MINUTES OF MEETING
NORTH SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
 
            The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the North Springs Improvement District was held Wednesday, April 7, 2010 at 5:05 p.m. in the district office, 10300 N. W. 11 Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.
 
            Present and constituting a quorum were:
 
            Steve Mendelson                                       President
            David Gray                                               Secretary
            Vincent Morretti                                       Assistant Secretary
 
            Also present were:
 
            Doug Hyche                                              District Manager
            Dennis Lyles                                             District Counsel
            Jane Early                                                  District Engineer
            Brenda Schurz                                           District Administrator
            Rod Colon                                                 Director of Operations

            Cory Johnson                                            CH2M Hill

            Dan Suarez                                                CH2M Hill

            Nick Schooley                                           Drainage Supervisor

            Jan Zilmer                                                  Human Resource Director
            Kay Woodward                                        Accountant
            Dan Daly                                                   CSID Director of Operations
            Joe Sabino                                                 HBC Clubhouse Manager

            Barbara Brewin                                         United Community Management

            Rhonda Mossing                                       Prager Sealy & Co.
            Kevin Mulshine                                         Prager Sealy & Co.
            Denise Ganz                                              Ruden McClosky
            David Caldwell                                         WCI
            Donna Holiday                                          GMS-South Florida, LLC
 
 
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS                       Roll Call
            Mr. Hyche called the meeting to order at 5:05 p.m.
 
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS                  Approval of the Minutes of the March 3, 2010 Meeting
            Mr. Hyche stated the next item is approval of the minutes of the March 3, 2010 meeting. 
            Mr. Lyles stated on page 12 where I was describing the CSID rate hearing, it came out as a “public heating” and should be “public hearing”.
 
On MOTION by Mr. Gray seconded by Mr. Mendelson with all in favor the minutes of the March 3, 2010 meeting were approved as amended.
 
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS                      Audience Comments/Board Requests
            There not being any, the next item followed.
 
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                  Consideration of Refunding of Series 1998 Water Management Bonds Series 1994B and 1998 Utility bonds
A.           Presentation from Prager, Sealy & Co., LLC
            Ms. Mossing stated I am passing out to you the presentation that was provided in the agenda package.  You might recall that we came to you last year with a refunding on Parkland Isles and saved the district some money by refinancing the bonds at a lower interest rate so that the assessments could be reduced in that area.  We continue to monitor the district’s outstanding bonds for additional savings where we can find them in today’s current market and what we found was for the district’s water and sewer utility bonds and for the series 1998 water management bonds two areas where the bonds can be refunded.  The first is on slide no. 6 in your presentation the series 1994B and 1998 utility bonds that are currently outstanding can be refunded today for a lower coupon rate along with the refunding and proposal that we received from SunTrust Bank which is a private placement and the reduction of the reserve fund, actually doing away with the reserve fund under their proposal and using those funds to reduce the outstanding par amount of the bond, reduces the cash flow each year for your debt service so that the cash flow goes down on these bonds and lowers debt service payments in excess of $200,000 almost $300,000 a year and provides savings to the district.  In addition we took a look at the series 1998 water management bonds that benefit supplement no. 2 area we found savings there and lowering that interest rate along with reducing that debt service reserve fund by 90% provides an annual cash flow savings for supplement no. 2 area and will provide lower annual assessments for the residents that reside in the supplement no. 2 area. 
            Specifically what we are talking about on the utility bond is we are looking at refunding and then looking at slide no. 11 approximately $20 million in bonds and reissuing $17 million in par amount of debt we would be looking at saving annual debt services of about $4.8 million altogether, annually it will be about $300,000 a year, we would be lowering the coupon from an average of 4.9%, SunTrust locked in the rate today for 90 days at 4.39%.  That rate is good for 90 days which will take us through our projected closing of July 6th which will allow us to close on that date which is approximately 90 days before the bonds can be refunded on October 1st and make it a current refunding.  We feel that would help the district’s cash flow significantly by reducing the annual debt service on those bonds and to benefit your rate analysis that you are currently working on with your rate increases that you are projecting for next month. 
            Moving along to the water management bonds we are looking at refunding on slide 13 $9,180,000 with a current coupon of 5%.  We will be replacing that with new debt in the amount of $8,580,000 with a coupon of 4.39% we would be reducing the reserve fund down to 10% and lowering the annual debt service to reduce that by $90,000 a year and that will result as shown on slide no. 14 in a reduction of annual debt service to the residents in supplement no. 2 area of approximately $32 a year on their annual assessment bill in that area. 
 
