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, August 16, 2010 at 3:00 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

Dan Daly Director of Operations

Randy Frederick Drainage Supervisor

Kay Woodward District Accountant

Jan Zilmer Human Resources

Cory Johnson CH2M Hill

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call

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

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the July 26, 2010 Meeting

Mr. Fennell stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the July 26, 2010 meeting and requested any corrections, additions or deletions.

Mr. Hanks MOVED to approve the minutes of the July 26, 2010 meeting and Ms. Zich seconded them.

Mr. Fennell stated the only thing I have is on page 23 where it states “Mr. Fennell stated you were working on some data as far as the average values for the canals.” What did that have to do with?

Mr. Cassel responded the Six Sigma discussion.

Mr. Fennell stated okay. I have no corrections.

On VOICE vote with all in favor the motion as previously stated passed.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors’ Requests and Audience Comments

Mr. Fennell stated there was someone last time who wanted to speak to us.

Mr. Cassel stated Mr. Rivero. I have been playing phone tag with him. He has the dock which needs to be removed.

Mr. Fennell stated I think we discussed it before and we have given our opinion. I know he wants to address the Board, but he is not here.

Mr. Cassel stated I have put it in writing and as soon as I speak to him I will let him know he needs to remove the dock.

Mr. Hanks stated I also received a call from Ms. Philips on Wednesday after our meeting here about somebody who had come in to see our Board meeting about a dock. Do you recall the gentleman’s name?

Mr. Daly responded I do not remember the full name. I had an informative discussion with them. They wanted to know when the proxies would go out to vote for their membership on the Board. They would not tell me exactly what I could do for them.

Mr. Hanks stated he called me initially about the docks. His situation is that he was on an isolated pond. That situation does not present any difficulties to flowage because it is basically landlocked. It only presented issues to the homeowners in that community; however, with the pending numerical standards that can present a significant cost impact to the community as a whole. I invited him to come to one of our meetings.

Mr. Daly stated he was given the date of this meeting.

Mr. Fennell stated it seems the building of the plant is still progressing. I would like to have a nice plaque, which recognizes all of the people who have contributed, placed on the side of the building.

Mr. Cassel stated okay. I believe there will be one in there. Is that right Mr. Johnson?

Mr. Johnson responded I believe so.

Mr. Cassel stated we will make sure there is plaque.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of the Water & Sewer Budget for Fiscal Year 2011, Resolution 2010-10

Mr. Fennell stated I open up the public hearing to any comments from anyone in the audience about the budget.

There being no public comments,

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich the public hearing to adopt the water and sewer budget was closed.

Mr. Fennell stated the comments we had last time were taken into account as far as the amounts.

Mr. Hanks stated before we get too far I just want to verify something with the manager. Were you able to meet the noticing requirements?

Mr. Cassel responded yes.

Mr. Fennell asked should we do the rate increase first and then adopt the budget?

Mr. Lyles responded the resolution that concludes the public hearing on the water and sewer budget has provisions in section two for the anticipated revenues. Those numbers are blank in the package, subject to the manager filling them out here at the meeting. If you want to go ahead and do it that way with the anticipated revenues coming from the rate increase, you can do it that way; or if you prefer to put this aside and open up the public hearing on the rate adjustment, you can do that as well.

Mr. Fennell stated we are going to put this vote aside for a few minutes.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Hearing to Consider Amendments to Existing Water & Sewer Utility Rates, Fees & Charges, Resolution 2010-11

Mr. Fennell stated I would like to open up the public hearing to consider amendments to the existing water and sewer utility rates. Are there any comments from anyone?

There not being any,

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor the public hearing to consider amendments to the existing water and sewer utility rates, fees and charges was closed.

Mr. Fennell asked if we approve this are we approving just a 10% increase now or 10%, 5% and 5%? Is that the actual increase?

Mr. Daly responded yes sir.

Mr. Fennell stated if we do this, we actually end up with a balanced budget in about two years.

Mr. Hanks stated and if the economy changes we have the option of rolling back the rates in the future.

Mr. Lyles stated all it would require is a similar notice as was given for this hearing. You would do it at a public hearing. You can adjust those utility rates as the Board sees fit.

Mr. Fennell asked Ms. Woodward, do you have any comments on this?

Ms. Woodward responded no, other than the proposed budget has been adjusted to reflect a 10% increase in the utility rates.

Mr. Fennell asked given we do the 10%, 5% and 5%; approximately how much money has to come out of the reserves in order to meet the bond obligations we have for the next few years?

Mr. Woodward responded over the next four years it is just over $4 Million per year. Once we get past the fourth year it drops down to $3.1 million and remains at that level for the balance of the life of the bond.

Mr. Hanks asked so for this upcoming fiscal year do we have to pull out of the reserves $1.3 Million or is that further?

Mr. Fennell responded at this point I think the only question is where does it get us to, but I think we are at a point where this is what we are going to do.

Mr. Hanks asked so for a single family with 6,000 to 7,000 gallons do we know approximately how much it will be?

Mr. Daly responded I would have to calculate it.

Mr. Fennell stated it would be 20% more than what they are paying now at the end of two years.

Mr. Cassel stated currently your base charge is $14.95 and it will go up to $16.45.

Mr. Hanks stated $16.45 for the next year and then you are looking at…

Mr. Cassel stated $17.27 on your base charge.

Mr. Hanks stated so if you are at the minimum level of approximately 3,000 you are looking at somewhere in the order of $20 for water and $20 for sewer.

Mr. Daly stated they still get 3,000 free or included.

Mr. Cassel stated up to 3,000.

Mr. Hanks asked are the numbers down at the bottom of the first table $3.12 for the first threshold and $4.95 for the second threshold?

Mr. Cassel responded that is correct.

Mr. Hanks asked is that the combined water and sewer or is that just for water?

Mr. Daly responded that is just for water; sewer is always 100% of water.

Mr. Hanks stated okay. So you are looking at an approximate bill increase of $10.

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor Resolution 2010-11, amending the water and sewer rates with a 10% increase for fiscal year 2011, 5% increase for fiscal year 2012 and another 5% increase for fiscal year 2013, was adopted.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of the Water & Sewer Budget for Fiscal Year 2011, Resolution 2010-10 (Continued)

Mr. Fennell stated the proposed budget’s income is now $12,529,221. There is still a carry forward from our prior year balance of approximately $1.2 Million.

Mr. Hanks stated the overall budget of $12.5 Million has not changed.

Ms. Woodward stated that is correct.

