A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, May 18, 2009 at 3:05 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

            Jane Early                                                        District Engineer

            Sean Skehan                                                    CH2M Hill

            Gerrit Bulman                                                 CH2M Hill

            Brenda Schurz                                                Severn Trent Services

            Dan Daly                                                         Director of Operations

            Doug Hyche                                                    Utilities Director

            Randy Frederick                                             Drainage Supervisor

            Kay Woodward                                              District Accountant


FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS                             Roll Call

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


THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS                            Approval of the Minutes of the April 20, 2009 Meeting

             Mr. Fennell stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the April 20, 2009 meeting and requested any corrections, additions or deletions.

            There not being any,


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the minutes of the April 20, 2009 meeting were approved.








THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS                            Distribution of the Proposed Water and Sewer Budget for Fiscal Year 2010 and Consideration of Resolution 2009-5 Approving the Proposed Budget and Setting the Public Hearing

            Mr. Fennell stated the big deal today is the proposed water and sewer budget for fiscal year 2010.  I believe we did this.

            Mr. Cassel stated not on this.

            Mr. Lyles stated it is a two step process.  The proposed budget is submitted to you by the manager.  Your actions today are limited to accepting the proposed budget, approving it or not, and setting the public hearing.  The proposed date is for your August meeting.  Today is just to start the process.  A notice will be published and there will be a public hearing in August. 

            Ms. Zich stated I was noting the delinquency, processing fee and our revenue.  It does not look to good.  Are we having a lot of problems?  We are just getting a lot of money there.

            Mr. Daly stated we are not having problems.  The residents are.  We expect to make $100,000 this year in delinquent and turn on fees.  This is what happens in an economy like this one with the housing market the way it is. 

            Ms. Zich stated I just noticed how this was jumping.

            Mr. Daly stated we cannot count on it.  This is why the dollar amount for next year is considerably lower.  The housing market is going to get better and hopefully the rest of the economy. 

            Mr. Hanks asked and you have those increased fees because it means increased work for your administration to collect?

            Mr. Daly responded that is correct.  Every time we have to take action to notify a customer they are going to be disconnected we hand deliver the door hanger.  It is not mailed.  We hand deliver it to make sure they have it in their hand in ample time to get the bill paid. 

            Mr. Fennell stated my biggest question is with regard to interest income for the 2007 Series Bonds.  Is there any prospect of us earning anything?  We still have $35 Million we have not spent.

            Ms. Woodward responded you have $29 Million in the construction account.  The problem you have right now is that it is an ever decreasing balance.  As we pay each series of requisitions on the work, the balance continues to go down and we do not have an ongoing source of revenue funds to go back into the account.  Right now at US Bank you are looking at maybe half a percent per year.  I have been in touch with one of the officers in Orlando and US Bank is currently offering a new product to their trusteed funds accounts.  For minimum balances of $5 Million you can go into what is the equivalent of laddered CDs where you would basically purchase sums you know you are not going to need for three months, six months, etcetera.  Right now I need to know exactly how it works because we would need to be in a position to have better guesses on when we specifically need those construction funds.  This is one of the options for what could happen.  Other than that, basically for budget purposes, we tend to be ultra conservative and underestimate revenue so we are certain the expenditures we have we can cover; if revenues come in higher, than it is better for you. 

            Mr. Fennell asked can we ladder T-Bills?  Even T-Bills are paying more than half percent.

            Ms. Woodward responded we can check on it.  It is still the same problem.  The real issue is being able to take the $29 Million and give a reasonable estimate as to when those funds will be expended.  If you ladder in on either one of those investments and you guess wrong having to pull out funds, then there are penalties involved with it.

            Mr. Fennell stated but on the other hand we have $2 Million or $3 Million of unrestricted funds.  Is this correct?

            Ms. Woodward responded yes.

            Mr. Fennell stated it could certainly act as a cushion.

            Ms. Woodward stated it acts as a cushion, but it is outside of the trustee funds.  The problem you have right now, whether the funds are trusteed with US Bank or they are separately in either CDs or operating funds elsewhere, are the interest rates across the board are not magnificent.  You are suffering relative to what you have been able to have in past years.  The issue here is to whittle away and get as much as you can.  It is not going to be large amounts.  You are going to have to pay attention and sort of save your pennies and dollars as you go. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we probably do need a better estimate.  I guess I am going to ask engineering to get together with accounting and really do a cash flow analysis of these projects.  You know when the work is being done.  There is a minimum amount of time you know the work can be done and there is probably a maximum flow out.  If we can get a really good handle on the work and when the payouts would be from engineering, at that point accounting could look at it and say there is no way we will ever need any more money than this by this time.  Then there is a worst case scenario for payout.  The reason I am pushing this is because we were counting on interest to come in and actually build up part of it. 

            Ms. Woodward stated that is correct, but at the same time when you went out for the bonds the expectation was the cost of the project was going to be $23 Million to $25 Million and it came in at $17 Million or $18 Million.  You have benefited and suffered for the same reasons. 

            Mr. Fennell stated nevertheless, it would still be good to go and do a real cash flow for an understanding.

            Mr. Hanks stated from that standpoint yes, I agree.  We also need to be careful against locking ourselves in at a low interest rate now so we may not have the potential to benefit from higher interest rates later on. 

            Ms. Zich stated well we only do it short term, hopefully.

            Ms. Woodward stated short term is all you are dealing with here because this is an ever decreasing balance.  It is just the construction funds. 

            Ms. Zich stated we would not want to do anything long term with this money.  It has to be short term.

            Mr. Fennell stated but we probably need the cash flow thing anyway. 

            Mr. Skehan stated we have looked at this very closely thus far, but we can go back and reevaluate it.

            Mr. Fennell stated let us do this so we can really see how this works. This could potentially be hundreds of thousands of dollars in interest we could be earning.

            Ms. Zich stated no.  The rates are so low now.

            Mr. Fennell asked how can the banks claim you still can get money?  Everybody is still in T-Bills?

            Ms. Zich asked what is the rate on the money market account we have with Wachovia?  It is so low.  It is like .01%.

            Ms. Woodward responded it is all so low. 

            Ms. Zich stated it is really terrible.

            Ms. Woodward stated you do have a total of $1,250,000 we spread out into certificates of deposits; funds we know we can keep rolling over and rolling over.  On average those funds are earning you approximately 2.5%.  I will grant you this is not a large sum, but when you are looking at .01% and .04% it is an improvement.  We simply have to watch for any opportunity, even though the timeframe is short and the interest rate is only marginally higher.  We need to examine it and try to capture as much of those opportunities as they come along.

            Ms. Zich stated Ms. Woodward has her eyes open and I have my eyes open too.  The rate of return right now is so minimal. 

            Mr. Fennell asked do you remember about 20 years ago when they had helicopters flying from a building to another building so they could pick up cash that day, deposit it that night and invest it in Eurodollars?

            Ms. Zich responded I remember that.  I worked for a builder and we were getting interest on the float overnight at the bank.  Those days are gone.

            Mr. Fennell stated that is the biggest issue I see as far as revenue because we are saying we are going to be $250,000 less than the 2008 actual.  When does our next…

            Mr. Daly responded July 1, 2009.  The last rate increase.  We approved three years.

