A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, December 21, 2009 at 3:03 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

            Dan Daly                                                         Director of Operations

            Kay Woodward                                              District Accountant

            Ed Stover                                                        CSID Staff

            Joe Brown                                                       Lazlo/ Intrastate

            Gerrit Bulman                                                 CH2M Hill

            Cory Johnson                                                  CH2M Hill

            Walt Schwarz                                                  CH2M Hill

            Mike Gai                                                         Sun-Tech Engineering


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 November 16, 2009 Meeting

            Mr. Fennell stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the November 16, 2009 meeting and requested any corrections, additions or deletions.

            There not being any,


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the minutes of the November 16, 2009 meeting were approved.





THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS                            Supervisors’ Requests and Audience Comments

            Mr. Cassel stated Mr. Browne from Lazlo is here.  I have before you a copy of the November 15, 2009 progress report, which is the latest.  It was to give you an idea of the current progress as of November 15, 2009.

            Mr. Fennell asked is there a report?  I see something is up there on the screen.

            Mr. Cassel responded Mr. Brown has some photographs of things which have been going on to go through.

            Mr. Fennell stated let us go ahead and do that.

            Mr. Brown stated good afternoon.  I just want to give you a brief overview of what we have accomplished to this point.  Please note Mr. Brown showed the Board slides of what he referenced.  These are former photographs of the transfer pump station we are stripping here.  We have the base slab which is going in at the backwash pump station; rebar placement, concrete placement, finished product for the base and stub ups for the walls.  This is a six inch PVC line which is going in.  Everything has been tested.  That is the backfill compaction along with the marking tape.  This is the 18 inch line being installed on the water side.  All of these are water. 

            This is the membrane building; the trench that goes down in the center of the building and electrical ducts going in.  This is the running of one of the electrical duct banks which will be servicing the water side.  This is a 24 inch tie in at the water side; pressure testing, backfill compaction.  This is the wastewater plant sandblasting and painting of the inner walls stub out for the effluent connection.  This is a layout for the column pads for the connecting walkway plant; form work, rebar, concrete placement, curing, backfill compaction and finished product.  This is the RAS/WAS pumps which go in on the Plant F side.  This is the two inch water line over at the wastewater side; backfill compaction, clean up.  That is about it.  Are there any questions?

            Mr. Hanks responded to summarize; you got a lot of site work taken care of so now you are moving your way into the building.

            Mr. Brown stated yes we are actually, on the membrane building, doing all of the sub-foundation stuff.  We are still underground so you do not see much up top, but we have done a lot underground.  It is mainly the electrical plumbing and foundation work.  We are doing well on the other side.  We are at least 75% to 80% over there.  The actual clarifiers came in along with the aeration equivalent.  That will be set here in mid January to the first of February.  We are on schedule to meet the April 3, 2010 deadline.  Then we will be focusing 100% on the water side.  At the January25, 2010 meeting It was clarified that Mr. Browne meant the deadline for Plant F.

            Mr. Hanks stated some of those valves I saw were with the stem on the side.  Is that because they were butterfly valves?

            Mr. Brown responded I think those were actually gate valves with side operators that you saw.

            Mr. Fennell asked how are we relative to schedule?

            Mr. Brown responded you are doing fine on the other side.  The water side has tightened up tremendously, but we are going to be pushing it.  We have some ways to accelerate so we are 5% behind schedule.  We have done numerous schedules from September, October and November.  From what I understand my schedules have always come out okay.  I heard Ms. Early mention she has something which showed they were rejected.  We have been going back and forth with schedules just to get them accepted for a while now. 

            Ms. Early stated Mr. Johnson should be here in about 10 minutes.  He is running late.  I would rather wait for him.  I brought the schedules, but he said he had comments on them.  I am really not involved in this schedule so I would rather hold off for him. 

            Ms. Zich stated I was surprised with the nanofiltration building.  When are we going to actually see it?

            Mr. Brown responded you probably have a good 60 days before you see walls go up above ground.  We have a trench that is approximately six feet deep, not to mention the slab and all the underground before you actually see the walls on the building.  You are probably looking at least February or March to see the block work.

            Ms. Zich asked and is that pretty much on schedule?

            Mr. Brown responded that will be the schedule, yes.

            Mr. Fennell stated it looked like you were cutting in some mains there.  Were there any issues when that happened?

            Mr. Brown responded as far as I know when these gentlemen were out there they witnessed everything.  We did not have any problems. 

            Mr. Fennell asked did we actually connect into the main mains, is the pipe ready to go in or is the valve sitting there?

            Mr. Brown responded you have the 18 inch, the 16 inch and the 24 that we cut into.  They are all valve connections.

            Mr. Hanks asked are those all water lines or finished lines?

            Mr. Stover stated one is all water and three are finished.  Then they tap into the force main for the waste for the new building.

            Mr. Hanks stated so you are going to have major taps and until we get the plant up and running there is really not much more.  You can put the pipes in the ground, but you will have to test it and finally get it accepted by the Health Department.

            Mr. Brown stated and it gives us our finished point.  Getting those taps out of the way gives us our finishing point running from the building to that point. 

            Mr. Fennell asked are there any issues as far as the city or the county, as far as approvals or anything like that?

            Mr. Brown responded for the most part we are fine.  There are a few building permit requirements we had to meet and plans had to be changed that we will be addressing, but I do not think there is anything major at this time. 

            Mr. Fennell asked is there anything we can do to keep it going?

            Mr. Brown responded our biggest problem right now has been between CH2M Hill, Mr. Cassel and me trying to get us expedited for payment.  Right now we are waiting on estimate number seven for October and estimate number eight for November.  I am preparing nine right now.  It has been back and forth with schedule revisions and just getting the paperwork in line.  It seems to be holding us up more so than anything; just the paperwork, not the physical work.  When you delay payment it slows down subs and makes it hard on us with our suppliers.  We had a meeting a couple of weeks ago to try and expedite some things.  I think we are in line now based on the spreadsheet.

            Mr. Cassel stated the last spreadsheet I got I think we are in good shape.

            Mr. Brown stated hopefully things will flow a lot better. 

            Mr. Hanks asked Mr. Cassel, have you been involved in these meetings?

            Mr. Cassel responded yes.  Part of it was the original way that the request for payment was broken out was not as detailed because it could not be as detailed until they got the progress schedule broken out into greater detail.  Now that the progress schedule is broken out in greater detail the pay request had to match.  You had to move a bunch of numbers around in the pay request and knowing where they came from, and to, was an issue that as I looked at it, you could not reconcile the numbers easily.  I requested they go back and do reconciliation, which they did and they got it to me today.  I think we are in pretty good shape now that we can move the pay request forward pretty quickly.

            Mr. Hanks asked are all the parties in agreement on the procedures and forms?

            Mr. Cassel responded yes.

            Mr. Brown stated that is not a problem.  The schedule, which went back and forth, dictated how the pay request had to be changed.  Once that was changed it finally got, for these final approvals that is when it changed a great amount from say, 5 pages to 13 pages.  That is where the detail had to come in to show what we were doing out there.  That is when Mr. Cassel wanted the explanation between how the money got reallocated to all of these different items.

            Mr. Fennell stated thank you very much for coming.  It is always a pleasure to see the pictures.  Are we going to see you again in a couple of months?

            Mr. Brown responded yes sir.

            Mr. Fennell asked for February?

            Mr. Brown responded yes.  This is the pay request, Mr. Cassel.  Do you take this?

            Mr. Cassel responded I will give it to Mr. Johnson.

            Mr. Fennell stated thank you very much for your time.  We appreciate it.

            Ms. Zich stated thank you.

            Mr. Brown stated you are welcome.


FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                        Staff Reports

            A.        Manager

·         Consideration of Amendment to Interlocal Agreement with Broward County for NatureScape Irrigation Services

            Mr. Cassel stated the first item is reconsideration of the NatureScape interlocal agreement between the District and the county.  As I explained in my memorandum the termination segment was modified at Coconut Creek’s request to the county.  They modified some things and sent it back out.  Since we already approved ours and sent it in, we will have to do an approval of the amended interlocal agreement and resubmit it.  Because the amendment makes changes to the term and the termination language I did not want to just approve it without the Board looking at it and everybody agreeing to it a second time. 

            Mr. Hanks asked Mr. Lyles, have you looked at it?  Do you have any issues with it?

            Mr. Lyles responded I do not have an issue.  Let me just do a quick additional explanation.  Apparently Cooper City asked that the county revise this form of agreement that was going out to 20 or 30 government agencies and most of them had already approved it.  They wanted the ability to terminate it midstream for convenience and without cause.  The county inserted a new article six, which is on page six of the draft you have.  It essentially provided for a lot of language for termination for cause, no specific grant of the ability to terminate for convenience and without cause except on the county’s part.  So either the County Commission or its Contract Administrator can terminate this agreement at any time by just giving us notice and without cause. 

            We are still under the meeting of breach performed by the county, except when you get to the end of new article six it recites that the consideration paid includes $10 for the second parties, which is us, having the right to terminate for convenience.  What I am telling you is it will not be worth time and trouble to try to upset the apple cart and do it all over again.  We are certainly not going to terminate this small interlocal agreement which is more for show than substance anyway.  It does not really say what Cooper City asked the county to do, but it does not put us in any worse of a position than we were in before.  Essentially we are signing this that we are going to pay them whatever it is and they are going to look at our water use when it comes to these issues. 

            Mr. Fennell asked has Cooper City actually signed this?

            Mr. Cassel responded as far as I know it is back out to them.  This was the final form that came out to everyone.

            Mr. Fennell stated I am a little surprised they wanted to have a convenience clause for them, the county said they wanted one too and it was thrust in there.  I just do not want Cooper City not to like this and have to do it a third time.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the amended interlocal agreement with Broward County for NatureScape Irrigation Services was approved as presented.


·         Consideration of Bids for Stormwater Pump Station Trash Rack Repairs

            Mr. Cassel stated several months ago we kind of brought this in as a repair.  We went back and re-bid it.  It has come in and we are recommending the bid be awarded to Lambert Brothers, Inc. in the amount of $29,968.10 for the base bid.

            Mr. Fennell stated I noticed they were significantly better priced than the others.

            Ms. Zich stated I cannot imagine why it is twice as much.  It is half of what the highest bidder was.  That is amazing.

            Mr. Hanks asked are Lambert Brothers, Inc. experienced in this line of work?

            Mr. Cassel responded they have done other drainage type structures.  They are general contractors.  They do different things like this.  They are not equipped for work in water plant scenarios, but on this type of a system we feel they are well qualified to perform the work for us.

            Mr. Fennell asked have we ever worked with them before?

            Mr. Cassel responded no, we have not.

            Mr. Fennell asked has anyone else we know have?

            Mr. Cassel responded I believe Mr. Frederick checked references.

            Ms. Zich stated the City of Pompano.

            Mr. Fennell asked I assume somebody called one, two or three of them?

            Mr. Cassel responded yes.  Staff took care of that.

            Mr. Hanks stated it looks like they have some that are applicable and some that really are not such as kitchen cabinet replacement.

            Mr. Cassel stated they are really a general contractor per se, but they do a lot of different finessing.

            Mr. Hanks stated then there are others there such as installation of sound dividers, which are more heavy duty concrete work.

            Mr. Fennell asked do we have a design for this?

            Mr. Cassel responded yes.

            Mr. Fennell asked do we have the specified types of materials that will be in there?

            Mr. Cassel responded yes.  There are complete plans and specifications for it.

            Mr. Fennell stated okay.  So what they are doing is just assembling this.

            Mr. Cassel stated constructing and installing. 


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the contract for the stormwater pump station trash rack repairs was awarded to the lowest responsive bidder, Lambert Brothers, Inc. in the amount of $28,968.10.


            Mr. Fennell stated I think there are normal items under Staff Reports.  Is there any particular reason why you did that?

            Mr. Cassel responded just for explanations from the manager as coordinating these to make sure it is coming in and I have all the details for it.

            Mr. Fennell stated okay.

            Mr. Cassel stated because there was a number of them which required explanations it was easier to put them under the manager’s report versus having them just a as a line item.  If you prefer to have them as separate items we can do that as well.

