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, September
21, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. at the District Office, 10300 NW 11th Manor, Coral
Springs, Florida.
Present
and constituting a quorum were:
Robert
Fennell President
Sharon
Zich Vice
President
Glenn
Hanks Secretary
Also
present were:
Kenneth
Cassel District
Manager
Jane
Early District
Engineer
Gerrit
Bulman CH2M
Hill
Cory
Johnson CH2M
Hill
Dan
Daly Director
of Operations
Doug
Hyche Utilities
Director
Jan
Zilmer Human
Resources Manager
Roy
Gold Commissioner
, City of Coral Springs
Joe
Brown Lazlo/Intrastate
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 August 17, 2009 Meeting
Mr. Fennell stated each
Board member received a copy of the minutes of the August 17, 2009 meeting and
requested any corrections, additions or deletions.
Mr. Hanks stated I had two I wanted
clarification on. On page 10 you were
mentioning the fact you have many wells onsite and the source of drinking water
is actually a couple of 100 feet deeper, the interface, as it relates to the
monitoring well. I am a little bit
unsure of how this relates because we are not drawing anything out of the
Floridan.
Mr. Bulman stated the USDW,
underground source of drinking water, is a defined interval within the Floridan
Aquifer throughout the state. It is not
particular to this site. It is governed
by water quality that has a total dissolved solids concentration of less than
10,000 milligrams.
Mr. Hanks asked so it really does
not have anything to do with our own drinking water?
Mr. Bulman responded that is
correct.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Ms. Zich with all in favor the
minutes of the August 17, 2009 meeting were approved as amended.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’
Requests and Audience Comments
Mr. Hanks stated I have
a couple. Last month we talked about the
new meters at Taravella High School as well as some other locations. I noted there were no backflow devices on those
at those times. What are the
requirements for backflow devices and are we in compliance or are we falling
out of compliance?
Mr. Daly responded there are
backflows, but they are not at that meter.
It is basically now like a sub-meter area. We felt there were opportunities for the
contractor over these years to run a line somewhere and not meter the
water. We felt we were not getting our
fair share. In addition there were nine
or ten meters on the premises, which we are not supposed to go on. We wanted to take them outside so we could
read it and bill them on one bill as opposed to them getting nine bills. The backflow which was previously installed
is still there. The piping is still
there so when the water comes out it actually does flow through a backflow
first.
Mr. Cassel stated they have not had
the opportunity to put in a master backflow preventer at the meter site.
Mr. Hanks asked is there a plan to
get one at some point?
Mr. Daly responded yes. Mr. Crowel our Field Operator, has discussed
this with them. I believe they are
waiting until the next budget. They do
know they have to do it. If a letter
needs to be written, it is not a problem.
Mr. Fennell asked are there any
audience comments?
There not being any, the next item
followed.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of
Interlocal Agreement with NSID
Mr. Fennell stated this follows
along with the type of relationships we have been forming with other
groups. It is basically a written
interlocal agreement where we are essentially contracted to each other. It is pretty much a standard agreement.
Mr. Hanks asked counsel, are there
any concerns?
Mr. Lyles responded none. We prepared this agreement working closely
with the staff from both districts. It
is intended to put into written form a description of what the services are
going to be between the two, irrespective of who is performing them, and to
make it easy to provide for adjustments in the fees. Increases or decreases of fees will be done
by adding exhibits. This focuses
primarily on accounting services because it is what needed to kick in right
away. That is the detailed exhibit you
will see as Exhibit A-1. It is focused
on things Ms. Woodward will be doing for NSID.
We expect that within 60 days or so we are going to have some supplemental
exhibits that will provide for other services and fees back before you. It was everyone’s intent to get this in place
so with the new fiscal year beginning October 1, 2009 we will be in good shape
and ready to go.
Mr. Cassel stated Exhibit B-1, which
is attached, is for the services that we will be secured from NSID. It came out late on Thursday just before it
went out the door to you. It has been
worked through Mr. Hyche and I, on these services.
Mr. Hanks asked Mr. Hyche, do you
have any questions or comments on this?
Mr. Hyche responded no.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Ms. Zich with all in favor the Interlocal Agreement between CSID and NSID
was approved.
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Manager
·
Consideration
of Interlocal Agreement with Broward County
Mr. Cassel stated this is the
interlocal agreement between the District and a number of cities with regard to
NatureScape Irrigation consulting services.
There is a base price service and then on an as needed basis we will
call them to do an investigation and look for ways for people to check their
systems and change types of plants to consume less water in their
irrigation. If you look at the last page
of the interlocal agreement, it has the cost breakdown distribution for the
proposed years; 2010 through 2014.
Mr. Fennell asked where we pay the
county to do something, what is it we will actually get from it?
Mr. Hyche responded it is a
conservation mechanism which Broward County provides. It is also used in the water use permitting
as a conservation BMP, best management practice.
Mr. Fennell asked what will they
actually do for us?
Mr. Hyche responded they actually
restrict some of the water uses. They
will go out, look at a common area, measure the flow, check the irrigation
system, check the timers, they will come up with a recommendation and they will
notify the people who are in charge of the irrigation to have those issues
corrected so there is a reduction in irrigation water usage.
Mr. Hanks asked does this manifest
itself in bringing up some extra availability for us?
Mr. Hyche responded yes. The flows are reduced.
Mr. Cassel stated in addition the
other regulatory agencies as they are looking at our water use permit
application, the fact that we participate in this is another one of those…
Mr. Hanks stated “good they are
working on it.”
Mr. Cassel stated yes. They are kind of on the same page so we will
give them a little credit. That type of
scenario.
Mr. Fennell stated it is $2,000 to
get into this.
Mr. Cassel stated which is a base
year cost.
Mr. Fennell stated but then it
doubles so it will be a $4,000 expense per year going forward.
Mr. Cassel stated until 2014 it is
approximately up to $4,000.
Mr. Fennell stated it seems to be on
a per person population basis. What is
your recommendation?
Mr. Cassel responded it has been
useful and I believe it has helped us in our water use permit. I believe it is worth the $3,600 which is in
there and I believe it has already been budgeted within the budget.
