The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, September 20, 2004 at 4:05 p.m. in the District Office, 10300 N. W. 11 Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.


            Present and constituting a quorum were:


            Robert D. Fennell                                 President

            William Eissler                                      Vice President

            Glen Hanks                                            Secretary


            Also present were:


            Gary L. Moyer                                       Superintendent

            Rich Hans                                               Staff

            Dennis Lyles                                          Attorney

            Donna Holiday                                      Recording Secretary

            John McKune                                        CH2M-Hill

            Ed Flavin                                                CH2M-Hill

            Roger Moore                                           Engineer

            Ed Goscicki                                             Severn Trent


FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS             Roll Call

            Mr. Fennell called the meeting to order, and Mr. Moyer called the roll.


SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS         Approval of the Minutes of the August 16, 2004 Meeting

            Mr. Fennell stated that each Board member had received a copy of the minutes of the August 16, 2004 meeting and requested any additions, corrections or deletions.

            There not being any,


On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the minutes of the August 16, 2004 meeting were approved as submitted.


THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS            Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund Budget

            Mr. Fennell opened the public hearing and asked are there any questions or comments from the public?

            Hearing none,

            Mr. Hanks stated we are budgeting $33,000 for chlorine gas and chlorine liquid.  Last year’s budget was slightly under $20,000.  Is this because of the difference in price in going from chlorine gas to liquid?

            Mr. Moore responded yes.  We based these numbers on our current prices.  In fact, last Thursday, we started sodium hydrochloride facilities.  It is working right now, and we are doing a little tweaking on it.

            Mr. Hanks stated this represents a 68% increase over last year.

            Mr. Moore stated the cost for sodium hydrochloride has not increased significantly in the last year, but we recently received notice that the liquid chlorine gas is increasing.  We are also using more chlorine in the sewer plant operation because we have more injection points.

            Mr. Fennell asked what did we budget for odor control last year?

            Mr. Hanks responded approximately $120,000.

            Mr. Moore stated we estimate that this amount will be significantly reduced because we are only using odor control on Plant B, which is closest to the property line by the headworks and the surge tank.  This is our projection, and we will monitor this.

            Mr. Hanks stated when you compare CH2M-Hill’s administration and operation services to what was prediction through July 31, last year’s numbers are considerably over our predicted for next year’s budget.

            Mr. Moyer stated we assume normal engineering support.  The engineering number is driven by our capital projects.

            Mr. Hanks stated last year’s engineering fees in last year’s water and sewer budget was $10,000 and $19,000 was spent through July 31.  There is a similar increase in the general fund also.

            Mr. Hans stated water and sewer increased from $10,000 to $15,000.

            Mr. Hanks asked are we going to undertake fewer capital projects next year?

            Mr. Moyer responded no.  CH2M-Hill will bill for the work that they put into doing the capital projects budget.  The actual capital projects come out of a renewal and replacement account.

            Mr. McKune stated that is correct. Some of the higher numbers and the general engineering numbers relate to on-going consulting services that are not related to a capital project.  Many of them were necessitated this past year because of problems at the plant.  Most of that work is now under control, and the plant is operating properly.

            Mr. Hans stated another point is the 5-year renewal plan.  A great deal of money has been spent to get everything up on line.  The new $450 permit processing fee will offset some of this so we will not have that discrepancy.

            Mr. Hanks asked are you saying that the extra time you spent on the belt filter press may be reflected in the overage that we are seeing year-to-date?

            Mr. Hans responded yes.

            Mr. Fennell stated with regard to electricity, we spent $549,000 with our amended budget for fiscal year 2003-2004, and we are looking at a $75,000 increase.  I am surprised because we have our own power supply.

            Mr. Hans stated the increase was due to bring Plant E on line.

            Mr. Moore stated we are not saving on electricity.  We are saving on the rate because we are on a special standby program with FPL.  This means they can cut us off at any time but by doing this, they give us a rate per kilowatt, which is approximately 60% of the rate of most commercial plants.

