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, January 26, 2009 at 3:06 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:
Kenneth Cassel
District Manager
Jane Early
CH2M Hill
Sean Skehan
CH2M Hill
Gerrit Bulman
CH2M Hill
Rick Morales
CH2M Hill
Ed Goscicki
Severn Trent Services
Brenda Schurz
Severn Trent Services
Dan Daly
Director of Operations
Jim Aversa
Chief Operator, Wastewater Plant
Doug Hyche
Utilities Director
Randy Frederick
Drainage Supervisor
Kay Woodward
District Accountant
Jan Zilmer
Human Resources Manager
Bonnie Epstein
Resident, Eagle Trace
FIRST
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Roll Call
Mr.
Cassel called the meeting to order and called the roll.
Mr. Cassel stated you will notice there is a revised agenda placed before
you. We shifted a couple of items
in order to expedite the meeting.
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Approval of the Minutes of the December 15, 2008
Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of
the December 15, 2008 meeting and requested any corrections, additions or
deletions.
Ms. Zich asked what happened with the recording
equipment?
Mr. Cassel responded we thought all the meetings were completely
downloaded off of the equipment. It
did not completely empty out and we ran out of recording space. We made sure this time the recorder is
completely free of space so we can get the entire meeting. I apologize for any inconvenience. The last part of the minutes is summary
based on our notes and recollection of the meeting.
Mr. Hanks asked when in the meeting was it?
Ms. Zich responded it was near the end when we were talking about
CDs.
There being no changes to the minutes as presented,
On
MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the minutes of the
December 15, 2009 meeting were approved.
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Supervisor’s Requests and Audience Comments
Mr. Daly stated I would like to introduce Ms. Epstein. She is a resident at 1760
126th Drive and would like to discuss the canal banks behind her
home.
Ms. Epstein stated thank you for allowing me to speak before you. I wanted to say for the past five years
I have been in touch with different members of CSID. I first spoke with Mr. Moore five years
ago. I have spoken with Mr.
Frederick and I have spoken with Mr. Daly most recently about the severe erosion
problem behind my home. It is my
understanding that several sets of photographs have been forwarded to the Board,
over the past five years and more recently three or four sets over the past
month, in order to demonstrate the severe erosion problem and to show it has
gotten progressively worse; even over the past few months.
My concern at this point is it has become a safety hazard. I observed the neighborhood children
walk by with fishing rods to fish in the canal. They are hanging on to my fence, which
has started to tip over. Our dog,
which is 13 years old, has fallen into the canal. As you can see there is more property
falling in. Day by day when the
gardeners come to take care of the lawn they are hanging onto the fence, they
are hanging onto the tree, they are trying not to fall into the canal. The property which was behind the canal
was once many feet. It is now down
to a small area beyond the tree. It
is this tree and its roots, which are holding on to the entire property and
pulling the property to where it is now leaning. You can see the fence is now leaning
into the canal.
My concerns are; number one, I feel it is a safety hazard and number two,
we have lost a significant amount of property. I understand it is not my property to
lose, but it is a significant amount of property causing a substantial
problem. My husband and I are very
concerned at this point. We are
concerned about the safety of the people walking behind there and we want to
know something is going to happen before there is a terrible accident. I am asking the District please give me
some response tonight to my concerns.
Thank you.
Mr. Fennell stated thank you very much. Where exactly is the property line
there?
Mr. Hanks asked if I can back up Ms. Epstein, what development are you
in?
Ms. Epstein responded The Fairways of Eagle Trace.
Mr. Fennell stated I have a couple of questions. Where is the property line? This looks like a dead end canal so what
is eroding it? It is not like there
is a lot of water flowing through there, is there?
Ms. Epstein responded there actually is water flowing through because two
houses to the left of me is the end of the canal and the current does wash
towards the side as it makes its way towards the end. There is water movement. It is not dead water. There is a wire I do not know what cable
it is, but it is now exposed. It
was once about five feet in from the end of the property. All of those pipes were covered. Those roots were not there.
Mr. Hanks asked do you know where the property line it
is?
Mr. Frederick responded the property line is approximately where the
fence is.
Mr. Hanks asked has anybody been out there to get any ideas what the
problem is?
Mr. Frederick responded I have been out there many times. I do not know what is causing it. Like she said, this has been going on
for a long time. It keeps getting
worse and worse. You can see big
cracks and more chunks getting ready to break off now.
Mr. Fennell asked how big is this canal?
Mr. Frederick responded I do not know.
Mr. Fennell stated there may be some water flowing through to this end,
but it cannot be a lot.
Mr. Frederick stated any action they are getting there is probably action
from the southeast winds we get. We
do get quite a few southeast winds during the year. They are pretty musty winds
sometimes.
Mr. Fennell stated we need to figure out why this is breaking down the
way it is. It is not obvious to me
what the cause is. I do not think
there is much water going through.
The only other thing I can think of is the canals are dug too deep.
Mr. Hanks asked are there other locations where we are faced with this
situation as well? Was there an
effort right after Hurricane Wilma?
Mr. Daly responded yes there was.
There was four in Eagle Trace.
This is not the same property.
Mr. Fennell stated I think we should have someone go out there and find
out the cause of this because it is not obvious. Theoretically, the object of the whole
canal system is drainage for stormwater.
Mr. Hanks asked Ms. Epstein, which is your property that we were looking
at before?
Ms. Epstein responded this picture.
Mr. Frederick stated hers is the one on the left.
Mr. Cassel stated with the tree and the white fence.
Mr. Frederick stated if you look to the very left, all of a sudden it
cuts back. All the way to the end,
the whole section is eroding out.
Mr. Fennell asked can you do a scan showing us what the depth of the
canals are and what is going on there?
Ms. Early responded we might have something. Let me take a look. We did it probably ten years ago. I may have what was there. We have a map showing the
elevation.
Mr. Fennell stated I think we need to take a look and see what the canal
is supposed to be.
Mr. Hanks stated it is hard to tell from these pictures how deep it
is. The second picture in with a
blow up of an irrigation pipe looks like there is soil at the bottom. I am puzzled. There may be something else going
on. Is there perhaps
irrigation?
Ms. Epstein responded the first pipe is beyond my property.
Mr. Hanks asked does yours start at the tree and heads
back?
Ms. Epstein responded it is in between the two pipes.
Mr. Frederick stated there is the indention of where it starts.
Ms. Epstein stated the roots you see are from the tree. This is the tree, which is now leaning
towards the canal and pulling down the entire fence with it.
Mr. Frederick stated the roots were probably underground at one
time.
Ms. Epstein stated they were absolutely underground.
Mr. Fennell asked is this our tree?
Ms. Epstein responded yes.
Mr. Fennell asked do you mind if we cut it down?
Ms. Epstein responded if you cut the tree down, the entire thing will
fall in. The root system is the
only thing holding up the property.
Mr. Fennell stated one of the things we found out with trees along the
banks like this where the roots extend into the water is the roots die. Only the roots on the other side are
strong and when a strong wind comes the tree is going to fall onto your
house.
Ms. Epstein stated it was not my tree to take down. It was not my issue to worry about the
tree. I just had to maintain the
lawn around it.
Mr. Hanks stated if a fix is possible in this area, and we need to find
out more, it will probably involve taking down the tree. Are there other areas in the immediate
vicinity having a similar problem or is it isolated to yours and your
neighbors?
Ms. Epstein responded I could not tell you. I can tell you what it is doing on my
side of the canal. The other side
looks completely different.
Mr. Hanks stated it does not look like the other side has this
problem.
Ms. Epstein stated I think the water comes towards my house.
