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, October 25, 2010 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

            Dan Daly                                             Director of Operations

            Randy Frederick                                  Drainage Supervisor

            Kay Woodward                                   District Accountant                 

            David Macintosh                                 Wastewater Department

            Gerrit Bulman                                      CH2M Hill                              

            Cory Johnson                                      CH2M Hill

            Walt Schwarz                                       CH2M Hill

            Michael Bone                                      Lanzo Construction

            Larry Shank                                         Resident

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

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 September 20, 2010 Meeting

            Mr. Fennell stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the September 20, 2010 meeting and requested any corrections, additions or deletions.

            Mr. Fennell stated I just have one on page seven.  When I referred to Mayor Brook I meant that because of term limitations he will be running for Representative.

                                                                                   

 

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS                  Supervisors’ Requests and Audience Comments

            Mr. Cassel stated Mr. Bone with Lanzo Construction is here.

            Mr. Bone stated Mr. Cassel asked me to come today and tell you we are attempting to move forward with the project.  We removed Intrastate Construction from the site as far as contractual obligations.  We are going to man the project ourselves and we are going to absorb a number of Intrastate’s key employees; however, they will work for me.  I hope you notice some progress.

            Mr. Fennell asked what is your position?

            Mr. Bone responded I am the head of Lanzo’s Construction Site Division.  I have been here five days.  I spent the last six years with Cardinal Contractors.  This is my 40^th year in the business.  I have been a general contractor in the State of Florida for 35 years.  I think I pulled my first permit in 1978 on this plant.  My first job was as a superintendent here.  I have a little familiarity with it and a lot of experience.  We will see what we can do and hopefully you will be impressed. 

            Mr. Fennell stated so there is a new Sheriff in town.  Can you state for us what you intend to do now?

            Mr. Bone responded we are evaluating the schedule.  There were some subcontractors who have not been funded to the extent they needed to be.  I know we had some pay requests which were withheld because of lapse in payments to the subcontractors.  We are funding them and catching up.  We are working diligently at it, making sure we have everyone out here that needs to be out here.

            Mr. Fennell asked will you be responsible for all the construction going on?

            Mr. Bone responded yes.  We will be responsible for the wastewater plant too.  I wrote a letter to Mr. Cassel addressing CH2M Hill’s position.  I had to do that to posture for Intrastate’s bonding company.  Lanzo is in the process of having the data evaluated by a structural engineer, JCA Engineering out of Hollywood.  Sometime next week we will be prepared to offer a procedure for weld replacement for the District and CH2M Hill’s evaluation.  Hopefully that will suffice.  If not, we will see what other alternatives we have. 

            Mr. Hanks asked so to sum it all up you are taking a look back and trying to get your arms around what was out there, what the issues are and trying to come up with potential solutions so we can construct the review and agreement process to get this project wrapped up?

            Mr. Bones asked are we talking about Plant F?

            Mr. Hanks responded yes. 

            Mr. Bones stated I had someone from JCA Engineering look at it.  He is a former Chicago bridge and iron engineer.  There is an API 650 weld replacement.  We would like to evaluate the x-rays in more detail and maybe take some of our own.  There is a good chance that the tank, although it was designed around ASTM A36, it is actually 50 kip steel.  They stopped making ASTM A36 years ago because it was not well accepted in the international market.  We are going to get some Mill Run certificates to make sure it is 50 kip material.  That will change some of the calculations dramatically.  I still think the welds need to be addressed.

            Mr. Hanks stated I am very glad you are stepping in at this point.  Hopefully we can make some good progress and get this put behind us. 

            Mr. Bones stated I hope it is not a change just for a change.  I hope it is for the better.  That is my intent.

            Mr. Fennell stated if possible, we would like to reserve a spot of five to ten minutes for you at every meeting.  Is it possible?

            Mr. Bones responded absolutely. 

            Mr. Hanks stated that will give us feedback of the progress being made, what concerns or issues there are and what the possible solutions are.           

            Mr. Fennell stated we just went out for $50 Million worth of bond issues.  We are revitalizing this place for the next 20 or 30 years.  This is extremely important to us. 

            Mr. Bones stated I think every project is extremely important and I will do my best.

            Mr. Fennell stated thank you very much for coming.  We are looking forward to your response next week and we will see you in a month. 

            Mr. Cassel stated I was going to address it under my report.  We also received notice from Lanzo for change of contractor and changing the permits out of Intrastate’s name into Lanzo’s name.  I am waiting for a letter from Intrastate stating they are no longer working on the project. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what about the bond issues?

            Mr. Cassel responded that is an internal thing they are working on to make sure they are covered as the prime contractor against the bond company that Intrastate put up for Lanzo.

            Mr. Hanks asked Mr. Lyles, is there anything the Board needs to be on the lookout for?

            Mr. Lyles responded no.  Mr. Cassel is keeping me in the loop.  We are discussing every piece of paper, every meeting and everything going on.  I think you would properly characterize this as positive development and a potential for getting the whole thing back on track and resolved within budget with a complete project you will be able to accept. 

                       

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS              Consideration of Chemical Bids         

            Mr. Cassel stated every year we go out and go with three or four different companies to be able to come together for the chemicals we will need throughout the year. 

            Mr. Fennell stated it looks like we have more people bidding this year. 

            Mr. Frederick stated yes we did.  Two of the lowest bidders are new people we have not dealt with yet.  They had the lowest price so we can give them a chance. 

            Mr. Cassel stated we are basically splitting it between Pro-Source One, Alligare and Red River.

            Mr. Hanks stated I notice on Induce there are three non Induce items listed: Aqua Sun Plus, Preference and Activator 90.

            Mr. Frederick stated sometimes there are differences.  Some are better than others and some do not work.  In the case we find a particular product does not work we will go to the next one. 

            Mr. Hanks asked how do we need to word this to allow Mr. Frederick the guidance to go forward with the lowest apparent responsive bidder while preserving the flexibility for him to move it to a different supplier if either they are not responsive, do not have the supplies or we find the product they are providing is not what we need?

            Mr. Lyles responded the exhibit in your back up provides the actual award information.  The highlighted provisions are prices under the Red River, Pro-Source One and Alligare columns, who you are awarding the contract to with the alternates explained by staff.  I think you award this at those prices.  In some cases there will be more than one.  Are you looking for an alternate to any of the highlighted ones or did you highlight everything you want to be authorized to purchase during the course of the year?

            Mr. Frederick responded I highlighted the lowest bids.  If one chemical is one we have not used before and it does not work the way we would like it to work, we want to have an alternative to try something else.

