MINUTES OF MEETING

CORAL SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

A regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held on Monday, October 19, 2009 at 3:05 p.m. at the District Office, 10300 NW 11^th Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum were:

Robert Fennell President

Sharon Zich Vice President

Glenn Hanks Secretary

Also present were:

Kenneth Cassel District Manager

Dennis Lyles District Counsel

Jane Early District Engineer

Sean Skehan CH2M Hill

Gerrit Bulman CH2M Hill

Dan Bohorquez CH2M Hill

Walt Schwarz CH2M Hill

Dan Daly Director of Operations

Doug Hyche Utilities Director

Jan Zilmer Human Resources Manager

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call

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

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the September 21, 2009 Meeting

Mr. Fennell stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the September 21, 2009 meeting and requested any corrections, additions or deletions.

Mr. Hanks stated on page 20, second paragraph, third line, it reads, “What they are currently doing is going inside the 2⅞ inch pipe with a mechanical cover with a hydraulic motor all the way down to 1,400 feet at which point they are trying to cut it.” Should that be ‘cutter’?

Mr. Bulman responded cutter and also for clarification, the casing was not lost for both tremie pipes small diameter tubing used.

Mr. Hanks stated at the very end if you look at page 26, it appears we were continuing to have discussions on the well, kind of at the back, and I was wondering if that was more appropriate for the fifth order of business section.

Mr. Cassel stated this was a follow up question in response to a question on the financials.

Mr. Fennell asked are there any other questions?

Ms. Zich responded no.

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the minutes of the September 21, 2009 meeting were approved as amended.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’ Requests and Audience Comments

There not being any, the next item followed.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Revised Employee Manual

Mr. Fennell stated I think we have seen it a couple of times. Does it need more corrections to it?

Mr. Cassel responded the last one sent out to you is what we are proposing as the final.

Mr. Fennell asked what do we need to do?

Mr. Lyles responded you need to motion to approve.

On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the revised employee manual was approved.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration and Discussion of Bids and Awards of Contracts

· Chemical Bids

Mr. Cassel stated each year we go out for chemical bids. This year we submitted the requisition for submissions. It comes down to Helena Chemical and Pro-Source One. If you noticed on your first sheet, we will be getting Hydrothol 191, Aquathol K, Aquathol S K and Weedar 64 from Helena Chemicals. From Pro-Source One we will be ordering Aquastar, Knockout, Captain, Activate Plus and some Aquathol S K from them as well. A lot of times what will happen is if they are in the same price range on the chemical, depending on availability, Mr. Frederick will order from either of the two vendors.

Mr. Fennell asked was there something about the Induce and Activate Plus? Are they two different chemicals?

Mr. Frederick responded they are the same thing with different names. They do the same thing. Each year I get several different products with different names. Some are the same and some are not the same, but Activate Plus we have used before with good results so we will accept it. The only other two in question that I might not want to use is Captain and Knockout. I have never used them before. If we do not get good results with those we might revert back to the lowest bid for Cutrine Plus and Reward. I have never heard of Knockout before. It is something new and it is supposed to be the same as Reward. We will try it and see what happens. If we do not get the results we want to get, I will definitely not want to use it.

Mr. Fennell asked is it chemically the same?

Mr. Frederick responded chemically they say it is the same as far as the labels go. Captain is a little bit different than the Cutrine Plus we used in the past. That is why I am a little worried about that one, but like I said we will try it and see what happens. If it works just as well, then we will use it. If not, we will probably revert back to the Cutrine Plus we used in the past.

Mr. Fennell asked do we need to modify our acceptance to that?

Mr. Lyles responded I think the recommendation is for the various items staff has outlined for you in those instances where they are going to be tried. I think the staff recommendation basically covers everything you need to cover in terms of the various components that are in here. This is the same format they have used in years gone by. So I think a motion to approve staff’s recommendation, which goes with the back up in your agenda package, will be sufficient.

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the contracts for chemical bids were awarded to Helena Chemical and Pro-Source One as recommended by staff with the alternate chemicals to be tested and approved by staff.

· Repairs to Water Treatment Plant #3

Mr. Cassel stated the Board will remember just before school started there was information regarding repairs needing to be done on Water Plant #3. The initial estimate from Mr. Hyche through a preliminary quote from Intrastate was between $83,000 and $86,000 for the work. We subsequently went out for bids and did not come up with the decent bid structure and pricing. About a month and a half ago the Board rejected those bids and directed staff to go out and negotiate to see what we could come up with. We went back to a couple of the vendors who had submitted before, got requests and additionally Layne Christensen was contacted and given the exact same specifications as everyone else. Layne Christensen has come in with the lowest bid of $64,975 for the work to be done. We are recommending this repair be awarded to Layne Christensen.

Mr. Hanks asked are there any issues with the manner in which they were contacted?

Mr. Lyles responded as I understand it we did notice the project originally. We did obtain bids.

Mr. Cassel stated they did not come in the right areas and there the companies who submitted were not in the ballpark and correct.

Mr. Lyles asked so were all the bids rejected?

Mr. Cassel responded all of the bids were rejected. Then we went out and solicited directly with three or four companies and came back with these proposals.

Mr. Lyles stated under the theory with the new change in State Law regarding construction of public projects the bidding threshold has been increased, but without specific reference to our own threshold.

Mr. Cassel stated correct. We had gone that route and had an issue with getting what we needed.

Mr. Lyles stated I think you are raising a valid point Mr. Hanks. I was under the impression these had been re-bid.

Mr. Cassel stated we had not gone back out on a formal bid.

Mr. Lyles stated unfortunately we are still stuck with this $4,000 cap on this one. I think we are going to have to do two advertisements to finalize this before we have it voted by the Board; even though you have some preliminary follow up information from the original bidding process. We cannot do this the same way CDDs and NSID can do this. This will be on your next agenda.

Mr. Fennell stated okay. Staff is directed to re-bid.

· Award of Contract to Century Building for Lime Sludge Excavation and Removal

Mr. Cassel stated this was originally bid with NSID for lime sludge removal. They went through the bid process and came up with the fact that Century Building Restoration USA, Inc. was the lowest bidder, which cut the cost from $10 and change to $7.20.

Mr. Daly stated and the $10 we were being charged they had come down. I believe because there was not competition in the field or because it was perceived there was no competition in the field, we may have been taken.

Mr. Hanks asked are there any issues with us piggybacking off of NSID?

Mr. Daly responded there is a new State Law, separate and apart from the other matter which applied to the last contract. There is now the ability for any special district to ‘piggyback’ onto a contract that another government entity, including a special district, has bid; gone through a notice and bidding process. In this case they identified the fact NSID had noticed and bid on a competitive basis the contract for this sludge excavation and removal work; therefore, we can take advantage of what they did as long as the record is clear and references have to be included in our documentation that the contract we are going to be riding was competitively noticed and bid.

Mr. Hanks asked so if a particular need was competitively bid, properly noticed, they had responsive bidders and it was awarded, could we just go ahead and contact that responsive party which was awarded the contract and say we would like them to do the same work for us?

Mr. Lyles responded at the same price.

Mr. Hanks asked will you honor the same price?

Mr. Lyles responded that is correct.

Mr. Hanks stated and the party who bid it will have the opportunity to say yes or no. If they say no, they cannot honor the same price; at that point do we have to go back out to do a straight forward bid procedure?

Mr. Lyles responded that is correct.

Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like a good deal. I have to ask the obvious question. How did NSID get a better bid than we did?

Mr. Cassel responded they were up at the $10 or $11 range as well. They started looking at it and decided they were going to go out to bid. They originally tried to see if they could negotiate with the vendor to see if they could come down. There was a little bit of movement, but not much. They decided to go out and bid it, which they did. They came in with the bid package, which is part of the back up documentation. It was Century Building Restoration USA, Inc. who was significantly lower than the other ones.

Mr. Fennell asked how are they doing? Have we used them before?

