MINUTES OF MEETING
CORAL SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, September 21, 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
Jane Early District Engineer
Gerrit Bulman CH2M Hill
Cory Johnson CH2M Hill
Dan Daly Director of Operations
Doug Hyche Utilities Director
Jan Zilmer Human Resources Manager
Roy Gold Commissioner , City of Coral Springs
Joe Brown Lazlo/Intrastate
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 August 17, 2009 Meeting
Mr. Hanks stated I had two I wanted clarification on. On page 10 you were mentioning the fact you have many wells onsite and the source of drinking water is actually a couple of 100 feet deeper, the interface, as it relates to the monitoring well. I am a little bit unsure of how this relates because we are not drawing anything out of the Floridan.
Mr. Bulman stated the USDW, underground source of drinking water, is a defined interval within the Floridan Aquifer throughout the state. It is not particular to this site. It is governed by water quality that has a total dissolved solids concentration of less than 10,000 milligrams.
Mr. Hanks asked so it really does not have anything to do with our own drinking water?
Mr. Bulman responded that is correct.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’ Requests and Audience Comments
Mr. Hanks stated I have a couple. Last month we talked about the new meters at Taravella High School as well as some other locations. I noted there were no backflow devices on those at those times. What are the requirements for backflow devices and are we in compliance or are we falling out of compliance?
Mr. Daly responded there are backflows, but they are not at that meter. It is basically now like a sub-meter area. We felt there were opportunities for the contractor over these years to run a line somewhere and not meter the water. We felt we were not getting our fair share. In addition there were nine or ten meters on the premises, which we are not supposed to go on. We wanted to take them outside so we could read it and bill them on one bill as opposed to them getting nine bills. The backflow which was previously installed is still there. The piping is still there so when the water comes out it actually does flow through a backflow first.
Mr. Cassel stated they have not had the opportunity to put in a master backflow preventer at the meter site.
Mr. Hanks asked is there a plan to get one at some point?
Mr. Daly responded yes. Mr. Crowel our Field Operator, has discussed this with them. I believe they are waiting until the next budget. They do know they have to do it. If a letter needs to be written, it is not a problem.
Mr. Fennell asked are there any audience comments?
There not being any, the next item followed.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Interlocal Agreement with NSID
Mr. Fennell stated this follows along with the type of relationships we have been forming with other groups. It is basically a written interlocal agreement where we are essentially contracted to each other. It is pretty much a standard agreement.
Mr. Hanks asked counsel, are there any concerns?
Mr. Lyles responded none. We prepared this agreement working closely with the staff from both districts. It is intended to put into written form a description of what the services are going to be between the two, irrespective of who is performing them, and to make it easy to provide for adjustments in the fees. Increases or decreases of fees will be done by adding exhibits. This focuses primarily on accounting services because it is what needed to kick in right away. That is the detailed exhibit you will see as Exhibit A-1. It is focused on things Ms. Woodward will be doing for NSID. We expect that within 60 days or so we are going to have some supplemental exhibits that will provide for other services and fees back before you. It was everyone’s intent to get this in place so with the new fiscal year beginning October 1, 2009 we will be in good shape and ready to go.
Mr. Cassel stated Exhibit B-1, which is attached, is for the services that we will be secured from NSID. It came out late on Thursday just before it went out the door to you. It has been worked through Mr. Hyche and I, on these services.
Mr. Hanks asked Mr. Hyche, do you have any questions or comments on this?
Mr. Hyche responded no.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
· Consideration of Interlocal Agreement with Broward County
Mr. Cassel stated this is the interlocal agreement between the District and a number of cities with regard to NatureScape Irrigation consulting services. There is a base price service and then on an as needed basis we will call them to do an investigation and look for ways for people to check their systems and change types of plants to consume less water in their irrigation. If you look at the last page of the interlocal agreement, it has the cost breakdown distribution for the proposed years; 2010 through 2014.
Mr. Fennell asked where we pay the county to do something, what is it we will actually get from it?
Mr. Hyche responded it is a conservation mechanism which Broward County provides. It is also used in the water use permitting as a conservation BMP, best management practice.
Mr. Fennell asked what will they actually do for us?
Mr. Hyche responded they actually restrict some of the water uses. They will go out, look at a common area, measure the flow, check the irrigation system, check the timers, they will come up with a recommendation and they will notify the people who are in charge of the irrigation to have those issues corrected so there is a reduction in irrigation water usage.
Mr. Hanks asked does this manifest itself in bringing up some extra availability for us?
Mr. Hyche responded yes. The flows are reduced.
Mr. Cassel stated in addition the other regulatory agencies as they are looking at our water use permit application, the fact that we participate in this is another one of those…
Mr. Hanks stated “good they are working on it.”
Mr. Cassel stated yes. They are kind of on the same page so we will give them a little credit. That type of scenario.
Mr. Fennell stated it is $2,000 to get into this.
Mr. Cassel stated which is a base year cost.
Mr. Fennell stated but then it doubles so it will be a $4,000 expense per year going forward.
Mr. Cassel stated until 2014 it is approximately up to $4,000.
Mr. Fennell stated it seems to be on a per person population basis. What is your recommendation?
Mr. Cassel responded it has been useful and I believe it has helped us in our water use permit. I believe it is worth the $3,600 which is in there and I believe it has already been budgeted within the budget.
Mr. Fennell asked what do you think Mr. Hanks?
Mr. Hanks responded I think if we were to go ahead and vote it down, more harm would come of it than $4,000. Mr. Lyles, have you had a chance to review this?
Mr. Lyles responded because of the nature of it I was not directly involved in the preparation of it. It is a form the county has promulgated to every city and district so there was not a great deal of legal review. It is standard county form. It has a term of five years. We do not get hooked into bigger issues by virtue of entering into this one. I have no legal impediment that I have identified or a reason to counsel caution on it.