            Mr. Lyles asked the next lowest bidder?

            Mr. Frederick responded that is correct.

            Mr. Lyles stated then the motion is to award the contract to the indicated suppliers as highlighted in the exhibit and because of the nature of these chemicals and these treatment processes you are also authorizing staff to go to the next lowest bidder during the contract period if there is a failure on the part of any of the low bidders.   

 

                       

 

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                   Staff Reports

            A.        Manager

·         Project Update – Contractor Changes

             Mr. Cassel stated I met with Mr. Bone and Mr. D’Alessandro last Tuesday.  Mr. D’Alessandro is the Principle for Lanzo.  He indicated they were going to be responding in the manner Mr. Bone indicated here.  We discussed the issues out there with the welds and they are going to address those issues.  As I stated before, the key is I am waiting for the letter from Intrastate which will make the change with the city easier if they say they cannot complete the project and they are off of it.  I am waiting for the letter so I can sign the change of contractor notification to the city so the permits can be changed. 

            Mr. Hanks asked are we in a standstill until that paperwork gets processed?

            Mr. Cassel responded no.  They are still working under the current permit, but we need to get it changed as soon as we can. 

            Mr. Lyles asked once Lanzo absorbs the employees what happens to the equipment which is here and is supposedly Intrastate’s?

            Mr. Cassel responded that is an issue between Lanzo and Intrastate. 

            Mr. Hanks asked what are we doing to ensure the materials we have paid for remain onsite and do not end up going somewhere else?

            Mr. Cassel responded we have an inventory of all the materials stored onsite.  The other materials stored offsite are already stored in Lanzo’s warehouses.  They have already been storing them at Lanzo’s and we have insurance and certifications that the materials are there.  We have insurance against the materials being provided by the contractor.

            Mr. Fennell asked are they just moving off the job?  I understand Lanzo is coming in and taking over.

            Mr. Cassel responded at this point in time I do not know the ultimate end of Intrastate.

            Mr. Fennell asked are they going to be working here on any capacity at all?

            Mr. Cassel responded Intrastate as an organization, no. 

            Ms. Zich asked is Lanzo completely responsible for Plant F?

            Mr. Cassel responded our contract for this whole project is with Lanzo.  They brought Intrastate in as there prime contractor.  Their prime contractor got upside down, backwards and sideways in the project.  Now Lanzo is stepping back in.  They were always ultimately responsible for the project.  Now they picked up the key people they want to keep on the project to keep it moving forward. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I walked out to the nano plant and people were working hard out there. 

            Mr. Hanks asked can it get much worse?

            Mr. Johnson responded it is kind of early on from a construction standpoint.  The people at Intrastate were doing a fine job on the nanofiltration plant.  As far as from an administrative standpoint and what we have seen in the first week Mr. Bone has been onsite, it seems he is more regimented and on top of things.  Administratively he seems to be more buttoned up. 

            Mr. Hanks stated but it is still too early to tell whether or not the paperwork is going to follow through appropriately.

            Mr. Johnson stated anecdotally I will say we are seeing things quicker.  As an example; a pay application for October, this is the first time in the whole duration of this project that it has been to us early rather than a week after the point they can submit it.  Pay applications are due on the 15^th.  We would see them actually submit them 10 to 15 days later.  Now they were right on time with getting them submitted. 

            Mr. Cassel stated the CFO for Lanzo is paying all the sub contractors directly to try to get all the vendors squared away.  They are doing what you would expect someone to do to get the project squared away and go in the right direction. 

            Mr. Hanks asked so are they taking care of the items or issues in the way that you see them needing to adjust from the way Intrastate was performing before?

            Mr. Cassel responded yes. 

            Mr. Hanks stated so you see them taking action on it; whether or not it continues remains to be seen, but they are making steps in the right directions.   

            Mr. Cassel stated I believe so.

            Ms. Zich asked do we have a ballpark on when it will be done?  I would rather it be done right, but is it still six months out?  It was supposed to be November.

            Mr. Johnson responded we are in the process of reevaluating their schedule to give them an idea of when they should be done.

            Mr. Hanks asked are we talking about the nano plant?

            Mr. Johnson responded yes. 

            Mr. Hanks stated I just wanted to clarify because we do not know what is going to happen with Plant F.

            Mr. Johnson stated from the nanofiltration standpoint substantial completion, which is the point where they should be pushing water through, is about five weeks out from today. 

            Ms. Zich asked really?

            Mr. Johnson responded that is what the written schedule was.

            Ms. Zich asked what about the realistic schedule?

            Mr. Johnson responded realistically we are looking at six months for substantial completion. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I was just out there.  They are putting up beams and doing things.

            Ms. Zich asked is there a roof on?

            Mr. Fennell responded they are putting up beams for the go across now. 

            Mr. Cassel stated the light gauge steel in the front are up, the heavy gauge steel are finished being welded together and getting ready to be swung into place.  They have to drop the stainless steel pipe in the trench so they are doing that first.  They are dropping it in place and getting it ready to put up the supports under it.  They are swinging a lot of pipe right now and getting things ready to go.  The good thing I see is we have a lot of material stored all over the place so they are not going to be waiting for a switchbox to come in.  It is already here.  We have a lot of the products already on board which can be installed without a time delay waiting on materials. 

            Mr. Hanks asked is there anything you would like to see being done differently?

            Mr. Cassel responded I would like to see them have a lot more guys out there working on things. 

            Mr. Johnson stated I can actually speak to that.  At the end of the day they are just getting the roof on right now.  There is only so much they can truly do until the roof is on.  There is a limit to what can be happening. 

            Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like we will get more information next week.

            Mr. Cassel asked what is your name sir?

            Mr. Shank responded my name is Larry Shank.  I have some business regarding a letter I received.

            Mr. Cassel stated okay.  We should have brought this up under Audience Comments.  We will go back and take care of it.

 

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS                    Supervisors’ Requests and Audience Comments (Continued)

            Mr. Shank stated I have been a resident of Coral Springs for 32 years.  I received a letter from Mr. Cassel’s office in July talking about structures that may be blocking the right-of-way.  I spoke to him and he said a variance is needed in order to have a little dock and there is no mechanism to get a variance.  He suggested I come to the Board and speak about it.  I brought some pictures.  I live on a the water over in Oakwood.  I have a little dock there since 1980.  It is not obstructing any right-of-way.  The idea of having to remove it seems ridiculous, a waste of time and a waste of energy.  It is not bothering access to the District’s right-of-way.  Yes, it is on District property a little bit; about 30 inches of it. 