            Mr. Fennell asked does this schedule include that?

            Mr. Daly responded yes it does. 

            Ms. Woodward stated yes it does, but one of the things we had to take into account is we have to give the benefit of the full 14% increase for the July billing because it goes up for that and goes down for drought water restrictions.  We tended to be conservative even on the revenue side. 

            Mr. Fennell asked even so, given all of that, as I look at the bottom line in the next page over we are still; does this include the debt service requirement?

            Ms. Woodward responded yes.  We are required to have 10% over the debt service as reserve.  So that 1.10 we have in fact budgeted from this that we should be hitting the mark at 1.91.  We are not even marginally close to having an issue.  This basically says we will have twice as much money as we need to expend on principle and interest.  Even if other issues come up and require funds, you can be very secure in knowing that we are being conservative.

            Mr. Fennell stated as I am looking at the first page the debt service through 2010 the only thing we are paying off is $75,000.

            Ms. Zich stated remember we are paying it early this year.

            Ms. Woodward stated yes.  The 1992 Series is being paid in full.  That is the $3,075,000 you see in the next to last column for the principal.  One the 2002 Series, the only portion of the principal is $75,000.  The 2007 Series’ principal has been postponed until 2014.  There is no money being expended on it.  You will note, even though our interest expense for the 2007 Series runs $1.9 Million per year, we are only having to fund $1.5 Million because the rest of those funds came by way of closing of the bonds. 

            Mr. Fennell asked looking at 2011, what debt payment will we have in that year?

            Ms. Woodward responded we will be paying $1.9 Million in interest on the 2007 Series.  On the 2002 Series there will be $75,000 in principal and $280,000 in interest.  The $1,978,000 will be the interest on the 2007 Bonds.  No principal will be paid on the 2007 Bonds in 2010. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I am looking ahead into 2011.

            Ms. Woodward stated still nothing until after 2014.  Then you will be paying principal.

            Mr. Fennell stated I am just trying to look forward.  This looks awfully good.  We are going to be $1.7 Million in surplus, even with downed revenue, but I know we have this window coming at some point where we have to start paying.

            Ms. Woodward stated you have a couple of windows coming.  Number one, on the principal and interest for all of the debt you have to pay for.  After this first year where we reap the benefit of paying off the 1992 Series Bonds early, our debt service will run $4 Million a year on all issues combined.  In addition to that, once we have built out the nanoplant, there will be certain items of operating expenditures; which right now we might have a rough estimate that certain items might be going up, but we do not have a true feel for how electricity will be affected by this, payments related to purchase and installation of filters and all sorts of things which will be involved in this.  This is one of the reasons why you want to work towards being conservative and hold down on your expenditures as much as possible in anticipation of something unknown that we might need in the future when the plant comes online. 

            Mr. Fennell stated this year we will not have very much thanks to the fact we are paying off the 1992 Series early, but coming up is a $4 Million a year boat we are going to have to carry; essentially a $10 Million business. 

            Ms. Zich stated we still have really good rates for our customers.  We have great rates.  Talk to anyone in our surrounding area and you will see how good our rates are.

            Mr. Hanks asked what were Hollywood’s rates?  They just announced a big increase.

            Mr. Daly responded I am not familiar. 

            Mr. Hyche stated I think they are all looking at the drought condition surcharges.  That is what they are all going to try to implement. 

            Mr. Daly stated that is true.  We just received that email again.  Who is that from?

            Mr. Hanks responded I just read something in the paper this morning about Hollywood, Dania, and Pembroke Pines or Pembroke Park, I always get those two confused, will have a 30% or 40% increase. 

            Ms. Zich stated like I said, we still have really good rates in this District.

            Mr. Hanks stated one thing we are benefiting from is we do not have an ocean outfall, which the other wastewater treatment plants that have ocean outfalls have to get rid of them by 2025.  What are they actually going to do?

            Mr. Skehan responded injection wells.

            Mr. Fennell stated that is a huge amount of water.  They are going to need to have 5 times the amount of injection wells we have or something like it.

            Mr. Hanks stated they are going to have to go reclaimed because they are limiting how much you can put down your…

            Mr. Skehan stated they are still going to need to have back up. 

            Mr. Hanks stated yes, full capacity back up.  You are looking at some huge numbers to change it around.  They also have issues with the saltwater infusion, which we do not have to deal with.  This is why we are going through with the water modeling.  It is all tied together.  SFWMD looks at this and says if we are withdrawing the water here and making use of it, then it is not available through Pompano, Dania or Deerfield.  So they have other issues.  It is something to be thankful about.  We are fortunate for the system we do have. 

            Mr. Fennell asked are there any other questions?

            Mr. Daly responded the only other highlight on the proposed budget would be the meter replacement program at approximately $106,644.  They are going to actually start with residential meters again.  It has been 10 or 12 years since we did it the last time.  We actually put some temporary help in the budget for it too, which will be a part-time, non permanent position.  It will probably go into the budget for the next couple of years.  We will have them work alongside one of our permanent full-time employees.  That is all they will do all day long for 30 hours a week.

            Mr. Fennell asked are you doing it area by area?

            Mr. Daly responded area by area, subdivision by subdivision.

            Mr. Fennell asked did you ever find something which was less expensive that we could actually read the meters electronically?

            Mr. Daly responded yes.  I found it 12 years ago.  I think Ms. Mossing brought it to the Board, but it was $250,000 at the time.  It is pretty much electronic.

            Mr. Fennell stated it has to pay for itself in a reasonable amount of time.

            Mr. Daly stated yes.  You will basically not have a meter reading department any longer.

            Mr. Fennell stated eventually.

            Mr. Daly stated as soon as they are all changed.  You would actually replace the meter readers with people who repair the meters.  We are paying $29 for meters now in the last 10 or 12 years so when you really add it up and look at it, plus the meter readers do our door hangers aside from doing that position.  They do our running to the bank.  Some of them even input payments when some of our people are on vacation.  They are all cross trained to do a lot of different things.  When you look at it you can add up their salaries and look at it over a period of years, but you would not save all of that.  You would save a portion of it.

            Mr. Hanks stated you still need someone to go out and do a drive around every so often to check and see that they were still accessible.

            Mr. Daly stated the whole idea with Mux, which is an electronic device, since we double gang our meters, is one would work for both and things like that.  The problem is all it takes is a bad wire, a bad battery and all of a sudden you are not getting readings with it.  So you really could not get rid of all your personnel.  At the time when we spoke years ago about this, Ms. Mossing wanted to be able to sit at your desk and press a button to see the meter reading at “Mrs. Smith’s” home.  She was light years ahead of her time on that.  You would have to have the city allow antennas on every block.  That was not about to happen.  We did look at this opportunity years ago.  I can look at it again if you would like.

            Mr. Fennell stated the criterion is a minimum of a five year payback.  Once you hit anything over a 10 or 15 year payback it becomes questionable.  You do not really know if you are going to get a payback. 

            Mr. Daly stated what I see a lot of utilities or cities doing are going to touch screens.  All that does is allow the meter reader not to have to bend down to look at the meter pit and get stung by ants or bees.  Pretty much it is the button which pushes and shoots into the gun.  It still does not negate the fact you have to have a body which knows where to go and which house to be at.  There was a cost involved with that.  Mr. Hyche and I looked into that with another gentleman who used to work with us.  The labor alone of putting the mechanism in the meter box lid where they can just touch it was cost-prohibitive.  You have to drill it out and secure it.  We would have to have hired a crew just to do that. 

