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, November
16, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. at the District Office, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral
Springs, Florida.
Present
and constituting a quorum were:
Robert
Fennell President
Sharon
Zich Vice
President
Glenn
Hanks Secretary
Also
present were:
Peter
Witschen Severn
Trent Services
Sue
Delegal District
Counsel
Jane
Early District
Engineer
Dan
Daly Director
of Operations
Jan
Zilmer Human
Resources Manager
Kay
Woodward District
Accountant
FIRST
ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Witschen called the
meeting to order and called the roll.
Mr. Fennell stated I would like to
express our condolences for the loss of Mr. Cassel’s mother.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes
of the October 19, 2009 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each
Board member received a copy of the minutes of the October 19, 2009 meeting and
requested any corrections, additions or deletions.
There not being any,
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by
Mr. Fennell with all in favor the minutes of the October 19, 2009 meeting were
approved.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’
Requests and Audience Comments
Mr. Hanks stated I do not know if
you noticed, but the Walgreens is being built where the old Borders was. I asked our manager to take a look into
it. I do not believe they have our
permit yet. They need to get a permit
from us.
Ms. Early stated we spoke to them
last week. We told them they were not in
compliance. They need to submit the
calculations which have been requested. They
have a meeting with Mr. Da Silva tomorrow morning. They are just doing a demo right now. We are on top of it.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Resolution 2010-1, Amending the Water and Sewer Budget for Fiscal Year 2009,
Resolution 2010-2, Amending the General Fund Budget for Fiscal Year 2009
Mr. Witschen stated these are two
clean up resolutions to have the auditors review the fact the budget was put in
order. I understand earlier in the year
the District paid down the debt service.
The first resolution increases the principal payment. The second resolution is a clean up
resolution which takes surplus balances from last year’s account and recommends
putting them into a reserve account for unexpected occurrences which may come
in the future. We do this after the
fiscal year has closed to amend the budget so when you have your audit it shows
there has been a reconciled budget back to the actual expenditures.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by
Mr. Fennell with all in favor Resolution 2010-1, amending the water and sewer
budget for fiscal year 2009, and Resolution 2010-2, amending the general fund
budget for fiscal year 2009, were adopted.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Resolution 2010-3, Supporting the Petition for Rule-Making Filed by the
Stormwater Association, Inc.
Mr. Fennell asked what are we doing
here?
Mr. Witschen responded my understanding
is the EPA and the State are considering numeric rule changes to the stormwater
in the areas of nitrogen and phosphate.
They are trying to change standards, which would impact us and groups
that watch over waterways. This will
enhance the standard for water quality which would dramatically affect the
operation of maintenance of it. It would
try to force our canals into a standard that would look more like one for
recreational use. Our custodial duties
are for emergency management of stormwater and not for recreational fishing
issues. Staff is here if you would like
a further explanation of what this is. It
tries to help plead our case that these standards are beyond us in this
District.
Mr. Fennell stated but we are not
actually mentioning any standards here.
Mr. Witschen asked as far as the
numeric standards?
Mr. Fennell stated we do not
actually say anything about the standards we want to see.
Mr. Daly stated Section two in the
back should summarize it for you.
Mr. Witschen stated I think in general
terms what it does is it tries to differentiate between a recreation use and
our use, which is a drainage use. There
is no reason to have the water quality in drainage canals that are in a
swimmable or fishable body of water. We
are endorsing the concept of a bifurcation of the standards.
Mr. Fennell stated I do not actually
see anything in here that is a level. I
do not see those words.
Ms. Delegal stated it looks like
there is a specific petition for rulemaking.
I do not know if that was submitted to us. Is there a petition we might have received?
Mr. Fennell responded there was a
large document sent out.
Mr. Witschen stated there is a
petition which is referred to in this resolution. It says it will be attached to it. I do not have the document back up
unfortunately.
Mr. Hyche stated this is basically
you are fighting the reclassification of your waterways. They are trying to keep you from naming your
drainage waterways as public waterways, in other words for recreational use. They are not for recreational use and we do
not want them to be for recreational use.