            Mr. Fennell stated I just do that because when I look down the list I try to get an estimate of how long the meeting is going to take.  If there are more line items, I know I have more time to take. 

·         Consideration of Bids for Repairs to Water Plant #3

            Mr. Fennell asked what is going on with this?

            Mr. Cassel responded I explained in my cover memorandum that we had some issues with some structural steel on the top side of the plant.  We are going to need to make sure that plant continues running without a major catastrophe until the nanofiltration gets online which is another year and a half away.  It is necessary to do the steel repairs at this time.  Initially it was brought up as kind of an emergency, but we looked at it and the timing with the schools coming back to session was such that we cannot take it offline.  We bid it out twice because of the way it came in.  We spoke with the contractor we are recommending and they are willing to be awarded the contract at this point in time, hold their prices and start when school is out.

            Mr. Fennell asked are you talking June?

            Mr. Cassel responded the end of May or first week of June.  This way we will be able to take the plant offline and run the other two plants while still meeting our demand loads.  The plant will be down four or five weeks.  With the load associated with school at this time of the year it is not advisable to take it offline.  We cannot meet our production requirements. 

            Mr. Fennell asked are there any issues here where suddenly we are going to have to take this plant offline and we are going to be down?

            Mr. Cassel responded no.  We did some temporary welding repairs.  They were accomplished today.  There are some temporary repairs which will get us to the June timeframe.

            Mr. Stover stated there is a structural support underneath that was really damaged.  It was rotted out and that was the issue.  If that had gone down while the mixer was mixing, it could throw it off tilt and then it would be absolutely no good.  That was the lesser of all evils right now and it was done today.  It has been repaired.

            Mr. Fennell asked do you think it can hold up?

            Mr. Stover stated in my opinion, I think it can hold up until May. 

            Mr. Cassel stated we also had Layne Christensen come down and look at it.  They discussed it with us.  We then went to a local welder and we talked to them about what it would take to get us through the end of this timeframe.  We went through their suggestions of what we could beef up temporarily to make it last. 

            Mr. Fennell asked we have these interlocal agreements for water sharing; would that have worked?  It looks like we need water right now.  Are all the other districts also at an issue where right now if we had to go down?

            Mr. Cassel responded I do not believe we could get the volume of water we would need at this point in time with our current interconnections.  We are in the process of upgrading between us and the City of Coral Springs, but it has not been completed.  They are doing the project.  We are just contributing funds when it becomes necessary.  Those are not completed as of this date.  Based upon our current interconnections the quantity of having that plant completely offline would not be viable at this time based upon the information from staff. 

            Mr. Fennell asked do we have other interconnects?

            Mr. Daly responded a little one with Tamarac. 

            Mr. Hanks asked do we need to revisit where our interconnects are?  Do we need to contact and coordinate with our friends in Tamarac?

            Mr. Cassel responded we can probably go back to and revisit to look at where our interconnects are, what our size is and what our abilities are.  In the future it might be advantageous to us if we can produce the water and sell it to them versus that interconnectivity between the two.

            Mr. Hanks stated there is also a cost associated with connecting to Tamarac by crossing the C-14, which would not be incurred with other locations. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I would like you to have staff look at that again.  I think he has a good point.  We still have a year and a half to go before we have the nanofiltration plant.  If one of our things go down, there could be an issue.  I think it is also a regional water issue.  Not only could it happen to us, but it could happen to the City of Coral Springs.  If we have a hurricane again, the same kind of issue could come up.  Coral Springs can get their plant wiped out.  We could take heavy damage.  If we had strong kinds of things, it should also lessen the probability of failure if we have stronger ways we could draw water from other groups.  I know it cost money to put these connections in, but it may cost less than having 30% excess capacity to be safe.

            Mr. Daly stated depending on the condition of our lime softening plants we actually would have redundancy basically once we are on the other one if we were able to keep them going when necessary and blend when we have to.

            Mr. Fennell stated we were talking about this before; whether we wanted to get rid of those plants, take them down, sell them to the highest bidder or is there some other reason they should be there.  Maybe there is not.  I do not know, but certainly having capacity to do water, even in a reserve, might…

            Mr. Hanks stated it is a lot of money you have to spend for improvements on a what if scenario.

            Mr. Fennell stated I know.

            Mr. Cassel stated we will definitely have the staff look at what our interconnection lines are.

            Mr. Hanks stated the other question to consider is; does it make sense rather than having valves and other things, does it make sense to have excess finished water storage capacity here at the plant to accommodate a down.  If that plant was to go down, would we be deficient on our daily flows, our daily capacities or would it be just on peak times and things like that?

            Mr. Cassel asked Mr. Stover, where are we on that with the plant offline?

            Mr. Stover responded I can put out about 4 Million a day with those two running at top speed.

            Mr. Fennell asked what is our current normal rate?

            Mr. Stover responded the two of those together equal what plant three does; about 2,700 GPM.

            Mr. Fennell asked are we down about 25% or 30%?  How much?

            Mr. Stover responded it is about that.  I kind of like Mr. Hank’s idea.  I think we should be looking into putting in another storage tank somewhere down the line; especially with this new plant coming in.

            Mr. Fennell stated well that is the other issue.  We obviously have 30 years experience so we kind of planned for that.  What happens with the filtration plants?  If something goes wrong; how much can go wrong at a time and how long does it take to repair it?

            Mr. Stover responded taking into consideration the age of the plant.

            Mr. Fennell stated I try to look forward to the filtration issues.  We really do not have an idea.  Something is going to fail some day.  Do we lose 100% capacity or is 5% at a time?

            Mr. Johnson responded when we designed the nanofiltration facility we have three trains in there.  Each is able to shoulder a third of the load.  What we had assumed was that we would maintain I believe it was plant #2, which is the newest plant, as a back up in the event that one of the trains goes down.  Generally speaking with regard to nanofiltration plants, catastrophic failures are few and far between.  I am not going to say it cannot happen simply because it can, but generally speaking those are a pretty robust process and they do not generally get catastrophic failures.  We did look at maintaining that second train simply because I do not know that you would want to maintain the entire facility, all three plants, just because you need to have all the chemical storage and you need to maintain all three additional units while you are still maintaining a nanofiltration plant.  I think you would have a lot more of an O&M issue with having to maintain all that excess capacity. 

            With respect to storage, we designed the nanofiltration plant to have a new generator system.  I believe it has 10 days of diesel storage in the belly tank; the new tank that is over there.  In the event of a hurricane or natural disaster you will be able to operate your plant along with your high service pumping.  The excess capacity in storage as it stands right now; you will have storage for meeting your maximum date plus fire flow.  I cannot remember how you originally set up your storage, but the fact is you have adequate storage here. 

            Mr. Hanks stated and the timeframe to construct additional storage we will already be in the new plant so it will be a moot point to address this issue.  We do not have a solution available to us within the timeframe that we need it with this issue coming up.  I think we should just plan to get those repairs taken care of on the plant as long as staff is comfortable that we are able to take care of it until June.  If not, we will come back and we will figure out what we need to do. 

            Mr. Cassel stated at least with the award of bid if we had to have Layne Christensen in here sooner, they would already be awarded the contract and could mobilize sooner. 

            Mr. Hanks asked was there another issue on this?

            Mr. Cassel responded initially Lambert Brothers, Inc. was the lowest bidder on this, but they had not done any work of this type.  Mr. Stover, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they said to you that they never did any water plant work.

            Mr. Stover stated yes.  They have no experience at all.  Their strength is their capability of offsite welding and prefabricating something and bringing it in.  My concern with them was pulling that mixer out of there and putting it back in and calibrating it.  That is where they do not have the experience, where Layne Christensen does have that experience.

            Mr. Hanks stated and if you are looking at a four to five week window over a ten week summer and then that all of a sudden stretches into 10, 11 or 12, we could seriously have issues.

            Mr. Stover stated we are working out a plan.  The problem is that plant when running has to be tested every hour for chemicals and all of that.  We are working on a plan where if they can actually get in there, take measurements, we can take the plant down for a day, they can take measurements, take them back and put them on blue print and prefabricate everything.  While the prefabrication is going on we can maybe knock off a week to ten working days, which brings it down two weeks.  We can live with that when school is out.

            Mr. Hanks asked counsel, are there any issues in awarding this to Layne Christensen as opposed to the lowest bidder because of the responsiveness or qualifications?

            Mr. Lyles responded no.  Staff has analyzed the issue and given its report today.  The recommendation, I think, comes from all the staff. 

            Mr. Hanks asked is this essential work?

            Mr. Cassel responded absolutely.

            Mr. Hanks asked where is this money coming from Ms. Woodward?

            Ms. Woodward responded it is coming out of renewal and replacement.  We currently have $2.2 Million in that fund so we have sufficient funds to cover this. 


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the contract for repairs to Water Plant #3 was awarded to Layne Christensen Company in the amount of $65,884.


·         Consideration of Bid for Replacement of 20 Ton Air Conditioning Unit for the Main Administrative Building

            Mr. Cassel stated since we just opened the bids at about 11:00 a.m. this morning we have not had the ability to do a complete analysis; however, you have before you a memorandum from Mr. Daly.  Our initial review by staff is that Koldaire, Inc. is being recommended for the replacement.  We checked some of the references.  What I request from the Board is the ability to either finish checking out Koldaire, Inc. and awarding it to them or to the next lowest bidder, which is Temptrol, Inc. as we go through the final investigations.

            Mr. Fennell stated prices were within $2,000 of each other.

            Mr. Cassel stated if it is the Board’s pleasure, you can give the manager authorization to an amount not to exceed. 

            Mr. Fennell asked have you specified the type of equipment you are getting?

            Mr. Cassel responded yes.

            Mr. Fennell asked so are they all bidding the same type of equipment?

            Mr. Daly responded they were given three choices and the two lowest bidders came in with the exact same model number and manufacturer.  The other two did not tell us what they were going to use. 

            Mr. Fennell stated the way these guys work is they are local installers.  They are all buying from a distributor.  There are only two or three actual distributors. 

            Mr. Hanks asked are we dealing with fairly energy efficient air conditioners?  How did we balance this out?

            Mr. Daly responded this only comes in one model.  It has a 10 EER.  It would be nice if it had a 14 EER or even higher, but that is what you see in residential units.

            Mr. Lyles stated the staff specifications required that it be the highest SEER available.  It is the highest you can get in a commercial unit for a building of this type.  Even though it sounds low in terms of a residential unit, it is the highest available in commercial units.

            Mr. Cassel stated and it has the new refrigerator in it.

            Mr. Fennell stated still, I thought it would have gone the other way.  I thought it would have been able to have very high efficiency with larger units.

            Mr. Cassel stated I am not sure because I am used to doing mostly residential.  Residential has SEER.  Commercial has just an EER.  What the conversion factors are; a 10 EER may not be the same in SEER.

            Mr. Hanks stated it may be equivalent to a 14 or 16 SEER.

            Mr. Cassel stated exactly.  This is why when we did the specifications on it we said the most current highest efficiency rating on the market.

            Mr. Fennell asked do you know what our current machine was?

            Mr. Daly responded 23 years old.  I do not know. 

            Mr. Fennell asked you got 23 years out of it?

            Mr. Daly responded the air handler was 23 years old.  The compressor was changed 18 months ago with a rebuilt.  It was changed 10 years ago.  We basically got 10 years out of the first compressor, 10 years out of the second compressor and a year and a half out of the third.  That is pretty typical.  We changed the compressor on the roof every 10 years. 

            Mr. Hanks asked so would you like us to award the bid?

            Mr. Cassel responded we would like authorization not to exceed, say $19,500, to make sure I get everything in here on the final.

            Mr. Lyles stated I think since you put it out with bid specifications and got competitive bids you are actually asking the Board to award the contract to the apparent lowest responsive and responsible bidder, Koldaire, Inc. in the amount of $15,777, but because of the emergency nature of the bid process and the timing of it with regard to your next meeting, based on the final review of the references and their qualifications they do not turn out to be the lowest and responsible bidder, then to award to the next lowest responsive and responsible bidder. 