Mr. Hanks stated what we have changed is where our revenues are coming from. Rather than pulling them from our reserves we are pulling them from current billings.

Mr. Cassel stated that is correct.

Mr. Fennell stated we are still pulling some out of reserves and we will be pulling some out next year and the year after that. There will be a 5% increase so it should be a little bit better. Will we ever get to a point, two years from now, where we do not need to carry forward an amount?

Ms. Woodward responded probably not. For four years you have to carry forward $1 Million for debt service.

Mr. Fennell stated it is $1.2 Million this year. It will probably be about $1 Million next year and a little less than $1 million the following year. It will roughly come out to about $4 Million. At that point, three or four years from now, income should equal outflow as far as bonds and expenses.

Ms. Woodward stated probably the only other differential that would need to be brought into the mix is a determination of operating expenditures for the new nanoplant. We obviously do not have those full numbers at this point.

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

Mr. Hanks responded no.

Mr. Fennell stated I think it is livable. Thank goodness we were in a position where we had some reserves and could actually play with it. We are still going to pay down the existential part of our reserves, but long term this is operable and responsible.

Mr. Hanks stated the good news is we will have more reserves to go after some of the repairs and restorations we will need to continue with as our system continues to age. What number do I need to put in the motion?

Mr. Fennell responded the numbers as proposed here is what the budget is. There is nothing which needs to change. You just need to make a motion to approve.

Mr. Cassel stated we will fill in the numbers. Ms. Woodward, we need to fill in the numbers prior based upon the attached budget.

Mr. Lyles stated because you might make last minute adjustments at the public hearing pursuant to Florida Law, the resolution form is left blank. All of the blanks will be mathematically identical to the attachment, Exhibit ‘A’, which is the full and complete budget for the District for the coming year. It will be consistent with Exhibit ‘A’ since you are not making any changes.

Mr. Hanks asked so can we adopt Resolution 2010-10 as is referencing Exhibit ‘A’ as presented?

Mr. Lyles responded yes.

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Ms. Zich with all in favor Resolution 2010-10, adopting the water and sewer budget for fiscal year 2011 as presented, was adopted.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Agreement with AshBritt for Debris Removal – Piggyback off Pompano Beach

Mr. Cassel stated the attorney has been working with AshBritt. I believe Mr. Pawelczyk with Mr. Lyles’ office was handling this.

Mr. Lyles stated it has been discussed at two previous meetings that we need to have a standby agreement in place for debris removal now that we are getting into the heart of hurricane season. At first the manager attempted to go through a bid process. The numbers, submitted at the last minute before the last meeting, were relatively competitive with one another, but they were not identical “apples to apples” in terms of what the different proposers chose to submit. At the same time we were looking into and there were some issues involved with the piggyback agreement as to whether or not it would work in this instance. Since the last meeting what we have done is surveyed the waterfront on this and met internally with staff. I think the staff’s combined recommendation, administrative as well as legal, is to piggyback the agreement between AshBritt with the City of Pompano Beach which NSID has already done. We have reviewed this. We have the full Pompano Beach agreement. We have confirmed with AshBritt the Pompano Beach numbers were competitively bid and are the lowest numbers of any of their governmental clients; therefore, we are satisfied we are getting the lowest rates for the various types of service for debris removal. It will cost us more if we go on our own.

The recommendation is to approve the Mutual Benefit and Use Agreement with AshBritt, the cover sheet of which has just been handed out to you. The substance incorporates this rather lengthy Pompano Beach set of bid specifications and documents. I do not know if you are in a position to give them any representative components of the numerical side of this. I am not. All I can tell you is our research shows these are the lowest. For instance; debris removal from right-of-ways and hauling to a disposal facility at $10.25 per cubic yard is the very first item. There is no charge for mobilization. The way this will work is we will get the Pompano Beach numbers. When we call upon AshBritt to do something for us in the event of a storm event, the components which will be charged for will be only those we need and not everything.

Ms. Zich asked is this just for the waterways?

Mr. Cassel responded we would use them for the waterways and for the site.

Ms. Zich stated but not streets.

Mr. Cassel stated we do not have any streets. Streets become a city issue. We are concerned about our site here and our waterways for debris and flow.

Mr. Fennell asked what are the terms or length of this agreement?

Mr. Lyles responded I believe it covers this current year we are in.

Mr. Hanks stated this will basically allow us to go forward in the event of an emergency event such as Hurricane Wilma with the debris removal and not be faced with a lengthy delay while we have to go out and…

Mr. Lyles stated negotiate and find somebody. In our case if we do not piggyback we would have to go through a notice and bid procedure.

Mr. Hanks stated okay.

Mr. Lyles stated it is just for the next 12 months.

Mr. Fennell asked what are the terms of payments? If something happens, when do we need to pay?

Ms. Zich asked and is someone going to renegotiate it or extend it to another year?

Mr. Lyles responded given the nature of this kind of work and of this industry, I think they will want to see how they did before they commit to a longer period of time with these unit prices. Having a year to year type of thing where you renegotiate every year is the way it would go. One thing I did not mention, and should, is that AshBritt is also responsible for all of the dealing with FEMA and agencies for reimbursement and filing necessary paperwork. They have the necessary expertise to submit those reimbursement requests and to process that kind of paperwork.

Mr. Hanks asked will that get us into trouble down the road or will there be concerns if it was to be rejected by FEMA, in terms of a pay clause?

Mr. Lyles responded we would be on the hook for it.

Mr. Hanks asked what incentive do they have for properly monitoring and submitting those documents?

Mr. Cassel responded according to FEMA you need to have a debris removal operation. Then you have another entity which does monitoring to verify what they are doing is correct. You have two different entities. We can do this in several different ways. We have the capacity in our current contract to have CH2M Hill do the monitoring aspect of the debris removal, which means they would have their person here counting loads and making sure of what they are hauling out, or you can go out and do the same thing with a third party debris monitoring outfit you can contract with.

Mr. Hanks stated so this is just dealing with the hauling.

Mr. Cassel stated this is just the removal; picking it up, cutting it up, getting it on a truck and getting it out of there.

Mr. Lyles stated and disposing of it in a legal fashion. That is a big part of any kind of a removal agreement.

Mr. Cassel stated providing documentation of the cradle to grave of every cubic yard of debris which is removed. This is the critical piece in the whole process.

Mr. Hanks stated so there will always be a supplementary agreement with CH2M hill or whomever we choose to do the monitoring.

