MINUTES OF MEETING

CORAL SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

 

            A meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, February 25, 2008 at 3:00 p.m. at the District Office, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.

 

            Present and constituting a quorum were:

           

            Robert Fennell                                                  President

            Sharon Zich                                                      Vice President

            Glenn Hanks                                                     Secretary

           

            Also present were:

           

            Dan Daly                                                          Interim Manager

            Edward Goscicki                                              Co-Manager - Severn Trent Services

            Dennis Lyles                                                     District Counsel

            Jane Early                                                         CH2M Hill

            Sean Skehan                                                    CH2M Hill

            Cory Johnson                                                   CH2M Hill

            Jim Aversa                                                       CSID

            John McKune                                                   District Capital Improvement Coordinator

            Randy Fredericks                                             CSID Drainage Supervisor

            Bob Koncar                                                     Severn Trent Services  

            Brenda Schurz                                                  Severn Trent Services

            Pamela Rower                                                  Severn Trent Services  

            Stephen Bloom                                                 Severn Trent Services

            Kay Woodward                                               CSID Accountant

            Jan Zilmer                                                         CSID Human Resources

           

                                                                                               

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS                               Roll Call

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

 

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS                          Approval of the Minutes of the January 28, 2008 Meeting

            Mr. Fennell stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the January 28, 2008 meeting and requested any corrections, additions or deletions.

            There not being any,

 

On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the minutes of the January 28, 2008 meeting were approved.

 

            Mr. Fennell stated we received quite a few things overnight via emails. 

            Ms. Zich stated I would rather they be in the package so if I go back to them later, they are in the package and not all over.  I did not start looking at anything until 10:00 a.m. this morning.  It is a lot for me to go over.  I am an accounting person.  I like my ducks in a row. 

            Mr. Goscicki stated in defense of the engineer, Mr. Skehan sent me these work authorizations a week and a half ago.  We were still in discussion on some of these things; going over the dollars and getting justification.  I made the decision to get them on this week’s agenda because they are important items.  We want to keep the docket going.  If they were not time sensitive, we would hold them until the next meeting.  If I see time sensitive issues come up in the future, I will put them on the agenda as drafts.  This way you can read the background and understand it has not been finalized through the manager yet.

            Ms. Zich stated the dates on here are January 25, 2008 and February 3, 2008.  It looks like it should have been in the package.  It is so much nicer for me because as an accounting person if later on any of these things come up, I go back to look it up.  Now where do I go?

            Mr. Skehan stated I certainly understand.  Our efforts, as Mr. Goscicki said, will be to have drafts, in advance, in the future if they are not finalized.

            Ms. Zich stated that will be much better. 

            Mr. Skehan stated I agree with you.

            Ms. Zich stated give us the finalized drafts and highlight any changes.

            Mr. Skehan stated we have been talking about some of these items for over the last month as you can see by the dates.  I can give you a quick synopsis of some of those items.

            Ms. Zich stated all of the accounting information is in the package every month.  I have the opportunity to go to Ms. Woodward before we get to the meeting if I have any questions.  I did not know these were coming up until this morning.

            Mr. Goscicki stated Mr. Skehan and I have been talking about having the engineer prepare a brief narrative as part of the agenda,  giving an update on the capital improvement projects.  They will highlight any changes or occurrences from the previous month.  This way we will have a good record.  You will have a document you can read at your leisure and not have to spend a great deal of time discussing it at the meetings. 

            Ms. Zich stated I just want as much to be in the package when we get it.

            Mr. Hanks stated with the work authorizations and other components, I do not know how hard it can be to put together a paragraph summary of what it is we will be looking at and what the manager’s recommendation is. 

            Mr. Goscicki stated it is something we should be doing on a routine basis.  We need to get our scheduling together on this.

            Mr. Skehan stated we are starting to get into the meat of the work with several of the projects taking place.  At this stage it is appropriate timing for having a quick summary for each of the projects.  This way we will see if we had a meeting, what the results of the meeting are and what the status of the project is. 

            Mr. Goscicki stated we plan to bring up these three items later in the agenda.

            Mr. Fennell stated I agree with everything said here.  We have to get this timelier.  This is not the old type of Boards where we come in with a couple of projects and we are going to spend $10,000.  We are now managing $40 million and we need better information and timelier. 

 

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS                             Discussion of Pension Plan Options

            Mr. Fennel stated let us move forward with discussion of pension plan options.  I had given my own definition, which is 80% of the salary less social security.  A city job is $30,000 a year.  After 35 years if there was no inflation, that job would still be worth $30,000 a year.  At that point, the person will have $26,000 a year.  If I look at this and say there were no inflation and a 6% accumulation, you will have $26,139 per year.  If you start at age 20, you will have $3,267 times 12.  It looks to me like $39,000, which is greater than $30,000 plus social security, which today would be $15,000.  If there were no inflation, it would be $44,000.  It will be more than what the job pays.  If a current salary is $30,000, we can expect it to pay $84,000 in 35 years.  At that point you can expect to get $42,000 from social security.  Actually I get $39,000 and $42,000.  I end up with a projected retirement of $81,000, 35 years from now. 

            Ms. Zich stated I looked at it, and thought about it, and 6% sounded good to me. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we are also contributing to another index fund called social security.  It is the only retirement system, which has held up.  If you take someone who is 20 years old and is making $30,000, 35 years from now the job will be worth $84,023.  It looks to me like $4,356 times 12 is close to $52,000 plus the $42,000 I have for social security.  It comes out to be $94,000. 

            Mr. Hanks asked what were the assumptions as far as longevity once you reach 65?  Is it a 401A plan we are looking?

            Mr. Goscicki responded it is a defined contribution retirement plan. 

            Mr. Fennell stated the real issue most retirees have is they can outlive their money. 

            Ms. Zich stated we would hope employees would set some money aside for themselves. 

            Mr. Hanks stated what I am getting at is here is the approximate monthly income at age 65.  What were the assumptions used to reach this approximate monthly income?

            Mr. Goscicki responded this is if you live to 90.  The spreadsheet I worked out says you retire at 65 and at 90 you run out of money.  The other consultants used more conservative numbers in terms of the earning rate.  If you raise it to 7% or 8%, you can get a better return.  If you are age 30 now and making $30,000, just accounting for inflation at retirement your salary at retirement will be $84,000.  When you look at the annuity you will be accumulating you will be getting approximately 25% a year of the future based rate.  Social Security will add on another 20%.

            Mr. Hanks stated so the monthly income is 35 years out.

            Mr. Goscicki stated it is at age 65.  It is how much real money they will be taking out in that year.  It is not today’s dollars. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I think we have a fair plan.  We need to encourage our employees to save on their own.  If we put in 1%, I expect them to put in 2%.  The problem is after you turn 65, you start running out of money in 10 years because inflation goes up 3% to 4% per year.  You need more to start with and the way to do this is with a type of matching contribution. 

            Ms. Zich stated I thought it was high.  Unfortunately, I am not use to government retirement plans.  I would love 6%.

            Mr. Goscicki stated one of the next steps I think will be appropriate for us to take, is to look into a 457 plan for employees, which is a government version of a 401K.  Getting it established will be an easy way for employees to allocate money.  The Board can at some point look into making matching contributions. 

            Mr. Zilmer stated we have an existing 457.  They are suggesting we amend it into a 401A, which allows us to make a contribution.

            Mr. Hanks asked does the conversion of a 457 to a 401A preclude the other retirement plans in place?

            Mr. Zilmer responded no.  It is completely different. 

            Mr. Hanks asked what was the original drive to move forward with changes to the pension plan?

