MINUTES OF MEETING
CORAL SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held Monday, July 17, 2000 at 4:00 P.M. in the District Office, 10300 N. W. 11 Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.
Present and constituting a quorum were:
Robert Fennell President
Clint Churchill Secretary
Karl Miller Vice President
Also present were:
Gary L. Moyer Manager
Rhonda K. Archer Finance Director
Dennis Lyles Attorney
Donna Holiday Recording Secretary
John McKune Gee & Jenson
Roger Moore Engineer
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr. Fennell called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and Mr. Moyer called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the June 26, 2000 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated that each Board member had received a copy of the minutes of the June 26, 2000 meeting and requested any additions, corrections, or deletions.
There not being any,
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of the General Fund Budget and Levy of Non Ad Valorem Assessments
Mr. Fennell opened the public hearing.
Ms. Archer stated I distributed material to the Board that shows the certification of the taxable units. There are 11,268 taxable units for this tax levy we are considering today. That brings the per unit assessment to $63.17.
Mr. Moyer stated that is 30 more units than we anticipated when we put the budget together. Ms. Archer distributed an historical analysis of our assessments going back to 1986. From 1986 through 1996 it was in the $70's and $80's and the reason for that was we were paying principal and interest on bonds. That went away in 1997 when the assessment dropped down to $53 and we continually lowered that, year after year. We are proposing that the assessment go up to $63.17 and the reason for that as we discussed last month is for the sinking fund.
Mr. Fennell stated we are replacing or significantly changing every pump station.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Change Order No. 4 for Interim Wastewater Plant Repairs - Emergency Repairs to Plants A & B - $108,161.48
Mr. Moyer stated the actual change order was included in your agenda package and I distributed to you today a write-up prepared by Mr. McKune on the reasons for the change order being more than we anticipated. I also asked Mr. McKune to go back and give the Board an update on where we are versus what he projected the rehabilitation of Plants A and B to be and that is the document that I distributed to you.
Mr. McKune stated a couple of months ago you authorized us to go ahead with the emergency repairs for Plants A and B because they had ceased providing treatment. At that time we provided an estimate of $25,000 per plant for a total estimate of $50,000. That was based on an expected amount of about $12,500 per week for the contractor's time and material. At that time we estimated that we were going to repair the air diffusion system. As we took the plants down we saw the degree to which it needed to be rehabilitated to get them back into basic operation. I have attempted in the letter that was distributed to you, to give you the detailed items of the work. The original modification work was the purchase and installation of new air diffusers and modifications to the existing below water air distribution piping. Item 2 is removal and disposal of accumulated sludge and debris which in some places was up to 1 1/2 feet deep and in some areas was actually covering the air distribution piping at the bottom of the tank. That in and of itself is a very severe item. The contractor had to cut a fairly large opening into the outer steel shell of the tank to allow him to get in with a bobcat to scoop the debris. It was a very noxious solids material. He then had to temporarily stockpile it on the site and get a special hauler to dispose of it. We then had to repair and modify the tank walls to not only close up the holes but to make the weld repairs to items that we knew were leaking. Item 4 is the removal and disposal of non functional submerged plant components. Item 5 is the fabrication and installation of a new air lift pump and digester decant piping. Item 6 is the installation of the new isolation valves for the air distribution piping. Item 7 is the basic cleaning and repairs to the Plant B sludge return piping. That is a 12" pipe that is cast in concrete at the bottom of the Plant that was totally plugged up.
In looking at the detailed back-up that was included in the agenda package you can see that the Plant A work took approximately three weeks and Plant B which was the worst of the two required approximately five weeks. Those are the numbers based on the detail back-up that the contractor provided to us with a total of $37,670.70 to rehab Plant A and $70,490.78 to rehab Plant B for a total change order amount of $108,161.48.