Mr. Cassel stated we would do a work authorization with them.

Mr. Hanks asked should we get that done ahead of time or do you think we have the opportunity to deal with it after an event?

Mr. Cassel responded I think we can deal with it at the time of an event. If we choose to use CH2M Hill for it, you can do it at the time of the event through a work authorization. If you want a third party other than CH2M Hill, we would contract with a monitoring outfit to be on standby in the case of an event. I had a conversation with one of the individuals in the middle of the removal and monitoring industry. His comment was to be very careful with the monitoring people because they hire a lot of people who may or may not know how many cubic yards are in a truck. They are not exactly the most accurate. He said if we have a good firm we are comfortable with already, it is better. We have to be careful and watch the monitoring people.

Mr. Hanks asked is AshBritt licensed to do this type of work in the State of Florida?

Mr. Cassel responded yes.

Mr. Fennell asked if we get hit with a hurricane in September and there is $1.5 Million worth of debris removal, how does the money flow?

Mr. Lyles responded they invoice us every 30 days while they are doing the work. We have 45 days to make a payment under the terms of this agreement. It is the District’s obligation to make the payment for the work done. Reimbursement, either in whole, in part or maybe none, will come at a later time through arrangements with FEMA and the state.

Mr. Hanks asked what are our reserves in our water and sewer funds?

Ms. Woodward responded it is roughly $4 Million; about $2.5 Million.

Mr. Hanks stated which is why we have maintained those funds.

Mr. Cassel stated not only for water and sewer, but also in the general fund on the canals because of this issue. We are going to have to front the dollars.

Ms. Zich stated this will mainly be coming from the general fund.

Mr. Hanks stated I was thinking general fund.

Mr. Fennell stated we need to have money to pay ourselves at the time. The big deal is we have someone ready to go to work for us. It is going to be on a monthly billing cycle. Do we have 45 days after they bill us to pay?

Mr. Lyles responded yes.

Mr. Fennell stated that is not bad at all. Then we still fight over getting FEMA to get funds in. As I remember the last time, having the proper paperwork done correctly helped us get money.

Mr. Cassel stated on part of it.

Mr. Fennell stated we are actually putting the burden on these guys it looks like.

Mr. Cassel stated if they do not provide us with the entire cradle to grave details, the manpower and all of the documentation properly, we do not pay them. This is where we stop any potential issues, up front. In the past we had some issues where we did not have some of the documentation.

On MOTION by Mr. Hanks seconded by Mr. Fennell with all in favor the Mutual benefit and Use Agreement with AshBritt Environmental was approved.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports

A. Manager

· Consideration of Engineering Proposal from TIC for Third Party Consulting Services for “Plant F”

Mr. Cassel stated as we discussed in the past, I went out and looked for a third party in the case we got into a protracted issue and ended up in court; we could have a third party expert witness. I searched contacts I had and CH2M Hill searched contacts they had. I had difficulty finding steel tank people that can design in Florida. I came up with someone by the name of Mr. Steve Meier. He works with Tank Industry Consultants. I looked them up. I also spoke with Mr. John Lieb who is their Chief Engineer. They are certified in the State of Florida. They are certified in over 20 states. They do tank designs, tank analysis and they are expert witnesses. Mr. Lieb and Mr. Meier are part of the group who writes API 650 standards. They are well versed in all of the other welding standards and steel construction standards out there.

I sent them the documents and asked them to look at nine different questions and answer these issues. If I gave you these documents, what kind of tank, what kind of thickness of steel, what kind of wind load characteristics, etcetera, would I have? They responded in their proposal. To answer those nine questions their fee is roughly $6,000.

Mr. Hanks asked are they in good standing in the states in which they practice?

Mr. Cassel responded I believe they are. I will double check.

Mr. Hanks asked counsel, do you have any thoughts?

Ms. Zich asked what is the status of that?

Mr. Cassel responded they are doing some electrical work on it as well as some programming on it.

Ms. Zich asked how about the welds?

Mr. Cassel responded nothing is being done with the welds. We received a draft response Tuesday of last week from their engineer. CH2M Hill is responding to that at this point. I read through it. I had some additional questions. I have been doing additional research on my own trying to understand where the issues are and how it is going to be repaired. As I get my information from TIC and the rest of them I can sort through and recommend to the Board what I believe is a rational understanding of the issues that we can all move forward with. Right now it is on hold.

Mr. Hanks asked have you had a chance to review this?

Mr. Lyles responded I have looked it over. It is a fairly standard professional service agreement. The hourly rates are in line, if not a little less than what you might see in South Florida engineering firms. I want to point out that somewhere in this document the not to exceed $6,000 figure does not cover their testimony as an expert witness. From my perspective, in talking with Mr. Cassel about this, we may or may not need an expert witness in the future to testify. If we do, these people by going through this exercise would be in a position to pick up that role as well. I just want the Board to be aware if they end up having their deposition taken, giving expert opinions or being called in to testify in court, it would be an additional charge over and above this initial not to exceed $6,000 figure.

Mr. Hanks stated the $6,000 is just to do the investigation and prepare the report.

Mr. Cassel stated get us the answers to the nine questions we have.

Mr. Hanks stated as far as the general practice of engineering services; if you have expert witness deposition or testimony, you have it as an hourly service above the basic contract. Do you think the timing is right for us to pursue this?

Mr. Cassel responded I think I need it for the District because this will tell me, initially, that a third party engineer picked up the construction documents, read through the information, the performance standards and the design. If they come up with the fact that the tank should have been thicker than a quarter inch, should have more welds, should be seal welded versus intermittently welded, all these other issues, it would tell me the contractor’s engineer should have probably picked up on those things as well. It would give the District more credibility when telling the contractor their engineer’s design is off the wall and does not meet any criteria.

Mr. Hanks asked does it matter in this application from any of our various requirements, whether it is competitive bid, CCNA or any of these other concerns we have going on, does it matter through which entity we contract this through? This would be contracted directly to CSID. Is it better because of CCNA to run it through CH2M Hill, the attorney’s office or does it matter?

Mr. Lyles responded the threshold for CCNA engineering tasks is far in excess of the not to exceed fee of $6,000. We are not hit with CCNA. Because it is a professional service as opposed to a maintenance service we are not hitting our own $4,000 threshold. This is not covered by our Special Act. It can be directly negotiated and entered into by the Board because of the nature of the work and the small amount of the fee.

Mr. Fennell stated I am surprised it is as low as it is.

Ms. Zich stated I am amazed this is the third engineering firm on one building.

