MINUTES OF MEETING

CORAL SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, July 20, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. at the District Office, 10300 NW 11^th Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum were:

Robert Fennell President

Sharon Zich Vice President

Glenn Hanks Secretary

Also present were:

Kenneth Cassel District Manager

Dennis Lyles District Counsel

Jane Early District Engineer

Sean Skehan CH2M Hill

Gerrit Bulman CH2M Hill

Cory Johnson CH2M Hill

Dan Daly Director of Operations

Doug Hyche Utilities Director

Kay Woodward District Accountant

Jan Zilmer Human Resources Manager

Matthew Cigale Craven Thompson and Associates, Inc.

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call

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

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the June 15, 2009 Meeting

Mr. Fennell stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the June 15, 2009 meeting and requested any corrections, additions or deletions.

There not being any,

On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the minutes of the June 15, 2009 meeting were approved.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’ Requests and Audience Comments

There not being any, the next item followed.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Canal Bank Study by Dunkelberger

Mr. Cassel stated it was sent out to you separately on Friday. We were waiting for additional information to attach to it. No action is required from the Board at this time. This is a report. There is potential for some repairs, but we need to look at it from the attorney’s perspective as well as the engineer’s as to how we do not jeopardize the District overall.

Mr. Fennell asked is there someone who can speak to this report here?

Ms. Early responded I did not write the report. I reviewed the report.

Mr. Fennell stated what I am coming away with after reading this is that it is basically normal canal wear. It is not like the canals were dug the wrong way or something like that. It does sound like the canals tend to have wear as we go along and there can be erosion at the edges. Things like that do occur. The only thing I was a little surprised at was this one particular house, 11988 Classic Drive, already had a geotube system in there. I was kind of wondering how it got there.

Mr. Hanks stated if you recall, that was the former manager right after Hurricane Wilma.

The record will reflect the recording picked up several people talking at the same time.

Ms. Zich stated so that was already done.

Ms. Early stated it was done. What probably happened was once they put the tubes in and they did a nice slope, wave action caused a little bit of material to slough in and go into the tube.

Mr. Fennell asked are any of these outside of our right-of-way or outside of our ownership?

Mr. Cassel responded no.

Mr. Hanks stated the easiest place to figure out where the right-of-way line falls relative to the right bank and the slopes are on the exhibits in the back half of the report. As you go midway through the report there are some pictures which look like cross sections. If nothing is done, what will happen on these banks is they will continue to change their shape to establish a stable position. This will just occur naturally. In a worst case scenario you are going to bring yourself back, the top of the bank will be about 24 feet naturally from the top of the rock. You can take a look at your section there and see where your top of rock is and then take it back about 24 feet. That is were your top of the bank is. Some of these locations have the opportunity and have the space the way it happened; others would appear to be a little bit closer. Ms. Early, did you have any review to verify what the design allocations were for the top of the banks?

Ms. Early responded yes. I think it was 9.8 or 10.2; roughly 10.

Mr. Hanks asked was it about what is being shown on these cross sections?

Ms. Early responded yes.

Mr. Hanks stated I think it is an important piece of the puzzle if you can verify it. Mr. Lyles.

Mr. Lyles stated the study does not indicate, in my review, any undermining that creates any damage to adjoining improvements to real property. I think as a policy level you will want to use that as the standard to begin the discussion of taking action on something. As the President said, it seems to be a study that confirms there is a lot of natural wearing and depending on the subsurface conditions, whether you have a limestone shelf, a scarp or the various geological figures they discussed in their report, you would have different kinds of erosion or migrating away of some of the softer soils that were used to fill the banks. There is no violation here that I see. There is no permit condition which is not being met that I see. What I took away from it is there are a variety of things homeowners might want to do if they find themselves in a position where they are concerned about the appearance of the property behind theirs. I do not see an instance anywhere where we would have to start to think in terms of we have a duty to not allow a condition within our right-of-way which we own and maintain to create a subjacent failure to property improvements on the adjacent real property parcel. It appears to me that this is something we watch on a case by case basis and if we see something getting closer to that point, it should be brought to the Board’s attention by engineering and field staff. We will approach it that way.

Mr. Hanks stated so we have the report which identifies what the condition is, what the maximum likely extent is going to be of the ultimate condition of the bank and it identifies different scenarios that could be potentially implemented.

Mr. Lyles stated as well as a cost for those which they have listed in terms of an estimate, but I do not see anything in here which says you better go do them or you should do them now. I think we have what amounts to natural conditions given the passage of time and the movement of water. Some are of an aesthetic concern on some people’s part perhaps, but nothing that is a life safety or property damage issue was identified in this report. I believe this is informational. Some people have questioned what is going on with these banks. They have been there, in some cases, for 30 years. You have a snap shot of where they are at this point into their life cycle. There is no recommendation that there is a problem, which needs to be resolved.

Mr. Hanks stated I am used to a four to one regulatory on new projects and a four to one lake bank slope.

Mr. Lyles stated I believe that is a permit criteria on all lake banks, canals, lakes or other water bodies for the initial construction. They have to pass an inspection at the time they are being constructed. I think the engineer will be better able to tell you what happens in the future when something is built with the appropriate slope. I believe SFWMD requires four to one and every other agency follows that. I do not believe we have an obligation to go back in and keep filling it to keep it at four to one forever. That is not my understanding of how it works.

Mr. Fennell asked what were they built at?

Mr. Hanks asked do we have any asbuilts?

Ms. Early responded I could not find any asbuilts, but I had the original cross sections. Some of them were four to one, but not all of them because at the time it was not a requirement.

Mr. Hanks asked do we know who dug these canals?

Mr. Lyles responded it is long before my time and I do not have any files that would reflect that. Given the fact the four to one requirement was not in effect at the time and we have not seen anything identified in this report that would be a concealed or latent defect that we only now learned about, I do not know that it does matter.

Ms. Early stated my understanding is you would only have to make it four to one if, for example, we were going to regrade that entire lot and we were going down to the water’s edge, then we would have to make it a four to one. If we are doing general maintenance in the canal, we do not.

Mr. Hanks asked are there any other laws you are aware of that would require some kind of safety slope on canal banks?

Mr. Lyles responded no, other than what we just discussed.

Mr. Hanks asked so the fact we may have three to one or a 1.5 does not exceed our exposure?

Mr. Lyles responded that kind of hypothetical question is a little troubling to me because you never know when a situation is going to arise or when a creative sort of claim might get made. There have been a couple of instances that I am aware of, not in this community, but in nearby communities, particularly Weston, in which it was alleged the necessary slope had not been installed in the first place and there was a drowning that ensued. That was part of the allegation. I cannot assure you someone five or ten years from now will not try to make a claim that had this slope been regraded to four to one, this individual who tumbled into the water and did not know how to swim, did not understand how steep it was beyond the initial little shallow area.

We could potentially have that kind of exposure, but it should not be a winning claim, if it was built in accordance with the applicable criteria at the time the canals were dug, the cross sections were established, the grades were finished and it was turned over to the District. I can tell you that I am quite sure, I have not seen any documents, but I am quite sure somewhere way back then someone on behalf of the District examined those canals and those slopes on those banks and certified them as ready for the District to accept; either from the developer who put them in the first place or the contractor who was hired by the District to dig the canal. An engineer told the District Board and staff they were ready to be taken over by the District and they meet all applicable standards and criteria.

Ms. Early stated and they would have had to have been accepted by SFWMD as well. The as builts would have had to have been sent to them.

Mr. Fennell asked what was the address of the lady who originally came here?