            B.      Approval of Commitment Letters from SunTrust
            Ms. Mossing stated we have two commitment letters in your agenda package from SunTrust locking in those rates.  The one commitment letter on the utility bonds did not include the rate and I have that commitment letter today where they locked in the rate at 4.39%.  Interestingly rates did go up since the 4.39% that we were originally proposing.  The rates went up to 4.51% today but SunTrust honored their 4.39% that they had originally proposed because we told them that was what you needed to make these numbers work favorably for this refunding and they honored that rate even though rates had gone up in the last two weeks.  That was very good for the economics of this proposal. 
            I know I presented a lot of numbers and information to you today and if you have any questions I will be happy to answer those for you. 
            Mr. Gray stated you have a flat fee of $25,000 for the 2010 water management bond and $35,000 for the water and sewer bond.
            Ms. Mossing responded that is the proposal from bond counsel and she is here today.  Denise Ganz from Ruden McClosky is going to prepare the new bond resolutions and all the bond documents that will be needed for the closing on the bonds.  That is her proposal to prepare those documents for closing.
            Mr. Gray asked is that all the fees or are there additional fees?
            Ms. Mossing responded those are the bond counsel fees and that is contingent upon closing.
            Mr. Gray stated I understand you are saying those are all the bond counsel fees.  Are those all the fees associated with the transaction from your side?
            Ms. Mossing responded no, those are not all the closings costs. 
            Mr. Gray asked is there something here that shows that?
            Ms. Mossing stated all of the closing costs are coming out of the bond issue.  Everything is calculated into the refunding.  These numbers that I am showing you now are the ones that I ran today and all the costs of issuance and at this time they are estimated to not exceed 2% total and those will be firmed up once we get approval to move ahead then we will contact your district counsel, figure in bond counsel, bank’s counsel, printing costs, trustee fees, underwriter’s fees, closing agent fees, all those fees we will tie those down firmly before we close but right now they are just an estimated fee.  Kevin from my office can talk more about those if you like.
            Mr. Gray asked the original par amount to be refunded is $20 million and the new refunding is $17 million and that difference is based on the fact that we are not having to put up a reserve?
            Ms. Mossing responded right, no reserve fund and a lower coupon. 
            Mr. Mulshine stated right now what you are capitalizing on is that as part of the federal government’s stimulus package there is cap in tax law on how much money can be borrowed by a local government and be bank qualified which is attractive to banks.  It has been at $10 million since 1986.  It went up this year to $30 million only for this year.  As banks become more profitable it is very beneficial for them to own these bonds.  What is happening is the bank was willing, given the credit history of this district, to go ahead and give a lower rate at the same time eliminating the reserves.  When you have several million dollars of reserves on hand and you borrow money at 5% or 6% you currently only reinvest it for ¾% or 1% it is very, very inefficient money so by getting the bank to work under the concept of letting us free up those reserves thus paying down the debt, cleaning up the balance sheet that is the big generator of the reduction of $300,000 a year which is also right in line with the reduction that we worked with your folks in the rate study. 
            Ms. Mossing stated typically you can’t use those reserve funds for anything except for the payment of debt service and what will happen with the reserve funds is in the last year they will be used to pay the last year’s principal and interest on your bonds and they will just sit there until then earning less than 1% of interest.
            Mr. Gray stated then during that year it is not charged to them, it would come off their fees for the year, the people we are assessing.
            Ms. Mossing stated you are not assessing for it, it is water and sewer utility fees so it is debt service that would be there that year.
            Mr. Gray stated it would come out of our budget.
            Ms. Mossing stated right.  Instead what you are doing now is you are using it today to lower your debt service payments each year and it is helping you to keep your rates in tune rather than waiting until the last year to use it. 
            Mr. Gray stated you have a statement in here that says total annual savings $4,840,625.
            Ms. Mossing stated yes and with these updated numbers you will see where that comes from.  If you take the annual savings each year of $200,000 and $277,000 and add those all up each year that is the $4,840,625.
            Mr. Gray stated so it is the total savings over the life of the loan.
            Ms. Mossing responded right.
            Mr. Lyles stated there have been a number of conference calls and I have seen all these documents, earlier drafts as well as everything but the one we just got with the rate in it so I am signed off on the terms and conditions of the commitment letter with SunTrust.  I have done similar transactions with SunTrust and this is in line with the industry and you have heard the numbers from the experts. 
 
On MOTION by Mr. Gray seconded by Mr. Mendelson with all in favor the commitment letters from SunTrust were approved and execution by the proper district officials was authorized.
 
            C.     Approval of Engagement Letter from Bond Counsel
            Mr. Lyles stated as a quick background on this Denise Ganz of Ruden McClosky is here.  This is the form engagement letter that she has submitted.  She was retained as the district’s bond counsel in 2003 or 2004 and she handled all the bond work that the district in the heavy duty year of 2005 and has also been on board with reviewing these documents, has already gone to work on this in anticipation of this appearance today and consideration of her engagement letter.  I have reviewed the letter and find it is in the proper form and it is a fair deal for the district given the complexity of the transaction and the work her firm will have to do in not only preparing documents for the closing but issuing very importantly the necessary opinion letters that go along with this type of transaction and standing behind it. 
            Ms. Ganz stated thank you for the consideration of our engagement letter.  I have worked personally with the district now for many years and am very familiar with its financings.  One of the things that I am excited about is by refunding the utility bond we will have the opportunity to get you a new sort of state of the art bond resolution for the water and sewer bonds.  The existing resolution dates back to 1988 and I think it can use a little freshening up so as you move forward and potentially doing additional financings in the future for your water and sewer system you will have a more modern flexible resolution.  That is one thing besides getting the debt service savings that you will have at least for the water and sewer system a new resolution.  For the water management bonds that system is complete for supplement 2 so there is not going to be any additional financing, there may be a refinancing one day so there is really no need to tinker with that resolution. 
 
On MOTION by Mr. Gray seconded by Mr. Mendelson with all in favor the engagement letter with Ruden McClosky was approved.
 
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                       Consideration of Resolution 2010-03 License Agreement with the City of Parkland to Provide for Access to a Right of Way within the Wedge Piece for Public Safety and Emergency Services
            Mr. Hyche stated item five is consideration of Resolution 2010-03 a license agreement with the City of Parkland providing for access to a right of way within the Wedge piece for public safety and emergency services.
 
On MOTION by Mr. Gray seconded by Mr. Mendelson with all in favor Resolution 2010-03 approving the license agreement with the City of Parkland for access to a right of way within the Wedge piece for public safety and emergency services was approved.
 