Mr. Fennell asked does CH2M Hill have any comments?

Mr. Johnson responded we feel it is in your best interest to have a third party objective engineer to take a look at this.

Ms. Zich asked Mr. Lyles; do you feel we should have a third party engineer look at this?

Mr. Lyles responded I do.

On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the engineering proposal from TIC for third party consulting services for Plant F was approved.

· Update on FEMA Audit (Hurricane Wilma)

Mr. Cassel stated I contacted Ms. van Ravenswaay to be here at this meeting, but she had a conflict and could not attend so we are going to call her on the phone. I want her to be abreast of what is going on while we go through this. Mr. Daly is trying to get her on the phone. The bottom line update on the FEMA audit is they are coming back to us as well as many other local government agencies on issues. My perspective is they came in, said everything was approved, paid money and now they are coming back trying to find ways to balance their FEMA budget by saying certain things are not right so they want their money back.

Mr. Fennell asked they want money back?

Mr. Cassel responded yes.

Mr. Fennell asked how much do they want back?

Mr. Cassel responded approximately $129,000 out of this particular piece of $156,000. Part of it is we can not prove cradle to grave on the debris that was on the site. If you look at the amount of equipment and manpower charged, the debris we can account for is $425 per cubic yard to remove the debris. Even after their finding it takes them 30 to 40 days before they put it in writing from our meeting. We have approximately 90 days to appeal. We are still continuing to look down other avenues by researching different things. Everyone who was here knows there were piles and piles of debris that went out the door. We cannot figure out where it went or who took it exactly. We are trying to go back through all kinds of gyrations and contacting different organizations to see if we can track down the debris. If we find the fact that we can account for more debris, cradle to grave, then the amount of money they are demanding will go down.

Ms. Zich stated Hurricane Wilma was five years ago.

Mr. Cassel stated yes.

Mr. Daly stated and this is not the drainage fund. This is the water and sewer fund.

Mr. Cassel stated this is all of the debris which was on site here.

Ms. Zich stated and this is money they have already given us.

Mr. Daly stated and we have already paid the vendors. Now they are coming back saying they want it because they are missing some documentation.

Mr. Hanks asked if we did not have the documentation for three quarters of the debris, why did you pay them?

Mr. Cassel responded that is one of the issues we have been working through. It seems as if everybody was involved, but no one really took the lead or was responsible and everyone thought someone else was responsible. You will find sign offs by Mr. McKune who said the numbers were good to go, but there is no extra documentation on debris. He signed off on hours. The feedback I am getting from him is they needed an engineer to sign off on it so he signed off on it for the District. Correct me if I am wrong, I believe as your favorite expressions goes, the dead guy happened to be one of our individuals who was here, who did die, who was supposedly keeping track of the debris and things onsite. He is no longer with us.

Mr. Daly stated he was a person who was a scapegoat. Now not to say that so many other ones, because when more than one work order or project work order, those were all paid. Those were all closed and there is not a problem with any of them. There might have been another dozen of them. The problem with this one is there was work done onsite and we do not have the documentation to show it went to an approved gravesite where it was supposed to go so every number associated with it, whether it is man hours, whether it is equipment, no matter what it is, including engineering fees or anyone else we had to hire part-time, those are disallowed. That is what this is.

Mr. Hanks asked is that the $130,000?

Mr. Daly responded yes. It was originally $150,000. It was invoices for man hours for a contractor, equipment for the contractor and it was signed off by an engineer to be paid. We did pay. We submitted it to FEMA. FEMA is coming back almost five years later saying they do not see where the debris ended up.

Mr. Cassel stated but they did not raise any issues when it was processed.

Mr. Hanks asked counsel, is this indeed within their purview to come back?

Mr. Lyles responded for FEMA to come back and do an audit; certainly.

Ms. Zich asked five years after the fact?

Mr. Lyles responded yes.

Mr. Cassel stated or longer.

Mr. Fennell asked is there no statute of limitations?

Mr. Cassel responded it is not closed out until the audit is complete and they have up to five years. Once they make a question it is open until they close it.

Mr. Fennell asked do you know where it went?

Mr. Cassel responded we have not been able to establish that. We have another idea that some of the debris may have been taken offsite by Arbor Tree.

Mr. Fennell stated there was a bunch of debris. This place had all kinds of things lying around. Did the city take it by any chance?

Mr. Cassel responded that is the part we can track. The city picked up 660 cubic yards which they can track from cradle to grave. It is the rest of the debris which was potentially here that we cannot figure out who took it, where it was taken, who paid for it or anything else.

Mr. Fennell asked are you sure all of the money was just for the debris? We had to gather it all together. That could have been a lot of time and hours.

Mr. Cassel responded the part we put in for was mostly for labor and equipment to put the debris in a pile. We cannot find where CSID actually paid anyone to haul it off. Their question is if we had men and equipment putting the debris in a pile, it had to go somewhere and that is where they come back with the cradle to grave issue.

Mr. Fennell stated some of it was right along the canal. We had the guy who was doing the canals for us take some of our debris.

Mr. Daly stated that was Arbor Tree and it was contracted probably four to five months afterwards.

Mr. Fennell stated it took a while to get all of the debris off the property as I remember. There was a big pile of things out there. I used to come and watch it get picked up.

Mr. Frederick stated we were bringing in as much stuff from the canals ourselves and piling it up there along with the other debris.

Mr. Daly stated in any event it would not matter where it came from or how long.

Mr. Fennell asked can we contact the manager at the time?

Mr. Daly responded we did not have a manager at the time if you recall.

Mr. Fennell stated Mr. Petty was here.

Mr. Daly stated Mr. Petty was not here until December.

Mr. Frederick stated I thought Mr. Hyche had something to do with it.

Mr. Daly stated Mr. Hyche was here, of course.

Mr. Cassel stated it was part of the transition you were going through at the time.

Mr. Fennell stated I think you need to go back and look at that.

Mr. Daly stated we did.

Ms. Woodward stated we have gone back.

Mr. Daly stated we have been revisiting this for six months.

Mr. Cassel stated we have read a great deal of minutes.

Ms. Zich asked have you talked to Mr. Hyche?

Mr. Cassel responded yes.

Mr. Daly stated their big concern is that someone did not hire a truck and say, “dump this over in the Everglades.” That is the bottom line.

Mr. Fennell stated the only thing I see that might help you is if there was any kind of aerial photography being done at the time over a period of several months.