            Mr. Zilmer responded it is the biggest factor in retaining utility employees.  Approximately 50% of the employees CSID has are either water or wastewater operators.  Those are the hardest people to retain because they are going out for better retirement plans. 

            Ms. Zich asked what about health insurance?  We have such a nice health insurance plan here.  We have health insurance and dental.  Nobody picks up all of these things anymore.   

            Mr. Zilmer stated we seem to get more employees who have already retired from other utilities.  They have their retirement now and they want to take advantage of our benefits.  There are restrictions on the amount of hours they are willing to work.  It will be ideal to get younger people.  We have offered training programs and let them go through internships.  A number of them went to other municipalities because of the retirement system.  Mr. Petty wanted to start introducing the Florida Retirement System a year an a half ago. 

            Mr. Hanks asked what type of costs do you see the District incurring by switching to a 401A?

            Mr. Zilmer responded it is minimal.

            Mr. Goscicki stated most companies in the private sector, which have 401K contributions will have a percentage maximum.  The President was indicating you contribute $2 we will contribute $1, but you would also have a total dollar or percentage caps.  Can you do some type of a match on a 457?

            Mr. Zilmer responded there is no provision for us to make a match on a 457.

            Mr. Hanks asked what is the down side of switching to a 401A from a 457?

            Mr. Zilmer responded nothing.  It allows us to make a contribution, but then you have to determine what type of contribution. 

            Mr. Hanks asked what are the limits on the contribution we can make?

            Mr. Zilmer responded $44,000 or 25% of your gross earnings.

            Ms. Zich stated let us say we have a $90,000 employee, 2% is $18,000.  Will we match with $9,000?

            Mr. Hanks stated I think we have to establish a number.

            Mr. Zilmer stated I think $15,500 is the maximum you can put in to have it tax deferred; although, there is a provision for people over 50. 

            Mr. Goscicki stated what I am hearing from the Board is you are comfortable with the current plan of 6% contribution into the annuity fund for the employees.  You are willing to entertain a matching 457 or 401A type plan.  We need to come back to you with specifics at the next meeting as to what the 401A can look like, what the limitations are and what the contributions will be under a proposed scenario.  What I am hearing the Board talk about is a 50% match up. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I think the people we want to help most are the people in the water waste area. 

            Mr. Goscicki stated we need to look at an investment schedule on it for your contribution. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we have to present to the employees what they actually have.  

            Mr. Zilmer stated we get everyone signed up and all of a sudden they need to take out all of the money they invested.  This is the only drawback to us contributing to a 401A.  With the Money Purchase Pension Plan, they cannot take the money out unless they retire.  This encourages them to continue to work. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we want to encourage them to save more.  We have to sit back and say your life is in your own hands.  We should entertain this now, and you can come back to us with something.  You have a feel for what we are thinking about.  We are not in bad shape.  We think we are fair.

            Mr. Hanks stated let us be creative and open minded as to how we are going to retain our employees. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we should also look at ways to pay for continued education for all of our employees.  There are going to be four year programs at the community colleges.  I would like us to look into this.  One of the issues we always face is, we have great utility workers, and they get to a point where they are no longer hands on.  They are actually managing other people and they have to use their skills.  I believe the program at BCC will be like that.  It is a bachelor degree in management and in some type of technology.  There is such a degree that exists out there.  It is something we should look into.  As our people progress we have to make sure they have the right training.  We all know after a while it is a question of budgets.

            Mr. Goscicki stated we will come back to you next month with more details. 

 

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                          Consideration to Award Bid for Repair to WWTP Plant C

            Mr. Daly stated we put a proposal out because Plant C broke. 

            Mr. Hanks asked is the diffuser the part, which spreads the sewage throughout.

            Mr. Goscicki responded it is the pipe that pumps the air in.       

            Mr. Hanks stated as opposed to an ocean diffuser, which diffuses the sewage out.

            Mr. Daly stated we had two respondents to the bid.  One was for $40,000.  The other one was Intrastate Construction Corp., which came in at $34,000.  After Mr. McKune and Mr. Hyche discussed the fact they are onsite, they were nice enough to reduce another 25% bringing the bid to $25,725.  It has been 45 to 60 days since this has been going on.  We are going to need to do this before it gets too hot.  The last time we did this, we had a letter from a resident who was not pleased with us because of the odor.  Before you are able to support this, we will be happy to blanket the area with a letter stating it might smell, but we are going to upgrade our odor control. 

            Mr. Hanks asked did the pipe break?

            Mr. McKune responded the issue is the diffusers and their attachments were supplied to us by the supplier.  The diffuser arms broke.  The cause was the assembly parts provided by the supplier.  The supplier did not realize this was going to happen.  At the time we repaired Plant C two years ago we elected not to redo it because we had the other problem and it was summertime.  We decided to see how long it would last. 

            Mr. Goscicki stated this is a major maintenance renewal and replacement item. 

            Mr. Hanks asked does Interstate Construction Corporation have the capacity to handle this work?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.

 

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the award of bid to Intrastate Construction Corporation for repair to WWTP Plant C at an amount of $25,725 was approved.

 

            Mr. Fennell asked what is the difference between a bid and request for a quote?

            Mr. Lyles responded if this were under $4,000 we could get a quote from a contractor, supplier or maintenance operation and make a decision, as staff, that this is a good deal for the District.  If it is over $4,000, we need to advertise it and make sure it is competitively bid.  You typically award the bid to the lowest qualified bidder. 

            Mr. Fennell asked is there a different between going out for a bid and requesting a quote?

            Mr. Goscicki responded we have a $4,000 bid threshold.  If it is under $4,000, we will competitively price these jobs.  We will contact several vendors.  The difference is we are not soliciting the price from particular vendors.  We have not opened up to the world.  We are saying we worked with these companies before.  We will get prices from three vendors we had work done by before.  If it is over $4,000, we put a public advertisement in the paper twice stating the work we want done, requesting a sealed bid to be turned at a particular location by a certain time and date.  We open the bids and see who the lowest responsive bidder is. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I heard there was a difference between a bid and request for quote as well as a legal responsibility.  With a bid we have to go with the price and with a quote we can still negotiate with the price.  Is this true?

            Mr. Lyles responded competitive bidding means sealed bids opened publicly and the low bidder wins if the bidder is a responsible bidder and the bid is responsive to the specifications you put out.  When you get quotes, it is an informal process.  What you cannot do in a competitive bidding scenario is ask the second lowest bidder to drop their bid to become the lowest bidder.  It is prohibited by state law.  It is a competitively bid public works contract.  Getting quotes is a less formal process. 

            Mr. Fennell stated so a private corporation can do a request for quotes and negotiate with each one.  Our hands our tied if we do a formal bid.

            Mr. Lyles stated you are stuck with the lowest bidder, but if you want to change around the nature of the project a bit, always staying within the four corners of the bid specifications you put out so you do not put other potential bidders at a disadvantage, you can negotiate some adjustments.

            Mr. Hanks asked as a Board what discretion do we have giving consideration to the reputation of some of these firms?  You and I both know there are some firms out there we want to stay as far away from as possible.

            Mr. Lyles responded if it is competitively bid, you do not have discretion in that regard.  You have the necessity that your staff and it is primarily the engineers who are responsible for this, do a type set of bid specifications.  You want responsible bidders.  Someone with a pick up truck and a tool belt is not responsible enough to do a complicated utility type job.  You need to make sure they have sufficient experience qualifications, insurance and bonding capacity.  As long as they are part of the bid specifications and all the bidders get to compete on equal footing, you should get qualified responsible bidders as opposed to someone you do not want to do business with.  The other process you can go through, which is more time consuming and expensive on the front end, is to do it on an RFQ basis.  You get qualifications and rank them.  You then start to have the ability as a government not to have to look away from some of the intangibles.  You assign a weight for things such as experience, on time completion, on budget completion and other things that are broader in scope than just the price. 