            Mr. Hanks stated there is also a reason ductile iron is still the preferred material.  It works.  Ms. Early, do we have enough money in here for your engineering fees?

            Mr. Daly responded Ms. Early’s fees normally come from our general fund budget, which is the one you received last month. 

            Mr. Hanks stated so we have $6,000 in this budget for engineering.

            Mr. Daly stated Mr. Cassel and I talked about it today and we might bump it up a bit.  This is primarily due to the fact the Board may ask for special services.  Mr. Skehan and others in the group are going to attend these meetings because they have million dollar projects out here.  It is part of the deal.  There should not be a fee for them to show up.  The money which is in there is for the Board asking for studies to be done or something like that. 

            Mr. Fennell asked we only have $6,000 in the budget, right?

            Mr. Daly responded because most of the other costs are associated with the projects.  It is the best way to track it.

            Mr. Cassel stated one of our things we started doing is linking engineering fees to specific projects so we know what the engineering fees are for that project.  This is why if you look at what the engineering fees were before, they have been dropping.  We have allocated from being just a general number they have been moved to the specific targeted utilization. 

            Mr. Daly stated five years ago you could not have said “this is how much this project cost” because not everything was in one place.  Now it is all in one spot and with the touch of a button Ms. Woodward can pull it up and say it cost you X amount of money. 

            Ms. Woodward stated we can also give you the breakdown so if you have five jobs running simultaneously, we can give you the cost by project in total and we can also tell you by project the amount of the engineering as well as the amount of the hard cost.  It is not a lost number.  You can still retrieve it and know what the number is. 

            Mr. Fennell stated that assumes we actually end up with a project.  We might want to look at things and decide not to do them.  How do we fund that?

            Ms. Woodward responded we can fund it through general engineering.  If it does not convert to a project at year end, it remains as an expenditure and closes out into the equity at the end of the year.  It would stay on the general engineering expense line.  If it became part of a project, it would be moved over to either capital outlay or capital improvements.  Ultimately, on your audited financials, it would then be moved out and into a fixed asset which you would be depreciating. 

            Mr. Daly asked would you have more of a comfort level if we doubled this number?

            Mr. Fennell responded yes.  The only question I might have here is on postage where we might be spending $48,000 on just sending out bill notices.  Is it possible for us to notify people by email?

            Mr. Daly responded it could be.  I would have to spend some money on having the program.

            Mr. Fennell stated I just look at how most of my bills and banking I get by email.  I do not really get much paper anymore.  I do not know if it would save us any money.

            Mr. Daly stated I believe it is $.24 because we do the postcards. 

            Ms. Zich stated not everyone is going to have a computer.  It is not going to be 100%.  There is still going to be a certain amount of people who are still going to want to get postcards.  You cannot force them to have a computer. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I have automatic billing.  It shows up and gets directly billed to my account.  You can just as easily send me an email. 

            Mr. Daly stated I will have to take a look at this.  We actually have everyone’s bill online.  They can go online and look at their account. 

            Mr. Fennell stated my electrical bill is like that.

            Mr. Daly stated we have had this for years, but no one takes advantage of it.  The whole idea is they get on the website to pay their bill.  It is not a bad idea. 

            Mr. Fennell stated you are already paying for internet.

            Mr. Hanks asked what do you need from us to move this forward?  Do you need a motion to adopt Resolution 2009-5?

            Mr. Cassel responded that is correct. 

            Mr. Hanks asked do we need to fill in any of the blanks on the amounts?

            Mr. Cassel responded no.  As it is worded it is approving the budget as attached with the adjustment in the one line item.  The total is not going to change.  It is the resolution with the attached budget as amended.





On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor Resolution 2009-5, approving the proposed water and sewer budget as amended and setting the public hearing for August 17, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. at the District Offices, was adopted. 


FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                        Award of Bid for Road Repair and Resurfacing Project IH-2009-A

            Mr. Fennell asked is this the area we are doing it?

            Mr. Hyche responded we are doing some patch repair on the back side.  From the island in the front we are doing a relay all the way around encompassing this entire parking lot and road. 

            Mr. Daly stated there are lots of places in the past due to 20 years worth of work on the property that patches needed to be made, but they never were.

            Mr. Fennell asked how come there was 500 square yards difference?

            Mr. Cassel responded it depends on how the individual measured.  We went out and marked off the areas we decided on.  We told them we would also do this whole area as an overlay.  They came up with the amount of square yards they thought was necessary to do it.  That is what they bid on.

            Mr. Daly stated I know, Mr. Fennell, you had a question on our area back here where it was kind of sinking.  Mr. Hyche had one of the field guys take the back hauler and dig it up.  There is no pipe underneath there.  We thought perhaps there might be a pipe which was broken.

            Mr. Fennell stated okay.  Good.  Are there any other questions on this?

            Mr. Hanks responded we are just shy of $10 a square yard.  That is not a bad price. 

            Ms. Early stated that is a pretty good price.

            Mr. Hanks stated it is tied in quite heavily with the cost of oil. 

            Ms. Early stated I am surprised only two people bid.

            Mr. Hyche stated we had a lot more than that show up, but only two people actually bid.

            Mr. Daly stated they will stripe the parking lot afterwards.

            Mr. Hyche stated yes.  This includes the marking. 

            Mr. Hanks stated the price is good.  Do we really need it?

            Mr. Daly responded we can go a few years and then do the whole place when all the projects are done.  Mr. Cassel and I were thinking since this area here is pretty much done with the construction it would not be a bad idea to do this now.  There are some parts of our driveway out front where you actually see dirt.  It is actually worn down that badly.

            Mr. Cassel stated this will also correct our semi-permanent lake out here. 

            Mr. Hyche stated this includes in front of the fueling station; pulling it up, re-rocking it, re-leveling it and adding some more around the pumps. 

            Mr. Hanks asked just out of curiosity, how come you are not going with concrete around the fueling station?

            Mr. Hyche responded there is concrete right around the station. 

            Mr. Cassel stated this is the approach. 


On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Ms. Zich with Mr. Fennell and Ms. Zich voting aye and Mr. Hanks voting nay the road repair and resurfacing bid was awarded to Pavex Corporation.


FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                             Consideration of Surface Water Management Permit for Taravella High School Addition PE Building Located at the Southeast Corner of Riverside Drive and Coral Springs Drive

            Ms. Zich asked where are they putting it?

            Mr. Hanks responded just off the football field. 

            Mr. Fennell stated that is where they had the temporary buildings.

            Mr. Hanks asked did they provide calculations demonstrating they meet our storage criteria?

            Ms. Early responded they provided calculations.  I think we asked them for additional information.

            Mr. Hanks asked do they meet our storage criteria?

            Ms. Early responded yes.  We put some special conditions in there with regards to the weir and cleaning the system. 

            Mr. Hanks asked are we requiring them to have a PRB prior to discharge to our system?

            Ms. Early responded they all have to before it discharges.  If they are connecting into it, the last structure before it outfalls has to have a PRB.  That is our standard condition.  We are now requiring them to make sure the system is clean too. 