Based on the original estimate of $12,500 per week we are still within the budget on a weekly basis, it is just that we had a lot more work for them to do. We could not button up the plants after one or two weeks to try to stay at $50,000 because the plants still would not have worked. Mr. Moyer asked me to show you the impact on the overall financial picture of the wastewater plant improvement budget which is shown in the material we distributed. We talked about for some time an approximate $600,000 budget to rehab Plants A and B. If we reduce it by the amount of this change order we have a remaining budget of $492,000. Having done this work and having evaluated the plants when they were down and dewatered, it allows us to defer some items that were in that original $600,000 rehabilitation budget. The three deferred items are the clarifier replacements for $200,000, new walkways for $30,000 and air distribution mains for $50,000 for an estimated total deferred budget amount of $280,000 which would leave approximately $212,000 as the amount remaining to rehab Plants A and B in total. The $212,000 is basically cosmetic in nature and when we take the plants down we will totally repaint the systems. The paint is not a critical item to replace at this time but we do need to take the plants down one more time. Once we get that done and sandblast the plant, paint it, put it back in service than that plant should not need to go down for maintenance except in its periodic five year cycle. The $108,000 is twice what we estimated but it saves us considerably in the overall budget.
Mr. Fennell stated the original $600,000 you talked about, we were not planning on doing that just yet until we ran up against the problems. Our original plan was that we were going to build a new treatment plant, get it built and then hopefully, have the capacity where we wouldn't jeopardize anything but we got to a point where the new one was not built and we had to take these down anyway.
Mr. McKune stated that is correct.
Mr. Fennell stated we were lucky that we didn't have any serious problems during that time.
Mr. Moyer stated I don't believe that we violated any of the treatment standards in doing that.
Mr. Moore stated we have a letter from D.P.E.P. stating that during the period of "emergency down of A and B" that no problems were reported plus all testing by the agency passed standards.
Mr. McKune stated one benefit that I did not mention in the letter was the fact that the odor has been greatly reduced.
Mr. Fennell asked are you sure that we don't need to replace the walkway?
Mr. McKune responded there are portions of the grating that we will replace but not the actual structural support members.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the status of building the separate tank?
Mr. McKune responded we are gathering some budget and purchasing information and we expect that to be out to bid shortly.
Mr. Fennell stated it will be a couple of months to bid that and award that contract and then it will be another six months to a year before that gets done.
Mr. McKune responded four to six months.
Mr. Fennell stated we are talking about one more year. Can these deferred items wait that long?
Mr. McKune responded yes.
Mr. Churchill stated the new tank is not part of this budget.
Mr. McKune responded that is correct.
Mr. Fennell stated the budget was just his estimate.
Mr. Moyer stated on any of this type of repair, until you actually get into it, you really don't know what you are into. Even though this came in about twice what we expected, I think we were all encouraged with what we saw once we got it down and started to clean it out and especially the way the plants have reacted since the repairs have been done. It is very encouraging.
Mr. Fennell stated in order to do these additional items we have to take it down again.
Mr. McKune responded if we were to replace the clarifier, the plant will be taken down.
Mr. Churchill stated it has to be taken down to take out the partition and at that time you can do whatever else you need to do, such as replace the crosswalk or anything else that needs to be done.
Mr. McKune responded if we needed to do that it could be done at that time. The plant would be down much longer to accomplish other work. Now that Plants A and B are working I would not want to take them out of service for an extended period of time at least until Plant E is up and functional.
Mr. Moyer stated according to your schedule if we can get Plant E up and running by the late first quarter of 2001, that means we will be in the dry season for a period of several months which might be beneficial to take those plants down at that time.
Mr. Fennell stated that is really why we were able to take these plants down because we were in the dry season and didn't have the additional water coming in.
Mr. Moyer stated that is why we didn't have any problems.
Mr. Fennell asked what have we changed as it relates to the budget? This isn't actually budgeted yet. What we are saying is that we had an emergency repair of $108,000.
Mr. McKune stated that is correct.
Mr. Fennell stated I would say that was an emergency because when things go wrong you can't go out for bids. Does that cause us a problem?
Mr. Lyles responded no. There was a contract and it is a change order to an existing contract that coincidentally also was an emergency. I am not concerned about the emergency part of it because we are doing the appropriate thing which is coming to the elected Board with a change order for approval to cover this emergency work that had to be done which has been itemized and explained in their application for the change order in the back-up that is attached in your package. We are fine.
Mr. McKune stated this is a change order to a project that was bid.
Mr. Moyer stated the contract that was bid that Mr. McKune referred to was for the installation of the surge tank and related piping.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Request from MasTec Wireless Services to Install an Omnipoint PCS Communications Tower at Plant Site
Mr. Moyer stated the information on this item is in your agenda package. Basically they are proposing to lease part of our plant site to install a tower. They are willing to pay $900 per month, $10,800 per year for that privilege.