Mr. Fennell asked are we supposed to designate a couple of areas we want them to check out?
Mr. Hyche responded yes we do. Mr. Crowel works directly with the individual and he designates areas.
Mr. Fennell asked are there some areas we are interested in particularly?
Mr. Hyche responded not that I am aware of at this time. I know they just reviewed an area. I have not received those documents back yet.
Mr. Fennell stated we really only have a few, I guess mostly the golf courses and a few other places.
Mr. Hyche stated it is areas which directly affect our potable water so a golf course would not be an issue; common areas where they are attached to our water mains such as churches or HOAs which use our water as irrigation are the areas we are concerned with.
Mr. Hanks asked so this is not looking at the …
Mr. Hyche responded the overall surface water, no.
Mr. Hanks asked how many irrigation meters do we have? What size?
Mr. Daly responded mostly one inch residential. There are a few out there that are two inches for some of the bigger complexes. I think the last time I did the study for you it was 1,000 or 1,200.
Mr. Cassel stated that had separate irrigation meters; however, if someone has an irrigation system tied on their main meter to their house, it is still potentially a viable use of this particular interlocal agreement. You can utilize it on any of your larger apartment complexes, etcetera, that you would look at and say; this one has not been checked in a while, it looks like they are wasting more water than they need to be wasting, let us have them check it and test it.
Mr. Hanks asked is there a time this needs to be enacted by for us to participate in it?
Mr. Hyche responded I do not think so. I think you can table it until the next meeting.
Mr. Hanks stated I would like to table it for whatever information you need.
Mr. Fennell stated I agree it is marginally utilities. I would like more information to make a decision.
Mr. Hanks stated I am an engineer. I hate spending money on PR. I do not think we are going to get anywhere in terms of practical results.
Mr. Fennell stated where it could fit into is one of the things we want to keep looking at is reusing wastewater as irrigation. This will help us, once again, look and see whether or not there are viable things around that we can look at.
Mr. Hyche stated I think last year they saved this District 1.3 Million gallons of water. It really was not significant. That was average quarterly savings.
Mr. Cassel stated we did use that information in our report for our water use permit and they did look for that information in the permit.
Mr. Hyche stated they want conservation efforts within that.
Mr. Hanks stated okay. Let us be done with this.
· Monthly Water & Sewer Charts
Mr. Fennell asked do we have any cause and effect yet as opposed to mere correlation of data? I thought we took some money to look at that. Are there any results?
Mr. Hyche responded that is the I&I portion.
Mr. Cassel stated it is in the process.
Mr. Hanks asked Mr. Johnson and Mr. Bulman?
Mr. Johnson responded I actually have not been involved in that project.
Mr. Cassel stated the I&I portion is just getting underway. We are just getting them the data we have in-house and we do not have anything back from them at this point in time.
· Utility Billing Work Orders
Mr. Daly stated you have the wrong year in there. We had a computer glitch. We backed it up and put it into a file on a master server. When it was taken back down the wrong file was taken so you have August of 2008. I did not have time to pull the other one down so you will have it next month.
The following was also reported.
Mr. Cassel stated in the wastewater lift stations, we used Flygt pumps. All of our 41 stations are all the same type of pump so they are interchangeable. We have run out of spare parts and we are down to the point of needing to replace one of them. It is approximately $6,500. Since it is a Flygt there is only one location to get it. It is a Flygt pump which fits all of our rails so it is interchangeable. We are requesting staff be allowed, as a sole source to ITT Flygt, to purchase a ten horsepower wastewater pump.
Mr. Fennell asked are these used by any other districts?
Mr. Cassel responded NSID.
Mr. Lyles ask can we piggyback their contract and avoid the $4,000 cap?
Mr. Hanks responded I would imagine.
Mr. Lyles stated under that basis I do not have any issue for you.
Mr. Hanks asked does NSID already have a bid contract out on this?
Mr. Daly responded I have to find out. I do not know for sure.
Mr. Lyles stated technically we have the same problem we have had all of these years, which is the $4,000 cap on ordering equipment or parts.
Mr. Fennell asked what is happening to the pump right now?
Mr. Hyche responded it is an old pump. It is the old model. They no longer make the parts of the bearings for this model.
Mr. Fennell stated so you have to get a new model.
Mr. Hyche stated we are going to have to get a new model.
Mr. Fennell asked is the pump working at all?
Mr. Hyche responded no it is not.
Mr. Fennell stated so this is an emergency.
Mr. Hyche stated basically. You have two pumps there. One pump is working and one pump is not.
Mr. Fennell stated now we have liability if that one goes down.
Mr. Hanks asked why are we fooling ourselves? We all know where it is going to come from.
Mr. Fennell stated it looks to me like there is a concern for public welfare.
Mr. Hanks asked is there any other pump which would match?
Mr. Hyche responded we could use DMU, but you would have to reconfigure the piping and the railing system inside the lift station. It would take a rehabilitation of the lift station itself.
Mr. Daly stated the problem with this is you will have to rehabilitate every lift station. No matter what the price is, even if the price came in at $3,800, you are still stuck with thousands of dollars in rehabilitation.
Mr. Hyche stated this was good when they were still producing the same model pump. We had interchangeable pumps and we never had this issue. We always had spares and we could rebuild them. Since you cannot rebuild those old model pumps anymore because they are not producing the parts, we have to go out and get the new model.
Mr. Hanks asked can we go ahead and request quotes from two different suppliers of Flygt, one local and one in Tallahassee for example, or is it very restricted distribution which will not get us a competitive bid?