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                       Consideration of Arbitrage Engagement Letters to Provide Arbitrage Rebate Services
            Mr. Hyche stated item six is consideration of arbitrage engagement letter to provide arbitrage rebate services.
            Ms. Woodward stated basically whenever you issue municipal bonds the IRS looks at this as a benefit to the district.  The issue is they don’t want a district or municipality to issue bonds and then take the proceeds, not do anything to benefit the constituents, take the money and put it in a bank account and earn a higher rate of interest than they would be paying on the debt so you make a profit on the fact that they allowed you to issue a municipal tax free bond.  What they require in order to make sure that you are not doing that is they require periodic computations on each of your bond issues to basically prove that the expense you paid on the bonds is greater than the interest income you have earned.  Obviously, because of the current nature of what has been going on in the marketplace I think it is pretty obvious to everyone that this computation is going to end up with a zero liability because the rates that you are earning are so low and the rates on the bonds were in a better environment and were at a higher rate.  There will be no liability as a result but the computation is required. 
            Mr. Gray stated so this is just dealing with a regulatory requirement.
            Ms. Woodward responded that is correct.
 
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Gray with all in favor the engagement letter with Grau & Associates to perform arbitrage rebate services was approved.
 
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                Award of Contracts
            A.     Chemical Feed System Project
            Mr. Hyche stated the next item is award of contracts.  The first item is the chemical feed system project.  We bid this project which we discussed at previous meetings.  The bid tabulation is in your agenda for your review. 
            Mr. Gray asked have you used Century Building Restoration before?
            Mr. Colon stated they are actually doing a couple of contracts with us right now.  This was a sealed bid. 
 
On MOTION by Mr. Gray seconded by Mr. Mendelson with all in favor the contract for the chemical feed system project was awarded to Century Building Restoration in the amount of their low bid of $1,342,700.
 
            B.      Booster Pump Station Landscape Upgrade
            Mr. Hyche stated the next item is the booster pump station landscape upgrade. 
            Mr. Colon stated on this one it did not go out for competitive bid we just obtained quotes.  Each one of the contractors was given a set of plans.  We have done business with all three of the contractors on similar work. 
            Mr. Gray asked are we sure it is an apples to apples bid because we discussed in previous meetings that they would be signing on our scopes.  Did we give them a scope?
            Mr. Colon stated we did give them a scope, a set of plans and drawings that were provided by CH2M Hill.  When we do the contract it will be our contract that they will have to sign.
            Ms. Early stated on the plans we included all the specifications right on the plans so there wasn’t going to be any question between the book and the plans and it included everything, that they have to get the permit for the fence for example and pay the permit fee.  We included every single thing on those plans so they shouldn’t come back for any extra on anything. 
 
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Gray with all in favor the contract for the booster pump station landscape upgrade was awarded to World Landscaping Services, Inc. in the amount of their low bid of $117,893.36.
 
            C.     Booster Pump Station Chemical Modifications – Construction Oversight - Electrical
            Mr. Hyche stated item C is a proposal from ADS engineering for their work for the chemical modifications and programming for the PLC at the booster pump station. 
            Mr. Gray stated there are no other bids.  How did we come up with them?
            Mr. Colon responded it is someone we actually use.  He does all the programming for the district.  He originally was on the Hillers team which was specified in the original plans that CH2M Hill provided.  This individual person is the person who has been with the district for many years doing programming and electrical oversight.  This person branched out and started his own company a few years ago and he was the one who was involved in the PLC upgrade project and knows the plant very well. 
            Ms. Early stated he also does all the telemetry at the pump stations.  He is the most familiar with the district’s electrical system.
            Mr. Colon stated if we went with Hillers it would be him who did it anyway. 
 
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Gray with all in favor the proposal from ADS Engineering, PLLC for construction oversight was approved.
 
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                   Consideration of Conveyance Documents Pertaining to the University Drive Buffers
            Mr. Hyche stated item eight is consideration of conveyance documents pertaining to the University Drive buffers.
            Mr. Lyles stated there is a requisition that has been prepared and over a period of months reviewed by CH2M Hill.  This represents acquisition of the improvements to a series of landscape buffers and all the related work, landscaping installation, irrigation, water features, sidewalks.
            Ms. Early stated this is from Trails End north to County Line Road.  WCI had done all the installation themselves. 
            Mr. Gray asked so this is for us to take over responsibility for the buffers.
            Ms. Early stated and the reimbursement.  This is complete, WCI did all the work and need reimbursed from the Parkland Golf & Country Club bond issue.  We have reviewed and verified and I think we reduced it by several hundred thousand dollars of invoices that we couldn’t confirm payment on and Kay reviewed it.  We have been through it.
            Mr. Lyles stated the invoices that were reviewed by staff are another book of documents as thick as this so I did not bring them because the experts have looked at it.  It is a mountain of paperwork that has been reviewed by Jane and Kay and all the numbers with the corrections that Jane referred to that were agreed to by WCI are now recommended as a final figure to the district.  You will need to not only approve this transaction but there are a number of related documents you need to sign.
            Mr. Gray stated this is just the granting of an easement.
            Mr. Lyles stated this is a lot more than that.  There is an easement, a maintenance agreement there is still a construction and access easement for a limited period of time going forward.  Not everything that WCI is building is done so they need to have some temporary authority to cross over this property.  We have a number of certificates.  The acquisition agreement which is part of the documents has already been approved by the district some time ago and it is pursuant to that acquisition agreement to take these improvements once they are done and all the bills are paid and all the releases are in place by WCI we agreed to take them and the total amount of the requisition is a little over $2,700,000.  Those are all the costs and figures that have been reviewed by staff and that comes out of that bond issue.  That is why the bonds were issued in part.
            Ms. Early stated I think an important thing too is the maintenance agreement.  Parkland Golf & County Club HOA is actually going to do the maintenance and that was one of the requirements that we have that maintenance agreement too.  The HOA will hire landscapers to maintain that.  That was part of the package before we would reimburse them. 
            Mr. Gray stated a question was raised a while back and has been raised since to me by a person who lives in there that they are concerned about the legitimacy of all the bills that are being submitted with these refund requests from WCI.  I would personally need a real strong confidence level on that based on the fact that the person who made those comments used to work for that company in the capacity to have knowledge of it. 
            Mr. Lyles stated I think we are aware of that comment that had been received you are not the only one who received it.  I can tell you that I have never seen the amount of documentation and supporting documentation and the number of hours of staff review, internal financial as well as district engineer on any requisition that has ever been presented to this board.
            Ms. Early stated I agree and I have been working on this for months with David Caldwell.  There were copies of checks but they weren’t cancelled checks so he actually went back and found every cancelled check.  If he couldn’t find the cancelled check he agreed we weren’t going to reimburse it.  There were a couple of areas that I felt weren’t part of this project and again met with David and he agreed and that is why we reduced it by maybe $450,000 that we actually took off.  I went through that very, very detailed and I am very confident. 
            Mr. Gray stated so you have the documents to support it.
            Ms. Early responded yes there are two binders full, the drawings as well as all the invoices.
            Mr. Lyles stated if anybody has a question about any dollar spent then we have the documentation and a second set will be on file with the district to back up the reimbursement.
            Ms. Early stated there are even invoices for this project but we just could not confirm payment to the vender with a cancelled check and we didn’t reimburse those. 
            Mr. Gray stated as long as we have the documentation to support ourselves on any questionable thing then I am fine with it. 
 
