A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, November 16, 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:


            Peter Witschen                                                Severn Trent Services

            Sue Delegal                                                     District Counsel

            Jane Early                                                        District Engineer

            Dan Daly                                                         Director of Operations

            Jan Zilmer                                                       Human Resources Manager

            Kay Woodward                                              District Accountant


FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS                             Roll Call

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

            Mr. Fennell stated I would like to express our condolences for the loss of Mr. Cassel’s mother.


SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS                        Approval of the Minutes of the October 19, 2009 Meeting

            Mr. Fennell stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the October 19, 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 October 19, 2009 meeting were approved.


THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS                            Supervisors’ Requests and Audience Comments

            Mr. Hanks stated I do not know if you noticed, but the Walgreens is being built where the old Borders was.  I asked our manager to take a look into it.  I do not believe they have our permit yet.  They need to get a permit from us.

            Ms. Early stated we spoke to them last week.  We told them they were not in compliance.  They need to submit the calculations which have been requested.  They have a meeting with Mr. Da Silva tomorrow morning.  They are just doing a demo right now.  We are on top of it.


FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                        Consideration of Resolution 2010-1, Amending the Water and Sewer Budget for Fiscal Year 2009, Resolution 2010-2, Amending the General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2009

            Mr. Witschen stated these are two clean up resolutions to have the auditors review the fact the budget was put in order.  I understand earlier in the year the District paid down the debt service.  The first resolution increases the principal payment.  The second resolution is a clean up resolution which takes surplus balances from last year’s account and recommends putting them into a reserve account for unexpected occurrences which may come in the future.  We do this after the fiscal year has closed to amend the budget so when you have your audit it shows there has been a reconciled budget back to the actual expenditures.


On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor Resolution 2010-1, amending the water and sewer budget for fiscal year 2009, and Resolution 2010-2, amending the general fund budget for fiscal year 2009, were adopted.


FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                           Consideration of Resolution 2010-3, Supporting the Petition for Rule-Making Filed by the Stormwater Association, Inc.

            Mr. Fennell asked what are we doing here?

            Mr. Witschen responded my understanding is the EPA and the State are considering numeric rule changes to the stormwater in the areas of nitrogen and phosphate.  They are trying to change standards, which would impact us and groups that watch over waterways.  This will enhance the standard for water quality which would dramatically affect the operation of maintenance of it.  It would try to force our canals into a standard that would look more like one for recreational use.  Our custodial duties are for emergency management of stormwater and not for recreational fishing issues.  Staff is here if you would like a further explanation of what this is.  It tries to help plead our case that these standards are beyond us in this District.

            Mr. Fennell stated but we are not actually mentioning any standards here.

            Mr. Witschen asked as far as the numeric standards?

            Mr. Fennell stated we do not actually say anything about the standards we want to see. 

            Mr. Daly stated Section two in the back should summarize it for you.

            Mr. Witschen stated I think in general terms what it does is it tries to differentiate between a recreation use and our use, which is a drainage use.  There is no reason to have the water quality in drainage canals that are in a swimmable or fishable body of water.  We are endorsing the concept of a bifurcation of the standards. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I do not actually see anything in here that is a level.  I do not see those words.

            Ms. Delegal stated it looks like there is a specific petition for rulemaking.  I do not know if that was submitted to us.  Is there a petition we might have received?

            Mr. Fennell responded there was a large document sent out.

            Mr. Witschen stated there is a petition which is referred to in this resolution.  It says it will be attached to it.  I do not have the document back up unfortunately. 

            Mr. Hyche stated this is basically you are fighting the reclassification of your waterways.  They are trying to keep you from naming your drainage waterways as public waterways, in other words for recreational use.  They are not for recreational use and we do not want them to be for recreational use.  These numeric standards are too high for us to adhere to it.  This is the reason for the petition and this is the reason they are asking you to join in their petition to fight this. 

            Mr. Witschen stated if you look at what is in the backyards of our canals, we do not have control over it so we do not have control of what would be loaded into the waterways.