Mr. Lyles responded before you get to that, because there is a record of this meeting and because it may be the subject of a discovery motion sometime when none of us are around to remember the discussion I want to supplement one additional thing to the response we gave to Mr. Hanks. I reviewed this report and I also conferred with the manager as well as the engineer. Nothing has been brought to my attention from any of these sources by any qualified expert that would indicate there is a lack of safety, an unsafe condition, a steep, a hidden peril or anything the Board should be made aware of today that it needs to commission staff to go out and renovate, repair, rehabilitate or regrade. There is nothing in this documentation or any of these meetings which have been had at the staff level that contains any information in this regard. If there is any such thing that we should know, from whatever source with the staff that is here, make the Board aware of it now. If not, I think the record should reflect that on behalf of the District and the District’s Board a thorough survey and inspection using the locations the expert chose has been completed. No unsafe conditions have been identified that are being made aware to the District’s Board or to its staff.

Mr. Hanks asked so right now, is it just an aesthetic issue?

Mr. Lyles responded it appears that way to me. There is normal timely wear and tear that manifests itself more or less depending on where you are looking, but nothing from an aesthetics that I take away from this report. I am sorry to interrupt Mr. President.

Mr. Fennell stated this is good news. What was her name again?

Mr. Daly responded Ms. Bonnie Epstein.

Mr. Hanks stated 1760 NW 126^th Drive. Another item we see occurring here is if we were to go and take a look at the repairs, it would be coming out of all of our residents’ pockets. We do not have any funds for any of the repairs which are out there. If we were to undertake a system wide approach to looking at these and correcting them, it would be coming out of our own pockets.

Mr. Fennell stated since there is nothing from a legal standpoint or from a practical standpoint that the canals are actually dangerous, I think we should handle this the same way we have handled previous issues as far as aesthetics on an exception basis only. From time to time we can donate money to clean up areas that really do not have to do with water flow and those kinds of things.

Mr. Daly asked would the exception include damage to personal property such as fences and pools? We do have this one picture where the fence is almost in the canal.

Mr. Hanks asked which one is that?

Mr. Daly responded 12073 NW 1^st Drive.

Ms. Zich asked is the fence on our property or their property?

Mr. Daly responded I would imagine it was on their property at the time, but I do not know.

Mr. Hanks stated if you drive down Atlantic Boulevard and park at the CSID west outfall canal bridge, way down Riverside Drive look up and down it and you can see many instances of where improvements have been put in to the public right-of-way. Just because it is a privately owned fence, it does not mean anything.

Mr. Daly stated I understand we would have to see whose land it was really on. Overall the question is, if it regresses so far that it is going to impede upon a person’s personal property, what is the liability?

Mr. Fennell responded I think there is a real issue here because the fence is on our public right-of-way.

Mr. Hanks stated there are other areas and if we are going to be looking at this and people are going to be looking to us to repair fences falling in, we need to take a close look of where fences are within the entire District.

Mr. Daly stated these half dozen we have here, Mr. Frederick was intimately involved with over years.

Ms. Early stated let me call Mr. David who did the survey and tell him to look up his notes on this particular lot to see where the fence was in relationship to the property line.

Mr. Fennell stated it looks like it will cost us $150 a foot to do anything with this.

Ms. Early stated I actually did some more investigation on the cost after I read this because I thought the cost was out of line. We had Anchor Marine repair a few of them a few years ago after the hurricane. I called and asked him what the prices were because at the time we did this there were a lot that were $35 and a lot that were $28. It fluctuated depending on the location and access. He said the $35 is a good price to still use. I think in this report it is $110. That is three times as much.

Mr. Fennell stated that makes a difference; $35 on a 60 foot.

Mr. Early stated it was still for the double tubes, two rows.

Mr. Fennell stated that is approximately $2,000.

Mr. Hanks asked $2,000 per?

Mr. Fennell responded per a 60 foot lot. Let us look at 1760 NW 126^th Drive and see what we actually now know.

Mr. Daly asked Mr. Frederick, do you remember off hand what Ms. Epstein’s problem was?

Mr. Frederick responded she is the one that had the big crevice with a big chunk ready to fall off.

Mr. Daly stated right. Another chunk is ready to come off and she feels her fence is in jeopardy.

Mr. Fennell stated it looks like this is one area Cross Section C and Cross Section B are in.

Mr. Hanks stated according to this sketch it appears your rock is about 12 feet off the property line. The canal section in Eagle Trace, were many of those canals were over dug?

Ms. Early responded a lot of them were over dug.

Mr. Fennell stated I think Ms. Epstein made a nice case. We said we would take a look at it. I think we should respond. It sounds like for $35 a foot we can put something in there. That is my concept. What do you guys think?

Mr. Hyche asked if you do this one, is it going to open it up for the rest of the people to start complaining and make the same cases?

Mr. Hanks asked what came first, the canals or the houses?

Mr. Daly responded the canals.

Mr. Frederick stated we are going to have to have someone official write them a letter and tell them this is the way it is. They will not listen to me.

Mr. Hanks stated there may be an opportunity to implement some repairs at some point in the future. We are looking at changes in the water quality regulations. We just do not know what the requirements are going to do and how they are going to impact us. We do not know if we are going to need to implement changes to our system. I would really hate to put something out there in terms of a remedy.

Mr. Cassel stated looking at the obligations of the District and the potential impacts on the District we have done some pilot tests and sampled things that now everyone is looking at whether to do it. It is my understanding that other Districts are pushing back to the residents and saying they are not going to do anything. Others have said if you want to fix it, you can fix it. Our particular thing is, and my understanding of the past, we have not issued any permits for anyone to work in our right-of-way to fix anything. It may be that if the individual is adamant about repairing it that we issue a permit and they can repair it if they want to rather than putting the District further out there in any kind of a commitment.

Mr. Fennell stated I think in general where we are at is from a stand point of a case by case basis. This is an aesthetic issue, purely. I think she made a good case for what is happening there. We have from time to time, depending on the conditions, like hurricanes and things like that, have done different kinds of work and repairs. It is not unprecedented that we do this. I think we need to look at it on a case by case basis. This is not a general prerequisite to do all the banks. She did take the time to come in here and show us what was there. I would say to go ahead and rebuild that particular area she complained about up to a certain value.

Ms. Zich stated I am just concerned that we have so many canal banks out there.

Mr. Fennell stated we do and they are …

Ms. Zich stated they are going to deteriorate as time goes on. She knew she lived on a canal when she bought the house.

Mr. Hanks stated I know what my canal in my backyard does. SFWMD is not going to do one thing to that canal bank.

Mr. Fennell stated you have the C-14.

Mr. Hanks stated I am talking about C-14. Granted, I do not have any improvements that are in jeopardy, but I bet if somebody had a license to install a dock out there, it is kind of at their own risk.

Ms. Zich stated I just have a real concern Mr. Fennell. We have an awful lot of canals. Unless there is a real reason like we have a liability there, I am just thinking half the people in our District live on canals.

Mr. Fennell asked do you have an alternative you would like to supply as a remedy for it?

Ms. Zich responded I wish I did. I understand how she feels, but I know how many canals there are.

Mr. Skehan stated it is just a cost they have to bear themselves for maintaining the property if they choose to maintain the aesthetic value of it.

Mr. Hanks stated you may even have sufficient space at that particular property to let nature take its course and let it go back to the property line. What is included in this report on the cross sections is there is about 12 feet from the top of your rock layer to your property. This lets you take out three feet of vertical distance at a stable slope.

Mr. Fennell asked so what are you proposing?

Mr. Hanks responded if you do not do anything, the bank is just going to go back to the property line.

Mr. Fennell stated then the alternate would be to give her a permit to fix it herself.

Mr. Daly asked was her concern that there was another piece about to fall off? That was the big deal, right?

Mr. Frederick responded yes.