Mr. Fennell asked what do you think
Mr. Hanks?
Mr. Hanks responded I think if we
were to go ahead and vote it down, more harm would come of it than $4,000. Mr. Lyles, have you had a chance to review
this?
Mr. Lyles responded because of the
nature of it I was not directly involved in the preparation of it. It is a form the county has promulgated to
every city and district so there was not a great deal of legal review. It is standard county form. It has a term of five years. We do not get hooked into bigger issues by
virtue of entering into this one. I have
no legal impediment that I have identified or a reason to counsel caution on
it.
Mr. Hanks MOVED to approve the
Interlocal Agreement with Broward County.
Mr. Fennell asked are we supposed to
designate a couple of areas we want them to check out?
Mr. Hyche responded yes we do. Mr. Crowel works directly with the individual
and he designates areas.
Mr. Fennell asked are there some
areas we are interested in particularly?
Mr. Hyche responded not that I am
aware of at this time. I know they just
reviewed an area. I have not received
those documents back yet.
Mr. Fennell stated we really only
have a few, I guess mostly the golf courses and a few other places.
Mr. Hyche stated it is areas which
directly affect our potable water so a golf course would not be an issue;
common areas where they are attached to our water mains such as churches or
HOAs which use our water as irrigation are the areas we are concerned
with.
Mr. Hanks asked so this is not
looking at the …
Mr. Hyche responded the overall
surface water, no.
Mr. Hanks asked how many irrigation
meters do we have? What size?
Mr. Daly responded mostly one inch
residential. There are a few out there
that are two inches for some of the bigger complexes. I think the last time I did the study for you
it was 1,000 or 1,200.
Mr. Cassel stated that had separate
irrigation meters; however, if someone has an irrigation system tied on their
main meter to their house, it is still potentially a viable use of this
particular interlocal agreement. You can
utilize it on any of your larger apartment complexes, etcetera, that you would
look at and say; this one has not been checked in a while, it looks like they
are wasting more water than they need to be wasting, let us have them check it
and test it.
Mr. Hanks asked is there a time this
needs to be enacted by for us to participate in it?
Mr. Hyche responded I do not think
so. I think you can table it until the
next meeting.
Mr. Hanks stated I would like to
table it for whatever information you need.
Mr. Fennell stated I agree it is
marginally utilities. I would like more
information to make a decision.
Mr. Hanks stated I am an
engineer. I hate spending money on PR. I do not think we are going to get anywhere
in terms of practical results.
Mr. Fennell stated where it could
fit into is one of the things we want to keep looking at is reusing wastewater
as irrigation. This will help us, once
again, look and see whether or not there are viable things around that we can
look at.
Mr. Hyche stated I think last year
they saved this District 1.3 Million gallons of water. It really was not significant. That was average quarterly savings.
Mr. Cassel stated we did use that
information in our report for our water use permit and they did look for that
information in the permit.
Mr. Hyche stated they want
conservation efforts within that.
Mr. Hanks stated okay. Let us be done with this.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the Interlocal Agreement with Broward County
was approved.
·
Monthly
Water & Sewer Charts
Mr. Fennell asked do we have any
cause and effect yet as opposed to mere correlation of data? I thought we took some money to look at
that. Are there any results?
Mr. Hyche responded that is the
I&I portion.
Mr. Cassel stated it is in the
process.
Mr. Hanks asked Mr. Johnson and Mr.
Bulman?
Mr. Johnson responded I actually
have not been involved in that project.
Mr. Cassel stated the I&I
portion is just getting underway. We are
just getting them the data we have in-house and we do not have anything back
from them at this point in time.
·
Utility
Billing Work Orders
Mr. Daly stated you have the wrong
year in there. We had a computer
glitch. We backed it up and put it into
a file on a master server. When it was
taken back down the wrong file was taken so you have August of 2008. I did not have time to pull the other one
down so you will have it next month.
The
following was also reported.
Mr. Cassel stated in the wastewater
lift stations, we used Flygt pumps. All
of our 41 stations are all the same type of pump so they are interchangeable. We have run out of spare parts and we are
down to the point of needing to replace one of them. It is approximately $6,500. Since it is a Flygt there is only one
location to get it. It is a Flygt pump
which fits all of our rails so it is interchangeable. We are requesting staff be allowed, as a sole
source to ITT Flygt, to purchase a ten horsepower wastewater pump.
Mr. Fennell asked are these used by
any other districts?
Mr. Cassel responded NSID.
Mr. Lyles ask can we piggyback their
contract and avoid the $4,000 cap?
Mr. Hanks responded I would imagine.
Mr. Lyles stated under that basis I
do not have any issue for you.
Mr. Hanks asked does NSID already
have a bid contract out on this?
Mr. Daly responded I have to find
out. I do not know for sure.
Mr. Lyles stated technically we have
the same problem we have had all of these years, which is the $4,000 cap on
ordering equipment or parts.
Mr. Fennell asked what is happening
to the pump right now?
Mr. Hyche responded it is an old
pump. It is the old model. They no longer make the parts of the bearings
for this model.
Mr. Fennell stated so you have to
get a new model.
Mr. Hyche stated we are going to
have to get a new model.
Mr. Fennell asked is the pump
working at all?
Mr. Hyche responded no it is not.
Mr. Fennell stated so this is an
emergency.
Mr. Hyche stated basically. You have two pumps there. One pump is working and one pump is not.
Mr. Fennell stated now we have
liability if that one goes down.
Mr. Hanks asked why are we fooling
ourselves? We all know where it is going
to come from.
Mr. Fennell stated it looks to me
like there is a concern for public welfare.
Mr. Hanks asked is there any other
pump which would match?
Mr. Hyche responded we could use DMU,
but you would have to reconfigure the piping and the railing system inside the
lift station. It would take a
rehabilitation of the lift station itself.
Mr. Daly stated the problem with
this is you will have to rehabilitate every lift station. No matter what the price is, even if the
price came in at $3,800, you are still stuck with thousands of dollars in
rehabilitation.
Mr. Hyche stated this was good when they
were still producing the same model pump.
We had interchangeable pumps and we never had this issue. We always had spares and we could rebuild
them. Since you cannot rebuild those old
model pumps anymore because they are not producing the parts, we have to go out
and get the new model.