Mr. Churchill stated in their letter they are saying $900 but in the contract it states $500.
Mr. Moyer stated there are other things in the contract such as we are warranting that we don't have any hazardous materials. Chlorine is currently considered a hazardous material so we couldn't make that representation. That paragraph would have to be changed. The real issue is how much discretion do we have. We don't have any jurisdiction relative to siting but the use of our District property we have some discretion over.
Mr. Lyles stated I anticipated a discussion of do we want to do this or do we not want to do this. I haven't gone over in any detail the proposed language in their agreement because I am assuming you will want us to go back with a counter proposal. This is loaded in their favor and we would just start from scratch with something that we would want to have. Putting that aside for a moment, I think you are in control over whether you want to allow this use on this property or not. You can make a determination that it doesn't effect in any negative way the operations of the District or impair access to District facilities. It does create a net positive cash flow to help offset District expenses. On the other hand these things are hotly contested in most local jurisdictions where they are proposed and neighboring property owners typically get very upset about it. You may or may not want to have some sort of informational discussion, give some sort of notice to people within a reasonable distance of the proposed location. I don't know if they have done what needs to be done in terms of the local emergency operations, police, fire, EMS and things of that nature to see if there is any sort of cone of interference that could be a problem, that is something we would have to get straight with the City of Coral Springs. I think it is within your discretion to say we like the idea, staff go get the hard points of the proposal and bring it back to us in the most advantageous way possible for the District or I think you would be perfectly within your discretion to say, we have enough going on with this relatively tight site, we don't think we want to have something else built here with someone else having access to our site to deal with the tower. It is your judgment call to make at this point.
Mr. Miller asked where do they contemplate putting the tower?
Ms. Archer responded they would have to coordinate that with our field people and we haven't gotten that far. This is on your agenda for discussion and conceptual approval or disapproval of the idea.
Mr. Miller stated it is a 14 story structure.
Mr. Fennell stated it is interesting because those structures are needed around. They put one in a park near my house recently. It's not too bad. The problem is that the City felt guilty about it and wanted to come back and improve the park and the controversy was over improving the park as opposed to the tower. There are a couple of things that are interesting. I don't know that $900 is enough for an antenna site. What discretion do we have to put one up? If we can't site things, do we have to go to the City anyway?
Ms. Archer responded we would require them to go to the City and get the required permits.
Mr. Fennell stated if it is worth doing, it might be worth us doing it. That sounds kind of strange but usually on each of these antenna sites, it is not just one. You will see a number of different people using the site for a variety of different purposes. Motorola at times would actually buy the tops of buildings and at that point control the site and sublet to a number of different people. We may think we are dealing only with one but it may end up with 3, 4, or 5 different people using that site. If you have noticed on towers there are different rings, one under another. Each one is a different system and each one getting a cell site. Cell sites are typically expensive so this site may be very valuable from that point. The second thing besides that, if you can ever prove to me it is worth money, is if we are ever going to automate some of our facilities by radio control, we will in fact have to have a tower anyway in which we will have to be able to control left and right in our own area. We would want to have at least a portion reserved on this tower for our own use.
Mr. Moyer stated that is probably the only way we could justify doing the tower as a commercial venture because we are not authorized under the statute to be in the telecommunications business.
Mr. Fennell stated we, as a utility, can erect things that we need to control. There are several things we have talked about over time. We have talked about control of the pumps for the water. We have talked about control of reading meters and we have talked about control of the lift stations and automating all of these from time to time. We just have to make sure it is economically feasible. It might become more economically feasible if we owned our own site, had our own tower, subleased the tower which brings in more money which enables us to afford the things that we want to do.
Mr. Miller asked how substantial a tower are we talking about?
Mr. Fennell stated they want 145'.
Mr. Miller asked is it a thin tower?
Mr. Churchill stated there is one on Lakeview and it is disguised as a huge pine tree.
Mr. Fennell stated it is an interesting proposal but at $10,000 annually it is not enough.
Mr. Churchill stated it is not enough to me for an enticement but to be able to handle our future needs on the same site, may make sense.