Mr. Fennell asked was the original canal actually back further and they
maybe put dirt over the edge of the canal?
Mr. Hanks asked are you thinking it is not compacted and they pushed it
back?
Mr. Fennell responded they just made it look nice. It could have been bigger than they
actually thought and someone pushed a little of dirt over the top of it and it
eventually washed away or the canal was deep there.
Mr. Hanks stated I would like to go ahead with a representative from our
engineer’s office to see what is really going on if it is alright with
you.
Ms. Epstein stated it is fine with me. My concern is if you do take down the
tree, someone may have to do something else to hold up the
property.
Mr. Hanks stated we are going to take a look at it and figure out where
our approach needs to be on this issue.
Has it been determined that this is District property rather than the
Eagle Trace HOA?
Mr. Frederick responded it is our property.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the Board directed
the District engineer to conduct a field visit to evaluate the Eagle Trace
erosion issue and report back to the Board with
suggestions.
Mr. Fennell stated we are going to send someone out there to take a look
and try to understand from an engineering standpoint what is going on and why
this is happening.
Ms. Epstein asked will I get feedback from this.
Mr. Hanks responded yes.
Does Mr. Hyche have your contact information?
Mr. Daly responded I do. We
have been in touch.
Mr. Fennell asked how did you get this picture?
Mr. Frederick responded I got it off of the computer.
Ms. Epstein stated these are your pictures, not mine.
Mr. Daly stated it is on bcpa.net, the Broward County Property
Appraiser.
Mr. Fennell asked is it recent?
Mr. Frederick responded it is from 2008.
Mr. Fennell stated we will see what we can do.
Ms. Epstein stated thank you very much.
Mr. Daly stated thank you Ms. Epstein.
Mr. Fennell asked are there any Supervisors’ requests? I have one. It turns out the US Government is
looking for construction ready projects so it can vest into and get people
going. There is kind of a drawback
there. Nothing really gets
construction ready unless you have already spent a lot of money. Nevertheless, we should take a look
because we have many projects going on here. Let us get a list of projects. Let us find out what we can do. There are some projects we put off
because we could not get the money for them. There may be something we can bring
forward. We do have things which
are state ready right now. I do not
know if we can get any money for it or not, but let us give it a try. Mr. Cassel, I am going to direct you to
work with the engineering group and look into this. I do not know how to get the money or
where it is coming from. Let us
actively look into this. The City
of Coral Springs said they are going to do something about a water treatment
plant.
Mr. Hanks stated I received something this morning from SFWMD asking if
there are any projects which are construction ready.
Mr. Fennell stated we did have some projects. We were going to work on our canals and
it was going to cost $1 Million. We
actually got to a point where we did a considerable amount of homework on
it.
Ms. Early stated that was one of the ones I tried to get a grant
on.
Mr. Fennell stated yes, so let us go through with engineering and look at
these different projects to see what we can pay for.
Mr. Hanks stated even though the grant is available next year, it may be
something which will allow us…because one of the issues involves the timing and
quality of the release of freshwater to the canals. We can incorporate an interconnect
between our two basins. That may be
a way and also provide some relief for the east basin by taking advantage of
some of the extra storage we have in the west basin.
Mr. Fennell stated I had a meeting earlier with some of our engineers and
we were talking about possible hydraulic projects going forward. One of the big deals was how do we
recharge our own aquifer. Even
though our canals were designed, basically, for draining out, we are in the
unique position where we actually have the capability of maintaining a certain
water height. The hydrologist told
me what they are actually maintaining is the water table level, which has pros
and cons to it. The pros are it
recharges the water level and some of the cons are it causes water infiltration
through our own piping system. We
have plus and minuses to it.
Mr. Hanks stated it is also harder to address the larger storm events
when you already have your sight up at our stage; starting off with less storage
available for those future rainfall events. It is a trade off.
Mr. Fennell stated there are trade offs, but nevertheless we need to
probably start looking at the hydraulics, not only in our area, but Corals
Springs and North Springs as a way for us to actively recharge our own aquatic
systems. We can still take
advantage of the great surface water we now have. I think we will not only help ourselves,
but we are probably helping the areas around us too. I know we have been talking about
somehow having a meeting one of these days, but I think this is something we
need to look at. Certainly, the
ability to transfer water from one District to another will be
helpful.
Ms. Early stated we submitted a memorandum of understanding to SFWMD to
permit us to pump from NSID south to CSID from pump station number one. They still have not finalized that. It is getting
closer.
Mr. Fennell asked will there ever be any advantages to us back pumping
from the C-13 Canal to the C-14 Canal?
Mr. Hanks responded you need to have a consumptive water use
permit.
Mr. Fennell stated I know. I
am just thinking about the dry season.
Ms. Early stated we can do that.
It is just a matter of getting SFWMD to permit us.
Mr. Fennell stated anyway, we are still looking for this kind of water
policy and direction. How does this
all fit in? There are long term
benefits to us managing our water better in many different ways. If we can put together policies of
things which will do that, it will help.
Not only that, but there may be some construction projects we can fund
here. With the upcoming times it
would be a benefit. I think there
are some plausible reasons to do this, at least from what I heard earlier this
week. I think we can do some smart
things; plus, I am out for CSID to help take a lead in our own water
management. Not just to drain us,
but to obviously make sure we have water.
We were about to spend a large amount of money for water processing for
the next 30 years. We have to make
sure there is some water there, we are getting the best water we can and we are
being good citizens by maintaining the water environment we need to. I think we are going to have to expand
our philosophy on what we want to do going forward. At the same time, we do not want to
waste a lot of money either.
Mr. Skehan stated there was a discussion Mr. Cassel and I attended last
week with the City of Coral Springs and the SFWMD related to their 10 year
plan. That particular item with the
interconnection of the canals and recharge back into Coral Springs and different
places was one of the items we specifically discussed as well as how the water
use permits tie into this and the potential of some funding in different
locations; either from the SFWMD or others. Some of those same items we discussed
last week were also brought to the table.
The City of Parkland was there also. They had a representative there and the
SFWMD people. We will be following
up on this.
Mr. Fennell stated I think it is an important thing to do. If I actually look at where we can
really make a big effect as far as water management goes, it is not really with
water, sewer and replenishing.
Those are small amounts of water compared to what we already have in the
canals. We sometimes,
unfortunately, have to dump out. If
we can transfer this stuff back, I know one time there was 1 Billion gallons we
would have liked to ship to The Everglades.
Ms. Early stated 2 Billion.
Mr. Fennell stated there was 2 Billion gallons of water, which could have
been shipped to the Everglades and they did not really want it, but there might
have been other Districts which could have used half a Billion or so to
replenish their systems. I think we
need to start thinking in those kinds of terms. I am going to encourage you to do
this. One of the projects to go
forward with is how we can tie together, in a comprehensive method, a water
policy. Maybe I am wrong, but from
what you guys are telling me from the hydrologist that is where most of our
water is, in the canals; not only having the water in the canals, but also the
water table. We are actually
talking about maintaining the water table as opposed to the trivial amount we
use for our own needs. It sounds
like the smart thing to do. You
guys have to get your input and let me know.
We also have other issues when we do this such as, maybe we need some
funding for making our pipes more sealed for getting water back. As we increase our water table we have a
negative thing for water intrusion that we are funding from an environmental
agency, which would make it so we could stop that and yet somehow do better with
the water table. Anyway, this is my
input. I know we are looking into
some of these things.
Mr. Hanks stated we need to be careful in our approach, or prudent. Just because we are able to store more
water it does not necessarily mean we will receive an increase in our allocation
for groundwater withdrawal from the Biscayne Aquifer.