            Mr. Hanks asked we are budgeting $50,000 for gasoline and diesel fuel.  Is any of that being used in the generating capacity when we are taken off line by FPL?

            Mr. Moore responded all of our generators run on diesel fuel.

            Mr. Hanks stated this amounts to approximately $2 per gallon.  Do you expect to go through 23,000 gallons of diesel fuel next year?

            Mr. Moore responded that was based on last year’s usage.  We run generators approximately two hours per week, and we occasionally perform three-day tests.

            Mr. Fennell asked what does the ‘B’ mean that is attached to our address under plant expenses on page 28?

            Mr. Moore responded we used to have two meters.  When we went through the modification of adding Plant B, we had to add another meter so we actually have four meters, three of which operate the plant.

            Mr. Eissler stated we are generous to our employees.  We should indicate to them that these generous increases may not always be the case.  Prices will continue to increase and our numbers become extremely expensive.

            Mr. Hanks stated one tangible thing we are getting by providing these good benefits to the employees is we are keeping them for a long time, and we cannot put a number on their experience in the plant operations.

            Mr. Fennell stated we have approximately $8.9 million sitting in a bank.  We earned $90,000 interest, which amounts to 1% per year.  Is this correct?  What are we investing in?

            Mr. Moyer responded most of it is in the State Board of Administration (SBA).

            Mr. Eissler asked can we invest it in anything else?

            Mr. Moyer responded we can invest it in certificate of deposits, money markets, the SBA, and other securities backed by the federal government.  The SBA usually earns the highest interest rates because they are investing billions of dollars in a portfolio for state and local government, and the idea is to maximize our return.  However, we are not making as much as we would like to.

            Mr. Fennell stated if they are investing a great deal of money, they should be getting more than 1%.

            Mr. Eissler responded I agree.

            Mr. Fennell stated we should be getting at least 3.5%, which would be 5-year T-Bills.

            Mr. Hanks asked for purposes of the budget, shouldn’t we be anticipating a low rate of return.

            Mr. Fennell responded I would not mind that if we were not invested at 1%.  I am asking staff to look into this and come back with those four options. 

            Mr. Moyer stated we have $7.6 million with the SBA.  We will look at this.

            Mr. Eissler stated the more I speak to members of law enforcement, the more I believe we should cease the armed guard service.  The next time their contract comes up, we should consider not renewing it.  It simply isn’t worth it from a liability standpoint and from an ethical standpoint if kids were to break in and someone gets shot.  It is not worth it.

            Mr. Fennell stated we will look to management to provide us with a cost reduction plan containing concrete terms.  You should strive for 10%.  I am looking for good types of cost reductions such as with the guard issue.  We are not adverse to spending capital as long as there is a pay back.

            Mr. Hanks stated when there is a capital improvement, we as a Board should ask to see what is expected in terms of operating costs.

            Mr. Fennell stated we have concentrated on capital expenses for a long time, and it is time to look at operating expenses and what we can do to decrease them in a smart manner.  I would like to set a goal of $600,000, and staff can come back with a plan.

            Mr. Moyer stated we will come back with an analysis.  There may be cost savings depending on the element of the capital projects plan that we put into place but if we build another accelator for example, you are increasing operating costs because it will require more electricity.  We will at least answer the question.

            Mr. Fennell stated the $600,000 is aimed at operating expenses.

            Mr. Moyer stated many of the operating costs are fixed because it is unit cost-driven.  If we treat 5.5 million gallons of wastewater per day, the blowers will run a certain period of the day, and there is a cost for this.  To the degree we can have cost savings, we will.  If not, we will give you an explanation as to why we do not have the ability to come to a cost savings.

            Mr. Hanks stated we will need to take into consideration whether we will reduce the amount that we are saving for future improvements or if we need to consider passing along increased fuel costs on to the consumer at some point.  I do not see us as being able to absorb these increased electric and diesel costs indefinitely.