            Mr. Hanks stated so we are just asking DEP to reclassify….

            Mr. Hyche stated to not include us in the classification as public waterways for public use, which we are not. 

            Mr. Hanks asked what is the down side to adopting this resolution?  Is there a down side?

            Mr. Hyche responded in my opinion, no.

            Mr. Witschen stated from our opinion there is none.  It continues to express our support that the standards should not be enhanced to recreational level. 

            Mr. Fennell stated as I understood it we thought most of the drainage districts would have difficulty reclaiming it.

            Mr. Hyche stated you could not reach the numeric standards they are asking for without some form of nano treatment.

            Mr. Hanks asked so what do we have in our canals that we would have to go there to comply?

            Mr. Hyche responded if it is classified as recreational.

            Mr. Hanks asked counsel, do you have any concerns?  

            Ms. Delegal responded no.  I only heard there may be some concerns about exactly what we are doing because it does not say it in specific words.

            Mr. Fennell stated I think we should probably add to it “the petition put out on September 14, 2009.”

            Ms. Delegal stated what this actually does is it attaches a copy of the petition to the resolution.  The o last ‘whereas’ clause says Florida Stormwater Association, Inc. has filed a petition attached hereto.  Your resolution is going to be attached to the petition.  The petition is the document which is being submitted to the DEP for rulemaking.  This resolution supports that petition on behalf of this agency.  That petition with its wording will be attached as an exhibit. 


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor Resolution 2010-3, supporting the petition for rulemaking filed by the Florida Stormwater Association, Inc., was adopted.


SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                             Staff Reports

            A.        Manager

·         Monthly Water and Sewer Charts

Mr. Fennell asked what is the latest on the infiltration?

Ms. Early responded they are still working on their final reports.

            Mr. Fennell stated we talked a little bit about the fact we have a camera, but it is kind of old.

            Mr. Hyche stated it basically only sees the six inch line and when we put it in it sort of worms around.  You never get a clear view and it does not see under water well.  The lenses do not go under water.

            Mr. Hanks asked so what do we want to do?

            Mr. Daly responded we have tapes out there that they have taken.

            Ms. Early stated they have looked at some of those tapes.  They were prior to any lining. 

            Mr. Daly stated it would still show laterals and anything else.

            Ms. Early stated no.  I do not think it did.

            Mr. Hanks stated if I were sitting in Ms. Early and Mr. Schwarz shoes I would be requesting new information as to the present condition and asking them to report on it. 

            Mr. Fennell stated Mr. Cassel was thinking about buying some new cameras.

            Mr. Hanks stated I do not think that is something we should do in house.

            Mr. Fennell asked are the cameras that expensive?

            Mr. Hyche responded the ones for that use are expensive; plus the recording. 

            Mr. Fennell asked so when will we have the report?

            Mr. Daly asked where is the money for them?  That is a legitimate question because when we did this with the Zurichs six or eight years ago it was over $2 million just to reline.  If we get the camera work right now, what do we do after that?  Are we in a position to go forward with repairing the infrastructure?  At this point in time, unless we come up with another funding mechanism, we are not.  I just want to put this out there now because we need to get creative with regard to this.

            Mr. Fennell asked I am not so sure about that.  First off we need intermission.  We do not have a report on it, but we are pretty sure we do just because of what the study has already told us from the last meeting. 

            Mr. Daly stated we see it every month.

            Mr. Fennell stated for a long time it has been a continuously worsening problem.  It has gotten to a position where now it is not just a question of processing the water, but we also have a problem with getting rid of the water.  We have to really understand the problem.  If we go spend the money for the cameras, does anyone know how much it will cost us; $25,000 or $30,000?

            Mr. Hyche stated it depends on the area you want to do. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we have to do at least that much to understand the scope and severity of the problem.  The question after that always breaks down to; how severe the problem is, how extensive it is and how much it will cost to fix it.  Even if we find all of this, do we have enough money?  I think we still have about $3 Million or $4 Million in our funds that are not aimed at anything.  We still have that much left.