            Mr. Daly stated there is a little wiggle room left with what Mr. Cassel was asking for because there is an additional five year warranty on the condenser.  There is also a coating which can go over the condenser, which is going to make it last a lot longer.  A lot of the contractors had actually put this in as an addendum if we chose to go that route.  Once we look at it we would like the ability, if we felt it was advisable for the District, to go ahead with it.  This is why we are requesting the extra couple of $1,000 as Mr. Cassel said.

            Mr. Fennell asked how do we word that?

            Mr. Lyles responded a warranty is the type of thing which is not required to be bid.  It is in the nature of an insurance policy. 


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the Board authorized the District manager to award the contract for the new air conditioning unit in the administration building to the apparent lowest qualified and responsive bidder. 


·         Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

·         Utility Billing Work Orders

            The above items are for informational purpose only and copies are attached hereto and made a part of the public record. 


            B.        Attorney

            There being no report, the next item followed.



            C.        Engineer

·         Pilot Testing Report

            Mr. Fennell stated I read it and it was okay.

            Mr. Johnson stated the bottom line is we found that pilot testing showed we have an acceptable rate of fouling in the membranes.  Fouling in the membranes is a rate at which stuff builds up on the filters; kind of how you have filters out here, except you have to backwash these filters everyday or two days to clear the particles or what have you, off of it.  On a membrane you are looking at maybe four to six months.  Some facilities will go four to five years without having to clean the membranes. 

            Mr. Fennell asked is it a smart thing to do to have a general filter run the whole thing? 

            Mr. Johnson responded you actually do. 

            Mr. Cassel stated you have sand filters.

            Mr. Johnson stated we learned from staff that there were some sand issues in the wells.  There is a step wise filtration process where we can screen the larger particles out so when you get to the membrane it is basically removing the salt.  We have sand filters and we actually did see sand when we were pilot testing the small sand filter we had on the unit.  Then we have a cartridge filter which is a lot like a home softener.  There are those cartridge filters you can by at Home Depot.  We had those on there and they filter out suspended solids.  Then it goes from there into the membrane unit.  What we saw from the testing was that we had acceptable rates of fouling in the membrane.  That is what is most important.

            Mr. Fennell stated so we are okay.

            Mr. Johnson stated you are okay.

            Mr. Fennell stated we mentioned previously perhaps keeping around one of the other older water plants.  We did not originally talk that way.  I do not remember that.  Are we seriously considering that and if so, what is the financial impact?

            Mr. Daly stated I think we will have two and a half years to come to a conclusion.  We have a year and half before we are actually up and running with the nanofiltration plant; maybe another year or so playing back and forth before we take it down for good.  We have a lot of wiggle room and we need to see how much abuse the plant has taken between now and then as well as what it will take to keep it up and running. 

            Mr. Fennell stated the original idea was the nanofiltration plant would replace the whole thing.  I do remember that.  Do we actually need it?  Having it as a luxury is one thing; if we are trying to figure it out for back up.  Do we really need it?

            Mr. Johnson responded to be honest you have in the new plant enough capacity to cover your peak data.  At the end of the day this is a brand new process for staff to operate.  As their comfort level grows it is kind of like a security blanket.  It is there just in case something is not going right; they can revert back to that if they need to.  AS time goes on I think your staff will find these membrane systems are a lot easier to operate and require a lot less work and maintenance.  Eventually, as the staff’s comfort level grows, the need to hold on to the old equipment diminishes. 

            Mr. Fennell stated given all that I think there was some concern expressed at the last meeting about this topic.  

            Mr. Daly stated it was actually about having to maintain them and keep them in line until the comfort level is there.  Even Mr. Hyche said it could be a year. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we were going to look at some scenarios and see what the financial impact would be.

            Mr. Daly stated Mr. Cassel and I have both done that.  We are still formulating.

            Mr. Cassel stated we are nailing down some numbers and checking with other utilities which have gone through this process. 

            Ms. Zich asked we have quite a while before we have to make a decision on this, right?

            Mr. Fennell responded yes, except that from a financial standpoint of if we were going to have to sink another $1.5 Million or whatever it would cost, to keep these plants going rather than just tearing them down.  It has a big impact on some of the other funds we may want to spend.

            Mr. Cassel stated that is correct.  It is what Mr. Daly and I are working on to go through to look at what others’, who have migrated from a lime softening to a filtration system, experience has been.  What their experience has been, how long it has taken them, what their costs are and what they found in their transitions.  We are contacting multiple facilities, some which CH2M Hill has done and some which other engineering firms have done, to look at what the costs really are, what the issues are and what headaches they ran into.  Every local is a little different and part of the pilot test shows some utilities have a lower PH level than our PH level and they need to get it up higher so they need to use more chemicals.  It cost them more to get the water to the level they want to get it to.  They may have less sand or more sand depending on where they are drawing from.  We are trying to look at the numbers we are getting from them to make an internal review as to what we think it is going to take for us during the transition to make sure we have an adequate idea of what the cost may be if we have to run or have ready to run the lime softening plant as well as the nanofiltration plant. 

            Mr. Fennell stated Ms. Woodward was bringing this up and it was a good point.  She needs to project out, not only the capital cost, but the operating cost.  We can predict our water costs and how much money we are going to have coming in.  What is at stake is how much money is going to be going out for operating costs of the nanofiltration plant as well as any other plant we will keep running parallel to it.  This would affect free capital which I would like to spend, maybe, on something else.  She is saying she may need $1 Million or $2 Million for something else in order to keep us going.

            Mr. Cassel stated we are looking into that based on the minutes I read last month.  We are looking at the I&I where you have other issues.  You have capital programs you may need to do or want to do.  Mr. Daly and I are very diligent.  We are going to be working with Ms. Woodward to make sure what we have available does not put the District in a bind for other issues we may want to address. 

            Mr. Fennell stated so someone was going to look at the I&I issue.  Do we have a report on that today?

            Mr. Cassel responded we have some information which just came in today from CH2M Hill.  Mr. Schwarz is here.  We are also doing some work in house.

            Mr. Daly stated we have a Doppler meter.

            Mr. Cassel stated we have a Doppler meter and are checking some things in house as well to have feedback and look at the process.

            Mr. Fennell stated the I&I has an affect on this as well.  It would be smart to go after that.  It could also affect the reasons why we would need to have any excess capabilities.  These are not all separate.

            Mr. Hanks stated it affects the excess capability that we need for base water.  It does not do anything on the supply side.

            Mr. Fennell stated I am not sure of that when you look at some of these charts.

            Mr. Hanks stated that would be on losses.  If we start looking into losses, it is another issue. 

            Mr. Fennell stated this month’s chart kind of pointed out that we have substantial amount of loss going out, not to mention how much excess water we are bringing back in.

            Mr. Cassel stated Mr. Daly and I discussed this.  We need to look at our source numbers on the billed and productivity.

            Mr. Daly stated Mr. Cassel was not aware that we bill in arrears.  The numbers for the water produced is from the 1st to the 31st.  It is skewed.  It always has been and it has always been acceptable that it will be skewed every month.  We are going to do something different next month with the water charts.

            Ms. Zich asked is the last one for November of 2009?

            Mr. Cassel responded it is supposed to be. 

            Ms. Zich stated I figured.

            Mr. Fennell stated even so the charts are good.  I do not think it is a question about the charts.  If you are actually showing some kind of problem, that is important to us too.  We have a substantial amount of loss.  There are lots of different reasons why you could have a big difference between distribution and billed. 

            Mr. Cassel stated the first thing we have to nail down is our production days and our meter read days; that it is the same 30 day cycle.  It is not going to be perfect, but it is going to be close. 

            Mr. Hanks stated you are reading meters over a period of time.

            Ms. Zich stated you cannot read them all on the same day no matter what you do. 

            Mr. Fennell stated this chart shows you have loss.

            Mr. Cassel stated in our block of time we can adjust it. 

            Mr. Fennell stated all that would be is just a lag in the data.  What you would see is the red would be high sometimes and the blue would be high sometimes.  There is only one month were billed and distributed come fairly close to each other.

            Mr. Hanks asked if there is all this data issue, would we not want to just average it out over a longer period of time?

            Mr. Cassel responded we are going to dig back in and see exactly where the numbers are coming.  As I am looking at them; if you have a 24% loss in a water distribution system, you have geysers out there some place. 

            Mr. Hanks stated or a lot of people stealing.

            Mr. Cassel stated yes and I do not think we have that.  I think we need to look at where our numbers are coming and we are going to re-examine these to make sure we have the tight parameters so that our parameters are matching closer.

            Ms. Zich stated maybe it will be better to do it on a quarterly basis instead of monthly. 

            Mr. Fennell stated this is good enough.  This is fine.  I can read this.  You can just take the delta difference per month and that will give you what happened; maybe one month versus another, billing or something like that, but it should have caught up somewhere and it never did.  If there was a billing delay or timing delay, you would have seen more excess and you do not.

            Mr. Hanks stated so the question comes back as to where you are really measuring it and where you are measuring flows to what is actually going outside of the plant or is it what is coming in, in terms of raw water.  So we will have this tightened up for next month.

            Mr. Fennell stated do not redo the chart to make it look better. 

            Mr. Cassel stated no.  We are just going to look at the data.  The charts are going to stay the same.

            Mr. Daly stated we want to report it accurately.  You cannot act on an inaccurate chart.

            Mr. Fennell stated no, but on the other hand I do not expect that on every occasion around here that you have a solution before you present the data.  I would rather see the data first and then go look for the solution. 


·         Project Status Report

Ms. Early asked do you want the I&I report done?

            Mr. Cassel responded I really have not had a chance to look at it and digest it.  If the Board would like to see the PowerPoint that has come forth at this time, we can have Mr. Schwarz run through it or we can bring it at the next meeting.

            Mr. Fennell stated I would like to talk about this a little bit, but I understand we have someone here who is an applicant.  Maybe we can bump you up to the top of the list.

            Mr. Gai stated I appreciate it.  Thank you.  I am with Sun-Tech engineering.  We represent the applicant, Walgreens.  Basically this is a reconsideration of the request we brought forth in January.  The District had asked for some additional calculations and it has taken so long because with the economy Walgreens was not 100% sure they were going to go forward with this site.  Then about four months later they decided to go forward with this site.  In that time we did some calculations.  We provided pre versus post calculations.  The Walgreens site is a small portion of the existing Home Depot, which used to be Builders Square at the time, at the northwest corner of Atlantic Boulevard and University Drive.  Under that existing permit it was approximately 37 acres and calculations were done for the entire 37 acres with certain grading parameters.

            We pulled the existing calculations, found the existing plans and I would like to point out there was an error in my letter which was written to the District.  It said the existing site grading on the original permit for Builders Square went from 11.8 up.  It actually goes from 10.8 up.  That was caught today.  I actually highlighted, this is the old Builders Square which is now Home Depot, where those 10.8s occur at which are furthest away from the building.  They are basically out in the big parking lot area.  If there is going to be flooding, they want it further away from the buildings.  When the Walgreens site, which is now Borders Books, was developed that site was actually developed with the low elevations on the parking lot being higher than what was out in the middle of the parking lot for the Builders Square; 11.8 was your minimal catch basin there. 

            We have actually taken the original Borders building, which was .6 acres.  We reduced it to .3 acres to fit the Walgreens in.  We have increased the pervious area.  We provided for a small dry retention area.  The drainage system as it exists there today stays totally in tact.  We have not touched any of it at all.  I would like to point out also under the master permit for this parcel; 554 feet of trench were to be provided on this parcel.  We actually provided 749 feet.  So what exists out there today is approximately 200 feet more than what was part of the master permit.  We have gone through the calculations and by the reduction of the building as well as the creation of the dry retention area; we are actually providing more storage on this site than what exists today. 

            When you look at the overall calculations for the shopping center there is a calculation for what is required and what is provided.  What was required under the permit for the 100 year storm was 24.44 acre feet and what was provided was 24.77 acre feet.  We are providing a couple of tenths more of acre feet and storage by the reduction of the building and including the dry retention area.  I am here in front of you today to have this site approved as is today.  I do not know if you noticed, but the building has actually been demolished and they are on hold with doing any work out there until we get your permit.  They have relocated a couple of trees, but that is as far as they have gone. 

            Mr. Fennell asked who actually owns this particular site.