            Mr. Fennell stated we need to do this in a thoughtful, well thought-out plan going forward.  We would like to see a $600,000 goal of reduced operating expenses or a plan on how to do so, and we hope to see the analysis in two months.  The Board would like a well thought out, well managed, budgeted operating expense plan so that we can become a more efficient plant and more efficient in what we are doing.

            Mr. Fennell closed the public hearing.

            Mr. Moyer stated the blanks of Resolution 2004-8 will be filled in as follows: revenues will be $8,048,212; debt service will be $2,030,816; operation and maintenance will be $5,670,423; and surplus is  $346,974.


On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor Resolution 2004-8 adopting the water and sewer fund budget for fiscal year 2005 was adopted.


FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS        Consideration of Permit Requests Submitted by Coral Springs Honda, Inc.

          A.      Irrigation Permit

            B.      Surface Water Management Permit

            Mr. McKune stated Mr. Flavin is here today to answer questions that were raised at last month’s meeting.  Mr. Hanks had some questions regarding the technical issues.

            Mr. Hanks stated mainly, the concern was the method of bleeding down to our retention areas.  What is the approved configuration?

            Mr. Flavin responded you have a .5” pre-treatment, and you have to store that and then you can bleed down to that elevation.

            Mr. Hanks asked what elevation is the bleeder invert at?

            Mr. Flavin responded 8’5”.

            Mr. Hanks asked what are your thoughts about how well the dry detention area is going to bleed down during the summer months when you have 1’5” of water below the invert of the bleeder?  Do you think we will have mosquito problems?

            Mr. Flavin responded it is supposed to be a dry retention area.  The water control elevation is 6’5”.  The bottom of the retention area is 7’5”.  We expect the water control elevation to increase .5’ in the summer.  That would be the most that it would increase, but there may be cases where it may increase 1’.

            Mr. McKune stated for example, the bottom of the ponds at the wastewater plant site is approximately 7’5” and during the summer, they do not hold water.  The ground water table is sufficiently low to allow them to dry out, but I do not foresee a mosquito problem.

            Mr. Hanks stated I am a professional engineer, and I take a different approach.  I have worked on projects where we have had to go in and pull out the sod and put in wetland plants because sod could not be established if it was saturated with standing water.

            Mr. Flavin asked what was the elevation of the pump?

            Mr. Hanks responded in some instances, they were 1’ water control elevation above and in other instances they were 18” above water control elevation.

            Mr. Flavin asked how long did they stay wet?

            Mr. Hanks responded for a good portion of the summer, and I am talking about Western Broward County.  What about lowering it down to a 3” diameter bleeder at the bottom of the retention area?

            Mr. Flavin responded you are supposed to retain .5” pre-treatment on site.

            Mr. Hanks stated yes, but you are allowed to bleed down.

            Mr. Flavin stated you need to pre-treat that first whether it is a trench or retention area.

            Mr. Hanks stated I believe you are allowed a bleeder.

            Mr. Flavin asked at the water control elevation?

            Mr. Hanks responded yes, or at the bottom of your retention area.  What about any sort of infiltration trench or under drain in those retention areas?  Was my request to Cedo Da Silva passed along to the applicant?

            Mr. Flavin responded he said you had some questions.  I am here to find out what you want changed in the plans.

            Mr. Hanks stated this is working to draw down infiltration.  We have used bleeders in a number of cases in Weston, which has a standard detail, where basically it is a 4’ wide trench with a slider perforated pipe going underneath part of the retention area and that allows the water to perforate through the soil and make its way out.

            Mr. Flavin asked is that in lieu of changing the bleeder elevation?

            Mr. Hanks responded in some instances, yes.

            Mr. Flavin asked do you want to change the bleeder down to 7’5” and put in the underdrain?

            Mr. Hanks responded either/or.  I am not designing this project, but I am expressing a concern and am offering some suggestions as to how to alleviate what could be a problem down the road.

            Mr. Flavin stated I think changing the bleeder elevations is probably the best thing to do.  We can bleed it down to 7’5”, which is the bottom of our retention.  Does this make more sense?

            Mr. Hanks responded yes.