These numeric standards are too high for us to adhere to it. This is the reason for the petition and this
is the reason they are asking you to join in their petition to fight this.
Mr. Witschen stated if you look at
what is in the backyards of our canals, we do not have control over it so we do
not have control of what would be loaded into the waterways.
Mr. Hanks stated so we are just
asking DEP to reclassify….
Mr. Hyche stated to not include us
in the classification as public waterways for public use, which we are
not.
Mr. Hanks asked what is the down
side to adopting this resolution? Is
there a down side?
Mr. Hyche responded in my opinion,
no.
Mr. Witschen stated from our opinion
there is none. It continues to express our
support that the standards should not be enhanced to recreational level.
Mr. Fennell stated as I understood
it we thought most of the drainage districts would have difficulty reclaiming
it.
Mr. Hyche stated you could not reach
the numeric standards they are asking for without some form of nano treatment.
Mr. Hanks asked so what do we have
in our canals that we would have to go there to comply?
Mr. Hyche responded if it is classified
as recreational.
Mr. Hanks asked counsel, do you have
any concerns?
Ms. Delegal responded no. I only heard there may be some concerns about
exactly what we are doing because it does not say it in specific words.
Mr. Fennell stated I think we should
probably add to it “the petition put out on September 14, 2009.”
Ms. Delegal stated what this
actually does is it attaches a copy of the petition to the resolution. The o last ‘whereas’ clause says Florida
Stormwater Association, Inc. has filed a petition attached hereto. Your resolution is going to be attached to
the petition. The petition is the
document which is being submitted to the DEP for rulemaking. This resolution supports that petition on
behalf of this agency. That petition
with its wording will be attached as an exhibit.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Ms. Zich with all in favor Resolution 2010-3, supporting the petition for
rulemaking filed by the Florida Stormwater Association, Inc., was adopted.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Manager
·
Monthly
Water and Sewer Charts
Mr.
Fennell asked what is the latest on the infiltration?
Ms.
Early responded they are still working on their final reports.
Mr. Fennell stated we talked a
little bit about the fact we have a camera, but it is kind of old.
Mr. Hyche stated it basically only
sees the six inch line and when we put it in it sort of worms around. You never get a clear view and it does not
see under water well. The lenses do not
go under water.
Mr. Hanks asked so what do we want
to do?
Mr. Daly responded we have tapes out
there that they have taken.
Ms. Early stated they have looked at
some of those tapes. They were prior to
any lining.
Mr. Daly stated it would still show
laterals and anything else.
Ms. Early stated no. I do not think it did.
Mr. Hanks stated if I were sitting
in Ms. Early and Mr. Schwarz shoes I would be requesting new information as to
the present condition and asking them to report on it.
Mr. Fennell stated Mr. Cassel was
thinking about buying some new cameras.
Mr. Hanks stated I do not think that
is something we should do in house.
Mr. Fennell asked are the cameras
that expensive?
Mr. Hyche responded the ones for
that use are expensive; plus the recording.
Mr. Fennell asked so when will we
have the report?
Mr. Daly asked where is the money
for them? That is a legitimate question
because when we did this with the Zurichs six or eight years ago it was over $2
million just to reline. If we get the
camera work right now, what do we do after that? Are we in a position to go forward with
repairing the infrastructure? At this
point in time, unless we come up with another funding mechanism, we are
not. I just want to put this out there
now because we need to get creative with regard to this.
Mr. Fennell asked I am not so sure
about that. First off we need
intermission. We do not have a report on
it, but we are pretty sure we do just because of what the study has already
told us from the last meeting.
Mr. Daly stated we see it every
month.
Mr. Fennell stated for a long time
it has been a continuously worsening problem.
It has gotten to a position where now it is not just a question of
processing the water, but we also have a problem with getting rid of the
water. We have to really understand the
problem. If we go spend the money for
the cameras, does anyone know how much it will cost us; $25,000 or $30,000?
Mr. Hyche stated it depends on the
area you want to do.