            Ms. Woodward stated that is not exactly true.  It is not currently aimed at anything, but between now and 2014 we have $4 Million per year with our debt service.  One of our requirements is we are trying to make sure we are funded 110% of that to cover our debt service requirement.  We are trying to keep that in tact because even once that $4 Million a year goes away and drops down to a lesser number, the problem is when it drops down to $3 Million a year it does not necessarily free up the additional $1 Million for use on other projects because when we get done with the nanoplant, for example, it is my understanding we might get a condition where we have to have the nanoplant and the old plant sort of running parallel or being available and up and running.  This means I have staffing, insurance, supplies, electric, etcetera and I am not sure how much it is going to cost to have two plants up at the same time.

            Mr. Hyche stated there will be some overlap. 

            Mr. Daly stated the other thing is the remaining money that is in the bond fund which was not earmarked for those projects we have must go to new construction.  That is the way I understood it.  This would be a repair. 

            Ms. Early stated we can look into that.  We may be able to write an amendment to the Engineer’s Report to include it.  We can look into it and find out. 

            Mr. Daly stated I think the way the bond report is written write now it has to be new construction.  

            Ms. Early stated it might be.  I am not sure. 

            Mr. Hanks stated we have a substantial amount of inflow coming in that is going to be impacting us already in terms of our plant operations.  The question is; are the repairs going to represent something that we can recover our investment?

            Ms. Early responded that is why I think the report is going to come with some numbers to show you what it is costing you per year because of the problem and if you fix the problem, what are some estimates on what it will cost to fix it.

            Mr. Fennell stated they cannot really know this until they take cameras out and give us a real indication.  We may just have a broken main some where.

            Mr. Hyche stated looking at the hours on the lift stations it is coming from a broad area.

            Mr. Hanks asked have we gone ahead and pumped the manholes on that?

            Mr. Hyche responded yes. 

            Mr. Hanks asked are any segments of that line surcharged?  Are there portions where there is an identifiable….

            Mr. Hyche responded no.

            Mr. Hanks asked is there an increase in magnitude from one manhole to another which is not consistent with the number of connections you would have?

            Mr. Hyche responded not initially.

            Mr. Fennell stated we cannot, not look and identify the problem.  We will decide which way the funds go after we get the progress report.

            Mr. Hyche stated the issue is your injection wells.  Your secondary injection well cannot accept your average daily flow currently as it is going down.  That is not the issue with the well because the well has been pressure tested to show it would accept the flow.  The issue with that pump in my opinion is the manifold piping system.  That has to be looked at.

            Mr. Hanks asked is that what is being looked at in the surge analysis?

            Mr. Hyche responded yes.  I believe there is a work authorization for them to do that.

            Mr. Fennell asked is there any input from that so far?

            Ms. Early responded no. 

            Mr. Fennell stated okay.  So we have two problems actually or three maybe.  One is the well itself.  It may not be big enough to always take everything.  Right now we cannot get the amount of water we need.

            Mr. Hyche stated it has been tested to prove that it will take.  It can take.  You have to look at the restrictions now to what is causing the reason why you cannot get it down from the pumps.  That is, in my opinion, the piping system. 

            Mr. Hanks stated you do not need to go ahead and televise the lines to establish the magnitude of potential savings. 

            Mr. Hyche stated my first attempt would be to look at the IW.

            Mr. Fennell stated but we have already given engineering money to go look at that.

            Mr. Hanks stated Ms. Woodward, for me this would be a task for you to go ahead and do some research to see what we have already authorized, but not yet started and work with our staff to establish what is essential and what is not.  This way we can take a look at where we need to spend our $1 Million now.  Do we need to focus on this I&I study, get that resolved and put the reuse study on hold for another six weeks or six months?

            Ms. Woodward asked does this mean we are going to go ahead and put on hold the work which has already been authorized until we decide that?  We have a meeting on four or five work authorizations which were signed on and I do not know the status of where they are on commencing that work.

            Mr. Hanks stated it looks like we really need to have a powwow to really figure out where we are going.