            Mr. Fennell asked has the location of where this is at been verified?

            Mr. Daly responded yes.  I do not know where the lot line is.  I can pull it up right now.  It was identified by our crew that went up and down every canal.  Everyone who had a structure received a letter such as Mr. Shank.

            Mr. Shank stated I understand the need to have a clear path for any type of work which needs to be done, but to arbitrarily go around and say it has to be removed because it is on your property when it is not blocking anything, there has to be a way of…

            Mr. Daly stated there is nothing arbitrary about it.  There are some policies within the city regarding structures.

            Mr. Shank stated I understand, but it has been there for 30 years.  It has never blocked anything.  It never caused any problems during the hurricane. 

            Mr. Daly stated this originally started because we received a call from the city’s code enforcement about a structure on our property on the canal bank.  The city contacted me saying they do not permit these things and neither do we.  We needed to take care of this.

            Mr. Shank stated I understand it went to everybody and I was not singled out.  There are some structures which do block the right-of-way.

            Mr. Daly stated you do not understand that it is not only our policy.  It is a city ordinance.  You would have had to have a permit from the city.  Now we have two government entities at odds about this. 

            Mr. Shank stated I cannot apply to the city until I get a variance from you and that is not available at all.  This is why I am here. 

            Mr. Fennell asked do you understand we have had the same policy for over 30 years?

            Mr. Shank responded it has never been enforced as far as I know. 

            Mr. Fennell stated it has never been caught until now.

            Mr. Shank stated it was never hidden. 

            Mr. Fennell asked is it on CSID property?

            Mr. Shank responded yes.

            Mr. Fennell stated so it is not on private property or a private lake. 

            Mr. Hanks stated there are private lakes within some communities. 

            Mr. Daly stated I did not know Mr. Shank was going to be here today.  Had I known I would have researched it and pulled up the information.

            Mr. Fennell stated we have had a consistent policy for a number of years.  As we run across these things we do ask that they be taken down.  I can go into the reasons why we have the policy.  There is a variety of reasons.  Part of it is CSID property is actually owned by everyone.  It is not actually your land.

            Mr. Shank stated I understand that.

            Mr. Fennell stated the other thing is the cost for the canals are shared equally for everyone here.  You do not pay anything additional to CSID for being on the water.  The primary purpose of the canal is for drainage.  We are also concerned about things going in the canals.  I am happy to see you do not have a lot of trees along the edge. 

            Mr. Shank stated it was amazing that the tree which stood up to the hurricane and was on my property, was cut down.  My neighbor’s tree is a gigantic ficus.  Have of it fell into the water and you left it.  It did not make any sense.  It is now overgrown and I guarantee it will go down with the next big wind. 

            Mr. Daly stated ficus trees were not on a list of trees not accepted by the City of Coral Springs and yours was. 

            Mr. Fennel stated our primary concern is that nothing get in the way of draining these canals.  I became very concerned after the last hurricane when we had an analysis done on the canal drainage. 

            Mr. Shank stated you are not allowing for a case by case basis where you are willing to give a variance.  It has been there for 30 years.  The District has drained the lake several times for impending storms.  It has never been a problem.  I do not foresee it being a problem.  In the past it has not been a problem.  It should not be a problem in the future.  I am here to ask for a case by case ability to have a variance. 

            Mr. Fennell stated at this point we have not been arbitrary about it.  We have been consistent on how we do this.  We do not intend to be arbitrary.  We intend to have a consistent policy we want to enforce.

            Mr. Shanks stated then there is no process to change the mind of the Board.

            Mr. Hanks stated at this point in time we do not have a mechanism and the motivation to find a system to deal with this on a case by case basis.  I see the size of this.  It is a reasonable size, it is not getting in the way of anything and it has been there for a while.  If it was a case for it, I could understand this being a case for a waiver.  Unfortunately we do not have that.  Counsel; if we were to start introducing waivers or variances, what would it open us up to in terms of our previous decisions?  Would that not open up a huge can of worms?

            Mr. Lyles responded it is literally a two-edged sword.  You have heard from numerous residents over the years seeking the same relief.  This Board, predecessor Boards and the consistent policy has been not to allow any structures on District property for many reasons which have been articulated then and now.  The other problem is once you do start to do that you will have precedence and other people will come forward asking to be able to put these structures in.  Then when you have the next hurricane hit here, all of these structures will go into your drainage and control structures.  They will clog up and houses will begin to flood based on the decisions you made as a Board to allow them.  Then you will have additional liability to be concerned about. 

            There are a lot of good sound reasons developed over a period of, I believe, 38 years that a Board has been in charge of CSID.  I am not aware of an instance other than on purely private property that this or any predecessor Board has allowed a dock structure installed and maintained on District property.  The city does not permit them and I am sure this one not built with a permit.  As a public body there is no justification for permitting it on a case by case basis which serves any real public good.  It would ultimately become a public harm. 

            Mr. Hanks stated I appreciate you coming, but right now we are not going to be taking any other decision or action as a Board to change the policies we have had over the years.  If I was in that location, I would like to have a dock too.  Unfortunately, I have to follow the recommendations made by District counsel.  I am sorry.

            Mr. Shank stated thank you for your time. 

            Mr. Fennell stated thank you for coming.

            Ms. Zich asked how many are still out there?

            Mr. Daly responded maybe a half a dozen.  We need to finalize this. 

            Ms. Zich I would like to have one too if I was on a canal and it looks very nice, but if anyone has one…

            Mr. Daly stated I understand.  There were a few of the ones at the end who are sticklers.  One of them actually works for the City of Coral Springs and told me to sue him.  There are three of them which were put in by the builder. 

            Ms. Zich stated it is sitting out there so people are seeing it. 

            Mr. Daly stated he has been put on notice and there are letters going back and forth.  Three of them were put in by the builder and sold that way before the city had anything to say about it.  We are still working on those. 

            Mr. Hanks asked how many of them have been removed because of our decisions?

            Mr. Daly responded about 25.

            Mr. Daly stated I would say at least half of what we have left.

            Ms. Zich stated keep on top of this.  I really think it is important because people see one down the street from them and then wonder why they got a letter. 

            Mr. Frederick stated the gentleman who was at the last meeting took his down. 

            Mr. Daly stated one of them is a neighbor of Mr. Gold.  He told me he was going to walk down to Mr. Gold’s house and tell him. 