Mr. Miller stated you could probably handle our needs with a much smaller tower that is not going to be obvious to the neighbors. If I am not mistaken we have some neighbors ask us to put a landscape buffer to block the view. If they didn't like the view of our plant site, they are not going to like a 145' tower.
Mr. Moyer stated the only negative that I thought of when I looked at the request was we have a litigious group of people who sit next door to us and if they can make the claim that that wasn't part of our authorization, I think we would buy ourselves some problems in that direction.
Mr. Fennell stated you are going to see more and more of these towers everywhere. There is a big battle focusing between wire line and wireless people and the battle is over who controls the last 50' into your house, whether it is going to be cable or RF. You will end up seeing both and you will see more of these towers. You may see one in every block, maybe not 145' tall but you may see one at 75' or 100'. It will broadcast in that block and it is going to broadcast everything. There is going to be somebody competing with them trying to put a cable in every house.
Mr. Churchill asked is this an environmental issue, not in the sense of the view of the tower but in the emissions? As an example, the scare about cell phones and brain cancer.
Mr. Fennell stated there is only 6 watt output in your cell. It is low power.
Mr. Churchill stated getting back to our litigious neighbors, this wouldn't be a health hazard to them?
Mr. Fennell stated I don't think it would but they might perceive it that way if we are going to end up having RF communications to these various different things as we try to automate and cut our own costs. It is too expensive for the reading of meters to have anything else besides RF. I don't think we can afford to wire every house.
Mr. Miller stated I am inclined against it at first blush but I would listen to someone to come in and talk about it objectively, not someone to come in and sell it but someone to give some kind of report on how these have faired in other areas. If we can get by with a 20' tower for our own purposes somewhere down the road then I can't see that would legitimize putting up a 145' tower.
Mr. Moyer stated one thing we can do is check with the City because they are putting these things in city parks. We can find out under what circumstances they are permitting those and at what rate they are being compensated for it and whether they have done the research. I can't help but believe that they did a lot more research than we have in terms of the issues that Mr. Churchill brought up. If you don't mind and you want to keep the ball in the air we can ask for that information and bring it back to you.
Mr. Churchill stated I think it is too soon to drop it. We should look at it without committing to anything.
Mr. Fennell stated I think it is worth looking at. I would not look too hard at their contract. I would look more to the things that we want to get out of this which is without a doubt, we want to reserve at no cost to us ever, the right to have our own stuff up there.
Mr. Churchill stated the contract is stacked in their favor. They want unrestricted access at all hours and our crew to back them up and our facilities on an emergency basis. We need to look at that.
Ms. Archer stated we can have someone from this company come to the Board and answer your questions.
Mr. Miller stated if we can get some kind of paperwork from them and from the City where they have put them up in parks, that may give us an idea before we bring someone in.
Mr. Fennell stated I thought the City was getting $20,000 per site. Another issue is that phone companies and wireless companies are going through cases of being bought out and even though they talk about a multi-year lease, we could be dealing with someone entirely different in two or three years. The direction to staff is to find out more about this, get some more information, find out the competitive rates and let's see what other kinds of things if you think we are going to use this would be to our competitive advantage to have.
Mr. Moore stated if you are going to get information from them I would like to know if they have anything on lightning strikes on these towers. We have enough problems with instrumentation around here. I would not like to have a lightning rod in the middle of this facility. I would like to know the history. If it is grounded and hit, it stays right there in the ground or is it going to effect instrumentation that we have throughout the plant site.
Mr. Churchill stated if it doesn't effect the instrumentation, it might be an advantage.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Permit for Taravella High School Classroom Addition
Mr. Moyer stated the back-up material for this item was not in your agenda package. This has been added to your agenda to accommodate the School Board in moving forward. Gee & Jenson has reviewed this request and I will read their letter into the record. "The applicant is proposing the addition of a classroom building of .51 acres and modification of existing rock and asphalt areas all within an existing 30.79 acre school site. This project has one drainage outfall into the C-14 Canal." The C-14 Canal is not under our jurisdiction, that is the South Florida Water Management District. "Based upon our review of the plans and calculations submitted, we are of the opinion that the project meets the District's criteria and will not adversely impact the District's facilities. Should the Board approve this application, we recommend the following special conditions. The last drainage structure prior to discharge off site and into an existing system, shall be pollutant retardant structures. Please clarify the location of any drainage outfalls for this site and provide pollution retardant baffles as required. The drainage system relies on existing pipe and exfiltration trenches to operate properly. The entire system shall be flushed clean and cleared of debris at the conclusion of construction. The last length of pipe must be one continuous piece of corrugated aluminum pipe at outfalls a maximum of 40 lineal feet where applicable." The rest of the provisions are our standard condition.