Mr. Hyche responded they would just send us back to the local distributor, which is what they have done before.
Mr. Lyles stated I think what you need to do is authorize staff to proceed as expeditiously as possible. There is an issue here. We do not specifically have emergency powers in our special act, but Florida Statutes were amended this year to authorize this and other special districts to purchase things from virtually everybody’s contracting relationship. We will find someone through which to purchase the necessary pump to avoid the property damage which has been described by staff.
Mr. Hanks asked do we vote on this?
Mr. Lyles responded a motion to authorize staff to purchase on an expedited basis the required pumps.
Mr. Fennell stated given that we know we are out of this model pump I suggest we go out for a bid at this point to buy four or five back up pumps since we have 41 of these things and we know they are going to go.
Mr. Daly stated we have money in the budget next year for that.
Mr. Hanks asked are you saying each one of our pumps is identical so we always have the same pump?
Mr. Hyche responded you have 10 horsepower and you have 20 horsepower.
Mr. Daly stated I think 7½ also.
Mr. Hyche stated and 7½, but there are not many of those.
Mr. Hanks stated we have various pump capacities to somewhat match the performance requirements of each lift station. So we are not going to put a 20 horsepower pump out there where we need a 5 horsepower pump and waste electricity.
Mr. Cassel stated no.
Mr. Hanks stated thank you for clarifying.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’ Requests and Audience Comments (Continued)
Mr. Fennell stated I want to jump back to item three, Supervisors’ Requests and Audience Comments. We have a couple of people who have walked in here.
Mr. Gold stated I do the Waterway Cleanup for Coral Springs. I just wanted to thank you. I know it is not the time of year when we are thinking about the Waterway Cleanup because it comes in March, but I looked at my schedule and said that I can fit in a visit to you and say thank you for what you have done in the past. We do appreciate it. This year, I just received confirmation, we had 460 volunteers register. The nearest site had 150 people show up. We are having great results. I think we are pulling a lot of the garbage, which helps us do the right thing. The firefighters help us as well, which is very nice. Since I am not here in my capacity as commissioner I will mention that I am running for Mayor of Coral Springs. I am doing that on November 2, 2010. On November 2, 2009, which is a Monday at 6:00 p.m., I am having a kick off at the walk. Any of you are welcome to come by. It will be at the main fountain. I am using your water and I am paying my bill.
Mr. Fennell stated it is always good to see you. One of the things we have been talking about is as we go forward we are looking for a unified water philosophy across all the districts; CSID, NSID and the City of Coral Springs. We feel we need a unified water policy not only for the water we use, but for our lakes and our streams, and have it as a policy we can put forward to SFWMD. We see a problem there. We do not see a comprehensive policy yet. We are looking to go forward and we have talked about it in some of our past meetings. We kind of feel the cities and towns are not well represented for their needs and what they are trying to do.
Mr. Gold stated there is a Water Advisory Board of Broward County, which last year I had the privilege of sharing. I worked with Ms. Jurado from the Broward County area. I worked with Ms. Morris and a number of other people I am sure you know. If there is anything I or the commission can do to help facilitate this, we want to do it. I think we do much better work when we work together.
Mr. Hanks stated I agree.
Mr. Gold stated I know you are working with Mr. Michaud. I believe he has been helping along.
Mr. Hanks stated Mr. Hyche and I sit on the Broward County Water Resources Task Force. We are trying to come up with a countywide comprehensive policy and action to address the water needs; not only in terms of our drinking water, but also in terms of stormwater. Any input you have, feel free to give me a call.
Mr. Gold stated I will pass on the information as well to Mr. Levinson. We have a budget hearing today at 5:15 p.m., a second public hearing. If you are not aware, the city is in fairly good shape. We have frozen everyone’s wages. We are not laying people off. We are trying to hold the line and also contribute the same service our residents have come to appreciate. What we found in a bad economy is where you think you would need less services, you actually need far more. People who use to send their children to camp or private school are not doing it anymore. They are using our parks more and inadvertently using our police more. My neighborhood, Maplewood Isles, in the last year we had a shooting and now we just had the two young boys who had a disagreement and there was a stabbing.
Mr. Hanks asked was that in your neighborhood?
Mr. Gold responded right at the front entrance of my neighborhood. I think it was a 12 and 13 year old. I am not sure of the exact ages. You just do not know what to do in this world anymore. You have to be very careful.
Mr. Fennell stated we have been lucky in that we were able to go out for a bond issue and we have that money still set aside. We are in the process of redoing our new water facilities. We sealed our operations and cut back our expenses to keep us with a positive cash flow still going on. We are actually in good shape. We had to raise some of our rates to get them up in order to pay for our new bonds, but they are actually still going to be cheaper than other places.
Mr. Gold stated the city today is voting on a $6 Million bond at the rate of approximately 2.82% to do more water and waste treatment; things like that. We had one for about $9 Million a couple of years back in 2007. Today we are voting on another $6 Million for work which is not yet to be completed. It is to be started.
Mr. Fennell stated what we have been doing lately is cooperating with other water districts where it is possible. We just approved an interlocal agreement with NSID. We are going to be doing accounting for them and we are going to be buying services from them. We have cooperation with other groups and we are willing to do that with the city too.
Mr. Gold stated I am sure we will work together. It is my pleasure.
Mr. Fennell stated we have a lot of resources here and a lot of experience.
Mr. Gold stated there is one personal note since I am a payer of the bills for CSID. There was an issue that came up which I was made aware of probably because I am city commissioner of the waterways which go towards and through Maplewood Isle. They had shown that there was only one way. If the water would get blocked, it would be an impasse and obviously you would have a problem. At the time I remember seeing that had they taken a pipe through Maplewood Elementary, and I think one home, they could have had a redundant system. Has anything been done with that?