Mr. Fennell stated I think we have to make it part of the deal. If we are going to be good
environmentalist, we have to make sure it pays off well all around. I think it is a tool. It is a legitimate tradeoff. If we do a good job managing this, there
ought to be a fair tradeoff where we are getting the best water we can. We are actually recharging our own
water. Are there any other
Supervisors’ requests?
Ms. Zich responded I had a couple of things, but it has to do with the
accounting part at the end.
EIGHTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Staff Reports
B.
Attorney
Mr. Fennell stated counselor, you mentioned you might have a meeting
later on. Are there any issues you
would like to bring up now?
Mr. Lyles responded the only thing is a quick note to the Board. We received a Notice of Claim from our hurricane
debris removal contractor, Arbor Tree.
They are taking the position they performed a quantity of extra work
which they were never paid for.
They submitted a written request.
The engineer’s office has reviewed it and determined, at least
preliminarily, there does not seem to be a basis for the payment. They responded to them that we do not
find the basis for it. We are not
in suit, but we did receive a claim which could potentially become a litigation
matter. So I will just tell you it
has been submitted and received by the staff on your behalf. It is being investigated and responded
to.
Ms. Zich asked how much is this claim for?
Mr. Lyles responded approximately $100,000.
Ms. Zich stated this is amazing.
We are just hearing about this.
Mr. Lyles stated they just submitted it.
Ms. Early stated they submitted it on their original pay estimate a year
and a half ago. We denied
it.
Mr. Lyles stated it was not part of the job and it was not authorized by
engineering staff. We paid. That was that. Now they have come back and submitted a
separate freestanding claim for the increment which was disapproved and not part
of the original contract scope; at least in the opinion of the engineer’s office
at that time.
Ms. Early stated the back up they submitted, because there was no back up
with the original letter and I requested back up, they had a couple of things
typed and then they had a bunch of handwritten pages saying they repaired
irrigation at such and such address.
That is all it was. I
responded saying the contract documents clearly state everything has to be done
with a change order. It has to come
before the Board for any changes. I
asked them to please provide me with that documentation and they said they did
not have anything like that. I have
not heard from them. I do not know
if you received anything else.
Mr. Lyles stated no. Nothing
else.
Ms. Early stated after my last email to them we have not received
anything.
Mr. Lyles stated so the ball is back in their court, but I did want to
let you know since your last meeting it has been received. There may be more to it. They do have an attorney. They did bring a claim against NSID more
than a year ago, which turned out to have some merit and it was
compromised. It was a far smaller
amount of money. They may have just
been encouraged by that and decided to take a shot with CSID, but the facts are
the documentation is substantially different. The fact NSID did pay them another
$25,000 is not going to be precedent for how it is handled in the case of
CSID.
Ms. Zich asked did we pay for what we agreed to
pay?
Mr. Lyles responded yes.
Ms. Zich stated this is over and above.
Ms. Early stated that is correct.
There was an allowance item on there. They are trying to come back and claim
some allowances, but it clearly states it has to be pre-approved just like all
of our other projects. It has to be
pre-approved. It has to have a
change order. It has to be in
writing and they cannot produce anything showing they were given any direction
in writing or an approved change order.
Mr. Fennell asked have you guys gone over this at
all?
Mr. Daly responded yes we have.
I spoke to Mr. Frederick about it.
It all started here and all went up to Mr. Lyles’ office by way of Mr.
Cassel. I spoke to Mr. Frederick
and he told me absolutely not. I
know for a fact Mr. Frederick was on his knee fixing the sprinkler systems
himself; he and his crew. They did
not ask Arbor Tree to fix it for them.
I also would concur with Mr. Lyles in that they may have been encouraged
by the fact NSID paid.
Mr. Fennell asked do you see any basis at all for
it?
Mr. Daly responded not at all.
Mr. Lyles stated there may be more and there may not be. I wanted to let you know we received a
Notice of Claim.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Interlocal Agreement with Stoneybrook Community
Development District for Utility Billing Services
Mr. Fennell asked do you have any input on this Mr.
Lyles?
Mr. Lyles responded no. It
is a pretty standard form of agreement we reviewed. This is a continuation of what I think
is direction from the Board indicating that to the extent that staff of the
District has the ability to provide services pursuant to an Interlocal Agreement
for which a bill is going to be sent and money will actually be coming into the
District as opposed to going out.
Staff has looked at this. I
have looked at this and I think everybody is prepared to recommend it to the
Board for approval.
Mr. Fennell asked is there anything else Mr.
Cassel?
Mr. Cassel responded I do not have anything to add to it. We all looked at it.
Mr. Fennell stated I see we are doing this more and more. Keep doing it. We are a service provider and we want to
keep encouraging that.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the Interlocal
Agreement with Stoneybrook CDD for utility billing services was approved.
FOURTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Work Authorization No. 50 – Water and Wastewater Capital
Improvement Program, Water and Wastewater Treatment Plant, Construction
Management and Services during Construction
Mr.
Cassel stated the Board will remember this was before the Board last month and
it was set off. Several of the
things we did was take out the $100,000 allowance issue we discussed. CH2M Hill has put in the breakdown of
man hours required for the project for you to review.
Mr. Fennell asked are there anymore questions on this? We discussed this a lot the last
time.
Ms. Zich responded no. It
was the allowance I was not in favor of in the case we went over. It is gone and they broke down the hours
so it is easier to look at.
Mr. Fennell asked are there any more questions?
Mr. Hanks responded it looks like an awful lot of time, but you are
talking almost two full years.
Mr. Fennell stated that is the thing. When you look at this and you break it
down, if you have two people here almost fulltime for two years, it is a big
chunk of salary.
Ms. Zich stated it is a lot of hours.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor Work Authorization
No. 50 for water and wastewater capital improvement program, water and
wastewater treatment plant, construction management services during construction
was approved.
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Bid Award for Construction of Monitor Well MW-3 and
Related Projects
A. Work
Authorization No. 51 – Monitor Well MW-3 Construction and Related
Services
Mr. Fennell stated I think during the week we were individually contacted
by engineering, sat down with them on an individual basis and were explained
some of the pros and cons for this.
I know I spend about three hours looking at some of this stuff. I learned a lot about hydrology during
the time. I was impressed that we
are sitting on 3,000 feet of coral.
Ms. Zich asked what about the water being right under
us?
Mr. Cassel responded it is in the rock.
Mr. Hanks stated we have no idea how porous this rock is.
Mr. Fennell stated 3,000 feet of coral; we are sitting on an old
reef.
Ms. Zich stated I knew this.
I went to a museum in Fort Lauderdale and it showed maps of the State of
Florida. It hardly existed a long
time ago. This has all just
evolved. I was very impressed with
this.
Mr. Hanks stated at some point it will not exist.
Ms. Zich stated that is a scary thing too.
Mr. Fennell stated the water level only has to go up about 30 feet and
most of Florida is gone. On the
other hand, 3,000 feet of coral did not just occur overnight. I think you guys were telling me this is
at least a half Billion years old.
It is amazing.
Ms. Zich stated let us just not have any major hurricanes.
Mr. Hanks stated it has lasted for three and a half years so do not
worry.
Ms. Zich stated I know.
Mr. Fennell stated okay we are on item number five which is well
MW-3. We had some bids out
there. It includes, not just the
monitoring well, but a bunch of other things we are going to clean up around the
monitoring well.
Mr. Hanks stated our engineering estimate was off.
Mr. Skehan stated it was.