Mr. Daly stated what Mr. Hanks is saying is that is exactly what is natural and it may stop at that point. We may just opt to ask her to let nature take its course and keep an eye on it for her.

Mr. Hanks stated I think we have some other issues we need to start focusing in on, which is the fate of people not coming in for permits and changing the conditions. We have to tighten up some of these other issues. This is still going to be around. These are not going to be going away.

Mr. Daly stated and if it is stable up to the property line and it is that shelf that does fall in resulting in no damage other than the aesthetics.

Mr. Hanks stated as part of addressing some of these other bigger issues which we have elsewhere in the District, if we have the opportunity to focus those improvements in a location where we have this situation, then we can go ahead and address it and pursue it in that manner. Let us keep an eye on it. I have a strange feeling we have other issues out there which are going to be much more costly and are really going to strain our ability to pay for it.

Mr. Fennell stated we owe her an answer. What is our answer?

Mr. Cassel responded from what I am hearing from the Board, at the present time if she wishes to correct the aesthetic issues at her expense, we will issue her a permit to do such, but we are not going to take any action from the District.

Mr. Daly stated the cross section as well as the report back from the engineer came back and said there is no damage that could happen inside of her property line.

Mr. Hanks asked is there a way to document where that property line is? Do we need a motion on this Mr. Lyles?

Mr. Lyles responded I think you can just direct staff to respond to her indicating we had the situation reviewed. We commissioned a study and it does not appear there is potential for any property damage. It is aesthetic in nature and if she desires to do something to change the appearance of the bank behind her property, we will issue a permit to her for that purpose. All we need is that direction. It does not have to be a formal motion.

Mr. Hanks stated mention that we are going to be in a position to authorize her to do work within the right-of-way to correct it. This is still on our radar screen.

Mr. Daly asked will she be correcting our property?

Mr. Lyles responded that is why we are giving her a permit. We are going to allow her to come on to our property and do something if she wants it to have a different appearance. Our drainage system is functioning properly at that location and the reason she needs the permit is because it is within the District’s right-of-way.

Mr. Fennell stated I think the rationale behind that is it will be called maintenance of the property for aesthetic reasons.

Ms. Early stated I believe the city ordinance states you must take care of the property down to the water’s edge anyway.

Mr. Lyles stated you have to maintain the landscaping down to the water’s edge.

Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like the consensus is we see this as a landscaping issue, which can be maintained and we will issue a permit to do so.

Mr. Hanks asked since there may be many homeowners who will want to pursue this option are we going to let them choose which option they want to pursue out of this report or are they going to have to retain the services of an engineer? What level of plan and preparation is going to need to be performed in each scenario?

Mr. Cassel responded the fifth paragraph on the first page in the executive summary states there are three different varieties of potential repairs. As long as it is within one of those three parameters of repairs, it will be submitted, reviewed and permitted. I do not think it will have to be a full blown engineering issue because I do not see anything structural that would require any geological or structural type scenario other than the type of repairs he is referring to.

Ms. Early stated Anchor Marine actually did the sketch and they guaranty the work. Basically what we want is for them to guarantee it. If they are not going to hire an engineer, than whoever is doing the work needs to certify and guarantee it.

Mr. Fennell stated so what we are saying is they can do it themselves, but they have to submit to us a plan that we can certify to issue a permit.

Mr. Cassel stated that is correct.

Mr. Hanks asked do we go ahead and do something to meet the homeowners halfway in that the District provides the engineering and if the homeowners wish to go ahead and correct the problem?

Mr. Fennell responded you just added a new step towards liability in doing that.

Mr. Lyles stated I want to make the Board aware of a CDD that abuts us, Turtle Run CDD, which has a lot of waterfront residential properties. They are confronting a similar problem. Their policy has been and continues to be the homeowner’s responsibility, but they are finishing up a process of establishing a set of criteria through their engineer applicable to these projects which will support the issuance of a permit. The middle ground of what you are discussing is we may want to take a look at the criteria. They have almost completed the task to develop the criteria in the City of Coral Springs for this type of homeowner repair. We may want to get a copy of this engineering work and if it suits our purposes and our engineer blesses it, we might want to let it be our established set of guidelines for doing this as a homeowner.

Mr. Fennell stated that makes sense.

Mr. Hanks stated I just do not want to have a million different scenarios of what they are doing to change the situation.

Ms. Zich stated if the homeowner is going to do the work, we have to okay it first.

Mr. Hanks stated I am just trying to get it so it is easier. The property owner is going to have a cost associated with just the construction. I am trying to figure out a way where we can help make it easier since we have expertise in this area.

Mr. Fennell stated that actually sounds like a great idea. We need a policy that covers this. If there is already one on the way, I think we should look at it. Can we do this quickly?

Ms. Early asked who is the engineer?

Mr. Lyles responded it is Keith and Schnars.

Mr. Fennell stated let us do it.

Mr. Daly asked would you like to entertain the idea of waiving the permit fee of $350 to help the homeowner?

Mr. Fennell responded I think it should be part of what the engineers come back with; how much the fee should be. It sounds like we need to set up a policy going forward of how we handle complaints for different things. It is a smart thing to do. At that point we can have a general type of policy for whenever these things occur. Our people will know how to handle it. We will know what to tell them. What you can do and what we will not do. It will be straight forward.

Mr. Hanks stated keep it simple for the people who are coming in the future looking at what they are purchasing. They can have an idea of what the problems are.

Mr. Fennell asked can we get this together?

Mr. Cassel responded yes. We will push to get it together. We will see what we get from Keith and Schnars. We will come back by the next meeting, if not sooner, with some report as to where we think we are.

Mr. Fennell stated okay, but please send to Ms. Epstein a letter saying we have reviewed this, we have found there are no structural issues here, we are in the process of formulating a policy on how to handle this, it will probably be along the lines of the homeowner is responsible and we are going to issue guidelines on how to do this. Then we will come back next month with recommendations on what kind of policy we should have.

Mr. Hanks stated another item, which is related to this, is one item which is not affected by the structural setbacks are pools. Do we want to direct our manager to communicate with the city’s building department? They can literally put a pool right up to their rear property line. They cannot put a screen enclosure over it, but they can put a pool right by the property line. On water front property, depending on the exact nature, we only have done a sampling of six locations within the District, there is a possibility that you have different soil types and your slope may go back further than 12 feet and encroach further into the property. Do we want to put some kind of notice out there that if you are constructing within 10 feet of the property line with the District, you may be subject to changes due to natural causes? I do not know.

Mr. Fennell stated you are broadening this out to look at our policy in general.

Mr. Hanks stated we do not have a policy or can have a policy as it relates to construction of pools or decks.

Mr. Fennell stated we do have one in relation to decks.

Mr. Hanks asked on private property?

Mr. Fennell responded on our property.

Mr. Cassel stated where Mr. Hanks is coming from is the city will potentially allow someone to build their pool right up to the property line. It cannot have an enclosure on it, but they can build it out. Our property starts adjacent and goes down the water slope. If we have the normal type of issue we might have, they are going to claim we are impacting them. Well they built their pool too close. I guess what you are really asking for is some kind of a notification factor that if someone builds a pool or other structure within so many feet of the property line, they are doing it at their own risk. It is a legal thing. Mr. Lyles, can we do this?

Mr. Lyles responded I recommend we ask the city to consider adopting a set back requirement for a pool if it is within some reasonable distance. I do not know we can ultimately make “build it at your own risk” stick.

Mr. Hanks stated no, but you grasp the idea of my concern.

Mr. Lyles stated sure. I think probably 99% of the pools that are ever going to be there are already there.

Ms. Zich stated that is what I was thinking.

Mr. Lyles stated I do not know that there is much we can do retroactively to make the situation any better than it is.