            Mr. Hanks asked when we go out to bid on these do we have any guarantee or any other assurances that these people are going to be able to financially perform the duties? 

            Mr. Goscicki stated when we do big projects we will require a bid bond.  We will also require performance bonds.  In addition to the other qualifications, you require some financial surety. 

            Mr. Lyles stated the surety bond we are going to have on every project we do like this will have a large insurer step in if the contractor goes bankrupt or walks off the job, we have a surety bond.  At that time, the surety takes it over and brings another qualified contractor in to complete the job at their expense; even if it is more expensive than the original contract. 

           

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                               Consideration of Award of Bid for PS 1 and PS 2 Improvements

            Mr. Fennel stated we received three bids.  The lowest bidder had to decline, leaving National Home Builders as the lowest bidder.  I am surprised at Intrastate Construction and their prices.

            Ms. Zich stated that is terrible.  Why are they so much more?

            Mr. McKune responded we questioned him on it and he said he priced it out. 

            Mr. Goscicki stated the two other bidders are close to what the engineer estimated the project cost and Intrastate Construction came in nearly double the figure. 

            Mr. Hanks asked have we ever dealt with National Home Builders?

            Ms. Early responded National Home Builders did work on Heron Bay Commons last year for NSID.  I think the work was approximately $650,000.

            Mr. Hanks asked how did they do?

            Ms. Early responded they did a good job.

            Mr. Hanks asked with this size job will we need a surety bond?

            Ms. Early responded not with a smaller job like this where you have a smaller bid package.  We are doing the new roof and painting. 

            Mr. Fennell asked do we have the money to cover this?

            Mr. Goscicki responded as soon as I received the proposal I called Ms. Woodward and asked her to send me the current financials as well as the budget.  We know the money is there.  It will not go in the agenda unless I have spoken with Ms. Woodward and the money is available. 

            Mr. Hanks stated we were directing our engineers to pursue continued use of propane at this site.  Is that where the direction came from?  It was a power supply for the pump.  We had talked about whether it was feasible to take out the natural gas.  I bring this up because it was recommended to the SWCD to switch out the existing propane tanks.

            Mr. Goscicki stated it is a significant dollar issue.

            Mr. Hanks stated we do not care about going with electric.  We do not have the reliability where it is needed. 

            Mr. Goscicki stated the problem is FPL is not reliable.  Propane is good and it is inexpensive. 

            Mr. Hanks stated what was curious were the numbers presented to SWCD.  It was presented as if electric was the way to go.

            Mr. Goscicki stated I was at the original meeting because I sat there as District manager.  The engineer’s recommendation was not to move forward with electric.  They just presented the two options.  In SWCD it was a staff recommendation to move forward.  It was seven to ten years before you saw the payback on it.  They have different geography in terms of where the FPL substation is compared to there pump station.  It is not a direct comparison to our situation.  It is a significant payback period before you realize those savings.

            Mr. Hanks stated it was a different recommendation and I wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.  I am comfortable going with propane. 

           

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the bid for PS 1 and PS 2 Improvements was awarded to National Home Builders in the amount of $393,420.

 

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                              Consideration of Engineering Work Authorizations

            Mr. Fennell stated these made the agenda, but were not in the agenda package.

            Mr. Goscicki stated we put them in as placeholders even though we did not have the back-up finalized. 

            Mr. Hanks stated we use consultants for the surveys and landscape architecture as it relates to this.  Initially it had been run through CH2MHill. 

            Ms. Early stated I believe you chose a surveyor to do ongoing District work as needed. 

            Mr. Skehan stated what we are doing with the geotechnical part of the investigation is we are subcontracting.  We have a geotechnical engineer who has been doing this for years who will look at the report and then compile a report generated from that data.  This is not a report coming from them.  We are collecting data, and doing testing.

            Mr. Goscicki stated we have permitting requirements stating we need to have geotechnical evaluations.  This is why this work authorization is being presented to you.  It is critical in terms of the permitting and construction process.

            Mr. Hanks asked is there a difference in the exposure we have?  If something were to go wrong, is there any difference on how we will approach things?

            Mr. Lyles responded I would not think so.  The important protection or safeguard is ensuring the professional negligence insurance is in place in case something goes wrong.  We know we have that with CH2MHill.  If we were to get a different consultant, we would make sure we have the same type of insurance protection.  If the issue becomes one of whether you should have gotten another set of eyes as opposed to the firm involved, it is more of a policy issue.  It is not an exposure or liability issue.  It is an issue of whether we are protected by malpractice coverage.

            Mr. Fennell asked is Work Authorization 42 for the bid we just passed?

            Ms. Early responded it is for inspection of the pump stations.

            Mr. Fennell stated during construction for pump stations #1 and #2.  This is what we just passed.

            Mr. Goscicki stated yes.  Ms. Early and I did go through this in detail in terms of staffing and the workload.  I recommend the Board move forward with this. 

            Mr. Hanks asked do the repairs on pump stations #1 and #2 need to have an engineer overseeing them?

            Mr. Goscicki responded it is only a part-time inspection.  It is at most two times a week if not less than that.

            Ms. Early stated it is less than that.  The big item is the roof.  We want to make sure we are getting the correct materials and have a couple of inspections.  There is a little electrical work.  We have to do some review of the bypass pipe.  There were a couple of components.

            Mr. Goscicki stated we had some significant problems with NSID on roof issues.  We had to go back to contractors and have them rebuild roofs for us. 

            Mr. Lyles stated if the city inspector comes out to look at a job like this and misses something which ends up being defective, the city is immune.  They have no liability to the District on these types of inspections.  If there is a problem, the city is off the hook and we are on our own.  I have litigated on this before on behalf of government inspectors. 

           

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor Work Authorization #42 for stormwater pump stations #1 and #2 upgrades was approved.

 

            Mr. Fennell stated now we are getting into the wells.  There is another permit in here.  Something about us transferring money, some place.

            Mr. Goscicki stated this is a financial issue we were going to bring up under the Manager’s report.  Now will be a good time.  We have a couple of people here.  I would like to introduce Mr. Bob Koncar to the Board.  Mr. Koncar is the General Manager for our management services group in Florida.  He oversees all of the management services practice.  Mr. Koncar answers directly to Mr. Kaas who has been to several of the Board meetings in the past.  Mr. Koncar is in charge of the business and he is in charge of finding my replacement for you.  He is working with me as we go through this. 

            Mr. Fennell asked next to you, are they part of your group as well?

            Mr. Goscicki responded Mr. Bloom you may have met before.  He is our Accounting Manager.  Ms. Rower you know as our Fiscal Analyst.  They are here to talk about this particular issue.  This is a good news/bad news type of issue.  There is very little bad news.  The only bad thing is we overlooked the fact we had $500,000 sitting in a construction account as we went through our new bond financing.  This is leftover from our Series 2002 Bond issue.  We brought our bond counsel into this.  They said we need to get this resolved.  This should have been applied towards construction projects and spent.  It has not.  The good news part of this is this Board has spent $900,000 on construction.  These proceeds could have been used against them had we identified them and earmarked them as such. 

            This resolution states we are going to take the $500,000 and reimburse ourselves for the $900,000 we already spent.  We have earned significant interest on this sitting in a bank account for the last six years so we are going to need to go through an arbitrage rebate calculation on this to make sure the interest we earned does not exceed the amount of interest we are allowed to earn from a bond issue.  We are going to be working with Deloitte, which is the firm we use for CSID to do arbitrage rebate calculations. 

            Mr. Hanks asked have you had a chance to review this?