From the beginning, when this project came to inception, there have been
several changes to what we are doing.
Initially, the cost estimate was around constructing a single zone
monitor well. Where we are right
now is a dual zone monitor well. A
dual zone monitor well will give you at least 25 to 30 years of service. There was some uncertainty about doing
it with a single zone monitor well and then try to plug in a zone. This is one item and then as Mr. Cassel
mentioned there are several other items we captured in this. This is a new instrumentation. We are recapturing a piece of the swale
area on the north side of the property.
We are going to move the fence line over.
Mr. Hanks asked if you take out those additional things, are we in line
with what the estimate was?
Mr. Skehan responded yes.
Mr. Hanks stated okay.
Mr. Fennell stated it is one of those things we have to do. It would be nice, long term, if there
were actually some way rather than injecting all of this water down 3,000
feet. The ideal thing is we should
treat it a little bit more, have it go through a section off the part of the
Everglades where we can actually clean out the water and then have it flow back
in. That would be the ideal thing
in the long term. I think it should
be done.
Mr. Hanks stated you still need a place to put stuff during the wet
weather when nobody is using the reclaimed water.
Mr. Skehan stated there needs to be a secondary back up to a reuse system
that you are looking wetlands reuse and/or spray irrigation. There are times when the wetlands will
be popped off and/or reused such as in golf courses. There are times when the reuse is not
being used because there is plenty of rainwater. Those are the biggest limitations you
have to reuse aside from the cost of implementing reuse, which is fairly
significant; also on the price per gallon and the levels of which you decide to
treat it for. The lower level
treatment levels would be in the spray irrigation. Trying to discharge it directly into the
canal system is very difficult to meet the applicable standards here in Broward
County.
Mr. Hanks asked is that just a county regulation or is it a state
regulation?
Mr. Skehan responded Broward County is more restrictive than the
state.
Mr. Hanks asked is this brought about by county
commissioners?
Mr. Skehan responded ultimately.
Mr. Hanks asked or is it people over at DEP?
Mr. Skehan responded they were part of it. They were the ones who set the
phosphorus and nitrogen levels. In
order to reach those standards you have to pay a lot more money to accommodate
that. The cost estimate could be
anywhere between $8 and $12 a gallon for construction. It is expensive to do
it.
Mr. Fennell stated at that point one would be a backup for the other,
which is double costs.
Mr. Skehan stated the easiest avenue is low level treatment so you can
apply it to a golf course and wherever irrigation is appropriate; where pipeline
costs are not going to be extensive and there is easy
access.
Mr. Hanks stated unless you are able to find another user. Dania Beach was replacing FPL’s raw
water consumption. The same thing
like in Palm Beach County; they are pumping out to the plants out there. They are making use of their
allocation.
Mr. Skehan stated Hollywood has the same thing. They have a lot of reuse they have been
able to tie into from some of the other smaller communities such as Davie, Coral
Springs, Dania and Cooper City. It
depends on the interconnects you have and the ability to get it into those
systems.
Mr. Hanks stated and the cost.
Mr. Fennell stated okay, moving ahead here.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the contract for
construction of Monitor Well MW-3 and related projects was awarded to Layne
Christensen Company in the amount of $1,738,717.15.
Ms. Zich stated we are spending a lot today.
Mr. Cassel stated when you figure it is over the next 25 to 30 years of
operational needs of the District it is a good thing.
Mr. Fennell stated plus we are helping out the economy.
Mr. Cassel stated we are stimulating the local
economy.
Ms. Zich stated good.
Mr. Cassel stated we have Work Authorization No. 51 to go along with
this. This is the engineering work
authorization of CH2M Hill regarding the engineering work required during the
construction of the monitor well, all the reports required as well as the
operation and maintenance manual.
This is a lump sum with CH2M Hill.
On the last page you will see a breakdown of the personnel requirements
for this project.
Mr. Fennell stated it is for $405,051. We are sending a lot of money your way
this year. Are there any questions
on this?
Mr. Hanks asked how long is the duration on this
project?
Mr. Skehan responded about one year.
Mr. Cassel stated this is 240 days.
Mr. Skehan stated when you include all of the components it is
approximately one year.
Mr. Fennell asked what happens if it runs over?
Ms. Zich responded it is not going to run over because they are really
good. We are going to make sure it
does not run over.
Mr. Hanks asked does this gets us through the reporting and all the other
paperwork through the various agencies?
Mr. Skehan responded yes.
Mr. Hanks stated so at the end we are not going to get another bill. Is this the bill for finalizing all the
permits?
Mr. Skehan stated it is all included.
Mr. Fennell stated I know we were rethinking the water improvement
projects and have gone to the city with that. I do not know if we have to do much with
the city on this, but it looks to me if there is anyway we can do pre-reviews,
it looks like smart engineering and smart project management to try to find the
delays beforehand. I know we think
we know, but usually we do not know exactly. The thing we have going on with the city
is a great model, but from what you guys are telling me it is going pretty
well. If we can do this with other
agencies, I think it will be good.
If there are any other ways we can do this, we may end up saving
ourselves an immense amount of time.
Mr. Hanks stated certainly before we put the pen to the paper.
Mr. Skehan stated the DEP permit which is required for the construction
of the well itself is already in place.
We have signed copies in our hands.
The incidental permits which will be required for this related to the
concrete pad and the fence move over on the swale will be the contractor’s
responsibility, but those are much later in the project as the project is coming
to a close.
Mr. Fennell stated I’m saying be proactive even if it is the contractor’s
responsibility.
Mr. Cassel stated in the discussions with the city they are aware we have
a well drilling project coming up and we will be doing that. We have work with them requiring in
conjunction with hours of construction, potential times where we may have to be
drilling 24 hours on certain sections.
We are working with them already on the whole process. They are fully aware we will have three
construction projects going on simultaneously onsite.
Mr. Fennell stated let us keep doing that. I know you think there is not much the
city needs to do with this, but they could get cryptic and get in our way. We are much better off letting them know
what we are doing, how we are doing it and having them on our side;
understanding this is really good for the city. Even if you do not think there is that
much, I would do everything you can to work with them.
Mr. Cassel stated we are and we will. Their staff has been receptive to
working out the issues early in advance.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor Work Authorization
No. 51 for construction and related services associated with Monitor Well
MW-3.
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Consideration of Permits
A.
Surface Water Management Permit for Coral Springs Improvement District
Water Treatment Plant
Mr. Cassel stated you will remember this came to the Board several months
ago and the suggestion was made for it to go to a third party to review it. It has been completed with Eckler
Engineering. It is recommended it
be approved as a permit on our site.
Mr. Hanks asked were there any material changes?
Ms. Early responded they were not clear on exactly what the area was we
were dealing with on the site. We
updated the site plan and outlined the exact area instead of the entire
plant. They want us to do some
additional elevations on the swale.
We sent the final plans to them and we have a set of plans coming to Ms.
Schurz as well so she has some for her records.
Mr. Hanks asked was this recommended for approval even though we do not
have the final letter from them?
Mr. Cassel responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked are there any questions before I make a
motion?
Mr. Fennell responded just for the record give us a brief overview of
what we are doing and who is doing it.
Mr. Cassel stated we have to give ourselves a water permit because we
control the water permits on the site.
We had done it in-house and it was suggested we have a third party
engineer to avoid the appearance of any conflict by issuing our own permit and
reviewing it with our own engineer.
We had Eckler Engineering do the review and they concurred after some
minor changes of clarification that the permit meets the District’s
criteria.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the Surface Water
Management Permit for the CSID water treatment plant was approved.
B.