Mr. Hanks asked can we go ahead and
request quotes from two different suppliers of Flygt, one local and one in
Tallahassee for example, or is it very restricted distribution which will not
get us a competitive bid?
Mr. Hyche responded they would just
send us back to the local distributor, which is what they have done before.
Mr. Lyles stated I think what you
need to do is authorize staff to proceed as expeditiously as possible. There is an issue here. We do not specifically have emergency powers
in our special act, but Florida Statutes were amended this year to authorize
this and other special districts to purchase things from virtually everybody’s
contracting relationship. We will find
someone through which to purchase the necessary pump to avoid the property
damage which has been described by staff.
Mr. Hanks asked do we vote on this?
Mr. Lyles responded a motion to
authorize staff to purchase on an expedited basis the required pumps.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the staff was authorized to purchase the
required pumps for the lift station in an expedited manner.
Mr. Fennell stated given that we
know we are out of this model pump I suggest we go out for a bid at this point
to buy four or five back up pumps since we have 41 of these things and we know
they are going to go.
Mr. Daly stated we have money in the
budget next year for that.
Mr. Hanks asked are you saying each
one of our pumps is identical so we always have the same pump?
Mr. Hyche responded you have 10
horsepower and you have 20 horsepower.
Mr. Daly stated I think 7½ also.
Mr. Hyche stated and 7½, but there
are not many of those.
Mr. Hanks stated we have various
pump capacities to somewhat match the performance requirements of each lift
station. So we are not going to put a 20
horsepower pump out there where we need a 5 horsepower pump and waste
electricity.
Mr. Cassel stated no.
Mr. Hanks stated thank you for
clarifying.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’
Requests and Audience Comments (Continued)
Mr. Fennell stated I want to jump
back to item three, Supervisors’ Requests
and Audience Comments. We have a
couple of people who have walked in here.
Mr. Gold stated I do the Waterway
Cleanup for Coral Springs. I just wanted
to thank you. I know it is not the time
of year when we are thinking about the Waterway Cleanup because it comes in
March, but I looked at my schedule and said that I can fit in a visit to you
and say thank you for what you have done in the past. We do appreciate it. This year, I just received confirmation, we
had 460 volunteers register. The nearest
site had 150 people show up. We are
having great results. I think we are
pulling a lot of the garbage, which helps us do the right thing. The firefighters help us as well, which is very
nice. Since I am not here in my capacity
as commissioner I will mention that I am running for Mayor of Coral Springs. I am doing that on November 2, 2010. On November 2, 2009, which is a Monday at
6:00 p.m., I am having a kick off at the walk.
Any of you are welcome to come by.
It will be at the main fountain.
I am using your water and I am paying my bill.
Mr. Fennell stated it is always good
to see you. One of the things we have
been talking about is as we go forward we are looking for a unified water
philosophy across all the districts; CSID, NSID and the City of Coral
Springs. We feel we need a unified water
policy not only for the water we use, but for our lakes and our streams, and
have it as a policy we can put forward to SFWMD. We see a problem there. We do not see a comprehensive policy
yet. We are looking to go forward and we
have talked about it in some of our past meetings. We kind of feel the cities and towns are not
well represented for their needs and what they are trying to do.
Mr. Gold stated there is a Water
Advisory Board of Broward County, which last year I had the privilege of
sharing. I worked with Ms. Jurado from
the Broward County area. I worked with
Ms. Morris and a number of other people I am sure you know. If there is anything I or the commission can
do to help facilitate this, we want to do it.
I think we do much better work when we work together.
Mr. Hanks stated I agree.
Mr. Gold stated I know you are working
with Mr. Michaud. I believe he has been
helping along.
Mr. Hanks stated Mr. Hyche and I sit
on the Broward County Water Resources Task Force. We are trying to come up with a countywide
comprehensive policy and action to address the water needs; not only in terms
of our drinking water, but also in terms of stormwater. Any input you have, feel free to give me a
call.
Mr. Gold stated I will pass on the
information as well to Mr. Levinson. We
have a budget hearing today at 5:15 p.m., a second public hearing. If you are not aware, the city is in fairly
good shape. We have frozen everyone’s
wages. We are not laying people
off. We are trying to hold the line and
also contribute the same service our residents have come to appreciate. What we found in a bad economy is where you
think you would need less services, you actually need far more. People who use to send their children to camp
or private school are not doing it anymore.
They are using our parks more and inadvertently using our police more. My neighborhood, Maplewood Isles, in the last
year we had a shooting and now we just had the two young boys who had a
disagreement and there was a stabbing.
Mr. Hanks asked was that in your
neighborhood?
Mr. Gold responded right at the
front entrance of my neighborhood. I
think it was a 12 and 13 year old. I am
not sure of the exact ages. You just do
not know what to do in this world anymore.
You have to be very careful.
Mr. Fennell stated we have been
lucky in that we were able to go out for a bond issue and we have that money
still set aside. We are in the process
of redoing our new water facilities. We
sealed our operations and cut back our expenses to keep us with a positive cash
flow still going on. We are actually in
good shape. We had to raise some of our
rates to get them up in order to pay for our new bonds, but they are actually
still going to be cheaper than other places.
Mr. Gold stated the city today is
voting on a $6 Million bond at the rate of approximately 2.82% to do more water
and waste treatment; things like that.
We had one for about $9 Million a couple of years back in 2007. Today we are voting on another $6 Million for
work which is not yet to be completed.
It is to be started.
Mr. Fennell stated what we have been
doing lately is cooperating with other water districts where it is
possible. We just approved an interlocal
agreement with NSID. We are going to be
doing accounting for them and we are going to be buying services from
them. We have cooperation with other
groups and we are willing to do that with the city too.
Mr. Gold stated I am sure we will
work together. It is my pleasure.
Mr. Fennell stated we have a lot of
resources here and a lot of experience.
Mr. Gold stated there is one
personal note since I am a payer of the bills for CSID. There was an issue that came up which I was
made aware of probably because I am city commissioner of the waterways which go
towards and through Maplewood Isle. They
had shown that there was only one way.