Ms. Woodward stated it is not going to matter if you cannot prove where the garbage landed.

Mr. Fennell stated I think part of it is no one in this room actually remembers it, but there may have been other people around who would have.

Mr. Cassel stated I believe we have canvassed through Mr. Daly, Ms. Woodward and the rest of the staff.

Mr. Daly stated we are backing into a number here. According to the invoice produced by Lanzo and Intrastate we had ‘x’ amount of debris based on man hours and equipment. Whether the debris existed or not on our property it is hard to say. As Mr. Frederick was saying, they brought stuff in from the canals. That was never handled by Intrastate or Lanzo because they just took care of our plant here.

Mr. Hanks stated at the end of the day what we need to remember here is that FEMA was helping us out. We had an obligation to take care of this; maintain the canals and get our plant up and running. FEMA was there to help lessen the pain. We still had a quarter of the cost. They picked up three quarters and we picked up a quarter.

Mr. Cassel stated you are right. The key is they are there to pick it up; however, as a local entity you are not supposed to rely on them to come in. If they come in, it is gravy because you can get your funds back. The bottom line is the District, the city or the county is responsible for doing whatever they have to do to put their area back together.

Mr. Hanks stated this was $160,000. What was the total bill for the canal cleanup? Was it around $4 Million or $5 Million?

Mr. Daly responded yes it was, but this is FEMA auditing right now, which is all land. The surf stuff ends up with the NRCS. They are either still conducting audits or will begin conducting audits.

Mr. Hanks stated $130,000 is not much, but if you are telling us that we…

Mr. Daly stated if you recall, we had our meeting the third Monday of the month and we had the hurricane happen probably a week later. Then it was three more weeks until you had your meeting. By that time we had already had Mr. McKune with CH2M Hill involved with the collection and the sign offs. They could not come before the Board because you did not meet until three weeks after the fact.

Mr. Fennell asked how much money were we paying to have the debris hauled away?

Mr. Cassel responded it depends. It is by cubic area. It depends on how much cubic yards you can document. Right now for the invoices we paid Intrastate/Lanzo to pull out, chop up and pile up for us, it would have run us about $429 per cubic yard to do that. For the amount of debris we can document right now, the cost per cubic yard was about $429.

Mr. Hanks asked what should it be?

Mr. Cassel responded I believe they are allowing $30 to $32 per cubic yard. If you look at AshBritt’s bid, their fee for hauling is $10 per cubic yard. It might be another $25 or $27 a cubic yard to chop it up and get to ready to haul.

Mr. Hanks stated then you get your tip fees too.

Mr. Cassel stated that is right. Some of those do not have tip fees because they end up grinding it. It depends where you dispose of it. A lot of places are ground so there is not really a tipping fee. They are sold for mulch or used as mulch. It depends on where you get rid of the debris on how much your cost is going to be.

Mr. Hanks stated so this $120,000 or $130,000 is mostly paid to getting debris picked up and pushed up against the fence or wherever we happened to have had it.

Mr. Cassel stated that is correct.

Mr. Daly stated even though we already paid for it. We were invoiced for that service already. It is just we are not getting reimbursed because the documentation is not complete. We are paying for that service.

Mr. Hanks asked so we are getting this because even though it was picked up here, it does not go into a recognized end location?

Mr. Cassel responded that is correct.

Mr. Fennell stated it sounds like there are two complaints; one is where did it end up and the other is why it cost $429 a cubic yard.

Mr. Cassel stated that is only based upon what we found. The $429 a cubic yard is based upon us being able to document that we had, cradle to grave, 660 cubic yards of debris. If I had 2,000 cubic yards, your price per cubic yard would be a lot less.

Mr. Hanks asked what did we claim went out?

Mr. Cassel responded we did not claim actual debris. We claimed equipment and man hours to put the debris in a pile. If we had the track of the debris and how much went out, they would have allowed the whole amount or 90% because then you show a certain amount of debris was picked up here and taken to a disposal site so therefore, the manpower to create that debris is allowable. Right now they are saying we have manpower, but we cannot prove our manpower for cradle to grave debris.

Mr. Hanks stated the manpower is not tied to a concise number that FEMA likes to look at.

Mr. Fennell stated I think they are asking a legitimate question. If you claim $130,000 worth expenses, how many cubic yards was it and where did it go.

Mr. Cassel stated it is a simple request and the issue is we do not have that documentation.

Mr. Fennell stated I would go again and look. I came out here several times myself and watched people haul stuff away out here. Despite being water and sewer and the canals, it was not clear here because remember, we have a canal on at least two of our sides here. We had all of those big trees all around here on the water side. They all got knocked down and were piled on to this site. It was huge. This was actually a collection site. That is what was happening. Even from the canals.

Mr. Hanks asked is it possible the surf side was lumped in to some of the debris which was removed? Is that what you were thinking?

Mr. Fennell responded yes because that whole area was full of gigantic trees. Some of them were brought in from the canal. I think most of our stuff went over there when you guys cleaned it up. I do not know how you can separate one from the other. This tree came from this place and this one did not.

Mr. Frederick stated the guys cleaning out the canals were hauling their debris off as soon as they were coming out of the canal.

Mr. Fennell stated not always.

Mr. Hanks stated it does not matter if it was separated or together. Is it distinct within the records for the surf side? Is there a distinction between what came off the plant, if it did, and what came out of the canals?

Mr. Daly asked Mr. Frederick, do you recall, I am trying to get a correlation between the time the work was done by Intrastate and Lanzo and the time we awarded the contract because it would have had to be here for Arbor Tree to haul it off, do you recall? I thought it was a good six months after the hurricane before we awarded.

Mr. Frederick responded we actually started cleaning our canals out and it was months before we even started doing that because there was a problem with regard to financing, FEMA and NRCS.

Mr. Hanks asked how would the canal people recognize what was debris you guys pulled off the canals and what came off the plant?

Mr. Frederick responded they would not recognize that. We were doing a lot of stuff with our own equipment. Our guys were out there trying to get what they could. I just do not understand how they would back us up without all of that documentation in the first place and then come back now and want it again.

Mr. Hanks stated you are talking about the Federal Government.

Mr. Frederick stated I just cannot believe they would hand over a check because you said you needed it and just ask how much it cost. I am sure the documentation was given to them originally.

Mr. Fennell stated I think you documented the manpower and all of that, but what was not documented was where it went.

Mr. Frederick stated I have tickets for my stuff. I have a letter saying so many cubic feet of debris was dumped in a certain place if they come to us, drainage. I do not have anything for the plant.

