A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, October 20, 2008 at 3:12 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:


            Kenneth Cassel                                               District Manager

            Dennis Lyles                                                   District Counsel

            Sean Skehan                                                    CH2M Hill

            Brenda Schurz                                                Severn Trent Services

            Dan Daly                                                         Director of Operations

            Jim Aversa                                                      Chief Operator, Wastewater Plant

            Doug Hyche                                                    Utilities Director

            Randy Frederick                                             Drainage Supervisor

            Kay Woodward                                              District Accountant

            Jan Zilmer                                                       Human Resources Manager



FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS                             Roll Call

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


SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS                        Approval of the Minutes of the September 15, 2008 Meeting

            Mr. Fennell stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the September 15, 2008 meeting and requested any corrections, additions or deletions.

            There not being any,


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the minutes of the September 15, 2008 meeting were approved. 





THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS                            Supervisors’ Requests and Audience Comments

            There not being any, the next item followed.


FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                        Consideration of Bids for Purchase of Chemicals for Aquatic Weed Control

            Mr. Cassel stated we went out to bid and the bids came in.  Before you are  the bid specifications.  The total projected for fiscal year 2009 is $105,941.90.  You can see the breakdown.  Most of them will be coming from Helena Chemical Company.  There are a couple of chemicals which are supplied by either UAP or ProSource at the same price.  We are requesting you approve by motion the ability to pick up the chemicals from one of the other companies at the same price that was bid from Helena Chemical Company, if they are out.

            Mr. Hanks stated under UAP and ProSource I saw they had other products listed for Induce and Reward.  I see they are slightly less then the specified chemical.  Is there any benefit to going with the lower price?

            Mr. Cassel responded we are not sure if they are equivalent.  One of the things we discussed was possibly getting some this year, testing it to see if you get the same effect with the same type of chemicals; then, it would be a savings.    Right now, there is no equivalency we are aware of. 

            Mr. Hanks asked will you get a couple of gallons, test them side by side and see how it goes?

            Mr. Cassel stated exactly.

            Ms. Schurz stated on the original bid specifications we did state “or equivalent” for some of the chemicals.

            Mr. Cassel stated this was partially because of a comparative analysis; not having the information to say there is an equivalent and knowing what the equivalent might be. 

            Mr. Hanks asked how would you like to have this motion worded? 

            Mr. Fennell asked what did we pay last year?

            Mr. Frederick asked for which chemical?

            Mr. Fennell responded for any of them, let us say Reward.

            Mr. Frederick stated Reward was the same.  It is a manufactured set price as are the three at the bottom; Hydrolthol 191, Aquathol K and Aquathol Super K. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we think we went out for a bid and received three different bids.  They are all exactly the same thing.

            Mr. Cassel stated it is a manufacturer price.

            Mr. Frederick stated that is why these other two are bidding a different product for a cheaper price.  I am not sure how good that product is going to be.  You should try it.  If you like it, we can use it.  If you do not, we want to reserve the right to go back to Reward which is what we always used.

            Mr. Cassel stated the bid does not necessarily lock us in to only purchasing from Helena Chemical Company. 

            Mr. Hanks asked let us say we test it for three to four months, are we going to run into trouble if after three or four months we decide to go with Timberland 90 instead of Induce?

            Mr. Frederick responded no.

            Mr. Cassel stated we should know after a couple of test shots whether it is going to be feasible to use the other chemical or not. 

            Mr. Hyche asked are we going to be in trouble with the vendor?

            Mr. Cassel responded it is a price set to lock the prices.  It is not an exclusive use of this vendor only. 

            Mr. Fennell stated in some years we actually bought from several different vendors. 

            Mr. Frederick stated we may possibly do that.  It is easier for me to go through one vendor.  We can do this with the ones who have set prices from the manufacturers if we want to spread our business around a little. 

            Mr. Fennell stated the problem is, even though we are getting them from different vendors, we are not really.  It sounds like it is all the same.

            Mr. Hanks stated let us go ahead and get a couple of gallons of these other products to do a test.  I suggest we go with Helena Chemical Company as a low bidder with the ability to go with an alternate supplier should Helena Chemical Company not be available to provide the materials.






On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the Board awarded the bid for aquatic weed control chemicals to Helena Chemical Company with the option of going to an alternate supplier if Helena Chemical Company cannot provide the materials and staff was directed to purchase a couple of gallons of the alternate products to test.


            Mr. Fennell stated this is a $100,000 a year expense.  Do some investigating to see if you can come up with an alternative.

            Mr. Hanks asked where do we stand on our budget for this product?  Are we right about where we thought we were?

            Mr. Frederick responded I think we are over what we put in the budget.  As far as the quantities, it is all an estimate.   We are only going to spend what is in the budget.

            Mr. Hanks stated yes and if we can get people to cut back on how much fertilizer they use…

            Mr. Frederick stated this is the best I can estimate I would use throughout the year.

            Mr. Cassel stated this also depends on the heat, the temperatures, the water, what is growing, what is not growing and which chemical needs to be applied for which type of weed. 


FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                             Consideration of Interlocal Agreement with Sunshine Water Control District

            Mr. Cassel stated we received this late on Friday from SWCD that they wanted to add and modify to paragraph six.  At this point in time I do not think we should use it as an addendum.  We have the signed Interlocal Agreement as it is presented to you from SWCD.  I believe we should do the agreement as they originally signed it.  Then we can work with the attorney and SWCD on an addendum that would come back because we are not comfortable with the wording of how it would play out and impact CSID’s liabilities. 

            Mr. Hanks stated that was affecting paragraph six.

            Mr. Cassel stated that is correct.  It has to do with insurance.

            Mr. Fennell stated I am looking at this and I still do not grasp what it is.

            Mr. Cassel stated they are looking for something equating to an agreement between SWCD and CSID for their employees to participate in our health program, our insurance program, etcetera.  We really do not have a formalized agreement at this point in time.  It looks like they were trying to add it to this. 

            Mr. Hanks stated let us go back to the big agreement. 

            Mr. Lyles stated they both touch upon insurance.  Paragraph six of the Interlocal Agreement is very important in that it provides for insurance to be carried by SWCD, liability type insurance, and that this District be named as an additional insured on those policies so if one of their employees does something and there is a lawsuit, we are covered by their insurance.  That is not where this amendment belongs.  It really belongs in the scope of services, which is attached to Exhibit A.  As the manager said, it is something we would come back to you with as an addendum to this agreement.  It does not really accomplish what we think they want to do.  This is why we are recommending you approve it the way they have it signed by SWCD and then work manager to manager as well as staff to staff to get acceptable language everyone is comfortable with.  Does what they think they want,  and then we will come back to you with it. 

            Mr. Hanks stated so basically they want to help with our purchasing power on insurance abilities.

            Mr. Cassel stated currently their employees are on our health insurance and they participate in the CSID pension plan. 

            Ms. Zich asked does it help us to have them on our insurance?  I would think it would not.

            Mr. Daly responded not anymore. 

            Ms. Zich stated I would think it is not a good idea to have them on our insurance. 

            Mr. Zilmer stated at one time the qualification for being a large group was higher.  I believe it was a little over 100.  At one time we had everybody on our plan.  We got a lower rate.  They have changed this.  I believe a large group is down to 50 people. 

            Ms. Zich asked do we pay these people?

            Mr. Zilmer responded no.

            Ms. Zich asked if they have their own health insurance, why are they on our insurance?

            Mr. Zilmer responded they always have been .

            Ms. Zich stated if you get seven employees who all have a terrible illness, it affects our rates.

            Mr. Daly stated they are definitely benefitting by being on our plan because they would not qualify for a large rate.