            Mr. Fennell asked does it make sense to you?

            Mr. Flavin responded I do not see a problem if the bottom of our retention area is at 6’5”, but Mr. Hanks does.

            Mr. Hanks stated I am also looking out for the developer of this project.  He is looking to have a quality project.

            Mr. Flavin stated I will convey this information to Mr. Da Silva.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the request for a surface water management permit was approved subject to the bleeder being lowered to invert 7’5”.


            Mr. Hanks asked what does PME stand for?

            Mr. Flavin responded project manager engineer.

            Mr. Hanks asked do you have a license with the State of Florida?

            Mr. Flavin responded no.

            Mr. Hanks asked did Mr. Da Silva review this before being submitted to the Board?

            Mr. Flavin responded yes, and I reviewed it, too.

            Mr. Hanks asked did a professional engineer review this before being submitted to the Board?

            Mr. Flavin responded I reviewed it, and Ms. Early, a professional engineer, reviewed my letter and the plans.

            Mr. Fennell stated let us now look at the right-of-way permit request.

            Mr. Hanks asked is this the irrigation and the outfall?

            Mr. Flavin responded the pump cannot be in the District right-of-way.

            Mr. Hanks asked who is responsible for maintaining the outfall?  Is that a private facility?

            Mr. Flavin responded yes.

            Mr. Hanks asked is that falling underneath the right-of-way occupancy?  Do they have facilities in the right-of-way?

            Mr. Flavin responded no.

            Mr. Hanks asked is that approved in the storm water management permit?

            Mr. Flavin responded the irrigation permit is separate from the storm water management permit.

            Mr. Moyer stated anything within our right-of-way that is not dedicated to the District is the responsibility of the permittee.

            Mr. Hanks asked is the approval of the outfall covered in the approval of the Storm Water Management?

            Mr. Moyer responded yes.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the request for an irrigation permit was approved.


FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS            Continuing Discussion Regarding Permit Criteria for District Projects

            Mr. Fennell stated I do not like the combination of the Districts as listed on the cover page.

            Mr. Hans stated the manual will be specific and state Coral Springs, and there will be a separate one for North Springs.  However, they have the same criteria.

            Mr. Hanks stated speaking as a consultant, it is handier to have it all in one manual.  The professional engineers who will be reviewing this will know the difference between the Districts.

            Mr. Fennell stated I understand, but I am looking at it from a different standpoint.  It bothers me because we are not all one.

            Mr. Moyer stated CSID and NSID have the same authority under the rules of the South Florida Water Management District giving us the right to issue surface water management permits for projects under 40 acres.  This is unusual.  Plantation Water Control might be the only other one in Broward County that has the rights to issue those types of permits.  Sunshine Water Control does not.  Throughout the manual, they try to bifurcate what the Districts can issue permits for.  I agree with Mr. Hanks that it is convenient, but if the Board is not comfortable, we can customize this for each District to have their own manual.

            Mr. Fennell asked what are your thoughts?

            Mr. Lyles responded if we ever had a dispute with an applicant for a project or an engineer for an applicant for a project, and if our permit criteria rules came in to play and we are challenged in one respect or another, our position might be stronger if we had a tailored manual that applies solely to CSID.  However, this is a remote and highly technical response.  This is the only thing I can think of in terms of a negative.

            Mr. Hanks stated in that instance, 99% of this is built out under the old manual.  Changing it now is not going to change our potential liability on any  of those past projects.  We are looking at perhaps two sites in the south part of Coral Springs.

            Mr. Lyles stated we would have a record of adoption by a Board sitting at the time for those old permit criteria manuals and for this one as well.

            Mr. Eissler asked can you rewrite the title page under one manual and note each exception under each District?

            Mr. Hanks responded the criteria has already been set forth in the South Florida operating permit.

            Mr. Lyles stated this is largely a codification of many existing criteria and permit requirements.  It is for ease of reference for people who are going to utilize it as well as a few things that we are updating.  I do not have a problem with it either way.