Mr. Hanks asked what action do we need to take on this? Is there any we need to take at the moment? Are we approaching any deadlines that we need to respond to FEMA? What is the goal of this discussion?

Mr. Cassel responded the goal of this discussion is to make you aware of the fact the audit has occurred. They are asking for about $129,000 to $130,000 back because we could not prove the debris. Secondly; we have not received anything formally in writing. At that point we can go in for an appeal. We can get another 90 days to keep trying to find debris tickets and final resting places for the debris, which we have been doing on an ongoing basis. I have an individual in my office trying to get in touch with Arbor Tree to see if they have any records of what they picked up off the site other than their other records for the canals. We are trying to uncover every possible opportunity to figure out if there is any more debris we can document.

Mr. Hanks asked have you gone through who is responsible in the different areas of sign offs? Do we know who is responsible for what on this?

Mr. Cassel responded that seems to be where the issue is. Mr. Hyche signed the work authorizations and PWs. The approval for the payment was signed off by Mr. McKune and recommended and approved at the Board meeting. Anything we can find so far in the documentation has nothing about dump tickets or anything else involved in it.

Mr. Hanks asked what were the contractual obligations? Mr. Hyche was an employee of the District so there is no contract there.

Mr. Cassel responded that is correct. I cannot find a work authorization specifying CH2M Hill do the onsite. What I am finding in the work authorization is for the canal oversight, but it does mention FEMA and NCRS in it. I do not see any billing that I can find so far from CH2M Hill or from Mr. McKune on general fund invoicing for hurricane cleanup so far. We have been trying to undercover this and do as much forensics as we can on it to nail down who was supposed to be signing off, who signed off and who missed the fact we did not have dump tickets; not necessarily for blame per se, but how did it get missed last time to make sure we do not repeat these issues if we have another event. This is part of the reason for using AshBritt or using monitoring people in addition to having specifics.

Mr. Hanks stated we need to establish in advance who is going to watch, who is going to do the monitoring and who is going to be signing off. That needs to be established in advance so when the time comes and you have people moving, you do not have people looking around trying to figure things out when you do not have power.

Mr. Fennell stated I think that is a good point. We want to see this for the next meeting as far as who is responsible for the plant area, who is responsible for the canal area and walking us through it. Have you been able to trace the money? Who did the $139,000 go to?

Mr. Cassel responded it went to Lanzo/Intrastate.

Mr. Fennell stated go to Lanzo and Intrastate.

Mr. Cassel stated we asked them for truck tickets and other items.

Mr. Daly stated we have actually contacted the secretaries and offered to hire our own people to come in and do the work for them. They do not seem to have anything because they say they did not take anything out of there.

Mr. Cassel stated they say they just supplied the labor and equipment to stack it up.

Mr. Fennell asked stack it up where?

Mr. Daly responded outside the gate.

Mr. Cassel stated either outside of the gate or inside the gate; wherever the piles were.

Mr. Daly stated we never had to worry about disposal because the city was picking it up and thank God they were because we were at least able to get 660 cubic yards documented.

Mr. Hanks asked is there any correspondence with the city’s public works director or emails back and forth between Severn Trent and the city as far as confirming who was going to be picking up and where the limits of responsibility lie?

Mr. Daly responded not that I have been able to uncover. The fact is the city came forth and said they had some tickets for us. FEMA audited their books already. It was actually FEMA and the city working together on our behalf because we were at a loss as to where any of it went.

Mr. Frederick stated it kind of rings a bell. I think they might have hauled it to the end of Royal Palm Road.

Mr. Hanks stated at that point once it gets in there it gets doubl counted because it gets counted up as residential from just general removal.

Mr. Daly stated it is hard to say exactly what was going on out there. Mr. Hyche does not remember too much.

Mr. Fennell stated the city had a huge mulching operation out there.

Mr. Frederick stated I think Mr. Hyche obtained permission from the city to haul the debris to the end of Royal Palm Road.

Mr. Daly stated they had a monitor out there. That may be the 660 cubic yards they took from us.

Mr. Fennell stated you need to find it.

Mr. Cassel stated we are still looking.

Mr. Daly stated Ms. Woodward and I along with Mr. Cassel and some other people here, we have been looking for six months for this.

Mr. Fennell stated let us keep going.

· Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

Mr. Hanks stated at the end of the last meeting I inquired about the 400,000 gallons of water going back to the plant for chlorine and it was unknown whether or not it was before the meter or after the meter.

Mr. Daly stated we found out.

Mr. Cassel stated we figured it out.

Mr. Daly stated Mr. Johnson was right.

Mr. Cassel stated it comes before the meter.

Mr. Johnson stated there is still loss.

Mr. Hanks stated so we are still up at 16% loss and not down to 3%.

Mr. Cassel stated but if you look at July, distribution and billed are on top of each other.

Mr. Fennell asked why would it go up?

Mr. Hanks responded because of your reporting periods.

Mr. Cassel stated you have to average annual on both.

Mr. Hanks stated in the month of January you had more billed than you had distributed. It is all over the place.

Mr. Fennell stated there should be a correlation somewhere between what we distribute and what we charge.

Ms. Zich stated maybe we should do this on an every three month period. It might make it a little bit better.

Mr. Fennell stated or it would just disguise the problem more.

Mr. Daly stated if one of your Board members were in the first cycle, which is the first week, and you are on the fifth day of the month, your consumption that gets billed that month is actually from the previous month on the fifth. It is actually last month’s consumptions. When you get to this chart where you are comparing April to April, it is really March to April. The next guy who is on the second week is from the 15^th to the 15^th. So he only has a half of last month and a half of this month, yet we are reporting all of the sales in this month and we are taking 100% of the water this month. This is why it is so scattered. Then there is a third cycle.

Mr. Hanks stated I want to sit down with you Mr. Daly. I have a couple of ideas of how we can get working numbers.

Mr. Cassel stated we are open to suggestions.

Mr. Hanks stated we can try to narrow down where things are. The city is not plagued with sinkholes and washouts, so it is not leaks per se. If it was, we would see a lot more pavement damage. That water is going someplace.

Mr. Fennell stated somebody is stealing it.

Mr. Hanks stated my thoughts are we should take a look at, and it may take a little leg work on your staff’s part, but to go ahead and look at where your different customers are. You get your database from your customers. Do you have an idea as to what their size is; whether they are a single family, 10,000 square feet of commercial or 100,000 square feet?