Mr. Fennell stated we have to do at
least that much to understand the scope and severity of the problem. The question after that always breaks down to;
how severe the problem is, how extensive it is and how much it will cost to fix
it. Even if we find all of this, do we
have enough money? I think we still have
about $3 Million or $4 Million in our funds that are not aimed at anything. We still have that much left.
Ms. Woodward stated that is not
exactly true. It is not currently aimed
at anything, but between now and 2014 we have $4 Million per year with our debt
service. One of our requirements is we
are trying to make sure we are funded 110% of that to cover our debt service
requirement. We are trying to keep that
in tact because even once that $4 Million a year goes away and drops down to a
lesser number, the problem is when it drops down to $3 Million a year it does
not necessarily free up the additional $1 Million for use on other projects
because when we get done with the nanoplant, for example, it is my
understanding we might get a condition where we have to have the nanoplant and
the old plant sort of running parallel or being available and up and
running. This means I have staffing,
insurance, supplies, electric, etcetera and I am not sure how much it is going
to cost to have two plants up at the same time.
Mr. Hyche stated there will be some
overlap.
Mr. Daly stated the other thing is
the remaining money that is in the bond fund which was not earmarked for those
projects we have must go to new construction.
That is the way I understood it. This
would be a repair.
Ms. Early stated we can look into
that. We may be able to write an
amendment to the Engineer’s Report to include it. We can look into it and find out.
Mr. Daly stated I think the way the
bond report is written write now it has to be new construction.
Ms. Early stated it might be. I am not sure.
Mr. Hanks stated we have a
substantial amount of inflow coming in that is going to be impacting us already
in terms of our plant operations. The
question is; are the repairs going to represent something that we can recover
our investment?
Ms. Early responded that is why I
think the report is going to come with some numbers to show you what it is
costing you per year because of the problem and if you fix the problem, what
are some estimates on what it will cost to fix it.
Mr. Fennell stated they cannot
really know this until they take cameras out and give us a real indication. We may just have a broken main some where.
Mr. Hyche stated looking at the
hours on the lift stations it is coming from a broad area.
Mr. Hanks asked have we gone ahead
and pumped the manholes on that?
Mr. Hyche responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked are any segments of
that line surcharged? Are there portions
where there is an identifiable….
Mr. Hyche responded no.
Mr. Hanks asked is there an increase
in magnitude from one manhole to another which is not consistent with the number
of connections you would have?
Mr. Hyche responded not initially.
Mr. Fennell stated we cannot, not
look and identify the problem. We will
decide which way the funds go after we get the progress report.
Mr. Hyche stated the issue is your
injection wells. Your secondary
injection well cannot accept your average daily flow currently as it is going
down. That is not the issue with the
well because the well has been pressure tested to show it would accept the
flow. The issue with that pump in my
opinion is the manifold piping system. That
has to be looked at.
Mr. Hanks asked is that what is
being looked at in the surge analysis?
Mr. Hyche responded yes. I believe there is a work authorization for
them to do that.
Mr. Fennell asked is there any input
from that so far?
Ms. Early responded no.
Mr. Fennell stated okay. So we have two problems actually or three
maybe. One is the well itself. It may not be big enough to always take
everything. Right now we cannot get the
amount of water we need.
Mr. Hyche stated it has been tested
to prove that it will take. It can
take. You have to look at the
restrictions now to what is causing the reason why you cannot get it down from
the pumps. That is, in my opinion, the
piping system.
Mr. Hanks stated you do not need to
go ahead and televise the lines to establish the magnitude of potential
savings.
Mr. Hyche stated my first attempt
would be to look at the IW.
Mr. Fennell stated but we have
already given engineering money to go look at that.
Mr. Hanks stated Ms. Woodward, for
me this would be a task for you to go ahead and do some research to see what we
have already authorized, but not yet started and work with our staff to
establish what is essential and what is not.
This way we can take a look at where we need to spend our $1 Million
now. Do we need to focus on this I&I
study, get that resolved and put the reuse study on hold for another six weeks
or six months?
Ms. Woodward asked does this mean we
are going to go ahead and put on hold the work which has already been
authorized until we decide that? We have
a meeting on four or five work authorizations which were signed on and I do not
know the status of where they are on commencing that work.