            Mr. Fennell stated I would like to see something indicating when the manual was updated, when it was approved, and that it was approved by the CSID Board.

            Mr. Lyles stated the cover page indicates that it was prepared for CSID and discussed and adopted by this Board at a hearing and that it is applicable to these projects within all three of these Districts.

            Mr. Fennell stated with regard to permitting costs, please bring an analysis to next month’s public hearing of what you think the expected workload is so that we can have a rational analysis for what we are going to charge.

            Mr. Hanks asked shouldn’t these records be available to the public, and does the public need to pay to review the District’s records?

            Ms. Holiday responded the plans, application, and original permit are being digitized by another company, and CH2M-Hill, Mr. Moore and I will have a copy on a CD.

            Mr. Hanks stated we should be careful as to identifying it with records search and have it be more of a processing fee.  I do not want to see how much time it will take to pull records and put them on disk.

            Mr. Fennell stated we have already laid the foundation, which is indicated on page 6.  I am looking to see that it is fair and reasonable.  It is not unusual to have a fee if we are going to do some work.

            Mr. Hanks stated if I were to request a copy of the Coral Springs Honda plans in five years, would I be faced with having to pay $250?

            Mr. Lyles responded no.  The way the public records law is you would pay the standard copying charge that is already adopted by the District.  However, if it is going to be a job that is more than just routine normal copying and requires staff to be dedicated to compiling, locating, collating, and producing this document, the person making the request is entitled to have an estimate of what the hourly charge is going to be and what the total is going to be for the staff time to do the extra work.


SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS            Staff Reports

            A.      Attorney

            Mr. Hans stated approximately two weeks ago, I sent a certified letter to the president of Lake Coral Springs instructing him not to apply any herbicides per their documents unless they enter into a contract with us for any type of services.  I have not yet received the return receipt.  Messrs. Weinberg and Lyles were copied on the letter.


          B.      Engineer

·        Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

            There being no further report, the next item followed.


·        Consideration of Change Order No. 12 with Intrastate Construction Corporation for a Reduction in Retainage to 1%

            Mr. McKune stated last June, I requested Board authorization to reduce the retainage to 1% for the Intrastate Construction project, but it was tabled because we had not yet put the sodium hydrochloride system into operation.  Since then, the system has been running.  Reducing the retainage to 1% will leave approximately $51,000 as the retained amount.  This contract is in excess of $5 million.  The work has been done for almost a year.  A large majority of the work that currently remains outstanding is $70,000; most of that being in recent change orders that were authorized.  In this instance, the general contractor and his suppliers are insisting on the release of their retention.  Just about all of his suppliers and subcontractors have been complete with their work, and we have accepted it, but the contractor has not yet been able to pay.  In my opinion, they are justified in asking for their money.  This is why I am resurrecting change order no. 12, which was originally presented in June, and am asking for reconsideration.

            Mr. Fennell asked what is the final amount?

            Mr. McKune responded there is no change in the contract amount.  It simply takes the amount retained down to 1%, which is $51,000.

            Mr. Eissler asked will this conclude everything?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.

            Mr. Hanks asked have we paid him the $70,000 yet?

            Mr. McKune responded no.

            Mr. Hanks stated this means we have $120,000 that will be due to Intrastate upon completion of the change orders.

            Mr. Eissler asked are you comfortable with this?

            Mr. McKune responded I am comfortable with this.  The retention is there to guarantee that there will be sufficient monies to complete the job.

            Mr. Hanks asked in your view, has the work that was being guaranteed by the present retainage been completed satisfactorily?

            Mr. McKune responded yes.  The items that have already come up as being deficient are considered warranty items, and they are being handled as they should be, and the contractor is under contract with other work so he will not be disappearing.


On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor change order no. 12 with Intrastate Construction Corp. for a reduction in retainage to 1% was approved.


            Mr. Lyles stated the document you distributed is a copy of the change order request from the June meeting.  Three months have passed.  I suggest that we show an effective date of approval upon execution.  This will give us the benefit of an additional three months.  It can only have an effective date of today since it was only authorized today.