If the water would get blocked, it would be an impasse and obviously you
would have a problem. At the time I
remember seeing that had they taken a pipe through Maplewood Elementary, and I
think one home, they could have had a redundant system. Has anything been done with that?
Mr. Fennell responded I think we did
show you that work at one time and it still keeps coming up. We have been trying to figure out how we
could fund that. It is going to take
several million dollars to do that. The
problem was we found out all of the canals are sequential so if you block one,
you block them all. We were looking for
ways to have alternate flow paths. We
have been doing a couple of different things like that. We had to build up our economic reserves in
case we have another hurricane. We are
getting to a point where we think we might be able to afford that without
having to go out for a bond issue.
Mr. Hanks stated one of the other
things we have done is authorized our engineers to pursue some matching funds
which are available through FEMA or through …
Ms. Early stated the Florida
Division of Emergency Management.
Mr. Hanks stated it is basically
pre-disaster mitigation. One of the
items on our list is that redundant system to help alleviate potential
concerns. We are pursuing different
funds. If we are available to acquire
those funds or some contribution from there, we may be able to go ahead and
begin implementing that work without having to go ahead and issue a new bond.
Mr. Gold stated obviously I care
about all the residents, not just the ones near my home.
Mr. Hanks stated that affects the
eastern part.
Mr. Gold stated I want to thank you
Mr. Fennell because I know you come to our meetings on more than one occasion;
not in the best of times. He shows up,
he speaks and he listens. We have an
exchange of ideas. If you need me to
come to your meeting for any particular reason or you need to talk to me when
we are not in a meeting situation, any one of you, I would be happy to address
whatever I can.
Mr. Fennell stated thank you. To follow up your previous question I believe
it is $5 Million or $6 Million we came back with a list of things we thought
about doing.
Ms. Early I think we had a list of
seven items we prioritize and that was about $6 Million.
Mr. Fennell stated that particular
part of the District is basically $1 Million worth of revenue a year. How do you raise that kind of money? You are either going to have to go out for a
bond issue or save up and do it. That is
kind of where we stand.
Mr. Gold stated thank you for your
time.
Mr. Fennell stated it was a pleasure
and you are always welcome to come to our meetings.
Mr. Gold stated if you need me, call
me.
Mr. Hanks stated we have another
member of the audience.
Mr. Brown stated you had invited me
back to give you an update on the project.
I put together a quick slideshow to show the progress of the work
completed. We completed the form work,
the steel placements for the wastewater treatment plant foundation. We completed the concrete pour of the
wastewater treatment facility. We began
to lay out items for the water treatment plant.
Some of that was going on in the last meeting. We are continuing with our submittals and
procurement of materials. We moved
existing fencing between the water treatment plant and the RO structure, put in
new stub for the transfer pump station.
We received material deliveries of reinforcing steel for the membrane
building transfer pump station, backwash pump station, the generator slab and
also yard piping material. We began
excavation by the membrane building, transfer pump station and cleared off the
generator slab. We actually formed a
lower elevation slab for the membrane building.
We started the yard piping drainage and started some of our electrical
conduits. You can see where we started
the wastewater treatment plant. This is
the foundation for your influent pipe for the wastewater treatment
facility. If you have any questions,
feel free to ask.
Mr. Hanks asked what about your
coordination with the school?
Mr. Brown responded it worked out
well. We came in and started around 9:30
p.m. and finished up around 5:30 a.m. to 6 a.m.
Everything was cleared up and out of the way. There was no conflict at all. We had to get a special permit from the
police department. They cooperated and
there were no problems. There were no
trucks backed up. All of the shell of
the tank is going up right now. There is
another side wall. This is on the water
side. This is your transfer pump station
excavation for the foundation. That is a
work slab we poured. There is your rebar
going in on top of the work slab, which we set up for your walls. This is the site clearing which took
place. We are starting the form work and
getting everything together to go inside.
Are there any other questions?
Mr. Hanks responded things are
moving along now.
Mr. Fennell asked what is happening
up front?
Mr. Brown responded that was the
last portion I showed you where we had the transfer pump station slab as well
as the steel stubbed up. We are starting
to build the forms for it.
Mr. Hanks asked what are your major
milestones for the upcoming months?
Mr. Brown responded my major
milestone is we will have the tank basically erected and we will be welding
that out. On this other side we will be
stubbing up the walls getting ready for the secondary floor with the rebar
stubbed up.
Mr. Hanks asked walls for?
Mr. Brown responded the transfer
pump station. We have a little bit to go
yet on the membrane building before we can pour the foundation and bring those
up.
Mr. Fennell asked are you on
schedule or are you behind schedule?
Mr. Browne responded we are on
schedule. We are ahead of schedule on
the wastewater side. We were behind on
the water side due to the permit, but everything is starting to move
forward. I feel we can recover the
time. We released many of the materials
in advance while we were waiting on the permit so we are not being held up
there. I think we are going to do
it.
Mr. Fennell stated okay. We will see you in two months. Thank you very much.
Mr. Brown stated you are welcome.
FIFTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff
Reports (Continued)
A. Manager
Mr. Cassel stated the only other
item I have is we sent out to you the latest revision on the handbook. It does not need to be addressed at this
meeting. We wanted to get it to you in
case you had any comments on it that we could address prior to adopting it at
the next meeting.
Mr. Fennell stated there should be
some indication that there could be cases of immediate termination for sever
cases. Do you have something in there?
Mr. Hanks responded every case
should say including and up to termination.
Mr. Fennell stated that is the four
steps, but there are cases where you are not going to want to go through the
four steps.
Mr. Lyles stated there is no general
requirement that you proceed through a progressive series of notices. If the situation warrants it at that point,
immediate termination is available to the District’s administration under these
guidelines.
Mr. Fennell asked is there any
action required from our part?
Mr. Cassel responded not at this
time.
B. Attorney
Mr.
Lyles stated I do not have anything further this month.
C. Engineer
Mr. Cassel stated we
had done a bid for repairs to Plant #3.
The bid was opened late last week.
We looked at the bids and did the evaluation. Staff is recommending that we reject all of
the bids and go back out because none of the bids came in the area we wanted
them to as well as contractors we would be willing to be qualified to do the
work.