Mr. Fennell stated if they outfall into the C-14, why are they asking us?
Mr. Moyer responded they are asking us because we were delegated the authority by the South Florida Water Management District to approve surface water management permits under 40 acres. Otherwise, you are right, if it doesn't involve a facility that we operate in the normal course we would not get involved in this but since it is under 40 acres, we have been delegated that authority and that is why it is before you.
Mr. Fennell asked do they drain into the Sunshine canal because that is right behind the school?
Mr. Moyer responded no. According to this, they are draining directly into the C-14 Canal.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
Mr. Lyles stated since our last Board meeting we have had no new activity in the filings on the claim that has been assigned to Centex against the District. I think I told you that the claims adjuster for our insurance company contacted me and discussed some of these issues and they are doing their background checking. I haven't heard a word from them. At this point it is still under review. They have not indicated yes, no or maybe or anything else on the coverage dispute that they reserved the right to take to court. We have had no contact from Centex or their in-house general counsel who initiated this process. The status on that is unchanged from three weeks ago.
Mr. Fennell asked because they haven't contacted us, does that mean that nothing is happening?
Mr. Lyles responded no. Since we are a government agency, there is a statutory period during which either the District or its claims adjuster in this case or its counsel in another case is permitted to analyze the matter, do whatever research and take statements if appropriate, check all of the records and that is one reason they asked me to assist them in that effort, to try to evaluate and strengthen the defenses the District is going to have to these claims that have been assigned to Centex by our neighbors. This is what is going on now and because it is a very unique set of claims and the issues are very complicated, based on my very first conversation with the insurance company, it is clear to me they are going to take essentially the whole six months to carefully review everything on this. It is a lot of money and it is an unusual type of claim and I don't think we are going to get a quick analysis or yes or no out of them. I think it will take awhile and what we have done and will continue to do is assure them that we will cooperate in every way possible with their efforts to evaluate this matter as we are required to do by our insurance policy so that we don't do anything to jeopardize our coverage. That is the process we are in now. It does not surprise me that I haven't had a phone call or letter in the past three weeks.
Mr. Fennell stated given that we are required to be cooperative, it might be nice to say we are still here, ready and able to assist them at any point in a letter.
Mr. Lyles stated I will contact them and indicate that we have had a Board meeting and the status of the background investigation came up again and is there anything new and is there anything we can do. I will do that.
1. Monthly Water & Sewer Charts
2. Update on Construction
3. Status Report on Pump Station Construction
Mr. Fennell stated I received in the mail a letter on the pump. How are we doing on those?
Mr. Moore stated all of the pumps are made and ready to be delivered. Underwater where the pumps attach there is a sleeve that goes through the concrete. The bottom 30% of those flanges and pipe have rusted away over the years and we are experiencing some difficulties. We met there on Friday with several consultants and thought we came up with a good solution but this morning they encountered some additional problems and they want to have another meeting tomorrow to try to find a solution to the problem with the sleeve. The problem is that the wall that the sleeve goes through is uneven by as much as three inches and we can't get it sealed to ensure that the pipes won't leak. We are looking at a sleeve or grouting. If we find a solution tomorrow they have assured me that they will have the first pump installed by Friday or Monday at the latest and follow that schedule, one pump every week thereafter.
Mr. Fennell stated you are about two weeks behind on this schedule.
Mr. Moore stated that is correct.
Mr. Moyer stated one of the things that I sense from the discussion we had three weeks ago that was a concern to the Board and I don't think we did a very good job of explaining this to the Board, we will have through this whole process three pumps that are operational in each station. I sense that when we left last month, there was some confusion about if we didn't get the pumps in we don't have pumps. We currently have operating at each pump station, three pumps, which is all we are permitted to have. It is in our interest to get this done as quickly as possible and we have been pushing relentlessly to get it done and we have also contacted a pump supplier if we have an emergency we can pull in a hydraulic pump. We are operational. In C.S.I.D. one as you are aware we replaced a couple of those pumps last year. C.S.I.D. two is the most vulnerable and that is why we want to get these pumps in but they are still operating. They are still running, we haven't had problems with those pumps but it doesn't mean if we turn them on in a storm we are not going blow both of them apart like we did with C.S.I.D. one, but as we sit here today we have capacity.