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Gray with all in favor the conveyance documents for the University Drive buffers were approved and execution of all necessary documents in connection with the conveyances by the proper district officials was authorized.
 
NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                      Staff Reports
            A.     Manager
                     i.       Consideration of Proclamations and Resolutions Pertaining to Water Conservation in Conjunction with South Florida Water Management District
                     Resolution 2010-04 Proclaiming April 2010 as Water Conservation Month
            Mr. Hyche stated the first item is consideration of proclamations.  This is Resolution 2010-04 proclaiming April 2010 as water conservation month.  This was a special request from Carol Morris at South Florida Water Management District.  It requires nothing but a proclamation from this board saying they support this resolution. 
 
On MOTION by Mr. Gray seconded by Mr. Mendelson with all in favor Resolution 2010-04 was approved.
 
                     Resolution 2010-05 Proclaiming May 16-22, 2010 to be Water Reuse Week
            Mr. Hyche stated Resolution 2010-05 proclaiming May 15-22 to be water reuse week.
 
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Gray with all in favor Resolution 2010-05 was approved.
 
                     ii.      Consideration of Easement Agreement between North Springs Improvement District and Parkland Reserve, LLC to Allow the Fence within the Lot M7 Easement and further to Allow the Planting of a Privacy Hedge on the Inside of the Fence
            Mr. Hyche stated item two is consideration of easement agreement between North Springs Improvement District and Parkland Reserve to allow the fence within Lot M7 easement and further to allow the planting of a privacy hedge on the inside of the fence.
            Mr. Lyles stated I need to advise you that the document that is in your agenda package was prepared by Centerline and it made it into the agenda package while this was all still being discussed.  What we are recommending today is you not approve this document but approve instead something you have seen before which is an encroachment agreement.  Because all this happened kind of at the last minute it is in front of you on the dais here.  Essentially this provides that we are allowing them to construct a fence and maintain a fence inside our utility easement but if for any reason we ever need that fence to be removed they are agreeing that (a) it will be removed so that we can use it for our easement purposes and (b) that it will be at the landowner’s expense not the district’s expense and in the meantime they are also agreeing to indemnify and hold the district harmless if anybody is injured out there as a result of their use of the property.  What was prepared by Centerline was their shot at it but it didn’t go far enough in our estimation in terms of protecting the district’s interests in the future so that is why you are getting a substitute document.  Moreover I learned late this afternoon that in between their contact with the district and this meeting they sold and closed on the property with a homeowner.  You have in front of you the document we prepared for Parkland Reserve, LLC to sign as the landowner.  The person who purchased the property is willing to sign this document and that is the one whose signature we need now that there has been a closing and there is a new owner so we will also be modifying the name on the instrument to provide that it is Robin Cohen at 7563 N.W. 113th Avenue.  Other than that all the terms and conditions in our form of encroachment agreement remain the same.
            Mr. Gray asked we have an easement but it is their property?
            Mr. Lyles responded it is a utility easement the underlying fee title is the property owner’s property.  This is a way of us ensuring that if we need to for public purposes at some time in the future get in there, there is a line in there that we may need to access and I think it was an unintentional slip up on the part of the developer, the fence is already there, the person who bought the lot understood the fence was part of the deal, they closed on the transaction.  We have other encroachment agreements in the district here and there where somebody ends up building a pool enclosure or patio or something and it encroaches into one of our easements and this is how we recommend it be handled.
            Mr. Gray stated it is an easement but it is an easement on their property.
            Mr. Lyles responded correct.
            Mr. Gray stated their fence will be on their property but in our easement.
            Mr. Mendelson stated and they are responsible for that fence.
            Mr. Lyles responded yes. 
            Mr. Colon stated we can make them take it down if we need to get in there and they are responsible for putting it back up.
            Mr. Lyles stated this means we have no cost associated with this.
 
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Gray with all in favor the encroachment agreement between the district and Robin Cohen at 7563 N.W. 113th Avenue was approved.
 
            Mr. Hyche stated there is a right of way permit that goes with this item which is in front of you as well. 
            Ms. Early stated I did a permit review that basically says the same thing that Dennis is going to put in his encroachment easement, that we are aware the fence is there with the stipulation that if the district has to get in there it is at the owner’s expense. 
 