Mr. Daly responded the Director of Operations up there is pretty picky so I do not believe he would be asleep at the wheel. He has said nothing but good things about them.

Mr. Hanks stated I am surprised they responded. You have two site work contractors at least.

Mr. Daly stated another option that had been opened to us was a cooperative of many districts and municipalities. NSID went ahead and joined it. They are passing on the information on our behalf.

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the contract for lime sludge excavation and removal was awarded to Century Building Restoration USA, Inc.

· Award of Contract to Fish Tec, Inc. for Trash Rack Repair

Mr. Cassel stated based upon what the District attorney mentioned about the other bid, this is a similar situation where we had gone to bid and did not get a responsive bidder back so we went out and negotiated with three of the vendors, we can put it back out and re-advertise it at this point. It falls under the same issue with the limits we are dealing with. We will bring this one back.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports

A. Manager

Mr. Cassel stated the first item you will see in your agenda is the memorandum of understanding between NSID, CSID and SFWMD. It is discharge control and coordination between CSID and NSID with regard to C-14 and L-36. We have been working on this memorandum of understanding since before I got here. I believe it has been over two years that Ms. Early has been working with SFWMD trying to get this set up. This permits NSID to pump south to L-36, which flows into C-14 when CSID is not running all four of its pumps into the C-14. In the past we might have been able to pump our system down, but NSID is still having to pump north when there is plenty capacity to pump south. This allows them to reconfigure Pump Station #1 so they can pump north, south or to the Everglades and therefore be able to lower their tables in their drainage areas faster than having to wait for it to go all the way north and out to Hillsboro Canal. It is a coordination of water removal; streamlining and using the infrastructure to the best possible way.

Mr. Fennell asked who is responsible for the L-36?

Mr. Cassel responded SFWMD. NSID was trying to figure out ways to pump water because otherwise, it has to go all the way up and drain out through Hillsboro Canal, which depending on the location and volume of rains, restricts the flow and takes them longer to pump. If they can pump some south when we are not pumping all four, it makes it a better situation.

Mr. Hanks stated this provides an opportunity in the future to be a step closer to actually being able to capture it and pump it into different systems.

Mr. Cassel stated it really opens up the flexibility of the drainage system, not only for NSID, but CSID and SFWMD to move water where they need to move water quicker.

Mr. Hanks stated but we are not under an obligation to change our pumping schedules. This is more or less an understanding that if we are not pumping at full capacity, we will let someone know.

Mr. Cassel stated you call up, they know, and then they can let Mr. Schooley pump south if they need to. They are not required to pump south. If they feel they need to, they can if we are not pumping.

Mr. Hanks asked counsel; do you have any issues or concerns with this agreement?

Mr. Lyles responded no. I reviewed it in detail and commented back to staff. The only thing they had was an address I suggested they change. I think it is ready, in order and the Board is in a position to approve this agreement.

Mr. Fennell asked the L-36, are there any blocks up and down that thing as it stands currently as far as any gates?

Ms. Early responded Pump Station #1 is NSID. We cannot pump south. The flow does not go south unless we turn on the pump. We have had that pump there for years and we had an agreement before. Even if we are pumping in the L-36 now, it cannot go south unless we use Pump #4. We had that capability for years and years.

Mr. Fennell asked are you speaking as the NSID engineer?

Ms. Early responded yes. At some point, approximately eight years ago, they took that away from us. They did not want people coming into the C-14 and they were kind of sure they could control it. I do not know if you recall about two years ago during the drought, NSID pumped 2 Billion gallons of water off the tide and I tried to get them to let us pump south, but they would not do it. This is why we kind of pushed to get this memorandum of understanding where we could coordinate with CSID. If they are not pumping and we have excess water, why not let us pump south rather than let all that water go out to tide.

Mr. Fennell asked is there any way we could actually take any of the water into our improvement District?

Ms. Early responded no.

Mr. Fennell asked is there any hint that we would actually be able to do that?

Ms. Early responded you could apply for a permit. SWCD does it.

Mr. Cassel stated SWCD has a permit to flow.

Ms. Early stated they do it, but not for the full potential of their current permit. They have a gate they can open.

Mr. Fennell asked do we need it? There is no answer on that one.

Mr. Hanks responded if you had changed the district, you would have gotten a quick answer. Does SWCD need it? Yes. Or not SWCD; does the City of Coral Springs need it? Yes.

Mr. Fennell stated well here is the issue. This is great during the dry season, but during the rainy season or when a hurricane hits is the answer I never got. I would sure like to hear it. I never know how high the C-14 is actually going to get.

Ms. Early stated I sent you that whole stack from SFWMD.

Mr. Fennell stated you did. I have seen it, I have read through and I still have it tucked away at home. I still do not see a real answer.

Ms. Early stated if we have a hurricane and CSID is pumping, NSID cannot pump south. That is part of the memorandum.

Mr. Hanks stated the total amount of flow into the C-14 is going to be what the allocation is right now for CSID; only if we are not using our full capacity and NSID elects to pump south.

Ms. Early stated and NSID has the capability of pumping into The Everglades. If there is a hurricane, NSID does not have a problem getting rid of the water. The reason why we initiated it was because of the drought. A lot of times NSID gets a lot of rainfall and we were just pumping all of that water out to tide. It really was not during the flood conditions. We can pump to The Everglades. We can pump north. We do not really have that problem.

Mr. Fennell asked it has been a couple of years since we looked at it, but has there yet been a study which tells us how high the C-14 canal will get under 100 year flood condition, or a 50 year? I will even take a 10 year. Because the only thing I saw was a guy who took some actual data in 1979 and saw there were certain areas that overflowed. Do we have that answer?

Mr. Hanks responded take a look at your SFWMD permits for the basins up and down the C-14 and whatever they predict the 100 year status for the surrounding basins. The only areas getting that water are from the surrounding communities.

Ms. Early stated right and they gave me all of the reading, which is what you saw.

Mr. Fennell asked but they have an $800 Million a year budget, are you telling me there is not a computer program yet? (The recorder picked up several voices talking simultaneously)

Mr. Hanks responded it does not matter what your budget is. I just had a project where I was dealing with the Army Corps of Engineers. We submitted an application concurrent with our application to SFWMD in September of 2008. We just now got a notice from the Army Corps of Engineers saying “we received your application.” It does not matter how big their budget is.

Mr. Fennell asked where is all of the money going? It seems like for $100,000 they can run a computer study. They did it. He even gave me a copy of the initial stuff that was done forty years ago, which is basically civil engineers filled up a bathtub and that is as sophisticated as it got.

Mr. Hanks stated that is about all you really need to do. The accuracy in the data you can put in it is going to have more error in it.

Mr. Fennell stated there is a big change from forty years ago. There were no people here. Anyway, we still do not have a good answer. That was my reservation. I still have an issue with what really happens during the flood season. How do we answer that? Can C-14 handle that water? You have never been able to give me a good answer for that and you have never been able to find anyone to give you a good answer to that.

Ms. Early stated this is true.

Mr. Fennell asked you live on the C-14, do you not?

Mr. Hanks responded it does not bother me.

Mr. Fennell stated it should.

Ms. Zich stated it bothers me too. It is scary.

Mr. Hanks stated this is also why I am so particular on the permits which come through and why I am pushing for the permit criteria manual to be revised.

Mr. Fennell asked does anyone from our staff have any issues with this?

Mr. Frederick responded no. They are only going to be able to do that when we have done all of our pumping and we do not have to pump anymore; then they will be able to run their pumps.

Ms. Early stated and it is only one pump.

Mr. Hanks MOVED to approve the memorandum of understanding with NSID and SFWMD.

Mr. Fennell asked what is your recommendation?

Mr. Frederick responded I do not have a problem with us doing this at all.