            Mr. Zilmer stated because their was some discussion about this I rated them for their seven employees.  It would actually cost them an additional $1,000 a month to carry their own health insurance.

            Mr. Hanks asked the nuts and bolts of the Interlocal Agreement, what does it do?  I am not talking about the addendum.  What purpose does this serve?

            Mr. Cassel responded the nuts and bolts of the Interlocal Agreement before you is to formalize and put forth the fact they have equipment stored here, their people come here and we provide the facilities for them to store their materials.  We also do payroll for them and it lists  all of the personnel services we provide for them.

            Mr. Hanks stated these items are listed on Exhibit A.

            Mr. Cassel stated that is correct. 

            Mr. Hanks stated what happens if we incur a layoff?  If someone is laid off, we will be in a situation similar to our bookkeeper situation where we had to have an outlay.

            Mr. Daly stated no, because it is their own employee.

            Mr. Hanks stated we are providing them with services to help manage those employees, provide benefits to them and lease space as well as other items like it.  What risks will we incur by accepting this agreement?  Is there a downside?

            Ms. Zich responded the health insurance part.  I am concerned about that.  In the event of catastrophic health insurance costs to them, it will go against our health insurance for next year. 

            Mr. Fennell stated perhaps.  You have to remember what we are doing here is disentangling ourselves.

            Mr. Cassel stated we are beginning a clean up. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we are bringing clarity to what was an extremely murky thing.  It was not clear who was an employee of which organization.  We had cases where people were full time and part time of several organizations.  This goes a long way towards clearing it up.  It is a good thing we are doing, but it is also raising good questions.  What relationship should we be in and what relationship should we not be in? 

            Mr. Daly responded part of my discussion with the management over there was even if they went out and got their own health insurance, we would make sure it went through Mr. Zilmer as far as the human resources component we would administer for them.

            Mr. Cassel stated as part of this deal. 

            Mr. Hanks stated if there was an increase in the cost, I guess it would be a group wide thing; but what are the chances of seven people coming down with a catastrophic illness.

            Ms. Zich stated well not all seven, but just one or two. 

            Mr. Daly stated I do not think there is anything in the agreement, which states we must provide this next year.  Our rates are set until September 30, 2009 at the current rates.

            Ms. Zich stated but next year will be based on this year.

            Mr. Daly stated that is true.

            Mr. Fennell stated we are better off being larger than smaller because of what you are saying.  Unfortunately, insurance companies have targeted small businesses when someone does get sick.  It can easily eliminate what they would call, “people with high expenses.”  It is inherently unfair of insurance companies.  They cannot do it very easily to larger groups, which is why you want to ban together. 

            Mr. Zilmer stated we are doing the same thing with NSID and PTWCD.  The only difference is the manager.  With all four districts combined, we have 103 employees on the plan.


Mr. Hanks MOVED to approve the Interlocal Agreement with the Sunshine Water Control District, which was executed by the Sunshine Water Control District and presented in the agenda package.


            Mr. Lyles stated the record is clear we are not including the addendum as part of the recommendation today.  We think it needs to be accomplished in a different fashion and it is not part of your motion.  You specifically limited your motion to the Interlocal Agreement, which has been previously executed by SWCD and is before you as part of your agenda package.

            Mr. Hanks stated and this letter from Mr. Cramner will be dealt with by staff and manager.

            Mr. Lyles stated if it is to be approved; it will be brought before you at a different time.

            Mr. Fennell asked Mr. Cassel, what do you recommend?

            Mr. Cassel responded I recommend doing it as we are doing it.  The agreement we hashed out without any changes should be going for approval at this point in time.  The letter that came in dated October 15, 2008 should be addressed in a separate manner with the attorney and with the two districts. 

            Mr. Fennell asked Mr. Lyles, your recommendation?

            Mr. Lyles responded I believe the recommendation before you is a continuation of a process the full Board, and I think the Board prior to your membership, directed staff to pursue, straighten out, formalize and put into a sound independent contractor relationship between CSID and the other districts.

            Ms. Zich asked did you work with them on this?

            Mr. Lyles responded we prepared it.  I do recommend it as it is presented by management today. 


The MOTION as previously outlined was seconded by Ms. Zich and on VOICE vote with all in favor was passed. 


            Mr. Fennell stated I think we are going in the right direction.  You might notice this was from Mr. Wrathell who is actually an independent source as far as managing SWCD and a direct competition to our present management.  We are in fact taking on duties from others, which is fine with us because we have an overhead here we have to pay for. 


SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                             Consideration of Change Orders

A.                Final Balancing Change Order No. 6 for Rehabilitation of Wastewater Plants C and D for a Net Decrease in the Amount of $29,771.10

            Mr. Cassel stated I picked up on this when we were asking for the retainage.  I realized it as I went through the request with Ms. Woodward.  We went over it and there was approximately $29,000 left in the contract, which had not had a deduct change order balancing the contract out to zero; since they are asking for their final retainage on a project that is closed out.  The bottom line I want to make sure of for all our projects as we come to conclusion and we do the final payout on the final retainage, is that any line item which showed as a contract amount is reduced if it is not spent and shown properly in the accounting as well as in the project to show it was not spent or allocated.  It was reduced out of the project. 

            Mr. Hanks asked are these allocations or allowances within the framework of the contract?

            Mr. Cassel responded yes.  There were things in there that were not spent.  The contract came in under the potential charter.

            Mr. Hanks stated Change Order No. 6 & Final and Change Order No. 3 are on completely different projects.

            Mr. Cassel stated that is correct. 


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor Change Order No. 6 & Final for Rehabilitation of Wastewater Plants C and D for a net decrease in the amount of $29,771.10 was approved. 


B.                 Settlement Change Order No. 3 with Intrastate Construction for Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II for a Net Increase in the Amount of $84,000

            Mr. Hanks asked what is going on here?

            Mr. Fennell asked am I reading this right?  Are they charging us $85,000 in delays?

            Mr. Skehan responded this is related to the beginning of the project.  There was an amount of time where the contractor was on hold from proceeding on this work after he had been mobilized to the site.  There were a number of days, as you can see in the change order, that he requested in addition to the contract time, which is 183 days.  The total was 204 days.  After going through and haggling with them on several occasions, this is what we came up with between the managers.  Mr. Daly, Mr. Cassel, Mr. Hyche and I were involved in going through and realized what we have at this point is a pretty good deal given the amount of time he had been delayed at the beginning of the project. 

            Mr. Hanks asked what were the sources of these delays?

            Mr. Skehan responded permits related to Coral Springs.  They were not getting the permits reviewed in adequate time.  They requested information that was not anticipated originally. 

            Mr. Hanks stated so we went with this contract before we had a permit from the City of Coral Springs.

            Mr. Skehan stated there had been an earlier interpretation prior to my involvement that the city was not going to get involved with some of the permits and then the city became involved.  As a result, their review held things up in several different areas.

            Mr. Hanks asked so there were six months where we were waiting for a permit? 

            Mr. Skehan responded close to that, 183 days. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what does the city say about this?

            Mr. Skehan responded the city really takes their time in many respects.  Their feeling is they have to do their due diligence.  There is an earlier interpretation that CSID did not have to necessarily follow all of the city’s requirements for permitting. 

            Mr. Hanks stated give me the physical components this is related to that the city was having issues with.  This is for WWTP Phase II.

            Mr. Skehan stated there was no anticipation that permitting was needed for the stormwater drainage involved.  This had to go through.  I believe there was an expired permit which was supposed to be in place by CSID.  There was reviewing of the site plan and such.  There were several different components to it.  The entire structure of it is not here.  This is what it boiled down to at the very end.  If the Board would like the rest of the details to this, we can pull it all together. 