Mr. Hanks asked was there some
concern with the response of the contractors?
Mr. Cassel responded with the
responsiveness of the contractors. We
recommend you reject the entire bid package.
Mr. Hanks asked is this going to be
creating a safety issue by putting this back out?
Mr. Hyche responded it is a
possibility. I would not to hold it off
much longer than needed. According to
the new statutes Mr. Lyles was talking about we can actually negotiate with other
contractors and get quotes by going directly to people we know can do the
work. I believe we can come in at a
better price than what we have gotten.
Mr. Hanks asked counsel, do you have
any concerns with proceeding that way?
Mr. Lyles responded just for the
record to clarify there is a new amendment on the ability of local governments
to erect public work structures and installments. The threshold amount has been increased to
$300,000 without the necessity for publication in newspapers and competitive
bidding. We can directly negotiate up to
that amount based upon the experience that the initial attempt at bidding the
project reflected. It appears this
project is going to come in well below $300,000. Given some of the issues that were bubbling
up through the analysis of the proposers and the proposals as well as the
number being reflected, a straightforward solicitation and negotiation process
is what the staff wants to pursue to see if it can be done. It appears it can be done at a price which is
less than what is necessary for the bidding to be done in a more formal
way. That is what the staff wants to
pursue. Since the bids had previously
been authorized to go out, they are asking the Board to formally approve the
rejection of all bids. You retain the
right in your bid documents and in your specifications to reject all bids
should it be for the convenience of the District to do so. That is the motion they are asking the Board
to take at this time.
Mr. Hanks asked is the basis of this
rejection that in your role as manager and plant supervisor that the bids were
not responsive and did not address adequately the needs of the District?
Mr. Cassel responded yes.
Mr. Hanks asked are we opening
ourselves up to any risks or any litigation?
Mr. Lyles responded as I pointed
out, in our standard bid documents we reserve the right at the Board level to
reject all bids and pursue a different way of entering into a contract. You are exercising that right. We made them aware of that in the first place. I cannot tell you that no one is going to pop
up and say they spent time and money putting the bid package together. There is that chance, but I have met with the
staff briefly about this and I believe you are acting within your authority to
handle it in this fashion.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Ms. Zich with all in favor all the
bids for the water plant repairs were rejected and staff was directed to
negotiate with contractors as allowed under Florida Law.
·
Consideration
of Permit for Church by the Glades
Ms. Early stated we initially asked
for additional calculations and information, which they did provide. The plans which are there are not the most
recent updated plans. They only sent us
one copy so I will get a copy over to the District. Those plans do not show the additional exfiltration. I believe they added 522 linear feet. The manual says the limit is 40% unless it is
commercial or industrial.
Mr. Hanks asked are they still
compliant with their five year renewal?
Ms. Early responded yes. I believe so.
Mr. Daly may know more.
Mr. Daly stated I will have to
check.
Mr. Hanks stated I would add a
condition that they are compliant to the five year renewal program. Would we be within our rights to also
condition the stormwater permit that if and when the irrigation quality of
reclaimed water becomes available for them that they be required to connect up?
Mr. Lyles responded I do not believe
we currently have that condition in our permit criteria manual. Do we?
Ms. Early responded no.
Mr. Lyles stated I believe the
application in the opinion of the District engineer complies with all current
requirements of the permit criteria manual.
I do not know that I would be comfortable telling you that you can add a
condition which is not part of the manual and our general requirements. I think the thing to do is take a look at
whether this is something which should go into the permit criteria manual given
how this issue is evolving and the speed with which it is evolving as well.
Mr. Fennell asked so where do we
stand with this particular permit?
Ms. Early responded we are
recommending approval.
Mr. Fennell stated as modified per
your request.
Ms. Early stated yes. They did provide the additional calculations
we wanted and they did modify their plans.
I will get a new set of plans to the District.
Mr. Hanks asked are they compliant
with the storage requirements?
Ms. Early responded yes.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the Board approved the Coral Baptist Church
(Church by the Glades) Phase III permit.
·
Discussion
of Right-of-Way Permit Request for Maplewood Plaza
Ms. Early stated the reason this
next permit is only for discussion is because the permit they submitted for was
for a right-of-way permit and it is for an irrigation pipe. We typically do not give a permit for a three
inch irrigation pipe. I thought perhaps
their pump was in the right-of-way and their plans were unclear. It took me about a week and a half, but I
finally did get in touch with the engineer.
He emailed me a sketch and it shows it is clearly not in the District’s
right-of-way. The discussion should be
whether we want to issue a right-of-way permit for a three inch PVC pipe. They applied for a withdrawal permit from
SFWMD for irrigation. The District, to
my knowledge, has never given a permit for an irrigation pipe.
Mr. Fennell asked is it our
right-of-way or not?
Ms. Early responded they are going
into our right-of-way just like every homeowner that lives on a canal and puts
in an irrigation pipe, but we do not issue them permits.
Mr. Fennell asked but this is for a
commercial property, right?
Mr. Hanks asked is it going to
expose us to any more or any less liability, etcetera, if we do or do not grant
the permit?
Ms. Early responded not to my
knowledge.
Mr. Hanks stated we are choosing to
exercise control over our right-of-way.
By implementing this permit we are requiring them to restore it back to
the original condition.
Mr. Fennell asked where is this
pipe? Is it obvious? Is it going underground?
Ms. Early responded you will not see
it. It is probably two feet under
ground.
Mr. Fennell stated let us go ahead
and do it.
Mr. Hanks stated I have no problem
with handling these.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Ms. Zich with all in favor the Board
authorized the issuance of a right-of-way permit for Maplewood Plaza.
·
Project
Status Reports
Ms. Early stated we received the
final pay estimate on Friday for the original $6.9 Million Intrastate project. I had to complete this final balancing change
order in order for us to process the pay estimate and meet the deadline at year
end. I put together the balancing change
order. It is for a deduction.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to take
any action on this?
Ms. Early responded you have to
approve it.
On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded
by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the Board approved Change Order #4 & Final
with Intrastate Construction Corporation for the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Phase II for a decrease of $198,397.93.
