The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held Monday, December 17, 2001 at 4:05 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            Superintendent

            Rhonda K. Archer            Finance Director

            Dennis Lyles            Attorney

            Donna Holiday            Recording Secretary

            John McKune            Gee & Jenson

            Roger Moore            Engineer




            Mr. Fennell called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. and Mr. Moyer called the roll.


SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the November 19, 2001 Meeting

            Mr. Fennell stated that each Board member had received a copy of the minutes of the November 19, 2001 meeting and requested any additions, corrections or deletions.

            There not being any,


On MOTION by Mr. Churchill seconded by Mr. Miller with all in favor the minutes of the November 19, 2001 meeting were approved as submitted.


THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Request to Submeter at the Mews at Maplewood

            Ms. Archer stated the District adopted several years ago a policy for multi-family projects to submeter their water and rebill it to their residents to encourage water conservation.  The Mews is the applicant that went through the process with staff, filled out the required paperwork, and met all of our requirements.  We recommend approval to allow them to remeter the water.  One of the requirements is that if they remeter to each individual unit and charge each unit for their actual usage, they can't charge that unit owner more than we are charging them.  They can't gross it up and make a profit or cover their administrative costs.  They can just remeter and charge what we have charged them. 

            Mr. Fennell asked who will send out their bill?

            Ms. Archer responded we send the HOA the bill for the master meter.  The HOA takes that bill and based upon the meter readings they get off of the individual meters, reallocate it to each unit.

            Mr. Fennell asked who pays for the meters?

            Ms. Archer responded they have always been master metered and they paid for the master meter.  They will now pay for the individual meters.  All we do is give them permission to do it.


On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Churchill with all in favor the request to submeter at the Mews at Maplewood was approved.


FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Change Order No. 1 with Azurix North America Underground for a Net Increase of $1,322,770

            Mr. Moyer stated you may recall that Mr. Moore has been championing the cause of lining gravity sewer lines in the older sections of the District, notably, Ramblewood, Ramblewood South and Shadow Wood.  We put out for bid some time ago a specification to do that relining on a lineal foot basis.  Mr. Moore made a presentation at that time that we would come back to the Board, after certain work is done and we can gauge the effectiveness of the lining work on the sections that were completed, with recommendations to do additional lift stations.  Even though this is shown as a change order, it is a change order based upon a competitive bid we took some time ago in anticipation of doing these types of change orders. 

            Mr. Miller asked what is the ultimate cost of this project going to be?

            Ms. Archer asked do you mean if we reline all the clay pipes in all the areas that have clay pipes?

            Mr. Miller responded yes.

            Mr. Moyer stated we stopped using clay pipe after we started going into Shadow Wood.  You have Ramblewood and Ramblewood South and some of Shadow Wood but for the most part everything lying west of University Drive was done with PVC.  We haven't had the infiltration problems with PVC.  Years from now we may be sitting here with a problem with PVC as well but at this point in time PVC has proven to be a much better material to use in pipes than clay.  Once  we work our way through the area east of University Drive, we will be done.

            Ms. Archer stated we camera the area and in the past we have brought in the film showing the infiltration of the clay pipe.  Each time they camera the area and this is the last one that we tv'd and we identified the number of lineal feet of pipe that we need to reline based upon that work.  We are not redoing all the clay pipe.  We are doing it in pieces with the camera and that determines how many lineal feet.

            Mr. Miller stated based on this, it will probably be in the area of $5 million for the whole project.

            Mr. Moore stated I believe my estimate in the presentation was $5.6 million. 

            Mr. Moyer stated we are doing this in part under a commitment that we made to Broward County as part of the odor complaints and part of the permitting we are going through on the wastewater treatment plant was that we would look at the infiltration issue.  Mr. Moore did a report that was provided to the Board that indicated the first go around did make a noticeable impact on reducing the run times on the pumps which results in lower inflow into our sewer treatment plant.  When this work is done we will want to take a breather and see what the overall effect is because we will have done a quarter to a third of the the worst areas.  We are moving in from the worst areas to the best areas.  The other way to handle infiltration is to treat it.  That is not overly efficient but we can do that.  We are going to have a new 1,750,000 gallon wastewater treatment plant and it may be a combination of going forward and getting this part of the work done and the new plant. 

            Mr. Moore stated we are correcting things in the order of need.  We corrected the two worst ones first.  After these three and we tv three more we may suspend doing this.  It will give me approximately 6 months to evaluate the two stations we have done and once this is done it will give me three or four months to evaluate the success of these and the combination of additional capacity, we might want to spread out relining over a longer period of time or suspend it. 

            Ms. Archer stated during the rainy season with the infiltration, we exceed our rated capacity.  If we can cut down on a lot of that infiltration during the rainy season, we will be in much better shape.  We need data from the rainy seasons more than we need data from the dry seasons.

            Mr. Miller asked what does this do to our budget?

            Ms. Archer responded this is in our operating budget. 

            Mr. Fennell asked how much does it cost per linear foot?

            Mr. Moore responded $33.00 per foot.  Our contractor will hold that price for two years.

            Mr. Fennell asked what does it cost to lay new pipe?