            Mr. Hanks stated people who see and appreciate the resources we have, including our canals, are going to take better care of them because they look at it as just a drainage ditch.  Everything is a double edged sword.  I hate to tell everybody they have to take it down.

            Ms. Zich stated that man’s structure looks nice and it is not big.  Everything looks decent, but we have to have a policy.

            Mr. Fennell stated the problem is if we make exceptions, we do become arbitrary. 

           

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                     Staff Reports (Continued)

            B.         Manager’s Report (Continued)

·         Monthly Water & Sewer Chart

            Mr. Fennell asked what did we decide from the last meeting about these losses?

            Mr. Cassel responded Mr. Schwarz is here to bring us up to date on where we are on the finalized report when we get to the Engineer’s Report.

            Mr. Schwarz stated I have a follow up memorandum to bring everything to conclusion.  I just saw an email from Mr. Cassel asking them to put some information relative to the number of homes in each basin and see if I can do some value analysis.  I need to add that in and then I will be finished with what I am doing. 

            Mr. Hanks asked did you get with Mr. Crowell on the approximate length of piping and the information on the number of units?

            Mr. Schwarz responded I apparently have all the drawings in old files somewhere. 

            Ms. Early stated if Mr. Crowell has the number of connections in each of these…

            Mr. Daly stated I do not believe he would have that. 

            Mr. Hanks stated Mr. Crowell has a map where it has the manholes indicated in the lots.

            Mr. Schwarz stated the answer to the questions is very similar to what we reported the first time based on the other data.  The flow meter data suggests 25% of the flow to the treatment plant is groundwater.  It depends on what you want to do.  Do you need the plant capacity?  Do you want to cut costs?  Do you want to be sustainable and produce all the extra treatment and pumping?  Do you want to start restoring?  The collection system is starting to fall apart.  It is not going to get any better.

            Mr. Fennel asked I think the only thing I did not derive from that is: is it as simple as we just have to get a few big holes and main pipes?

            Mr. Hanks responded no.       

            Mr. Fennell asked is it everybody’s connection is like my house where eventually I had roots growing into that thing and it was offset?

            Mr. Schwarz responded the suggestion I made in the summary is that we pick a basin or a sub-basin we can completely identify and isolate to do the internal television inspection to see what the damage actually is.  It is safe to assume these basins are all very similar and what we see in one basin is going to be representative of what we see in the other basins in this area. 

            Mr. Fennell asked did we not redo some of those pipes 10 or 15 years ago?

            Mr. Daly responded I think we spent $2 Million.

            Ms. Early stated Mr. Moore handled it.

            Mr. Daly stated we only lined the main.

            Mr. Fennell stated I know there was some improvement, but I do not remember.

            Mr. Daly stated I do not remember there being a drastic improvement. 

            Mr. Hanks asked do you think he missed the problem?

            Mr. Daly responded if that is the case, I say we go back to where we lined it and look at the laterals there.

            Mr. Schwarz stated I did not get a lot of that information, but it seemed to be you spot repaired the mainlines throughout the areas.  You did not concentrate on any one particular area.

            Mr. Fennell stated no it was.  It was the area north of Shadowood.  What is that area called?

            Ms. Zich responded Ramblewood.

            Mr. Fennell stated yes.  It was in the Ramblewood are that it was done. 

            Mr. Schwarz asked was that pump stations one through eight?

            Mr. Hanks responded that was the one and two we were looking at.  It is that general area.

            Mr. Fennell stated it was not insignificant what we did back then.  I think it was mostly the mains.  Do we have any records of what was done?

            Mr. Daly responded yes we do.

            Mr. Schwarz asked if you had a map of the sewer basin, would you be able to tell which was done?

            Mr. Fennell responded I only remember it was in that area because I happened to drive by.

            Mr. Daly stated Mr. Crowell will know.  He was here.

            Mr. Cassel stated we will track it down.

            Mr. Fennell asked did we really find out if it was the Fire Department taking five percent of our water?

            Mr. Daly responded no.  We did not.  I have always been suspect of that.  I know we were talking about some flushing issues last month.  A lot of it had to do with the fact we did flush the system because we did the chlorination along with NSID and the City of Coral Springs.  Even though we did not go to a certain person’s home and open up the hydrant, we flushed it at the end of the run so everything came off and it was not stuck in there. 

            Mr. Hanks asked was it in September?

            Mr. Daly responded it was in July.

            Mr. Hanks stated where we had no lime losses.

            Mr. Daly stated that is correct.  The losses are relative to what leaves the plant.  It is somewhat of a skewed computation; however, all and all over a 12 month period it looks a little more average than it would if you took it by a monthly basis.  The first cycle in the first week of the month I bill from let us say, October 5^th back to September 5^th, but the quantity that Mr. Stover pumps out of here goes from October 1^st to October 31^st.  That is where it is kind of skewed.

            Mr. Fennell asked is there any other kind of connections such as we are watering the city’s right-of-way?

            Mr. Daly responded no we are not.  They are metered.  All the little medians are metered.

            Mr. Fennell asked metered from us?

            Mr. Daly responded yes sir. 

            Mr. Fennell asked they are not using well water?

            Mr. Daly responded they changed a little bit.  They have meters out there.  Some of them they have turned off and they have gone to other outlets or sources of water.  They originally came right to us and paid the connection fee.  We are getting closer at the mall at getting one of those meters finished.  Hopefully in another couple of months we will be able to measure everything that goes to the mall. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I think you have a good thing if you recognize there is a loss.  Recognizing there is a problem does not necessarily mean knowing how to fix it.  You are still looking for that.  I would not arbitrarily right it off as there are always losses. 

            Mr. Daly stated I do not like to do that. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I do not think it is the Fire Department doing that.  We have real losses, someone is stealing it or we are not billing correctly.  Are there any other possibilities?

            Mr. Daly responded no.

           

·         Utility Billing Work Orders

             Mr. Daly stated I imagine they will be up a little bit next month because of the rate increase. 

            Mr. Fennell asked anything more?

            Mr. Cassel responded no.  The photographs of the construction project are in the agenda package. 

 

            B.         Attorney

            Mr. Daly stated there is one quick thing which is not on your agenda or in your package, but because it is a relatively straightforward matter Mr. Cassel and I would like to bring it to your attention now.  For some time we have been attempting to deal with an entity called CSFL Retail associates.  It is an Ohio corporation which owns the commercial property where the Coral Springs Auto Mall is located.  We have a line in there that was installed by the developer and conveyed to CSID, but at the time they did not convey the necessary easement so we could access it for either repair or maintenance activities.  After some explaining and having us hang around for a while we received today from their corporate headquarters in Ohio a fully executed easement agreement that will take care of giving us the necessary rights of access as well as the ability to do construction and reconstruction repair on the line depicted in the exhibit prepared by McLaughlin Engineering.  It is in the package in front of you.  Unless there are any questions we would like the Board to authorize this non-exclusive easement agreement between CSID and CSFL Retail Associates to be executed by the proper District officials at this time. 