Surface Water Management Permit from Sun Tech Engineering for Walgreens
located at University Drive and Atlantic Boulevard
Ms. Zich asked is this the old Shell gas station?
Mr. Hanks responded no. It
is the Borders. We are getting rid
of the Borders.
Mr. Fennell stated so we will have CVS in the other corner and Walgreens
across.
Ms. Early stated we are recommending approval subject to some special
conditions. We want them to submit
their calculations. We want them to
have the existing drainage system cleaned and we would like a report on
it.
Mr. Hanks asked is the building existing? It looked like they were tearing it
down.
Ms. Early responded they are decreasing impervious and they are adding a
small retention area.
Mr. Hanks asked is it for a completely new
building?
Ms. Early responded I do not think so. They are just converting it to a
Walgreens.
Mr. Fennell asked what am I looking at? What is the question?
Ms. Early responded it is a surface water management permit. We are saying it is approved subject to
quite a few conditions.
Mr. Hanks stated we have not changed our drainage criteria. How was this approved and how does it
meet our storage criteria?
Ms. Early responded that is one of the conditions. They need to submit the calculations to
us.
Mr. Hanks stated on the face of it the permit criteria of the 100 year
flood in this area is 11.6. In the
elevation they are required to provide .81 acre feet per acre of open
space. Now their lowest catch basin
level is 11.6.
Ms. Early stated they added some retention area. They decreased the impervious and this
is why we want the calculations.
Mr. Hanks stated at this point there is not enough information for me to
say we can approve this in good faith that we are protecting the residents of
this District. Ms. Schurz is not
going to approve anything until she checks with us to make sure we have
everything in hand. If you want to
hold it to the next meeting, it is fine.
We are just saying you can approve it subject to them providing this
information.
Ms. Zich stated I think we should hold it.
Mr. Hanks stated I am going to hold action. I am not interested in holding people up
from purchasing property and making improvements, but by the same token I am not
going to go ahead and authorize a permit when we do not have the calculations
and we do not have the back up demonstrating they are meeting the storage
requirements at the 100 year and at the 10 year elevation.
Ms. Early stated Sun-Tech Engineering has submitted to you before so they
know what the requirements are.
On
MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the surface water
management permit from Sun Tech Engineering for the Walgreens located at
University Drive and Atlantic Boulevard was tabled until all the required
information is submitted.
Mr. Hanks stated we had made an effort six months, a year or two ago, I
forget how long, to try to update our permit criteria manual and it got
stalled.
Ms. Early stated we are kind of stonewalled on what to
charge.
Mr. Hanks stated it is not so much the charge but also at what level do
we enforce a full compliance with the permit criteria manual and under what
conditions do we recognize they are making incremental improvements and that
they are improving the situation.
If they were just taking the shell of the building and punching a couple
of holes in the building, at that point I would say you are just making some
incremental improvements and you do not need to go through the whole
process. If you are demolishing the
building, we have to hold them to the standards in the permit criteria
manual. I guess this is a question
for Mr. Lyles. If a permit was
previously issued where they did not fully address the storage requirement and
they have gone ahead and demolish the building to come up with a whole new
structure, are we under any obligation to honor the previous permit or is this
an opportunity for the District to say they better comply with the criteria
manual?
Mr. Lyles asked are you, in your hypothetical questions, presuming the
demolished and new replacement building have different impacts on the system or
identical?
Mr. Hanks responded since they are demolishing the building it does not
matter.
Mr. Lyles asked should I assume it is the same
impact?
Mr. Hanks responded same, different, it does not
matter.
Mr. Lyles stated I think you also mentioned it was issued earlier and it
did not meet the permit criteria, but they got a permit anyhow. There is a concept in the law called
permit issue and error, which can be rescinded if it is the case. By the same token if it was issued in
the first place and now due to a more modern and scientific approach to
evaluating permit requests, we are doing nothing more than holding them to what
they should be held to. I think we
are not necessarily just stuck because someone issued a permit 28 years ago
which may or may not have been thoroughly looked at during that time. I think the general proposition is over
time government tries to insure, as long as it is done in an evenhanded and fair
basis, all construction as well as all impacts on our drainage system are
measured accurately and accounted for through a permit criteria system.
Ms. Early the animal hospital is a prime example. They did not meet the criteria.
Ms. Zich stated I did not think they were going to do anything there and
the whole building changed.
Ms. Early stated we denied them and this is why they came to the
meeting. They could not meet the
criteria. He was getting irate and
we told him to come to the meeting to speak to the Board.
Mr. Hanks stated this is why I want to be clear on our permit criteria
manual. When we released the permit
for the animal hospital it was explained to us they were not affecting the
footprint of the building. They
were adding some handicap parking and they were making some
improvements.
Ms. Zich stated that was what I thought and when I saw what they were
finished doing I was amazed. That
was not what I thought was going to happen.
Ms. Early stated they went on the basis of pre versus post. They were improving it slightly, but it
still did not meet the District’s criteria.
Mr. Hanks stated the three of us will need to work together on developing
this really clear language for our permit criteria manual.
Mr. Lyles stated just for the record; not to revise the criteria
themselves, but merely to make it very clear, what should be the case anyhow,
that construction activities whether it is a renovation, new construction or
reconstruction, it all has to meet the criteria which applies to the
improvement.
Mr. Hanks stated I still think we need to have the ability because there
are a number of older structures out here.
They may have to come forward and provide some handicap accessibility
changes to it. We have to be able
to accommodate those types of changes.
Mr. Lyles stated it is something to do at a workshop or at a staff
level. I understand your concern
and I think there is a way to get from here to there.
Mr. Hanks stated it is much like you have in cities, non-conforming
structures or non-conforming sites and there are certain conditions and
thresholds at which you have to change the compliance with the current
codes.
Mr. Fennell stated I think we have gone through all of the basic agenda
items.
EIGHTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Staff Reports (Continued)
A.
Manager
I.
Energy Audit
Mr.
Cassel stated the first item is the energy audit. We finally got FPL in here. There is a copy of the letter they sent
to us. Most of it are items we
already understood and knew.
Mr. Daly stated these were not necessarily recommendations for us
specifically. They are generalized
recommendations. A lot of this
stuff we do with regard to automatic thermostats on the air conditioners in all
the buildings, some timers on lights and things like that. We have not gone as far as wrapping the
hot water tanks in the buildings yet, but there are a lot of things on
there.
Mr. Fennell stated what I did not see on there was my favorite
topic. Ms. Early found somebody who
can come in and do it.
Mr. Cassel stated a number of our systems are already soft starts. Motors are doing things which are three
phase versus single phase. We are
already, by design and operation on the electronic side, aimed at the most
effective efficient operation and long term survivability of the motors in
operation already. Some of the
other issues may be at the point of diminishing returns to try to figure out how
to squeeze more out.
Mr. Fennell asked Ms. Early, do you remember you thought you might be
able to bring in someone to look at the phase issues for the
machines?
Ms. Early asked the company I emailed you about?
Mr. Fennell responded yes.
Ms. Early stated Mr. Skehan spoke with them.
Mr. Skehan stated part of it was their cost tied to this and whether it
was cost effective to bring them in.
Ms. Early stated they want to be paid up front for some
things.
Mr. Skehan stated there are several different ways to approach it. We looked at doing it internally
ourselves and then looked outside because of the cost. It never moved from
there.
Mr. Fennell stated there are larger companies which do power switches and
things like that.
Mr. Hyche stated we brought in ABB.
They worked on our transfer.
They phase monitored our transfers, which is for the generators. All our high service pumps run on
variable drives which work with programming on pressures, which are very
efficient.