Mr. Daly responded for the most part.

Mr. Hanks stated apply your standard rates to them and see who is over and who is under. I bet you if you look at some of those larger users, you might find they are under. I am thinking perhaps the Coral Square Mall where we have that issue with private water lines coming onto the site and different meters in different locations.

Mr. Daly stated we just handled that. I believe they were going to be ordered this week. We are ordering ten inch meters for both sides coming in. We will know every drop that goes into there and we will be able to compare that against all the accounts inside to see how much we are actually billing per month. If there happened to be a leak in the pipe that goes into a canal, we would actually be able to see we are really off or if there happens to be someone using water we are not billing for. We researched the meters for that. We have it in the budget. We have enough money in the budget this year in our large meter category.

Mr. Cassel stated we did it last year with Taravella High School. They had a bunch of meters all over. We put one master meter. There are still some sub-meters, but this way we can check every gallon which goes onto the site.

Mr. Hanks stated at the limits of the District’s water system; meter and backflow.

Mr. Daly stated the backflow is the mall’s responsibility, but how are you going to do that when they have 100 accounts. They are going to have to put in backflow preventers and do what they have to with their tenants.

Mr. Cassel stated we are informing them we are putting the ten inch master meters in and while we are putting them in they have to put their backflow preventers in.

Mr. Daly stated we did another audit the other day. I looked at every commercial account and went back a few years because if they are now at 10,000 gallons and were at 90,000 gallons a couple of years back, we have a problem. The next day I looked at all of the multi-family. The only thing I cannot look at is the irrigation meters. We cannot physically turn on the irrigation meter to see if it is working, the timer. There are two ways to look at it. These are all one inch meters so they are probably $45 a piece to replace. One way to do it is to just turn them all off and wait for people to call. The bad part about that is then they would have some brown spots in the grass because they most likely come on at 4:00 a.m. and people are not awake to see if they are on.

Mr. Fennell stated that contemplates a citywide conspiracy.

Mr. Daly stated the point is these meters could be in the ground for many years.

Mr. Fennell asked do you think they are all going bad?

Mr. Daly responded I think there may be a lot of them out there which are not working properly. I have a report every month which says all of these meters have zero consumption and we look at them, but 99% of them are irrigation. People either put a well in, they are not watering at all or we have a bad meter.

Mr. Hanks stated send a letter to them advising we noticed their irrigation meter has not been used for the last blank number of months and as part of our program we are going to be shutting that service off. This way they have a warning.

Mr. Cassel stated one of the other things we are doing is looking at our subaqueous crossings because if you have a leak in a subaqueous crossing, you probably would not notice it.

Mr. Hanks asked where do we have subaqueous crossings?

Ms. Zich asked what is a subaqueous crossing?

Mr. Cassel responded where a pipe comes to a canal and instead of doing an aerial crossing you stay underground.

Mr. Hanks stated you cannot see a subaqueous crossing.

Mr. Cassel stated so you would not see a leak in a subaqueous crossing. We have valves on either side of a subaqueous crossing so we are going to start doing some investigating by shutting down that section and seeing if we lose pressure in the pipe afterward when we turn it back on and things like that. Again, we are trying to unfold every possibility of seeing where this potential loss is at.

Mr. Hanks asked how about our interconnects with the other cities?

Mr. Daly responded they are up and running. We checked.

Mr. Cassel stated they are closed.

Mr. Hanks asked we checked to see if they are functional?

Mr. Daly responded yes. Part of our hurricane preparedness is to make sure the valve does open if needed.

Mr. Hanks stated but you see what I am getting at. If the valve is cracked, it could be a large issue.

Mr. Daly stated I spoke to Mr. Stover about it and he said they are all holding and they all open.

Mr. Hanks asked revenue wise, what do we have about 15% lime loss right now?

Mr. Daly responded yes.

Mr. Hanks asked if we get that back to normal, which is about 5%, what kind of additional revenue would it bring in?

Mr. Fennell responded 10% more.

Mr. Daly stated we went back and looked at some of the charts and numbers the Board was given over the years. Beforehand, Mr. Hyche was doing it. He was not cheating at all, but he had a 5% factor in there for lime loss which could happen within a system due to the Coral Springs Fire Department and etcetera. What we talked about the other day is that all it takes is a phone call to the fire department asking them to let us know or give us their log. There was that factor so it looks worse now then it did before, but it may not be worse than it actually was.

Mr. Hanks stated it may just more accurately depict the condition of where we are at.

Mr. Johnson stated if you do a full water audit on it, you will start breaking down. This goes back to what kind of loss revenue you have. You have not only loss revenue to loss billing, but also if it is not stolen or it is not slipping through the meters, it is not an accurate meter, and you are losing it in pipes, your losses are at whatever you produce in one year for chemicals and energy. At the residences you are losing whatever the cost per 1,000 you are charging them along with the cost per 1,000 gallons for sewer. When you do a water audit you will actually categorize that and break it down to more subcategories; one of those being fire flushing lime loss. There are different non revenue categories.

Mr. Fennell stated I am going to applaud what you are doing and I want to emphasize that I want you to do it more. If I look at potential revenue sources and you can cut those losses from 15% to 7%, it would be worth $500,000 a year to us.

Mr. Daly stated I agree.

Mr. Fennell stated most of the efforts will be in just finding it. I suspect actually fixing it will not cost that much as opposed to the wastewater intrusion. Keep doing this. In fact, strengthen your efforts. We are still not where I would like to see us as far as income versus revenue.

Mr. Cassel stated that is one of the reasons why Mr. Daly, Ms. Woodward and I are constantly looking at this to see if we can close it as much as we can.

· Utility Billing Work Orders

This item is for informational purposes only.

B. Attorney

There being no report, the next item followed.

C. Engineer

· Project Status Report

Mr. Hanks asked Mr. Johnson, what is going on?

Mr. Johnson asked as far as the I&I project?

Mr. Hanks responded the I&I project.

Mr. Johnson stated to be honest with you I do not know anything about that project.

Mr. Cassel stated I will give you a little bit of what I understand. He is taking the data we are sending him. He is putting some of it together. He is working on the report I expect to come out in the next few weeks for him to be able to finalize it.

Mr. Hanks asked do you think we will have a report in September that will identify whether or not there really is an infiltration problem, the likely source of it and the cost for potential fixes as well as what the potential savings are in terms of treatment?

Mr. Cassel responded I will follow up with him and shoot an email out as soon as I know more of what is going on.