Ms. Early stated as an update on the
pre-disaster grant program. We submitted
the applications and there were five of them.
We are 85% complete and we are working with Mr. Williams from the
Florida Department of Emergency Management Division. Originally we had to submit the notice of
intent for the five applications and I gave a description of each project. Now, after we completed 85% of them, he feels
two of the projects, one for the tree removal and the feasibility study for the
tree removal, are considered maintenance.
He said we cannot submit on those.
The other three are all the piping projects we had recommended we
do. What they just came up with
yesterday, and they are still going through the review because they have so
many weeks to get back to us on additional information they want, they are now
requesting that we do a benefit cross analysis.
I downloaded it. Mr. Cassel and I
were looking at it because it is a lengthy process.
We are trying to convince them to permit
us to somehow shorten the process because they want us to submit a benefit
cross analysis for every single structure it would benefit by putting these
culverts in and that is half of the District.
We explained this to Mr. Williams and he sent us to the people who wrote
this program, which review the benefit cost analysis and the actual grant. We are really not getting anywhere with
them. We just started talking to them last
week. We are trying to get up to
somebody who can actually understand what our approach is to try and do it as
one entire community. You can submit a
grant application, for example, for this office building and I want to put one
pipe in which will benefit just this building.
What we are putting in is benefiting half of the District. For us to do every single structure would
take forever. That is where we are at
right now. I just wanted to give you an
update that we are working with them and trying to figure out a way around
this.
Mr. Fennell stated there has to
be. You do have some things going for
you. You have those studies we did,
which show the different flood elevations.
You can talk about whatever it was, the 30 year flood or the 100 year
flood.
Ms. Early stated that is what was
put in the grant application.
Mr. Fennell stated then you can say
we estimate there is a probability that if this occurred we would have 3,000
homes.
Ms. Early stated that is what we
wanted to do, but they want every single home on a separate application.
Mr. Fennell stated obviously that
does not make sense. You can say here
are 3,000 homes, ten inches of water in the basis of probably $100,000 worth of
damage each, 3,000 times $100,000 is $30,000,000. I do not think that is scale we are dealing
with here.
Ms. Early stated Mr. Williams does,
but when you get to these reviewers.
Mr. Fennell stated I think you need
a couple of pages of reports saying what would happen if so many houses, even
some cases where we block a bunch of the canals, and if that happened we would
have this flood condition, and then an estimate of what percentage of houses.
Mr. Hanks stated I just saw
something in today’s or yesterday’s Sun-Sentinel by zip code with average home
prices.
Mr. Fennell stated I say we should
just do a typical one of the average housing prices, you can reference real
estate prices and those kinds of things.
Mr. Hanks stated our District is
within a flood zone.
Mr. Fennell stated you have this
nice report that you already did.
Ms. Early stated we used a lot of
that for the application. We had a lot
of attachments we had to include. They
have a lot of information it is just that now they want this.
Mr. Fennell stated I would go
through and do a typical one given that there are 2,000 to 3,000 houses and
then if they want one for everything just come back and tell them you can give
them 3,000 pages with the addresses of all the houses. We can actually print you out all of the
houses with the billing addresses we have.
Mr. Hanks stated next time ask them
why they are wasting so much paper.
Mr. Fennell stated these guys are
obviously thinking they are on a different scale than we are. I think you can make a pretty good case.
Ms. Early stated we are working with
them and trying to get them to realize.
Mr. Fennell stated I think you can
come back with the typical housing price, the extended damage you forecast that
could be done, we already know the number of houses and I guess we could just
print out all of the houses in the area.
Ms. Early stated they have to work
with us.
Mr. Fennell stated otherwise they
are going to find themselves with 3,000 applications.
Ms. Early stated I do not know Mr.
Cassel if you want to give them an update on the well or if you want Mr. Bulman
to.
Mr. Cassel stated Mr. Bulman can.
Mr. Bulman stated on August 14, 2009
Layne dropped tubing in the well after they installed a 12 inch casing, which
is the final casing and then there is tubing which goes inside of that. During the cementing of this final 12 inch
casing they dropped approximately 1,200 feet of 2⅞ inch pipe. It slipped and fell down the well. They did locate it and managed to grab a hold
of it. In the process of doing this a
couple of tools they were using to pull on that pipe broke and they went down
the well. Now there are two strings of
pipe in the well; a 1.9 inch, a few hundred feet of it have already been
retrieved, and the 2⅞, which was originally dropped.
They have now tied onto the 2⅞
inch. The bottom is actually locked in
cement. When it fell it actually
launched itself three feet inside the cement.
They cannot simply pull it out.
What they are currently doing is going inside the 2⅞ inch pipe
with a mechanical cutter with a hydraulic motor all the way down to 1,400 feet
at which point they are trying to cut it.
Then it will be freed, they will remove it and then go fishing for the
1.9 inch pipe. Not a lot of progress has
been made. We have been observing them
onsite continuously; particularly after the second incident.
We have been talking with DEP. So far DEP has been extremely quick to
respond to our request for different plans and approaches as to how to remove
the pipe. All of this is out of scope
and out of contract so they are involved with virtually every decision we make. The contractors are giving it their best effort. They are having other mechanical problems as
they are attempting to cut. Right now it
could all be over tonight. They could
cut it and be able to pull it out or it might take weeks longer.
Mr. Hanks asked how is this
impacting our other construction?
Mr. Bulman responded the other part
of this project, the plugging and abandonment of the monitoring well, as far as
it can be plugged and abandoned, that is the lower zone and tubal removal for
the lower zone, is done. It was done
earlier in September. They cannot plug
and abandon the upper two zones until Monitoring Well #3 is completed. Right now that project is showing a schedule
overrun of approximately 50 days.
Mr. Fennell asked what is the
probability of success here?
Mr. Bulman responded if you can find
success as some kind of compromise.
Mr. Fennell stated not losing the
well.
Mr. Bulman stated I personally think
they will be able to get the 2⅞ inch tubing out 1,200 feet or as much as
they can. What DEP has already proved is
they can cut it and get it out. The
remaining 90 or 100 feet which is lodged in the cement at the bottom can be
cemented out. After they locate the 1.9
inch we will go back to DEP and talk to them about what the options are there.
