their irrigation lines because we are using our easement for our purposes.  I am hoping that condition can be added.

            Mr. McKune stated that is true of any easement.

            Mr. Lyles stated there have been some difficulties with the City of Coral Springs and the Mayors office regarding irrigation lines that have been damaged by other utility operators.  I feel it would be a good idea to clarify we are using it for our purposes with our equipment and we are not responsible for damage to their irrigation lines.  I do not know how much cover is over these irrigation lines.  I assume they are PVC.

            Mr. McKune stated that is correct.

            Mr. Lyles stated in addition to the conditions your engineers have already specified, you should also make sure they are installing these at their own risk.  If we put our equipment in there and it breaks their irrigation lines because they had to cross our easement for maintenance purposes, that is at their expense, not the District’s expense. 


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the Request Submitted by Coral Springs Auto Mall for an Irrigation Right-of-Way Permit was approved subject to the condition outlined by the Attorney for installation of the lines at their own risk.


SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                  Review of Workshop Related Items

            Mr. Keller stated at the last meeting, the Board asked to receive a copy of the workshop minutes for additional discussion.  There was one item we wanted to discuss under the general category of cooperation and definition of roles regarding accounting and financial management.  We discussed how we have been working in a collective fashion where Ms. Karen Ellis provided review of the financial statements.  We are still doing an internal review on invoices and things of that nature.  We straightened out the issue with the signatories on the checks.  The remaining item was how the Board wanted to handle the accounts payable data entry.  We had some discussion with Ms. Susan Walker and Mr. Jan Zilmer about how we wanted to accomplish that.  The option was available in terms of either Severn Trent providing that or the District hiring a part-time Accounts Payable Clerk with no benefits to perform the data entry.  It was perceived to be a more efficient and attractive option to the staff for this to take place.  The candidate has been identified but there has been no decision to move forward until we had further discussion with the Board.  I wanted to make sure the Board was comfortable doing that before proceeding further. 

            Mr. Eissler stated at the present time we have one person performing the accounts payable data entry and accounting functions.  Is that correct?

            Mr. Keller responded yes.  It is not standard practice to have one person performing both functions.  It is good to have separation so you have some checks and balances.  Ms. Walker and Mr. Zilmer are ready to move forward.

            Mr. Fennell asked do we have an overall plan moving forward?  We had the issue of several different people working for different Districts. 

            Mr. Keller responded to be honest with you, it is going to take getting through this budget cycle to see the structure in place currently in all of the Districts.  Once we know what the shared relationships are, then we have to reduce those to some formal Interlocal Agreements and define who is going to do what and under what conditions.  Whereas in the past it has been done informally by an understanding.

            Mr. Hanks stated I feel we have some other issues at hand such as authorizing $30,000 for improvements and equipment.  We learned today that Mr. Moore is going to Tallahassee.  I think we need to look at the overall structure and determine the roles and responsibilities such as engineering services rather than addressing them on a piecemeal basis. 

            Mr. Keller stated in terms of Mr. Moore’s position, Severn Trent is going to need to fill his position as soon as possible so you will have the same kind of resource and capacity.  There are some possible candidates elsewhere in the organization, whether internal or external and we will pursue that on an open competitive basis on what we feel is the best resource to this District and our other Districts.

            Mr. Eissler asked will this be a Severn Trent employee like Mr. Moore?

            Mr. Keller responded yes.

            Mr. Eissler stated whomever you select is going to be in charge of the large expansion program.  Therefore, the Board is going to have to be comfortable with this individual.

            Mr. Fennel stated or we can make it our own.

            Mr. Keller stated chances are, they will continue under the current structure.  When we have a candidate we are comfortable with, we can bring them to a meeting to have some interface with the Board to see if the Board is comfortable with the candidate before we move forward.

            Mr. Eissler stated it may take us six months or maybe longer to be comfortable with a new person.  I recommend having a professional engineer.

            Mr. Hanks stated keep in mind, while Mr. Moore has those credentials, he is not asking as an Engineer of Record for the District.  The Engineer of Record for the District is Mr. McKune or other members of CH2M Hill. 

            Mr. McKune asked is being a P.E. a qualified sounding board?

            Mr. Eissler responded yes.  It is a big loss to lose Mr. Moore. 

            Mr. Fennell stated the workshop items were in the minutes.  As I read through the minutes, we had several good points. 