            Mr. Hanks stated I think it is a good idea that we get this moved forward.  I do have a concern on our continued use of non-exclusive utility easements.  We are only dealing with 15 feet.  Correct me if I am wrong, but does this not give other utility easements the right to run lines within that 15 feet as well?

            Mr. Lyles responded no.  It gives us the right to run our utility lines and do what we are doing.  It tells us that it is not exclusive to us.  They may grant another easement to someone else for that purpose at that time for something which is not inconsistent with what we are doing here, but it does not automatically grant to every utility provider or public entity.

            Mr. Hanks asked so it is not a blanket utility easement?

            Mr. Lyles responded it is not.  It says there is no consideration involved, no title insurance, they are giving it to us free, but it is not exclusive to us.

            Mr. Fennell asked have we had to repair anything there?

            Mr. Lyles responded no.  It is a relatively new installation.  It is just a matter of making sure that the easement lines up with where the lines have been installed. 

            Mr. Hanks stated and this restricted in the language to installation, improve, remove water facilities.  So cable utilities do not fall under this.

            Mr. Cassel stated they would need to have a separate easement. 

           

 

            Mr. Fennell asked was there something going on with some kind of legislature?

            Mr. Lyles responded we do not have the feedback yet.  It will be at your next meeting.  If there is anything exciting, I will get you on the phone.  We do not have a complete answer.  Last week was the deadline for pre-filing bills.  It is a busy time for legislative delegations.  We will have it pretty soon, but we have not received an answer yet.  I sent an email after we started the meeting to see if anything came in this afternoon and it has not. 

 

            C.        Engineer

·         Wastewater Treatment Plant Injection Well System Hydraulic Analysis Report

            Mr. Bulman stated first I want to give you an update on the water use permit.  The permit application is making its way up the chain of reviews by supervisors.  That is good progress.  Any supervisor at any time can push it back down and say they have questions.  So far the original staff report has been getting approved.

            Mr. Hanks asked after it gets approved by the supervisors, does it go to the governing board for action?        

            Mr. Bulman responded that is correct.  Hopefully we will see this by the end of the year.  In the meantime you can still operate under your existing permit.

            The injection well system hydraulic analysis; basically the problem is you cannot pump down enough water into the older injection well.  They can meet the latest capacity of injection that the well is permitted for. 

            Mr. Fennell stated let me make sure I understand.  There was a test run a few years back which said the well could take so much.

            Mr. Bulman stated the well can take it.  The pumps cannot deliver it; the existing pumps.  This means that alternative number one is to replace one of the existing pumps with either one or two higher head pumps which could deliver more water down injection well one.  One of the issues is that one of those pumps would also have to serve as the back up to the primary injection well which has a much different head curve because it is much larger and has a higher capacity.  There would be some control and other components would have to be installed to allow replacement pumps to function as a backup to the primary injection well as well as this older injection well. 

            The second option, which is the only one that gives you 100% redundancy with wastewater disposal, is a new injection well.  The third option is status quo; using the well as you have it with the pumps you have and simply trying to mitigate any risks by scheduling mechanical integrity testing, which is the only scheduled time of the well when the primary well is offline for a time in the year when your flow rates are low, choosing times of day when the flows are the lowest and using as much storage as you can in the system.  By doing this you can keep the well offline for say 20 to 25 hours at a time to conduct testing.  This is essentially what has been happening for the past decade. 

            Mr. Fennell asked so our average daily amount we are pumping now is how much?

            Mr. Macintosh responded we are pumping out 4.6 MGD.

            Mr. Fennell asked what is the highest we have seen when we have a high load of water come in?

            Mr. Macintosh responded around 6.8 MGD. 

            Mr. Bulman stated if you look at page 11, we provided some historical data going back to the year 2000.  It shows a mean flow, a 95 percent lie flow and a fifth percentile flow.  This is annual average, which is a little different than seasonal flow.  If you look at the previous page, you can see what happened on a seasonal basis between 2001 and 2010.  There really are better times of the year to conduct this test.  November, December and January have lower flows and are better times to conduct the MIT.  Last year we ran into a situation where we had heavy rainfalls in May.  This caused a situation where Mr. Macintosh was working around the clock to balance the flows and storage so we could finish the MIT without discharging.

            Mr. Hanks asked how can we tell which sewage is which?

            Mr. Fennell asked do you mean ours or the city’s?

            Mr. Hanks responded whether water is coming up from the manholes or not going down the injection well?

            Mr. Bulman responded I will not address that, but I will say this goes hand in hand with the I&I study.  You can either figure out a way to dispose more water or reduce how much you have to dispose of.  The effect, in terms of how long you keep your primary well offline, is the same.

            Mr. Fennell stated there are some unlined ponds out there.  How much are they good for?

            Mr. Bulman responded just storage.  If you look at the wastewater treatment permit, they are permitted at some miniscule annual average for daily infiltration. 

            Mr. Hanks asked what happens when the nano plant comes online and we have the concentrate or whatever is coming off of that thing?

            Mr. Bulman responded it is going through the head works of the plant.  In terms of injection well disposal; that will continue because it is going through the head works of the plant, which means it can continue to go to an F1 disposal wall.

            Mr. Fennell asked but how many more gallons are going to be in there?

            Mr. Bulman responded I actually put that into account.  It is in the projection on page 11.  This is clearly not just population and per capita usage.  It includes the incremental step you see as a result.

            Mr. Fennell stated this is a big deal.  There is an extra Million gallons.  Where is the extra million coming from?

            Mr. Bulman responded it was taken into account in the water use permit application.  We had to give your per capita usage and then look at your raw water demands.  Raw water demands takes into account the treatment well system.  The treatment well has changed from 1.5% to 1.10% to 1.13%.

            Mr. Fennell asked what kind of water is coming out of this filtration plant?  How bad is it?

            Mr. Bulman asked in terms of chlorides?

            Mr. Fennell responded I do not know.  It is not like wastewater.  Is it?

            Mr. Bulman responded there are a lot of dissolved solids.

            Mr. Fennell asked but they are from the natural earth, right?

            Mr. Bulman responded yes. 