            Mr. Lyles responded I have reviewed this.  I talked to bond counsel, Ms. Ganz about it.  It is ready for the Board to take up the resolution before you.  It lets us use our money in a protected fashion. 

            Mr. Fennell stated let me see if I can restate to you what you just stated to me.  It looks like we have $466,000 left there from a previous bond issue.  We spent a great deal out of our normal funds as we went along.  Somehow we did not spend this amount.  So this is going to go towards our general fund.

            Mr. Goscicki stated no.  The water and sewer fund. 

            Mr. Fennell stated okay, but it is going to go in the operating fund. 

            Mr. Goscicki stated since we are refunding ourselves the $900,000 we spent out of operating reserves to fund this construction prior to getting the bond issue in place.

            Ms. Zich asked how could we have done this?  How could we have not known?  I do not understand how we could not know.

            Mr. Goscicki stated that is the bad news; going six years with $500,000 sitting in an account.  The person who was doing the accounting at the time knew where it was.  That person is not here anymore. 

            Mr. Hanks asked were you here six years ago?

            Mr. Goscicki responded no, I was not. 

            Ms. Zich but it should have been where everyone knew where it was. 

            Mr. Goscicki stated we knew where the money was.  It just had not been allocated to the appropriate account.  It is sitting there as a construction fund and no one was reacting to it.  Ms. Woodward, I do not know if you can add any more to this from what you were able to dig up in looking at these things in terms of the history on this.  I know I cannot speak anymore intelligently to the history. 

            Ms. Woodward stated nothing other than I was asked to look back at the 2002 Bonds by Prager Sealy because they wanted to be able to transmit certain information to bond holders with respect to the 2002 Bonds, which is typical.  If you are buying bonds, you would like to have an update on how things are going.  When they asked me to look back at the account I noticed we had a 2002 construction fund.  I was trying to determine whether we had any old 2002 construction projects still out there and I could not locate any.  At that point I contacted US Bank, our trustee, and asked them to look back at their records to help me determine if everything was okay on this account as well as how we were allowed to use the funds.  He contacted Ms. Ganz and everyone proceeded forward to find an answer on what needs to be done with the funds.

            Mr. Hanks asked have you figured out a way to avoid losing money like this in the future?

            Ms. Woodward responded yes. 

            Mr. Fennell stated it was not lost.  It was never spent.

            Mr. Daly stated you did not have consistent financials for who knows how long.  Ms. Woodward has it all listed.  I was surprised it was not caught when the Series 2007 Bonds were issued. 

            Mr. Fennell stated congratulations in finding it.  Just do not tell me you lost $500,000.  My last question is about the arbitrage.  It is sitting in an account earning money.

            Ms. Woodward stated yes. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what rate is it earning at?

            Ms. Woodward responded it is earning the same percentage showing on our accounts with US Bank.

            Mr. Fennell asked why would we have to give any of the interest back to anyone else?

            Ms. Rower responded because they were issued as municipal bonds we are not allowed to earn an interest rate higher than what we issued them at.  You cannot issue a 3% bond and then earn 6% because the government has given these as tax exempt bonds.  There is a calculation that if you earn excess interest it is the government’s interest because they did not collect taxes from the people who bought these bonds.

            Mr. Fennell asked will we have to pay taxes if we made money?

            Ms. Rower responded if we earned arbitrage, which is excess interest, we will have to refund that money to the IRS. 

            Mr. Fennell asked a higher amount or just a piece of it?

            Ms. Rower responded just the excess interest.

            Mr. Fennell asked suppose we made an extra $100,000, how much do we get to keep?

            Ms. Zich responded we could not make an extra $100,000. 

            Mr. Goscicki stated I think the total interest was about $43,000. 

           

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor Resolution 2008-2 directing the transfer of certain funds on deposit in the construction trust fund relating to the District’s general obligation water and sewer revenue refunding bonds, Series 2002 Bonds to reimburse certain expenditures relating to the District’s water and sewer system paid or incurred prior to the date hereof, providing for severability and providing an effective date was adopted. 

 

            Mr. Fennell stated lets step back and get an overview.  We spent $50,000 already looking at a monitoring well.

            Mr. Skehan stated we are talking about the dual-zone monitoring well right now.  What we found through a preliminary investigation is that there is a leak in the existing tubing.  The lower tubing has a leak in it.  We looked at different ways to repair it using what already exists there.  The final conclusion of all this is trying to repair what is there is going to put us more at risk in the future.  We are not able to provide assurance the monitoring well will not continue to have problems three, four or five years down the road.  Looking at where we are now we met a couple of weeks ago with Mr. Hyche and the DEP.  Some of the project delays tie into the bond refunding.  The unavailability of dollars tied this up for some time.  The DEP is anxious to have this move forward.  They were about ready to issue a violation as there was not something concrete in place demonstrating there was progress moving ahead.  We suggested to the DEP the safest way to move forward was to design for a new dual-zone monitoring well.  It is a standard procedure with injection well systems.  They were happy to hear this was the case because they are anxious to move forward.

            Mr. Fennell asked are we not going to repair the existing well?

            Mr. Skehan responded no, we are not going to repair the existing well.

            Mr. Fennell asked how much money have we spent to determine we cannot repair it?

            Mr. Skehan responded we spent approximately $60,000 not just to find out we cannot repair it, but to evaluate the situation.  The issue was, as far as water quality, finding out there was a leak.  We went through a procedure holding a number of meetings with DEP to discuss it.  We had water quality evaluations and looked into what happened.  This led us to where we are right now.  We are now putting together a design for the new dual-zone monitoring well and getting it permitted.  There are mechanical components to this.  All analog data will be changed over to a digital recording system.  There will be a small computer tied to the system, which will be collecting data, pressure recordings required by DEP and flow recordings from the injection well.  We are going to get the injection wells and monitoring wells tied together in a more comprehensive data acquisition system. 

            Mr. Fennell asked how many wells are there?  You have an injection well and a monitoring well that is no longer monitoring correctly.  Are we going to add another injection well or monitoring well?

            Mr. Skehan responded no.  We are going to plug and abandon the existing monitor well.  We will have a design to replace this well.  Instead of a three zone well we are going to have a two zone well.

            Mr. Fennell asked how much is it going to cost?

            Mr. Skehan responded about $1 million, which has been budgeted as part of the capital improvement plan. 

            Mr. Goscicki stated the original project was to refurbish the existing monitoring well.  That was estimated to be $700,000 to $800,000.  You are looking at a $300,000 increase to plug that well and build a new well.  We wanted to make sure the Board understood the issues.  We had significant discussions on this along with the operating staff.  The recommendation of your manager along with your staff is to go forward with the new well.  If you stay with the old well, you can end up spending $700,000 and wind up with something that does not meet your needs.  We felt the prudent way to go was to invest the additional $200,000 to move forward with a new monitoring well we know will meet DEP requirements.

            Mr. Fennell asked are we going to need a new injection well in the future as well?

            Mr. Skehan responded we are trying to avoid it as much as we can.  The cost of a new injection well is over $6 million.  Every effort we are heading towards is to avoid it. 

            Mr. Goscicki stated $6 million for a new well is not part of your program. 

            Mr. Fennell asked where will you place the new monitoring well so if we ever needed to replace the injection well, we would not have to build a new monitoring well?

            Mr. Skehan responded we looked at this and gave it as much evaluation as possible.  The difficulty is the two injection wells as they are located right now, one is at the northwest side and the other is on the southwest corner, they are too far apart to put the new monitoring well in between.  The maximum distance the DEP will allow for separation of the monitoring well and injection well is 150 feet.  The two injection wells are separated by approximately 600 feet.  It is not possible to use one monitoring well in between them. 