            Mr. Hanks stated looking at this in hindsight, it may have been better for us to go ahead and get remobilization on this. 

            Mr. Skehan stated I am not sure exactly how it would have turned out. 

            Mr. Hanks stated you know where I am going.

            Mr. Skehan stated I do. 

            Mr. Hanks stated I know the time implications on it as well.

            Mr. Skehan stated that has certainly been one of the things we talked about as we move forward with the other projects right now as well as making sure, prior to any notice to proceed being issue, it will not be issued up until the time where all of the permits are in place so the contractor is not out there, told to mobilize and then told to wait at the same time. 

            Ms. Zich asked what were they doing during these 183 days?

            Mr. Skehan responded they were trying to stay busy with some work.  This is why the full impact of what their fees could have been is not here.  Their fees could have been significantly higher.  They had some dirt work.  They were removing dirt from the site, getting things cleared away and they had some work that was taking place.  This is not the full impact of what they could have established a claim upon.  The claim could have been close to $1,000 a day.  Claims add up very quickly with a contractor when they are not able to do all of the work they have, which has been specified and laid out.  There could have been significantly more fees they could have claimed or tried to claim.  We negotiated closely with them all the way through this.  They were looking for additional time.  Initially there was 330 days they were looking for.  There was some overlap we looked at and we said it was not appropriate for them to be claiming it because of additional work they were doing, which was not part of what we would call the critical path to the overall project.  Once there is a delay which begins to impact the critical path of the project it becomes more costly.  I think the contractor has negotiated in good faith with me and with the entire management team which sat in and looked over this to make sure everyone was satisfied prior to bringing this to the Board’s attention.

            Mr. Hanks asked how long did the city have these permits for?

            Mr. Skehan responded they reviewed them back and forth.  They were looking for additional information.  You have probably seen how the city can delay projects or they become wrapped up in the details that arenot pertinent. 

            Mr. Hanks asked do you have any input on this?

            Mr. Cassel responded I worked with Mr. Hyche and Mr. Daly.  Coming in after the fact I was a little disturbed at the delays which occurred.  It was approximately a six month delay between the time the notice to proceed was given to when we received the permits and started the work.  We did incur some delays at the end with receiving the blower units from the manufacturer.  There was another two week delay.

            Mr. Hanks asked have these given us trouble before?

            Mr. Cassel responded yes. 

            Mr. Daly stated that was at the tail end of it.

            Mr. Cassel stated we have it all worked out.  What we have been able to work out with the contractor is this nails down any potential claims for delays.  Basically, this is any time or any delays they are getting out of the project until completion.  They have a set completion date.  There are no more delays, no more times and no more extensions.  We are holding to the completion date.  If I recall correctly, we are still under our total budget even with this delay issue. 

            Mr. Hanks asked is this wrapped up now?

            Mr. Skehan responded they are seeing a realistic completion date in the first week of December.  The blowers have been delivered and they have been installed.  We are looking at some of the start up services taking place right now.  A lot of it is going to take close coordination, similar to the work we were doing with the standby generator back in August.  We have to get the operators familiar with the new equipment.  The sequencing of the operation with Mr. Hyche and Mr. Aversa is going to be the closest thing we need to do. 

            Mr. Hanks asked are we substantially complete?

            Mr. Skehan responded we are not substantially complete, but we are close to being substantially complete. 

            Mr. Fennell stated they are also asking for some additional money here too.  I guess we have a holdback right now.

            Mr. Skehan stated that is their retainage.  The retainage reduction was requested and typically the project will start off with 10% retainage.  It is then brought down to 5% retainage.  Given the current status of the project and where we are it is typical to have it reduced to 2.5% or perhaps even lower. 

            Mr. Hanks stated when I do a construction project and we have a 10% retainage,  it is not until the end of the project where we punch out.  That is what the 10% is there for.  Has there been any punch out by CH2M Hill to see if the components are being installed accordingly and are functional as appropriated?

            Mr. Skehan responded yes.  We have looked closely at what the amount of money is held in retainage right now and 2.5% will fairly and easily represent any issues that could come up.  They used a retainage on this side of the project to be able to clear off their subcontractors in making sure what we are getting final releases of liens on the project resolved, which is important as we get closer to the end.  The 2.5% retainage is there.  If any issues come up, the bond is always there.

            Mr. Hanks asked are we getting final releases?

            Mr. Skehan responded yes we are. 

            Mr. Hanks asked counsel, is this according to the contract we have?

            Mr. Lyles responded first of all I have to tell you I have not been part of what I understand are extensive negotiations and discussions with the contractor.  I cannot give you an answer based on the details of this transaction.  I can observe, generally, that there is wiggle room.  For instance, when the blowers are delayed and there is a claim for it.  The contract, which is a standard form of an agreement CH2M Hill put together.  Generally provides these things entitle the contractor to ask for more time, but not for delay damages.  They will contest it.  They will be back blaming it on us.  I think the most important observation I can offer is there are some contractors that would have been adding this time up all along and counting on both being paid for the work to be done and a delay claim against the owner at the end of the contract.  It appears to me they have identified some genuine delay issues.  They sat down with the staff and they negotiated a number.  The number could have been, as Mr. Skehan said, substantially higher; three to four times higher.  This business about getting the contractor off of the critical path results in a great deal of litigation on big public works projects like this.  Delay claims can be very extensive to defend in the first place, even if you win.  If you lose, they can be very pricey.  I really cannot tell you if this is a good deal or a bad deal because I have not been part of the negotiations.  I am not in a position to comment on that.  I am in a position to tell you by just looking at the number of days and dollars involved, it seems like this has been negotiated downward to the benefit of  the District. 

            Mr. Hanks stated it was not so much a question of whether it was negotiated well.  I have great confidence in that.  My question is; did the contract have provisions for delay clause? 

            Mr. Lyles responded the contract, I am sure, like the other contracts you have approved has a no damages for delays clause.  When these things go into litigation we start to get into very exhaustive and time consuming discovery and proof of issues such as whose fault the delay was; not just acts of God or storm events, but the owner actively impeded for some reason the progress of the work.  The fact that we gave a notice to proceed and had them mobilized before permits were issued by the city, we are going to hear about it.  That is an active act of negligence by the owner in their mind. 

            Mr. Hanks asked is there anything in this change order, which will protect us from future claims relating to the delay from this nature?

            Mr. Lyles responded the language which is in the next to last paragraph, just above the signatures.

            Mr. Hanks asked “In addition to the above compensation,” starting off that way?

            Mr. Lyles responded no, “This change order provides for.”

            Mr. Hanks stated sorry, wrong page.  “This Change Order provides for all costs, schedule adjustments and delays associated with or arising out of performance of this work, including materials, labor, equipment, bond, insurance, overhead, extended overhead, profit, impact and any and all related items or associated costs incurred or resulting from this Project No. 328104 from the date of execution of the contract through the date of this Change Order No. 3.”  That one?

            Mr. Lyles responded yes.  That is language I asked CH2M Hill and District staff to include in every single change order document which comes before the Board.  The purpose of the language is to ensure that when you approve a change order for any reason they are also waiving any claims for delay damages up to the time of the change order.  This is Change Order No. 3.  I do not know what was in Change Order No. 1 and Change Order No. 2. 

            Mr. Skehan stated about $104,000.

            Mr. Lyles stated when was Change Order No. 2 approved?

            Mr. Skehan responded it goes back over a year ago; 45 days were tied to Change Order No. 1 and Change Order No. 2. 