Mr. Cassel stated through this process one of the other interesting things discovered was that we have the flexibility. Initially it sounds like we can only run two pumps at each location when in reality we can have a maximum of four pumps running. We can theoretically run four pumps at one station and then run pumps at the other station depending on which area, east basin and west basin, was higher. We have the flexibility of mixing and matching the number of pumps that are run.

Mr. Frederick stated we have eight pumps, but we are only allowed to run six at a time.

Mr. Cassel stated he can mix and match.

Mr. Hanks stated and you cannot run six all in the same basin.

Mr. Fennell asked do you really think this is the right thing to do?

Mr. Hanks responded I think so.

Mr. Fennell stated the water never goes into our area. It just goes into the C-14 canal. How does that help us?

Ms. Zich responded that is what I want to know.

Ms. Early stated it does not help you. It is water conservation.

Mr. Cassel stated it is a regional issue.

Ms. Early stated there are people down stream from you that it will help who do not control their water. It is just a gravity feed and they can benefit from this under drought conditions. The reason why we have to have this memorandum of understanding is because you do pump and we cannot pump south unless we coordinate and you are not pumping. This is why it has to be with CSID.

Mr. Frederick stated there was an incident this year where he was pumping up there 24 hours a day for weeks at a time because they were getting all of the rain north of Wiles Road and we were not getting anything down here. If he would have had that extra pump, he could have cut down some of that pumping time.

Mr. Hanks stated as long as we look at this as an intermediate step to being able to capture that water rather than pumping it out to either one of the canals. It is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Fennell asked does this help us at all on us getting any kind of additional water basin relief?

Mr. Skehan responded ultimately it may have an improvement or just be able to benefit the water use permitting that we have done, but unlike the questions you have asked about the upper limits of the C-14 we then sort of moderately redo just in time for this also, is related to a minimum amount of recharge over 90 days and what is the affect on the canals with a natural amount of withdrawals. We are being able to hold water in the system, which is certainly beneficial from a recharge standpoint.

Mr. Fennell asked are there any other questions or comments?

Mr. Cassel responded I think for a coordination issue and for the entire area of Coral Springs it is probably a good way to make sure you are working with everybody to flow the water as best as possible in or out of the system as necessary.

Ms. Early stated it will benefit the City of Coral Springs. They can open those gates to get water back into their system.

Mr. Skehan stated which links into the overall perception of Broward County and SFWMD between the three different draining districts here and/or three different utilities; NSID, Coral Springs and CSID. Coordination on a regional basis is one of those things which is expected. You have looked at that. The Board has commented on that in the past as being a beneficial thing to be able to look at, not just on a local basis for CSID, but looking out beyond.

Mr. Fennell asked what would it take for us to have the capability of that pumping into our system? What would we have to go out and do?

Ms. Early responded we would have to get a permit from SFWMD to withdraw from C-14 like SWCD. I am not sure, but I have been hearing that SWCD was going to lose some of that because they do not use it all. I am not sure why, but they do not.

Mr. Skehan stated withdrawal permits for water usage permits from SFWMD are from groundwater. SWCD are a little different in that they are withdrawing from the canal to be able to sort it back into the system, but it is not groundwater. It is a canal system.

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the memorandum of understanding between NSID, CSID and SFWMD to coordinate operations of water control structures discharging within the C-14 canal basin was approved.

Mr. Fennell stated if we put a back pump station at the top of each District, we could actually put water right in at the top of the flow of the District and flow it right back through.

Mr. Hanks stated okay.

Mr. Fennell stated that particular area is actually where the canals are. When we do have a drought that is actually an area which is usually the lowest.

Mr. Frederick stated we have bypasses in both stations that we can open up and let water back into the C-14.

Mr. Fennell stated you are right. You just have to lift the gate, right?

Mr. Frederick stated you just turn the wheel and the gate opens up. If the water level is higher than that, we can let water back in.

Mr. Fennell stated let us ask about that; if we need a permit, or something to do that because we do have wet seasons and we do have dry seasons. We want to be able to take that boat in and out.

· Consideration of Interlocal Agreement with Pine Tree Water Control District

Mr. Cassel stated the next item is the interlocal agreement with PTWCD. This was approved in concept earlier this year by the Board. It was sent to PTWCD. The PTWCD attorney wanted some indemnification language clarified. He finally got back with Mr. Lyles’ office. We just got it back from him last week to complete it. It is before you for approval at this time.

Mr. Fennell stated give me the highlights of what we are doing.

Mr. Cassel stated we were providing services to PTWCD as listed in Exhibit A. It is HR administration, providing a Field Supervisor, providing facilities for them to store their boats and their chemicals.

Mr. Fennell stated I guess we are doing a lot of this already.

Mr. Cassel stated this is formalizing what has been going on for years. It is the same as what we had done earlier with SWCD.

Mr. Fennell asked are there any issues?

Mr. Frederick responded basically they do not have pump stations or anything like that. It is just a gravity flow system.

Mr. Hanks asked counsel, are you okay with this agreement?

Mr. Lyles responded I am.

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the Interlocal Agreement with PTWCD was approved.

· Tokay Software Cross-Connection Control

Mr. Cassel stated if you open up the second page, which is actually page three of their proposal, we are recommending Navigator II; unlimited assemblies at $3,900. Mr. Daly has done some of the research on this so I will let you talk to this.

Mr. Daly stated we have 1,400 or so meters out there, which are commercial or irrigation; in other words, non single family domestic. These are the first type of meters we will do the backflow on. We will make sure they are there and certified. This software will keep track of that. We will also offer these services to NSID. They have similarly right now about 1,500. This is not counting residential. Once that area is done we will start moving into some residential. NSID, of which has very few because they have a cap on their sewer rate. CSID has many more. The benefit of being able to load your entire database so 10,000 to 12,000 accounts and all the data does not mean anything when you are only talking 10% of your database is usable at this juncture. We only want to deal with commercial accounts and irrigation. We do not really care about the other 90% of the accounts, which are purely domestic. The recommendation is to go with the $3,900 base charge for the software. We would enter all of the data in manually as opposed to electronically and interface with the database over here because it is too much information. Then we would actually look at integrating with the current live database for the utility billing a few years down the road when we actually do start paying attention to homes.

Mr. Fennell asked what does this actually do?

Mr. Daly responded it is like a work order program and it tracks all of the information necessary with regard to backflow.

Mr. Fennell asked have you seen this in use?

Mr. Daly responded the City of Coral Springs uses it. I believe the City of Deerfield and Sunrise as well as Pompano and Tamarac do also. It is the software that most utilities are using. We had a demo on it. Basically, it is a matter of a scheduling type of a program and a database that tells you every three years or five years or whatever time you need to go out there and get this thing checked. It will send a letter for you.

Mr. Hanks asked will it also work on the five year renewals?

Mr. Daly responded yes it will. The best thing about this is it is open architecture and it has fields I can name and rename at will. We currently have a program called MainBoss, which is maintenance software and we will abandon that and put it all into Tokay. Right now we fill out 85 different forms per month between the two districts for them to go and check up on so we have a real maintenance level. We would like to have it all in one software package. Navigator II will allow us unlimited assemblies.

Mr. Hanks stated so you could have everything from greasing the main line of a fire hydrant to verifying we have backflow certifications? Is it a state requirement that we have certifications on backflows?

Mr. Cassel responded yes. That is a new one. We can also put in there the private property fire hydrants which have to be recertified every so many years. They can also go in the database so at any given time we can do a selection and it pops up all of the addresses which need to be certified that month.

Mr. Daly stated we sat through an incident demonstration and it was very impressive. I came in thinking we did not need this and we could make one ourselves, but let me tell you it is very slick. The price is very reasonable. In fact the charge of $470 for support is almost unheard of it is so inexpensive. This is the way we could do it as opposed to having four different programs; we might as well put it all into one and get the value.

Mr. Hanks asked has Mr. Hyche had a chance to look at this?

Mr. Daly responded yes he has.

Mr. Hanks asked what are his thoughts?