            Mr. Hanks stated one of the things you mentioned in there was the loss of velocity in the lower layers in the boulder zone.  With us dumping the concentrate; is that going to have any chance of precipitating now and further plugging things?  Have we looked at that as an issue?

            Mr. Bulman responded yes.  There is no evidence of industrial injection wells based on the concentrate itself showing plugging of the boulder zone.  The boulder zone is cavernous.  The specific injectivity of the zone itself are formation losses as opposed to the frictional losses of the casings are incredibly low.  Where in Florida we have seen problems with clogging of injection wells, it has generally been an upset in the plant, an effluent well, where solids go down that well.

            Mr. Fennell stated so we are going to have another Million gallons we are going to have to get rid of.

            Mr. Bulman stated that is the maximum.  On an average daily basis you should be closer to 500,000 to 600,000 gallons a day.  We have to be able to account for a maximum.  I do not know how it fits into your situation, but generally there is a range. 

             Mr. Fennell stated the present big well will handle that given something does not go wrong.

            Mr. Bulman stated that has a capacity of 15 Million gallons a day.

            Mr. Fennell stated so if everything stays right, we are okay.  If something goes wrong with that well for a few days, then suddenly we are up to 7.5.  The small well can only handle half of that.  Is that right?

            Mr. Bulman responded yes.  If you want to look at that quantitatively, on page 15 I tried to look at how long you could keep the well offline at different 2020 rates.

            Mr. Cassel asked 2020 being the year?

            Mr. Bulman responded yes.  Under the current conditions for mean flow you can keep it offline for 34 hours.  Under the worst case condition of 95^th percentile flow, ten years from now, you can still keep it offline for almost 20 hours.  You do have some safety there.  This additional MGD is not putting you in a position where you only have 8 to 10 hours.  You still have in general a day plus to keep the well offline.  If something catastrophic happens; a valve fails or something gets stuck, then you have limited time to fix that well.

            Mr. Fennell asked suppose something happens today and it takes longer than this to fix it, what happens?

            Mr. Bulman responded it goes to the lined ponds or the un-lined ponds and system storage.  Eventually there is rain and an overflow of the canal.  Then you would likely see some kind of enforcement action from the county.

            Mr. Cassel stated one of the things I have discussed with Mr. Bulman and we wanted to do in this report is make sure our operational emergency disposal plan and everything we have ties in with what we have here to maximize all of our capacities we have, our operations plan, our emergency operations plan so we can maximize without having to do anything initially.  We have in the report saying you can allot yourself anywhere from 20 to 70 something hours, depending on what time of the year and what you are doing, without doing anything right now.  If we wanted to do something, we might change one of the pumps or both of the pumps that feed the other well.  Again, as he had indicated before, the issues there are you have two different head pressures.  You have to be able to work the same pump on two different head pressure wells, which is a little cumbersome and complicated because on one of the wells you are going to be running outside the pump curves on your efficiencies.  It is that balancing act on how to make sure we are spending the dollars correctly for when we need to spend the dollars.  If we ended up having to go to that drilling a new well scenario, Mr. Bulman pointed out we would probably want to do an industrial well if we had to drill a new well.  This would allow us to take the concentrate from the nano plant, shoot it straight down the industrial well as well as putting our affluent down the well. 

            Mr. Hanks asked what is the price in today’s dollars for a new industrial well?

            Mr. Bulman responded $5 Million to $6 Million.

            Mr. Hanks asked and if we did new pumps?

            Mr. Cassel responded the pumps are $600,000.

            Mr. Bulman stated new pumps give you more time, but they do not give 100% redundancy.  Even though you would be operating the well at the rate of capacity you have in the permit, it still does not give you an infinite amount of time.  It increases your time from a day to approximately 3 days. 

            Mr. Fennell asked if we did new pumps, it would be at 3 and a half days right?

            Mr. Bulman responded that is right.

            Mr. Fennell stated it would be the lowest value we would have, but now that we increased it another with another Million coming here in another year or six months, a quarter of that reserve is gone.  He is never going to be below four.  There is always going to be an issue, even in the best of times.  Is there anything else?  It could be $5 Million for a new well we never use.

            Mr. Hanks stated we can invest that $5 Million in cutting down on infiltration and then you reap the benefits in terms of electricity, flowage, etcetera, every single day.

            Mr. Cassel stated one of the things I do not want us to lose sight of is right now, regulation or permit wise, because of how we are operating and our emergency plan we have more reserve capacity in an emergency than some of the other operations around.

            Mr. Bulman stated there are other utilities which do not operate with a backup injection well.

            Mr. Hanks asked so right now are we in compliance with regulations?

            Mr. Bulman responded you are compliant contingent upon having an emergency disposal plan that outlines the storage you would use to run your MIT. 

            Mr. Hanks stated and we have that.  So the answer is yes, we are compliant.

            Mr. Bulman stated yes. 

            Mr. Cassel stated we were looking at this and we wanted to make sure we knew would our options would be if we had to go forward with something and at the same time make sure we were within all of the compliance of our current operating permits and potential future operating permit issues so that we were ahead of the game and had it ready to go should we need to do something. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what would it take to make water acceptable to just put it directly into the canal?  How much would that cost?

            Mr. Schwarz responded you cannot put it in the canals in Broward County. 

             Mr. Bulman stated one thing that could be considered is to set up an Interlocal Agreement with Broward County because they have sewer mains, but I do not have any idea of what the cost would be as an emergency.

            Mr. Fennell stated I am looking at some other kinds of options.  We did the reuse study and we mostly found out it does not pay. 

            Mr. Schwarz stated no matter what you do, you have to pay.

            Mr. Fennell stated my point is that another way to get rid of water is to use it for irrigation.  If we are willing to get a contingency plan and as we are looking at different ways of spending money…

            Mr. Cassel stated we are looking at compliance with options that if we had to do something, what would it cost us?  Right now we are within compliance and we will be within compliance for all of our operating permits.  This spells out as to how much time do we have and when should we schedule our MITs.

            Mr. Hanks asked are there any sewer interconnects with Broward County’s transmission main?

            Mr. Schwarz responded you do not have them, but you can make one.

            Mr. Fennell stated that might be a smart thing just to do.  I guess it would be a low cost.

            Mr. Hanks stated no.

            Mr. Fennell asked you do not think so?

            Mr. Schwarz responded maybe you can combine it with something.  Most of the reuse options; let us say you have a reuse irrigation option for a Million gallons a day, it is only good for when it is not raining.  If you go through a period of heavy rain, you do not have that option anymore.  Then you use an interconnect with Broward County.  That means you are paying for two things to solve one problem for x amount of capacity. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I want to be able to irrigate when I want to be able to irrigate.