Ms. Zich asked how normal is this?
Mr. Bulman responded I have never
seen this. Mr. Skehan has never seen it
and he has been around for a while. DEP
has never heard of anything like this. Tools
get dropped in the well all of the time.
Ms. Zich stated I was just
amazed.
Mr. Fennell asked is there anything
else?
Mr. Bulman responded I have one
other item.
Mr. Hanks asked is it good news or
bad news?
Mr. Bulman responded during the
mechanical integrity testing in May or June of the injection well system there
was an issue with the redundancy of the injection wells. This probably goes to your question about the
relationship between rainfall and plant flow.
This happens to coincide with the unusual rain event we had the second
half of May. The plant flows almost
doubled coming into the injection well system at that time when we had all of
the rain. It overwhelmed the ability of
the injection well system to be redundant with itself because we had to take
offline the 24 inch well in order to perform mechanical integrity testing. That is the primary well which is used. It can handle something like 15.8 or 15.9
million gallons a day. The older
injection well, Injection Well #1, should be able to take under emergency flow
rates nearly 6 Million gallons a day. At
that time it was only determined it could take 3.5 Million gallons. It was not sufficient to take all the water
it needed in order to keep Injection Well #2 offline. DEP was aware of this. They asked about it and as a part of the
ongoing project for the monitoring well we had to do an operations and
maintenance thing. Part of that will be
demonstrating redundancy, which we now cannot do.
Mr. Fennell asked why does it have
to pass it?
Mr. Hyche responded that is one of
my questions. Is it a result of not
being able, of the well not accepting the extra flow? I know you pressure tested at a higher rate,
which means you should be able to get that flow down now as well. Is it a function of head loss? Was the water not getting to the well in
order to get down it?
Mr. Bulman responded I think that is
probably the case. I think it is likely
a mechanical issue with the injection well pump station. We have been talking to put together a scope
of work or proposal to look at some mechanical evaluation of the pump station
and also a surge analysis, which has not been conducted on the system. That is something which will also be required
by DEP as part of the operations and maintenance.
Mr. Fennell stated we have the surge
tank out here.
Mr. Bulman stated on the injection
well system it refers to surge protection between the pump station and the
injection wells.
Mr. Fennell asked so what do you do?
Mr. Hyche responded you have to run
pressure tests.
Mr. Fennell stated you have 15
million gallons coming in and you only get 3 Million out.
Mr. Cassel stated what happened is Mr.
McIntosh through some exquisite calculations in monitoring the pumps, they
managed to not only put water down the well, but fill the lying ponds to the
maximum capacity and got through the testing.
They did it between midnight and 6:00 a.m. so it was able to be done,
but it did show up the fact there is an issue somewhere either in the pump
curves, piping head loss to get to the well, there is some issue between where
the pumps are in the well either in the piping, how many bends it takes to get
there, some flows, some issues which need to be figured out and corrected. At the present time you cannot meet the
criteria which are required for redundancy.
We have to figure out what is creating the issue for the
redundancy. This is what they will be
coming back with a work authorization for next month.
Mr. Fennell stated I think we have
had this question once or twice. Part of
the issue is the fact that we were testing the pipe. The other issue is now it becomes whether
this is more of a lackadaisical one where the mystery is where the water is
coming from actually has a real importance to it. We either need to have a huge surge tank out
there or another deep injection well or we have to figure a way to present the
surge analysis we are getting.
Mr. Bulman stated the surge analysis
is not necessarily an issue. That is a
separate issue. A surge analysis is
something I brought up because we like to include it in the scope of work. It has to be done as part of DEP requirements
for the operation and maintenance manual.
As to what kind of surge protection is actually needed, you might not
need it at this time based on what the analysis shows. We have to show all the calculations to DEP
about whether or not surge is an issue.
Mr. Hanks stated to deal with the
surge you are going to need to identify how much extra water could come in and
where you can put this amount of water.
A certain amount goes down here, a certain amount goes down here and the
rest you have to store some place or some combination thereof. Is this right?
Mr. Bulman responded I believe a
surge also relates to the actual surging affect itself to avoid waterhammer and
any kind of catastrophic accident which could occur. So you are right, the passive bypass could be
one answer to the surge. It is something
we discussed the other day. You have the
one pond so perhaps you could have some kind of check balance that would open
and allow discharge to the pond. This
would all have to be examined.
Mr. Hanks stated examined and
permitted through DEP for modification to our operational license.
Mr. Bulman stated your current
operating permit we did last year, the language in there says this well has to
be completed and an updated operations and maintenance manual will have to be
submitted before you are truly in compliance.
Mr. Fennell asked how much would a
new well cost us?
Mr. Bulman responded right now with
the market for bids at this moment…
Mr. Hanks asked a new well and
associated components because we are not just talking about the well; the
monitoring well, the pumps associated with it, if we had to put in a new one,
would it cost $6 Million or are we looking at more?
Mr. Bulman responded I would say at
least $6 Million for the well and the monitoring well, for the drilling
contractor and I really cannot speak for the above ground pump supplies.
Mr. Hanks asked what other options
do we have?
Mr. Bulman responded under emergency
conditions you can increase the flow down the well from 10 feet per second,
which is what is typically permitted, to 12 feet per second. Then you could potentially dispose of 6 MGD
in the overall injection well. If that
plus your ponds allows you to get permitted for redundancy, then you might be
okay for a while. The questions will
come up as to whether or not you start taking in additional wastewater for
reuse or add water from the RO disposal process, whether or not you will still
have redundancy in five years.
Mr. Hanks asked do we need to start
moving into high gear thinking about the reclaim? Was reclaim an option that was going to be
coming?
Mr. Fennell responded it would not
do any good because you would have to be able to tie into the reclaimed water
exactly when you needed it.
Mr. Hyche stated even reclaimed
storage is not being used and you are just storing stuff to be able to get rid
of the affluent.
Mr. Bulman stated you have to have 100%
redundancy.
Mr. Hanks stated 100% redundancy in
your deep injection wells.
Mr. Bulman stated or for your
reading system.