            Mr. Gai responded Walgreens does not own it yet.  It would have been in the application.  I cannot remember at this time.

            Mr. Fennell stated there is a whole section there. 

            Mr. Gai stated it is one owner for this 2.7 acre parcel.  The shopping center is a different owner.  It is all under one master permit and there is an outfall for this parcel to the shopping center’s drainage system in this area.  This ties in, then outfalls and goes back to the L-105 that is on the west side of the Home Depot.

            Mr. Fennell asked how does this work now?  Originally the tract was the whole thing.  It was permitted that way.  Now we have separate chunks of it being bought out.  Who actually retains responsibility for the permit at that point?  Do we now have new permittees?  How does that work?  Do you know what my question is?

            Mr. Hanks responded I understand as far as who is responsible for maintaining the system.  Is that what you are saying?

            Mr. Gai responded we are responsible for maintaining ours.

            Mr. Fennell stated it got divided up into different parcels.

            Mr. Gai stated there are actually four parcels on this site.  We are responsible for everything on our site.  The shopping center is responsible for maintaining everything on their site.  That is the way it works. 

            Mr. Fennell stated but there are four different people now as opposed to one when it started up.

            Mr. Hanks asked was the original permit set up with the intention of having outparcels?

            Mr. Gai responded yes it was.  The original permit lists four outparcels. 

            Mr. Hanks stated which is what is out there presently.

            Mr. Fennell asked so who is responsible?

            Mr. Lyles responded the permittee.  The responsibility goes with the permit.

            Mr. Gai stated all the drainage which is on our site we must maintain and we do that. 

            Mr. Hanks stated for clarification, when you say ‘we’, you do not meaning Sun-Tech.  Do you mean Walgreens or the applicant?

            Mr. Gai responded that is correct.

            Ms. Early stated GS Atlantic Properties.

            Mr. Gai stated that is who it is.

            Mr. Hanks stated there are a couple of questions or concerns I have.  In the past year or two we have done some stormwater modeling for both basins trying to establish whether or not we have adequate capacity in the system, redundancy, and etcetera.  One item which was noted is that in certain areas of the District they are falling a little bit shy on the amount of storage provided; one of those being the east basin which this project is located in. 

            Mr. Fennell asked is that the east basin or west basin?

            Mr. Hanks responded east basin.  The predicted 100 year storm, Ms. Early please correct me if I am wrong, is 11.8 out there in that location.  So when you say you are increasing the storage out there, it is increasing it above the 100 year flood.  My colleagues here on the Board are going to see water in the living rooms already, but instead of coming up halfway to the wall it is going to come up six inches.

            Mr. Gai stated when I said increase storage I took what the site stores at the 100 year elevation of 11.8.  From the pre versus post; the pre condition stores .35 acre feet and the post condition stores .51 acre feet at the 100 year.  What you have to remember is we are a small portion of the overall shopping center.  It might have worked out where this was built up high on purpose because we are also the furthest away from the outfall to the canal.

            Mr. Hanks stated you are sandwiched between Atlantic Boulevard and University Drive, which is higher.

            Mr. Gai stated we have a couple of roads which are up really high.  The road that is in the shopping center to the west of us is actually up around 12.4.  It is up pretty high too.

            Mr. Hanks asked I am just wondering; was the original Builders Square site designed to have the outparcels at an increased elevation or was it intended that those comply with the grading assumption, which was pavement from 10.8 to 13?

            Mr. Gai responded I looked for all the calculations for what they wanted for the outfalls.  I looked for the outparcels and could not find anything.  I did find that if you look at the original permit, the site was actually mass filled to 11.8.  They actually mass filled it to 11.8, which is at the 100 year flood.  There are some elevations proposed at 12.3 on it.  My thinking is they realized this was the very end of the system and they had to get a little more ahead to get to the water out to the canals so that is why it was built up a little bit higher.  I can only go by what the original design of the Border’s Books was, which shows it at 11.8.

            Mr. Hanks asked have you modeled the entire system to see if those assumptions are right?

            Mr. Gai responded I have not done the entire shopping center. 

            Mr. Hanks stated alright, because we have the calculations.

            Mr. Gai stated yes.  Actually I was looking at that here and really all they are saying for meeting your criteria is that they are given what is required and what is proposed.  It looks like the majority is stored in the trench and then what I can do is take that and simply add on the additional.  I have to believe when you are doing your grading assumptions you might have 10 out of 40 catch basins and 10.80.  We also have some higher ones, which are up at 11.8 behind the shopping center too.  You basically say your grading starts from 10.80 and goes up to 13, which is simply 6 inches below your finished floor.  Basically all its saying is grading assumption is 10.80 to 13.  They have 37 acres and for land use breakdown they have ‘x’ amount of square feet of pavement.  So we do fall within the 10.80 to 13 with our 11.80.  We fit within the grading parameters.  There is nothing which says we have to be at 10.80.  It just says the site as a whole is at 10.80, which are the lowest points in the existing parking lot.

            Mr. Hanks stated I am just concerned that for the storm events, between the 10 year and 100 year storm event, your site as a stand alone outparcel does not provide certain storage.  It is relying on locations elsewhere within the District to provide it. 

            Mr. Gai stated it is relying on the rest of the shopping center to provide it.  You have to remember it was a 37 acre project and we are a very small portion of that 37 acre; so yes, some of the storage that might be required for this outparcel is relied upon on in the shopping center, but it was originally permitted that way and build.  The Borders was designed with catch basins at 11.8.  We reduced those a little bit down to 11.6.

            Mr. Hanks asked was Borders permitted?

            Mr. Gai responded it was done by Gee & Jenson.  I do not know.  I did not look to see if there was a permit for it or anything like that.  We just got the as built from the city, certification and that was it. 

            Mr. Fennell asked as far as what I can see from CH2M Hill, do you guys approve this?

            Ms. Early responded we were doing the pre versus post just like he was saying.  What Mr. Hanks’ concern is if you take this parcel as a stand alone, it does not meet our current criteria.  We were taking the same consideration that he is included in the total site.  As he is saying the storage was for the entire site and not just for his alone. 

            Mr. Fennell stated and is his point is he has not done anything worse; in fact he has made it slightly better. 

            Ms. Early stated exactly.  If we had to do it by itself as a stand alone project, it will not meet our current criteria.  He is improving what he had before.  The overall site improves and does meet the permit as it was submitted.

            Mr. Hanks stated we are talking two acres out of 37.

            Mr. Fennell stated I think we should go with it.

            Mr. Hanks stated I really want to nail down and firm up our requirements and what is actually out there in terms of storage that is provided.  I am not real comfortable on continuing, at least not in the phase stage and look at this individual parcel, and this is where I am having discussion back with CH2M Hill.  We really need to come back with a mechanism by where we have established if our outparcels are treated as part of a whole.  How is that whole thing set up?  If this was not an outparcel and it was like the Coral Springs Animal Hospital, a complete tear down, at that point that makes all of the criteria for completely bringing it into new compliance.  If you were in Broward County and did a complete tear down, you would be looking for a new permit.

            Mr. Gai stated they would have let me go pre/post.  We do it many times and for redevelopment they let you go pre/post.  They absolutely do that and they do it many times. 

            Mr. Early stated this may be a legal question, I do not know.  When this entire site was originally permitted as one permit, including those outparcels, can we go back and say it has to be a stand alone?

            Mr. Lyles responded I do not want to muddy the water anymore, but I am not comfortable answering that question in real time with this thing coming up at this presentation today.  I have heard two separate things.  I heard one master development plan, but I thought I also heard separate permits for the outparcels at some point in the discussions.

            Ms. Early stated no.  There was one master permit, which included the outparcels.  Now they are doing some modifications and one of the requirements from the city is that they come to us. 

            Mr. Fennell asked so who is the permit holder?

            Ms. Early responded there was an original permit holder for the entire master drainage system.  Now they are selling outparcels to new developers.  They come in for a new permit.  They, GS Atlantic Properties, are going to have a permit just for their drainage.  They have to maintain the drainage on their particular two acres.

            Mr. Fennell asked does a permit exist now?

            Ms. Early responded as he is requesting it.

            Mr. Fennell stated so basically it was a bigger parcel and now we have a smaller parcel.  Now that it has been divided up and resold we are coming in from a separate permit for a smaller area.

            Mr. Gai stated that is right.  We actually looked at what it would take to meet the District criteria.  We would have to take the finished floors and the parking lots down about a foot and a half to make it work.  If we did that, we would be the lowest thing out there.  Because we are tied into the outfall we would flood way before anybody else would because we would be the lowest one out there.  This is why the pre and post made the most sense.  We are making it better.

            Mr. Fennell asked in order to sink the water?

            Mr. Hanks responded to provide the storage.  I am not sure.  You would have to lower the parking lot.

            Mr. Gai stated because of ADA and everything, when the parking lot goes down, the building has got to go down.  The biggest problem is with your elevation being at 11.8 your basins are at 11.8 so all of your storage takes place in the trench and in the dry retention areas and green areas.  So what you have to do is lower the building, lower the parking lot and now we become the catch basin of the whole shopping center because we are lower than anyone else.  This is why when it was done as a master permit.

            Ms. Early stated currently some of his storage might be somewhere else within…

            Mr. Hanks stated might be.  That is the key.  It is not definitive.

            Ms. Early stated all we can go by is that it was permitted by SFWMD.  It met the criteria for that entire site.  If it rained just on his building and not anywhere else on that site, than you might be able to tell something.

            Mr. Hanks stated understood, but just this last weekend Hallandale and Pembroke Park got either the 100 year storm or pretty close to it.  They had some serious issues down there.  We did not get that here.  What would happen here in Coral Springs?  That is my question.  I am just not at that comfort level that we are providing the right amount of storage out here.  We have a permit.  We have a permit criteria manual, which was certainly in effect in 1992.  I am just asking a simple clarification and this would be an engineering statement.  Does the Builders Square or Home Depot shopping center as it is now provide for the storage that is not being provided for on the new Walgreens?

            Mr. Gai responded I would have to say to meet the 11.8 criteria that yes a portion of the storage requirement of Walgreens is provided within the whole 37 acres.  Everybody shares storage there.  The trench that we have is shared by the Builders Square.  It has all interconnected.  We have one common system.

            Ms. Early stated obviously none of us ran these calculations for this entire site.  As an example, in NSID there are parcels that do not meet the stand alone permit because it has been provided offsite within the District.  That is what he is saying.  His parcel is provided within that overall development. 

            Mr. Hanks stated but if you were saying, “okay we do not have to provide that 17.5% water body requirement for NSID because this place here has built it for us,” you would want to see some documentation that it was indeed allocated right to that part.

            Ms. Early stated which we have.  I understand your question.  We just do not know if this whole site works.

            Mr. Hanks stated and this is not an animal hospital because the animal hospital did not tear down the building.  The animal hospital gutted it.  Here we have gone ahead and taken down the whole thing.

            Mr. Gai stated under these calculations in 1992 the whole site does work.  Our parcel is included in these calculations.

            Ms. Early stated I think what Mr. Hanks is asking is if it still works with your changes.

            Mr. Gai stated it is better.  We are enhancing it.

            Mr. Hanks stated well we have to get this off the dime.  I trust you understand we are trying to figure out what the best way to approach this.

            Mr. Fennell stated the problem is when you start putting more distribution over a wider area, some are going to stay over here and there is going to be a parking lot in the center, which is all cemented over and if you suddenly go and decide to take a chunk of that parking lot and try to apply criteria of that parking lot, it is going to fail.  Obviously there is a limit to the logic we have here about this thing. 

            Mr. Hanks stated you cannot zoom in because at some point you are going to get so close in that is going to…

            Mr. Gai stated you could take every little acre, try to do it on the 37 acres and some will work and some do not. 

            Mr. Fennell stated the problem we have is we have divided up the ownership of this thing.  Even though we have different owners coming in, the fact is the different owners are dependent upon each other for water storage and water usage.  This is a more complicated thing than an individual permit.

            Mr. Lyles stated and to make it a little more complicated as I listen to this discussion, from my point of view a missing piece is what sort of cross easements or obligations do the now separate owners have to one another to insure you are all providing, if there is a master permit, that is one thing.  If part of it fails, it all fails, but now we are having separate permits and I do not know that we have any sort of interdependent rights among the owners. 