            Mr. McKune responded you can lay new sewer pipe for about $10 per foot but if you do that here, you also have to rebuild the road because the pipe in under the road.  It is a totally different project. 

            Mr. Moore stated you would also have to take care of the flows and laterals while you do that work.  It could go to $50 to $75 per foot. 

            Mr. Churchill stated it is too early in the project to get an estimate on the length of time it will take to recover our investment based on the savings on inflow and processing.  There is no way to do that yet is there?  As we advance we will be able to get a better idea. 

            Mr. Moyer stated when we get done with this phase, I think we need to look at what we have with new treatment plant capacity plus the amounts of money we spent doing the worst of the old area and you may come to the conclusion that it doesn't cost justify doing the other four or five lift stations that we have left.

            Mr. Moore stated that is correct.  Somewhere in the next 25 to 30 years the structural integrity of these pipes will probably be lining anyway because the upper 2/3 of the clay pipe are all cracking and becoming structurally unsound.  You will probably have to do it.  We are doing an accelerated rate to also take care of the infiltration.  By doing almost half of the worst conditions, we will be able to evaluate to see the cost benefit ratio. 

            Mr. Churchill asked does the lining add integrity?  I thought it was a film lining.

            Mr. Moore responded it becomes the equivalent of a plastic pipe structurally.  You will not have to worry about it structurally in the future.

            Mr. Churchill stated I remember from the presentation that all this work would be done through add on orders. 

            Ms. Archer stated that is why we bid it on a lineal foot basis.

            Mr. Moore stated it was listed that way in the bid specs.  After the second year if we extend it, they will be entitled to a 5% increase if the industry shows that.  At this time there has been no increase.  The County and the City of Coral Springs are both paying $33.00 and they are using the same contractor.

            Mr. Moyer stated the only concern that I have is that Azurix is a subsidiary of Enron. 

            Mr. Moore stated we don't pay the contractor until it is in the ground and we have payment and performance bonds. 

            Mr. Moyer stated as long as we don't get ahead of him and only pay for the work he performs, then I don't have a problem with it. 

            Mr. Fennell stated we have put in two lift stations, you must have a comparison year to year on the run time of the lift stations.

            Mr. Moore stated our first project has a decrease of 34%.  the second lift station has a decrease of 82%.  Together this represents a 56% reduction between the average of the two or .2 MGD flow reduction to the plant. 

            Mr. Churchill stated we are doing this in increments and we can stop at any stage of the project.  This may have a greater impact than we thought because we haven't really had a rainy season. 

            Mr. Fennell asked are there any legal issues?

            Mr. Lyles responded it was bid as a unit price contract and we have the option to do some, a substantial portion or all of the relining or none.  It is really set up by staff so that you can pick and choose and do it the way you want to do it.  The only caveat being that the price is good for two years without an increase.  You can also at any time choose to bid it again if you think circumstances in the industry have changed. 


On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Churchill with all in favor Change Order No. 1 with Azurix North America Underground for a Net Increase of $1,322,770 was approved.


FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Request for Drainage Permit for Washington Mutual Bank

            Mr. Moyer stated there is a letter from Gee & Jenson in your agenda package along with a map showing the location of the project as being between Riverside Drive and University Drive off of Atlantic Boulevard in the mall area. 

            Mr. McKune stated we recommend approval contingent upon receiving the first item in the list of conditions which is redoing their site storage volume. 


On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Miller with all in favor the request for a drainage permit for Washington Mutual Bank was approved subject to the conditions listed in the engineer's review letter.


SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS          Staff Reports

          A.          Attorney

            Mr. Lyles stated I reported at the last meeting that we would go before the legislature this year and submit a local bill to codify our special act.  I submitted 30 copies along with the economic impact statement and things of that nature on behalf of the District a couple of months ago in accordance with the rules of the delegation.  About two weeks ago when I attempted to confirm our place on the agenda for local bills, I learned that we were not on the agenda; that our bill was not going to be placed on the agenda this year at the direction of the new chairman of the legislative delegation, Representative Ritter.  She did the same thing with the North Springs proposed codification bill as well.  We have an absolute deadline of 2004 to do this under the statute we are operating under, a provision of Chapter 189 that applies to all special districts throughout the State of Florida.  However, a time table was established for the different districts, depending on how many amendments they have had, to submit their proposed bills and we were trying to stay with that time table.  We will resubmit the bill next year.  We have technically complied with the statute, because the requirement is that you submit the bill; we can't guarantee that it will pass.  We have submitted a codification bill that meets all the legal standards and all the administrative standards for such a bill.

            Mr. Fennell stated I had a conversation with Representative Ritter.  She has decided the priorities for the Broward Delegation.  She knew this wasn't due until 2004.  Her view was that there were some key things she wanted to get through first which is annexation of a number of areas into cities. 

            Mr. Lyles stated at the time of the hearing for local bills such as ours, the Legislative Delegation was having contentious hearings over annexation bills.  That is a political hot potato and we recognize they did have a packed agenda for that particular day.

            Ms. Archer stated I think it is very important for DCA to know that we tried to file our codification bill last year and this year to be in compliance with the schedule and what happened when we filed.