            Mr. Lyles stated what I am suggesting, again it is a question I cannot answer for you, but this same language would have appeared in Change Order No. 2 and may or may not have covered some of the period we are talking about.  At the same time the dollar figure Mr. Skehan has described is a significant reduction, from what I can tell from listening to today’s discussions, from what could have been claimed.  This language prohibits them from going back to the beginning of the job and making a claim for any delay up to the date of the change order. 

            Mr. Hanks stated so up to October 9, 2008.

            Mr. Lyles stated yes, up to the date of this change order.  What I heard the manager say is in these negotiations the contractor had agreed that this figure represents the entirety of their claim for delay and we might want to get this in writing in terms of a release, in addition to the change order.  If this is their bargaining position as well as our bargaining position, and it has been agreed to, I suggest we get a release separate and apart from this change order to that effect, before the change order is approved and the money changes hands. 

            Mr. Hanks asked so what language do you suggest?

            Mr. Lyles responded we will have to prepare a whole instrument.

            Mr. Hanks asked how do you suggest we provide this direction in a motion?

            Mr. Lyles responded I think if you are okay with the $84,966 figure, you can approve Change Order No. 3 subject to execution by the contractor of a full and complete release for any delay, claims or damages from the beginning of the job through the completion date of the job; whenever that is.  How about a motion to approve Change Order No. 3 subject to the limitations described by counsel?


Mr. Hanks MOVED to approve Change Order No. 3 with Intrastate Construction for Wastewater Treatment Plant Phase II for a net increase in the amount of $84,966 subject to the limitations described by District counsel and Mr. Fennell seconded it. 


            Mr. Fennell asked any discussion?

            Ms. Zich responded this is a lot of money.  I am not too familiar with this.  I am sure you guys are more familiar with it than I am.  You guys are feeling better about it than me.

            Mr. Fennell stated not really.

            Ms. Zich asked what does this mean?

            Mr. Skehan responded as  a general rule in looking at a project of this size, approximately $7 Million, what you will typically see in the market on an average is 3% to 5% of the overall value.  So 5% can be $350,000 of total change orders throughout the course of the project.  For this project, we are substantially below this.  Given the nature of the work, some of the additions which went into this and where we are, I think $200,000 is about 2%.

            Ms. Zich asked is this going to happen with all the projects as we go along?

            Mr. Hanks responded yes and no.  Mr. Skehan, one of the things which is going to come out of this is really watch how you guys are doing things.

            Mr. Skehan stated we do.

            Ms. Zich stated keep track after days.  Keep after the city.

            Mr. Hanks stated that is what I am saying.

            Ms. Zich stated I know it is hard, but look at how much this is costing us. 

            Mr. Skehan stated as I mentioned, this is one particular item we already paid very close attention to.  We have had a lot of discussions on this.

            Ms. Zich stated we could afford to have an employee who just sits there and does nothing, but try to keep up with these things.

            Mr. Hanks stated it still would not prevent this from happening.  My understanding is this is mostly a city related issue.  I can easily see how the city can take four to six months or longer to go through and approve a permit.  It happens.

            Mr. Cassel stated part of what we put into place, Mr. Skehan and I have had some candid discussions as well as with Mr. Hyche and Mr. Daly, is that we all internally are going to be on top of this so we have a better handle on it.  It has been my directive that we are not going to issue a notice to proceed without having permits in hand.  We are not going to have an open ended finish date.  We are going to hammer them on a production schedule; a finish date, a delivery date.  I am going to be looking at it very carefully.  I am going to be on the engineer’s back and Mr. Hyche’s back.  Mr. Hyche is going to be on the engineer’s back and the contractor’s back along with Mr. Daly to make sure everyone is nailing those time factors and those delivery targets as well as that the projects get started, they get done on time and we hold the change orders down. 

            Mr. Hanks stated here is what I am looking for you to be taking care of.  One, make sure these guys are following drill, providing the plans, calculations, etcetera, in a timely manner to be reviewed with appropriate time at the city level.  I am also going to be looking for you to make sure these guys are staying on top of the contractor when it comes time for finalizing the project and they have not gone over the time they were scheduled.  If we are going to be hit for a delay change order, the only thing which sticks in my mind is be on your best behavior and make sure you have the project done when you say it is going to be done. 

            Mr. Cassel stated that has been my directive.  One of the other things we have done is Mr. Hyche is more critically in the loop now.  No monthly draw goes through the process without Mr. Hyche signing off on it early on.  I am looking at the monthly draw process early on, making sure everyone is on target on getting done what we have to do.  The next project is coming out.  I have been pushing to get these cleaned up.  I want these cleaned up, done and out of here.  I want these projects gone before we start with the next project because this overlapping of projects on the site is killing us.   Bits and pieces are out there.  We are stressing to get these cleaned up.  At this point we can get this cleaned up and get the project out of here.  We want to get them to clean up the site before we start awarding the bid for the next two projects coming along. 

            Mr. Hanks asked did we vote on this?

            Mr. Fennell responded no.  It has been moved and seconded.


On VOICE vote with all in favor the motion as previously outlined was passed.   


            Ms. Zich stated we should do everything we can to make sure this does not happen. 

            Mr. Skehan stated there is an awful amount of effort which goes into putting together a set of plans and specifications for projects.  The initial change order was for approximately $100,000.  Sometimes you will see there is something you want to do.  Mr. Hyche may see something as an added feature for a project which if you have an allowance, you can have it taken care of in the course of the project.  Because it is not detailed in the project, but you can get the contractor to agree to do it, you will have a change order for it.  Also,  if there is something underground you do not know is there, then the contractor runs into a pipeline which may not be noted on a plan, that will be a problem which will show up.  There are incidental things.

            Ms. Zich stated those I can understand.

            Mr. Skehan responded we do not like those either.

            Mr. Hanks stated I am going to request you provide our manager with the background on this, including a timeline.


SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                      Consideration of Surface Water Permit for CSID Water Treatment Plant

            Mr. Cassel stated this is approving your own application for a stormwater permit for the new plant and project.

            Mr. Hanks stated before we get into this I would like to repeat my request to provide plans associated within the permit requests.

            Ms. Schurz stated they were.

            Mr. Fennell stated we have to approve ourselves.  Does the city approve themselves too?

            Mr. Lyles responded if they are building a city building somewhere they do issue a permit to themselves.  All cities do. 

            Mr. Fennell asked are we paying ourselves $2,500?

            Mr. Hanks stated Mr. Skehan, talk us through this since Ms. Early is not here.  Is this Ms. Early’s specialty?

            Mr. Skehan responded this is not mine.  This is Ms. Early’s.  I can get her on speaker phone if you want. 

            Mr. Hanks asked is it going to delay anything if we hold off on approval?

            Mr. Cassel responded the Board can approve it subject to your final review Mr. Hanks. 

            Mr. Lyles stated not really.  I think it will be a problem if you give one Board member final approval.

            Mr. Fennell asked are we going to delay anything?

            Mr. Skehan responded I do not think it is going to delay anything if this goes to the November meeting.  This is where the impervious area is going to be going in for the new plant.  The .5 acres and the other various components of the new facility do not have a negative impact on the drainage.  It is going to be held onsite as much as possible.  There is nothing significant impacting the canals.

            Mr. Fennell asked is there not a lot of work to be done here?  I guess we really ought to see what we are going to be doing. 

            Mr. Skehan responded this is the first time I have looked at this. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we have a good voice to stand up with this one.  You are telling me it is not going to seriously delay anything or cost us any money.  This is our own site.  We need to really understand what we are going to be doing here. 

            Mr. Skehan stated this really should be tabled until the November Board meeting. 

            Mr. Daly stated it is three weeks from today anyway.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor consideration of the surface water permit for CSID water treatment plant was tabled until the November 13, 2008 Board of Supervisors meeting. 