Mr. Hanks stated put this on the list of letters to the city.

Ms. Zich stated I built a house at one time in Cypress Run and they put a pool in. They told me it would never be able to have a screen enclosure. I sold the house to someone else and there is a screen enclosure. One of the reasons I never moved into the house was because I wanted a pool enclosure and they would not give me one. They said I could never have one and there is one right now. It has been there for many years.

Mr. Lyles stated it might not be permitted. A lot of those things go up in a weekend without a permit. All it takes is for the neighborhood to get upset and down it comes.

Ms. Zich stated no one would ever know because it has been there so long now.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports

A. Manager

· Discussion of Storm Water Nutrient Level Legislation

Mr. Cassel stated the first item came in a separate package. I attended a meeting back in the end of June or the middle of June at the Lake Worth Drainage District along with a number of other representatives from other drainage districts as well as improvement districts. There were representatives from Orlando South regarding the potential proposed water quality standards which may be enforced. Currently Florida has a narrative type standard that you have to comply with. There is a push to change it to a numerical standard. The problem with numerical standards is a numerical standard for the type of drainage districts we are involved in, you cannot do uniform standard for all of them. All of them have different characteristics, different attributes, etcetera.

It was the position of the group of individuals there that as members of the Florida Association of Special Districts, we would be coming together as a group of districts to help set for opposing any specific numerical standard and set standards we can live with for the long haul operation of our districts and to the benefit of our residents versus our residents being required to spend exorbitant amounts of dollars for treatment of water which may or may not be necessary. There is in here a sample resolution which was forwarded to most of the districts, depending on whether we support their actions or not. In addition to supporting their actions, potentially by resolution which would have to be cleaned up by District counsel, they were also looking for a contribution of $3,000 to $5,000 as a commitment to help support the effort of the group to fight this for all of our benefit.

Mr. Fennell asked how much?

Mr. Cassel responded I would say up to a level of $5,000 to be contributed as we go through it. I would not contribute it all at one time. I would find out what others are doing and contribute slowly towards it, but I do not expect to exceed this amount of money.

Mr. Fennell asked did we have something we set aside last time in our budget regarding something along these lines?

Mr. Daly responded we have some money out there which can use for this. This is legislative of sorts.

Mr. Fennell stated this is the idea. We are trying to formulate policy which is unified above and beyond our group.

Mr. Daly asked are they asking for $5,000 or so for everyone of the districts here?

Mr. Cassel responded they are asking for some contribution, no specific amount, from all of the districts listed depending on the size of the district and number of canals, etcetera. I came up with an idea and a scenario of somewhere between $3,000 to $5,000 would be an appropriate committal of dollars for NSID or CSID because of the nature of what we do and how we interact. I do not expect PTWCD to contribute that much because they are smaller and have less. They might contribute a lesser amount of money. The fact is they are looking for the continuity and unity of the mass of drainage districts south of Orlando to be able to make sure we do not get adversely impacted by some standards which are set out there, and criteria, so it costs all of us multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more, to comply.

Mr. Hanks asked do we know how the standards they are looking at compare to the current quality measures we have?

Mr. Cassel responded this is part of what the group is doing. The group is compiling water quality testing from the majority of the districts we have. We are sending it to them so they can say, “Coral Springs is such an average so let us fight to keep that or higher. Lake Worth is this amount. Let us fight to keep it there.” It may be lower or higher than Coral Springs. We are basically looking at the whole area seeing where we are and what we can fight for. At the same time they are looking at, currently our canals are classified as Class 3 water bodies, which are swimming, fishing and recreation, and they are looking at possibly reclassifying the canals as drainage so that we do not get caught in that scenario. They can have their regulations on certain ones which are mores like lakes and streams versus the ones which are specifically for conveying water from point A to point B.

Mr. Hanks stated so the short answer is we do not know where our District falls relative to what the proposed regulations are.

Mr. Cassel stated at this point in time, no. They are still playing with it. From what I understand the alphabet soup has not come out with a number yet. The districts are trying to band together and have some information to say whatever number they potentially come out with, which they always pick the smallest number and cut it in half, we want them to go double the number they think.

Mr. Fennell stated I think it is a good idea for us to contribute, but I want to be assured of who will be holding the money which is going to be spent. We do not want it just to disappear.

Mr. Cassel stated I understand. Prior to any distribution of funds I will know exactly what it is going to and have it back to you; what it is going to, what for and what the expected results are.

Mr. Fennell stated I can see us contributing a small amount just in general to get something going.

Mr. Hanks stated we have data on our water quality.

Mr. Cassel stated we will be feeding them this data as well as NSID’s data and any other data we have for sampling, which will help tremendously in establishing what currently is and what will work versus some arbitrary number they may come up with.

Mr. Hanks stated this is referencing impacts to MS4s. They are municipal separate storm water sewer systems. Are we an MS4 or are we part of Broward County? Where do we really stand on this?

Mr. Cassel responded it is initially MS4s, but we are currently within the boundary of the City of Coral Springs. They may have designations as MS4s, but we are one of the conveyances of the stormwater. I do not believe we have an MS4 permit.

Mr. Hanks stated so we may not have all of the necessary paperwork.

Mr. Cassel stated we may not be required to have certain things, but because we own and operate the conveyance systems…

Mr. Hanks stated we should still be complying with it because it is the right thing to do.

Mr. Cassel stated exactly. We need to make sure what we are doing does not adversely affect anyone downstream, to the east or to the west or whatever. We need to do what we need to do. We also need to protect the residents from potential exorbitant costs of treating water which really does not need to be treated. This is really where this can potentially go. They can have you treating your rain water. In reality, in a couple of cases the rain water which falls exceeds some of the levels they want the water to have after it hits the ground in certain cases.

Mr. Hanks asked do we need a motion on this?

Mr. Cassel responded no. I would say just direction.

Mr. Lyles asked do you want to establish a specific number at this point? They are asking for a resolution of support. The resolution of support, which is in the back up material, asks that you submit it in the name of the District. I do not know what resolution number we are on, but we need to pass it.

Mr. Fennell asked do you have any issues with the resolution Mr. Lyles?

Mr. Lyles responded no. I think it does track the policy of objecting to the numerical criteria for the reasons the manager outlined. It contains within it language that you are a member in good standing of the Florida Association of Special Districts, which you are; that you affected by the proposed regulations, which you are; that you wish to join with the Florida Association of Special Districts in opposing these regulations, which you have indicated you do support; and it does indicate in paragraph three on page two that staff is authorized and directed to make such monetary contributions to the Florida Association of Special Districts that may be determined by the Board. I thought I heard you say you want to make an initial contribution to get started now and you will consider a more substantial contribution depending on what others contribute and which way things are going at a later time. So ‘A’ would be to adopt Resolution 2009-8 relating to the states adoption of numeric water quality standards with the provisions I have outlined and since the resolution itself does not contain a monetary cap, we can take it up with a separate motion. First you want to approve Resolution 2009-8.

Mr. Hanks stated let me make sure I understand; if things are not opposed and our voice is not heard within the rulemaking procedure, we have lost that voice and we have to follow whatever standards are out there.

Mr. Cassel stated exactly.

Mr. Hanks stated one of the standards which is potentially out there which would be lumped into are natural lakes and streams so something that, I do not even know what the different water bodies are, but we can end up…

Mr. Cassel stated push back towards the pristine look and affect of issues versus manmade canals.

On MOTION Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor Resolution 2009-8, relating to the state adoption of numeric water quality standards, was adopted.

Mr. Fennell stated I proposed we contribute an initial amount of $1,500. Do you agree?

Mr. Hanks responded I was going to say $2,000.

Ms. Zich stated yes, $2,000.