Mr. Fennell stated yes, but this is an entirely different thing. It is not what you think. You have a magnetic energy. There are two types of energy, electric
and magnetism. When you use
magnetic forces you actually do not dissipate the energy until you move
something real. When you create
that force, it is a magnetic field.
The opposite of that is something called capacity flow. They have different phases. It turns out the energy is wasted in the
magnetic field unless you can compensate somehow its capacity flow. You are just kind of throwing it
away. It was never used and you
have to pay for it anyway. The
electrical company charges you volts and amps. If your volts and currents are not lined
up, they still charge you for it.
There is a good theoretical foundation to this. It is not magic or anything like
it. It has to do with having
pressure lined up. It will require
an engineer to come in.
Mr. Skehan stated we will talk with Mr. Cassel and resurrect what we
talked about before and go from there.
Mr. Daly stated actually when you look at it, and I will add the water
and sewer side up quickly, there is $930,000 budgeted this year for electric
expenses and $750,000 for the water plant.
It is not a bad idea to spend a couple of dollars to look into
this.
Mr. Fennell stated we should be able to knock 10% off.
Mr. Hanks stated when you ask for an electrical engineer it is like
asking for a civil engineer. You
have so many disciplines in there.
Mr. Fennell stated it has to be an electrical power engineer. You need an old fashioned electrical
power engineer. It cannot be a new
electronics guy. He will not
understand this. It has to be an
old fashioned power engineer who does generators and motors. They will understand this part.
Mr. Cassel stated you are thinking more of a power plant and transmission
type of situation.
Mr. Fennell stated the guy you brought out to do the audit is basically a
technician who was taught a number of tricks. They are not really looking at it from a
theoretical standpoint. We have 20
tricks on how to save electricity.
It is a good list, but they are not going to look at this one. It should be someone from big power
parts who makes generators or motors.
It can be someone from GE.
Mr. Cassel stated Burns & McDonnell does a lot of power plants and
transmission. There are several
other large firms which do that.
Mr. Fennell stated we should be able to knock off 10% if we just balance
out the magnetic fields.
Mr. Daly asked Mr. Skehan, what was the increase we were thinking as far
as electricity for the extra motors in the nanoplant? Was it 20%?
Mr. Skehan responded the work we have done as far as selecting the motors
are on variable speed drives also.
That is the most cost effective approach.
Mr. Daly stated but we will still be budgeting for an increase. I want to say the number was
20%.
Mr. Skehan stated I am not sure of the increase.
Mr. Daly stated I am looking at almost $1 Million here plus another
20%. Naturally when we take down
one of the lime stopping plants, it will ease up a bit there. We really have to do
something.
II.
Monthly Water Charts
Mr.
Cassel stated the next item which came under as supplemental is your monthly
water charts and your utility work order bills.
Mr. Fennell stated you are trying to correlate looking for cause and
effect between rain and how hard we have to run the wastewater facilities. I am looking for another correlation,
which is basically groundwater level per canal. There is a belief, which from what you
guys are telling me it is basically in the old Ramblewood
section.
Mr. Frederick stated that is correct.
Mr. Fennell stated there is a connection to the main line and we suspect
there is a break there. I suggest
we do a couple of things; one, try to correlate it to the graph level waters to
see whether or not we actually get those pipes below the ground level
water. That is where it is all
coming in. If that correlates and
it is true, then I would like to have us go out and prove it. Sample the areas you know as being high
drainage. Go out with the probe you
have to get down there and see if we really have this kind of problem. I am trying to understand where these
problems are actually occurring.
Mr. Hyche stated you can actually look at the number of lift
stations. Those lift stations in
the Ramblewood area, the hours run are tripled.
Mr. Hanks asked have you televised those lines?
Mr. Hyche stated they were televised back when Mr. Moore was
here.
Mr. Hanks asked do you recall what the results
were?
Mr. Hyche responded no I do not.
I was not involved at that time.
Mr. Fennell stated we are trying to understand. We know there is a problem here. We cannot do all the lines, but we need
to understand where we think 80% of the problem is occurring. If you know where the problem is
actually occurring or whether it is high level or low level and someone is even
saying we have this occurring problem where we want high levels in our canals,
but when we get low levels we save ourselves money.
Mr. Frederick stated it is our neighbor who does that.
Mr. Fennell asked do we have the same problem and is this the cause? We are looking for what the cause of the
problem is and what the extent of the problem is. Is this something we are going to have
to fix on everyone’s house or can we go through and inspect these houses and
determine that really only one out of every ten is a problem? This way we can get an idea of what the
cost of a solution will be.
Mr. Hanks stated the benefit to that is only going to be from the
operational expenses we incur operating the lift stations, treating it and
pumping it. We are not going to get
any benefit from an additional allocation from SFWMD for solving the
problem.
Mr. Fennell asked is it because they are being hard headed or because it
is not a smart thing to get fixed?
Mr. Hanks responded I do not know.
Mr. Fennell asked is there a rational thing there or are you just saying
it is how they think?
Mr. Hanks responded I forget which city it was. It was either Pompano Beach or
Sunrise. One of the cities went
ahead and did a relining of it.
They approached SFWMD for an increased allocation of water withdrawals
and they were denied. The rationale
SFWMD gave them was they did not have it as an additional withdrawal. They were correcting an illegal
consumption or something along those lines. It was an unauthorized consumption.
Mr. Skehan stated unauthorized withdrawal from the system. Because you are collecting it and it is
leaking into your system. It should
be your responsibility to repair it also.
They consider it, in some respects, dewatering.
Mr. Fennell stated it just sounds like that did not contribute
anything. It is something which is
hard to answer. Frankly, that is an
answer which does not contribute to the overall solution.
Mr. Hanks stated agreed.
Mr. Morales stated if you take a look at the cost of an I&I program
and what it will cost to increase, for example, your wastewater treatment plant
capacity, the amount of money you spend in lining to prevent leaks and getting
the inflow into your plant, that is by far from a dollar comparison the cheapest
way to increase plant capacity. To
give you an idea of comparison instead of looking from a water supply sample,
looking from a wastewater supply sample.
You are reducing the amount of water going into your plant; therefore,
you will have more capacity of the true wastewater flow rather than treating the
groundwater flow.
Mr. Fennell stated that is good if we have the right sequence of
events.
Mr. Morales stated well you have to take a look at it. You are not going to fix it from one day
to the next.
Mr. Fennell stated well they should be encouraging people to do this
rather than saying they have your hands in the cookie jar. Nevertheless, we still need to try to
find out what the real cause of the problem is, how extensive the problem is and
then we can make a rational decision.
Is it smart to in fact fix that?
What is the lowest cost to do it?
We may find out everyone has this problem. There still may be another issue
there. It would be nice to find out
how bad those pipes are and where they are going bad.
Mr. Skehan stated once you do a preliminary survey, which would be a
cross section of some of the laterals coming off of the collection system, you
can go back through and extrapolate from what you learned and do a cost benefit
analysis to be able to see how the two tie together. It may make sense and it may not make
sense. That is the first stage of
it.
Mr. Hanks asked do we have any idea as to the actual quantity of
infiltration we are faced with and the miles of pipe?
Mr. Hyche responded if you take the usual 80% return you are supposed to
get from your wastewater and your distributed water, you can correlate it that
way.
Mr. Hanks stated well we have not had anybody go out there and do a flow
measurement at 2:00 a.m.
Mr. Hyche asked a flow measurement where? At the plant?
Mr. Hanks responded at the lift station, going into a lift station or a
selective location.
Mr. Hyche stated no.