            Mr. Hanks stated I respect Ms. Early and I respect CH2M Hill.  I just do not think it is a good idea for the same engineer to be reviewing their own product for a permit.  What can we do in order to have another engineer review the plans CH2M Hill is preparing for our District?

            Mr. Lyles responded I think your concern is understandable.  Depending on the cost, we have the CCNA threshold of $25,000 on a project.  I do not know what a review, on behalf of the District and the Board, of the permit application and related plans would cost, but you can certainly hire an independent contractor, an engineering firm to take a look at it and get back to you directly. 

            Mr. Hanks stated it is a $4,000 bid.

            Mr. Fennell stated we used to have a District engineer, but he is gone now. 

            Mr. Hanks stated Mr. Moore knows this site pretty well.

            Mr. Fennell asked does Severn Trent have anyone?

            Mr. Cassel responded we can have someone look at it.  There are other engineering firms we deal with that we can do one and two time shots.  It is not an ongoing scenario that we are going to be doing a lot of permits.  I have a number of relationships with other engineering firms.  I’m sure I can get a review on it.

            Mr. Hanks stated the same firm who did the design should not be reviewing it. 

            Mr. Fennell asked how much are you willing to do this?

            Mr. Hanks responded the average permit reviews from a PE will run approximately $150 per hour.  If they were to spend 10 hours, which is a long time on one of these things, the cost would be $1,500.

            Mr. Skehan stated it should be less than $2,000.

            Mr. Fennell stated Mr. Cassel can do that.

            Mr. Cassel stated I can find someone who can do this.

            Mr. Fennell stated you are directed by the Board to get this reviewed.

            Mr. Skehan asked is the intent to have this permit application in front of the Board by the next meeting?

            Mr. Cassel responded yes. 

            Mr. Hanks stated we want a recommendation from a consulting engineer.

            Mr. Cassel stated I will talk to two or three of them and see who I believe can put it out for me the best. 

            Mr. Hanks stated there are some local firms who are familiar with the site.

            Mr. Cassel stated there are a number of firms who can do this.

            Mr. Hanks stated okay.


EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                         Staff Reports

A.                Manager

i.          Landscape Berm Update

            Mr. Cassel stated you can see from the memorandum in your agenda that I did get to speak with Mr. Power.  The city is not going to “sign off” on the berm which is there; however, there is no impact tying to any of the permits or CO’s for any of the projects currently in place. 

            Mr. Hanks stated we need to get a letter to them confirming this discussion.

            Mr. Cassel stated I sent him an email confirming the discussion we had.

            Mr. Hanks stated thank you.


                     ii.            Protecting Public Funds 

            Mr. Cassel stated we have looked at this.  Severn Trent has also been in discussions with Ms. Woodward.  We went back and looked at your resolutions on investment policies.  Resolution 2001-1 mirrors the State Statutes, which pretty much say you have to be in protected services.  If you look at the letter from Mr. Bloom, the accounting manager to the Board, there are some options we can do if you are not comfortable.  Right now our funds are protected.  I even have a listing from the state’s Qualified Public Depositories.  Your dollars are there.  The issue is it might take you a little more time to get it if you want it right now, but they are there.  The other option you can do, which I asked Ms. Woodward to look into, is you can take the money which is there and put it in CDs of the $250,000 scenario; spanning it over a six month, nine month or a year type situation.  It does create more paperwork and accounting issues to keep track of it, but it is an option for you.

            Ms. Zich asked so we are good up to $250,000 like a regular person until December 31, 2009, but what about the money which goes over that?  Is there any limit to the amount?  We have about $4 Million in cash or something like that.

            Mr. Fennell responded I think it is $6 Million.

            Ms. Zich stated whatever we have; we have a lot of money sitting in there.  Is there any cap?  All of that is called qualified?

            Mr. Cassel responded my understanding is it is.  It is all covered eventually.  If the banks or if this issue happens that public depositors get their dollars first, it just takes you time to get to it.  You can get the smaller amount faster.  The other amount takes time to get through the system.  The difference is if you go ahead and put it in CDs overtime and you split it up into smaller CDs, those are all 100% which you can get immediately.

            Ms. Zich asked if it is a money market account, you can get it all?  Does it make any difference what kind of an account it is in; CD, regular checking account or a money market account?  We have a lot of money here.

            Ms. Woodward responded it is my understanding, with our funds all in Wachovia, that anything in excess of the FDIC level, they have made certain that the accounts we opened with them are in fact accounts which are covered under this Qualified Public Depository.  If there is a problem, what is not covered by FDIC, will be covered by the state.  If the issue is the timing of when we can pull it out, then we have an option you and I did not discuss.  I know for a fact that when I look between the water and sewer fund and the general fund, in total between those two funds, we are spending more than $900,000 per month.  If we have a rough idea that it might take two months to get those other funds out and available to us, we will probably want to make sure $2 Million of our funds are in another bank where we can just take an extra two block drive and pull the money out so we can still operate until we file, claim and get what we need.

            Mr. Hanks stated take our single deposit, split it in two, decrease our risk and double our availability should something happen.

            Ms. Woodward stated so that we would still be in a position to go ahead and form the funds we need.  One of the things which is happening for us is that every month in water and sewer, because we are actually collecting that month’s revenues as we go, those funds are being deposited into Wachovia.  On a monthly basis it can run anywhere from $600,000 to approximately $800,000.  We do have some options.  I do not necessarily think we need to take every penny we have and find 30 banks we can put $250,000 in.  What we need to do is make certain we can keep going for two or three month periods until the process allows us to get our claims in for our funds, if we need to do that.

            Mr. Hanks asked so if we split it between two banks, do you think it will provide us with an additional measure of assurance?

            Ms. Woodward responded it may be a little more than two banks if what we are looking at is $2 Million we would need to run for a couple of months.  It is something we can certainly look at.

            Mr. Fennell asked what is Qualified Public Depositories?

            Ms. Woodward responded it is a list of banking institutions throughout the state, which the state recognizes as being a part of this insurance program.  If you pull out the list, you will see Wachovia is in fact one of the institutions listed.  This is why we have our funds there.  I am not certain of how this insurance works. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what does pledged collateral mean?  We had our money with the state and apparently the state did not have it.  Was the state a pledged collateral?

            Ms. Woodward responded as of yesterday, that was not a guaranteed account.

            Mr. Fennell asked how can the state not be part of that, but they require people to be pledged collateral?

            Ms. Woodard responded I cannot answer that.

            Mr. Fennell stated I am interested in knowing what pledged collateral means and to what amount.  They are saying there are two types of protection.  FDIC insures up to $250,000.  I know on many accounts if you have up to $1 Million or $2 Million for a lot of stock accounts, I guess the question is, what do you do for them?  That is our problem here.  We have $4 Million or more.

            Ms. Woodward stated that is basically going through US Bank.  What we are talking about here is the operating funds that are outside of the trustee funds for the bonds. 

            Mr. Fennell stated there is still the same issue.  What happens if something goes wrong with the trustee funds for the bonds?  Is there a pledged collateral there?

            Ms. Woodward responded I am not sure.

            Mr. Fennell asked what does this mean?  Is there actually any collateral?

            Ms. Zich responded I would love to know about that.

            Mr. Lyles stated the bond funds are not deposited with the bank.  They are held in trusts.  It means there are segregated trust funds and they cannot be used by the banks for any other purposes or to support pledges.  The bank is acting as trustee in the setting we are talking about with US Bank.  US Bank is the trustee for the bond funds.

            Mr. Fennell asked where is that money if the trustee goes broke?

            Mr. Lyles responded if the trustee goes broke, the funds are still there. 

            Mr. Fennell asked how come?