            Ms. Early stated the reuse is on hold until we actually get the funding.  We are not moving forward with that at all.

            Mr. Hanks asked can you get with Mr. Hyche, Ms. Woodward and whomever else to figure out what we can take care of?  We cannot ignore this infiltration problem.  There may be a potential for savings that we would see down the road.  Is there any other way you would suggest approaching it?

            Mr. Fennell responded we do need an understanding of how much it is going to cost.

            Mr. Hyche stated we can get some quotes.

            Mr. Fennell stated that is not the same thing as going out and doing it.  I think we need to get some quotes on what we think the cameras will cost us.

            Mr. Hanks stated I think you will also find with the downturn in the economy it is not just the private developers that are slowing down.  It is also cities because of their budgets.  A lot of these people who are out there already have cameras and they are just sitting there paying interest on their own cameras.  They want to get some kind of use out of them. 

            Ms. Zich asked are there very many companies that do this?

            Mr. Hyche responded sure.

            Ms. Zich stated well that is good. 

            Mr. Fennell stated let us go out and get quotes.  I think the other issue that we need from Ms. Woodward on this is going forward, because as I read this I am thinking we have about $6 Million in money market accounts and checking accounts which are not aimed at anything, but you are telling me we have some kind of an idea of where we want that to go.  I think we all need to understand whether or not we have $6 million or not and where it is going.

            Mr. Hanks stated I guess the other thing we need to have going forward is any work authorization we need to know where we have the funds to do it.

            Mr. Fennell stated somebody is giving us a hint here that there are future expenses we may not understand.  I think we need to understand.

            Ms. Woodward stated that is correct.  I am not sure that I am going to have much detail on this because no one has been able to tell me how much it cost to run a nanoplant. 

            Mr. Daly asked if we have $750,000 in our budget right now for electricity, what is it going to be when you put up all those extra motors in the nanoplant?  We still have to maintain and run this water plant that we have right now.

            Mr. Fennell asked for how long?

            Mr. Hyche responded there is going to be some tweaking of that nanoplant.  There always is.

            Mr. Fennell stated but eventually, the idea was those water treatment plants would go away unless we could figure out someone else to sell water to.

            Mr. Daly stated of course it would go away but…

            Mr. Fennell stated one of the advantages of the nanoplant was it is modules.  Originally the concept was we would not need those additional plants.  I thought we could maybe use them to sell water to other people.

            Mr. Daly asked is the worst case scenario two years to run both parallel?

            Mr. Hyche responded it took the City of Miramar 16 months to get all of their kinks on the nanoplant worked out before it was up and running by itself. 

            Mr. Hanks stated you are saying the City of Miramar.  We could take a look at their budgets.  That would give us some inkling as to what their change in lines and consumption cost.

            Mr. Hyche stated when you are trying out your nanoplant the other plant is not running.  You are not operating the drive units, your transfer of pumps, your line pumps or anything like that.  You are operating off the pumps on your nanoplant.  The only pumps which will continue to operate will be your high service pumps.  When you are running your nanoplant and trying to tweak it, your other plants are not running.  You cannot.  You can blend the water.  Some people blend it.

            Mr. Fennell stated I am not sure that it was a previous concern; whether or not we were going to need to have a two year overlap.

            Mr. Hyche stated well there is going to be some overlap.  That is a worst case scenario.  Once the nanoplant is up and running, you have your gasifiers working, you have your chemicals going in properly, you have your times run on your membranes, you know what is coming out, your getting your Ph right at the other end and you are getting rid of your byproduct properly, then its three months, four months, six months top.  That is going to be; “okay its not running right, shut it down, start up the line plant.”  That is the kind of stuff it is going to be.  It is going to get everything worked out and the final coming out at the end is what you want going out in the system.

            Mr. Hanks asked can you flip the switches that quickly?

            Mr. Hyche responded it will not be that way.  There will be an operational list. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what does engineering say about this?

            Ms. Early responded that is a question for Mr. Johnson.