Mr. Daly responded he liked it. NSID actually brought it to us. We are pretty excited about this.

Mr. Fennell asked is this a database to track maintenance, events and/or things that need to be done within the District?

Mr. Cassel responded yes.

Mr. Hanks stated so we could also have it be useful not only for our five year renewals, but also some of the testing and monitoring issues we can have built in to our system as well.

Mr. Daly stated it is supposedly very flexible and you can pretty much name what fields, locations, and etcetera. You can dictate when it pops up for a reminder. It sends a letter out or creates a form, which needs to be filled out. It does a lot of the backroom stuff for us.

Mr. Fennell asked who inputs the data?

Mr. Daly responded we have gentlemen here that will do it. He is the person who does all of the maintenance. We went on this maintenance program a while ago because we had no documentation that anything was greased, repaired or properly maintained. If something should happen, I think there would be more than one interested party to see what our normal progression is of how we take care of our assets.

Mr. Cassel stated this will let us know when we should be going back or when things were done last. It is a planning tool for also managing the crews as to what things need to be accomplished over the next 6, 12 and 18 months.

Mr. Fennell asked can it run in your IBM system or what are you going to run it on?

Mr. Daly responded it is a PC unit; however, it will interface. Only 10% of the current database is useable for what we want to do with it. We are not concerned with the domestic meters and domestic houses we have out there, only commercial right now, which are the ones we have to look at the backflow, and then the irrigation.

Mr. Hanks stated you can tie this into other issues that are not billing related to lift station maintenance and other components out there.

Mr. Daly stated exactly. We have a lot of that stuff in our maintenance program right now. The whole idea is to get it under one umbrella.

Mr. Fennell stated it says it has a multi-user system for any number of work stations. Someone has to maintain the database, but this means everyone else can be working off of it. Does it flip out the sheet? For example, will it go to Mr. Hyche and say this is what needs to be done this week?

Mr. Daly responded no. The whole idea is it is a scheduler and it will pass out a piece of paper when you go to print your reports. We have a gentleman right now who does the maintenance. At a certain time each month he will press a button to print the report and it will find out which ones it is supposed to print and only print those based on the scheduling and the desired frequency. At another time of the month he will press another button and another bunch will come out. It is all set up in the background that way and those reports get sent to the respective department heads.

Mr. Fennell asked say there is a computer over in this corner and there is one over here, is it online?

Mr. Daly responded we are buying a one user system for now. We can always upgrade to more than one user and then have it put onto a server through our network here. Our network is actually attached to NSID. They are on our system. We can see each others’ computers on our network. It would be really easy to do if they want to start inputting some of their own things and doing their own thing, but for right now we are only going to go with the one user system.

Mr. Fennell stated what I would look for going into the future if you are going to do this is looking for multiple users that can be downloaded into a Marion System, encrypted, so someone with a portable computer in a pick up truck going out there can see what he is supposed to be following. He can actually check off whether or not they are done. You can have real time interactive job assignment as well as maintenance assignments. You need to have ways other than direct talking to assign a task and know a task is done kind of like UPS’ system.

Mr. Daly we actually have that availability with our current IBM AS/400 and ASI program work orders. When you type in a work order it can go to a mobile device if you want it to. We just never investigated as to create that based on cost and based on the fact we have a decent crew out there who are pretty well managed.

Mr. Fennell asked are there any more questions?

Mr. Hanks asked how are we going to pay for it?

Mr. Daly responded this is fine. It is less than $4,000. We will be okay.

Mr. Lyles stated what you are being asked to approve, I have been advised, is not the purchase of all the additional items here, but of Navigator II software at a price of $3,900. Any future changes would require a different process if we are going to add to it at some future time and spend more money.

Mr. Hanks stated so right now under the $4,000 cap we can do the $3,900. We cannot do the user support at this time.

Mr. Lyles stated my understanding is that is not what is being asked of you.

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the purchase of Navigator II from Tokay Software at a cost of $3,900 was approved.

· ITT Water & Wastewater, Florida, LLC – Approval to Piggyback Orange County, Florida Bid for Purchase of ITT Flygt Pumps

Mr. Cassel stated if you recall last month you had authorized the purchase of one pump. We went out and found the ITT Flygt, which is the pumps manufacturer that matches all of our pumps in our lift stations. We found a county bid from Orange County Florida and they will honor the pricing of that bid contract to us.

Mr. Fennell asked how do the prices look to you?

Mr. Daly responded they are what they are because we can only use that particular pump. Do you remember we talked about this the other day?

Mr. Fennell responded the ones we have are running obsolete and we could not get anymore models, but there was a replacement type model we could get. Is that correct?

Mr. Daly responded no. We could not find anymore replacement parts. We would actually have to start buying the new one with the same specifications. We are stuck as to what we can do with this until we can actually try to piggyback on someone who actually jumped through the hoops, per se, and put out the bid specifications and all.

Mr. Cassel stated by allowing us to purchase off of this piggyback we do not have to go out and bid it. When we need them we can look at our inventory and go ahead and pick it up based upon the budget projected.

Mr. Fennell asked so what is the question to us?

Mr. Cassel responded just to approve for us to piggyback off of the Orange County bid for ITT Flygt Pump. We have dollars budgeted for repair and replacement. It is just to establish a supplier within a price range.

Mr. Hanks asked do they have the pumps you need within their list?

Mr. Cassel responded yes.

Mr. Hanks asked is there any expiration on the timeframe of when a competitive bid from another county has to be utilized? It there any restriction on us taking action on this?

Mr. Lyles responded no. As long as the prices are still the same. I think this one was bid in 2008, but the prices are still the same in the schedule of charges. These prices are good until January 1, 2010. At that point…

Mr. Cassel stated Orange County will be re-bidding again.

Mr. Lyles stated and we will have to bring it back before you again, presumably, under the Orange County bid documents which will occur in 2010, but for now you are being asked to authorize execution of an agreement with ITT Water & Wastewater, Florida, LLC to purchase the pumps consistent with the pricing schedule in your back up documents and all of which was bid under the Orange County competitive bidding process.

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the Board authorized staff to piggyback off of Orange County’s bid to purchase ITT Flygt Pumps.

Mr. Cassel stated real quickly on that, I will be sending out to you a PowerPoint presentation I received from Florida Association of Special Districts based upon the current issues going on with that.

· Update on Nutrient Level Standards

Mr. Cassel stated real quickly on that, I will be sending out to you a PowerPoint presentation I received from Florida Association of Special Districts based upon the current issues going on with that. Florida Association of Special Districts has joined in action to work on the nutrient levels for something we can live with without major modifications. I will be sending it out to you probably tomorrow via email.

Mr. Hanks asked do we have any information as to what our measures for nutrient levels are in our canals?

Mr. Cassel responded yes. Mr. Frederick had given me a set of those documents. I can forward them to you, but I am also sending them to Florida Association of Special Districts for use in their battle.

Mr. Hanks asked in general is this a concern to the District? Are we in jeopardy of not being able to obtain the…

Mr. Cassel responded that is something up for discussion. I was at a meeting last week or the week before with South Broward Drainage District and the update at that point in time was Broward County was reporting that it appears that DPA has chosen 17.5 as the target level.

Mr. Hanks asked what are our levels?

Mr. Cassel responded I do not have them off the top of my head. It is not good for any of us. It could potentially mean that every drainage district is going to have to be doing something to treat or pre-treat, or do something like store the water we are trying to move out longer. This is why there is a big push to move the classifications of the water from “swimmable, fishable type three” to subcategories underneath of that which have a higher level potential of nutrients because they are not “swimmable and fishable” and that is the argument which is going on and the delineation trying to occur. We are pushing for the fact that our canals are not for “swimmable, fishable” etcetera, etcetera so therefore, higher nutrient levels are okay of total phosphorous and total nitrogen. The interesting thing is they are not supposed to be selling fertilizers with high levels like 10, 10, 10 or 6, 6, 6, but yet you can still go into all of the chain stores and find it. They are selling it. It is a catch 22. Nobody is enforcing that part of the regulations, but yet on the flip side, as the water control districts, we are being held to an accountability standard that what they put on the yards runs off, if they put on the higher nitrogen and phosphates, we are going to get it. It is a catch 22 so we are trying to push the point that we get what we have. We do not have certain controls on the other side of the equation.