            Mr. Lyles responded because they are segregated, they are held in trusts and they cannot be used for deposits or loans.  They are not like other bank deposits they can use to do business with.  They are held in trust. 

            Mr. Hanks stated in other words, it is like putting it in a safety deposit box. 

            Mr. Lyles stated it is not like a safety deposit box.  It is more like someone’s 401K, which is administered by a bank.  The bank cannot use its proceeds for its operation.

            Mr. Hanks stated there is an administrative barrier between having these funds available for making good loans or bad loans and these funds here which are funds delegated to specific trusts. 

            Mr. Lyles responded that is my understanding.  Bond proceeds are held in trusts.  You still have millions of dollars in other kinds of accounts, which do not have this type of protection. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I just know of cases where people who were trustees in banks for people end up going in and somehow investing that amount of money; suddenly they come back, look at the account and the money is not there.  I understand what you are saying, but how do I know that no one touched that money.  Suppose somebody did, who would be the person to pay it back?  Where is the collateral?

            Mr. Lyles responded there are instances of fraud.  In the past, the institution behind it has stepped up.  In this day and age, I do not know if that protection is as good as it once was.  Maybe it will be helpful to get something from US Bank to specifically advise the District and this Board as to what are the mechanics of their administration of these trust funds and what are the protections.  Rather than having the staff give their group understanding as to how it works, I think hearing it directly in writing from your trustee might be a good idea.

            Mr. Fennell stated let us do that. 

            Ms. Zich stated so we are basically talking about $2 Million in the general fund and about $5.5 Million in the water and sewer fund.  It is approximately $7.5 Million we are really talking about.  We are not talking about $36 Million.

            Mr. Fennell stated I question the $36 Million.  They can send us a nice strong letter saying they are trustworthy, they are the trustee and they will never spend our money or do anything with it, but I say, “Where is the collateral?”  Who backs that up?  We are just good people or is there some kind of collateral behind it saying this is backed in trust of who, US Bank or is it the US Treasury?  Who is it?  In the end, that is the question for this.  It is the same thing for the other $7.5 Million too.  Pledged collateral sounds good.  It sounds like we have money where there is pledged collateral.  What does this mean?  What is the collateral exactly?  Are we talking about T-Bills?  Are we talking about stock in the bank?  Are we talking GM stock or Countrywide stock?  I think we really need to mine all the way down to understand exactly what this is.  Maybe the pledged collateral is enough and we do not need to go through FDIC.  Before we go through all this work we need to dig deeper.  Ms. Woodward, can you do this?

            Ms. Woodward responded sure.

            Mr. Cassel stated in combination.  Ms. Woodward and I will work together and report back. 

            Mr. Fennell stated even a certificate of deposit still has the same issue.  The only thing I know of that we can do, and there is still a guarantee, is to buy T-Bills.  That is backed by the full faith of the US Government. 

            Mr. Hanks stated we can split it up into a couple of different places, but you are still talking about a big chunk of change out there.  There is not 34 Million different places to park the money.

            Ms. Woodward stated now that these various banks and brokerage houses have been in the forefront of the news and the fear, they are coming up with different products that apparently they are trying to make available to institutional investors like local governments and small businesses relating to FDIC insurance.  I am starting to receive phone calls and emails related to this.  We definitely need to pull it together and see exactly what they are offering.  Obviously, they want the funds invested in whatever pool they are talking about so they in turn have money they can turn around and lend, which is what they are in the business of doing.  But, we also want to make sure we do not just jump at it.  We really need to look into how it is protected.  I think it is just the beginning of new products being offered under the bank.

            Mr. Hanks stated I am more concerned with preservation of capital.  Right now you will not be getting much yield.

            Ms. Woodward stated if you go into T-Bills right now, you will protect the capital with a small amount of interest and that is good too.  It may be something you want to do until you are in a position to know a bigger or different move you want to make.

            Mr. Fennell stated we talked about this before.  A few meetings ago we asked how we knew our banks were safe and the answer was we did not. 

            Mr. Hanks stated the truth of the matter is we do not know anything.

            Mr. Fennell stated well according to this there are two direct things we can invest in.  One is US Treasuries and the other one is debt obligation to Israel.

            Ms. Zich stated I could not believe it when I saw that.

            Mr. Fennell stated it is on page three of six.

            Ms. Zich stated letter ‘f’, near the bottom.

            Mr. Fennell stated “Rated or unrated bonds, notes, or instruments backed by the full faith and credit of the government of Israel.” 

            Ms. Zich stated we have the full faith of Israel and we are having all of the problems we have here.  I  have never heard of this before.  Why Israel and not Great Britain or Canada?  I cannot believe it is in here. 

            Mr. Cassel responded I guess we need to ask the people who wrote the State Statutes.

            Mr. Fennell asked so where does this lead us?

            Mr. Cassel responded this was just an update.  Ms. Woodward and I have an understanding of where we need to go back, find some more information and report back to you in November as to where we might be able to make sure the District’s funds are protected to the best degree that it can be in today’s market. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I am glad you are taking a role to actively pursue this.  It looks to me like the Federal Government was late to call this one.  It almost looks like they were trying to delay this until after the election.  It must have reached a crisis.  We saw this a year ago, if you think about it, when it happened at the state level.  I have to say we are in much better shape than most other groups who are out there right now.  We were lucky enough to get our bond issue out there and we have the money.  There are a lot of other groups now who will have a hard time getting it if they really need the money now, or they will have to pay a much higher interest rate.  We just do not want to lose what we have.


                    iii.            Bi-Annual Management Report

            Mr. Cassel stated this is a brief description.   I think the District is in better shape than the rest of the country. 

            Mr. Fennell stated you might be right. 

            Mr. Cassel stated as we discussed when I first came on Board, some of the things I listed here are things we were looking at as I came in and I wanted to make sure we cleaned up.  The staff here has been working with me very well.  The staff has stepped up in a lot of areas all the way down the chain.  The guys are picking up and taking ownership in areas where they either did not do it before or were not allowed to before.  Everybody is coming on Board.  I think we are all grasping the vision of where we want to go in the management of the District to make sure we are running effectively and efficiently.                

            I started off with the engineers.  We have cleaned up a lot of the issues of how we are checking the engineering fees, how we are attaching them to the right projects, billing and getting all of it straightened up.  We have come a long way.  There is still some fine tuning as there is in any operation.  We are focusing on target dates for projects.  We are making sure we are starting the implementation of formalization of agreements with other districts as we provide services.  We have gone through and looked at the hurricane preparedness plan.  We are fine tuning it. 

            Next are some of the goals I am looking at for fiscal year 2009.  The budget process has improved.  We are working with staff to make the budget process even easier.  Ms. Woodward and I looked at a three year budget history as the guys are looking at it so they can project where they are at and where they are going on some of these items.  As you can see, we are looking to continue to fine tune some of the things we have already begun and continue to move the District forward in a cost effective, efficient way.  I think everyone is stepping up and doing what they need to do.  This is a good group of people to work with. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I would like to add to your goals.

            Mr. Cassel stated okay.

            Mr. Fennell stated preparation of long term water use philosophy; above and beyond what we are doing.  Look at every aspect.  We need a long term policy which fits in with the rest of South Florida.  We should be in a leadership position to try and push this. 

            Mr. Cassel stated okay.

            Mr. Fennell asked are there any other things?           

            Mr. Hanks responded the other thing we should be cognitive about and plan for is the eventual deterioration of our wastewater collection system, our water distribution system and also our culverts.  We want to keep them on the horizon.  Yes, these things have been paid for, but they are not going to last forever.