            Mr. Gai stated the specific and general conditions of the permit are pretty standard for all permits and they kind of address that; where everyone is responsible for their own.  You have to have the five year renewals and all of this type of stuff.  If they want to rip off a part of the parking lot and redo the drainage, they have to come to you for a permit and you would be asking the same thing.  How does it affect the whole?

            Mr. Hanks stated right now they have a permitted route of discharge so they have legal positive outfall under the present scenario because it was permitted through the SFWMD.  If Home Depot, or whoever the ownership is of the master system, was to decide to change things, they would have to either provide an equivalent means of connection or it would be a civil matter between your client and them.

            Mr. Lyles stated so we need to make sure that a new permit, if it is authorized, specifically incorporates and references the underlying SFWMD permit and if any part of it goes down, it all goes down.  They have to make sure they stay in compliance on a 37 acre basis. 

            Mr. Gai stated that is not a permit, but just to let you know the permit runs with the land.  All SFWMD permits run with the land so it does not matter if I buy it or someone else buys it, the permit is still running with the land.  We have no problem if you want to make that a condition.

            Mr. Lyles stated my perception is we are in a little bit of an interim period where we are reevaluating whether we need another mechanism, what the criteria are and how we are going to do this going forward since we are almost totally built out and in a redevelopment stage.  We ought to have some asterisk in this particular transaction indicating it is linked totally, legally, to the underlying SFWMD permit.  What we have before us is a little outparcel and not the whole permittee.  I am concerned about setting a precedent with a decision on this one that will come back to haunt us.

            Mr. Hanks asked is there an issue between us and SFWMD in that it was a 37 acre and are we able to review off that…

            Mr. Gai stated 40 acres.

            Mr. Hanks stated but still, SFWMD issued the original permit and for whatever reason did the Board at the time here in 1992 say it is 30 somewhat acres?

            Mr. Gai responded the only reason it originally went to SFWMD was because there were wetlands on the site.  It would have never gone to SFWMD if it were not for that. 

            Mr. Hanks stated okay.

            Mr. Gai stated strictly because of the wetlands. 

            Mr. Lyles stated that certainly makes sense.

            Mr. Hanks stated you have done your homework.

            Mr. Fennell stated there is a big issue I do not think we are going to resolve with this particular issue.  He has not caused any harm.  The real issue would be if someone else in another parcel, which actually does have storage, comes and says they have more storage than they need and they want to pave it over.  The longer term is how do we inter tie those parcels?

            Mr. Hanks stated right.  Not only that, but how do we take a look at what the criteria are to help address some of these ongoing issues which have occurred?  Because of advances in the modeling we are now realizing that the original model in 1977 did not quite capture all of the intricacies.  I will make a motion to approve the Walgreens permit, with reservations.

            Mr. Fennell stated I do not know if that is actually a motion.  I will assume that is a side comment.

            Mr. Hanks stated that is a side comment.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the surface water permit for the Walgreens to be located at the northwest corner of University Drive and Atlantic Boulevard was approved. 


            Mr. Gai stated thank you very much.  I appreciate it.

            Mr. Fennell stated I think we do need direction here to staff.  I am not even sure how we will do this.  We obviously have these issues where lands get redeveloped, but were originally permitted in larger sections where some of the property was meant to hold it and other permits did, but when parts get sold which would not pass the criteria, how do we manage that?

            Mr. Cassel responded sub-permits to the master permit.

            Mr. Fennell stated I guess that is a legal question too.  Can they manage it if people break it up into 40 little acres?

            Mr. Lyles responded the short answer is yes.  We have that power under our special act to regulate buildings and activities that tie into our drainage system.  The “can we” is an easy yes.  How we do it is the hard part.  It gets kicked backed to an engineering heavy lifting job more than a legal one.  The criteria and the goals need to be sound and reasonable.  I think you have enough of a record indicating that you have identified there is a potential flooding problem and the need to look at it in a different way in a built out and now redeveloping District.  Staff needs to, if nothing else, come up with what the issues are, get them in front of the Board and get some further direction.  What you might even consider doing is; you just approved this one, the good news is now it is academic.  Maybe this is your case study.  Take this existing parcel, the 37 acres and 2 acre outparcel, what can go wrong, how do we figure out how to stop it from going wrong or have measures in place.

            Mr. Hanks stated identify the issues associated with this one and go back and take a look at the animal hospital to see the concerns we have there and figure out how we are going to address this to be in compliance with the existing permit criteria manual and then how do we improve the permit criteria manual to help address some of these ongoing concerns we have.

            Ms. Early stated I think one of the big problems is they keep coming in saying it is not feasible financially.  Like he said, for him to meet the criteria for that to stand alone he would have to lower the building and lower the parking lot.

            Mr. Fennell stated if he is a foot and a half below everyone else around him, he will flood in a five inch rain.

            Ms. Zich stated we do not want him to be below that.

            Mr. Hanks stated there are other mechanisms we can go ahead and do.  In 1977, 1978 or 1979, Tamarac had some serious flooding problems.  They went ahead and provided additional canal and lake excavations to provide storage.  It was available to some of these businesses along University Drive.

            Ms. Early stated that was one of the things we talked about; trying to get some money somehow.

            Mr. Hanks stated it comes down to money. 

            Ms. Early stated maybe we can put something into these permits where they have to pay into some fund.  We looked at widening some of the canals.

            Mr. Hanks stated let us bring this back in.  Let us go ahead and create this concern list that we have.  Let us try to figure out what the easy things are that we can address, what is going to take more of an effort and prioritize them.

            Ms. Early stated and we have to get the city involved because in some instances the city does not make them come back to us for a permit.  It depends on what they are doing. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I think what we are really talking about here is a water drainage impact; not just on your own area, but on the affected area around you. 

            Ms. Early stated that is correct.

            Mr. Fennell stated that is what I think is missing.  He came in here and defined what his own job was, but what he did not do was say what the impact was on the area he is defined in.  That is what he had to do, or we had to do.

            Mr. Hanks stated the other side of it is we have areas of the city that are providing extra storage.  If someone was to come in and build it right up to the requirements, that would have the same impact as to someone not.

            Mr. Fennell asked and right now they can do that, right?  Because we kind of have it on a piecemeal type basis as opposed to the greater good basis.  We have to change that.

            Mr. Lyles asked do we?

            Mr. Fennell responded yes.

            Mr. Lyles stated I thought it was all a system.

            Mr. Fennell stated the problem is if you divide the system down enough that it is all exactly the same…

            Mr. Lyles stated everything maxes out.

            Mr. Fennell stated that is right.  You could not put in a driveway.  Your driveway would be illegal because it has no drainage.  There is a point where there is a greater understanding probably above and beyond your own property limits of how the thing works.

            Ms. Early stated we just had a homeowner in NSID that wanted to increase their pool deck and the City of Parkland came back to them saying they needed to get an engineer’s okay that the basin will still provide enough storage for that one house.  That is what she had to do because it was more than the 40% of what their maximum is in Parkland.

            Mr. Fennell asked so what is the reasonable thing to do when you come in here?  Should he have looked at the whole 40 acres?

            Mr. Hanks responded yes.

            Ms. Early stated yes and that is a good point Mr. Hanks brought up.  What he is saying is he has the original calculations, which show it does work.  He feels he is improving it.

            Mr. Hanks stated there are a lot of ways to run calculations.

            Ms. Early stated but he can look at it in an overall again. 

            Mr. Fennell stated you are saying he should look at the whole section.  If that is really true, then we need to have that in our permit; you have to look at a certain area and show that you are not affecting the overall good of the area.

            Ms. Early stated we can add that they are part of a master permit.

            Mr. Lyles stated that was the asterisk I was talking about where whatever you are getting permitted has to be within the overall.

            Ms. Early stated we can require them to re-run the master calculations again for the entire site.  That is what we should do.

            Mr. Cassel stated this is basically a sub-permit.  They are asking for a sub-permit of a master permit.

            Mr. Hanks stated we are providing them with an approval for a portion of a previously approved SFWMD permit.

            Mr. Fennell stated in this case it was nicely laid out.

            Ms. Early stated if they would have gone to SFWMD, they probably would have just given them a permit.  You would have just done a permit modification with them. 

            Mr. Fennell stated the reality is we are charged with looking at the overall drainage and each one has an affect on somebody else around them.  We need this connection and I am not exactly sure how to word it, but you are not actually alone.  You are not an isolated little drainage district by yourself.  You affect the overall group.  I am not sure how big.  You were quick with the 40 acre answer.  Should it have been 80 acres around it?  What about people across the street?  How big of an area do you have to look at?

            Mr. Hanks responded you have to take a look at what your previous permit was.  Ms. Early hit it on the head.  You need to go ahead and remodel the original permit area and demonstrate that your modifications are affecting it or improving it overall.  Here we have an additional challenge in that the original calculations supposedly cover all of it; including the four outparcels which are now built, but we do not have records of. 

            Mr. Fennell asked so what is the action item here?

            Mr. Hanks responded I think the action item would be with staff to come back with a laundry list of concerns and issues.

            Mr. Fennell stated I think the wording we are looking for is how to look at, when somebody comes in and they are going to affect properties other than their own or the potential for drainage, what is the right wording to have.  It will probably have to be approved by the Board.  I think this is a good thing we are doing. 

            Mr. Lyles stated the start is the case study we have in our hands where we have an overall permit and we are dealing with a two acre outparcel.  It is a full order of magnitude beyond that to resolve your problem.  Let us assume there are a lot of separate permits.  How do we measure the impact on all the surrounding permittees and can we put new requirements on the property before you?

            Mr. Hanks responded I would say that is not going to be something we are going take as a District.  If we take that on, we would need to be the modelers for the area and assign sub-basin criteria that would need to be met; for instance, to address the elevated 100 year predicted flood stages in the northeast corner of this District.

            Mr. Fennell asked we are the ones responsible, right?

            Mr. Hanks responded but we could go ahead and assign additional criteria.

            Mr. Fennell stated actually we do have it modeled to a certain extent because we have the canal model.

            Ms. Early stated but not down to that one parcel.  Like Mr. Hanks is saying, I think we need to put it on the property owner.

            Mr. Fennell asked how are they going to model it?

            Mr. Hanks responded the first thing we have to do is tackle these commercial outparcels along University Drive.  They are the ones who have the capability, when it comes time to redevelop, to become more compliant with the criteria or to provide a bigger bang for the buck.

            Ms. Early stated or to just provide calculations at all.  Some of them do not.

            Mr. Hanks stated the residential properties have very little accumulative impact.  That can be much larger, but you also do not have the mechanism to address it there on that specific site. 

            Mr. Fennell stated you are probably right.  The commercials are probably more operable.  They probably have a greater coverage area.  Most of the houses are not covering more than 25% of the area anyway.  The commercial areas are pretty close to 75% from what I can see.  They are the ones that are going to flood the main road there. 

            Mr. Hanks stated this parcel here would equate to, you figure on a quarter acre lot and this is round numbers 40 acres, this is 160 homes.  Are you going to have 160 homes making those modifications in that same time period?

            Mr. Fennell responded no.

            Mr. Hanks stated I need to move things along.

            Mr. Fennell asked okay so staff is going to report back to us when on this with a recommendation?

            Mr. Daly responded Mr. Cassel and I will have to get together and talk with the engineers?

            Mr. Cassel stated probably February.

            Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like February is the right timeframe, but I think it was a very good thing that came out here.  We have really missed in the permitting process how you affect the overall question.

            Mr. Hanks stated well we are getting better on it so let us just keep heading in the right direction. 

            Ms. Early stated I guess the next thing is the I&I report.

            Mr. Fennell stated yes.  Let us go quickly.

            Mr. Schwarz asked do you want to go on to the next item while I load it up so you do not waste time?

            Mr. Cassel responded we will give you some good news while Mr. Schwarz is loading up.  Mr. Bulman, I am going to put you on the spot.  You can report on our meeting that we had this week with SFWMD.  I think we had a positive meeting.

            Mr. Bulman stated yes, it was extremely positive.  NSID, CSID and the City of Coral Springs met at the SFWMD to discuss the water use permits for all the entities.  SWCD was also present.  Essentially we had about 25 people in the room.