            Mr. Fennell asked if we had to put in a new $6 million well, will it be close enough?

            Mr. Hanks asked within the range of our new monitoring well, is there the capability of putting in a new injection well?

            Mr. Skehan responded we looked into this also.  The way the site is laid out right now, the only place there is room to place this monitoring well is up close to the canal bank on the northwest corner.  As you move down towards the south side of the plant site on the west side, you have the pond bank and the canal bank.  You have little room to do something like this.  Part of where we are going is a segue to one of the other amendments up for consideration, which is the water use permit.  We are striving to attempt to maintain use of the Biscayne Aquifer .  We talked about it at a couple of Board meetings in the past. 

            What you are seeing with this overall capital improvement plan is a complexity of some of the issues tied to the water use permitting and injection wells.  Everything is related.  What we are trying to get to with the water use permit, is if we can stand a little bit the use of the Biscayne Aquifer , it is the least expensive way to add more water, which will be going into the nano plant.  As long as we can maintain this and demonstrate to the Water Management District it is not going to affect anything near the Everglades or water levels in the canal system, we should be able to demonstrate to them satisfactorily we can take this additional water.  This will help with not having to go to a Florida Aquifer  well to supply water to the nano plant also.  If you go to the Florida Aquifer well, you are getting more saline water.  More saline water dries up the water quality.  It makes poor water quality to add into the injection well, which causes the potential for modifying the smaller injection well. 

            Mr. Hanks stated the Biscayne Aquifer goes down 100 feet or so.

            Mr. Skehan stated 150 feet.  The Florida Aquifer well is probably 900 feet.  It actually goes all the way down to the boulder zone, but it is not usable all the way down to approximately 1,800 feet. 

            Mr. Hanks stated you start to get fluorides and solids all the way out there.
            Mr. Skehan stated yes.  Your total is all solids.  Your TDS will go up over 10,000 milligrams.  Ocean water is somewhere around 35,000 to 36,000 milligrams.  Water exceeding 10,000 milligrams of TDS is not considered usable for typical reverse osmosis application.

            Mr. Hanks stated if we ever have to use the Florida Aquifer well, we need to have this monitoring well to demonstrate we are not contaminating the Florida Aquifer well.

            Mr. Skehan stated that is correct.  Going back to your question on whether there is room out there to save $1 million by not having to drill another monitoring well, it will be difficult to put an injection plant on the west side of the plant.  You need a huge area for a drilling rig to come in.  The drilling rig, which will come in for the monitoring well, is a third of the size of what would be used for an injection well.  The amount of space is limited.  With new injection well systems DEP has allowed a monitoring well to be used for two injection wells, but they have been reluctant to do so.  There is no guarantee in the future with their questioning injection well systems. 

 

            A.        Geotechnical Evaluation for the WTP Improvements

            Mr. Fennell stated we have this work authorization for the geotechnical evaluation, which is to look at the soil samples. 

            Mr. Skehan stated it is going out there to do a geotechnical investigation.  It is for the new Plant F on the wastewater side, taking some borings in the vicinity of where the large tank has to go.  We have to test the soil and everything underneath it as well as the vicinity of several of the structures for the nano building. 

            Mr. Hanks asked because we are concentrating all of the responsibility and accountability with the design of the system with CH2MHill, will our money be better spent having a geotechnical firm do the report themselves?

            Mr. Fennell asked is this a one-time deal?

            Mr. Skehan responded this is a one-time deal.  We will be responsible for generating this report.  We are the responsible party; otherwise, we will have to take exception to anything put in the report and go through it.  There are exceptions, which will be made to it.  We will be bringing this back to the Board as well.  It is a whole other issue.  From our standpoint, working from a foundation up, this is the platform upon which these projects will be built. 

            Mr. Hanks stated going back a couple of meetings one of my comments and questions on CH2MHill’s scope of services - the answer was this was not in the scope of services they were providing. 

            Mr. Skehan stated we did not have it in there at that time because the assumption was we were going to be able to use the existing data available.  We learned Broward County requires updated geotechnical data. 

            Mr. Hanks stated let us move on.  Do we have a work authorization number on this?

            Ms. Early stated it is work authorization # 43.

           

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor work authorization #43 for geotechnical evaluation for WTP improvements and WWTP Plant F was approved.

 

            B.        New Dual-Zone Monitor Well – Amendment #1

            Mr. Fennell stated Work Authorization #26 is effluent monitoring well and new dual-zone monitoring well, which is your engineering cost.

            Mr. Skehan stated this is our engineering cost.  This is also getting all of the data digitized so it can be recorded into our computer system.  We discussed this with staff and Mr. Hyche.  They want to be able to go from the chart reports they have now.  This automation will assist them on the reporting side with data.  It is a significant component. 

            Mr. Fennell asked where does the data go to?

            Mr. Skehan responded the data goes into your operations room.  Your staff will be looking at it on a monthly basis.  There is a monthly operating report compiled, which is required by the DEP.  This data goes to the District.

            Mr. Fennell asked do we have a computer, which accepts this data?

            Mr. Skehan responded that is a great question.  Part of the answer to this is the software and programming is not there now.  Part of this authorization will provide it.  As part of the construction component of this for the bid, will have the requirement for the contractor to provide it. 

            Mr. Hanks stated it will be a permitting requirement.

            Mr. Skehan stated absolutely. 

            Mr. Hanks asked is it a permitting requirement to go with digital?

            Mr. Skehan responded no, it is not, but everyone is going that way.  DEP prefers it.

            Mr. Hanks stated there is an example where digital recording is not necessarily where you want to go.  If you want to pick up pressure of either a force main or water main at some point down the line, the 24-hour circular charts are easier to deal with than getting your periodic data.  We are not talking about something along those lines.  We are talking about something where it will actually be useable data, which is user friendly to our staff to prepare reports.

            Mr. Skehan stated yes.  We talked to staff about this to make sure they were ready to make this transition because sometimes there can be some level of reluctance.  DEP will look to see because there is an actual gauge sitting at the well, which can compare to the digital readings taking place.  There is a comparison.  DEP will come out twice a year and make an inspection to make sure everything is taking place. 

            Mr. Hanks asked how long is this going to last if we go this route?  If we fix it up, how long is it going to last?

            Mr. Skehan responded this is a newer design for the monitoring well.  The standard dual-zone monitor well constructed since the early 1980s was all steel with a 12 inch and 6 inch steel casing. 

            Mr. Hanks asked what is the expected life span?

            Mr. Skehan responded 30 years.  There is fiberglass being used.  The reason why there is a potential problem with trying to fix this well is the 6-inch steel casing has recently failed in a couple of different other locations in the southeast. 

            Mr. Hanks asked has the fiberglass been proven in South Florida?

            Mr. Skehan responded yes.  It was first used in Fort Lauderdale going back ten years ago.  Everyone is using it now. 

            Mr. Hanks asked how specific is the design as opposed to pulling components off the shelf?

            Mr. Skehan responded you have to tie in what you have out here with the electrical.  There is the permitting part of it.  This is the nuts and bolts of being able to pull this together.  This will take us through the bid.  When we finish with the bid we will be back to do some field services for you, but that is not part of this. 

            Mr. Hanks asked do we need any new borings?

            Mr. Skehan responded no. 

            Mr. Hanks asked if we do not do this, are we in violation?

            Mr. Goscicki responded we need to move forward one way or the other.  We need to either authorize them to move forward with the rehabilitation of the existing monitoring well or authorize them to move forward with this design.

            Mr. Hanks stated rehabilitation of the old well was $700,000 to $800,000.  What was the possible lifespan on that?

            Mr. Skehan responded maybe five years.