Mr. Hanks stated it looks like we
really need to have a powwow to really figure out where we are going.
Ms. Early stated the reuse is on
hold until we actually get the funding.
We are not moving forward with that at all.
Mr. Hanks asked can you get with Mr.
Hyche, Ms. Woodward and whomever else to figure out what we can take care
of? We cannot ignore this infiltration
problem. There may be a potential for
savings that we would see down the road.
Is there any other way you would suggest approaching it?
Mr. Fennell responded we do need an
understanding of how much it is going to cost.
Mr. Hyche stated we can get some
quotes.
Mr. Fennell stated that is not the
same thing as going out and doing it. I think
we need to get some quotes on what we think the cameras will cost us.
Mr. Hanks stated I think you will
also find with the downturn in the economy it is not just the private
developers that are slowing down. It is
also cities because of their budgets. A
lot of these people who are out there already have cameras and they are just
sitting there paying interest on their own cameras. They want to get some kind of use out of them.
Ms. Zich asked are there very many
companies that do this?
Mr. Hyche responded sure.
Ms. Zich stated well that is good.
Mr. Fennell stated let us go out and
get quotes. I think the other issue that
we need from Ms. Woodward on this is going forward, because as I read this I am
thinking we have about $6 Million in money market accounts and checking
accounts which are not aimed at anything, but you are telling me we have some
kind of an idea of where we want that to go.
I think we all need to understand whether or not we have $6 million or
not and where it is going.
Mr. Hanks stated I guess the other
thing we need to have going forward is any work authorization we need to know
where we have the funds to do it.
Mr. Fennell stated somebody is
giving us a hint here that there are future expenses we may not
understand. I think we need to
understand.
Ms. Woodward stated that is
correct. I am not sure that I am going
to have much detail on this because no one has been able to tell me how much it
cost to run a nanoplant.
Mr. Daly asked if we have $750,000
in our budget right now for electricity, what is it going to be when you put up
all those extra motors in the nanoplant?
We still have to maintain and run this water plant that we have right
now.
Mr. Fennell asked for how long?
Mr. Hyche responded there is going
to be some tweaking of that nanoplant.
There always is.
Mr. Fennell stated but eventually,
the idea was those water treatment plants would go away unless we could figure
out someone else to sell water to.
Mr. Daly stated of course it would
go away but…
Mr. Fennell stated one of the
advantages of the nanoplant was it is modules.
Originally the concept was we would not need those additional
plants. I thought we could maybe use them
to sell water to other people.
Mr. Daly asked is the worst case
scenario two years to run both parallel?
Mr. Hyche responded it took the City
of Miramar 16 months to get all of their kinks on the nanoplant worked out
before it was up and running by itself.
Mr. Hanks stated you are saying the
City of Miramar. We could take a look at
their budgets. That would give us some
inkling as to what their change in lines and consumption cost.
Mr. Hyche stated when you are trying
out your nanoplant the other plant is not running. You are not operating the drive units, your
transfer of pumps, your line pumps or anything like that. You are operating off the pumps on your
nanoplant. The only pumps which will
continue to operate will be your high service pumps. When you are running your nanoplant and
trying to tweak it, your other plants are not running. You cannot.
You can blend the water. Some
people blend it.
Mr. Fennell stated I am not sure
that it was a previous concern; whether or not we were going to need to have a
two year overlap.
Mr. Hyche stated well there is going
to be some overlap. That is a worst case
scenario. Once the nanoplant is up and
running, you have your gasifiers working, you have your chemicals going in
properly, you have your times run on your membranes, you know what is coming
out, your getting your Ph right at the other end and you are getting rid of
your byproduct properly, then its three months, four months, six months top. That is going to be; “okay its not running
right, shut it down, start up the line plant.”
That is the kind of stuff it is going to be. It is going to get everything worked out and
the final coming out at the end is what you want going out in the system.
Mr. Hanks asked can you flip the
switches that quickly?
Mr. Hyche responded it will not be
that way. There will be an operational
list.