            Mr. Cassel stated yes.  Everybody was there.

            Mr. Bulman stated we were all ready to get into the details.  No one is expecting to get a full surficial allocation right now.  In this regulatory environment they are all being restricted and as you know we are all being forced to alternative water supplies.  Essentially they said it all boils down to SWCD.  If they agree to go back to their base conditions, not to what they were previously permitted, but to their base conditions, which has to do with how much water they have been taking from original water lines.  If they reduce their requests, then all the other permits can go through fairly easily. 

            Mr. Fennell asked can they do that?

            Mr. Bulman responded they did.  They discussed it the day before.  They came to the meeting prepared.  They had their engineer, IBI Group, there and they agreed on the spot that they would do that.  They said all the other applicants will move forward.  There are individual items to address in each one; for example, determining there are not wetland impacts, which we did the walkthrough and evaluation for last month.  There was no hydrology being impacted in wetlands in the area.  The City of Coral Springs has to monitor one wetland.  The remaining item for CSID is looking at water conservation.

            Mr. Fennell asked which we have put some money aside to go look at, right?

            Mr. Cassel responded for this we just have to draft up a water conservation plan and submit it back to them.  What we are going to do is use some of the information which was provided from SFWMD as a format for us to also tie into what the City of Coral Springs requires as water conservation because we do not have the codification issues to make somebody change their toilets or use low flow and etcetera.  So we are going to use some of the information from the City of Coral Springs’ Building Department; their requirements for water conservation issues and reference those in our conservation plan to present it back to SFWMD.  It looks really good that soon we should have our water use permit with the allocation we requested along with NSID and the City of Coral Springs which will probably get theirs with out having to go to Florida.  It is a good thing for us.

            Mr. Fennell stated yes it is.  Can we keep building on this in certain ways?

            Mr. Cassel responded this originally comes back to the Board’s direction to try to work together.  We came in with the modeling with all three entities doing the groundwater modeling because everybody was going through water use permits at the same time.  I think it gave SFWMD a confidence level that the model did account for impacts on the other wells, the other districts and the canals that surround them.  It was a more regional approach, which I think gave them a better comfort level.  The only think I think upset it a little bit was when SWCD came in asking for more water to be withdrawn into the canal system.  They were going to try to maintain their canals higher to help the well system.  That kind of tipped it and made SFWMD get a little queasy until SWCD said they would leave it where it is.  The model worked and SFWMD was happy with the model.  That is where we are.  At the same time they do not care how we maintain the water within our districts between each other in the canals.  If we have interconnections and we maintain our levels, they just do not want SWCD bringing water out of the C-14.  If we have extra water, whether it is CSID, NSID or the City of Coral Springs, it can flow into SWCD’s canals.  They do not care how we maintain our water levels as long as they are not taking it out of the C-14.  Those are future potential opportunities to look at again in coordination with all three districts.

            Mr. Fennell stated you are saying there is an interconnection in the canal systems.

            Mr. Cassel stated that is a potential.

            Mr. Fennell stated I think that can make a lot of sense.  I remember at one time nobody wanted 1 Billion gallons of water, even we had it.

            Mr. Cassel stated you could not give it to anybody.

            Ms. Early stated that was one of the things I wanted to bring up; The Memorandum of Understanding that was signed and approved.  Last week we actually pumped south from the L-36 for NSID.  NSID coordinated with CSID.  CSID was not pumping so NSID was able to pump.  NSID got a lot of rain and CSID did not.  We actually pumped south rather than pumping a lot of it out to tide. 

            Mr. Fennell stated the Memorandum of Understanding is actually working and coordination is up and running.  Reaction to that is positive; first off from a political standpoint.  Now you are not talking about 40,000 people.  We must be talking about 180,000 or 200,000 people by the time you get through all three of those districts.  You are talking about Parkland, Coral Springs, us.  You are now talking about a significant amount of people which is a significant political issue, especially if you could get a few more groups around us. 

            Mr. Cassel stated they do not have to put the pieces together and see how they plug.  We gave them all the interconnections and how each one impacts the other one.  They can read it.  They looked at their model.  They had three different modelers.  Each district has its own ‘modeler’ or permit reviewer.  They looked at it to go through it.  Each one of them had different perspectives they were coming from and they all ended up being satisfied with the end results, which is a good thing. 

            Mr. Fennell stated thank you very much.  That was good news.  We do not actually have it yet, but it looks good.

            Mr. Schwarz stated I do not necessarily have good news, but maybe not bad news either.  We will see how it goes.  First I would like to discuss the project scope of what we were doing.  Do you have an I&I problem in the CSID system?  This is a summary of what we found in the condition of the sewer collection system or the impacts for you, how  much it will cost to fix and recommendations for additional testing and what to do going forward.

            The project scope was to review existing data, system maps, rainfall data, pump station operations, your flow data from your water plant and your wastewater plant, estimate the potential I&I contribution to the flows at the wastewater treatment plant, evaluate the collection system physical condition based on information provided by the staff and also the order of magnitude cost estimate for the rehabilitation of the system.  When I say system, in this case we really looked specifically at pump station basins one, two, three, four, five and eight.  Then we give you some idea of what additional testing we might need depending on what you determine the direction will be.

            I&I is a problem.  You suspected it was a problem.  You assigned us these basins to take a look at because you knew there were extensive flows at the wastewater treatment plant; particularly after rainfall events.  Looking at the system wide base loads and what happens after rainfall events, not only these six basins we looked at, but overall CSID collection system, about 25% of your base flow on a constant day to day basis is groundwater I&I.  You are treating 25% groundwater every day.  That is roughly .7 MGD, which is 25% of your flow.  During rainfall events, system wide again, you approach 70% of your permitted capacity.

            If you look at just the study area we looked at here, we were able to take some pump station run time data that we were provided, it looks like some of the stations are close to five times what they normally contribute after rainfall events.  Base flows are two times what they would be expected to contribute if you estimated the wastewater flows that would come out of a residential area.  Pump station basins one through five and eight are about double what you see in a system wide basis.  They are contributing more than their share to the overall system.  There may be worse than these basins that we looked at.  These are about double. 

            You have seen this graph before.  It is rainfall events; water treatment plant flow and wastewater treatment plant flow.  Wastewater treatment plant flow is almost always above what you are generating in terms of water.  It gets pretty close during the dry season in February, but still we should be below that; 75% to 80% of the water plant should be getting returned as wastewater.  We are still seeing a base flow.

            Mr. Hanks asked is that different whether you are inland community or whether you are on the coast?  Does it make a difference?  In Pompano you are going to have more people irrigating potable water than you will out here because you have the availability of groundwater and you have the availability of the canal.  Does it make a difference or is it still kind of right along that same percentage?

            Mr. Schwarz responded it seems to be about the same.

            Mr. Hanks stated okay.

            Mr. Schwarz stated even in Key West where they do not irrigate at all we still see similar numbers.

            Mr. Fennell asked where is 20% of the water going?

            Mr. Cassel responded human consumption.

            Mr. Fennell asked really?

            Mr. Hanks responded pools, car washes, not returned to the wastewater system.

            Mr. Fennell stated I guess it actually makes some sense.  People must be doing something.

            Mr. Schwarz stated in just the six basins we looked at the worst basin is basin number one.  I do not know if maybe that is the oldest and that is why it is number one.  It is almost 500% above what you would expect the wastewater flows to be generated from that area.  The best one in this area was number five.  It is really only about a 200% increase.  The other five basins are all in the same range; 2.5%, 300%, up to almost 500%.

            The good news is your manholes seem to be in pretty good shape.  The ones we were able to observe in each one of the basins and based on staff reports, they seem to all be pre-cast concrete.  There are no known problems with them.  There may be some leakage in the joints that we would have to look at when you do your survey, but for the most part the manholes seem to be in good shape.  That is good news for you guys because a lot of systems this age have brick manholes.  They would be a lot more of a problem to restore and you would probably see a lot more I&I.  These are in good shape or appear to be. 

            The bad news is the pipes are in bad shape.  They are all VCP, vitrified clay pipes.  They are about 35 years old.  The thing that is most troubling to me is the report that when they do repairs or they dig up some of this pipe, it crumbles.  Clay pipe is pretty stable.  It is an inert material.  It gets damaged because it has no reinforcement.  It is pretty brittle.  The fact that it crumbles or is somehow destabilized in your ground situation is to me a big problem.  It needs to be investigated further. 

            Mr. Fennell stated okay.  Do that.  You are right.  That stuff should last 1,000 years. 

            Mr. Schwarz stated it should last 20 Million years or however old people are.  There are clay jars being dug up everywhere. 

            Mr. Hanks stated that observation is consistent with my observations on sewer connections that we have done elsewhere in Coral Springs.  The clay pipe is extremely brittle and when you try to cut it, it falls apart. 

            Mr. Schwarz stated I have seen it in brown waters, which I do not think we have out here.  It surprised me to see that observation. 

            Mr. Fennell stated the pipes were not cured.

            Mr. Schwarz stated that is a good possibility.  What I would like to see and what I think you would like to see is how pervasive this is throughout the basin or whether this is just observations where it happens to break and those are the worst cases.  Another observation from the data indicates the response to a rainfall event is very quick.  That suggests that you have got connections directly into the sewer system from some source; some collection system and/or cross connections between stormwater systems and the sanitary system.  Also, it stays up there so it means there are two components.  There is the inflow component where stormwater systems may be connected directly into the system and as the groundwater elevates the I&I stays up there until the groundwater goes down.  You have two components.  You have leaky pipes and potential connections into the system.  What we do not have a good handle on, and when I say ‘we’ I mean you and us, are the condition of the laterals in the system up to the service connection.     

            Mr. Hanks asked do we know if the laterals are PVC or if they are clay as well?

            Mr. Schwarz responded if the main sewer lines are VCP, there is a good chance they are VCP up to the property line where the service connections were made.  As the area developed the pipe may have changed.  We probably have clay pipe coming up the riser and across the street to the property line.

            Mr. Cassel asked Mr. Daly, did staff indicate it was PVC to the ‘Y’?

            Mr. Daly responded yes, to the ‘Y’.

            Mr. Schwarz stated there is a ‘Y’ at the main, which is most likely clay pipe coming up until it gets somewhere in the vicinity of the property line and then it is probably a cleanout ‘T’ or a cleanout ‘Y’.  That may be where it transitions.

            Mr. Fennell asked is there any chance it is just the lift stations and they just have a crack in the wall and there is a lot of water leaking in?

            Mr. Schwarz responded I did not even bother to talk about them.  It is in the report.  Your lift stations are in very good shape.  I am sorry, but that is good too.

            Mr. Fennell stated it is good, but it would have been a simpler fix. 

            Mr. Schwarz asked so what are the impacts?  It is fairly simple to come up with some numbers.  Electricity at just these pump stations is $30,000 a year in extra pumping costs.  When we get to the cost of rehabilitation it is not a big number, but in these times it is something worth considering. 

            Mr. Fennell asked is it $30,000 for all five of those?

            Mr. Schwarz responded all six of those stations on a yearly basis.  When you talk about “being green” and conserving things, that is wasted energy. 

            Mr. Fennell stated over ten years that is $300,000.

            Mr. Schwarz stated save that number in the back of your head for a few minutes.  Current wastewater treatment costs you do not really monitor separately.  It is something we could break out a little further if we got a lot of additional information, but during rainfall periods you are treating four times as much wastewater as you normally would.  There are some costs associated with electric and treatment processes, chemicals.

            Mr. Fennell asked are we saying four times?

            Mr. Schwarz responded during peak rainfall.

            Mr. Hanks stated four times our base load.

            Mr. Fennell stated I thought we were up 70% so that was why I was a little taken.

            Mr. Schwarz stated again, let us hold that number for a few seconds.  There is also a value to the treatment capacity.  If you go back to what I said before, you have about .7 MGD on a regular basis peaking.  During rainfall events there is 2.5 to 3 MGD extra from the rainfall and derived I&I.  Wastewater treatment, the value of that to you is about $10 Million per Million gallons a day.  So .7 MGD on a regular basis is $7 Million worth of capacity that you are not using or you do not have available for other use.  That is just the value of that wasted capacity. 