            Mr. Moyer asked in light of our discussion earlier as to how we are going to save money and evaluate the overall security, do we want to talk about it today?

            Mr. Moore responded the Board asked us to bring back three plans for the guardhouse last month but because of delays, we brought them with us today.  As you may recall, we were given a citation for our guardhouse, and we were given 30 days to remove it.  However, I met with the City, and they allowed us to leave it up indefinitely as long as we are showing some forward motion on doing something permanent; whether we remove it or replace it with a permanent structure.  We were not cited in our sister District, NSID, because we have plans in the City right now showing a permanent guardhouse.

            Mr. Moyer asked can we apply for a variance to leave our guardhouse where it is?

            Mr. Moore responded no, because the guardhouse does not meet standards.  In addition, it must have handicap access and a restroom.

            Mr. Fennell stated the real question is if we need guards or not.  We probably do.  We have had them since before the 9/11 attacks.  We must figure out the most effective way to do it.

            Mr. Moore stated sometimes, simply having a structure there can be inhibiting.

            Mr. Moyer asked are you telling me that every structure has to have a handicap restroom; that a person cannot use another restroom 30’ away?

            Mr. Moore responded that is what they tell me on this particular structure.  I tried to point out the operator’s restroom to them.

            Mr. Hanks stated the City is not unusual in their demand for handicap accessibility and restrooms in a guardhouse.

            Mr. Moyer stated I understand, but there is a bathroom 30’ away.

            Mr. Moore stated I explained this to the City, but they simply do not want to hear it because it is an ADA requirement.  There is a similar situation in Coconut Creek, which I have taken pictures of and showed the City, but the City of Coral Springs does not allow it.

            Mr. Moyer stated I think you should present it to the City Commission and ask for a variance first.

            Mr. Fennell stated let us review the remaining proposals.

            Mr. McKune stated they are straightforward.  We have to consider stacking distance for cars to get us out of the right-of-way.  We are considering constructing a guardhouse immediately outside the existing entrance with the gates further on down to give us the stacking distance in front of the gates.  The guard will be able to operate the two-way gate similar to the way the current gate operates.  The only change to the roadway system that will be made is the completion, which will give us complete circulation around the plant.  This will allow trucks to come in and exit, which will allow the elimination of the second gate that we currently have.  Trucks that are denied access will be able back up and turn around.  This is the simpler of the two alternatives.

            Mr. Hanks asked did the City provide right-of-way for a cul-de-sac?

            Mr. Moore responded no, which is why we do not have legal access to our second gate.

            Mr. McKune stated the second alternative is to put a turnaround in front of the gates, which is open to the public.  The turnaround eliminates truck traffic conflict, and can be operated by the guards.  Also, the drop off can be on the driver’s side under a canopy.

            Mr. Fennell asked how many people drop off?

            Mr. Hans responded approximately 20 people per day.

            Mr. Fennell stated I suggest that we have someone from security look at this.

            Mr. Hanks stated you can approach the City with a variance and introduce a hardship because the City did not provide a right-of-way for an approved turnaround at the end of the public right-of-way, and we are providing the driveway.  It was not designed to address terrorist threats.

            Mr. McKune stated the City was not involved with the right-of-way determination at that time.  This was a product of WCI.

            Mr. Moyer stated your proposal is to put the gatehouse in front of the well instead of where it is currently.

            Mr. Hanks stated I do not like the idea of putting a well outside the security perimeter.

            Mr. Moore stated it is a secondary containment.

            Mr. McKune stated we have seven other wells that are like that.

            Mr. Fennell stated I would like to have Navarro Security review our security and give their recommendation on the guard station and/or what to do.

            Mr. McKune stated now that we have had this discussion, Mr. Moore can report back to the City that we are making some progress.

            Mr. Hanks asked why is the guardhouse on the north side of the road versus the south side?

            Mr. McKune responded we looked at both sides.  We have two issues.  One is the piping and the other is the main power feed from FPL, plus you are on the driver’s side, which would make it advantageous.  I agree that we should pursue a variance.