            Mr. Cassel stated I believe we already have part of that taken care of in our plan, which Ms. Woodward is working on to see where we are setting out in our assets.  We are looking at our assets and what their lifespan is.  We are making sure we are preparing for funds for the pump stations, pumps, motors, etcetera.  We are going through it and looking at a 5 to 10 year horizon right now, but we can look at a 15 year horizon. 

            Mr. Hanks stated but there are other facilities we have on the ground which may have a year of life. 

            Mr. Hyche stated we currently have a program for that as well.  We are tracking all of the breaks; making sure we see in what locations they are occurring.  We may need to look at starting to replace some of these things.

            Mr. Hanks stated especially if we have areas which are petrified clay.  Those are probably going to be more problematic.

            Mr. Hyche stated we know where those are at already. 

            Mr. Hanks stated put it in a vacant land situation.  What happened when CSID was created in a farmer’s field, basically, or pasture land? 

            Mr. Cassel stated as I mentioned with staff, these are things Mr. Hyche, Mr. Daly and I have been kicking around in our weekly staff meetings.  We are looking to see how we can make sure the District is set up for the long haul to continue to run effectively and efficiently at the best price to our current residents and future residents. 

            Mr. Hanks stated there is one program out there, it was on public television a couple of nights ago, called Liquid Assets.  It is about an hour and a half program about water, wastewater and stormwater.  It provides a very good explanation of those three systems and how they are interrelated.  It presents them in terms that a layman, or laywoman, would be able to understand.  If you get a chance to watch it, I recommend it. 

            Mr. Fennell stated Atlanta is going through a $3.2 Billion revision of their sewer and waterworks.  Basically their infrastructure is falling apart and they got sued by citizens because they were polluting the Chattanooga River.  They won the lawsuit and they forced the city to come back and do something about it.  They are doing a lot.  There are some interesting things; trenchless replacement water pipes and the lining of pipes.

            Mr. Skehan stated we have actually done some lining here as well.  The trenchless piping is taking place.  Directional drilling is going on.  We have done an awful lot of that.  The entire infrastructure replacement of Fort Lauderdale has been managed by CH2M Hill over the past five years.  They have spent close to $700 Million  just in Fort Lauderdale.  We have been involved in a lot of the work in Atlanta as well.  If you have any interest in looking at what is taking place in Fort Lauderdale, we can arrange that. 

            Mr. Fennell asked the first question is, are we close to that yet or are we just keeping our eyes open?  Is it 5 years out or 15 years out?  I hope it is 15 years out.

            Mr. Hanks stated I contacted Mr. Fredericks on Thursday or Friday.  There is a section of road I have driven quite a few times and all of a sudden I noticed part of the road happens to coincide with a location of our culvert.  I asked Mr. Frederick to check it out, but that is what got me started thinking.  We are talking about driving an alternate means here by the District offices, but we may have ancient culverts which have been in the ground for 30 years.  When they start corroding, we need to consider that.  There are a number of things we need to be on the lookout for. 

            Mr. Skehan stated as I understand it the bypass for all of the raw waste is coming into the plant here.  If there was a break in the line somewhere in the neighborhood here, it would be a problem. 

            Mr. Hanks stated start putting things like that out there.  Get them to Mr. Cassel.  Look at our redundancy.  It does not do us any good to have redundancy in our plant if we do not have redundancy in our supply or collection. 

            Mr. Fennell stated Mr. Cassel, thank you for your report.  We expect another one in six months.  I have to say this.  We are very happy with the job you have done here for the first six months.  You have managed to work well with a determined staff.  This District has the advantage of having well seasoned individuals who know their jobs.  Thank you very much.  The other person is Ms. Woodward, who I think is our secret weapon here.  Thank you both.


                    iv.            Annual & Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

            Mr. Fennell asked are there any questions on the water and sewer charts?

            Mr. Hanks responded yes.  I was looking at the water loss.  Am I reading this right?  Was there a 15% loss?

            Mr. Hyche responded this is an anomaly.  As you look at last month’s chart  you will notice we collected more than we produced. 

            Mr. Hanks stated water loss is a good indicator of how good our system is performing and 5% is a good number to shoot for.

            Mr. Hyche stated we are running average.  On an average we are below 5%.


                     v.            Utility Billing Work Orders

            There being no questions or comments, the next item followed.


B.                 Attorney

            Mr. Lyles stated I do not have anything additional today.


            C.        Engineer – Monthly Project Status Report and Charts

            Mr. Fennell stated I do not know if this would help, but maybe we should consider a running total of days lost.

            Mr. Skehan asked days lost for?

            Mr. Fennell responded for the purpose of keeping track of things so we are not surprised by 183 days of billing at the end of a project.  I am looking at a way to control that aspect. 

            Ms. Zich stated that is what I said.  We should have an employee who just keeps track of this.

            Mr. Cassel stated if you look at your project manager chart, your schedule, this rolls up all of the projects.  If you take out the wells project, right now it only occupies 11 line items.  If you take the individual projects, Mr. Skehan probably has close to over 100 lines of items listed which all have to occur in the process.  They roll up to these target dates.  What I look at as the manager is if they are meeting the dates they said they were going to meet.  Have we done the FDEP meetings?  Do we have the design at 100%.  Are we in the bidding?  Are we on target for the bidding dates?  These are the dates I use to make sure they are on target.  Now they split out even down to almost the day of the week something is supposed to be done.  They run a projected project and then they run current times.  Any time you hit a delay, you will see it move out in the chart.  They keep track of that and I keep track of where we are on our end time. 

            There are some items by line item, which do not necessarily affect your end days, but they affect that particular component.  That component may not be a critical line item, which can slide and not impact your project.  The ones you focus on are your critical path issues.  Those we make sure we nail on target.  One of the other things I am going to be working with them over the next year as we go forward is sometimes you can parallel like applications.  Sometimes you parallel the application because you know you are going to get kick back from both entities so you put them into both entities at the same time.  Sometimes they want Entity A to review it before Entity B, but there are times you can put them into the same entity at the same time.  You get both feedbacks and do one set of corrections for both and go back in shortening your time.  We are going to be looking at some scenarios of how we can take our initial timeframes and compress them as a project management style to how we can do multiple tasking, multiple applications, anything we can do to parallel tracks to compress our timelines and make sure we get it done sooner than later.

            Mr. Fennell stated that sounds good.  Do you have these schedules?

            Mr. Skehan responded it is a schedule we generate.

            Mr. Fennell asked do we have access to this?  Can you see it on a day to day basis?

            Mr. Skehan responded what we are going to do on the upcoming projects is have the database available to two or three different people or the management team.  Mr. Cassel, Mr. Hyche and Mr. Daly are going to have access to what we call a workflow.  They will not be able to have interaction with it on a day to day basis, but they will be able to see what is taking place on a day to day basis. 

            Mr. Cassel stated we will be able to review it on a daily basis so we can keep track of it.  They said they were going to send something out on Friday.  Mr. Skehan, is it out?  Yes, it is out. 

            Mr. Skehan stated with the new plant which is going to be constructed we can anticipate over 150 different submittals which will be coming in, or different materials and equipment; odds and ends all the way through the project.  That gets entered into our system controlled  by a person when it comes in.  It gets sent off to whomever is going to be reviewing it.  We have a target number of days in which this is supposed to take place.  That gets put into the schedule also.  On and on, by the time it comes back, gets reviewed, gets approved, gets disapproved or gets approved as noted, then that will be sent back to the contractor.  There is going to be an entire series of dates that will be entered into the workflow program, which everyone will be able to take a look at and see what is taking place.

            Mr. Fennell asked who is everybody?  Does that include the contractor?

            Mr. Skehan responded the contractor will have access to it also. 

            Mr. Fennell stated okay, because the schedule does not do you too much good if the contractor is not looking at it.