Mr. Hanks stated if you are saying 4
MGD is going out, you have to have the capacity to dispose of it.
Mr. Fennell stated it also raises
this graph here because we go up from 120 to 180, which looks a whole lot to me
like about a 50% increase of wastewater input.
The other possibility would be to figure out why this has happened.
Mr. Bulman stated the I&I is a
big part of it. If you can control your
influent, the other aspect is under the permit Injection Well #1 is permitted
for 10 feet per second, 12 feet per second for emergency. That is not going to change.
Mr. Fennell stated it raises up this
issue a lot; especially because this just keeps getting worse. We do not really understand its cause. We could still put another well in and we
could find ourselves with not a 50%, but an increase.
Mr. Cassel stated with an increase
your treatment cost of it goes up.
Mr. Hyche asked do you know when
they may come back with some of the data they collected for the I&I?
Mr. Bulman responded if they
received it.
Mr. Cassel stated they just got it
the other day.
Mr. Fennell stated we really need to
solve this in treatment problem. We need
to understand the severity of this problem and how much it will cost to fix
it. We are going to have to make some
economic choices so we are going to need to know what we are talking
about. We really need to solve this
problem. We need to understand what the
redundancy issues really are. If we have
issues with water intrusion, then we have to solve that too. We need to proceed without anyone telling us
what to do.
Mr. Hyche stated staff has already
researched where most of this infiltration is coming from. We know it is in the Ramblewood area.
Mr. Cassel stated I think with the
data we have from the runs and the stuff we are giving initially in the I&I
will give us where we think we need to go video and what we need to do as part
of that study, which will come as the information of what the next step will
be. We can pinpoint. I would not want to be videotaping on the
wrong street.
Mr. Fennell stated I am looking for
a report on this next month with a lot more stepped up from staff and from
engineering. You need to be pushing this
one hard. We have two items to go after;
the well stuff, we have to figure that one out, and then I&I has gotten to
be taken care of. It is a sore which
keeps bothering us.
Mr. Hanks stated let us put it this
way, it better be close to being final because supposedly you already received
the information.
Mr. Cassel stated they just received
the information. A decent percentage
should be done.
Mr. Hanks stated it has been at
least a month, or perhaps closer to two months, since we authorized this study.
Mr. Cassel stated it has been about
45 days.
Mr. Bulman stated I am going to
receive the data by hand.
Mr. Fennell asked is there anything
else?
Mr. Bulman responded only that I
reiterate what Mr. Cassel said that Mr. Hyche’s staff, particularly Mr.
McIntosh, went above and beyond to deal with the redundancy issue.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of August
Financials and Check Registers
·
Summary
of Cash Transactions
·
Projected
Cash Flows
·
Engineering
Projects
Ms. Zich stated it looks pretty good
except for my favorite one and I hate to be redundant on SBA, but I asked Ms.
Woodward to tell me how much we have lost; 50%, 49%. She breaks it down every month, how much we
are losing, and it is pretty crazy. She
gave me a schedule here and 49% is what we have lost in the SBA B fund. Every month she writes down how much is
unfavorable.
Mr. Fennell asked have we not
recovered a little bit yet?
Ms. Zich responded no.
Mr. Cassel stated every time we are
allowed to pull out, everybody’s has pulled out. Anytime they have freed up any dollars which
could be withdrawn every district, including CSID, has pulled out whatever they
could pull out.
Ms. Zich stated I asked Ms. Woodward
to give me an analysis because I see it written down every month. We have lost 49%.
Mr. Fennell stated 49%, which equals
$74,000.
Ms. Zich stated right and we still
have $78,000 left on the books that carry.
Mr. Fennell asked we are writing
this down on our books, but do they not still owe us $152,000 even though they
will not pay us?
Ms. Zich responded we are not going
to get that.
Mr. Lyles stated that is why she
calls it unrealized because until everything is closed out and they declare it
uncollectible, the paper loss represents what will happen if we decided we
wanted to close it out right now. I
think if Ms. Woodward were here she would say that depending on the level of
patience that is exhibited by the various account holders around the State of
Florida, there is still the potential that you could have that. It is just if you were to take it out today,
half of it is gone in the bad SBA account.
The market changes and things could happen going forward which could
substantially affect this.
Mr. Hanks stated so right now we can
look at it as a bad debt. If we ever get
it, it will be a nice wind fall and we will be done with it.
Mr. Fennell stated I think the real
problem with this account is going to be it is not just a case like investing
in mutual funds and things like it which will eventually come back. Are there any other questions or comments?
Ms. Zich responded Ms. Woodward
revised the assessment collections so you can see what went to the Broward
County Tax Assessor.
Mr. Hanks asked is it tax assessor
or property appraiser?
Mr. Lyles responded the property
appraiser and tax assessor are the same office.
The technical name for the office is the Broward County Property
Appraiser and Tax Collector.
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by
Mr. Fennell with all in favor the financials for August were approved.
Mr. Hanks asked are we on target
with our spending for engineering?
Mr. Fennell asked who is paying for
this well mishap?
Mr. Hyche responded the District is
not going to be liable.
Mr. Cassel stated the discussion
right now is the well drilling contractor is responsible for any expenditures
related to the pipe dropping issues. We
are also going to be in discussions with them this week regarding additional
engineering time, because the project is late and going over part of it will be
the well drilling contractor’s liability issue.
We are looking at these issues.
CH2M Hill has been working with what those numbers might be and we are
going to sit down this week to see where they are at and where they are coming
from. So far they have been very good
about stepping up to the plate as to who they are and what they are and making
things right.
Ms. Zich stated he said it could be
50 days late.
Mr. Cassel stated currently we are
50 days beyond the substantial completion.
Mr. Fennell asked can they afford to
do this?
Mr. Lyles responded this job is
bonded and insured. My only question is
are we comfortable that the surety is on notice that this is going on and do we
know the coverage is in place and we are not just relying on him trying to
scramble and do what needs to be done and hope that his insurer never finds
out.
Mr.
Cassel stated I will double check with Mr. Bulman tomorrow.
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There
being no further business,
On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by
Mr. Fennell with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.
Glen Hanks
Robert
D. Fennell
Secretary President