            Mr. Hanks asked why would we even consider rehabilitating it?

            Mr. Skehan responded to save some money.

            Mr. Hanks stated to save $300,000 or $400,000 and we are looking at a lifespan, which is a quarter of what we are putting in.

            Mr. Goscicki stated when we started this investigation the attempt was to rehabilitate it and get 20 years out of it.  What we learned from this investigation is we may not get five years out of it.  That is why the recommendation is to change it. 

            Mr. Skehan stated when you rehabilitated seven or eight years ago it was because DEP was then looking for a lower monitor zone.  The tubing put in at the time should have been fiberglass. 

            Mr. Fennell stated this is the second time I know of this District has been fooling around with the monitoring well.  I believe we are better off putting a new well in. 

           

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor Work Authorization #26, effluent monitoring well (MW-2) and new dual-zone monitoring well (MW-3) amendment #1 was approved.

 

            C.        Water Use Permit Assistance – Amendment #1

            Mr. Fennell stated the South Florida Water Management group sent me copies of all the information that went back and they gave me some 40-year data for rainwater.  From what I can gather they do not have a model for the drainage area. 

            Mr. Goscicki stated I met a couple of weeks ago the Broward County office of the Environmental Protection.  The meeting was with the head of the water management division as well as representatives from the county water resources division.  The county has flood maps, which show the flood elevations in the various basins, and is based on 1973 data.  In this area because of the master planning Coral Springs has done, it is pretty sound.  The modeling is actually, what goes on outside the perimeter of our basin.  When I pressed the question of show me the elevations in the C-14; it is taken by the county and the water districts as they are controlling elevations based on the gates that control what goes out to tide.  I also posed the question of what do you do when Hurricane Katrina comes here with a storm surge of 15 feet.  The answer I got was we have not looked at that.  They are working with me and taking me around to FEMA and NOAA and are trying to get me some other information as to how they may have done some storm surge modeling.  The general opinion I got from the county agencies with that scenario,  hey are pretty comfortable that even in a 100-year flood event those will be the elevations.  They do not feel a 15-foot storm surge will cause a back water curve in the canal system.  They are continuing to try to get some more information for me and I continue to stay in contact with them. 

            Mr. Hanks asked do they actually have a computer program?

            Mr. Goscicki responded they have a computer program put together that has a model of the entire county showing the 100-year flood elevations.  They have given a print out which is consistent with what you have seen from the engineers in the past. 

            Mr. Fennell stated the most up-to-date information is what we did last year. We probably have a better handle on our own particular area than anybody else including FEMA and the SFWMD.  The other problem I found was some notes from 1989 showing our area.  It showed the C-14 did get up to a high water mark was 8.99 at 37B and it was 15.47 at 38.  This tells me the top of the canal was at 10.47.  Somewhere between 9 feet and 10½ feet is really how high the canal got. 

            Mr. Hanks stated what you are dealing with in some of these situations is the model at 100-year.  What we are trying to do is take a look at what is predicted,  what the 100-year storms will be,  but we do not have 100 years of records for South Florida.

            Mr. Fennell stated actually you probably do, but nonetheless, I think we have enough data to find out was going on. 

            Ms. Early stated I think they ran the model and the C-14 is 10½ feet. 

            Mr. Fennell stated there are a couple of issues.  Number one is they are wrong – if the canals go up it means we do not have any water flowing out during that period of the surge. 

            Ms. Early stated I think what Mr. Goscicki is trying to say is when the water starts to backup the C-14 not all of the communities are like CSID where we are in control.  Water is not coming back into any culverts.  There is a lot of communities where the water is going to start going into those communities. 

            Mr. Goscicki stated North Lauderdale will flood. 

            Mr. Hanks stated the other issue you are dealing with in a storm surge is the shape of the continental shelf.  Here on the east coast of Florida it drops off quickly, so you do not have the build up of water.  It also depends on what your topography is inland.  If you have a limited number of openings to allow it through you are choking it off. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I will read this into the record. 

            Rainfall amounts in the basin for April 25, 1979 storm ranged from that of a 50-year storm to greater than that of a 100-year.  Reported water surface elevations over flood streams ranged from approximately ½ foot in areas drained by gravity flow to approximately 1½ feet in the areas drained by pumping.  A discharge of 3,100 cubic feet per second was measured at US Highway 441.  The designed discharge at the point is 2,050.  An estimated peak flow of 4,500 cubic feet per second passed structure 37A where the designed discharge is 3,890. 

 

            Mr. Fennell stated the engineer who wrote this actually seemed to know what he was doing.  What he is saying is there are problems with the C-14 drainage.  There are areas where the flow is not good enough and we did exceed flood stages.  The problem we have is we now have another canal from north of us that has to go to the C-14 canal which at that point is going to be at least 10 feet.  I do not know how much water they are going to be discharging but they are going to have a drop that comes down the canal.  We are exposed for at least ½ mile or more.  Given the heights we now know, if we discharge the maximum amount that we can out of the north is it fact their water going to flow back into our area?

            Ms. Early stated I believe that is what we agreed on.  I will bring the model to you.  We put a maximum in the c-14 of 10.5 feet to see how the SWCD canal was going to back up if they were pumping at their maximum capacity.  I think we show we are still okay and with the benefit where the one section is low the water is going to go.

            Mr. Fennell stated I do not mind the water flooding other places but we are the low point. 

            Ms. Early stated I am saying if the dyke is low where we have the small area. 

            Mr. Hanks stated it is actually serving as a relief valve for a portion of our community. 

            Mr. Fennell stated if I understand it only parts of the C-14 are pumped out and the rest are gravity fed.  What happens to those people? 

            Mr. Goscicki responded they may have some backflow. 

            Ms. Early responded they may have higher finished floors than us because of that.

            Mr. Hanks stated in the report you referenced some things that say above design or above flood stage.  Does it specify which flood stage - quite often, it references the 10-year flood and at that point streets are no longer protected from flooding.  You are also referencing discharges above design.  For design discharge is it based on a 25-year storm?

            Mr. Fennell stated when this was designed they were draining farmland. 

            Mr. Hanks stated when you are dealing with rainfall amounts you run your calculations on 5, 10, 25 and 100-year.  You have to demonstrate the 100-year elevation is no higher than the flood elevation shown on those maps.  My requirement is to meet what is on those maps. 

            Mr. Fennell stated my point is it looks like the data is grossly outdated by at least 30 years.  It has not accounted for the growth that has occurred.  The modeling done as far as the amount of surface area; none of that was taken into account.  More than that when they say design they are looking at the original design; it does not mean it was the right design. 

            Mr. Hanks stated each area has a particular contributory you are not allowed to exceed – whether it be 62 cubic feet per second.  You are allowed a portion of that discharge.  The way the permitting process goes is you are not allowed to impede that. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I do not see where the logic holds.  They are so far out of date that their guidelines are not very useful.  The inference is someone has done some good thinking in the last five years, but I do not see it. 

            Mr. Hanks stated I think in some of the other municipalities if the county performed an analysis to the level which we asked CH2MHill to go ahead and perform I think they would find some differences.  Is this a good order of magnitude indicator – I think it is reasonable. 

            Mr. Fennell stated but the order of magnitude is times ten. 

            Mr. Hanks stated I still think we are still facing more of a risk from internal flooding than from external flooding. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we have to decide if the east canal is a true problem or not.  I think we have numbers we can use which are to the level we actually saw.  At that point, we can move forward to decide.  We may need a larger discharge level. 