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Gray with all in favor the right of way permit for the fence encroachment at 7563 N.W. 113th Avenue was approved.
 
 
                     iii.     2009 Stormwater Quality Report
            Mr. Hyche stated the stormwater quality report is included in your agenda package.
 
                     iv.     Purchase of High Pressure Jetting Trailer
            Mr. Hyche stated the next item is purchase of a high pressure jetting trailer.
            Mr. Colon stated historically we have shared this type of equipment between us and CSID.  I think CSID purchased it in 1999 and it is a little over 10 years old and with the growth of the district we probably need our own to go ahead and do sewer backups and so forth.
            Mr. Hyche stated historically we have been sharing, however, if CSID has a problem out there with a stoppage and we have a stoppage in North Springs since it belongs to CSID they have preference. 
 
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Gray with all in favor the contract for purchase for the high pressure jetting trailer was awarded to U.S. Jetting, LLC in the amount of their low bid of $37,982.
 
                     v.      Water Production Reports
            Mr. Hyche stated the water production reports are included in your agenda package.
 
            B.      Attorney
            Mr. Lyles stated as a quick update on our legislation to amend our boundaries, we are making our way in Tallahassee through the various committees that review it and amazingly to me with the staff up there they have several times submitted back to us rewritten versions of the bill, they keep changing the legal.  We had it checked by the engineers that prepared the legal and they said no, they made a mistake.  The language of the bill isn’t a problem.  They keep fooling with the legal.  I don’t know what basis they have for fooling around with what a surveyor has prepared and submitted but we are having to deal on a weekly basis with the staff, not the committees and elected officials but the staff.  We keep trying to keep them on the right line and we made sure the engineers working for the district and for the property owners that are involved and primarily it is the Huizinga piece they keep fooling with, but their engineer is right on top of it.  Rod and I got together and analyzed what would be appropriate given what is going on and we have been using a little bit of that budget that you set aside for special legislative help to have a lobbying firm in Tallahassee tracking this and making sure everything is on track and other bills that might be affecting us in the future so that has been going on as well. 
            Mr. Gray asked did we wrap up the Centerline deal?
            Mr. Lyles responded yes, this matter that came before you today had nothing to do with any of that. 
 