On MOTION Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the Board authorized staff to initially contribute $2,000 to the Florida Association of Special Districts to support efforts associated with the development of numeric quality standards.

Mr. Fennell stated I think we have to do this.

Mr. Hanks stated you have other districts out there which are potentially affected.

Mr. Skehan stated we tracking this on a separate basis with one of our other people who is an environmental scientist. We can provide some additional insight along the way.

Mr. Cassel stated if you look at the number of attendees, the number of people who are concerned about this potential ramming of some number down their throat is substantial. This is one of the encouraging things when I showed up at the meeting and saw a packed room. We are not going to get shafted and we need to be at the table.

Mr. Daly asked who started this and got the attorney involved in this?

Mr. Cassel responded the Florida Association of Special Districts and Lake Worth was the host of the meeting. I signed up on one of their special committees to keep ramrodding this thing forward.

Mr. Fennell asked is there anything else from the manager?

Mr. Cassel responded yes. You have in front of you a letter from Layne. It is a positive letter of contractor understanding. Some of the issues and potential delays at this point in time are related to their means and methods. They are not looking for any delays or anything else. They understand they need to get it done in the timeframe they proposed and they will do whatever they have to do to stay on track.

Mr. Fennell asked what are they doing?

Mr. Cassel responded they are doing your Monitoring Well #3. I received this today and thought it would be appropriate to bring it before you. Layne as a contractor is a positive experience. They are doing whatever they need to do to keep things on track and moving forward.

Mr. Fennell asked is the monitoring well moving forward?

Mr. Cassel responded the monitoring well is moving forward. The problem child is our other project, which is the Lanzo/Intrastate contract for the water treatment plant and Plant F. We have been, through my efforts, Mr. Hyche’s efforts, through Mr. Daly’s efforts and through CH2M Hill’s efforts, asking and pushing for them to get the permits and have the appropriate number of people onsite to get things happening. We have been documenting their slowness to respond on issues. We have scheduled a meeting with the owner of Lanzo on Thursday along with the Intrastate people to have a Dutch Uncle meeting. They need to get engaged and get it happening. We get a lot of excuses of why they are not getting things done.

Ms. Zich stated we do have the permit.

Mr. Cassel stated for Plant F, yes. We do not have the permit for the water treatment plant.

Ms. Zich stated the nanoplant.

Mr. Cassel stated the nanoplant. We have been fighting with them.

Ms. Zich stated this has been going on for two months.

Mr. Cassel stated three months. We have been pushing. We have had it from the county. We got it through the county three weeks ago.

Mr. Bulman stated yes and then there was a delay because the contractor needed to write a simple letter explaining they will not have hazardous materials within the zones of the monitoring well. They dragged their feet and then finally had stamps from Broward County so they could submit to the City of Coral Springs the middle of last week. My understanding is they submitted to the City of Coral Springs today. I have not seen confirmation of a transmittal letter.

Mr. Hanks stated so this is the types of issues you have been having with them.

Mr. Cassel stated we are constantly on them about these issues.

Ms. Zich stated so we had the groundbreaking two or three months ago and everyone keeps saying we are going to have it this week.

Mr. Cassel stated we have had primarily, and this is my issues for having CH2M Hill document everything and we have conveyed to them, every issue which has had any delay has been self imposed by them not getting things to the city or to the engineer on a timely basis. We lost three weeks on a special engineer’s form which needed to be sealed for their special inspector. We sat in the meeting with the city. I believe it was a Tuesday or Wednesday. We were told they would have it by that Friday. We received the letter three weeks later. It has been very frustrating. My proposition to the Board, and my position at this point, is if we do not see marked improvement in their productivity after this meeting on Thursday, we may want to call a special meeting of the Board to consider options with the contract.

Mr. Fennell asked have you talked directly to the contractor, the boss?

Mr. Cassel responded Mr. Johnson has spoken with him, WD has spoken to several of them, I mentioned things. There had been some letters sent directly to him. We received a response on the last letter which was sent directly to Lanzo, but I think it is going to have the Lanzo guys and the other guys in a direct face to face meeting on Thursday which will be either the make or break.

Mr. Hanks stated I felt frustrated when I had to take time away from my child’s spring concert to go to a city commission meeting and meet face to face with the city commissioner and plead our case to please make sure the building department moves quickly on things.

Mr. Cassel stated exactly and it is not the building department. The city has been well with us in the whole process. Mr. Schubert calls me every Monday. He calls Mr. Skehan every Monday to see if he has things and when he can expect them. They are eager to do what we need to do. It is the contractor who is dragging his feet. CH2M Hill, Mr. Hyche, all of us have been asking questions of where the stuff is, where we are and what is going on. We get promises, but we do not get deliveries.

Mr. Hanks asked what remedies do we have in our contract?

Mr. Johnson responded we began writing letters explaining contract deficiency. The end result, or the final bullet, is to exercise general condition 15.02 in the specifications, which is a seven day notice to terminate for cause. We do not want to go down this road.

Mr. Fennell asked are they really not ready to start? To have someone staffed in your department for two weeks who is holding up the whole business you are talking about, which is millions of dollars, If I was in that camp, I would be hunting that guy down unless I am intentionally trying to delay the program. Or is there a degree of incompetence? I am trying to understand if this is incompetency or intentional delay.

Mr. Johnson stated we share your same question and opinion about how we would conduct our business. The fact is there are other projects they are working on. We were supposed to have people out there today and they had to go to another job to work. There are some limitations on what they can do. They need to build based on approved submittals. They submit how they are going to build to us. We approve or reject and have them resubmit. There are numerous submittals we have not received from them. The ones we did receive from them we turned around quickly. There are a handful which are approved. The rest of them have been rejected for re-submittal. There are a lot of parallel tasks which need to be happening here and none of them are going. We have RFIs on anything and everything they may have a concern with the design. There are things we are turning around to them in record fashion. We are making sure we try to help make up any ground we can.

Mr. Fennell asked Mr. Skehan, Ms. Early, what is really going on here?

Mr. Skehan responded Mr. Johnson said it accurately. They do have people going to other projects. This has been part of the difficulty. Across the board there has been a great deal of handholding where it was not necessary on the permitting side with the county. The permits needed to be initiated first. From the county they go to the city.

Mr. Fennell asked have you guys gone down and talked to their contractor at a high level meeting?

Mr. Cassel responded we have had a meeting with Mr. Bisogno and Mr. Brown. They have not corrected the issue.

Mr. Fennell asked who are they?

Mr. Johnson responded Mr. Bisogno is the owner of Intrastate. They are the sub to Lanzo. Our latest letter to the contractor was to Lanzo. That was the contract deficiency breach of contract letter. It stirred up something. They had people onsite last week, but there was no follow through. There has been no continuation of work.

Mr. Fennell stated before we give someone seven day notice we need a real understanding from you guys that you have gone to the highest level of whoever is in control. Are they really ready to go? Are they already tied up in some other projects and are not going to be able to get to this project? Otherwise, you are going to get involved in little hassles of things going back and forth. As you know there are 101 different ways to delay a program, but if the boss really wants it, it will happen.

Mr. Cassel stated this is why I received the email the end of last week from Mr. Johnson delineating a number of things. I met with Mr. Johnson earlier today and this is why we will have the meeting with the Lanzo individual on Thursday. From that meeting we will read to see how well and how anxious they are to continue. We will go from there. I point out the potential of a special meeting, but it depends on a read and a performance. We may need to call a special meeting prior to the next meeting to move further down with some action.

Mr. Skehan stated the bonding company could be called about it. More often than not, the bonding company will in turn put it back to the same company that has the contract in the first place. They will just have a different leverage on them from a monetary standpoint and a legal standpoint.