Mr. Fennell responded I think we did show you that work at one time and it still keeps coming up. We have been trying to figure out how we could fund that. It is going to take several million dollars to do that. The problem was we found out all of the canals are sequential so if you block one, you block them all. We were looking for ways to have alternate flow paths. We have been doing a couple of different things like that. We had to build up our economic reserves in case we have another hurricane. We are getting to a point where we think we might be able to afford that without having to go out for a bond issue.
Mr. Hanks stated one of the other things we have done is authorized our engineers to pursue some matching funds which are available through FEMA or through …
Ms. Early stated the Florida Division of Emergency Management.
Mr. Hanks stated it is basically pre-disaster mitigation. One of the items on our list is that redundant system to help alleviate potential concerns. We are pursuing different funds. If we are available to acquire those funds or some contribution from there, we may be able to go ahead and begin implementing that work without having to go ahead and issue a new bond.
Mr. Gold stated obviously I care about all the residents, not just the ones near my home.
Mr. Hanks stated that affects the eastern part.
Mr. Gold stated I want to thank you Mr. Fennell because I know you come to our meetings on more than one occasion; not in the best of times. He shows up, he speaks and he listens. We have an exchange of ideas. If you need me to come to your meeting for any particular reason or you need to talk to me when we are not in a meeting situation, any one of you, I would be happy to address whatever I can.
Mr. Fennell stated thank you. To follow up your previous question I believe it is $5 Million or $6 Million we came back with a list of things we thought about doing.
Ms. Early I think we had a list of seven items we prioritize and that was about $6 Million.
Mr. Fennell stated that particular part of the District is basically $1 Million worth of revenue a year. How do you raise that kind of money? You are either going to have to go out for a bond issue or save up and do it. That is kind of where we stand.
Mr. Gold stated thank you for your time.
Mr. Fennell stated it was a pleasure and you are always welcome to come to our meetings.
Mr. Gold stated if you need me, call me.
Mr. Hanks stated we have another member of the audience.
Mr. Brown stated you had invited me back to give you an update on the project. I put together a quick slideshow to show the progress of the work completed. We completed the form work, the steel placements for the wastewater treatment plant foundation. We completed the concrete pour of the wastewater treatment facility. We began to lay out items for the water treatment plant. Some of that was going on in the last meeting. We are continuing with our submittals and procurement of materials. We moved existing fencing between the water treatment plant and the RO structure, put in new stub for the transfer pump station. We received material deliveries of reinforcing steel for the membrane building transfer pump station, backwash pump station, the generator slab and also yard piping material. We began excavation by the membrane building, transfer pump station and cleared off the generator slab. We actually formed a lower elevation slab for the membrane building. We started the yard piping drainage and started some of our electrical conduits. You can see where we started the wastewater treatment plant. This is the foundation for your influent pipe for the wastewater treatment facility. If you have any questions, feel free to ask.
Mr. Hanks asked what about your coordination with the school?
Mr. Brown responded it worked out well. We came in and started around 9:30 p.m. and finished up around 5:30 a.m. to 6 a.m. Everything was cleared up and out of the way. There was no conflict at all. We had to get a special permit from the police department. They cooperated and there were no problems. There were no trucks backed up. All of the shell of the tank is going up right now. There is another side wall. This is on the water side. This is your transfer pump station excavation for the foundation. That is a work slab we poured. There is your rebar going in on top of the work slab, which we set up for your walls. This is the site clearing which took place. We are starting the form work and getting everything together to go inside. Are there any other questions?
Mr. Hanks responded things are moving along now.
Mr. Fennell asked what is happening up front?
Mr. Brown responded that was the last portion I showed you where we had the transfer pump station slab as well as the steel stubbed up. We are starting to build the forms for it.
Mr. Hanks asked what are your major milestones for the upcoming months?
Mr. Brown responded my major milestone is we will have the tank basically erected and we will be welding that out. On this other side we will be stubbing up the walls getting ready for the secondary floor with the rebar stubbed up.
Mr. Hanks asked walls for?
Mr. Brown responded the transfer pump station. We have a little bit to go yet on the membrane building before we can pour the foundation and bring those up.
Mr. Fennell asked are you on schedule or are you behind schedule?
Mr. Browne responded we are on schedule. We are ahead of schedule on the wastewater side. We were behind on the water side due to the permit, but everything is starting to move forward. I feel we can recover the time. We released many of the materials in advance while we were waiting on the permit so we are not being held up there. I think we are going to do it.
Mr. Fennell stated okay. We will see you in two months. Thank you very much.
Mr. Brown stated you are welcome.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports (Continued)
Mr. Cassel stated the only other item I have is we sent out to you the latest revision on the handbook. It does not need to be addressed at this meeting. We wanted to get it to you in case you had any comments on it that we could address prior to adopting it at the next meeting.
Mr. Fennell stated there should be some indication that there could be cases of immediate termination for sever cases. Do you have something in there?
Mr. Hanks responded every case should say including and up to termination.
Mr. Fennell stated that is the four steps, but there are cases where you are not going to want to go through the four steps.
Mr. Lyles stated there is no general requirement that you proceed through a progressive series of notices. If the situation warrants it at that point, immediate termination is available to the District’s administration under these guidelines.
Mr. Fennell asked is there any action required from our part?
Mr. Cassel responded not at this time.
Mr. Lyles stated I do not have anything further this month.
Mr. Cassel stated we had done a bid for repairs to Plant #3. The bid was opened late last week. We looked at the bids and did the evaluation. Staff is recommending that we reject all of the bids and go back out because none of the bids came in the area we wanted them to as well as contractors we would be willing to be qualified to do the work.
Mr. Hanks asked was there some concern with the response of the contractors?