            Mr. Hanks asked at one point Coral Springs was over their flow allotment with Broward County; where they not? 

            Mr. Daly responded they were close.  That is why they contacted us and asked us if we were open minded enough to take some of the sewage.

            Mr. Hanks asked is that off the table now?

            Mr. Daly responded it was never really on the table because it was not constant.  It was only in case of an emergency we would open up a valve and give them a little.  That did not help us at all.  We would love to treat their sewage and charge them to get some revenue.

            Mr. Hanks stated that was my idea.  If you have something like that going in where it is just a question of which way you start pumping, that becomes an opportunity. 

            Mr. Bulman asked like a reversible interconnect?

            Mr. Hanks responded just like you have on water; a reversible interconnect.  Then at that point you are paying one thing to solve two issues or they are paying one thing to solve two issues. 

            Mr. Bulman stated my understanding is there are some capacity issues in regard to the conversation with Broward County in the main that goes into their plant.

            Mr. Hanks stated the east/west main coming down Copans Road or Sample Road.

            Mr. Bulman stated yes.  There are time when that becomes a little bit stressed out.  I do not know when those times are and how they would align with the District’s needs.

            Mr. Fennell stated the county is now going to go to deep well injections. 

            Mr. Hanks asked how many more years do they have to get rid of ocean outfalls?

            Mr. Bulman responded I think it is 2025.

            Mr. Schwarz stated I think it is 2020.

            Mr. Macintosh stated I had a situation on Friday.  Someone came to me with a problem that was considered in 1989.  They came to the same conclusion of keeping storage.  I just passed it on to Mr. Bulman for him to consider. 

            Mr. Fennell stated once the tank is up and working, at that point we should have our capacity substantially increased.  Then we have a surge tank too.  The system itself should be able to take surges relatively easier.  We actually have other capacity for storage onsite. 

            Mr. Cassel stated that was taken into consideration with Mr. Bulman as he was looking through this as to when we do the MITs and coordinating with the emergency plan of how to pull the system down as low as we can so that we have the capacity and we extend our hours as much as possible if something went wrong during the MIT.  All of those things have been considered and looked at in the report where he boiled it down to three options.  One is we actually have to do nothing at this point in time.  We are still viable with all of our regulatory compliance issues.  Our mercy management plan is in place.  If we wanted to do something, we could change a couple of pumps which would give us some additional hour capacity on problem issues.  A third option is the last scenario where if you had to, you sink a new well.  That is something which is out there in the future and you do not really have to look at right now or act upon.  We have a report which lays out clearly the steps we could take if we needed to. 

            Ms. Zich asked should we maybe put this on hold until after the new nanofiltration plant comes up and we really see?

            Mr. Cassel responded all of the numbers are factored into this report.

            Mr. Bulman stated as to the nanofiltration plant, there is only so much water we can recover with that process.  At the end of the day we know it is going to be a minimum of a half Million gallons a day.  If we are producing 5 Million gallons, then 10% of it is going to be nanofiltration reject so 500,000 gallons is pretty well set.  That is what you are going to get.

            Mr. Hanks asked what was the kind of history around the smaller injection well?  Was that our primary injection well?

            Mr. Bulman responded yes.  That was the primary injection well in 1986.  It is an old well.  When they built those wells they did not expect them to last more than 20 years. 

            Mr. Hanks asked was this built in 1986?

            Mr. Bulman responded it was started between 1984 and 1986.

            Mr. Fennell stated but 20 years ago the west side of Coral Springs was not built out yet.

            Mr. Hanks stated I am just kind of wondering because some of those flows they are trying to squeeze down that well is pushing the envelope a little bit.  To get those kinds of velocity you could easily check it back up and say; how many head losses are we going to be anticipating?  Are there pumps we can get to push that done?  Why rate it?  Why get it permitted for a higher level than you can physically get the pumps to get it down the well?

            Mr. Bulman responded interestingly they did a re-rate study in 1998 on that well in which they pumped water from a canal using a booster pump at the well head down the well at 11.6 feet per second.  They got over 5 MGD down the well with this booster pump from the well.

            Mr. Hanks asked what size pump?

            Mr. Bulman responded I believe it was a large pump and it was not a solids handling pump.  What is interesting is that nothing was ever done with that.  The pump stations were never upgraded to match that rig.  The well can take it, but the pump stations were not designed for it. 

            Mr. Fennell stated that is probably where the information came from that we had a backup that could take it and it could given if you had the right pumps, but we never did.  I have one other question.  You mentioned a commercial kind of injection well.

            Mr. Bulman stated an industrial injection well.  There are municipal and industrial injection wells.  The municipal that you have basically is a standard where your final casing is a conductor for your fluid.  In an industrial injection well you have a tubing liner that goes inside the final casing and the annulus between that is generally filled with some kind of non-corrosive fluid.  You monitor that annulus at the surface to make sure you do not have leak through your tubing, the sleeve that actually conducts the fluid down to the disposal zone. 

            Mr. Hanks stated there is no difference in terms of operation.  It is really in terms of the construction and the monitoring required with it.

            Mr. Bulman stated and the interim MIT.  You have additional mechanical integrity demonstrations if you use that construction.

            Mr. Fennell asked what if we took the backup well, made it a commercial well and this take the affluent from the new water plant?

            Mr. Cassel responded we went through that discussion.  We would not only have to do the well, but we would also have to do a new monitoring well because that one was monitored internally of the well.  They no longer allow that.  You need to have a separate monitoring well.  We discussed that if we were to do an industrial monitoring well, we would locate it if close enough proximity to the monitoring well we just completed because it can handle both wells at the same time. 

            Mr. Bulman stated which was thought about when we decided to place the monitoring well in the corner back there.  If you place a new injection well along the canal in the northwest corner, you can keep it within 150 feet of the monitoring well.

            Mr. Hanks stated to stay in compliance with the regulations we have to keep it in the back of our heads that if we should desire to go forward with an increase in capacity, that we are able to keep on the backup side, then these are the options we have to increase the capacity.  Conversely, we could pursue options where we decrease the demand where that is going to be coming in on the other side.  Mr. Schwarz, I know you put some numbers out there in your report for the I&I.  Where did those fall relative to these types of numbers?  Do we have any idea of what type of magnitude we could see?