Mr. Hanks stated that is another way you can track where the problems
are.
Mr. Skehan stated you can look at your total flow coming into the
plant.
Mr. Hanks stated we can talk some strategy. We do not need to bore these guys.
Mr. Fennell stated it is a neat problem solving thing.
Mr. Hyche stated the simplest way is a smoke test to see where your leaks
are at.
Mr. Hanks asked that will work when your problem is above, but if you
have a problem below the water table, are you going to blow it out through the
water?
Mr. Hyche responded no.
Mr. Hanks stated you may want to establish your baseline flow and look at
where your highest infiltration rate is.
It may just be that we have extra miles of pipe out there and this is why
you have an apparent increase problem.
When you can start to break it down in terms of infiltration per mile of
pipe, you may not have a problem.
Mr. Fennell stated anyway, we are looking for more data and more
correlation. If we can look at the
data for ground level water, there should be some correlation in that because of
rainfall too. There may be
something which proves it easily.
You might have some exceptions in there where there was a lot of rain and
somehow you had to drain out the canals.
You can look to see what happens when the canals drop two
feet.
Mr. Hanks stated what will really start to tell the story is if you have
an inverse relationship to your canal elevations. Then you will know it is surface runoff,
which means rain guards, which means smoke tests, identify the laterals and go
through a lateral correction.
Mr. Fennell stated maybe that is one of those big rated
projects.
Mr. Skehan stated not quite.
You would have to do some preliminary work to be able to get
there.
Mr. Fennell stated but this is not one where you have to construct a big
plant. This is one where you can
get people working in neighborhoods.
You can actually put people to work and doing
something.
Mr. Hanks asked where do we stand with the water
modeling?
Mr. Skehan responded the water modeling is very close. We have the calibration runs ramped
up. Now we are getting into some
runs where we are going to be able to make some comparisons as to what is taking
place; actual and projected. Under
the various assumptions that we have to use for the 20 year permit. We are very close to that. It is a significant component of the ten
year plan we had discussions about the other day. The people at the meeting the other day
were very interested in knowing where we were and within the next two to three
weeks we will probably have something to be able to send to SFWMD. We figure before the end of February we
will have this close to being wrapped up.
III.
Utility Billing Work Orders
Mr. Fennell asked are there any issues there Mr.
Lyles?
Mr. Lyles responded not at all.
Ms. Zich stated it does not look like it.
Mr. Cassel stated I have one more item. It is the item I discussed with each of
you individually regarding the errors several years ago with billings to another
CDD, which was not caught and we need to catch up. I just want to make sure all of you are
fine with us going ahead and taking care of it.
Mr. Fennell stated yes.
State the amount again.
Mr. Cassel stated originally it was $4,510. We could not find enough proof for
that. We found enough proof for
$3,351.64.
Mr. Fennell stated okay. I
guess we owe this money to someone.
Ms. Woodward stated yes. We
have seen the documentation on it.
On
MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the overlooked
payments due in the amount of $3,351.64 were approved.
C.
Engineer
I.
Project Status Report
There
was no additional discussion. A
copy of the project status report is attached hereto and made a part of the
public record.
NINTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Approval of Financials and Check Registers
Ms.
Zich stated Ms. Woodward knows how I am feeling about this one. Her favorite subject, the SBA. I asked Ms. Woodward how we got all of
this money and she told me we did not get the money. We had to write it
off.
Mr. Fennell asked what?
Ms. Zich responded write off $36,000.
Ms. Woodward stated what we are talking about as far as writing it off is
it does not mean you are not in a position to collect the monies which are in
Tallahassee. It means that for
accounting purposes, when you see your financials at next month’s meeting they
will reflect an unrealized loss of roughly $36,000. You still have the same number of shares
or units up there. All it says is
if you were to liquidate what you held at that point in time, you would in fact
have realized that loss. It is a
paper loss at this point.
Mr. Fennell asked if we tried to get all of our money out today, are you
saying we would have to take a $36,000 dip?
Ms. Woodward responded no.
If you tried to take it out today, you would have to take an additional
$19,000 loss because it has decreased another $19,000 since September 30, 2008
through December 31, 2008. The
reason the $19,000 loss is not included in this particular financial is the fact
we had completed it before that quarterly statement came in from SBA. They were running a little bit
late.
Ms. Zich stated no wonder they are running late. We are probably little potatoes compared
to some of these. Some of these had
Millions in them. When I saw the
financial statement I said, “We are doing really well with the SBA, “ and she
said, “Not really.”
Mr. Fennell stated they had our money. It has been reduced in value. You cannot get a hold of it. What are our remedies for recovering it
other than their rules? Can we go
to court?
Ms. Zich responded this is incredible.
Mr. Fennell stated if this were a private bank, we could try to get their
assets. I can make a strong case
here for mismanagement of funds.
Our Governor was actually in charge of the whole thing. He and a couple of other guys were in
charge of the board.
Mr. Lyles stated you are looking my way.
Mr. Fennell stated I am.
Mr. Lyles stated I am telling you there are issues of sovereign immunity
here. The state as a sovereign is
not immutable to suit for many things, possibly including this. Number two, I cannot tell you I can
answer the question because I have not reviewed the terms and conditions under
which the money was placed with the SBA, but I would be willing to speculate a
little bit that there are conditions in those documents indicating your
investment may go up or down. They
would be unwise to say they could only go up. I would be surprised if there is a
guarantee it would never go down.
After all it is a type of investment. This is just speculation on my
part. So while it might seem at
first that prudent behavior would have stopped this from happening in the first
place, whether it rolls over into something which would be actionable,
especially one government entity versus another, we can look into it for
you.
Mr. Fennell I would really like to know that. I get in my mail every couple of weeks
some kind of litigation against anybody you could name.
Mr. Lyles stated they are not a private entity. They are not in interstate
commerce. They are not regulated by
the FCC. They are not charging you
a fee for service in the same way that an investment advisor is. They are doing it as a public
service. You may certainly run into
a huge stumbling block called sovereign immunity. You are asking a question you are
uncertain about. You want to know
from your staff. Your staff will
look into this issue and give you a report at your next meeting.
Ms. Zich stated this is a $56,000 loss as of the end of last year.
Mr. Hanks asked how much more do we have to lose?
Ms. Zich responded we have $142,000 left to lose. I am glad we have $142,000 to lose
instead of $3 Million to lose.
Mr. Fennell stated this has been a case of mismanagement. Sovereign immunity goes so far, but
there comes a point where they have to live up to their responsibilities and
they have been negligent. If
someone falls on Coral Springs property and hurts themselves, they can turn
around and sue the city for various amounts of money.
Mr. Lyles stated but it is capped.
Actually they cannot sue the city, but for the state’s partial waiver of
sovereign immunity for claims up to $100,000. If someone falls on the City of Coral
Springs’ sidewalk, they are totally paralyzed and their injuries are in the
Millions, the city is immune from suit except to the extent of the waiver the
state has adopted by passing legislation in the amount of $100,000. Sovereign immunity does go on. It is an absolute bar to bringing many
different types of claims against a government entity, even by another
government entity. I just want you
to be aware of it.
Mr. Fennell stated on the other hand, I hate to have them think they can
just use it as means for not fulfilling their obligations. Is the law different? We have been sued.
Mr. Lyles responded the law is different between one government entity
and another because you actually have to go through a formal notice and
mediation process before you can even begin the lawsuit. It is harder to sue another government
entity if you are a government as opposed to easier. It is easier for a private citizen to
sue.
Mr. Fennell stated we have had various different government groups come
after us for environmental issues and other kinds of things like
it.