          B.          Engineer

                 1.                 Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

                 2.                 Update on Construction

            Mr. McKune stated I have a change order that is not on the agenda.  We have had some problems with the older, large wastewater pipes that have been in the ground for 10 to 20 years.  We had some very serious breaks in the past and since we have awarded the most recent contract with the same contractor currently doing the Phase I B improvements, we decided to reroute the 24" line that goes from the headworks building to the treatment unit so that we can bypass about 300 feet of the old piping that was starting to leak.  Last month we approved the change order to replace and repair one major intersection of the old large pipe and this change order represents another intersection where we have added new pipe to replace the old. 

            1.            The addition of furnishing labor, materials and equipment to install extensions to the 24" raw wastewater line to facilitate the next improvement project $38,698.73

            2.            The addition of furnishing labor, materials, and equipment to install 14" line stop and associated piping repairs to modify old piping of headworks structure $17,906.11

            This is a result of the contractor making an excavation to install new piping and uncovering a line that should not have been there, that should have been plugged at a previous expansion about five years ago.  This caused another break in the line and it took several days to clear out the mess. 

            Mr. Miller asked is this because a pipe was put in incorrectly five years ago?

            Mr. McKune responded when the last job was done around the headworks, the old plans show that this line should have been cut and plugged at a certain location.  That, apparently was not done.

            Mr. Miller asked who did that work?

            Mr. McKune responded it is not a current contract, nor is it a contractor we can go back on now.  There may have been a reason for not doing it at that time. 

            Mr. Miller stated I realize it is not a current contract but we should watch out if we do business with that particular company in the future.

            Mr. McKune responded I understand.

            Mr. Lyles asked are you satisfied that this potentially defective piece of work was open or was it concealed?  In other words we wouldn't have known to ask the contractor five years ago to correct the problem until we ran into this, during this job?

            Mr. McKune responded that is correct.  This is what I will call a latent underground condition, that no one was aware of.

            Mr. Lyles stated we may have some remedies available to us if it was concealed, not intentionally concealed but it would not have been apparent to a reasonable inspection or reasonable owners view and maybe we ought to pursue that with that contractor and its insurer.

            Mr. McKune stated the functional result of the previous contract was "as required" by the plans.  Assume you have a pipe that is 25 feet long and the original plans call for it to be cut and plugged at the end of the first 10 feet, however, there is another valve located 75 feet away.  As long as that valve is closed, the function is served.  You can close the valve or you can put in a plug.  For whatever reason it was decided to just shut the valve and eliminate the pipe from that point.  Functionally, it did the job.  We did some excavation in the middle of that length of pipe and the pipe was busted on the top.  That was a field decision at the time.  I would not fault the previous contractor for not having done what his contract intended for him to do. 

            Mr. Moyer asked what is on the as-builts?

            Mr. McKune responded the as-builts show the plug as originally designed.

            Mr. Miller asked didn't we pay him to put in a plug?  I am sure he charged a bit of money for that.

            Mr. McKune stated that would have been an item that would come out as a credit.

            Mr. Churchill stated someone ought to look at what was supposed to have been done and then see what was done and whether what was done, was done in a manner where we couldn't ensure compliance.  If he charged us to take out extra lines or put in a plug, all the time knowing all he had to do was close a valve 15' away, there is some duplicity there.

            Mr. Moyer stated we will look at that.

            Mr. McKune stated perhaps I am not making myself clear.  Ten years ago we had a contract and the contract was to perform a function.  That function was performed; not in the manner indicated on the original design but in a manner that functionally was acceptable at that time. 

            Mr. Moyer stated all they want to do is look at the pay request and if it was supposed to be a plug and there were materials to plug it, whether in fact we paid for the plug and didn't get one or whether we deleted the materials, recognizing all he had to do was close a valve 75 feet away.

            Mr. McKune responded I don't think we will be able to find that in a pay request from ten years ago.  That is a relatively minor amount and that is the kind of thing that would have been played off against something of equal value that was an addition to the contract. 

            Mr. Fennell stated the general consensus is that we want you to see if you can find those records.

            Mr. McKune responded we can do that.  That doesn't change what this contractor was required to do.

            3.            The addition of furnishing labor, materials, and equipment to repair and plug the existing 14" raw wastewater line to Plant "A" $7,448.75

            4.            The addition of furnishing labor, materials, and equipment to repair and replace the failed skimmer arm on Plants "C" and "D" $1,210.00


On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Churchill with all in favor Change Order 4 with Intrastate Construction Corp. for the Wastewater Treatment Facility Phase IB Improvements Contract in the amount of $76,554.30 was approved.


          C.          Superintendent

            There not being any, the next item followed.


          D.          Complaints

            Mr. Miller stated I would like to get a print out of the emails we received.

            Ms. Archer stated I will get that for you.


SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor's Requests and Audience Comments

            There not being any, the next item followed.


EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Invoices for October and November


On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Churchill with all in favor the invoices for October and November were approved.


On MOTION by Mr. Churchill seconded by Mr. Miller with all in favor the meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.






Clinton Churchill                              Robert Fennell

Secretary                              President