            Mr. Hanks stated I do not think we are going to be doing that.  I think the one thing we are going to come back to and they are all tied to is the water use.  We are going to have to increase our allocation or request an additional allocation.  Is it possible the only why to make up for it is to provide additional storage?  If it is a possibility, we can kill two birds with one on this.  If we can provide and demonstrate, we are retaining more water and storing more so it is available for use. 

            Mr. Skehan stated it is certainly a consideration.  One of the things tied to the model of the water use permit is that we are going to, in the first stage of evaluating, the Water Management District’s planning model, which has not been calibrated.  We have to calibrate it against the data that will be taken from your wells to see how withdrawals from your basin can potentially affect what is taking place in the Water Management District canals.  If we can demonstrate we are not affecting those canals and the water levels for the Water Management District we will be okay. 

            Mr. Fennell stated they are asking you to do a new program. 

            Mr. Skehan stated a new model. 

            Mr. Fennell stated which has nothing to do with canals but with sub-surface management.

            Mr. Skehan stated it has to do with the inter-connectivity of the sub-surface water with the canal system and water levels that may or may not affect the water levels in the Everglades. 

            Mr. Fennell asked do they have a computer model for that? 

            Mr. Skehan responded the model we are going to be using is their regional planning model.  We will take the model and use your data from here locally to look to see how that will affect it.  If it is acceptable to the Water Management District we can potentially then avoid a significant cost of generating a new model. 

            Mr. Goscicki stated the Water Management District has the model, they have not calibrated it and I expect when we do the modeling for our permit we will show if you increase our allocation it will not change the elevation; they will still say you cannot have anymore water.  They have an arbitrary rule and a model that does not support the rule.  This is conjecture on my part and not engineering facts. 

            Mr. Hanks asked will South Florida support the use of a statistical model or is it required to be a computer model? 

            Mr. Skehan responded computer model.

            Mr. Fennell stated they are having us do the work and I would say the work done here at Coral Springs is probably the most advanced work that has been done in 20 years.  

            Mr. Skehan stated for the drainage. 

            Mr. Fennell stated which actually fits directly into model.  Once you have the drainage there is another model right below that which talks about sub-surface flow.  I believe the canals in Margate are gravity feed.  I have noticed when their water is down in the canals it is a foot or two and ours was only a foot, which tells me we were retaining millions of gallons of water in our area. 

            Mr. Skehan stated you have control structures, which are able to maintain the elevation which is working to your advantage. 

            Mr. Fennell asked how long can you actually maintain it? 

            Mr. Goscicki responded that is Mr. Frederick’s big challenge every hurricane season. 

            Mr. Skehan stated you are better off retaining as much water as possible because you are mounded here if you have higher elevations in your canals. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we can drain down the canals quick but the water is going to flow to the sides.

            Mr. Skehan stated then you are beginning to effect the levels in the Water Management District and they will not allow that to happen and what they do not want to see happen. 

            Mr. Fennell stated it seems CSID, NSID and SWCD are doing a great service to the county having canals and dykes. 

            Mr. Skehan stated you are correct on a regional basis.  Cities like Sunrise who are trying to get additional allocation do not have the internal mound network the same as here. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I think you need to press that advantage because we are actually doing a service not only for ourselves but for the entire South Florida water area.  We should get some kind of benefit out of that. 

            Mr. Goscicki stated the benefit we hope to get is the incremental increase in consumptive use. 

            Mr. Skehan stated it has the potential to save a lot of money for you down the road. 

            Mr. Hanks asked what level of verification and background information do we need to acquire in terms of geotechnical soil reports and in terms of canal sizes?

            Mr. Skehan responded it was compiled in the first application and we have the information available already.  It is the request for additional information put forward by the Water Management District for verification of certain points and part of it is the model. 

            Mr. Fennell asked is it possible to get grant money for some of these things – to study this stuff? 

            Mr. Skehan responded this is fairly standard for the water use permitting component. 

            Mr. Fennell stated there are things we are doing that could be of great benefit to them. 

            Mr. Skehan stated the Water Management District has an alternative water supply grant program, which comes up on an annual basis.  The meeting is March 14.  There is two one-hour sessions taking place that day.  It is my intention to attend to see what the opportunities are in looking for funding for the nano plant because it is an alternate water source. 

            Mr. Fennell stated they are going to force us to do it anyway so let us ask them for money. 

            Mr. Skehan stated looking at this from a regionalization standpoint the Water Management District, as staff has heard, is very interested in a regional look at how this area here is. 

            Mr. Hanks stated not just thinking about Coral Springs, and it is something to communicate you have tremendous needs for additional recharge or storage capabilities for the east and maybe we can shift it that way instead of out to tide. 

            Mr. Skehan stated conceptually these are great ideas but the difficulty is the cost of the pipelines and the pump stations to be able to interconnect. 

            Mr. Hanks stated the cost of the pump station versus drilling a well to the Floridian what is the cost differential.

            Mr. Skehan stated $1 million per pump station so probably not too far different but with the pipeline, they have to rip up highways or roads. 

            Mr. Hanks asked what is our efficiency now lime softening in terms of water in water out?

            Mr. Skehan responded in terms of losses I cannot answer that question. 

            Mr. Johnson stated about 99.9% (   ). 

            Mr. Skehan stated water from the Aquifer will not be brined.  It will be higher in dissolved solids. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we have to come up with some money.

            Mr. Goscicki stated as Mr. Skehan said the best opportunities for money are the construction of alternative supplies.  Alternative supplies being anything from reclaim water to storage and recovery – anything that is not taking water out of the Biscayne Aquifer.  They are more about money for construction rather than studies.  The ranking is more about readiness to go than how worthy is your project. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we are talking about $47,000 for a study. 

            Mr. Goscicki stated this could not be the end of the study for this permit; this could get us going further into the process but we are at the mercy of the Water Management District in terms of how many hoops and how much detail. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I think we have to do this, but we are talking about above and beyond for a local water district.  They are trying to push down their responsibility. 

            Mr. Hanks asked is this really our anticipated use of the nanofiltration? 

            Mr. Goscicki responded the key issue is our permit is up for renewal and we are going through the renewal process.  As part of the renewal process we want to increase the amount of water we are taking off of the Biscayne Aquifer to meet our future needs.  The incremental increase is what is triggering the additional analysis.

            Mr. Hanks asked do we need to request the additional increase now? 

            Mr. Goscicki responded yes. 

            Mr. Skehan stated bottom line with this is instead of going to the Florida Aquifer for the additional supply – the Florida Aquifer well will cost about $1 million.  If we can demonstrate through this that we can get the rest of the water we need from the Biscayne Aquifer  we will save $1 million. 

            Mr. Hanks stated this is the initial model.  Where do you see it by the time we get through to our water use permit – what do you think we could be spending for our modeling?

            Mr. Skehan responded Miami Dade County was $400,000 to $500,000.  In the past, I have mentioned it could be as much as $200,000 but that was factoring in NSID, Coral Springs and CSID if you have to create a brand new model from scratch.  I do not think that is going to be the case.  I might say collectively $100,000 to $150,000 between the three different utilities.  Let us see what they are talking about this year for funding opportunities and then get a separate session with them to talk about these issues. 

            Mr. Hanks stated I think we have to get ourselves aligned and oriented in the direction we want to go and come up with preliminary information then approach South Florida. 

            Mr. Skehan stated if we are able to demonstrate through this modeling that their model will work and we are going to calibrate it.  We will use that information as a platform where we can begin to have some solid information. 

            Mr. Hanks asked what is the backup scenario if it is not?

            Mr. Skehan responded to spend $200,000 to $250,000. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we already have a model and I do not think it is that far away from doing what they want. 

            Mr. Skehan stated as mentioned before with the surface water modeling – the amount of information there is not very good.  They have a good idea of what they would like to do but the validation of that is what becomes so important. 