            Mr. Schwarz responded if you wanted to restore the entire basin, one through eight, I guessed 25 linear feet per basin and 500, I do not remember what I said, per…

            Mr. Hanks asked 500 per manhole?

            Mr. Schwarz responded no.  I did not think about the manholes.  Your manholes are concrete.  They are not in bad shape.  It is the clay pipe that is the problem and the service lateral connections.  I will get a better number when I go through the drawings, but based on what I knew I estimated that to completely restore those basins it is about $16 Million worth of work. 

            Mr. Hanks asked where are basins one through eight located?

            Mr. Schwarz responded around the mall, the original part of the city, the oldest part of your system.

            Mr. Fennell stated near Ramblewood.

            Mr. Schwarz stated that is correct. 

            Mr. Hanks asked what sort of order of magnitude decrease would you think we could achieve?  Do we have any idea on upper limit what kind of magnitude increases we could see?

            Mr. Schwarz responded you serve two purposes.  You reduce the base flow contributions that groundwater gives you, they fluctuate, and then the peak flow.  The peak flow is probably what defines your permit where you cannot exceed a certain peak.  You do not have a peak flow problem right now, but you might if you added Coral Springs.  All of this starts to tie together. 

            Mr. Hanks asked if we were to do the silt lining of those basins and achieve a leakage to what would be considered allowable on a new system, where do you think we would be in terms of the flow contribution from that area?

            Mr. Schwarz responded that is why I need the numbers of houses and the length.

            Mr. Hanks asked so are we on the same page of what I am looking for?

            Mr. Schwarz responded yes.

                       

·         Monthly Aerial Photographs

            This item is for informational purposes only.

 

·         Project Status Report

            Ms. Early stated the FEMA grants we submitted, CSID was selected for one of the projects.  I spoke to Mr. Williams from FEMA and he should have a draft of the agreement by Thursday.  The grant was for 75% of $2.75 Million for the 1,700 linear foot 72 culvert from when we did our hydraulic model.  That culvert was the most beneficial.  We submitted to FEMA three phases.  We wanted to split them up because we did not think we would get one total grant. 

            Mr. Fennell stated so it is going to be to the west side of University.

            Mr. Hanks stated between Sam’s Club and Maplewood Elementary.

            Ms. Early stated there were some other culverts we had recommended in that report. 

            Mr. Cassel stated this gives us more flow to the pump station. 

            Ms. Early stated it connects a large portion of the north and south.  Right now there is currently this one smaller connection to the east of the east basin.

            Mr. Hanks asked is P-31 a smaller pipe?

            Ms. Early responded yes.  That was in the original area.

            Mr. Cassel stated right now it has to either flow through the mall or the further one to the east.

            Ms. Early stated when we evaluated those we closed off the mall in case we were to get a blockage there and then as we put additional culverts to see where the most beneficial area would be to add them. 

            Mr. Fennell stated the other thing we could do which we have not talked much about is to try to connect the east and west basin somehow.  What I gathered from your comments is that the pump downtimes are different between the east basin and the west basin, which makes sense because the west basin holds a lot more water.  Basically they have the same amount of pumps.  Is that right?

            Mr. Cassel responded yes.

            Ms. Early stated it probably has more storage.

            Mr. Fennell stated yes, but the water gets up high, you have to get rid of it, you do not have enough pumps to take it down as fast as the east basin.  I think there is a difference of about 50% storage.

            Ms. Early stated the west basin has quite a bit more storage than the east basin. 

            Mr. Cassel stated we do have flexibility in our operating permit.  We can run up to four pumps at one time, which means we can run three pumps on the west basin and one pump on the east basin or all four on the west basin or all four on the east basin.  We have the flexibility to run the pumps however they need to in order to get the water out to the best of our efficiency.

            Mr. Fennell asked did that permit have anything to do with looking at the storage?

            Mr. Cassel responded my understanding of their permits is how much can we put into the C-14.

            Ms. Early stated that is correct, as a whole.  It was not separated by basins.

            Mr. Cassel stated it does not matter where we put it in.  We can only put X amount of gallons a minute, in there. 

            Mr. Fennell stated okay.

            Mr. Cassel stated as soon as we get the agreements we will have Mr. Lyles review it prior to execution.  Then we will internally decide how we want to go about tackling the project.

            Mr. Hanks stated sounds good.

            Mr. Fennell asked how much will the project cost?

            Ms. Early responded $2.75 Million, but that was a year ago.  The Federal share is $2,062,500.  That is what they will give us.

            Mr. Daly asked will they give us that portion no matter what? 

            Ms. Early responded no.  It will probably be 75% of what the cost is up to that figure.  That is the maximum they will give us.  We worked very closely with FEMA on this.  There was a lot of documentation.

            Mr. Daly stated and you had to go back and give them the 100 year flood.

            Ms. Early stated we had to redo the hydraulic model.

            Mr. Fennell stated we were looking for ways to ensure we do not flood.  The damage that could be done in a flood is unbelievable.

            Ms. Early stated I think that was part of the study.  I think we showed if that area got flooded, we showed $6 Million cost.  You have to do a benefit cost analysis.  It was for a particular area and for a particular flood.  The area where we were putting the pipe was the area that had the most benefit. 

 

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                   Approval of September  Financials and Check Registers

·         Summary of Cash Transactions

            Mr. Fennell asked I gather we might have some improvements coming next month?

            Ms. Woodward responded yes.  We had talked about revising some of the formatting on the financial statements.  What you have been looking at for the past year is sort of a hybrid which includes both accrual presentation on some items and then budget of cash bases on others.  It gets confusing when you start looking at it.  One of the things we want to add to the bottom of the water and sewer budget is a computation on a monthly basis to let you know where you stand on your debt service coverage as you go through the year.

            Mr. Hanks stated that will be a nice feature.

            Mr. Fennell stated the only thing to note here is that even though it looks like we made a lot of money, in reality we still owe about $1.9 Million in bond debts. 

            Ms. Zich stated this is why she is going to let us know what is in there.  So we really have $1.1 Million in there, but when you look at it, it looks like we have $4.3 Million.

            Ms. Woodward stated when you come down to that net of $1.1 Million one of the things you need to realize is your debt service on your bonds require you to have an excess at the bottom line of 10% of what your debt service is for the year.  So in a year where you have $400,000 worth of interest due, $400,000 is what drops down to the bottom which is required to be there as a buffer.  It is not always a usable net number at the bottom. 

 

           

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS             Adjournment

            There being no further business,

           

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                       

Glen Hanks                                                Robert D. Fennell

Secretary                                                    President