Mr. Churchill asked with the introduction of a sleeve, wouldn't that reduce the capacity of the flow?
Mr. Moore responded no. They are 54" pumps and we are going to reduce it to 53". We may reduce it to 51". We originally talked about reducing it to 48" and they told me that we wouldn't have a significant problem. We are going to look at the hydraulics but I don't think it is going to effect the hydraulics unless we take away 30%. We just have to look at it.
Mr. McKune stated it really won't affect it because those discharge pipes don't flow full.
Mr. Churchill stated you are saying it will not create any back pressure on the pump.
Mr. McKune responded that is correct.
Mr. Churchill stated I appreciate the diligence you are proceeding on this and I appreciate the fact that there was special information mailed to us. There is a sense of urgency about it and I think that is what the Board was concerned about last month. I would like to say, well done, for what you have done so far.
Mr. McKune discussed with the Board replacement of the drive unit for Accelator No. 3 with an approximate cost of the drive unit that can be purchased directly by the District for approximately $11,500, installation can be accomplished by Intrastate Construction Corporation, currently under contract to the District, for an amount of approximately $3,500.
Mr. Fennell stated last month we talked about finding out ways of methodically going after preventative maintenance and inspection of our hardware so we don't get surprises and you were going to find a company to come in and do a survey. How are we doing on that?
Mr. Moyer responded we are pursuing a couple of sources. One is through Severn Trent which is the firm I work for and I have arranged for Jim Beckstrom to come in and look at all of our operating protocols and do a report for us. In addition, Ms. Archer has been talking to an engineer who does not design plants or compete with civil engineering firms but rather does critical peer review. We have been talking to him as well. We will probably come back to you at our next meeting with proposals from the engineer who does the peer review.
Mr. Miller asked has he ever worked with the District before?
Ms. Archer responded not with the District but he has worked with West Palm Beach Utilities and places like that and he was referred to me by one of the firms I am familiar with that constantly has them on board, hired by the government agency, to do the peer review of all of their work. He is going to give me a proposal and it should be here this week and it will be broken into different tasks. As soon as I get that I will review it and if it has everything in it that I think you want, I will send you a copy to take a look at. That will relate more to what we have constructed and what we are proposing to construct in the expansion that we have been talking about, not necessarily on the operations and maintenance side but we have talked on and off over the years about the value engineering of what is out there and what is being proposed.
Mr. Fennell stated we want maintenance and preventative engineering and ways of inspecting so that we know when to replace things and methods of inspecting so that we will know that. Right now you have an engine that you have a feeling may not last too long but you are not sure and you can't call it an emergency because it hasn't failed. We are not sure exactly what to do. We want something that is going to give us a clue that we ought to be doing something more to the point, more real data specific or a method of finding out. We need this for the whole thing because we have a plant that is aging. We are repairing things as needed. We need that and also you are right about having something that is good management of the projects. Both of those are important. I will give you an example of what I saw when I worked for Motorola. We had quality inspection teams that would come in and they would do an inspection of the entire site for three or four days and there were standard ways of inspecting. Everyone always hated them coming in but three months later you open up the report and find they were right. It was right there, they saw it, we just didn't want to believe it and we should have been doing that. That is another method and it might be what you are talking about with the peer review. Severn Trent might have something like that already.
Mr. Moyer stated I think they do. They have a very good technical department because they are managing hundreds of plants like this. They are concerned about their own operating protocol and do a lot of their own internal auditing to make sure that they are running their plants right.
Mr. Fennell stated you will be able to come to us and say this thing has been out here fore ten years, the current has fallen by 50%, the flow is so and so and we took a meter up to it and we could hear the bearings are going. There are probably inspection methods like that but you would have to be in the inspection business to know those methods.
There not being any, the next item followed.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor's Requests and Audience Comments
There not being any, the next item followed.
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Invoices
Meeting adjourned at 5:10 p.m.
Clint Churchill Robert Fennell