            Mr. Skehan stated the contractor is required to submit his own schedule so that we are keeping track.

            Mr. Hanks stated you are going to have two separate things.  You are going to have your design permitting schedule, which the contractor has nothing to deal with.  It is just CH2M Hill and a Severn Trent management issue.  Then there is a separate one, once it gets to a construction phase which is the contractor’s construction schedule. 

            Mr. Skehan stated yes.

            Mr. Fennell asked does he have his own scheduling machine?         

            Mr. Skehan responded it is not imprinted.  We do not want his schedule integrated with how we are tracking what he has given us.  What we have is a scheduling person who will look at the initial schedule when it is submitted to us.  We will look at it.  What is really important to the course of a project like this is to be able to track what changes are taking place in the contractor’s schedule so his milestones for particular items on the critical path are not slipping and he is not allowing those to slip on his schedule.  We want to know on a month to month basis so if he is slipping we know it when he shows it on his schedule. 

            Mr. Hanks stated you do not want to get in a position of providing direction on means or methods.

            Mr. Skehan stated absolutely not.  We cannot tell them how to do their work or when to do their work.  We have to say whether their schedule looks reasonable or not reasonable at the very front end of the project.  They have to be able to provide us with a schedule that is going to meet the goals we have set up in the plans and specifications. 

            Mr. Hanks stated so you are always going to be going back to them saying, “we are concerned you are not meeting this component.”

            Mr. Skehan stated that is right.

            Mr. Fennell asked how often are they giving you feedback?

            Mr. Skehan responded once a month. 

            Mr. Fennell stated no, no, no, no.  Not even close. 

            Mr. Cassel stated there are weekly construction meetings that occur which Mr. Hyche and the engineer are at.  That is part of the process.  When you are in those weekly meetings you ask the questions.  You challenge the contractor at those meetings on an ongoing basis to make sure he is meeting his schedule that he gave you.  This is a function of Mr. Hyche and the onsite engineer who is working with Mr. Hyche on the project.  As I meet with Mr. Hyche at our weekly meetings, he is updating Mr. Daly and I as to the status of the contractor’s schedule.   We look at the impacts and if something is a critical path item or a non critical path item. 

            Mr. Skehan stated whether it becomes a factor in all of this also, whether there is a hurricane, they have to shut down for a certain number of days; a lot of this is factored in at the very beginning.  It is tracked very closely to their pay requests and then monitoring those schedules is an important component of what we do. 

            Mr. Fennell stated Mr. Cassel, we were wondering about this and it sounds like you are stepping up to this issue.  It is probably the primary issue for this fiscal year; project management of upcoming dollars we are about to spend and making sure it is spent well.  If you can bring this to your services, we really need it. 

            Mr. Cassel stated with the staff and the team we have in place right now, we have already taken a great step towards that.  With everybody understanding what I am looking for, what I am requiring from everybody and where I see the vision of how we are going to handle these things, I think everybody understands and I think we will be able to do this well. 

            Mr. Skehan stated we have talked about those roles in significant detail at this point.  I think we captured some of the questions and/or concerns Mr. Cassel has had along the way.  We will invite the Board out on a monthly basis to take a walkthrough if you are interested in seeing the progress of the construction. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I would like to see a nice schedule up on the wall every time we come in.

            Mr. Skehan stated we will do that.  We will provide it for you. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we have to get going here.  I think we are running out of time.

            Mr. Skehan stated I have one last thing on the engineer side.  Over the next couple of months there will be a couple of work authorizations coming your way for our additional services for the services during construction.  We just completed, all of the packages were delivered today at 10:00 a.m., the pre-qualification packages.  I think there were nine or ten packages that came in from contractors.  We are in the process, starting today, of going through the pre-qualification packages.  We are getting those laid out and getting evaluations done of those.  This will be completed by the end of the week.  By the end of this week, I think on either Saturday or Sunday, we plan to have an advertisement in the newspaper so the project will be advertised.  It has to be legally advertised.  The monitoring well is going to be coming up for bid soon.  The next couple of months there will be quite a bit taking place.  I just want to advise you of what is taking place.  There is a lot going on in the background.  If you would like to make time for half of the next Board meeting, we would like to take you out.  You expressed some interest in taking a look at the pilot testing we were doing.  If you can plan on that, we will have it on the agenda. 

            Mr. Fennell stated by the way everyone, it is a Thursday.

            Mr. Cassel stated Thursday, November 13, 2008. 

            Ms. Hanks asked Ms. Schurz, will you make a note to call the entire Board on Wednesday, November 12, 2008?

            Ms. Schurz responded yes.

            Mr. Hanks stated thank you. 


NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                            Approval of September Financials and Check Registers

A.                Projected Cash Flows

B.                 Summary of Cash Transactions

            Ms. Zich stated I have looked this over.  We are a little short on our revenue for water, but we knew that was going to happen.  I think we have done a good job.

            Mr. Hanks stated we are short on our revenue by about $200,000.

            Mr. Cassel stated if I recall, it is a lot less than what was projected when I first came in on April 1, 2008.

            Ms. Zich stated people must have been watering.

            Mr. Daly stated the permanent water restriction may be going into affect for good as of November.

            Mr. Hyche stated we will see.  There have been some petitions going around from municipalities. 

            Mr. Hanks asked what about the question I had imposed regarding the Mobil Station on Coral Springs Drive and Atlantic Boulevard?

            Mr. Daly responded it was done.  It was all sent out.  In fact we have sent out 80 letters since we took this project over and we have gotten 43 of them back.  The Mobil Station is one of them.  I believe it was hand delivered. 


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


            Mr. Daly stated I just need 30 seconds of your time.  You will notice the mock up of a newsletter you requested.  We are trying to get this out the first week of November.  Mr. Fennell, I would like to invite you to take this entire first left column. 

            Mr. Hanks asked now are we a reversed osmosis plant? 

            Mr. Hyche responded it has not been clearly defined yet. 

            Mr. Skehan stated this is why we are still planning on the now.  There is latitude to be able to adjust to the water quality which would be coming from the Floridian Aquifer. 

            Mr. Hyche stated we should change that to membrane treatment. 

            Mr. Fennell stated good idea. 

            Mr. Daly stated if you take a look at the screen over here, this will be the new look of our website.  It is not fully functional yet, but it is getting there.  We will get it up and running within the next two to three weeks.  It runs along the same lines.  It keeps the same colors.  We are going to have some continuity from now on. 

            Mr. Hanks asked have you taken a look at what other domain names are available for the website?

            Mr. Daly responded yes I did and I emailed you.  The problem with that is we also share our domain with NSID, PTWCD and SWCD.  They all link to fladistricts.com.  You may have noticed the turnabout when you came in.  Mr. Hyche worked with the city to get the asphalt.  What was the cost for that?

            Mr. Hyche responded nothing. 

            Mr. Daly stated it has been taken care of in-house.  We are doing a sewer plant tour.  We invited some people from the neighborhood, a high school class, to come in.

            Mr. Hyche stated it is a high school senior class from the charter school here in Coral Springs. 

            Mr. Daly stated Ms. Zich, you saw pictures of the carp.  Those are for you. 

            Ms. Zich stated very nice.  So we now have our carp in there.

            Mr. Daly stated that is correct. 

            Mr. Fennell asked when do you need the first column by?

            Mr. Daly responded a week.

            Mr. Fennell stated I will see if I can do it.

            Mr. Daly stated if not, we will draft something and get it approved.

            Mr. Fennell stated okay.


NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                            Adjournment

            There being no further business,


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








  Glen Hanks                                                                  Robert D. Fennell                              

  Secretary                                                                       President