Mr. Fennell asked how is the argument being set? If you are fighting against something like The Everglades, you are going the wrong direction because that is actually, one view point would be that is a natural disaster. The water can hardly grow anything. The other argument would be to keep it that way. The longer the nutrients are in the water; that is what lakes and streams do.

Mr. Cassel stated they are saying a certain nutrient level should be lower and they are trying to treat the drainage structures as they would pristine canals, lakes and rivers and yet they are two different functions. They are two different signs. They are two different things.

Mr. Fennell stated you may be comparing the wrong things here.

Mr. Cassel stated it is a battle with them.

Mr. Fennell stated if we were having algae blooms and things like that I could see this kind of an issue, but you do not see anything like that. We have to make for rational decisions here and not just for one particular type of environment, which happens to be quite unusual.

Mr. Cassel stated that point has been put forth by the Florida Association of Special Districts.

Mr. Fennell stated I think we need to keep supporting them then.

Mr. Cassel stated so this is just an update. I will send you the PowerPoint for you to review.

· Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

Mr. Fennell stated you actually had some information here about something. Did you find a problem?

Mr. Cassel asked do you want to tackle that while we are doing this?

Mr. Daly asked the what?

Mr. Cassel responded the I&I, while we are discussing this we might as well.

Mr. Bohorquez stated I just want to give the Board a brief update on where we are with this evaluation with the I&I problem occurring in the wastewater collection system. I will give you a little bit of background and also talk about a site visit I conducted a week or so ago just to get a general idea of what condition the infrastructure is in. I will show you some other data we have in the form of charts and look at some of the costs which may be incurred by the District as a result of this. I will talk a little bit about additional testing and data we might need to put together for a more effective I&I removal program for the system.

You may know about this already, but there are big influence flows in the wastewater treatment plant during a rainfall event and immediately following rainfall events. This is due to groundwater infiltration, which is leaks or cracks in the pipes due to an elevated groundwater table. Also, there could be some inappropriate storm connections into the system. Also, there could be some inappropriate storm connections into the system as well. That could be contributing to the problem as well.

Mr. Fennell asked did you actually see that or are you just speculating?

Mr. Bohorquez responded just speculating. The pump run times are extremely high when you compare them to dry seasons such as January to June. This is primarily on the eastern parts of the District. I was looking at lift station services areas one through five and number eight. The purpose of the study is to preliminarily assess the effects of this and implementing an I&I removal program for areas of the District. During the field visit I looked at the manholes. They appear to be in good shape. There is probably little or no infiltration happening there. The pipes are the main cause of concern. They are old pipes made of clay. Staff has indicated they crumble during repairs.

Mr. Fennell asked crumbles?

Mr. Bohorquez responded yes.

Mr. Fennell stated they should last 1,000 years.

Mr. Bohorquez stated well staff has indicated they are in poor shape. Here is a graph, which compares rainfall to the flows in the water treatment plants. Every time it rains all these peaks are matched by peaks at the wastewater treatment plant. It is pretty apparent. It is pretty evident that every time the rainfall peaks, the flows at the wastewater treatment plant respond. Another point I want to bring up is typically in most domestic water supplies the wastewater returns at about 70% to 80%. You can see most of the year, or since September 2008 through August 2009, the wastewater flows are actually higher than what the water treatment plant is. That is another sign there is an I&I problem. This is a look at the lift station run times. Looking from January 2009 through August 2009, you can also see here every time it rains there is almost an immediate response to the pump run times. The pump run times, comparing the dry season run time to the wet season run time, are two to four times as much on a monthly basis.

Mr. Hanks asked were you able to correlate the peaks or the increases in run times to within a day of the rainfall event or how soon afterwards?

Mr. Bohorquez responded based on the data I received I know that, Mr. Bulman I do not know if you have the indications as far as the well.

Mr. Bulman stated yes. We looked at daily resolution of that when we were doing the MITs and looking at the redundancy of the wells and there was a lag time of 24 hours to 48 hours.

Mr. Fennell asked is there a measurement of the ground level water or the canal height by any chance?

Mr. Bohorquez responded District staff has indicated they maintained the canals between 6½ and 7½ feet. During the dry times the ground water level is close to that; however, we were not provided data.

Mr. Fennell stated you are saying it does not flow directly into the pipes so it has to go through the ground or something or the water level has to come up.

Mr. Schwarz stated it is suggested it is more of a groundwater type infiltration rather than direct storm drain connections into the system. It would be more indicative of leaky pipes rather than say, illegal drain connections.

Mr. Bohorquez stated another indication of I&I is not on here, but I wanted to bring it to the Board’s attention. We estimate the flow as you expect into the lift station service areas and compare it to the flows you are actually seeing. They are twice as much during the dry season. If you go into the wet season, you are looking at about eight times as much flow as should be expected. We look at the pumps and you can convert it. There is a formula.

Mr. Schwarz stated we need a little more data yet. We are still waiting for something, but just initial areas. You are always pulling groundwater into the system year round at a rate and these five or six basis look like its about twice what you would expect from the expected wastewater. You are treating twice as much on a base flow basis year round. The peaks when it rains are four times that. It is significant, but we need a little more data we are waiting for to get some better numbers.

Mr. Bohorquez stated here is a quick estimate of the cost incurred from the I&I due to the excess run times of the pumps. We estimate approximately $30,000 a year in additional costs just from these six lift stations alone.

Mr. Fennell asked what makes up the costs?

Mr. Bohorquez responded just electric.

Mr. Daly asked did you get that off of the electric bills?

Mr. Bohorquez responded no. It is based on the pump usage.

Mr. Daly stated I find that number shocking.

Mr. Bohorquez stated it is based on an assumption of about $.10 an hour.

Mr. Daly stated you are probably right. I just never looked at it that way.

Mr. Bohorquez stated we have not gotten the actual data from the District, but whatever the treatment costs are for this water coming into the wastewater treatment plant during the rainy season; it could probably be reduced by a factor of up to four. You can tell by the concentration of a couple of different nutrients in the water. You can look at the suspended solids and associate that with the amount of rainfall. There could be some potential cost savings here. I cannot give you a firm number at this point, but it could be quite significant.

Mr. Fennell stated there is another issue for us too. It is not just the treatment, but we also have to get rid of this water and it has to go down a well.

Mr. Schwarz stated actually the third bullet is probably the most significant number and by the time we are done we will have a better handle on it. There is a value to that treatment capacity that you are just wasting to treat groundwater. How much would it cost you to build another million gallons a day of treatment capacity if you had a need for that? That is the real value.

Mr. Bohorquez stated recommended additional testing and data is required; we probably want to get some flow monitoring to get a better idea of how much flow is really running through these stations and the effect of rainfall as well as groundwater infiltration at each of the service areas. We want to do smoke testing as well to see if there are any inappropriate connections and to see if there are any storm connections in the system. Finally, we probably want to do a cleaning and video of the lines; particularly the laterals because that is where staff indicates most of the I&I is occurring. This will help us prioritize which basins to repair first and go from there. Planning well or construction estimate for these six areas is approximately $2.5 Million to $3 Million to do this work. That was just based on some recent contractor bids we have and some data provided to us.

Mr. Fennell asked $2.5 Million to $3 Million just to inspect it?

Mr. Schwarz responded no, to do the lining.

Mr. Bohorquez stated everything.