            Mr. Hanks stated for this type of model we do not know yet what are the real factors affecting the ground water levels elsewhere. 

            Mr. Skehan stated they define some of those limiting factors are with the Everglades. 

            Mr. Hanks stated but as far as the specifics addressed how and what are the widths. 

            Mr. Skehan stated that has not been evaluated and how it is interconnected to your water withdrawals.  This is what we are going to be doing. 

            Mr. Hanks stated and it probably does not have kind intricacies with the well draw down influencing the canals you are going to have almost instantaneous recharge for that particular location if the well is close enough to a canal. 

            Mr. Skehan stated correct and what we have done for the permit application is two dimensional models and DEP does not accept that.  

            Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like the Water Management District is more towards the water usage models.  We are going to figure out our own storm model, and maybe we can take our storm model and use it as a water usage model.  We have several different things we need to negotiate somehow with the Water Management District – 1.)  a better storm model, that they do not have, 2.)  a water usage, and 3.)  if we are going to store water we have to have some assurance we can put out more water.  We have to think of usage and storm cases and we have to tie the two together.

            Mr. Skehan stated what I think you are going to run into is you have people who are very happy with extended backyards.  If you want to increase the amount of storage in your canal system those water levels are going to come up and it has an effect on how much grass you own and landscaping. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we need to add #10 grant writing. 

 

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor work authorization #36 was approved as amended. 

 

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                        Staff Reports

            A.        Manager

                        i.          Meeting w/Broward County re. Flood Elevations

                        ii.         Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

                        iii.        Utility Billing Work Orders

                        iv.        Customer Satisfaction

           

            Mr. Fennell asked what was the problem with FP&L? 

            Mr. Skehan responded there was no final resolution to that as yet. 

            Mr. Fennell asked did we write them a letter asking?

            Mr. Skehan responded there was a request for information. 

            Mr. Fennell stated you need to get to the cause and we need to understand why our system failed.  It did not work the way it should. 

            Mr. Hanks stated it could have posed a health risk. 

            Mr. Fennell stated it did pose a health risk.  We were supposed to do something for $1,500.  Did we put in additional power for this building? 

            Mr. Daly responded it is in the process now.

            Mr. Hanks asked what is the expected completion?

            Mr. Daly responded it should be done in the next couple of weeks.  They have ordered some switches and things. 

            Mr. Hanks asked were there any permitting issues with regard to it? 

            Mr. Daly responded I do not believe so.  He is actually going to set it up so we can put two generators there.  Two separate circuits, two separate wiring.  There is already two separate boxes there.  In addition, Mr. Hyche and I had a meeting with the Assistant City Manager and Fire Chief about some of the things they would like to see us do here.  One of the items is to get the gate to be opened by hand so they do not have to plow through it if they should have to get in when there is no electricity.  The other thing is they said when this happens to them they call the CERT team which is an emergency response team, who are volunteers who blanket the area with door hangers and the such. 

            Mr. Hanks stated it would certainly make sense.  I have three phones and nothing came through on it. 

            Mr. Daly stated we have identified every restaurant, day care, hospital facility, school with phone numbers and everything else on paper in addition to being electronic. 

            Mr. Hanks stated we have it prioritized. 

            Mr. Daly stated yes, it has been put into a folder so we can actually take it and call from a cell phone if necessary.  We have done a lot of things with regard to the incident we had.  The press releases have been made up, nothing more than a couple of sentences right now but on the other hand it is hard to say what.   We are redoing the website and placing it on a laptop so we will not have to have electricity here in order to up date it.

            Mr. Fennell asked what about the telephone?

            Mr. Daly responded I found a company who advertises on satellite radio often like an anywhere office.  I am looking into it and it is something we would just transfer our main number to.  It is a computer, I believe, in Connecticut. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what about the automatic call stuff? 

            Mr. Daly responded I talked to the city and they said they had 60%.  I asked them how often they mine for data and they said once a year.  We suggested telling them every two or three months us telling them the new customers.  Somewhere along the line there is a disconnect and they are not fessing up. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what is the next step?

            Mr. Daly responded help them with our data for telephones and addresses for them to update it.  They did not want to pay for it; they said they can mine data more often, but it costs money. 

           

            B.        Attorney

            There being no report, the next item followed. 

 

            C.        Engineer

                        i.          Project Status Report

            There being no further report, the next item followed.

 

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                           Supervisors Requests and Audience Comments

            Mr. Fennell stated our money with the state issue. 

            Ms. Woodward stated we transferred a total of $150,000 out of SBA into our operating account.  It leaves roughly $410,000 still in SBA in fund B.  We have transferred out all of fund A.  

            Mr. Fennell stated you were going to do some investing in T-Bills.  Did that occur?

            Ms. Rower responded we need to have some paperwork signed.  The return we are getting on the trust compared to what is out there; we do not think we are going to move in that direction at this moment but we are monitoring it. 

            Mr. Bloom stated I know there is a lot of money tied up in fund B for many people.  They have been moving money out of fund B.  Chances are they will keep doing that. 

 

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                             Approval of January Financials and Check Registers

            Ms. Zich stated I had a question on the contingency, but I spoke with Ms. Woodward and she answered my questions. 

                       

On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the January financials and check registers were approved.

 

            A.        Cash Flow Summary Report

            Ms. Zich stated these are nice.

            Mr. Fennell stated you have it broken down into two – operations and capital.  Do not take out the projected, but leave the actual there as you go. 

            Ms. Woodward stated I leave the actual at the end.  The projected starts in February and the actual is through January.  When we do the February statement, you will have actuals through February and then projected March on. 

            Mr. Fennell stated leave the February there too. 

            Mr. Hanks stated it will be did we meet our projects, were we shy, are we over, et cetera. 

            Ms. Woodward stated if you do not mind I will leave it as a footnote. 

            Ms. Zich stated you leave it there it will pick it up.  You can look to see January versus February.   

            Mr. Fennel stated then we have it as expenditures.  

            Ms. Woodward stated there are some things you cannot see because they are going to change when you get next months.  What will happen on the general fund cash flow and also on account 3848 , which is where all of the revenues are deposited,  there will be a second portion to the cash flow at the bottom of the page which will indicate monies being transferred between those operating accounts. The two new interest bearing cash accounts that operate like Money Markets and add additional interest income.  What you will notice in February’s on the general fund, it will indicate $1.6 million has moved out of your operating account and into a Money Market account.  On the water/sewer utility billing account it will show $3 million has been moved out of the account and into a Money Market set up for water/sewer.  What will happen with the money that comes out of the 2002 Construction Fund is until other uses are determined by the Board it too will be moved into the Money Market account in order to earn additional revenues. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I think it is a great sheet keep working on it. 

            Mr. Skehan stated one small note on the financial part – having sat down with Ms. Woodward and with what she has set up for the management of the capital improvement plan you will not see there is $500,000 left three years from now.  It will be accounted for very clearly because she knows where all the pennies are, already.  She has done a phenomenal job. 

            Ms. Zich stated I agree. 

            Mr. Hanks stated I had a short conversation with the Mayor, at my sons’ preschool.  He is open to having a joint meeting where we have representatives from the different districts and the city.  He agrees there is a need to share on some issues, discuss topics. 

            Mr. Fennell stated with the water issue it is probably the best time for us to do it.  We can come up with a water usage plan across the area, and how to save water.

            Mr. Hanks stated they are going to have an increase in their water consumption and are going to be looking for additional sources. 

           

 

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                             Adjournment

            There being no further business,

 

On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the meeting was adjourned. 

 

 

 

                                                                        

 Glen Hanks                                                                     Robert Fennell                                                

 Secretary                                                                         Chairperson