            Mr. Fennell stated it will not be as used since they have cut back 25% of the athletic activities in high school, except for football. 

            Mr. Daly stated we just met with the engineer for this project.  He said the reason they are going forward is because they lose a lot of money if they do not have a stadium for football and it has to go to another school.  They lose a lot of revenue.

            Ms. Early stated yes because they charge for parking and admission. 

            Mr. Fennell stated my kids went to Taravella.

            Ms. Zich stated I had one go to each one; Taravella and Coral Springs High School.

            Mr. Fennell asked is there a motion for this one?

            Mr. Hanks responded hold on. 

            Mr. Fennell asked is the engineering and everything okay?

            Ms. Early responded yes. 


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the surface water management permit for Taravella High School addition PE building located at the southeast corner of Riverside Drive and Coral Springs Drive was approved.


SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                             Staff Reports

            A.        Manager

·         Discussion of Water Reuse Workshop

            Mr. Cassel stated as we have been looking at the water use permit in discussions with SFWMD, also looking at the potential need for reuse or options for reuse, we would like to set a workshop meeting with the Board in the first or second week of June to get together with the engineers as well as staff to look at potential opportunities for reuse, impacts on the District and opportunities for the District. 

            Mr. Fennell stated the first week we are actually going up to that meeting.

            Mr. Cassel stated so it will have to be the second week of June. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I will have to check my calendar.

            Mr. Cassel stated I will have Ms. Schurz send out an email.  Is there any particular time of the day, which is better for the Board?

            Ms. Zich stated in the afternoon.

            Mr. Fennell stated this time is not too bad.

            Mr. Cassel asked around 3:30 p.m.?

            Mr. Fennell responded at 3:00 p.m.

            Ms. Zich asked are we looking at any particular date?  Are we looking at the second week in June?

            Mr. Cassel responded yes, June 8th, 9th or 10th. 

            Mr. Hanks stated I prefer June 8th or June 9th.

            Ms. Zich stated I prefer the ninth.  Let us try for Tuesday, June 9, 2009.

            Mr. Hanks asked what time?

            Mr. Fennell responded I have to teach a class at 6:00 p.m. so it will have to be 3:00 p.m.

            Mr. Cassel stated okay, Tuesday, June 9, 2009 at 3:00 p.m.

            Mr. Hanks asked does this give us ample time to provide proper notification?

            Mr. Lyles stated yes.

            Mr. Cassel stated we will get it advertised and there will be a follow up email to the Board.

            Mr. Fennell asked which group is pushing the water reuse?

            Mr. Cassel responded it is a combination.  SFWMD is always interested in reuse processes and projects.  It will tie into our consumptive water use permit.  In all of our planning documents it is out there in our long range planning documents that we would look at or consider.  We have not committed to doing it per se, but it is always out there; when the timing is right, if it is feasible, if it is the right time for investment, etcetera, we would consider it. 

            Mr. Hanks stated the City of Coral Springs is looking for a 20% increase in their allocation.  We are looking at a smaller increase to accommodate the additional waste stream from the nanoplant. 

            Mr. Cassel stated that is correct.

            Mr. Hanks stated we have somewhat of a unique ability in Northwestern Broward County because we have our own wastewater treatment plant.  The City of Coral Springs does not have the ability to make any of their decisions in terms of reclaimed water or alternative sources.  They are pretty much stuck with having to go to the Floridan, which can result in some substantial costs.  Reclaimed also can result in some substantial costs as well, but it may break even, it may be better or it may not be.  This is why we are trying to have some of these workshops to flush out some of these issues. 

            Mr. Fennell asked how come the arguments do not center around the canals also?

            Mr. Hanks asked when you say center around the canals?

            Mr. Fennell responded I can remember a time when we had a billion gallons of water we could have reused.  We could have given it back and no one would take it.

            Mr. Hanks asked are you talking in terms of stormwater discharges?

            Mr. Fennell responded yes.  We are talking maybe 10 million gallons here.

            Mr. Hyche stated they are looking at ASR, aquifer storage recovery, wells for the purpose of collecting the stormwater. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I am getting the impression the argument has been framed in not a correct end.  We are talking about 1% of the water as opposed to 99% of the water; 99% of the water in our canals ends up going out to the ocean.  We are talking about the 1% or so we actually use for personal consumption and trying to do something with that.  I do not see where this is the biggest bang for the buck.  Maybe I am missing something. 

            Mr. Hanks stated part of the issue is the geology we have.  There is a very pervious system so if we were able to store excess water in the canals in terms of a higher elevation, it would have the effect of pushing on out then in the dry season when we really would need it, it would not be there because it will have filtered out to the adjacent lower areas.

            Mr. Fennell stated well it would not be here for us, but it would be there for Margate, Tamarac, North Lauderdale and others because they are right in the flow.

            Mr. Hanks stated that is one of those discussions we can still have.  One of the other options on the table as far as the South Florida region is to tie into a C-51 reservoir.  Up in Northern Palm Beach County they have some geology which is almost impervious so they have the ability to store that runoff in the area and then distribute it over the course of the year on a daily basis throughout this area without impacting wetlands and without causing additional saltwater intrusion.  They are talking about some of those issues, but then again some of the challenges are how to get from one place to actually where we are using it.

            Mr. Fennell stated well in some cases, not so much ours, we have pumps which can pump back towards the Everglades.  We have C-14, which goes right out to the Everglades.  All we have to do is install a pump which goes in the other direction. 

            Mr. Hanks stated there are a lot of issues; one of which is the pending litigation between Miccosukee and SFWMD over the quality of water.  Just because it is in the canals it does not mean you can necessarily move it from one place to another.  You may have to treat it and bring it up to water standards.  That is a big fight right now.  There is a whole mess of issues which are bigger than just SFWMD that are waiting to be determined.

            Mr. Fennell asked is that water more clean than what we have coming out of our sewer line?

            Mr. Hyche responded not unless it is disinfected.

            Mr. Fennell stated there is an issue there, but it is not really an issue of water.

            Mr. Hanks stated there are a lot of issues and most of it is different camps trying to push different agendas.  Little people like us are caught in the middle.  We are trying to see what our available options are.  We can control our destiny over some components of it.

            Mr. Fennell stated my point is I think the question is being framed with an answer already in mind.

            Mr. Skehan stated part of the purpose of the workshop is to look at the different aspects and components that would be evaluated in a feasibility study for reuse.  One of the significant components is cost and what is going to be better financially to pursue alternate water sources.  In pursuing alternate water sources you have to choices ultimately.  One would be the Floridan Aquifer and then looking at all the implications tied to that.  The other alternate source would be reuse and doing a cost benefit analysis with those associated costs so it meets the role of the District and/or the policy which is out there in trying to achieve goals from SFWMD or from DEP for both the water use permitting and/or for the operating permits for the wastewater plants at the same time.  There are multiple components here as Mr. Hanks was pointing out and we are just trying to get those all in front of the Board so you give a fair evaluation to that.  One of the things we were able to submit a week ago was a grant application that was available from Broward County for doing feasibility studies.  They are giving 50% of the funding.  With any luck the grant application we submitted on behalf of the District will be able access some of that, going in the direction of studying this specifically. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we have been talking about this for a while.  Obviously there are political issues from different political groups.  I will be asking a question starting more from a rational basis.  Why do we have a water shortage?  How much water do we actually need for this?  How much is this District actually a part of the water problem?  I lived out west.  Where I was born we had 15 inches of rain a year.  We were near a desert.  There were real water issues there.  We have 40 inches a year and our pumps all run towards the ocean. 