            Mr. Hyche stated Mr. Johnson and I have had several conversations on this and he understands. 

            Mr. Fennell asked when is the plant going to be done?

            Mr. Hyche responded we are looking at 14 months or 16 months from when they started and that was in March.

            Ms. Zich stated we broke ground in April.  Were we going to have someone here every other month to tell us how we are doing?

            Ms. Early responded they were here last month. 

            Mr. Hanks stated I think they were here two months ago.

            Ms. Zich stated I did not see it in the minutes so it had to be the month before. 

            Mr. Hyche stated operationally you will not see much of a difference in the cost because you are not going to be running one plant when you are running the other. 

            Ms. Woodward stated except that no one can tell me what it cost in the way of supplies, filters and etcetera.

            Mr. Hyche stated okay.  I will list that for you. 

            Ms. Woodward stated the issue is if I am supposed to try to carve out money that we have set aside for future use on things we do not report to the District, I need to know that when I carve it out it is not going to be eaten away by some unknown expense I was not aware of.  I have limited ways of making up money.  We do not have anywhere where we can park money and make interest.  We are currently earning zero percent, not close to zero, but zero.  In the meantime we are paying out $1.9 Million a year on this bond issue.  That is fine, but I need to tighten the belt everywhere and make sure that the money goes out too quickly. 

            Mr. Fennell stated she is making a good point with the concerns here.  We need two, three, four month scenarios for expenses on your nominal case, best case and worst case and let us go through and make a budget for that timeframe and see what we think expenses will be based upon those. 

            Mr. Hanks asked are you also asking Ms. Early to look into the ability to utilize some of those bond funds?

            Mr. Fennell responded I think we need to look at the I&I and the intrusion problem.  I think we are going to get more of that information back here when we get the report.  I think we need to find out how severe of a problem that is.  There are a lot of good reasons for going forward and doing that.  I think long term, if we did it right, we can actually end up saving some money.  If we got down to the levels the engineers were saying, our water processing would be down about 40%, which would be significant for a lot of things from chemicals to electrical.  There are good reasons why we want to look at this, but first we need to understand how severe this problem is and how much it is going to cost us.  Is it even, financially, the right thing to do.  It may be the smart thing to do is to put it out over several years; 20% one year, 20% the next year.  We need to have a full understanding of the problem so what we are looking for here is; one, thank you for bringing it to our attention, the idea of what the cost will be on the changeover and what kind of money we will need as back up to get through the changeover of filtration and two, define what we are looking for, extend the problem and go out for a bid for doing the cameras.  Once we get that information we can understand what problem we are facing.  Is there any other thing we should be doing?

            Mr. Hanks responded the first thing is to find out the magnitude of the problem.  At that point we will be able to reassess whether or not we have a problem. 


·         Utility Billing Work Orders

            This item is for informational purposes only.


            B.        Attorney

            There being no report, the next item followed.


            C.        Engineer

            Mr. Hanks stated yes or no to another $5,000 for Work Authorization #46; the groundwater modeling.  Can you elaborate more?

            Mr. Fennell asked did you send us an email on this?

            Ms. Early responded I emailed you that Mr. Sarley from SFWMD said they do not have a hydraulic model.  They have not done a model in the past 15 years.

            Mr. Fennell stated you said NOA is redoing their flood water.

            Ms. Early stated they said Broward County hired AECOM.

            Mr. Fennell asked who decides how much water, if they win, they can pump out of the Everglades?

            Mr. Hyche responded Fort Lauderdale.

            Mr. Fennell stated so if they decided the Everglades were too high, they could fill up the C-14.

            Ms. Early stated this amendment to the work authorization is for the groundwater model for the water use permit.  They had to evaluate some wetlands.  This is the one with CSID, NSID and the City of Coral Springs. 

            Mr. Fennell asked are we all putting in more money?  Is that what is going on?

            Ms. Early responded that is correct. 

            Mr. Fennell asked why do we need more money?

            Ms. Early responded they had another request for information.

            Mr. Fennell asked have we seen a result of this?