            Mr. Fennell stated we need to consolidate those roads anyway, because we keep having contractors come in this great big open door.  We need to determine exactly what the security is for and the best way to get it, and we need to determine how this structure fits in.


·        Update on Construction

            Mr. McKune stated we have the replacement valves for the injection well, but they have not been installed yet.  The State is requiring modifications to our mechanical integrity testing permit to allow the valves to be replaced, and they have requested that we send them a permit modification.  We sent them the specifications on the valve; proof that they are equal to or better than the valves that are in place, but this was after the DEP said they would give us a 24-hour turnaround.  This is why the valves are still sitting on the slab.  If we put them in without approval, we will be cited by the State of Florida.

            Mr. Fennell asked in the meantime, are you taking down a couple of wastewater plants and cleaning them up?

            Mr. McKune responded we are taking them down one at a time.

            Mr. Fennell asked how is it going?

            Mr. McKune responded it is cleaning up quite well.  The coating that was on the original plant is in much better condition than we expected.  We have received credits amounting to approximately $40,000 for work that will not be needed.  It will be coming to you in the form of a change order.

            Mr. Fennell stated we must think about our operating costs such as electricity.  We want back up but if everything is operating, then we are spending a great deal of money on electricity.  What will the back up cost us, and are there ways to operate the plant at a minimal cost?

            Mr. McKune responded when we are done modifying these two plants, one of which is down now, we will only need one of the two existing blowers that run all the time for both of them because of the inefficiencies of the whole design.  The efficiencies will be improved with the new design and we will only need to use one blower.

            Mr. Moyer stated in addition, if we can run Plants C, D, and E, and meet the normal flows and have Plants A and B mothballed, how fast can we put Plants A and B on line?

            Mr. McKune responded it takes approximately two weeks.

            Mr. Moyer stated we do not need to run five plants if we can run three plants.

            Mr. Moore stated we have to run all five plants to handle our peaks, and Plant E is performing in an outstanding manner.  Until Plants C and D are operating and until we determine the standard and peak flows, we have to decide what to do about Plants A and B.  You might be able to oversize one or both plants.  Many communities on the west coast have seasonal tanks whereby they may be a 5mgd during the winter and a 3mgd during the summer.  We are not seasonal so our flows are fairly regular.

            Mr. Fennell asked doesn’t our rainy season increase it?

            Mr. Moore responded yes, but if you take it down, it has to be during the dry season.

            Mr. Hanks stated you would still save on operating costs for that plant.

            Mr. Moore stated it is something to look at.

            Mr. Fennell stated now is the time to think about it since we are looking at cost savings.  Let’s determine the most optimum way to run these plants throughout the year at the lowest cost.


          C.      Superintendent – Approval of Meeting Dates for Fiscal Year 2005

            The Board reviewed the proposed meeting dates for fiscal year 2005 and accorded to meet on the third Monday of each month except in January and February when they will meet on the fourth Monday.

            Mr. Hans distributed a copy of the newsletter and stated there isn’t a great deal of new items being added to the newsletter.  Please review it and get back to me.

            Mr. Fennell asked how did we do during Hurricane Frances?

            Mr. Moore distributed a news article that was posted in the Sun-Sentinel on September 17 and stated we bunkered down and went through our hurricane preparedness.  We went on full generator power, and we weathered everything here.  We lost one door, a few light fixtures, and a few trees, but there were no problems on the utility side.  Five lift stations went down without power but as soon as the high winds were gone, our advance crew went out and identified them, and we immediately dispensed our one generator and successfully serviced those five stations with no problems or sewage spills.  Eleven of the City’s lift stations lost power, and they had some sewage spill.  NSID had power loss to one lift station, and we have one generator there.  As you know, I am putting in for a second generator for both Districts in this year’s budget so theoretically there will be four generators to share.

            Mr. Fennell responded suppose all power is lost.  How many generators will we need?