Mr. Schwarz stated they actually use a mainline. I do not have a handle yet on the number of laterals. If you did the laterals, you could expect it to double the cost. We have the videos. We have not had a chance to look through them yet, but you can pretty much determine from the videos if you have a lateral problem.

Mr. Bohorquez asked does anyone have any questions.

Mr. Fennell responded well that is kind of what we expected. Do we have any feel for whether there were a few causes or whether or not it was extensive? Do we know how many houses those pump stations serve?

Mr. Schwarz responded there are about 6,000 people in those service areas.

Mr. Skehan stated and there are six lift stations.

Mr. Fennell stated so 1,000 homes.

Mr. Hanks stated no. It is more than that.

Mr. Skehan stated yes it is probably 2,000 homes.

Mr. Fennell asked my point is, do you have to go in and replace every lateral?

Mr. Schwarz responded you would base your repair schedule on what you saw. You need video of the lines. Some of these basins had some previous lining about eight years ago or so. It looked like about 20% of the basin. They did not line the whole basin. You would not just line everything. You would need to do some internal inspections and then base your repairs on what you see.

Mr. Hanks stated so at this point where we are is we know there is a problem. We knew there was a problem before. We do not know whether it is a problem in the main lines or in the laterals. We have a good suspicion it is a groundwater infiltration and not surface runoff.

Mr. Skehan stated we also have a magnitude about the additional amount of water that is being captured by the collection system also.

Mr. Hanks asked if we were to go ahead and restore this to what is allowable, how much infiltration would we be taking out?

Mr. Skehan responded that goes back to one of the slides there. It estimated potentially four times, the additional flow which was being captured during peak events. You have to look at the four times.

Mr. Hanks stated I am a little puzzled because it does not really fluctuate that much. Does it?

Mr. Fennell responded yes it does. The total does.

Mr. Hanks stated no. I am saying the canal system.

Mr. Schwarz stated these are the worst basins and that would be mitigated over the whole system.

Mr. Hanks stated but we still have not narrowed it down as to which areas we are really looking at. We still do not know any better. We are still looking at six basins; six lift station service areas are the problem areas. We still have not narrowed down the area or perhaps we cannot.

Mr. Schwarz stated we cannot until we do internal inspections.

Mr. Skehan stated I think the big thing here is to be able to look out to the future and see what the cost effectiveness is going to be to be able to reach where the balance is of doing the repairs and potentially looking at what you are going to have as far as feasibility in the facility also. You have a certain amount of capacity. You have permitted capacity which is there, potentially, and this is looking out even further. If you have the city, as an example, you are at your capacity; you have additional capacity that you could take in for treatment that the city is interested in. If the city exceeds their capacity to Broward County, it may be more cost effective for the City of Coral Springs to bypass the county, bring in the additional effluent here at a lower cost, which is a potential revenue strain for CSID that you do not have right now.

Mr. Hanks stated one of the issues being floated around the Broward County Resource Task Force is you have these plants out in Sunrise, Coral Springs and anywhere else you have the wastewater treatment plants that are independent of Fort Lauderdale and Broward County, just to get reclaimed back out there. They are talking about pulling off from different places. So that may be a value.

Mr. Skehan stated that is one of the things we talked about which links back to the reuse plan such that if the city, this is another component of broader planning from a reuse standpoint that the city is looking to get elements which are going to be beneficial to the city to their water use permitting. This links back to whether you have the additional capacity or enough treatment capacity in the plant to be able to take on safely those peak values which are going to be coming from the city.

Mr. Hanks asked what other information do you guys need to be able to report back to us what the treatment plant costs are on our operational side and also the capital side in terms of, you know, the deep injection well? This is partly what is driving it. What are the costs we are offsetting for deep injection well versus what we are saving in terms of infiltration?

Mr. Skehan responded we know right now, and this is by inference and actual experience during the mechanical integrity testing, as Mr. Bulman mentioned earlier, and that would be MIT when those peak flows were taking place in May we found we were precariously close to exceeding the capacities of the injection wells. If that is the case and DEP comes back and says you have to look very closely at your operation and maintenance of your overall system, your collection system is part of that overall operation and maintenance, but DEP, if your capacity at the plant is so high and you do not have the redundancy in your injection wells, there could be a requirement which could come down within the next year for an additional 24 inch injection well. An additional 24 inch injection well is $6 Million. It could be as simple as that. That is a costly conclusion to come to and one you would want to avoid because then you are factoring in all of these additional costs that are continuing to accumulate over time with the I&I which continues to take place.

Mr. Hanks asked so what is still remaining under the existing paths you have that are not authorized to perform for this infiltration study? What is still remaining?

Mr. Schwarz responded we need to collect the rest of the data we requested, finish the analysis, finish the numbers and then we will submit it to you. We have not completed all of the data.

Mr. Fennell asked do we have cameras and stuff that we can go out and look ourselves?

Mr. Daly responded we have cameras; however, will CH2M Hill be able to use it or do we have to go back out and do it all over again. I do not know if we can provide that.

` Mr. Fennell stated they could maybe provide supervision.

Mr. Daly stated we can do that.

Mr. Hanks asked do you have a close circuit television video truck?

Mr. Daly responded yes.

Mr. Hanks asked does it have pan and tilt capabilities?

Mr. Daly responded I am thinking yes because I know we updated it at one time.

Mr. Cassel stated we will have to double check on the pan and tilt capabilities. We will see what we have.

Mr. Fennell asked looking at our water and wastewater plant flow where we go from 120 to a peak of 180, we will call it 160 or so; how much of that is this problem? If we were able to solve just that particular area would we be able to go all the way from 180 down to 120 or would we still have a 10% problem from other things?

Mr. Schwarz responded with the initial numbers we have it looks like these six basins contribute half of that.

Mr. Hanks asked how many basins do we have?

Mr. Cassel stated forty-something.

Mr. Hanks asked if we take the population and we have 6,000 residents and our total population is what?

Mr. Cassel responded about 30,000 people.

Mr. Fennell stated 50% of the problem is in 10% of the area.

Mr. Cassel stated historically in a wastewater collection system you look at your collection to be about 75% of what you put out on your distribution side. If you look at what you are looking at here, you look at your distribution side, at the 85 MGD and you look at your inflow at the 180, you have a lot of groundwater that is coming into your system or water coming from somewhere into your collection system that you really need to look at. If you were 10% higher, it is not worth going after, looking at or messing with, but at the rates I see in the graphs, from past experiences, it is something we really need to look at because it is an ongoing continual impact on your daily cost as well as future capacities, as Mr. Skehan was mentioning, to dispose away or treat.

Mr. Hanks asked why is this coming to a head now as opposed to when we were looking about Plant E or Plant F or whatever the most recent sewer plant we are going to be putting up?

Mr. Fennell responded I think it has to do with the wells.

Mr. Hanks stated I understand about the wells. I am just saying as far as actually getting down to the final numbers.

Mr. Fennell stated well we have been asking this question for a year and a half, at least. It is not like we have not been looking at this several times.

Mr. Skehan stated the mechanical integrity testing really brought it to a head. It was really apparent at that particular point how precarious the balance was in looking at; if it was just the injection well, we saw it clearly then. Then you ask the question of where it is coming from even more. We had talked about these numbers back and forth a little bit with respect to the inflow.

Mr. Fennell stated well thank you very much for the report. I think it is good information.

Mr. Skehan stated it is really a component of a lot of different things in the overall system and being able to understand each of these individual components helps to generate the picture within a framework of your overall boundary in your service area; water distribution, drinking water, water use permit, injection wells, you know collections. They are all different pieces of the puzzle.

Mr. Fennell stated we have a fine report, which I think pretty much confirms the answer to things we have been thinking about. The real action for management now is to get out those video cameras and nail down what the problem is.

Mr. Daly stated we can do that.

Mr. Fennell stated we would like to see something on this next month and for my own sake take a random sample of 100 laterals, look at them all and find out how many of them are good or bad. It still bothers me a little bit. Are we going to have to replace 1,000 laterals or 100?