Mr. Lyles stated that is regulatory. There was not any money damages involved
in that one. It was
regulatory. There was a fine at
stake, but not money damages for negligence. It was a fine for operating a plant
without meeting criteria, which is something we touched on today.
Mr. Fennell asked they did not have any insurance, or did
they?
Mr. Lyles responded I do not believe they had insurance, especially to
cover the extent of this loss.
Mr. Fennell stated we were under some kind of law where we were supposed
to place our money in some kind of regulatory institution with insurance on
it.
Ms. Zich asked how did we get in the SBA?
Ms. Woodward responded it was before me.
Mr. Daly stated pretty much every governmental entity was in
it.
Mr. Fennell stated they have all of the Florida retirement in the same
account. It is the same
people. We had $6 Billion
total. There is $60 Billion for the
Florida retirement fund, which they are also managing; the same people.
Mr. Hanks asked where do you park all this money? When you park it in an individual bank
you run the risk of them going belly up and you get $100,000 out of it.
Mr. Fennell responded we could have bought something which was at least
insured or at least somebody who can issue their own money such as the Federal
Government.
Mr. Hanks stated but you are not protecting against the risk of inflation
either.
Mr. Fennell stated even if I went to a bank I would have at least
$100,000 or $250,000 covered. I was
surprised to find out they did not have any coverage themselves and we somehow
believed the State of Florida would make good of this. It looks like they will not. What were they backed up by?
Mr. Lyles responded they did not pledge the full faith of the state to
any extent.
Ms. Zich asked why would we have put money in
there?
Mr. Lyles responded Florida Law, which was enacted after the problems in
California with some of their state investments, passed a law which applies to
all governmental entities in the State of Florida, cities, counties and special
districts of every type, which require you take operating revenue which is
unneeded for current operations, excess or surplus for the period of time, and
maintain it in one of four specified very conservative state approved types of
investment vehicles or you had the option of applying to the state and
submitting an alternate plan for them to review and approve. I am not aware of anyone who submitted
an alternate plan. I represent over
100 special districts in this state and not a single one of them proposed their
own investment plan for their revenues.
They are all, essentially, using SBA for safe
vehicles.
Ms. Zich stated so everyone is faced with the same thing.
Mr. Lyles stated everyone is faced with some version of it. We are not unique at
all.
Mr. Hanks asked and if everyone in the state were to win against the
state, would it not come out of our other pocket?
Mr. Lyles responded yes. I
think what is triggering this discussion, while it will not impact the research
we will do and report back to you on, is so far you have not lost any
money. You are going through an
accounting exercise which is requiring you to mark this particular investment
down to what it would be worth were you to cash it in today. You do not need the money and you do not
intend to do that. You have
protected yourselves by moving money out and being in other things now. The first offense you might hear from
the state is if people were able to sue and I am not convinced at all they
can. You have not lost anything
yet. You may one day lose some
money or you may not lose a penny.
Mr. Hanks stated if this were a mutual fund, or something like it, we
would have the opportunity of buying shares at $25 instead of $50 with the hope
it would go back up. We have the
option at this point to buy in at $.50 on the $1 with the hope it would go up
and look at this as an investment opportunity for better returns. There are no returns out there right
now.
Ms. Woodward stated you can invest additional monies now. If you invest additional monies, it will
not go into what we are talking here, Fund B, which has the toxic assets; The
ones which are dropping in value.
You would not be investing in that half of it. I have not gone through and analyzed
exactly how they are investing Fund A.
Mr. Daly stated the criteria always said it has to be a modest and
conservative investment that would be protective. Unless they have written some laws over
night, I do not know we are protected with SBA.
Mr. Hanks stated if we can turn this into an opportunity, I am not saying
we should put all of our funds in.
Ms. Woodward stated putting new money in is not going to change the
numbers we are discussing here as to the mark to market. Right now we are locked into Fund
B. We cannot move these assets into
a new Fund A. They are were they
are and hopefully what they are doing is working to cash these in or until they
get to maturity, which ever will produce either the greater gain or the lesser
loss.
Mr. Fennell stated anyway, I think there is a legitimate concern
here. They should have managed it
better or at least backed it up with the full faith credit of Florida. They did not do anything. What else do we
have?
Ms. Zich responded since the last meeting, remember we talked about the
CDs, they have opened five CDs at five different banks with different interests
rates and different maturity rates.
So that has been done. It is
safe.
Ms. Woodward stated yes.
Mr. Fennell stated the only other thing I will point out is there is an
additional page we got from Ms. Woodward which talks about, if you look at the
cash flows…
Ms. Woodward stated Mr. Hanks does not have it.
Mr. Hanks stated thank you.
Mr. Fennell stated the question which always comes up is how our sales
are doing; water, delivery and all that kind of stuff. It always looks like we are not meeting
our expectations. The problem is,
from an accounting standpoint, for some reason the auditors want us to not book
the amount of money we get in for a particular month and it has to go back to
the previous month. When we
actually change calendars, we automatically have $274,000 which gets moved back
to the previous month’s sales.
Anyway, she is going to amend, go ahead.
Ms. Woodward stated the prorated budget column, which basically up until
this point we have been indicating on your water and sewer revenue that your
anticipating, according to the way we have been reporting it, that you would
receive one twelfth each month. In
reality what happens is in the first month of your fiscal year there are monies
which get deposited in October which are supposed to be the collection of
revenues earned in the month of September.
The auditors have re-classed those revenues to the tune, in the case of
water, $274,000, re-classed it back to revenue of the prior year. For this entire fiscal year we will be
technically behind by that collection amount until the end of this fiscal year
when we will pick up additional revenues from the succeeding year and bring them
to the tail end of this year. It is
an accounting anomaly, but it will remove the problematic
presentation.
Ms. Zich stated we actually could do that on a monthly basis if we wanted
to, but it is too confusing. If we
wanted to have an audited statement every month, we could do that every
month. For simplicity, we do not do
it like that. We do it at the end
of the year. It is just
accruing. The money we take in the
first part of October, you know it was actually earned in September. That is what they are trying to do, push
it back.
Mr. Fennell stated I see that.
All I want to be able to do is read a statement and know how well we
did.
Ms. Woodward stated you will be able to do it the next month.
Mr. Cassel stated we are solvent and we are in good shape.
Mr. Fennell stated that first line goes negative for several months
because it takes us several months to pick it up. I am never really sure if we are doing
okay.
Ms. Zich stated technically you could do it every month, but it is a big
pain. It takes quite a bit to do
it.
Mr. Fennell stated I understand, but from a business standpoint we need
to know how we are doing.
Mr. Cassel stated it is the same on your insurance. Your insurance premium comes due in one
section; although, you spread your allocated over 12 months, you get a shot in
one month for one quarter until it evens it out at the end of the year. You show negatives until you catch up
because of their high expenditures.
It is the same kind of situation.
Mr. Daly stated Ms. Woodward had already taken care of this on the
general fund side with regard to how the money comes in.
Mr. Fennell stated that is all tax based. We actually see how it comes in, but on
a business base you really want to know, we have two products here, what we are
selling and what we are processing.
You want to know how this is going each month.
Ms. Woodward stated we will take care of it.
Mr. Fennell asked is there anything else we need to look at
here?
Mr. Cassel asked is there a motion for the
financials?
Mr. Fennell asked is there a motion to approve the
financials?
On
MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the financials and
check registers for December 2008 were approved.
TENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Adjournment
There
being no further business,
On
MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the meeting was
adjourned.
Glen Hanks
Robert D. Fennell
Secretary
President