Mr. Cassel responded with the responsiveness of the contractors. We recommend you reject the entire bid package.
Mr. Hanks asked is this going to be creating a safety issue by putting this back out?
Mr. Hyche responded it is a possibility. I would not to hold it off much longer than needed. According to the new statutes Mr. Lyles was talking about we can actually negotiate with other contractors and get quotes by going directly to people we know can do the work. I believe we can come in at a better price than what we have gotten.
Mr. Hanks asked counsel, do you have any concerns with proceeding that way?
Mr. Lyles responded just for the record to clarify there is a new amendment on the ability of local governments to erect public work structures and installments. The threshold amount has been increased to $300,000 without the necessity for publication in newspapers and competitive bidding. We can directly negotiate up to that amount based upon the experience that the initial attempt at bidding the project reflected. It appears this project is going to come in well below $300,000. Given some of the issues that were bubbling up through the analysis of the proposers and the proposals as well as the number being reflected, a straightforward solicitation and negotiation process is what the staff wants to pursue to see if it can be done. It appears it can be done at a price which is less than what is necessary for the bidding to be done in a more formal way. That is what the staff wants to pursue. Since the bids had previously been authorized to go out, they are asking the Board to formally approve the rejection of all bids. You retain the right in your bid documents and in your specifications to reject all bids should it be for the convenience of the District to do so. That is the motion they are asking the Board to take at this time.
Mr. Hanks asked is the basis of this rejection that in your role as manager and plant supervisor that the bids were not responsive and did not address adequately the needs of the District?
Mr. Cassel responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked are we opening ourselves up to any risks or any litigation?
Mr. Lyles responded as I pointed out, in our standard bid documents we reserve the right at the Board level to reject all bids and pursue a different way of entering into a contract. You are exercising that right. We made them aware of that in the first place. I cannot tell you that no one is going to pop up and say they spent time and money putting the bid package together. There is that chance, but I have met with the staff briefly about this and I believe you are acting within your authority to handle it in this fashion.
· Consideration of Permit for Church by the Glades
Ms. Early stated we initially asked for additional calculations and information, which they did provide. The plans which are there are not the most recent updated plans. They only sent us one copy so I will get a copy over to the District. Those plans do not show the additional exfiltration. I believe they added 522 linear feet. The manual says the limit is 40% unless it is commercial or industrial.
Mr. Hanks asked are they still compliant with their five year renewal?
Ms. Early responded yes. I believe so. Mr. Daly may know more.
Mr. Daly stated I will have to check.
Mr. Hanks stated I would add a condition that they are compliant to the five year renewal program. Would we be within our rights to also condition the stormwater permit that if and when the irrigation quality of reclaimed water becomes available for them that they be required to connect up?
Mr. Lyles responded I do not believe we currently have that condition in our permit criteria manual. Do we?
Ms. Early responded no.
Mr. Lyles stated I believe the application in the opinion of the District engineer complies with all current requirements of the permit criteria manual. I do not know that I would be comfortable telling you that you can add a condition which is not part of the manual and our general requirements. I think the thing to do is take a look at whether this is something which should go into the permit criteria manual given how this issue is evolving and the speed with which it is evolving as well.
Mr. Fennell asked so where do we stand with this particular permit?
Ms. Early responded we are recommending approval.
Mr. Fennell stated as modified per your request.
Ms. Early stated yes. They did provide the additional calculations we wanted and they did modify their plans. I will get a new set of plans to the District.
Mr. Hanks asked are they compliant with the storage requirements?
Ms. Early responded yes.
· Discussion of Right-of-Way Permit Request for Maplewood Plaza
Ms. Early stated the reason this next permit is only for discussion is because the permit they submitted for was for a right-of-way permit and it is for an irrigation pipe. We typically do not give a permit for a three inch irrigation pipe. I thought perhaps their pump was in the right-of-way and their plans were unclear. It took me about a week and a half, but I finally did get in touch with the engineer. He emailed me a sketch and it shows it is clearly not in the District’s right-of-way. The discussion should be whether we want to issue a right-of-way permit for a three inch PVC pipe. They applied for a withdrawal permit from SFWMD for irrigation. The District, to my knowledge, has never given a permit for an irrigation pipe.
Mr. Fennell asked is it our right-of-way or not?
Ms. Early responded they are going into our right-of-way just like every homeowner that lives on a canal and puts in an irrigation pipe, but we do not issue them permits.
Mr. Fennell asked but this is for a commercial property, right?
Mr. Hanks asked is it going to expose us to any more or any less liability, etcetera, if we do or do not grant the permit?
Ms. Early responded not to my knowledge.
Mr. Hanks stated we are choosing to exercise control over our right-of-way. By implementing this permit we are requiring them to restore it back to the original condition.
Mr. Fennell asked where is this pipe? Is it obvious? Is it going underground?
Ms. Early responded you will not see it. It is probably two feet under ground.
Mr. Fennell stated let us go ahead and do it.
Mr. Hanks stated I have no problem with handling these.
· Project Status Reports
Ms. Early stated we received the final pay estimate on Friday for the original $6.9 Million Intrastate project. I had to complete this final balancing change order in order for us to process the pay estimate and meet the deadline at year end. I put together the balancing change order. It is for a deduction.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to take any action on this?
Ms. Early responded you have to approve it.
Ms. Early stated as an update on the pre-disaster grant program. We submitted the applications and there were five of them. We are 85% complete and we are working with Mr. Williams from the Florida Department of Emergency Management Division. Originally we had to submit the notice of intent for the five applications and I gave a description of each project. Now, after we completed 85% of them, he feels two of the projects, one for the tree removal and the feasibility study for the tree removal, are considered maintenance. He said we cannot submit on those. The other three are all the piping projects we had recommended we do. What they just came up with yesterday, and they are still going through the review because they have so many weeks to get back to us on additional information they want, they are now requesting that we do a benefit cross analysis. I downloaded it. Mr. Cassel and I were looking at it because it is a lengthy process.