            Mr. Hanks stated there are a lot of these issues being floated around.  I again extend the offer on the first Friday of each month we have the Broward County Task Force meeting.  I can send you as an alternate and anyone else is welcome to attend.  You get quite a sense for what these issues really are.  We really do not have a problem.  We have a lot of opportunities.  There are other utilities which have problems.  Imagine if all of a sudden we had to come up with another solution for our deep well injections, which is where we send all of our wastewater.  Broward County, Hollywood and Fort Lauderdale are in this scenario.  Their disposal methods are changing.  They can no longer do what they have historically done.  That is being forced down from the legislature. 

            Mr. Hyche stated the Clean Water Act. 

            Mr. Hanks asked Mr. Skehan; in advance of this workshop will you be able to put together a list of some of the background and topics for the rest of the Board members such as reclaimed, Floridan and conservation?  Those are some of the issues we are going to want to take a look at the cost and potential savings; also, look at what is really the driving force behind our issues.  How much do we have to achieve in terms of either a reduction in our use or increase in our capacity?

            Mr. Skehan responded we can do that.

·         Monthly Water Charts

            Mr. Hanks asked what is RAA percent loss?

            Mr. Hyche responded on an annual average.

            Mr. Hanks stated thank you. 

            Mr. Fennell asked so did you actually find out anything out there?

            Mr. Hyche responded we know it is the laterals.  That is all we found out.  I do not think the engineers had a chance to look at it yet.

            Mr. Fennell asked are the laterals the main pipes going in?

            Mr. Hyche responded that is the surface laterals.

            Mr. Fennell asked where the pipes meet?

            Mr. Cassel responded at the connection lines.

            Mr. Hyche stated you talk to some of the guys who have been around since day one.  Some of those plumbers put those laterals together into the mains without the boots. 

            Mr. Fennell asked who is responsible for this?

            Mr. Hyche responded the surface laterals would be the owners.  We are responsible to the main.

            Mr. Hanks stated we are responsible within the right-of-way. 

            Mr. Lyles stated how this is suppose to work and the prototypical construction, dedication and public responsibility is the right-of-way line is where the public’s property interest ends and the private property interest begins.  This is where we typically should have a meter, but there have been instances within the boundaries of this District where for one reason or another, I think this goes back long before the involvement of anyone in this room, we have meters and we have lines in places that extend beyond the right-of-way line.  While the simple answer, based on how it normally works, there are instances where we have found that is not how it was constructed and we are going to have to sort through the issues of future access if there are any and liability.  We have at least one lawsuit where it has been alleged, and so far the evidence seems consistent with, one of our meters being inside a commercial property line, hundreds of feet from the nearest right-of-way line.  It is the way it was installed.  It is the way it has been read over the years.  The case is being defended in part on the basis that we do not own this property, we do not have an easement on it and we are not responsible for what goes on when people are walking into this mall.  We have some situations that are anomalies and not the way it would be done would the application for a permit come before you today. 

            Mr. Fennell stated okay, well, you think you know where the problem is at.  Is it worth fixing?

            Mr. Hyche responded I do not think so.  It is cheaper to treat it.

            Mr. Cassel stated at this point.

            Mr. Hanks asked for how long?  Are we talking about a ten year return period?

            Mr. Cassel responded as with all infiltration, you go down to the last percentage of the infiltration and the cost benefit to eliminate it from your system.  The payback period is a 15, 20 or 25 year scenario.  They kind of draw a line and say below this it is not worth messing with it. 

            Mr. Fennell asked how much would it cost to repair each one of these things?

            Mr. Hyche responded I would not even begin to estimate.  We are talking about an area of Ramblewood and three lift station runs.

            Mr. Hanks asked how many houses, 500?

            Mr. Hyche responded there are approximately 1,500 in the Ramblewood area.

            Mr. Hanks asked are we in jeopardy of violating any of our permit criteria?

            Mr. Hyche responded not even during periods of high flow.

            Mr. Fennell asked can you actually go and do a sampling?  I guess if you have some things you can look at and actually see if there is a way to find out the specific problems?

            Mr. Hyche responded smoke tests.

            Mr. Skehan stated you can do flow testing in the lift stations.

            Mr. Fennell stated it depends on how extensive it is.  I know when I built my pool the guy came out and dropped the pump.  The amount of water having to come out just to keep a small hole open is tremendous.  If you have a pipe which is disjointed and under water, you are going to pick up a lot of water. 

·         Utility Billing Work Orders

            Mr. Fennell asked are there any questions?

            There not being any, the next item followed.

            B.        Attorney

            There being no report, the next item followed.


            C.        Engineer

·         Work Authorization No. 32 for Engineering Services During Construction for the Wastewater Plant Improvements Phase 2 in the Amount of $161,709.90

·         Project Status Report

            Mr. Fennell stated it seems like we have gone backwards in our progress with the nanofiltration plant.  When are we going to keep going?

            Mr. Skehan responded the demolition has taken place with the different components of the wastewater plant that needed to be brought down.  That has been completed.  They are waiting to get a construction permit from the city.  There has been some frustration with this.  One small item I can share with the Board is we had the preliminary review of the wastewater drawings a couple of months ago.  Everyone is aware of that.  Those drawings were sent back to the contractor a week ago.  Two of the drawings were not satisfactory according to the city.  They needed to be signed and sealed.  Those two drawings were sheets with abbreviations on them.  The contractor is somewhat frustrated with that.  We are a little frustrated that the city is calling for this level of stopping what is taking place in the permitting aspect.  We were told last week that all took place and we did get them all signed and sealed for the one day turnaround time.  They are back in their hands and supposedly things are suppose to be getting resolved this week.  We will wait to see how this comes together. 

            One thing I discussed with the District manager is we will also have another meeting with some of the same people we had a meeting with the last time on the water plant aspect of it and be able to try to avoid some re-reviews which really do not need to be taking place.   We are trying to streamline the review process.  The contractor is ready to go and he is potholing to know where are pipelines are out there.  They are hoping they will get the green flag this week to move on the wastewater plant.

            Mr. Fennell asked what about the nanofiltration plant?

            Mr. Skehan responded that is the subsequent review of their plans.  We had a discussion last week about fuel storage.  Fuel storage was a huge issue the last time when permitting was taking place out here on the plant.  We met with the chief fire inspector for the city.  He shared with us the codes have changed related to fuel storage onsite.  They no longer have limitations on fuel storage for facilities which are dividing utility type services.  Any utility which is providing water or providing emergency type services will be able to have as much fuel as is necessary. 

            Mr. Hanks asked is that the city code?

            Mr. Skehan responded it is either a county code or state code.  It is a change that just took place in January.  He was very helpful with that and the people at the county are on board where we are going.  They have said they are able to help facilitate this also.

            Mr. Fennell asked so when are we going to get busy?

            Mr. Skehan responded as soon as he can get the wastewater permit, they will be busy the next day.