Mr. Schwarz responded it is going to be in two locations. Usually most problems with the laterals are right where it connects to the main and the initial bend where it goes up. That is where it gets damaged over time. I do not know if we can see those from the main with the District’s equipment, but we can probably get a good idea if that is where the problem is. The second part of the problem is as it goes up towards the property line. Once it comes up and out of the water table the District probably does not have the small cameras which can go up the six inch main.

Mr. Fennell stated I think they are better than you think.

Mr. Hanks stated the issue is going to be our legal ability to implement any activity near a restriction to the right-of-way and utility easements. Most of your residential streets are 50 foot right-of-ways with a 10 foot utility easement on each side.

Mr. Cassel stated but most of the stuff which would be in the yards is not quite as deep. It is not going to be down in the water table. You might get the push flush of rain with some of it up there, but your lower constant stuff will be from your first cleanout down to the main, which is your deeper pipe.

Ms. Early asked who pays for repairs to a right-of-way?

Mr. Hanks responded a property owner.

Ms. Early asked so if the problems are in there, how do you force them to fix it?

Mr. Fennell responded you can do by order.

Mr. Cassel stated you have to go back and work with the city by ordinance. You have to see what the City of Coral Springs has by ordinance to put pressure on the residential resident to do their repairs.

Mr. Schwarz asked can I ask a question. I am not as familiar with some of the neighborhoods. Typically there is at least one cleanout between the house and the right-of-way line. Do these neighborhoods flood or have standing nuisance flooding in the yards?

Mr. Hanks responded no.

Mr. Schwarz stated a lot of people pop their cleanout covers.

Mr. Hanks stated it will go probably years between when you have any water which extends out beyond your right-of-way.

Mr. Fennell stated most of the cleanouts are near the house. Normally in these kinds of cases, is their a gentleman who surveys everything?

Mr. Schwarz responded typically for a system the age of these, yes. The television inspections are really not that expensive. It is a dollar or two dollars a linear foot. You can also do some spot checks of random sites.

Mr. Daly stated I can look at your evaluation and see which lift station is running the most. That is where we will go out.

Mr. Fennell stated I will let management attach this one with the recommendations.

Mr. Cassel stated I think with in-house personnel we can do an initial shot and see where we are going.

Mr. Daly stated and we have capabilities.

Mr. Fennell stated we need to get out there quickly because the rainy season is almost gone.

Mr. Schwarz stated the indications are you are always getting some groundwater flow. You will see what almost looks like mildew growing around the laterals that are always wet. They should not always be wet, but some of them are going to be and you will see it.

Mr. Fennell stated the money looks like an even tradeoff almost between us building yet another processing wastewater treatment thing.

Mr. Hanks stated you have to look at the operational cost of it. How much does it take to run that plant?

Mr. Fennell stated anyway, it sounds good. Thank you very much. Let us jump on inspecting with the cameras and doing whatever we have to do to get it done.

· Utility Billing Work Orders

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

B. Attorney

There being nothing additional to report, the next item followed.

C. Engineer

· Consideration of Work Authorizations

o Amendment to Work Authorization #51

Mr. Cassel stated the first item is an amendment to Work Authorization #51. Work Authorization #51 was the engineering services for the lump sum construction of Monitoring Well #3. With the delay which occurred by Layne there have been approximately 50 extra days of engineering time required to do that system. We are planning on deducting the additional $72,150 from Layne’s contract and applying it to the engineering contract so of the initial $2,143,769 we originally anticipated on the monitoring well project, we will not exceed that contract; total amount projected. The extra $72,150 will come out of the contractor’s portion of that original estimate.

Mr. Fennell asked what is the contractor saying?

Mr. Cassel responded we have negotiated with the contractor and he is agreeable to this in the fact they realize that because of the delay we could get into the liquidated damages and all these other issues. They have been aggressively trying to make sure everything is covered. They have been in excellent communication with DEP. DEP has been working well with us on this. They would rather not get into the liquidated damages and all the other issues for those kinds of things. They would rather take a hit on their potential contract side to save the contract and reputation.

Mr. Fennell asked so what is the question to us?

Mr. Cassel responded to increase Work Authorization #51 by the amount of $72,150. The bottom line is it does not increase what we initially anticipated spending for this project.

Mr. Hanks stated I understand exactly why we need to be out there. We need to have our engineers out there monitoring construction services; one area where the engineers do not have total control over the performance of the contractors. I will whole heartedly recommend…

Ms. Zich asked do we have it in writing that the contractor is agreeing to this?

Mr. Cassel responded yes. We have a follow up to a meeting that we had in minutes which have been distributed to the contractor and to myself as CSID manager. It has all been agreed to. There have been no animosity or comments from them on this issue.

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor an amendment to Work Authorization #51 in the amount of $72,150 was approved.

o Amendment to Work Authorization #54

Mr. Cassel this is an amendment to Work Authorization #54. Mr. Fennell, you will recall I called you about a week or so ago that at the last meeting Ms. Early brought up the fact the grant people were requesting we do house by house evaluations of potential flood criteria. CH2M Hill has managed to negotiate with them to more of a basin by basin, or area by area, in larger clusters, but it does require running the hydraulic model for a couple of different type of storms than we have already run. Initially Ms. Early had indicated it was going to be about $18,000. We talked and she came back with $16,500 for the additional work. If you have any questions, Ms. Early can answer them.

Mr. Fennell asked how much is the addendum?

Mr. Hanks responded the addendum is $16,500. The original was $24,500.

Mr. Fennell stated well I think we have to jump through the hoops in order to have a chance.

Ms. Early stated we are going after $12 Million I think.

Mr. Hanks stated this change order is 67% of our original work authorization.

Ms. Early stated yes and the reason why is because when they came back to request additional information, we had to do this benefit cost analysis which is very extensive. We were continually contacting them on questions.

The recorder picked up several voices talking simultaneously.

Mr. Hanks asked are you requesting $16,500 to do the hydraulic model?

Ms. Early responded no. We are also doing a detailed benefit cost analysis in addition to the model.

Mr. Fennell stated the division wanted to do it per household.

Mr. Hanks stated I understand that. With you explaining it that way I do not have a problem with that because I know how much back and forth you can have with these guys. I would like us to have paperwork representative of what it is you are asking.

Ms. Early stated it does say here, and prepare a detailed benefit cost analysis for each of the three culvert projects. We have to do separate benefit cost analysis. They were each separate grant applications.

Mr. Hanks asked was the need for cost benefit analysis something that was not in the original instructions?

Ms. Early responded no. That was one of their comments they came back with.

Mr. Hanks asked so are you saying this letter covers what you need it to?

Mr. Skehan responded yes. The form is absolutely enormous looking at it and trying to read through it is a significant process at this point to get it done in the timeframe these folks are looking for.

Mr. Hanks stated we have three culverts and then the tree removal.

Ms. Early stated well the tree removal and the feasibility study, after the first submittal they came back and they reevaluated it. They feel they were maintenance so they will not let us resubmit for those two. This is why my letter says just the three culvert projects.

Mr. Hanks asked is there any other feedback?

Mr. Fennell responded I think this is the only way we can get it and we need to get it done quickly. The payoff on this is just as good as any other job we have done.

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the Board approved an increase in Work Authorization #54 by an amount of $16,500.

Mr. Fennell stated this could help us out a lot.

Ms. Zich asked but are we going to have more next month?