We are trying to convince them to permit us to somehow shorten the process because they want us to submit a benefit cross analysis for every single structure it would benefit by putting these culverts in and that is half of the District. We explained this to Mr. Williams and he sent us to the people who wrote this program, which review the benefit cost analysis and the actual grant. We are really not getting anywhere with them. We just started talking to them last week. We are trying to get up to somebody who can actually understand what our approach is to try and do it as one entire community. You can submit a grant application, for example, for this office building and I want to put one pipe in which will benefit just this building. What we are putting in is benefiting half of the District. For us to do every single structure would take forever. That is where we are at right now. I just wanted to give you an update that we are working with them and trying to figure out a way around this.
Mr. Fennell stated there has to be. You do have some things going for you. You have those studies we did, which show the different flood elevations. You can talk about whatever it was, the 30 year flood or the 100 year flood.
Ms. Early stated that is what was put in the grant application.
Mr. Fennell stated then you can say we estimate there is a probability that if this occurred we would have 3,000 homes.
Ms. Early stated that is what we wanted to do, but they want every single home on a separate application.
Mr. Fennell stated obviously that does not make sense. You can say here are 3,000 homes, ten inches of water in the basis of probably $100,000 worth of damage each, 3,000 times $100,000 is $30,000,000. I do not think that is scale we are dealing with here.
Ms. Early stated Mr. Williams does, but when you get to these reviewers.
Mr. Fennell stated I think you need a couple of pages of reports saying what would happen if so many houses, even some cases where we block a bunch of the canals, and if that happened we would have this flood condition, and then an estimate of what percentage of houses.
Mr. Hanks stated I just saw something in today’s or yesterday’s Sun-Sentinel by zip code with average home prices.
Mr. Fennell stated I say we should just do a typical one of the average housing prices, you can reference real estate prices and those kinds of things.
Mr. Hanks stated our District is within a flood zone.
Mr. Fennell stated you have this nice report that you already did.
Ms. Early stated we used a lot of that for the application. We had a lot of attachments we had to include. They have a lot of information it is just that now they want this.
Mr. Fennell stated I would go through and do a typical one given that there are 2,000 to 3,000 houses and then if they want one for everything just come back and tell them you can give them 3,000 pages with the addresses of all the houses. We can actually print you out all of the houses with the billing addresses we have.
Mr. Hanks stated next time ask them why they are wasting so much paper.
Mr. Fennell stated these guys are obviously thinking they are on a different scale than we are. I think you can make a pretty good case.
Ms. Early stated we are working with them and trying to get them to realize.
Mr. Fennell stated I think you can come back with the typical housing price, the extended damage you forecast that could be done, we already know the number of houses and I guess we could just print out all of the houses in the area.
Ms. Early stated they have to work with us.
Mr. Fennell stated otherwise they are going to find themselves with 3,000 applications.
Ms. Early stated I do not know Mr. Cassel if you want to give them an update on the well or if you want Mr. Bulman to.
Mr. Cassel stated Mr. Bulman can.
Mr. Bulman stated on August 14, 2009 Layne dropped tubing in the well after they installed a 12 inch casing, which is the final casing and then there is tubing which goes inside of that. During the cementing of this final 12 inch casing they dropped approximately 1,200 feet of 2⅞ inch pipe. It slipped and fell down the well. They did locate it and managed to grab a hold of it. In the process of doing this a couple of tools they were using to pull on that pipe broke and they went down the well. Now there are two strings of pipe in the well; a 1.9 inch, a few hundred feet of it have already been retrieved, and the 2⅞, which was originally dropped.
They have now tied onto the 2⅞ inch. The bottom is actually locked in cement. When it fell it actually launched itself three feet inside the cement. They cannot simply pull it out. What they are currently doing is going inside the 2⅞ inch pipe with a mechanical cutter with a hydraulic motor all the way down to 1,400 feet at which point they are trying to cut it. Then it will be freed, they will remove it and then go fishing for the 1.9 inch pipe. Not a lot of progress has been made. We have been observing them onsite continuously; particularly after the second incident.
We have been talking with DEP. So far DEP has been extremely quick to respond to our request for different plans and approaches as to how to remove the pipe. All of this is out of scope and out of contract so they are involved with virtually every decision we make. The contractors are giving it their best effort. They are having other mechanical problems as they are attempting to cut. Right now it could all be over tonight. They could cut it and be able to pull it out or it might take weeks longer.
Mr. Hanks asked how is this impacting our other construction?
Mr. Bulman responded the other part of this project, the plugging and abandonment of the monitoring well, as far as it can be plugged and abandoned, that is the lower zone and tubal removal for the lower zone, is done. It was done earlier in September. They cannot plug and abandon the upper two zones until Monitoring Well #3 is completed. Right now that project is showing a schedule overrun of approximately 50 days.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the probability of success here?
Mr. Bulman responded if you can find success as some kind of compromise.
Mr. Fennell stated not losing the well.
Mr. Bulman stated I personally think they will be able to get the 2⅞ inch tubing out 1,200 feet or as much as they can. What DEP has already proved is they can cut it and get it out. The remaining 90 or 100 feet which is lodged in the cement at the bottom can be cemented out. After they locate the 1.9 inch we will go back to DEP and talk to them about what the options are there.
Ms. Zich asked how normal is this?
Mr. Bulman responded I have never seen this. Mr. Skehan has never seen it and he has been around for a while. DEP has never heard of anything like this. Tools get dropped in the well all of the time.