            Mr. Fennell stated it seems like, just from driving through here, I do not see anything happening with the nanofiltration plant.  I am not sure if I really understand what that has to do with the wastewater.

            Mr. Skehan stated there is another portion of the project related to the wastewater plant also.  That is where the demolition took place.

            Mr. Fennell asked but how come the nanofiltration plant is not moving forward?

            Mr. Skehan responded because of some of these permitting issues I just mentioned.

            Mr. Fennell stated that was for the wastewater.

            Mr. Skehan stated it was for both. 

            Mr. Hanks asked do they have the abbreviation issue on the nanoplant?

            Mr. Skehan responded no.  The abbreviation was on the wastewater side and the fuel storage was an issue we have been trying to get squared away also; then just going back to the city to make sure if there are questions and make sure they do not re-review. 

            Mr. Hanks stated it has been a month since we went out.  I can understand a few days or maybe even a week for a review, but we are talking about a month.

            Mr. Skehan stated they said they decided they had to re-review the reviews they had done before.

            Ms. Zich asked is there any way we can speed this up?

            Mr. Skehan responded this is why we are going to have another meeting.

            Ms. Zich stated I thought we were going to be started by this week and the way it is looking it may even drag on further.

            Mr. Skehan stated we certainly hope that is not the case.  This is exactly why Mr. Cassel and I have talked about having another meeting with the people at the city.

            Mr. Fennell asked does the city know they are holding us up?

            Mr. Skehan responded yes.

            Mr. Hanks asked do they care?

            Mr. Skehan responded no.

            Ms. Zich asked who is the person we can talk to?  Is there somebody?

            Mr. Fennell responded we are talking money here.  I know you guys are talking about how you are going to have people onsite who are going to be watching out the door from the trailer.  As far as I can see they are not seeing anything but the canal.

            Mr. Skehan stated we were assured at the time we had the preliminary review done that it would be a streamlined process for the second run of the permitting process.  They gave us a list of questions they wanted.  With the wastewater plant there were 11 questions they wanted clarified for the structural only.

            Mr. Fennell stated it should take two, three days, a week maximum.

            Mr. Skehan stated it is going on to three weeks, at least.

            Mr. Fennell stated that is my point and I am not getting from you that you are going to have this done by such a date.  I am not getting that feeling. 

            Mr. Skehan stated I was on the phone multiple times last week, and the week before, trying to better understand what is missing.  The one particular lady who is the coordinator there conveyed they were going to re-review what was handed in. 

            Mr. Fennell asked when will that be then?

            Mr. Skehan responded that is what we are trying to get done even now.  Two weeks after the signed and sealed drawings were submitted we learned the abbreviation sheets on two of the drawings were missing the sign and seal.  That was a huge a deal.

            Mr. Hanks asked when did the permits go in?

            Mr. Skehan responded about three weeks ago.

            Mr. Hanks stated the initial review was back…

            Mr. Skehan stated the initial review was two and a half months ago. 

            Mr. Hanks asked was the initial review in February?

            Mr. Skehan responded I think so.

            Mr. Hanks asked when did the permits go in?

            Mr. Skehan responded towards the end of April.

            Mr. Hanks asked the third week or fourth week of April?

            Mr. Skehan responded the fourth week.

            Mr. Hanks asked and now we are?

            Mr. Skehan responded into the third week of May.

            Mr. Hanks stated so in that time they identified there was an issue with those drawings and now they are requesting clarification.  Are they still reviewing the process?

            Mr. Skehan responded when I spoke to this coordinator last week she conveyed each of the different departments were re-reviewing; this includes mechanical, electrical and the fire department for this tank.  The first preliminary round was only structural questions.

            Mr. Hanks asked so electrical, mechanical and all of those people did not look at it at all during the initial review?

            Mr. Skehan responded they wrote off on it and had it approved.  You can look at their approved sheet online, but she just conveyed all of the different departments had to look at it again. 

            Mr. Cassel stated we had the meeting where they gave us the list of issues; they had the plans for several weeks and had gone through their review process.  We understood at that time if we brought in the corrected issues, it should be a week to two weeks and we were done.  Those were addressed, sent in and for whatever reason they appear to want to go back through a complete re-review of what they already reviewed.  I do not understand why.

            Ms. Zich stated what is amazing is there is not a lot of construction going on in the city right now.  If there was a lot of construction, we would really have a problem.  There is hardly anything going on in the city.

            Mr. Fennell stated there are about two other site projects about our size going on. 

            Ms. Zich stated yes, but back in the day everything was being built at one time. 

            Mr. Fennell stated this is a case where we just cannot let this thing happen.  We need to keep pressing for this.  I want to give you the opportunity to talk to the Assistant City Manager and see if we can get some clarity.  Otherwise, I will call commissioners and do whatever we need to do.  This is too much money to have people sitting around and have projects not starting.  We are counting on this.  You really cannot have quibbling going on of re-reviews and more re-reviews without a definite understanding of what it is about, when we are going to get it back and understanding that in fact there has been a delay.  As I understood it we were ready to go and we are not going.

            Mr. Cassel stated our understanding when we came out of the last meeting with their list of things we needed to correct on the drawings, even to the point of putting specification sheets in the back pages of the drawings so they could refer to them quickly is that once we did that it should have been a simple process.  We made those corrections, got them in and it should have been out within 15 days ready to go.  Some of the issues as part of their permit review criteria is they are requiring shop drawings of the trusses prior to issuing the permits for the foundation.  Those kinds of things, which typically you do not do, they are requiring because of issues they had with single family residences.  This is also causing a delay.  We tried to iron out and work through those things, but for whatever reason they are balking at what they originally said.

            Mr. Skehan stated our observation has been that as a rule they are not familiar with this kind of construction work.  They are much more familiar with residential type work or lighter commercial work.  This is something which is not in their purview at all. 

            Mr. Fennell stated there are some fairly good sized buildings in Coral Springs.

            Mr. Skehan stated there are and I have spoken with several different contractors along the way.  The reputation the City of Coral Springs has is it is difficult to get through the process.

            Mr. Fennell stated I think we need to go back.  This is too important.  We are serving 11,000 households, roughly 40,000 people.  We need to get this done.  It needs to go forward with vigor and not with the kind of answers we are getting.  I think we can get the cooperation if we push hard enough. 

            Mr. Cassel stated we will push.

            Mr. Hanks asked can you give me a timeline as to when we had the different submittals and meetings for tomorrow night?

            Mr. Cassel responded yes.

            Mr. Hanks stated there is a city commission meeting and I believe some of us were invited to attend.

            Mr. Fennell stated a lot of those guys are there early before the meeting.  If you get there early, you can talk to them.

            Mr. Cassel stated we will get it for you tomorrow. 

            Mr. Hanks stated thank you.


            Mr. Fennell stated I have to teach school tomorrow night.  I think it will be a good opportunity to impress upon the other city commission members that this is important to us and we need their cooperation going forward.

            Mr. Hanks stated I took a look again at Bru’s Room and it looks like they raised the patio and are doing some substantial work out there.