            You got surcharge conditions in the manholes.  When we looked at the manholes, again, structurally they are in good shape, but they show evidence that they are surcharged.  This means the sewers are backed up.  The sewers are full.  They are running under a pressure condition.  If that head gets backed up far enough you have blockages at service connections.  The velocities are decreased and clogs can develop.  That is a service call.  So surcharge conditions in the sewers is not necessarily a good thing; especially if you have back ups.  If a VCP pipe has degraded, the potential exists for collapses and failures.  If a pipe has no strength at all, any work in the area even under undisturbed conditions you have potential for pipe failure.

            Finally, what is the value to you as a District of continued reliable operation of the collection system?  It just talks about intangibles like loss of service, environmental impacts, public image, regulatory compliance and property damage; anything that can occur if you have a sewer back up or an overflow.

            Mr. Fennell asked the next time we go out and look at one of these pipes which need to be repaired, can we bring back samples?  We can send them to a lab and have them analyzed.  They can look at it a lot of different ways.  We can actually find out whether or not the pipe is good or bad and why it is that way. 

            Mr. Cassel responded we will notify the field crew. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we can bring in one of these samples and we will get enough sooner or later to find out if it is a significant problem.  You probably know of labs.  You guys probably ran them yourself back in college when you were doing all kinds of tests.

            Mr. Schwarz stated I do not think I have ever taken clay pipe and had anyone analyze it. 

            Mr. Fennell stated it is doing something it obviously should not be doing.  We all know how a clay pipe should operate.

            Mr. Schwarz stated another possibility is your attending to a failure that has been damaged for some reason.  The clay pipe needs to be coherent to be strong and if you break a piece out, it does not have anymore strength. 

            Mr. Fennell stated when you said it was crumbling that is different than cracking.

            Mr. Schwarz stated I agree.

            Mr. Fennell stated so there is a molecular reason.

            Mr. Schwarz stated but again, I have not seen the pieces removed.  That is the way it could have been reported.  It could be damaged by equipment.

            Mr. Fennell stated so let us collect real samples going forward. 

            Mr. Hanks asked who reported it?

            Mr. Bulman responded one of the staff.  I do not recall.

            Mr. Daly asked was it a supervisor?

            Mr. Bulman responded I will have to go back and look at the name in my notes.

            Mr. Cassel stated we will get the definition of crumbling from the field to make sure it is the same.

            Ms. Zich asked is it unusual for you to see it crumbling?

            Mr. Schwarz responded I have seen it in saltwater environments.  This is not a saltwater environment.

            Mr. Fennell stated they get 3,000 year old items out of the ocean.

            Mr. Schwarz stated like any kind of corrosion if it is always under water, it is in good shape.  It is when it is exposed to air and cyclical things that the damage occurs.  If the pipe is in water sometimes and then the water table drops, that is the problem.

            Mr. Hanks stated and if a clay pot settles nicely to the ground…

            Mr. Schwarz stated if that pot is always under water for 30,000 years…

            Mr. Hanks stated but if it hits a rock on the way down, forget about it. 

            Mr. Fennell stated there has to be a lab someplace where we can bring two to three samples of this and they will give us an analysis of what happened.

            Mr. Schwarz stated I also have the concern if you do proceed with some kind of lining program; the pipe still has to have some kind of integrity for us to clean and line it.  If we tear it all up when we try to line it, you created another problem.

            Mr. Fennell stated so we really do need to understand at mode of failure.

            Mr. Schwarz stated that is correct.

            Ms. Zich asked is this only in certain areas or is all over?

            Mr. Schwarz responded that is what I am asking.  I do not know.  I am basing it on where you had a service call and some repair.

            Mr. Hanks asked do we have a good understanding as to the extent of VCP versus PVC mains in the District?

            Mr. Schwarz responded the report to us was that basins one through five and eight are all VCP, except for repairs.

            Mr. Hanks asked is the remainder of the District either ductural or PVC?

            Mr. Cassel responded we will check into it.

            Mr. Hanks stated okay.

            Mr. Schwarz asked so how much will it cost to fix?  This is the worst case. 

            Mr. Hanks stated the real issue is the cost not to fix. 

            Mr. Schwarz stated that is something you have to consider when you look at everything you need to do.  For these six basins the estimate is about 75,000 linear feet of mostly eight inch clay pipe.  I am basically considering that we are going to use cured-in-place, which is the technology most people use now for rehabilitating their sewers.  It would be about $2.5 to $3 Million if you lined every pipe, every main, in those six basins.

            Mr. Hanks asked what if it is the laterals?

            Mr. Schwarz responded typically we do not need to line all of the mains if your issues are just reducing the flows.  If it becomes an overall issue of system reliability if we do some tests, we get more information and we find out the pipes District wide or basin wide are in really bad shape, you are not looking at just removing I&I anymore.  You are looking at restoring the value and function of the system, in which case you might make the decision to line all of those pipes.  Typically if you are just looking at removing the worst I&I and the worst runs of those pipes, maybe it is 50% to 75%.  Again, we need more information before you can make those decisions.

            Mr. Fennell stated but that first option for $2.5 Million assumes the pipe is strong enough to be lined.

            Mr. Schwarz stated yes.

            Mr. Fennell asked what if that is not true?

            Mr. Schwarz responded then you are digging it all up, pipe bursting it or some other technology; essentially replacing the pipe.  Cured-in-place is considered a structural replacement, stand alone pipe, 50 year design line.

            Ms. Zich stated we need a lot of study to know what we are doing.

            Mr. Schwarz stated if we need to do lateral work, and nowhere that I have done this sewer lining situation do you not have to do lateral work to recognize improvements in the flows, it essentially doubles the cost of the project. 

            Mr. Hanks stated so you are adding another $2.5 Million.

            Mr. Schwarz stated another $2.5 Million to $3 Million.  The biggest problem is typically the connection seal where the lateral joins the main.  It is either right at the top or it is on the side.  It has a vertical load on its entire life which almost always cracks right at the pipe or at the first fitting right after the pipe, if it was even put together right in the first place.  A lot of these connections somebody just cuts a hole in the top of the pipe, sticks a lateral in there and fills it with grout and in two years the grout is gone so you have a big hole around the outside of the lateral pipe.  I do not know anything about that.  We can dig any of those up, but that would be part of a future investigation to determine how bad the laterals actually are in the system.

            Mr. Fennell asked is there anything from our own field staff?  What have you guys seen out there?  You probably have had to go out. 

            Mr. Stover responded I am not from the field.

            Mr. Cassel stated he is from the plant.

            Mr. Fennell stated okay.

            Mr. Schwarz stated the good news in this right now is the market conditions for sewer rehabilitation are pretty good in South Florida.  We have four nationally recognized contractors, maybe even more, working in the Southeast Florida area.  A lot of communities are at the same point in their system life that you are.  The systems have reached the design life and need to repair.  People are actively lining.  Just in the course of the last six years I have seen the prices for eight inch mainline sewer repair almost cut in half.  Not only is there competition, but once they are here they have their equipment here, they have their crews here and their prices go down.  The timing is good right now. 

            Ms. Woodward asked is that the reduced price?

            Mr. Schwarz responded this price I based on the latest bids we have.

            Mr. Fennell stated I think it is $5 Million right now.

            Mr. Schwarz stated these are based on current market prices in Southeast Florida.

            An unidentified person asked back in the previous slide when you say four times the flow or four times the cost, can you explain that on the previous slide?

            Mr. Schwarz responded I think that number might be inaccurate.  What I said before is that you are about 2.5 times your base flow during peak rainfall events and you get to about 70% of total capacity, which is 8.6.  Base flows are somewhere around 2.5 on a normal daily basis, minus the GWI.  I think this number is a little off.  It is more like twice.

            The record will reflect Mr. Hanks left the meeting.

            Mr. Schwarz stated if there is information which suggests the pipe is severely degraded, you may make the decision to just go ahead and line all these basins and restore the value of the collection system.  If not, we want to target the most I&I prone areas and we need some additional information.  We can do some flow monitoring to each of the pump stations fairly easily without going out and setting up flow meters and a labor intensive program.  These basins are all pretty compact.  There is not a lot of intercept.  Those are all sub basins.  They are all basically collection sewers that terminate at the pump station.  If we had a pump station flow monitor and some pressure readings, we could get accurate data on a monthly basis or two months on what the actual flows are in each of those stations.  That would give us a much stronger idea of how to prioritize the basins and which one is most important. 

            This is probably the most important information we do not have and that is an internal inspection of the sewers.  It would be cleaning and televising all of the sewers in each of the basins.  We would get an idea.  We will not look at the laterals because most of the television companies which actually do the mainline sewers are not set up to do the laterals.  Currently it looks like the lateral guys who do the work do the television.  I can discuss that a little bit more, later.  You can get a feel for what is happening at each later by the visual conditions at the lateral connections.  You will see that worst point that I talked about; the connection in that first joint.  You can see that from inside the main.  Those are the two most important locations and you can see that.

            The cost is about two to four dollars per linear foot so for 75,000 linear feet of sewer we are talking about $200,000 to $300,000 project to internally inspect and clean all of the sewers.  Again, I would like more information on whether or not these pipes are cohesive before we do that.  Maybe we will not do a big project.  Maybe we will do a demonstration project; pick the worst basin like basin one and inspect it.  We may know after the first run if the cleaning is blowing the pipe apart, we will not want to continue with it any further.

            If you are going to remove I&I, the most important information you can get is the internal inspection.  Then you base your contract documents and what actual runs you are going to do off of that information.  We probably also need to do some smoke testing.  I think there are strong indications you have connections to the system we need to identify.  They can be roof drains of individual houses.  It can be storm drain systems, commercial systems; I do not know, but it responds very quickly to rainfall which suggest a direct connection.

            I think I touched on most of these as we talked.  I think you need to decide where this fits; $6 Million is a lot of money.  You have other priorities.  What is important to note is you really do not have a wastewater treatment plant capacity problem unless a need develops for that capacity you are using to treat I&I.  You have adequate capacity in your plant.  As far as I know you do not have any permit concerns, in terms of violating discharge requirements.  This is a big item that may direct how this fits in to the priorities.

            Mr. Fennell asked did we figure out why could not get the water down auxiliary well?

            Mr. Johnson responded no that is actually in progress right now.  What they have recently done is replaced flow meters at injection well one, which is the older well.  Now that it is installed under the monitoring well contract, it makes room for us to go in and look at the mechanical or whatever is impeding the flow going down the well.

            Mr. Fennell asked so we really do not know that one yet?

            Mr. Johnson responded no, but that is a regulatory concern.

            Mr. Fennell stated okay.  That was connected here.  There is an issue, which is we had a back up well and we could not put enough down it.  We did not understand why.  Suddenly we ran into a lot of issues. 

            Mr. Schwarz stated if you have a back up well that is no longer functioning, that changes the discharge capacity.  Then that becomes an issue.

            Mr. Johnson stated regardless, the rated capacity for that is around 5 MGD.  During periods of high rainfall we were looking at 6.5 to 7 MGD.  It still has some difficulty providing redundancy. 

            Mr. Fennell asked so what do we know then?  The severity of the problem is; can we simply state that we are 25% over normal?

            Mr. Schwarz responded 25% of the base flow on a regular everyday basis you are treating.

            Mr. Fennell stated then what happens during heavy rains is we are 70% where we should be.  The consequences of that is we either have to process a lot more water and get rid of a lot more water, which we sort of put money in to do that already.  There is nothing to say that this will not get worse.  Do we know that in any way?  Has anyone looked at this historically?  Over the last 10 years have we gotten worse each year?  You have had these kinds of maps since I have been on the Board so I know you have records somewhere.

            Mr. Schwarz responded it is not going to be getting better.  The pipes are going to continue to deteriorate.  Clay pipes say they have a design life of 100 years.  It probably could be forever if it is in perfect conditions.  A lot of it was not installed right to begin with.  It gets abused by adjacent construction activities. 

            Mr. Fennell asked so what are our options here?