            Ms. Early responded we send in.  They asked for modeling.  They have questions.  We keep going back and forth.

            Mr. Fennell stated there must be something to ask a question on.

            Mr. Hyche stated yes.  The model CH2M Hill did. 

            Ms. Early stated we did a groundwater model. 

            Mr. Hyche stated they are asking them to explain the effects on wetlands. 

            Mr. Fennell asked for the same model we have?

            Mr. Hyche responded yes. 

            Ms. Early stated they want draw out information.  They want information on wetlands.

            Mr. Hanks stated what they are trying to find out from you guys are what the predicted impacts are on the existing wetlands. 

            Ms. Early stated that is correct.

            Mr. Hyche or what our current impact is, even.

            Mr. Hanks asked does anyone pretend to know what this survey means?

            Mr. Fennell asked can we get any money out of them?

            Ms. Early asked SFWMD?

            Mr. Fennell responded they have an $800 Million a year budget.  I guess we do not have a choice, but I think the next time around we could sure use additional money to answer these questions.

            Ms. Early stated well we are trying to get a permit from them.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor Work Authorization #46 Amendment (10/13/2009) for groundwater modeling in the amount of $5,343 was approved.


·         Pilot Testing Report

            This item was tabled.

·         Project Status Report

Mr. Hanks asked where do we stand on the grants?

            Ms. Early responded that was submitted last Friday.  We made the deadline and we should know at the end of December. 

            Ms. Zich asked what about the well?

            Ms. Early responded it is going to be completed after all the problems they had and it is on schedule. 

            Mr. Fennell asked how did they ever get that thing they dropped down there out?

            Ms. Early responded they got it out.  They fished it out. 


SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                      Approval of October Financials and Check Registers

·         Summary of Cash Transactions

·         Projected Cash Flows

·         Engineering Projects

            Mr. Fennell stated you guys are thinking ahead about a year or two or three or more about how our money is going to be.  We are counting on you to do that.  We sit here once a month and we really only get presented the facts at this meeting as a group.  We are really counting on you to run this place.  We are looking forward to see how the money flow is.  Are there any questions about the financials?  Are we being paid at all on our assessments?  I really do not have a feel for how many houses around here are in foreclosure.  Is it a significant issue for us or not?

            Ms. Woodward responded it has not been a significant issue.  It is an issue county wide and there is a tendency for there to be more late payments.  What we are looking at thus far this year, is we have basically have gone through, the October money coming from Broward County were only $415.  The November money coming from Broward County is about $1,000.  We have one more payment this month.  There seems to be a slightly longer lag time.  While we normally expect a large amount coming in November, it looks like our large amount will be coming in December. 

            Ms. Zich asked what happens with the money we are not getting from the houses which are in foreclosure?

            Ms. Woodward responded we go through the tax certificate process.  After you go through the March 31, 2009 deadline for everything to be paid, they will advertise tax certificate sales.  People purchase those certificates and the funds come in.

            Ms. Zich stated so at the end of the year we get the money.

            Ms. Woodward stated we get the money.  The only time there is a super delay is when a home goes into foreclosure and ends up being sold at the courthouse steps, so to speak.  We always get it.  The issue is when things are tight economically we simply have to be more cautious as we go through the year so that we do not spend everything up front because it may be two or three months later before we actually see the response, but we do get the funds. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I have heard of some cases now where someone owns a house, decides it is going to go delinquent, rents it out to somebody and then runs a big utility bill, which no one ends up paying.  Have we run into some issues like that?

            Mr. Daly responded we turn the water off.  It does not get turned on until it is paid.  The realtor has to come up with the money or we can get the title company to contact us.  We will see it on the actual settlement statement.  Once we have that we know we are guaranteed the money.  We do not want to stand in the way of any homes being sold in the area.  On the other hand, we are going to protect our investment in the property.  It works out well for everybody. 


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


EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                         Adjournment

            There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.





  Glen Hanks                                                                  Robert D. Fennell                              

  Secretary                                                                       President