            Ms. Early stated he called me.  I guess Mr. Crowel went out there and gave them my name and number.  He told them they had to submit for permits.  He called me and did not know what we were talking about.  I explained it to him and told him to contact Ms. Schurz for the application form so he can submit it to her with a check.  I explained the whole process and he asked why they needed to do this.  I explained they were increasing the impervious area, putting in an addition and we need to have the drainage calculations.  He said okay, but apparently he never called her. 

            Mr. Daly stated we are going to go out there and heavy handedly make sure they do not have any water.  That could be the solution down the line unless they take care of it.

            Mr. Hanks asked have we established what he changes or improvements are?

            Mr. Daly responded we are waiting for plans.

            Ms. Early stated yes, they do not have any plans. 

            Mr. Cassel stated when Mr. Crowel went out there the gentleman told him he would get the plans, contact Ms. Early and get her the plans.  It has not happened. 

            Mr. Hanks stated I would go ahead and write a letter to the building official.  Request a set of the plans and let him know we suspect this construction has the potential to impact the drainage for the District.  As the reviewing body we request a copy of the plans. 

            Mr. Cassel stated okay.

            Mr. Hanks stated we will see where this goes.

            Mr. Fennell stated moving right along.  There is something here about some money. 

            Mr. Cassel stated it is Amendment No. 1 to Work Authorization No. 32.

            Mr. Fennell asked what is this about?

            Mr. Skehan responded we are trying to bring to a close the current construction project for the wastewater plant work which has been taking place.  We had a work authorization signed in July of 2006.  The construction work which has been taking place has taken up through the beginning of this month to get complete.  We have accumulated in this time is additional engineering costs related to the additional construction time which has taken place.  The additional time is well over a year, approximately 16 months. 

            We itemized a number of additional items, which have been a part of the work we have engaged over this period of time.  Those additional items include having to permit drainage which was not part of the original design package.  There is work related to blower which had to be redesigned from an original blower that was selected to different blowers.  There is some rework which took place for routing of traffic in the plant that came after the fact; also a roadway for a potential new reuse facility in the back of the plant.  There are a number of different items, as I said, which have been itemized. 

            If you have a question about any one of those specifically, I can try to address it.  We have submitted for additional costs that cover approximately one year of our time.  It does not cover the additional time which is over and beyond that.  We have stated in the amendment that there is a significant amount of money we are not going to be invoicing for, which is close to $70,000, which would have been part of services we would have been doing otherwise.  We do not feel that we would be justified in requesting this.  The additional costs have accumulated as you can see from the table at a fairly low spending rate.  Looking at the costs accumulated, our costs are probably in the order of about $105 an hour and our costs went down significantly over the period of 12 months. 

            The way we discussed being reimbursed for this was to be done through the funds left in the contractor’s contract at the close of the project.  This was discussed with the District manager.  We brought the contractor’s contract basically to a close and we have a final invoice in our hands.  Any of our costs are going to be adjusted against what funds were left in the contractor’s contract.

            Mr. Fennell asked Mr. Cassel, is this all legitimate?  Have you gone through this in detail?

            Mr. Cassel responded we have gone through it.  I believe Mr. Daly and I started going through it last July.  In the discussion at that time when we were talking about the contractor’s overrun in timing, my clear direction to Mr. Skehan was that; yes there is extra engineering time caused on the project and any fees they were going to pick up has to come out of the contract.  I was not going to increase the total cost of the contract to cover their fees.  It has to come out from within the budgeted amount for the contract and there needs to be dollars left at the end. 

            Mr. Fennell asked is the contractor going to come back and want some of this money?

            Mr. Cassel responded he has his final in and we are squared.  Is this correct?

            Mr. Skehan responded we are holding his final pay request right now because he has a couple of small things which need to be resolved before he will be given his final pay request.  He needs to get his final releases in the next week or two.

            Mr. Cassel asked is he coming back for any additional funds?

            Mr. Skehan responded no.  There are no additional funds he is requesting.

            Ms. Zich stated I was amazed to find out about all of these things I had no idea about and now they are coming back for $161,709.69 for all of this stuff which has been done over a year ago.  You guys are probably more familiar with this type of thing than me.  I am not familiar with this. 

            Mr. Hanks asked was your original contract for $27,000 per month or was it $20,700?

            Mr. Skehan responded it was approximately $27,000 per month.

            Ms. Zich asked and did we pay that?

            Mr. Skehan responded that is correct. 

            Ms. Zich stated this is the overages.  Why do you wait until the very end of the project and then come up with all of this?

            Mr. Hanks responded because it is the way engineers work.

            Mr. Skehan stated we did bring it to the table for discussion last July.  As both Mr. Cassel and Mr. Daly have mentioned, we discussed it at the time and what was shared with me was the only way we would get compensation would be if we managed the contractor closely to make sure we were getting everything wrapped up the way it was supposed to be done and to look at the funds which were there and manage it closely.

            Mr. Hanks stated you can pay for a project in two ways.  You can cut back on engineering and pay quite dearly in construction, in quality or in construction redos or you can pay your engineer.  That being said, one of the things I want CH2M Hill to concentrate on is being very careful about the delays such as what we are going through right now with the delays in the permitting.  Let us be very careful as to what our benchmarks are and how we are measuring our success on a project. 

            Ms. Zich asked will this happen with these projects also?

            Mr. Fennell responded I do not think necessarily.  Mr. Cassel tried to suppress that.  They are not just getting a free ride here. 

            Mr. Cassel stated the new contracts are under lump sum agreements with the engineers. 

            Mr. Zich stated I thought this was lump sum, but I do not understand.

            Mr. Hanks stated the other thing is this was going through Mr. Flavin and Mr. McKune.  There were some slight changes in the scope. Did the District buy some equipment and then have it installed to cut back on costs associated with the contractor supplying and installing?

            Mr. Skehan responded initially there was a blower that preceded the beginning.  It was unacceptable.  The specifications for that particular blower were in these specifications, but after it was installed in the one year of operation it was determined there was an awful lot of calling the service company to get it repaired.

            Mr. Hanks stated anytime you run into a situation, when you are an engineer, where you are having to deal with quality issues on an installed piece of equipment, they are incurring additional costs to address those issues.  I am sitting on the fence.  I understand their side of it and the fact they are incurring extra costs, but I am also sitting on this side saying it is a lot of money.  I am feeling conflicted.

            Mr. Fennell asked Mr. Cassel, what is your recommendation?

            Mr. Cassel responded having looked at this, Mr. Daly and I have gone over it with Mr. Skehan several times, I believe this is appropriate.  Also, of this $161,709.69, $31,000 has already been paid to their sub, Hiller’s Engineering, for extra time involved in electrical work, redesign, etcetera as well.  Cleaning up the last of the messy jobs, I would say this is probably appropriate to get it out of our hair and be done.  We are still under budget of the total budget for the project.  It closes it out and cleans it all up. 

            Mr. Fennell asked are there any other comments?

            Mr. Hanks responded we need CH2M Hill to be on top of the contractor.  We need them to be on top of schedule and on top of yourselves in terms of the permitting. 

            Mr. Skehan stated this has been an item Mr. Cassel and I have had extensive conversations about.  He has mentioned it here today.  We have gone through it on several different occasions.  The approach to these current projects is significantly different than what was put in place back in 2006.  I was not involved with the projects at the time.  I only became involved in the projects late in 2007.  I looked back and there was a significant amount of history related to some of the items which took place early.  One item was fire code.  Another item was the blowers. 