            C.     Engineer
                     i.       Consideration of Work Authorization No. 198 (2-3-10) Construction Phase Services for Water Treatment Chemical Feed System Improvements for a Lump Sum Not to Exceed $198,375
            Mr. Hyche stated item one is consideration of work authorization no. 198 construction phase services for water treatment chemical feed system improvements for a lump sum not to exceed $198,375.  This is engineering services during construction. 
            Mr. Colon asked is there a certain percentage that CH2M Hill does on their construction services such as 12% or 10.5%?  This one seems to be 15%.  I know in the past CSID has paid 12% for construction services.  Why are we at 15% for this particular work authorization?
            Mr. Johnson stated the project came in at $1.3 million.
            Mr. Colon stated which is 15%.
            Mr. Johnson stated I think it is closer to 12% but either way the economy of scale of something of this size you still have the same amount of field work.  If you are building a building that has a bunch of tanks inside it you are still going to have to have that field oversight, you are still going to have the same amount of submittals.  If you have a building that has 10 chemical tanks or one chemical tank you have one submittal.  You have a certain economy of scale as buildings get larger as projects get larger the fee on a percentage basis goes down.  We really don’t like to work towards a percent of construction fee rather than we estimate based on the amount of hours and the approved rates that you have for us to apply to the services that are needed.
            Mr. Colon stated I know in the past there was some discussion at the CSID board meeting in the minutes where you guys were talking about 7 ½% for construction services.  Is that only on certain occasions?
            Mr. Johnson responded yes that would be a fairly large project and the other thing is right now I would never go forward with a percent of construction as the services during construction estimate simply because right now you have two things working against that.  One of them is you have historically low prices but along with those historically low prices, contractors are taking smaller profits on the jobs and they are looking for ways to make more money or cut corners on these projects so my feeling is that now would be the time you want more oversight rather than less oversight simply because spending a little bit of money on additional engineering could save you hundreds of thousands of dollars in claims down the road from a contractor who is looking to change order the job and make more money.
            Mr. Gray stated at the same time though your listed hours of being on the job is only 10 hours a week so you are not doing excessive oversight.  It is 40 hours a month for 10 months so it is 400 hours but 10 hours a week is certainly not an excessive amount of supervision.  The other concern I have and we have discussed this in other meeting is that as the economy has gone down and everybody is working for less the part I don’t understand is the fact that you guys don’t work for less you get the same money you used to get.  I don’t know anybody in our industry that is doing that at the moment including our engineers and architect who work for me.
            Mr. Johnson stated to be honest with you on this one here we have actually taken a cut in our fee the original estimate was higher than that and we have been working with the district with Rod and Doug to bring that down.  The other thing is that 10 hours a week field time is just the tip of the iceberg.  On top of that we have submittal review where the contractors are submitting submittals.
            Mr. Gray stated I was referring to your comment that you had to watch them closer.  That is field review watching them closer. 
            Mr. Johnson stated there is also RFI review, change order management, project management, there are a lot of other things that go into it not just simply field services and inspections that go on out in the field.  There is a lot more that goes on. 
            Mr. Colon stated you said the 7 ½% was based on the size of the project.  The board is about to get another work authorization for $1.6 million what is the estimated project on that, $16 million?
            Mr. Johnson responded I think that $16 million is for the first phase of the project, for the full 10 MGD it is going to be substantially higher than that.
            Mr. Colon stated you submitted a quote which the board didn’t get because we are still reviewing it.  What was your construction services for that?
            Mr. Johnson responded construction services for that based on a time and materials contract and not knowing what exactly was going to be built, being as the scope of the project wasn’t built I think we were at $2.1 million.
            Mr. Colon asked what percentage would that be based on a $16 million project?  It would still be 15% or 16% wouldn’t it?
            Mr. Johnson responded that may be but again we have such lack of definition that we don’t know what the price of that is going to be.  It could be that we get further down the road and there is going to be a substantially higher cost because you want to build more, you have favorable bond conditions.
            Mr. Colon stated we just did a rate study based on your quotes on what you think the project is going to be and that is what we are basing the rates on.
            Mr. Johnson stated I would caution you that CH2M Hill has not done the capital planning for that.  We have discussed that number as a number we could work with as far as constructing the water treatment plant but we have not pinned down a definite scope of what that $16 million would include.  I think that was more of a moving target towards we can construct your first phase of the R.O. facility and it would be able to meet your needs of that $16 million but there may be some give and take during what you would actually construct.
            Mr. Gray asked let me ask what you said before you continue.  I want to clarify what you said so I understand what just took place.  I could swear that you just said that part of the money was for something that you didn’t know could occur in the future.  Didn’t you just say that since we don’t know how much, part of that funding isn’t the same part of the actual $16 million because there could be more but we don’t know what it is but if we don’t know what it is, how is a figure determined?
            Mr. Colon stated I don’t know how they determined the $2.1 million.
            Mr. Gray stated I’m asking him.
            Mr. Johnson stated we had limited involvement in the development of the capital improvement plan.  The $16 million or $17 million would not purchase you a 10 MGD plant.  We would have a first phase of the project that would be 2 ½ MGD to 5 MGD.
            Mr. Colon asked weren’t you at that meeting between me, Dan Daly, Kay, Jane and didn’t we have a rate study meeting where you agreed that that dollar amount would be sufficient to build it?
            Mr. Johnson responded that dollar amount would be sufficient to build the first phase of the project, yes.
            Mr. Gray asked how much is the first phase of the 10 MGD?
            Mr. Johnson responded I don’t know. 
            Mr. Colon stated our rate study said it was $16 million.
            Mr. Gray asked what percentage because you are saying it is 10 MGD, if this is the first phase how many is the first phase?
            Mr. Colon responded my understanding is the whole project was $16 million.
            Mr. Gray stated from him.  How much are we talking about 25% of it, are we talking 50% of it?  When you say first phase what are you saying, what does that mean?
            Mr. Johnson responded the first phase of the project would be 2.5 MGD to 5 MGD.
            Mr. Gray stated 25% so you are talking a $30 million to $60 million job.  Is that what we are saying?
            Mr. Johnson stated let me clarify my understanding.  We have a first phase of this project and the first phase is to replace or provide redundancy in the plant of 2.5 MGD R.O. facility.  That would provide your redundancy and you have an aging treatment unit out there and that 2.5 MGD will provide that redundancy and backup.  For that $16 million you would build your building for the full expansion so that you don’t have to go back and build the building again that way it is much more modular and you add additional 2.5 MGD per phase.  The other thing that would include would be some chemical feed systems and a degassifier system.  What it would not include would likely be the backup generator system simply because you wouldn’t need to buy that right now because you have enough capacity in the event of emergency to serve your residents.  Future phases once the equipment at the site becomes too old and once the demand increases you would expand your R.O. facility by another 2.5 MGD.
            Mr. Gray stated which takes you to 5 MGD and we are looking for 10 MGD.
            Mr. Colon stated the work authorization that he will be submitting that went out under separate cover was to design the whole 10 MGD which at that point we will go out to bid and design all the phases.  We get that number back which we are thinking is going to be $16 million we think it is going to be lower than that.  They had submitted another work authorization which Doug and I are still reviewing and we are not satisfied with it for construction services for $2.1 million which is more than the design itself which would take us to about 15% on the cost of the project of what we think it is.  Based on his previous statement he said that the percentage is based on the size and the $198,000 for this project is based on a $1.3 million and that is 15%.  The one they just submitted was 15% and that is a bigger size project.  We are just trying to figure out what we are actually being charged for construction services.  We think 15% is too much.  CSID was charged 12% and we think 15% is too much.  We think now we should be 12% or even lower than that.
            Mr. Gray stated if I understood the earlier statement he is saying it is not 15% because it includes the services for the whole thing even though we don’t know when it is going to be built, how much it is going to cost and everything else.  Is that what you are saying?
            Mr. Johnson stated what I’m saying is we were asked to put together a services during construction for the first phase of the project a project that has not even been designed yet.  We have done this on a time and materials basis.  Given the fact that we are throwing darts in the dark we put together an estimate that was going to have enough size to it, we were basically asked to put together an estimate for budgeting purposes is my understanding.  Obviously, as we get further along and we get more refinement we are much more comfortable in bringing that fee down but right now we are throwing darts in the dark.  I can’t sit there and come forward and say we are going to put together this SDC scope when we don’t even have a design package to base our estimate off of.
            Mr. Gray stated what you just said is your fee really isn’t based on any objective.
            Mr. Johnson stated our fee is based on certain assumptions that have enough contingency in there to where you can budget for enough and we feel comfortable providing you guys a number.  Again, once we get further into the project and we have some definition, we had to make broad assumptions that for example this would be an 18 month duration and in an 18 month duration you would have an inspector and a resident construction manager onsite full time for something of that size for a $16 million to $20 million project you would have somebody onsite full time.  We had to make those assumptions we don’t know how many submittals there are going to be so we made an assumption of a number of submittals that we would have to review as your engineer.  We made assumptions on the number of meetings we would be having but again there is not even a design out there right now so we can’t tell you right now the number we are comfortable with.  That, right now with zero definition is the number we are comfortable with providing to you now.  It is a time and materials number and if we don’t work the hours you don’t get charged the hours.