Ms. Zich stated I was just amazed.
Mr. Fennell asked is there anything else?
Mr. Bulman responded I have one other item.
Mr. Hanks asked is it good news or bad news?
Mr. Bulman responded during the mechanical integrity testing in May or June of the injection well system there was an issue with the redundancy of the injection wells. This probably goes to your question about the relationship between rainfall and plant flow. This happens to coincide with the unusual rain event we had the second half of May. The plant flows almost doubled coming into the injection well system at that time when we had all of the rain. It overwhelmed the ability of the injection well system to be redundant with itself because we had to take offline the 24 inch well in order to perform mechanical integrity testing. That is the primary well which is used. It can handle something like 15.8 or 15.9 million gallons a day. The older injection well, Injection Well #1, should be able to take under emergency flow rates nearly 6 Million gallons a day. At that time it was only determined it could take 3.5 Million gallons. It was not sufficient to take all the water it needed in order to keep Injection Well #2 offline. DEP was aware of this. They asked about it and as a part of the ongoing project for the monitoring well we had to do an operations and maintenance thing. Part of that will be demonstrating redundancy, which we now cannot do.
Mr. Fennell asked why does it have to pass it?
Mr. Hyche responded that is one of my questions. Is it a result of not being able, of the well not accepting the extra flow? I know you pressure tested at a higher rate, which means you should be able to get that flow down now as well. Is it a function of head loss? Was the water not getting to the well in order to get down it?
Mr. Bulman responded I think that is probably the case. I think it is likely a mechanical issue with the injection well pump station. We have been talking to put together a scope of work or proposal to look at some mechanical evaluation of the pump station and also a surge analysis, which has not been conducted on the system. That is something which will also be required by DEP as part of the operations and maintenance.
Mr. Fennell stated we have the surge tank out here.
Mr. Bulman stated on the injection well system it refers to surge protection between the pump station and the injection wells.
Mr. Fennell asked so what do you do?
Mr. Hyche responded you have to run pressure tests.
Mr. Fennell stated you have 15 million gallons coming in and you only get 3 Million out.
Mr. Cassel stated what happened is Mr. McIntosh through some exquisite calculations in monitoring the pumps, they managed to not only put water down the well, but fill the lying ponds to the maximum capacity and got through the testing. They did it between midnight and 6:00 a.m. so it was able to be done, but it did show up the fact there is an issue somewhere either in the pump curves, piping head loss to get to the well, there is some issue between where the pumps are in the well either in the piping, how many bends it takes to get there, some flows, some issues which need to be figured out and corrected. At the present time you cannot meet the criteria which are required for redundancy. We have to figure out what is creating the issue for the redundancy. This is what they will be coming back with a work authorization for next month.
Mr. Fennell stated I think we have had this question once or twice. Part of the issue is the fact that we were testing the pipe. The other issue is now it becomes whether this is more of a lackadaisical one where the mystery is where the water is coming from actually has a real importance to it. We either need to have a huge surge tank out there or another deep injection well or we have to figure a way to present the surge analysis we are getting.
Mr. Bulman stated the surge analysis is not necessarily an issue. That is a separate issue. A surge analysis is something I brought up because we like to include it in the scope of work. It has to be done as part of DEP requirements for the operation and maintenance manual. As to what kind of surge protection is actually needed, you might not need it at this time based on what the analysis shows. We have to show all the calculations to DEP about whether or not surge is an issue.
Mr. Hanks stated to deal with the surge you are going to need to identify how much extra water could come in and where you can put this amount of water. A certain amount goes down here, a certain amount goes down here and the rest you have to store some place or some combination thereof. Is this right?
Mr. Bulman responded I believe a surge also relates to the actual surging affect itself to avoid waterhammer and any kind of catastrophic accident which could occur. So you are right, the passive bypass could be one answer to the surge. It is something we discussed the other day. You have the one pond so perhaps you could have some kind of check balance that would open and allow discharge to the pond. This would all have to be examined.
Mr. Hanks stated examined and permitted through DEP for modification to our operational license.
Mr. Bulman stated your current operating permit we did last year, the language in there says this well has to be completed and an updated operations and maintenance manual will have to be submitted before you are truly in compliance.
Mr. Fennell asked how much would a new well cost us?
Mr. Bulman responded right now with the market for bids at this moment…
Mr. Hanks asked a new well and associated components because we are not just talking about the well; the monitoring well, the pumps associated with it, if we had to put in a new one, would it cost $6 Million or are we looking at more?
Mr. Bulman responded I would say at least $6 Million for the well and the monitoring well, for the drilling contractor and I really cannot speak for the above ground pump supplies.
Mr. Hanks asked what other options do we have?
Mr. Bulman responded under emergency conditions you can increase the flow down the well from 10 feet per second, which is what is typically permitted, to 12 feet per second. Then you could potentially dispose of 6 MGD in the overall injection well. If that plus your ponds allows you to get permitted for redundancy, then you might be okay for a while. The questions will come up as to whether or not you start taking in additional wastewater for reuse or add water from the RO disposal process, whether or not you will still have redundancy in five years.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to start moving into high gear thinking about the reclaim? Was reclaim an option that was going to be coming?
Mr. Fennell responded it would not do any good because you would have to be able to tie into the reclaimed water exactly when you needed it.
Mr. Hyche stated even reclaimed storage is not being used and you are just storing stuff to be able to get rid of the affluent.
Mr. Bulman stated you have to have 100% redundancy.
Mr. Hanks stated 100% redundancy in your deep injection wells.
Mr. Bulman stated or for your reading system.
Mr. Hanks stated if you are saying 4 MGD is going out, you have to have the capacity to dispose of it.