Ms. Early stated they do not want to lose the bond.

Mr. Skehan stated when we looked at some of the schedule, and not getting buried in all of the details of the schedule when it came in a week ago, their completion dates for the schedule were pretty much in line with where they need to be. They appear to demonstrate they will be completed by December of next year.

Mr. Fennell asked they do not think they are late?

Mr. Skehan responded I do not want to say that. They have not commented on it.

Mr. Johnson stated we are in the process of addressing their preliminary baseline schedule right now. The initial read on it is it is riddled with problems. There is no critical path to it. There are no milestones. Certain tasks we would expect to take a decent duration are said to take three days. We are in the process of marking it up and returning it to them. The read on it is they set the date at the end and then just backed into it.

Mr. Daly asked is this the first time anyone has seen this schedule? We said they would be done in X amount of months. If now we did not do, collectively, our homework, then shame on us.

Mr. Cassel responded it is the contractor’s responsibility to provide the baseline schedule. We are holding to our original baseline schedule. Their baseline schedule should match our schedule very closely. They have not submitted their baseline schedule until now. We have been on them requesting this baseline schedule since the Notice to Proceed went out.

Mr. Daly stated just as a footnote, I think the last time we received an invoice from this organization for the $5.9 Million project that was cleared out in January was in February. Here we are. September of 2009 is coming up. We took the bond out in September of 2007. We have paid $1.9 Million in interest since we went out for the bond, yet we have not had a shovel hit that ground other than the one the Board members had. There are a lot of issues involved with how much money we are spending when we went out for the money.

Mr. Fennell stated so we need to have this meeting and make several determinations. Are they just being mean and obtuse or are there some real issues they have?

Ms. Zich asked can they get penalized for this?

Mr. Skehan responded the penalty would come at the close of the project and/or if some other determination is made at the front of the project that they are not competent to move forward or they are being non responsive to our request. This is what Mr. Johnson has been suggesting. That we potentially look at another contractor; a second low bid.

Ms. Zich stated this just seems terrible that this has gone on and on.

Mr. Daly stated right now it looks like we are going to have to put approximately $100,000 into one of our water plants to repair to keep up and running because of our delay here. When we initially went out to bid on this project it was with the idea that our assets were falling apart. Now we are going to have to put in possibly $100,000 into one of our water plants just to tie us over.

Ms. Zich stated the timeframe is crazy.

Mr. Fennell stated do your homework on this one. The real question is if they have themselves in a fix where they are over committed with the resources they have that they really cannot respond. It is not just a question of whether these are good guys or bad guys. Maybe they just do not have it right now. Maybe they have two other projects that have fallen on their faces and they have six months to a year’s worth of work to do and they do not have the resources to do it. I do not know what we do then.

Mr. Johnson stated in the specifications there are numerous clauses, one of them being they provide an adequate workforce.

Mr. Fennell stated all of that stuff is good unless they do not have the workforce. You have to find out if they cannot fulfill the contract or if they are just a month or two late.

Mr. Hanks stated let us know how things go and if we need to take it to the next level.

Mr. Daly asked how are they doing on Plant F? There was a lot of activity over there with the ventilation.

Mr. Johnson responded following some letters we directed towards them and towards Lanzo there was a flurry of activity last week. They have not turned in submittals so they cannot start pouring concrete over there. There is a number of things.

Mr. Daly stated that are still on their lap.

Mr. Johnson stated yes. There was a flurry of activity, but I think it was more for show.

Mr. Daly asked did the lift station issue get taken care of with regard to permitting?

Mr. Skehan responded those issues have been taken care of.

Mr. Cassel stated CH2M Hill was all over it. My observation of this scenario is Mr. Skehan, Mr. Johnson and CH2M Hill have been all over this; the same as Mr. Bulman and the monitoring well. CH2M Hill, under our new format of management and how they run a project or work authorization, knows and are on top of the timelines as well as issues in a heartbeat. They have responded and have done excellent in this scenario, making sure whatever they need to get out the door they get out the door. They have been calling the contractor on a daily or every other day basis, which I would expect the contractor to be calling the engineer. This has been my frustration as to this project moving forward because we all keep getting this promise scenario and nothing is happening. It is now at the point where I am not going to put up with it any more.

Ms. Zich stated I have worked for contractors before and I am hardly believing this. This seems like a nightmare. I thought the problem was the city, but it is not the city. It is the contractor. This is just hard to believe that the contractor is doing this. There has to be a reason why because any contractor wants to get his money in the end. He is not going to get any money this way.

Mr. Skehan stated he has money which is held up right now from his permitting. He just processed a pay request last week, which sat there three weeks before hand. Mr. Daly made mention of a pay request which needs to be finalized for a previous project. They just have not dotted the I’s and crossed the T’s.

Mr. Johnson stated as far as what you were saying that we have to look into their organization, at the end of the day what we can hold into is to meet the requirements of the contract. If they are meeting the requirements of the contract, there is no problem. Right now they are clearly not meeting the requirements of the contract specifications.

Mr. Fennell stated jumping back from the engineering function you have to trust whether or not they actually have the resources to pull off the job. This is what you need to look into.

Ms. Zich stated they have done a lot of work for us in the past.

Mr. Fennell stated Intrastate has been here for years.

Mr. Skehan stated they have competent people from our initial assessment. They are experienced. They understand what is needed to get done. We believe they are spread too thin.

Mr. Hanks stated well let us let our people do what they need to do. If it comes down to it, we will have another meeting.

Mr. Fennell stated what might be good going forward is to have the contractors give us a five minute briefing once a month at these meetings from both Intrastate and Lanzo. We have a lot of money going on here.

Ms. Zich stated I agree.

Mr. Hanks stated for periodic updates.

Ms. Zich stated I would love to have one of them here.

Mr. Hanks asked is this going to trigger a change in the contract?

Mr. Cassel responded we will need to look and see if it requires a change.

Mr. Skehan stated we can put forth this request to them. It should not be a problem.

Mr. Fennell stated there is too much money on the table here not to have them.

Ms. Zich stated three months is totally crazy.

Mr. Bulman asked just for clarification, do you need the monitoring well contractor at the next meeting?

Mr. Hanks responded no.

Ms. Zich stated the monitoring well is going well.

Mr. Cassel stated it is going extremely well.

Ms. Zich stated if you are telling me the monitoring well is going well, I am not so sure we need to have him here. Something that is not going well and we are hearing reasons why every month for three months and we are not going anyplace, we should have one of them here.

Mr. Skehan stated we are making progress with the well drilling and there has been a little bit of a slow up. This we have acknowledged. Layne, the contractor, has acknowledged by virtue of the letter. We are satisfied with what they are doing.

Mr. Hanks stated let us extend an invitation to our Nanoplant and Plant F contractors to present their sides of the story.

· Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

· Utility Billing Work Orders

These items are for informational purposes only. There was no discussion.

B. Attorney

Mr. Lyles stated I do not have anything in particular to bring to the Board’s attention other than what we have already discussed. Since we are in the month of July I want to remind the Board members you are in that period immediately after the formal deadline for submission of your financial disclosure forms. If they did not go in by the end of June, there is a grace period this month. If it is not in this month, there might be penalties.

Mr. Fennell stated mine is in.

Ms. Zich stated mine is in.

Mr. Hanks stated mine is in.

Mr. Lyles stated as a matter of course I like to remind the boards we serve that the deadline came and we are still in the grace period.

C. Engineer

Ms. Early stated the first item is the Maplewood Elementary School permit. Mr. Hanks knows there is a lot going on. The engineer is here from Craven Thompson and Associates, Inc. We have worked with him all week. He submitted his final drawings about an hour ago and they do meet all of the District’s criteria. He brought a set of plans if you want to take a look at them.