Mr. Fennell asked what does
engineering say about this?
Ms. Early responded that is a
question for Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Hyche stated Mr. Johnson and I
have had several conversations on this and he understands.
Mr. Fennell asked when is the plant
going to be done?
Mr. Hyche responded we are looking
at 14 months or 16 months from when they started and that was in March.
Ms. Zich stated we broke ground in
April. Were we going to have someone
here every other month to tell us how we are doing?
Ms. Early responded they were here
last month.
Mr. Hanks stated I think they were
here two months ago.
Ms. Zich stated I did not see it in
the minutes so it had to be the month before.
Mr. Hyche stated operationally you
will not see much of a difference in the cost because you are not going to be
running one plant when you are running the other.
Ms. Woodward stated except that no
one can tell me what it cost in the way of supplies, filters and etcetera.
Mr. Hyche stated okay. I will list that for you.
Ms. Woodward stated the issue is if
I am supposed to try to carve out money that we have set aside for future use
on things we do not report to the District, I need to know that when I carve it
out it is not going to be eaten away by some unknown expense I was not aware of. I have limited ways of making up money. We do not have anywhere where we can park
money and make interest. We are
currently earning zero percent, not close to zero, but zero. In the meantime we are paying out $1.9
Million a year on this bond issue. That
is fine, but I need to tighten the belt everywhere and make sure that the money
goes out too quickly.
Mr. Fennell stated she is making a
good point with the concerns here. We
need two, three, four month scenarios for expenses on your nominal case, best
case and worst case and let us go through and make a budget for that timeframe
and see what we think expenses will be based upon those.
Mr. Hanks asked are you also asking
Ms. Early to look into the ability to utilize some of those bond funds?
Mr. Fennell responded I think we
need to look at the I&I and the intrusion problem. I think we are going to get more of that
information back here when we get the report.
I think we need to find out how severe of a problem that is. There are a lot of good reasons for going
forward and doing that. I think long
term, if we did it right, we can actually end up saving some money. If we got down to the levels the engineers
were saying, our water processing would be down about 40%, which would be
significant for a lot of things from chemicals to electrical. There are good reasons why we want to look at
this, but first we need to understand how severe this problem is and how much
it is going to cost us. Is it even,
financially, the right thing to do. It
may be the smart thing to do is to put it out over several years; 20% one year,
20% the next year. We need to have a
full understanding of the problem so what we are looking for here is; one, thank
you for bringing it to our attention, the idea of what the cost will be on the
changeover and what kind of money we will need as back up to get through the
changeover of filtration and two, define what we are looking for, extend the
problem and go out for a bid for doing the cameras. Once we get that information we can
understand what problem we are facing.
Is there any other thing we should be doing?
Mr. Hanks responded the first thing
is to find out the magnitude of the problem.
At that point we will be able to reassess whether or not we have a
problem.
·
Utility
Billing Work Orders
This
item is for informational purposes only.
B. Attorney
There
being no report, the next item followed.
C. Engineer
Mr. Hanks stated yes or
no to another $5,000 for Work Authorization #46; the groundwater modeling. Can you elaborate more?
Mr. Fennell asked did you send us an
email on this?
Ms. Early responded I emailed you
that Mr. Sarley from SFWMD said they do not have a hydraulic model. They have not done a model in the past 15
years.
Mr. Fennell stated you said NOA is
redoing their flood water.
Ms. Early stated they said Broward
County hired AECOM.
Mr. Fennell asked who decides how
much water, if they win, they can pump out of the Everglades?
Mr. Hyche responded Fort Lauderdale.
Mr. Fennell stated so if they
decided the Everglades were too high, they could fill up the C-14.
Ms. Early stated this amendment to
the work authorization is for the groundwater model for the water use permit. They had to evaluate some wetlands. This is the one with CSID, NSID and the City
of Coral Springs.
Mr. Fennell asked are we all putting
in more money? Is that what is going on?
Ms. Early responded that is
correct.
Mr. Fennell asked why do we need
more money?
Ms. Early responded they had another
request for information.
Mr. Fennell asked have we seen a
result of this?