            Mr. Moore responded I have done some research on this and I had a plan at one time, but I  did not get a chance to print it out.  However, I can bring to the next meeting.  Out of 41 stations, I remember that based on the hours of running time, it was approximately 1/3, 1/3, and 1/3.  One third has such a low running time that we can handle those with some jockey pumps.  I am working on a written plan.

            Mr. Fennell stated we were not hit that hard, yet 50% of the people in Broward County lost power.  If we get hit fairly hard, even more people will lose power.  Power outage is highly probable and we are going to need that.  We need to go to a capability that allows us to keep those lift stations going.  If you can keep them going, we can keep operating.  What else do we need?

            Mr. Moore responded at this time, we have to be able to get the sewage back to the site.

            Mr. McKune stated we take comfort in the fact that we do have 100% generation capability here.  Palm Beach County has the same facilities, but they almost ran out of diesel fuel since they only store enough for three days of continuous operation because that has always been sufficient in the past.

            Mr. Hanks asked is there a way to delay that until we lose the power?

            Mr. Moore responded at this time, there is a control problem.  When we have the automatic transfer, there is certain equipment that will not transfer.  It has to go on manual mode and be reset just for safety.  The operators have to go out and physically turn certain things back on.  Right now, we are producing and flowing through the entire storm unless the storm wipes out a piece of equipment.  Our operators are in a secure area, everything is operating, and we will not have a power bump because we are on generator.  If you want the power bump, we will not be operating.

            Mr. Fennell asked how many days can we run?

            Mr. Moore responded I believe it is between three and five days.  We have three underground tanks and two aboveground tanks.  We also have a diesel tank for our trucks.

            Mr. Fennell stated I think we need at least a two-week capability.  We cannot afford to be down.

            Mr. Hanks asked what do you think about inviting FPL to talk to us about the system and the likelihood of being out of power?

            Mr. Moore responded I gave them the address of the five lift stations.  They put utilities and hospitals on top priority.  This particular facility is dual-fed, which is an advantage to us.  However, if all of Coral Springs is down, I am not sure if I can give you 30 days of fuel storage.

            Mr. Goscicki stated Severn Trent operates a number of facilities around the State that were severely hit by the storm.  Fuel did become an issue, but you are on the top of the priority list with the EOC.  When the EOC recognizes and starts doing fuel allocations, the utilities and hospitals are at the top of the list.  We did not go down in any of the facilities we operated.

            Mr. Fennell stated we have five days, but I would like to see us increase that.  There was an article about FPL not being able to respond to a crisis anymore.  The insurance company has decided not to insure any more distribution systems.  This means that FPL is now self-insured.  They asked for $500 million coverage, but the rate board only gave them $350 million, which they are about to run out of.  I do not think they will have money to pay crews the next time.  I have also read several articles that the reliability of electrical systems will not improve.  They cannot model the systems.  Speaking as an electrical engineer, we need to improve our own reliability in these circumstances because FPL is not going to do it, and the money is not going to be there for them to do it, nor do they know how to do it.  I want to see this go to ten days.

            Mr. Moore stated we will look into it. In addition, we have to start a program to get these canal banks cleaned up over the next period of years.


          D.      Complaints

            Mr. Hans stated we had a problem with our phone system during the hurricane.  It was shut down for a while so we would not have received any complaints during that time.  We received early calls as to what we plan to do about the canals, but they were routine calls.  We are now receiving calls about fallen trees.

            Mr. Fennell asked how would we issue a “boil water” order, and how do people get it?

            Mr. Moyer responded everyone should be working through the EOC office since they would issue those notices.

            Mr. Moore stated Code Red is a new system, which automatically dials a phone number through a computer.  It is a reverse 9-1-1 system.


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

            Mr. Hanks stated the largest line item after FPL was to CH2M-Hill for $77,000 for various items.  Are those primarily related to the capital improvements?

            Mr. Moyer responded yes.

            After further review,


On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the invoices were approved.

            There being nothing further,


On MOTION by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.














Glen Hanks                                                              Robert D. Fennell

Secretary                                                                  President