            Mr. Gray asked are you saying that you are going to bring back a change that reduces money?  You have come in with increases in money but I don’t recall one coming back that says we are giving you money back since I have been here.
            Mr. Johnson stated no, what I’m saying is for a $2.1 million fee with no definition I’m saying that probably is high but we don’t know what we are going to have to do.
            Mr. Colon stated we asked him to come back with a construction services fee, we didn’t want to be surprised in the future.  Basically the work authorization that Doug had forwarded to you was for $1.6 million for design which came down quite a bit from what it originally was.  We don’t want to be surprised with a high construction fee to try to make up his costs in the future.  That is why we want to know what they are going to charge us for construction services.
            Mr. Gray stated you are also saying it is the design of the 10 MGD and he is saying it is not the design of the whole thing. 
            Mr. Hyche stated it is a design for 10 MGD.
            Mr. Johnson stated we are doing a complete 10 MGD design, we are putting together four bid packages so that let’s say tomorrow the Wedge comes in and you need to add another 2.5 MGD you can do it quickly because you have the bid package in hand and we take it and put it out on the street so it is ready to go.
            Mr. Gray asked so you are designing the whole facility.
            Mr. Johnson stated we are doing the whole thing.  The first package will be the 2.5 MGD which will be bid out.  If we find that you would like to have the 5 MGD rather than the 2.5 MGD because prices are still favorable that is the moving target I’m talking about.  You have an alternate buying opportunity right now so maybe you would want to do 5 MGD instead of 2.5 MGD but as we get further into the design, as we get any design done we will have cost estimates that we can work with them on and say this makes sense to add or this does not make sense right now simply because of what you have bonded right now, the money that you have.  Again, we have very little definition at this phase right now.  That is why the services during construction fee for an R.O. building is what it is.  Again, we have no definition whatsoever. 
            Mr. Colon stated staff thinks it should be around 12% for the $198,000.
            Mr. Gray stated let’s deal first with the chemical feed system.  What is the percentage it is coming in at?
            Mr. Colon responded $196,000 is 15% if it is a $1.3 million project.
            Mr. Gray stated I thought it was $198,375.
            Ms. Schurz stated it has been amended. 
            Mr. Gray stated that is not a small number.  It is not a little tiny job.
            Mr. Mendelson stated I feel we should put this out on a re-bid.
            Mr. Hyche stated I’m assuming you would have to do an RFQ for engineering services.
            Mr. Colon stated unless CH2M Hill is willing to drop their price to the 12% which is historically what the district has been charged.  I don’t see why it should be 15% now. 
            Mr. Johnson stated actually we had a conversation with Doug and Rod early on in the project and Doug had said that 17% was actually the number.
            Mr. Hyche stated I think I came back to you and said I misquoted that and that was not correct.
            Mr. Gray stated I wouldn’t expect that anything he said to have any relevance on your bill.  I don’t care if he said 40% I wouldn’t expect you to come back with 35%.  I don’t think that is the relevant point of your proposal.  I think what is relevant is whether or not it is a fair price for what we are asking to have done. 
            Mr. Mendelson stated it should be 12%.
            Mr. Colon stated I think it should be 12% if not less.
            Mr. Gray stated I’m looking at the breakdown of how you do a proposal and it just says, as an example, I have two items listed, construction phase services lump sum, construction phase services time and material not to exceed.  What you are saying if I understand correctly on that money back part for instance is that under construction phase services that is a set figure under time and materials not to exceed if you didn’t get up to that not only would you not charge me more but you would give me a refund on it.  Is that what you are saying?
            Mr. Johnson stated if we don’t spend all the T & M money then you don’t get billed.
            Mr. Lyles stated how you would know in the time and materials phase is for payment to go through the requisition process and go to them they have to submit supporting documentation, they identify of the individual, whether it was a surveyor or engineer or field person how much time, what day they were there, and the staff reviews those.  It almost sounds like the problem here is that the board would be more comfortable if the whole thing were on a time and materials basis with a not to exceed figure.  That way you have given your not to exceed number based on contingencies that you don’t know whether or not they are going to occur looking into the future so you are provided some protection but in the meantime in order to actually be compensated you have to support it with presentation of documents that will satisfy the staff that different individuals at different levels on their fee schedule did different numbers of hours of work on certain days and the staff would be spot checking and out there making sure people are there when they are supposed to be there.  That way you know that every hour you are being billed for engineering services someone actually performed as opposed to a lump sum that may or may not work out to be a good deal for somebody.  I am listening to the back and forth and I’m hearing concern about a lump sum mechanism for this particular work authorization. 
            Mr. Gray stated it is not even a final bill because on the back page under assumptions it says all post construction services including the preparation of record drawings, start up assistance, preparation of O&M manuals are not included.  Although hopefully, that wouldn’t be a big number but basically what you are saying is correct.  One of the problems I have is there seem to be an awful lot of assumptions but the assumptions are being locked into a price.  If those assumptions are not correct then I’m paying for something that never actually occurred. 
            Mr. Mendelson stated I agree with you.  How do we know?  You can put anything down on paper.  You can get a bill saying I did this, that and the other thing but how do you know that stuff is being done and this is what we are paying for? 
            Mr. Gray stated my concern is that it is a reasonable competitive price for what would normally be charged under the services.  I don’t know that because this isn’t my specialty.  I don’t build this type of facility.
            Mr. Hyche stated as a point of interest CSID put out a bid for a 7 ½ million gallon membrane treatment plant and a 2 million gallon wastewater plant and that total came in $18,150,000 and that is with retainage.
            Mr. Mendelson asked that is for the entire project?
            Mr. Hyche stated that is the hard cost. 
            Mr. Lyles stated against the $16 million that they described earlier, that is the apples to apples except that is a bigger project and it has more components to it so $16 million seems to be realistic.
            Mr. Johnson stated I will say there have been escalations in material costs from when that was actually bid to now and copper prices have gone up, steel prices have gone up.  I would be careful not to underestimate what this could cost. 
            Mr. Gray stated I don’t think that material cost increases are relative to the engineer’s fees.  Because I am in the business and you are correct steel is going up but labor isn’t going up.  Labor is actually offsetting many of those increases.  Those fees I do believe could impact us and there is no question they are going to because that is what is going on right now.  But I don’t think that is relative to the other side of the equation.  We may have to pay more for material but that shouldn’t in hand take the engineer’s fee with it.  I’m concerned that our engineering fees are properly done.  I’m not a specialist to say it is or it isn’t. 
            Mr. Colon stated just to reiterate they are asking for $196,000 based on a project that is 15% and we think it should be at 12% which would make it about $156,000. 
            Ms. Early stated just as an example not on a building because I don’t ever go by a percentage and just to give you an example.  The Parkland Golf & Country Club lakes were built I think that was a $10 million construction project and I think our inspection services were about $200,000.  I can’t put a percentage on something like that.  If it were $20 million we still would have done the same amount of work.  On a building like Cory was trying to explain I don’t work on vertical construction so I can’t really say, I know there are a lot of submittals.  I’m just trying to say I don’t really do a percentage. 
            Mr. Gray stated I work on vertical construction and vertical construction is nowhere near that kind of fee on engineer’s fees.  The fee has to be somewhere else other than what I am familiar with because vertical construction isn’t that high a fee.  Percentage or otherwise meaning the hours aren’t there in vertical construction.  I think 10 hour a week you are only talking about 2 hours a day so I think that is moderate I don’t think that is heavy or light I think that is a pretty normal amount but those type of hours are not $196,000.  Without a good clear idea of where the rest of it is coming from I’m not clear.
            Mr. Hyche asked if the board would like this to be on a time and materials with a number not to exceed we can do that.  If it exceeds that cost they can come back to the board.
            Mr. Gray stated we just said not to exceed.
            Mr. Lyles stated not to exceed just means that the authority that you are giving is only up to that cap.  If they encounter something regulatory or otherwise and they have to do extra work they show you what they did extra and ask you to approve it and you will or you won’t. 
            Mr. Gray stated what we are saying upfront is the time and material period is identified so it is not a lump sum that we get to the fee and we come back and ask for more which has occurred in the past on a lump sum contract.  We are looking for something that will give me a confidence level that (1) I’m getting charged the right price for what I’m getting and (2) that the services if they do go over for some unexpected reason are identified and clearly pointed out so we can understand them and see that it occurred and not just a dollar thing that hey we went over and here is what it is.
            Mr. Hyche stated that would be on the staff level to review any scheduling, any invoices.
            Mr. Gray stated correct that is what I’m looking for.
            Mr. Hyche stated that is where we are headed.
            Mr. Gray stated your recommendation on this is that it is currently too high for what we are talking about. 
            Mr. Hyche stated yes.
            Mr. Mendelson asked are we going to table this now?
            Mr. Colon stated I think we have to renegotiate with CH2M Hill.
            Mr. Gray stated if you can work that out and get it back to us when you feel confident so you can make a recommendation to us that we can feel confident about and it will be fine. 
            Mr. Morretti stated if you break it down it is $19,600 a month to supervise the job and that is a lot of money.  I do know that 12% used to be a good average for construction supervision from 5 to 7 years ago to 8, 9 and 10 years ago so maybe that price has come down to 10%.  It used to be 12% in the height of construction.  It has to be negotiated and looked into.
            Mr. Gray stated we need your recommendation to feel good about it.  I don’t believe in voting against staff.
            Mr. Hyche stated we will go back to CH2M Hill. 
 