Mr. Fennell asked what are you trying to do?

Ms. Early responded they are modifying some drainage to change their parking a little bit. We went through their safe storage requirements.

The record will reflect the recording picked up several people talking at the same time.

Mr. Hanks stated the issue on this was the site met the 100 year flood storage, but not the 10 year.

Mr. Cigale stated what was there before was direct discharge. Now we are withholding it.

The record will reflect the recording picked up several people talking at the same time.

Mr. Hanks asked Ms. Early, do you recommend this for approval?

Ms. Early responded yes I do.

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the Maplewood Elementary storm water permit was approved.

Mr. Cassel stated we will catch up the paperwork. The Board has approved it. Since you are already in motion I do not want to delay you any further. Keep moving further based on the approval and we will make the paperwork catch up.

· Consideration of Work Authorization No. 53-07-20-09 – Wastewater Collection System in the Amount of $22,900.

Mr. Cassel stated this is based on prior discussions with the Board and the engineer with regard to looking at the I&I in basins one through six.

Mr. Skehan stated we are going to look at collected data, which is really a desktop study initially, to see what is taking place. We are going to do an initial assessment without going out there and getting into a real expensive endeavor out in the field. We should be able to make some determinations based on information of run times of pumps and flows we are seeing from different places. We can get this data from Mr. Hyche and from operations.

Mr. Fennell asked will this do it? This has been the great mystery for the last year.

Mr. Skehan responded this will give us a much better idea as to what is taking place and why it is taking place. It is a preliminary assessment and we will be able to make the determination of whether we go out there and do additional field testing to more thoroughly evaluate what is taking place in each of these lift stations out there.

Mr. Fennell stated but you do not actually have to go out there to take a look.

Mr. Skehan stated no, we are not. We may take a look at the lift stations themselves.

Mr. Hanks stated when we had our meeting in Mr. Cassel’s office I expressed my concerns. By not making field measurements we are missing something. I thought there was going to be more field work, but $22,900 to look at some data; that is some serious number crunching.

Mr. Skehan stated I do not have the work authorization for the field work.

Mr. Fennell asked can we do most of this ourselves as far as the field work? Do we have cameras where we can take a look?

Mr. Daly responded we have cameras.

Mr. Skehan stated there is a series of going through the mass and getting the mass pulled together to understand what is taking place in each of the individual areas, then collecting all the system details. The lines, where they are, where the stations are and how they are all interconnected is not clearly understood right now. We have to go back through and look at videos. If videos are available, we will look at them to see what it is they are going to be showing us. Then we will look at what the pumps are at each of those lift stations; whether the pumps are matching what is going on and understanding the technical components of what is there in the field right now.

Mr. Hanks stated we still have that issue there that you can be measuring run times on those pumps and for various reasons in those run times you might be missing what is actually going on.

Mr. Skehan stated that is correct. There is rainfall data which needs to be collected, groundwater elevations in those particular areas, the plant information data which is coming in at that particular time. There is an awful lot of correlation of data.

Mr. Hanks stated correlation and coordination so we get the right data at the right time. There is some minimal recognizance which is going to take place out in the field just to understand what is going there. This does not mean installing flow meters for spot sampling when there are significant rain events.

Mr. Hanks stated within this report, are you going to come back with a recommendation and if it does indicate we need to go forward and further refine where the problem is, then it is going to come back with the specific recommendation for where the pump meters are going to need to be installed so we can verify the next step.

Mr. Skehan stated that is almost exactly what one of the bullets states. “The TM will provide recommendations of additional work and testing required to develop an I&I removal plan for each basin and to facilitate the development of contract documents.” We will provide an assessment of the potential costs and measure that cost to see what the cost benefits are of doing this and whether it makes sense to be doing this.

Mr. Hanks stated you are going to take a look at it and see if we need to go ahead and if we go ahead, are we going to get any bang for the buck and how many years will it take us to get that bang back.

Mr. Skehan that is correct. There is a cost benefit analysis, which will be a part of how the recommendation gets pulled together.

Mr. Daly asked what kind of study did we do back when Mr. Moore was around?

Ms. Early responded I do not think he ever did one. I was not aware if he ever did any repairs. I know he wanted to.

Mr. Daly stated we did repairs.

Ms. Early stated we were not involved if you actually replaced things.

Mr. Daly stated we did about six years ago. There would have been a study or something along those lines done.

Mr. Cassel stated it could have been based upon general field knowledge and field information.

Mr. Daly stated it was in conjunction with Mr. McKune so I would imagine it would have been with the company, CH2M Hill. I just want to know if you duplicate some of the information we had.

Mr. Skehan stated we looked back to see if there was any assessment which had been done like this. I did not find anything in our records which demonstrated this.

Mr. Daly stated I am sure we spent considerable dollars.

Mr. Cassel asked do you know what year it might have been? Maybe we can find something in the records.

Ms. Early stated we can give Mr. McKune a call too.

Mr. Daly stated only because some of this may have been done. The only reason I bring this up is because I know we isolated a certain area based on how often the motors were running and we went in to do some retro fitting to try and fix it.

Ms. Early asked did you put some cameras in there?

Mr. Cassel responded I believe there are some cameras. I believe that is where Mr. Hyche indicated there is potential video. That is part of the data on classifying these six basins. These are the primary areas where we are getting potential infiltration and we want to look at those first.

Mr. Hanks asked will you be looking at the potential for surface infiltration or will that be part of your recommendation?

Mr. Skehan responded based on groundwater levels and what is taking place in the immediate vicinities of that. That is part of the recognizance I saw there of one of the bullet items.

Mr. Fennell asked what do you think?

Mr. Hanks responded I think we have been looking at it in a couple of different ways. We have kind of taken the common knowledge approach. What is triggering this all is the…

Mr. Skehan stated mechanical integrity testing.

Mr. Hanks stated you have to take one well out of service. Are the rest of the Board members familiar with this?

Mr. Skehan responded I am not sure of the level of detail as with the conversation we had with you. When the mechanical integrity testing took place there was an excessive amount of flow which came into the system because it had rained almost non-stop for two weeks. This just happened to coincide with when the two injection wells were going to be taken out of service intermittently to be able to perform the test. The question is if each of the injection wells have the adequate capacity to be able to dispose of these peak flows taking place, coming into the plant. Leading up to the mechanical integrity testing flows were something like 3.5 MGDs. Then we got these heavy flows coming through, the flows jumped up to something like 6.5 MGDs. Then DEP starts asking questions. Part of this effort is trying to mitigate any potential large spending retro fit that would have to take place for another injection well. If we can identify the potential sources of where some of this in flow is taking place, it manages rainfall coming into the collection system and it is sort of a stop gap measure to prohibit DEP from asking something more.

Mr. Hanks stated like a new injection well or another plant.

Mr. Skehan stated another injection well or more capacity in the plant for the additional flow. More capacity in the plant means a potential ripple effect into another injection well. Spending $20,000 will help us understand what the issues are and DEP can come down the road in another couple of months after they have reviewed the mechanical integrity report and they can say we need a $5 Million or $6 Million injection well. This is what we are trying to avoid.

Mr. Fennell asked is this issue reflected?

Mr. Skehan responded we have not dug into these issues. That is what this work authorization is going to look at; what this data means. What we do not understand when we look at some of the information there is some of the points Mr. Hanks mentioned; the pumps, the horsepower of the pumps, are there limitations in the mechanical components of the system for collection and tipping it into the plant which prohibits the data from representing what is actually taking place.

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor WA-53-072009 was approved.

· Project Status Report

Ms. Early asked do we want to talk about Bru’s Room?