Mr. Fennell stated it also raises this graph here because we go up from 120 to 180, which looks a whole lot to me like about a 50% increase of wastewater input. The other possibility would be to figure out why this has happened.
Mr. Bulman stated the I&I is a big part of it. If you can control your influent, the other aspect is under the permit Injection Well #1 is permitted for 10 feet per second, 12 feet per second for emergency. That is not going to change.
Mr. Fennell stated it raises up this issue a lot; especially because this just keeps getting worse. We do not really understand its cause. We could still put another well in and we could find ourselves with not a 50%, but an increase.
Mr. Cassel stated with an increase your treatment cost of it goes up.
Mr. Hyche asked do you know when they may come back with some of the data they collected for the I&I?
Mr. Bulman responded if they received it.
Mr. Cassel stated they just got it the other day.
Mr. Fennell stated we really need to solve this in treatment problem. We need to understand the severity of this problem and how much it will cost to fix it. We are going to have to make some economic choices so we are going to need to know what we are talking about. We really need to solve this problem. We need to understand what the redundancy issues really are. If we have issues with water intrusion, then we have to solve that too. We need to proceed without anyone telling us what to do.
Mr. Hyche stated staff has already researched where most of this infiltration is coming from. We know it is in the Ramblewood area.
Mr. Cassel stated I think with the data we have from the runs and the stuff we are giving initially in the I&I will give us where we think we need to go video and what we need to do as part of that study, which will come as the information of what the next step will be. We can pinpoint. I would not want to be videotaping on the wrong street.
Mr. Fennell stated I am looking for a report on this next month with a lot more stepped up from staff and from engineering. You need to be pushing this one hard. We have two items to go after; the well stuff, we have to figure that one out, and then I&I has gotten to be taken care of. It is a sore which keeps bothering us.
Mr. Hanks stated let us put it this way, it better be close to being final because supposedly you already received the information.
Mr. Cassel stated they just received the information. A decent percentage should be done.
Mr. Hanks stated it has been at least a month, or perhaps closer to two months, since we authorized this study.
Mr. Cassel stated it has been about 45 days.
Mr. Bulman stated I am going to receive the data by hand.
Mr. Fennell asked is there anything else?
Mr. Bulman responded only that I reiterate what Mr. Cassel said that Mr. Hyche’s staff, particularly Mr. McIntosh, went above and beyond to deal with the redundancy issue.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of August Financials and Check Registers
· Summary of Cash Transactions
· Projected Cash Flows
· Engineering Projects
Ms. Zich stated it looks pretty good except for my favorite one and I hate to be redundant on SBA, but I asked Ms. Woodward to tell me how much we have lost; 50%, 49%. She breaks it down every month, how much we are losing, and it is pretty crazy. She gave me a schedule here and 49% is what we have lost in the SBA B fund. Every month she writes down how much is unfavorable.
Mr. Fennell asked have we not recovered a little bit yet?
Ms. Zich responded no.
Mr. Cassel stated every time we are allowed to pull out, everybody’s has pulled out. Anytime they have freed up any dollars which could be withdrawn every district, including CSID, has pulled out whatever they could pull out.
Ms. Zich stated I asked Ms. Woodward to give me an analysis because I see it written down every month. We have lost 49%.
Mr. Fennell stated 49%, which equals $74,000.
Ms. Zich stated right and we still have $78,000 left on the books that carry.
Mr. Fennell asked we are writing this down on our books, but do they not still owe us $152,000 even though they will not pay us?
Ms. Zich responded we are not going to get that.
Mr. Lyles stated that is why she calls it unrealized because until everything is closed out and they declare it uncollectible, the paper loss represents what will happen if we decided we wanted to close it out right now. I think if Ms. Woodward were here she would say that depending on the level of patience that is exhibited by the various account holders around the State of Florida, there is still the potential that you could have that. It is just if you were to take it out today, half of it is gone in the bad SBA account. The market changes and things could happen going forward which could substantially affect this.
Mr. Hanks stated so right now we can look at it as a bad debt. If we ever get it, it will be a nice wind fall and we will be done with it.
Mr. Fennell stated I think the real problem with this account is going to be it is not just a case like investing in mutual funds and things like it which will eventually come back. Are there any other questions or comments?
Ms. Zich responded Ms. Woodward revised the assessment collections so you can see what went to the Broward County Tax Assessor.
Mr. Hanks asked is it tax assessor or property appraiser?
Mr. Lyles responded the property appraiser and tax assessor are the same office. The technical name for the office is the Broward County Property Appraiser and Tax Collector.
Mr. Hanks asked are we on target with our spending for engineering?
Mr. Fennell asked who is paying for this well mishap?
Mr. Hyche responded the District is not going to be liable.
Mr. Cassel stated the discussion right now is the well drilling contractor is responsible for any expenditures related to the pipe dropping issues. We are also going to be in discussions with them this week regarding additional engineering time, because the project is late and going over part of it will be the well drilling contractor’s liability issue. We are looking at these issues. CH2M Hill has been working with what those numbers might be and we are going to sit down this week to see where they are at and where they are coming from. So far they have been very good about stepping up to the plate as to who they are and what they are and making things right.
Ms. Zich stated he said it could be 50 days late.
Mr. Cassel stated currently we are 50 days beyond the substantial completion.
Mr. Fennell asked can they afford to do this?
Mr. Lyles responded this job is bonded and insured. My only question is are we comfortable that the surety is on notice that this is going on and do we know the coverage is in place and we are not just relying on him trying to scramble and do what needs to be done and hope that his insurer never finds out.
Mr. Cassel stated I will double check with Mr. Bulman tomorrow.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There being no further business,
Glen Hanks Robert D. Fennell