Ms. Early responded we send in. They asked for modeling. They have questions. We keep going back and forth.
Mr. Fennell stated there must be
something to ask a question on.
Mr. Hyche stated yes. The model CH2M Hill did.
Ms. Early stated we did a
groundwater model.
Mr. Hyche stated they are asking
them to explain the effects on wetlands.
Mr. Fennell asked for the same model
we have?
Mr. Hyche responded yes.
Ms. Early stated they want draw out
information. They want information on
wetlands.
Mr. Hanks stated what they are
trying to find out from you guys are what the predicted impacts are on the
existing wetlands.
Ms. Early stated that is correct.
Mr. Hyche or what our current impact
is, even.
Mr. Hanks asked does anyone pretend
to know what this survey means?
Mr. Fennell asked can we get any
money out of them?
Ms. Early asked SFWMD?
Mr. Fennell responded they have an
$800 Million a year budget. I guess we
do not have a choice, but I think the next time around we could sure use
additional money to answer these questions.
Ms. Early stated well we are trying
to get a permit from them.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Mr. Fennell with all in favor Work Authorization #46 Amendment (10/13/2009)
for groundwater modeling in the amount of $5,343 was approved.
·
Pilot
Testing Report
This item was tabled.
·
Project
Status Report
Mr.
Hanks asked where do we stand on the grants?
Ms. Early responded that was
submitted last Friday. We made the
deadline and we should know at the end of December.
Ms. Zich asked what about the well?
Ms. Early responded it is going to
be completed after all the problems they had and it is on schedule.
Mr. Fennell asked how did they ever
get that thing they dropped down there out?
Ms. Early responded they got it
out. They fished it out.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of October
Financials and Check Registers
·
Summary
of Cash Transactions
·
Projected
Cash Flows
·
Engineering
Projects
Mr. Fennell stated you guys are
thinking ahead about a year or two or three or more about how our money is
going to be. We are counting on you to
do that. We sit here once a month and we
really only get presented the facts at this meeting as a group. We are really counting on you to run this
place. We are looking forward to see how
the money flow is. Are there any
questions about the financials? Are we
being paid at all on our assessments? I
really do not have a feel for how many houses around here are in
foreclosure. Is it a significant issue
for us or not?
Ms. Woodward responded it has not
been a significant issue. It is an issue
county wide and there is a tendency for there to be more late payments. What we are looking at thus far this year, is
we have basically have gone through, the October money coming from Broward
County were only $415. The November
money coming from Broward County is about $1,000. We have one more payment this month. There seems to be a slightly longer lag
time. While we normally expect a large
amount coming in November, it looks like our large amount will be coming in
December.
Ms. Zich asked what happens with the
money we are not getting from the houses which are in foreclosure?
Ms. Woodward responded we go through
the tax certificate process. After you
go through the March 31, 2009 deadline for everything to be paid, they will
advertise tax certificate sales. People
purchase those certificates and the funds come in.
Ms. Zich stated so at the end of the
year we get the money.
Ms. Woodward stated we get the
money. The only time there is a super
delay is when a home goes into foreclosure and ends up being sold at the
courthouse steps, so to speak. We always
get it. The issue is when things are
tight economically we simply have to be more cautious as we go through the year
so that we do not spend everything up front because it may be two or three
months later before we actually see the response, but we do get the funds.
Mr. Fennell stated I have heard of
some cases now where someone owns a house, decides it is going to go
delinquent, rents it out to somebody and then runs a big utility bill, which no
one ends up paying. Have we run into
some issues like that?
Mr. Daly responded we turn the water
off. It does not get turned on until it
is paid. The realtor has to come up with
the money or we can get the title company to contact us. We will see it on the actual settlement
statement. Once we have that we know we
are guaranteed the money. We do not want
to stand in the way of any homes being sold in the area. On the other hand, we are going to protect
our investment in the property. It works
out well for everybody.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by
Mr. Fennell with all in favor the October financials and check registers were
approved.
EIGHTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There
being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.
Glen Hanks
Robert
D. Fennell
Secretary President