            Mr. Schwarz responded I would think you need to take a look at the cost associated with I&I in the big picture of all the other things you have planned.  The simple part of the sewer system is it is an asset that you own and it is deteriorating.  You might want to restore some level of the value of that asset; whether it is 75% of it or 100% of it.  At some point you will probably have to restore all of it.  The question is whether you do it now or later. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we are going to get samples of the pipes somehow so we can find out the real condition of the pipe.  That is a make or break thing there.  The second thing is even despite all the numbers we have looked at, we have not really gone in to look at any of the pipes yet so we really do not know.

            Ms. Zich asked do we have someone with a camera that is going to go out there?  I thought we were going to do that.

            Mr. Cassel responded we looked at cameras on the laterals.  Our camera will not work.

            Ms. Zich stated I thought we were going to hire someone to do that.

            Mr. Daly stated we also thought of possibly contacting the City of Margate or the City of Coral Springs.  They each have a camera truck and crew. 

            Mr. Fennell asked did we pass a resolution the last time?

            Ms. Zich responded I thought we did.

            Mr. Fennell stated I thought it was something like $25,000.

            Mr. Daly stated actually you would not have.  Mr. Cassel was not here.  I do not believe you did. 

            Mr. Schwarz stated there are a lot of communities doing this right now.  You might be able to piggyback a small portion off of someone else’s contract. 

            Mr. Fennell stated the one nice thing is we are not talking about imminent failure here, but we could be talking about continuous improvement over the years.  Let us look at just lift station number one.  Let us go out and find out, get some cameras or whatever we have to do.  Borrow or rent some cameras.  We will start off on lift station number one and see how severe it is. 

            Mr. Daly stated we are actually getting some Doppler readings right now.

            Ms. Zich asked what is Doppler?

            Mr. Cassel responded it is a flow meter.  In house we are putting Doppler meters to check the flows, which will also give us what is actually flowing through the pipes so we can look at the run times.  If you look at the run time for the pump it will say 35,000 gallons when in reality it will only pump 20,000 gallons.  In reality our readings are telling us one thing and in the real world it is something else. 

            Mr. Fennell asked are you just monitoring how much electricity you put into that motor?  Do you actually have a flow meter there?

            Mr. Daly responded I think it shows the flow because the other meter we originally used would not handle as many solids as where in the pipes.

            Mr. Cassel stated our Doppler meter is showing the flow of the actual fluids through the pipe. 

            Mr. Fennell asked do we have one out there now?

            Mr. Cassel responded yes.  We did not have one before.

            Mr. Daly stated we had a big rain on Thursday so on Friday they were out there and only one of the pumps was running on lift station one.  It should have been both with all of that rain coming.

            Mr. Fennell stated I think you are missing a factor someplace which might be groundwater level or something.  There is some other little factor you are missing. 

            Mr. Daly stated the whole idea is I am not sure we have all the pieces yet.  You go there and find out only one of the two pumps is running and only needed to be, yet you think it would be running 24/7 because of all the water.

            Mr. Schwarz stated your stations are actually designed to handle peak flows with just one pump.  The second pump is there in case of failure.  Rarely do they both need to come on at the same time.  They are not designed to go on both at the same time.

            Mr. Daly stated I will have to look at the run time on that.  That lift station I think comes on a lot.

            Mr. Schwarz stated they should not.

            Mr. Daly stated they did not in this case.      

            Mr. Fennell stated my thinking is we go look at the worst one, we understand what the problem is, what the pipes are like and then maybe we do follow up and try to do something for that one particular lift station rather than tackling everything at once.

            Ms. Zich asked is there a possibility there are only problems in certain areas and not in others and they used different kinds of pipes?

            Mr. Fennell responded this is mostly the older area.  It is the Ramblewood area.

            Mr. Schwarz stated what we were told is these six basins are all VCP installed about 35 years ago.  This is the original development area.  There is another way to measure flows.  There are units called pump station monitors.  They get installed right into the control panel.  You just need to monitor the pressure on the discharge.  They know the wet well volume and they just calculate the flows.  It is simple to use and install.

            Mr. Fennell stated let us get some actual numbers and find out about that pipe.  Then I think we really need to look at these things so we need to get some cameras down here for lift station one in that particular area and look around to see what we actually have.

            Mr. Schwarz stated I do not know exactly how pump station basin one is laid out, but it comes into the pump station from both sides so there is at least two…

            Mr. Daly stated well it is bigger.  Does it not serve 1,800 homes as opposed to others which serve about half?

            Mr. Fennell responded it has 20 horsepower motor.

            Mr. Schwarz stated we could break it up into a little sub-basin and maybe televise the sub-basin. 

            Mr. Daly stated I think because of the run times that one is definitely the worst. 

            Mr. Fennell asked do you need anything more from us?  Do you need an authorization for the cameras?

            Mr. Cassel responded I think we can approach it here from staff.  I think we could probably see if we can get some of this done for under the threshold.  If not, we will look at the piggyback scenario. 

            Mr. Fennell asked does this actually come under any revisions of R&R or repairs?  Do we not have budgets already for repairing equipment and pipes?

            Mr. Daly responded there is R&R, but not necessarily for this.

            Ms. Zich stated not for this many millions.

            Mr. Fennell stated we are not spending millions yet.  We are just looking at finding the problem.  Is that a different budget than actually fixing it?

            Mr. Cassel responded no.  It is still the same pot of money.  Is that right Ms. Woodward?

            Ms. Woodward responded you just have to go through me.

            Mr. Fennell stated at least there is an estimate here of what we think it will cost.  It is $4 Million to $5 Million to do everything, but we need to find out the severity of this issue.  What I did not understand is what the cost savings might be here.  I would like to see more of that.

            Mr. Cassel stated we look into what the reduction of the wastewater treatment cost will be if we reduce it by a million gallons per day out of the wastewater system. 

            Mr. Fennell asked suppose you have this area of six basins and you have at least down to the average of what everything else is, what would that mean to us in wastewater flow and what would it mean to us in operating costs?  I do need to be able to match this off somewhere.

            Mr. Schwarz responded getting the flow data that Mr. Cassel is talking about now is the big part of that.

            Mr. Cassel stated it is key.

            Mr. Fennell stated at that point we can say if we invest $5 Million, we are going to be saving $250,000 a year or $500,000 a year in operating costs, or maybe it does not come down to that.  I do not know what that is.  I still do not have a return in investment on this one.

            Mr. Schwarz stated there are still costs associated with doing emergency sewer repairs.  How much do they cost?

            Mr. Fennell responded that is probably a standard cost we already have and it is probably already in the budget.  We are probably at a run rate where we just handle it. 

            Ms. Woodward asked are we replacing with the same type of pipes?

            Mr. Schwarz responded no.

            Mr. Fennell stated it would be an improvement.

            An unidentified person asked are you saying there are $10 Million in savings per 1 million gallon reduction in flow?

            Mr. Schwarz responded no.  What I am saying is if you needed to build a million gallons per day of wastewater treatment capacity, it would cost you $10 Million, roughly.  It depends on what else you have to do; if you have reuse or advance treatment.  That is what that is worth to you.  You have spent that money already.

            Mr. Fennell stated it is capital cost.  Are we still looking at adding more wastewater treatment in the future?

            Mr. Cassel responded no.  I believe we are fine with our treatment capacity.  With what we have with Plant ‘F’ coming along and the other plant we just had come online, we are good with our treatment capacity.  I think the issue comes in with the extra that triggers into some of the redundancy flows and your redundancy in the wells we are looking at is how much we can put down the well after it is treated.  Say we take a million gallons out of our treatment process everyday, that gives us that extra million gallons we can push down the well if we had to so you are not maximizing your well capacity so when and if you get to that system that you have to push the well past what you are actually at, you are not in that territory where the regulatory agencies are going to say you are above your capacity and you have to do something else such as drill another 24 inch well at a cost of $6 Million.  This is what we are trying to look at internally with staff.  How can we make all of these things, whether it is the piping inside, where we are bringing wastewater in, how we are treating it or how we are getting rid of it, to minimize the potential impact of a regulatory agency telling us we have exceeded this parameter and have to do another $6 Million project?

            Mr. Fennell stated do go back and look at the history because there is another issue here.  My house is now 30 years old.  The ones we are looking at are 35 years old.  All of the area is aging out.  I would like to understand if this has been a continually creeping up problem, which I suspect it has.  It is the oldest area, which would mean if I do nothing; the problem just continues to get worse to a point where five years from now we are going to be adding another treatment plant.  I need to look at a trend here going forward.  I realize this does not happen overnight, but five years from now you could be coming back and asking for another water treatment program because suddenly you have not just Ramblewood, but Shadowood and Maplewood now have these creeping problems which have gotten worse.

            Ms. Zich asked how often are we making repairs in this area?  Is it once a week?  Is it once a month?

            Mr. Daly responded our crews pretty much go out for water line repairs and not as much for sewer line repairs.  It is usually backed up sewer lines.  That is what our guys usually deal with.

            Ms. Zich stated it is not the cracked pipe they are usually repairing. 

            Mr. Daly stated the majority of the time they are out there on water breaks and backed up sewer lines.

            Ms. Zich stated so tell me how often they do repair.

            Mr. Cassel stated I do not know exactly a number, but from listening to staff…

            Ms. Zich stated I want to know how many times in a certain period they are repairing the pipes we are talking about.

            Mr. Daly stated we keep logs so I can get that for you.

            Mr. Fennell stated she has a good point.  People know right away if they do not have any water, but no one goes out and complains, other than us that we have another 100,000 gallons or 50,000 gallons of additional repair.  We do not usually go out and repair for that.  It would have to be a catastrophic failure before we go off, right?

            Mr. Daly responded or blockage.

            Ms. Zich asked so how often are those?

            Mr. Cassel responded Mr. Daly has the records from staff.

            Mr. Daly stated our blockage is usually tree roots at the ‘Y’.

            Ms. Zich stated but the tree roots cause them to crumble and then we have to repair those.  How often does that happen?

            Mr. Daly responded I will find out for you.

            Mr. Fennell stated we may not know the whole thing because in my house, for instance, when I have blockage problems I do not call CSID.  I call a plumber who then comes out with a snake, then goes all the way underneath out toward the line and cuts off a bunch of roots and then it is good for another six months.

            Mr. Daly asked does he come past the ‘Y’ onto our side?

            Mr. Fennell responded what happened was all the roots from the trees we planted on all the yards went looking for water sources.  If that pipe breaks there and it is only a foot or two down, those roots will find their way there. 

            Mr. Schwarz stated one of the other problems with the older clay pipe is they were not rubber gasket joints.  They were packed gaskets and those gaskets just disappeared.  Now you have all the joints which leak too.

            Ms. Zich stated I have never had a problem at my house.

            Mr. Fennell stated we appreciate this.  So you guys are going to go forward and we are going to go look at number one.

            Mr. Cassel stated we will see what other information we can dig out.

            Ms. Zich stated it will be interesting.

            Mr. Fennell stated we are talking about a long term investment.  We will actually solve the problem for another 10, 15 or 20 years.

            Ms. Woodward asked how long were the original clay pipes supposed to last?

            Ms. Zich responded they are talking about 100 years.

            Mr. Cassel stated typically the design limit for a clay pipe is between 50 and 100 years.

            Ms. Woodward stated so we have some that are potentially falling apart at 35 years.  When they say this fix is going to last 50 years, can it only last 30 years?

            Mr. Daly responded no.  That is PVC.  This will last longer than that.

            Mr. Fennell stated there is an anomaly there.  If in fact these pipes are actually crumbling, then these are defective pipes.

            Mr. Cassel stated or the crumbling could be the fact that when a clay pipe is disturbed, it cracks and falls apart easily.  What the field crew may be saying is that when they pick it, it breaks up easy and it will.  You have to be very careful, but once you bed it, if you bed it in the ground properly and compact the fill around it and you do not move the fill, it will stay there for years.  The real determination is what does staff mean when they say ‘crumble’.


FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                             Approval of November Financials and Check Registers

·         Summary of Cash Transactions

·         Projected Cash Flows

·         Engineering Projects

Mr. Fennell asked are there any questions?

Ms. Zich responded no.


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


EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                         Adjournment

            There being no further business,


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






  Glen Hanks                                                                  Robert D. Fennell                              

  Secretary                                                                       President