Mr. Cassel responded yes. We have been working with Bru’s Room. We have some information for them. They do have a current storm water permit, but we are going to set up a meeting and field walk it since we are having trouble getting details. We are going to field walk the site, see the difference between what was before and what is now and make a determination to get this thing passed on. It is really an internal remodeling with a little bit outside. We are trying to make sure it goes through and passes. I have had discussion with you, Mr. Hanks, and with the city. They are on board with checking these things up front and making sure whoever starts coming in now gets a sign off from us that they have a current five year permit in place.

Mr. Hanks stated not only that it is current, but for permit modifications.

Mr. Cassel stated modifications or if they are going to do any changes; pervious or impervious. The fact they do have a plan, they have an active permit and there are no changes to their pervious and impervious, we will go through the process quickly.

Mr. Hanks stated so staff, including the engineers, would take a look at their proposed plans and see how it matches with the approved plans. If it does not match, they have to come back with a revised plan.

Mr. Cassel stated that is correct and the city will do what the city does with us as well as with others. You do not get your permit until you get CSID’s stamp.

Mr. Hanks stated okay.

Ms. Early stated one of the problems was they did not have an engineer. It was just the contractor we were dealing with. He sent us over plans, which were just common plans and the site plan with no drainage information. I did get in touch with the architect. He is going to email me an existing survey and what was proposed. I had to call him again today and I just got the email 15 minutes ago. We can take a look at it tomorrow.

Mr. Hanks asked are we able to not turn on their water? What are our options?

Mr. Lyles responded water no. There are a lot of serious federal consequences when you turn people’s water off. The problem is not water. The problem is drainage. They are connected to our drainage system and they do not meet our permit criteria, I think our ultimate hammer is not allowing them to drain into our system until they bring their project into compliance with our criteria. We notify the city that they do not have any drainage and go that route.

We might want to consider whether we want to take them into court and force them to comply because they are not in compliance. This one got through the cracks with the city as I understand it. We have a better system than what we used to have with the city in terms of making sure our criteria and the need to get a permit from us are recognized and enforced. This one did not happen, but in a huge increase of the percentage of the cases it does happen.

Mr. Hanks stated in the big picture it is a good thing Bru’s Room happened because it opened up further dialogue with the city. We are very appreciative to Mr. Cassel. He has taken the effort to have this dialogue. I am appreciative the city has been positive in their response. The other party we need to reach an understanding with in terms of these modifications is SFWMD. If you think about some of the larger permits, anything over 40 acres has to be permitted through SFWMD. We need to reach an understanding with SFWMD and perhaps we need to request permit modifications for that would also be through our District with subsequent additional approval from them with a parallel review on those.

Mr. Cassel stated okay.

Ms. Early asked did you discuss the grant applications at the last meeting? I was not here.

Mr. Hanks asked is that the AWA?

Mr. Skehan responded no. That is a different one. There are other grant application opportunities which have come along also that Ms. Early has been working on.

Ms. Early stated the notice to participate was due June 30, 2009. I called Mr. Cassel and he told me to go ahead. I filled out I believe five applications. The actual grant application is due in November. I am working with the gentleman in Tallahassee to see if we are going to qualify for it. If we do, I will come back with a work authorization to actually do these grant applications. It is called Pre-Disaster Mitigation. It is to prevent flooding if a hurricane comes. Some of the things we want to do are improvements, tree removal in right-of-ways, and I did five different applications for CSID. Once I find out if we are qualified and we can move forward I will get more information and start working on it.

Mr. Cassel stated it is 25% local match and 75% match from them. It is for mitigation type issues. They have been doing these types of pre-disaster mitigation grants for 20 years in different areas. Dade County used it. The Youth Fair Building in Dade County is a shelter that is hardened to categories four and five. A lot of the money which came to do that came from pre-disaster grant money.

Mr. Fennell asked next month will you put in the calendar to go over your “to do” list of all the different things you do to prepare for hurricane season?

Mr. Cassel responded we did it June 1, 2009. We will bring you a report.

Mr. Fennell stated sometimes we have prearranged agreements for debris removal. Have we made any kind of arrangements like that?

Mr. Daly responded we did not.

Mr. Fennell asked do we need to?

Mr. Daly responded what we have done in the past is we have piggy backed on the city as a handshake gesture.

Mr. Lyles stated the problem with piggy backing is you are in a subordinate position when a crisis arrives.

Mr. Hanks asked were there changes to the level of bidding?

Mr. Lyles responded no. That was our proposed bill that got vetoed.

Mr. Daly stated we need to ask questions of Mr. Lyles with regard to piggy backing. We need clarification on it.

Mr. Fennell stated it is tough to get someone in here to do the work. I know it took us months to get someone in here to do it.

Mr. Hanks asked do we need to condition any permits coming up where the property owner will need to move trees, palms and structures within the right-of-way?

Mr. Daly asked were we going to put that in the permit criteria manual?

Mr. Hanks responded I do not remember if we were going to try to do that or if was going to be just a policy.

Mr. Lyles stated it would have to be part of the permit criteria manual. I think we have gone through this in recent months. You have not adopted the new version yet, but it is something I see no reason that we cannot include it. Part of the process of applying for issuing a permit for new construction or renovation would be to clear out of the District’s right-of-way whatever is there.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of June Financials and Check Registers

· Summary of Cash Transactions

Mr. Fennell stated everything looked great to me and then I look at Excess Revenues (Expenditures) and all of a sudden we are $470,000 short. We are really not. It really reflects we paid off the bond issue.

Ms. Zich stated that is correct.

Mr. Hanks stated $470,000 different than what we had anticipated.

Ms. Woodward stated you got rid of one bond issue. As we go through during the year your monthly financials reflect cash basis. Whenever you pay off the principle under normal accrual accounting you would reduce the actual bond issue by the amount of principle you paid off. Because we budget that we are actually going to fund that into our trust account we show that temporarily during the year as an expenditure in the income statement. When we close the books on September 30, 2009 we will transfer the amounts paid from principle out of the revenue looking statements and we will actually show it as a reduction of the liabilities.

Ms. Zich stated this is an unusual accounting method. I was not familiar with it until I got involved in CSID. I am used to the accrual system. The way we do it here is all the expense comes in the month that we pay it, even though it is the whole year.

Ms. Woodward stated we do not actually report expenses. We are reporting expenditures. The difference is money in, money out. Anytime money goes out we call it an expenditure. That expenditure might be an expense or it can be the payment of some of your principle balance. During the year you are allowed to see whether we brought money in and spent money out of the District based on the way we budgeted at the beginning of the year. In the end of the year in the audit, there will be nothing showing in the way of principle expenditure. All of that will be offset and it will show as a reduction in the balance sheet of your liabilities.

Ms. Zich stated this is a governmental way of doing this. It is not like a normal company.

Mr. Fennell stated once again it looks like we are doing a good job of controlling expenses and revenues. We are on track.

Mr. Cassel stated Mr. Bloom is working with the trustees on the other bonds to figure out how to better invest those dollars so we are getting something back.

Ms. Zich stated I want to point something out about our assessment collection. Us collecting that much in June, you can see what the state of the economy is. I mean, $130,000 in June is just crazy because almost everyone would pay it within the first four months you have.

Mr. Daly stated you have a lot of movement with foreclosures.

Ms. Zich stated we used to collect it all up front a couple of years ago. Everything got collected in November and December.

Mr. Daly stated Mr. Zilmer and I met with an insurance broker. In an effort to have real numbers in the budget, we have asked him to come forward with a policy starting August 1^st and ending July 31^st, which would give us real numbers next year in time for the budget. Right now the first numbers for Aetna is a 15% increase, which is what we budgeted for.

On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the June financial statements and check registers were approved.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

Glen Hanks Robert D. Fennell

Secretary President