            Mr. Hanks asked were the invoices back on the beginning part of the project before construction hit high gear billed out fully for $27,000?

            Mr. Skehan responded at different points in the early part of the project there were permitting issues related to drainage which took some time.  There were other issues related to the fuel storage onsite, which was rather significant.

            Mr. Hanks stated you guys are our drainage engineers.

            Mr. Skehan stated the original drainage was not included.

            Mr. Hanks asked was it in our work order to you?

            Mr. Skehan responded it was not part of it.  What came after the fact was when it went to the county, the county had passed it through initially and then it came back water quality.

            Ms. Early asked do you remember the change order we had for Intrastate Construction to install all of the drainage?

            Mr. Hanks responded yes.

            Mr. Skehan stated there was pollution control and a number of items which accounted for a significant percentage of this.

            Mr. Hanks asked is some of this additional design work?

            Mr. Skehan responded yes.

            Mr. Hanks stated it occurred once the contract with Intrastate Construction was left.  It is not just straightforward for construction administration costs.

            Mr. Cassel stated that is correct.  It is for the blower redesign, the relocation of the shed, the drainage design which needed to be included.  It was all additional design and redesign scenarios, which is captured as part of this time as well. 

            Mr. Hanks stated presentation of those issues is really key about what you said there.  You have done this in Section Two, Additional Scope of Services.  I recommend we accept Work Authorization No. 32.

            Mr. Cassel stated Amendment No. 1.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with Mr. Hanks and Mr. Fennell voting aye and Ms. Zich voting nay Amendment No. 1 for Work Authorization No. 32 for engineering services during construction for the wastewater plant improvements phase two in the amount of $161,709.69 was approved.


            Mr. Fennell asked what is your plan moving forward?

            Mr. Cassel responded you have your construction costs and you have your engineering costs.  The engineering costs are lump sum for the work to be done.  What we are doing is making sure those costs are captured in our total cost of the project where before a lot of those costs were not captured.  It would be different work done on a work authorization and that work authorization never got rolled over to the cost of the project.  By tying engineering time to a specific project we know, for example, if we are going to do a reuse, what it really cost us to do the design, construction services, etcetera, to have a reuse plant out here.  We knew exactly.  In the past the study might be done under one work authorization, something else would be done under a separate work authorization, something else would be done under general and it never got rolled up so If I ask Ms. Woodward what it cost us to put it in place, they had no idea.  We are trying to consolidate this so the District knows exactly what Plant F cost us; what it cost us in hard costs, what it cost us in soft costs for engineering fees.  We can allocate all of this and track our assets knowing the full value of the asset plus the soft cost is really the value of that asset.  We are trying to make sure this is consolidated and tracked at this point in time.

            Mr. Daly asked would it be prudent to have someone act as a liaison who is a permitting expert?  I do not know if you company has one, but someone who would be dedicated to getting these permits pushed through.  It seems like we are going over the same thing we did 18 months ago when we started this other project for which we wound up paying the costs for.

            Mr. Skehan responded we are ahead of that right now.

            Mr. Daly asked do you have a really talented individual who can stand there and nail them when they ask for things out of the blue?

            Mr. Skehan responded we have tried to nail them already. 

            Mr. Daly stated but to no avail.  Is there another method or approach?

            Mr. Cassel responded I think it is going to require several more meetings between various individuals at the city and myself.

            Mr. Skehan stated the contractor has relayed this is as bad as he has ever seen any type of permitting activity to be taking place. 

            Mr. Daly stated we have heard this every three years when we do a project.

            Mr. Fennell stated we should try to avoid it.

            Mr. Cassel stated when we had the last meeting, where they came back with a list of 11 on one and 15 or 20 on the other, we thought we had done a preliminary, we had to correct these items to get it in for their review and it should be out in no period of time.  That is not the case.

            Mr. Hanks stated Mr. Skehan and Mr. Cassel are doing what should be done.  They are not the problem.

            Ms. Zich stated I know they are not the problem.  Will you do me a favor and slip me an email when you do get the permit?

            Mr. Skehan responded sure. 

            Ms. Early stated I do not know if you remember the pump stations.  I could not get a change order on the pump stations because the contractor put on a Schlage lock set and the plans said a Kwikset lock set.  Schlage is clearly a better lock.  They wanted us to take it off.  It was not Kwikset.  I forget what the name of it was.  They actually went out of business.  I had to research this company and find out they were out of business.

            Mr. Fennell stated let us resubmit our relationship with the city and reforge it to keep going forward. 


SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                      Approval of Financials and Check Registers

·         Summary of Cash Transactions

            Mr. Fennell asked are there any questions?

            There not being any,


On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the financials and check registers for April 2009 were approved. 


EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                         Supervisors’ Requests and Audience Comments

            Mr. Hanks asked where do we stand with our friends over at Eagle Trace and the canal banks?

            Ms. Early responded Dunkleberger was supposed to get started today and could not.  I think they are starting tomorrow. 

            Mr. Hanks asked will they start to run some drills?

            Mr. Cassel responded yes.  I believe he is starting on the ones in the back.

            Ms. Early stated I believe so.

            Mr. Hanks asked what location are we starting off at?

            Mr. Frederick responded they have not made a decision yet.  They are going to meet here with us tomorrow morning because we are providing a boat for them and a driver to get them to the location. 

            Ms. Early stated he sent us an email, but it did not say exactly which on.  They said they were going to do the eight hand augers on the 15th, but I think they got delayed until tomorrow. 

            Mr. Hanks asked are we as a District in coordination with the HOA to get access?

            Mr. Cassel responded they have been notified and Mr. Frederick is coordinating with them as well. 

            Mr. Hanks asked do we need to get any written consent back from the Eagle Trace HOA?

            Mr. Lyles responded not the HOA, the individual owners and not just a notice that we are going to come do this, but have they given us permission to go on their property for access?

            Mr. Cassel responded we are accessing it from the water from our property.

            Mr. Lyles stated so we are only doing it in our easement.

            Mr. Cassel stated yes.

            Mr. Lyles stated then the notice should be sufficient. 

            Mr. Hanks asked but when it comes time for the street side in these private communities, what documentation do we need to obtain?

            Mr. Lyles responded the streets are private, but we have an easement in there.  Are our borings going to be in the front yard and not where our lines are?

            Ms. Early responded it depends on the situation per house, but we have a release for SWCD that we might want to use that we had the homeowners sign.         

            Mr. Lyles stated that would be the optimum way to do it.  In the rear where we are accessing it by water we do not technically need permission to walk across their yard.  When we get to the front we are going to need individual homeowner acknowledgement or releases. 

            Mr. Hyche stated we have one we used for CSID as well. 

            Mr. Lyles stated so we have a previous document from CSID which SWCD probably borrowed from this District. 

            Mr. Hanks asked they borrowed from this District?

            Mr. Lyles responded it is a public record.  They can ask for it if they want to and you have an interlocal agreement with them to give them administrative as well as other types of support. 

            Mr. Hanks stated okay.  Keep us posted on how things are going.


NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                            Adjournment

            There being no further business,


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








  Glen Hanks                                                                  Robert D. Fennell                              

  Secretary                                                                       President