Due to a failure of the recording equipment, side two of tape one could not be transcribed.  The following is a summary as dictated by the Manager of the District.


            Mr. Fennell asked are we going to have a presentation from Severn Trent?

            Mr. Keller responded we already did a presentation.  The $17 million capital improvement program is the high priority, which will be coordinated by staff.

            Mr. Fennell stated the current services will be retained.  I was expecting follow-up of the items discussed at the workshop.  I also expected Severn Trent to discuss the role of the Management Company and consulting engineer.

            Mr. Hanks asked will Severn Trent streamline the accounting, engineering and management services?

            Mr. Keller responded that was not my understanding.

            Mr. Fennell asked what are the future plans?

            Mr. Keller responded to have a detailed work plan.

            Mr. Hanks stated the Board needs to discuss Severn Trent from the internal side as well as identify the best way to implement an organizational structure.

            Mr. Keller discussed the accounting in terms of oversight and internal review.

            Mr. Hanks expressed concern over the sharing of employees.

            Mr. Eissler stated I agree with having a part time person to perform the accounts payable data entry.

            Mr. Hanks asked why would the part-time person need benefits and what is the salary?

            Mr. Eissler responded they do not need to.

            Mr. Keller stated the part-time person would receive a salary of $22,000.  One option is to have existing Severn Trent staff perform the accounts payable at no charge.

            Mr. Eissler stated I agree with the recommendation from Mr. Keller to have Severn Trent staff perform the accounts payable data entry at no cost.

            Mr. Fennell directed Mr. Keller to prepare an organizational chart for the next meeting along with the current and proposed Interlocal Agreements.

            Mr. Eissler asked where if the money going for Mr. Moore’s salary allocation?

            Mr. Keller provided the Board with a breakdown of Mr. Moore’s salary allocation between CSID and NSID with a 3% increase. 

            Mr. Eissler stated a sizable amount of money is included under Severn Trent’s fee.

            Mr. Keller stated if you add up the management fee, the number is correct but the allocation is confusing.

            Mr. Fennell stated I suggest having a Severn Trent review at the next meeting.


EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                     Questions and Comments on Proposed General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2006

            Mr. Keller stated a copy of the fiscal year 2006 General Fund Budget was provided to the Board.

            Mr. Hanks stated there is a decrease in the Carry Forward Surplus.  There is also a decrease in revenues due to the carry forward surplus capital outlay.

            Mr. Fennell stated due to repairs and maintenance.

            Mr. Hanks stated there is a decrease in Operating Supplies. 

            Mr. Eissler asked can we cut down on the amount of chemicals?

            Mr. Moore responded the chemicals are for the treatment of the canals.

            Mr. Fennell asked why did we cut expenditures by $120,000 and why is the tax levy increasing?

            Mr. Keller responded due to the surplus doing down.

            Mr. Eissler stated I would like someone to explain that to me.

            Mr. Moore stated on page two, the $120,000 for Operating Supplies includes $80,000 coming from FEMA for hurricane damage repairs.  However, there is no guarantee we will receive those funds from FEMA.

            Mr. Hanks asked what is your recommendation regarding what FP&L is doing?

            Mr. Moore responded I would like to discuss this matter further with Mr. Keller.

            Mr. Fennell stated the tax levy increased from $82.04 to $86.26.

            Mr. Hanks inquired about Marsh Insurance.

            Mr. Keller stated I will be meeting with the representative.


NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                       Distribution of the Proposed Water and Wastewater Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2006

            Mr. Keller provided a copy of the fiscal year 2006 Water and Wastewater Fund Budget to the Board.


TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                       Staff Reports

A.        Attorney

            There not being any, the next item followed.

B.        Engineer - Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

            Mr. McKune provided the monthly water and sewer charts to the Board.

C.        Manager - Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan and Funding Requirements

            There not being any, the next item followed.

            D.        Complaints Received/Resolved

            There not being any, the next item followed.


ELEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS               Supervisor’s Requests and Audience Comments

            Mr. Moore commented on the budget process and Mr. Keller commented on the collective process.


SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                  Approval of Invoices

            There being no questions or comments,


On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the General Fund invoices for May 31, 2005 in the amount of $37,571.45 and Water and Sewer Fund invoices for May 31, 2005 in the amount of $711,882.56 were approved.



            There being no further business,


On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the meeting was adjourned at 6:15 p.m.






Glen Hanks                                                            Robert Fennell

Secretary                                                                President