Ms. Early responded November 9, 2009 is the final submittal and based on what you read it says after you submit that they will make a recommendation for funding. We had a couple of submittals prior to this request for information. This is the last one. The November 9, 2009 deadline is our final submittal. I think they have until the end of December to actually make a decision on funding. While we are talking about grants I would like to talk about the one we submitted last year through Broward County, through SFWMD, and they kicked them back saying we were going to get stimulus money so they cancelled everything. That came back and they asked if we could just put it on their new form. I talked to Mr. Cassel and spend a couple of hours to submit the one for the pump station to try and get them to give us some money to fix the canal banks at the pump stations. This is based more on improving the quality of the water so I wrote a narrative on it. We are on the list. I do not know if it will be funded, but I did resubmit.

o Work Authorization #55 – Injection Well Pump Station

Mr. Cassel stated you have before you a revised Work Authorization #55. As was noted in the manager’s cover letter, Work Authorization #55 would be split up into two separate work authorizations because one was from operations and the other one would be from the bonds in connection with Monitoring Well #3. Work Authorization #55 addresses what was in task number one of the work authorization in you package. This is related to the injection well as a result of the potential limitations in the mechanical integrity testing test we utilized that showed a deficiency in our ability to put down the volumes of water in Injection Well #1. This is to go through and look at the pumps, the valves as well as all the associated piping in that area to see what the issue is, where the restriction might be; whether it is pumps that are not at capacity or whatever the issues might be and come back with a recommendation of what is required to insure the well can take the capacity it is designed for.

Mr. Fennell asked what is the deliverable here?

Mr. Bulman responded the cause of the inability of the well to take the capacity in the DEP permit. The second deliverable as part of this authorization would be a surge analysis that is also required as part of the operations and maintenance manual for DEP.

Mr. Daly asked is it safe to assume that once it is determined what is wrong with it you would then go forward and repair it?

Mr. Bulman responded yes, but we certainly would not want to give you a cost estimate for a design.

Mr. Cassel stated what we need to look at is what the necessary repairs are or if it is not necessary to repair at this point in time, we can do it at an appropriate time.

Mr. Hanks asked is it really going to take 300 plus hours to determine the cause?

Mr. Bulman responded a good portion of that cost is the surge analysis.

Mr. Fennell asked did you break this out into two parts?

Mr. Cassel responded yes.

Mr. Fennell stated one is Work Authorization #55 and one is Work Authorization #58.

Mr. Cassel stated we just split the two tasks. If you look at the original work authorization, task number one was $41,300. If you look at the revised Work Authorization #55, it is $41,300. Work Authorization #58 is for task number two.

Mr. Fennell stated so Work Authorization #55 (10/19/2009) is to figure out what the problem is.

Mr. Hanks asked what is the ballpark on the surge analysis?

Mr. Skehan responded the surge analysis is probably somewhere around $15,000; to go through the analysis for both wells, pipe lines, looking at the pump station and putting together a report which will be responsive to what DEP will be looking for also. It is probably around 40% of that and the rest of it is being out in the field to look to see what is out there as far as what the pipeline conditions are, well conditions, pump station conditions and assess that with what the physical limitations were that we saw back at the time of the MIT of being able to get the additional flow down the smaller injection well, Injection Well #1.

Mr. Hanks stated I probably do not even have a good handle on the complexity of this system, but…

Mr. Fennell stated this is going to be nothing, but what they are going to find.

Mr. Skehan stated this is just the assessment.

Mr. Hanks stated I am afraid I do not have that specific expertise to be able to balance that thing off and determine whether it is really needed or not.

Mr. Cassel stated as I look at it, this is one of those things DEP is aware we had an issue with the integrity testing and getting the volume down. We are in the process of beginning our five year permit with renewal. Is it the pumps and the pump curves not operating correctly? Is it maybe a valve we think is 100% and is maybe three quarters of the way open? The well with the MIT testing appears to not be the problem in the well. It seems to be a problem getting it to the well. There are piping systems and other things, which have been modified through the years.

Mr. Hanks asked should we handle this in-house with our own staff by checking valves and things like that? By the end of the day we are going to be authorizing CH2M Hill for over $100,000.

Mr. Bulman responded I can attest to the fact that at the time of the MIT every valve we could find out there and in the drawings was opened and tested.

Mr. Skehan stated every option was fully evaluated at the time.

Mr. Hanks stated so we are really trying to figure out what is going on because the apparent solutions…

Mr. Bulman stated it would require a mechanical engineer.

Mr. Skehan stated the most convenient solution would be to discharge to the canal system out here while the MIT was taking place. A discharge of effluent to the canal system was not the acceptable from Broward County or from DEP.

Mr. Hanks stated or from the residents.

Mr. Skehan stated that is the emergency point for discharge for this system aside from the second well. That is your second point of discharge. The primary well is a 24 inch well. That takes all of the capacity you need. The borderline is on Injection Well #1, which is a smaller diameter and because of the smaller diameter this is where we are in this problem.

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor Work Authorization #55(10/19/2009) in the amount of $41,300 was approved.

Mr. Fennell stated I am running out of time.

Mr. Hanks asked is Work Authorization #58 the system programming for the new injection well?

Mr. Cassel responded that is correct. That is for Monitoring Well #3 to design the programming into our system.

Mr. Hanks asked okay and the reason this was kept in-house is because you wanted to have it all with the same programming so we would not have to go to any dealer or supplier?

Mr. Cassel responded that is correct.

Mr. Hanks asked do you think the cost being presented here is appropriate?

Mr. Cassel responded I believe it is and this would be out of the bond proceeds as well.

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor Work Authorization #58(10/19/2009) in the amount of $26,300 was approved.

o Work Authorization #56 – Reuse Feasibility Study

Mr. Fennell asked what are we doing here?

Mr. Cassel responded this one I would recommend that the Board approve, but we put it on hold as far as doing any work. We have a grant which has been theoretically approved, but I want to make sure the funding is actually being cut prior to any work. We are also looking within this feasibility study because this also impacts our wastewater permit as it has been noted in the past about reuse and what we are doing with reuse as well as our plans for reuse. I also reviewed the CSID Capital Improvement Validation Report earlier. I have to do some more research, but potentially the funding could be coming out of the bond proceeds for this study as well so it will not be out of the operation side. I want to make sure I have all of this nailed down before we actually begin work so I am requesting that you approve it at this point subject to finding those other issues and making sure we are squared away on the funding source.

Mr. Fennell asked how much money are we talking about?

Mr. Cassel responded it is a total of $83,000, but 50% of it is covered by the Broward County grant.

Mr. Fennell stated this is a reuse feasibility study. We are going to put in $40,000 and they are going to put in $40,000, but we are not going to spend the money until we actually get funded.

Mr. Cassel stated we want to make sure the funding is validated by a letter from them saying they are cutting the check.

Mr. Skehan stated and the reuse has been a requirement in the wastewater permit in the past permitting cycle for the operating permit for the wastewater plant. There is also another deferred item which was in the water use permit application where it is a question that has been responded to. We have responded to SFWMD saying the reuse assessment is predicted to be taking place sometime where we are right now.

Mr. Fennell stated okay so we have to do it.

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor Work Authorization #56(10-19-2009) in the amount of $83,000 was approved.

o Work Authorization #57 – FDEP Wastewater Treatment Facility Permit Renewal

Mr. Cassel stated this is for our five year renewal application for our wastewater treatment facility.

Mr. Fennell asked what do we have to do here?

Mr. Cassel responded this is approval of the authorization for this and the compensation is $36,546. It is to put together and submit the wastewater treatment application and get it certified to DEP to receive a permit back for the next five years.

Mr. Fennell stated we have to do this too.

Mr. Hanks asked can you compare this to the one we did five years ago in terms of cost?

Mr. Cassel responded I asked Ms. Early and she got back to me. I think it was close to the $30,000 range.

Mr. Early stated I think the original work authorization was $17,500, but then there were additional analysis which had to be done.

The recorder picked up several voices talking simultaneously.

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor Work Authorization #57(10-19-2009) in the amount of $36,546 was approved.

· Project Status Reports

This item is for informational purposes only. There was no discussion.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Financials and Check Registers

· Summary of Cash Transactions

· Projected Cash Flows

· Engineering Projects

There being no questions or comments,

On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the financials and check registers for September 2009 were approved.

EIGHTH 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