Mr. Hanks stated okay.

Mr. Fennell stated engineering project status.

Mr. Johnson stated I will start with Plant F. We are still waiting for the contractor to finalize their report. We began addressing some draft responses and formulating our response, but we are waiting for something formal from them. There were a lot of items which were not addressed in our letter to the contractor regarding Plant F. I will be contacting Joe at ICC tomorrow to find out where they are at because they also have some issues with respect to the grout top on Plant F as well. We are still waiting for responses to that.

Mr. Fennell asked have you and the contractor reached substantial agreement or not on what needs to be fixed?

Mr. Johnson responded no.

Mr. Daly asked but are they continuing to work?

Mr. Johnson responded yes. We are working towards that end.

Mr. Daly stated if it comes down to where nothing is acceptable, then it will have to be restarted; yet we pay for work they are continuing to do.

Mr. Johnson stated there really is not any work continuing to be done out there. They are all on standstill.

Mr. Fennell asked how much left is owed on Plant F?

Mr. Johnson responded for some reason I think it is about 90% we paid on it so there is about $300,000 or $400,000 plus the 10% retainage.

Mr. Fennell asked at this point we are not paying anything more on it right; until we resolve these issues?

Ms. Woodward responded not on Plant F.

Mr. Cassel stated the work they have been doing is related to the topping issue they have had in there. They have an issue with the bonding on the bottom of the tank.

Mr. Johnson stated there is a grout topping which bonds to a six inch slab. The grout topping is approximately two inches thick. There is a six inch floor underneath it. There seems to be some flexure occurring so the grout topping is actually coming loose.

Ms. Zich asked what if we already had liquid in it?

Mr. Johnson responded you probably would not know.

Mr. Cassel stated until you drained it.

Mr. Hanks asked how about the nanofiltration plant?

Mr. Johnson responded it is still moving forward.

Ms. Zich stated I saw a lot of guys out there working today. That is the first time I have seen that many human beings on the site.

Mr. Johnson stated they are continuing to move forward on the brick layers. They will start to have some trusses go in. We are working with the contractor on their submittal for the trusses. We are trying to resolve some issues on that.

Ms. Zich asked they were originally supposed to be done by November; is that right?

Mr. Johnson responded substantial completion. They are installing electrical conduits and wiring which will ultimately connect the high service pumps. They are doing some wiring for electrical equipment. The degasifiers have been out there for a while. The pumps have been installed, but there are no motors on those pumps yet. It is moving forward.

Mr. Fennell asked is there anything more on whether or not we have the go ahead for the canal connections we had put in for approximately $2 Million?

Mr. Cassel responded the last I heard from Ms. Early was what she reported last month. I have not heard anything new.

Mr. Fennell asked is there anything else?

Mr. Hanks responded I understand from Mr. Daly we had some electrical issues this weekend.

Mr. Daly stated I lost about four hubs. I lost a card in the telephone system. We lost the cameras. We got hit pretty hard. The gate was off for a while. What do you think about those lightning restorers we are putting on these new building?

Mr. Johnson responded I do not have a whole lot to offer up as far as an opinion for myself on those.

Mr. Hanks asked what about the lighting restorers we put up on our existing facilities and paid all of that money for?

Mr. Daly responded I agree.

Mr. Hanks asked what types of representations were made to the District?

Mr. Daly responded I will have to go back and look. That was back when Mr. Moore was here.

Mr. Fennell asked did the building actually get hit or did the power lines get hit?

Mr. Daly responded the power went off here too. I know that because of some clocks.

Mr. Fennell stated if that is where it came in from then the lightning rods we have in the building will not be any good if the power lines get hit.

Mr. Daly stated we have surge suppressors everywhere. What is surprising is that it got through somewhere. This happened Saturday night to Sunday morning because Mr. Zilmer was here at 7:00 in the morning on Sunday calling me up to tell me he could not get online.

Mr. Fennell asked was there a power failure at the exact same time?

Mr. Daly responded no. We must have had a lot of lightning out here on Saturday night. We got hit pretty badly and we are doing everything we can to get it all fixed.

Mr. Fennell stated lightning strikes can come in from a whole bunch of different areas. It can come in through the building, it can come in through the power lines and it can come in through the telephone lines. It sounds like it might have come through the power lines.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the July Financials and Check Registers

· Summary of Cash Transactions

· Projected Cash Flows

Mr. Hanks asked considering we are getting close to the end of the fiscal year, are there any last minute adjustments we need to make?

Ms. Woodward responded no. After we close the books on September 30^th we take the first couple of weeks in October to re-evaluate what is in the ledger at that time. If necessary, we suggest to the Board an amendment to reflect any changes which need to be included in that year’s budget.

Mr. Fennell asked how are the water and sewer revenues? Are they favorable?

Ms. Zich responded it looks like we have more water than what we had budgeted last year.

Ms. Woodward stated those are deceptive because we have to guess to a certain degree at the accrual that needs to be made. We try to be as accurate as possible, but you are not going to have a true and accurate reading on it until we close in September and accrue into the next month.

Mr. Hanks asked is there usually some kind of carry over from the last month of the fiscal year to the first month of the next fiscal year?

Ms. Woodward responded that is correct. What we accrue at the end of September has to be backed up to the beginning of October.

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

There not being any,

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

Mr. Daly stated Mr. Fennell, you will notice you have a plaque there.

Mr. Fennell stated yes. Let me mention it. It says with sincere appreciation to the Coral Springs Improvement District for your support of the 33^rd annual Waterway Cleanup. As you all know we donate and I believe many of our people help. It was March 6, 2010. Thank you to everyone who helped with this.

Mr. Daly stated there are a couple of T-shirts up there for the Board members. Also Mr. Gendal contacted us. He is a resident of CSID. Mr. Cassel, Mr. Macintosh, Mr. Stover and I gave him a tour of the facility. He was fascinated.

Mr. Fennell stated I was there for an appointment. He mentioned he was running for office. I mentioned that I was on the CSID Board. He was interested in what we do and I thought it would be appropriate for us to show him what we do here. He is also one of our constituents. Of course we would do the same thing for anyone else who would want to know about our services. When was the last time we put out a newsletter?

Mr. Daly responded it was in 2008.

Mr. Fennell stated I would like to see us put one out by December. Are there any questions, comments or suggestions for the newsletter?

Ms. Zich responded tell them about our construction.

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment

There being no further business,

On MOTION by Ms. Zich seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.

Glen Hanks Robert D. Fennell

Secretary President