                     ii.      Consideration of Amendment No. 1 to Work Authorization 176-1 for Water Use Permit Assistance for a Net Increase Not to Exceed $10,475
            Ms. Early stated we are pulling this because the original work authorization has money left in it so we don’t need additional money for the additional work we are going to do.
 
                     iii.     Consideration of Change Order No. 1 & Final for Pump Station No. 1 Re-Piping for a Net Decrease of $15,000
            Mr. Hyche stated item three is consideration of the final balancing change order for pump station no. 1 re-piping for a net decrease of $15,000.
            Ms. Early stated this is pump station no. 1.  If you recall we bid it and then Rod rebid it again because the contractor went out of business.  This contract actually closed out at the exact contract amount.  There was a $15,000 contingency in there that wasn’t used so we are deducting the contingency. 
 
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Gray with all in favor change order no.1 and final for pump station no. 1 re-piping for a net decrease of $15,000 was approved.
 
                     iv.     Award of Contract for County Line Road West Phase 1 & 2
            Ms. Early stated as you will recall at the last board meeting we brought in the bids for County Line Road and we rejected the bids and went out to rebid because the low bidder didn’t show up for the prebid meeting.  We readvertised the exact same project.  I had some alternate bids in the first go around and I included the alternate bids in the bid because the way the numbers were coming in on the alternates it wasn’t going to save us any money.  I put all the items under the bid and the first time we had 13 bidders and this time we only had 6 because I think some people realized they couldn’t get close to the number.  We actually saved some money on the rebid and the low bid was submitted by Hardrives at $1,888,572.56.  They were second on the first go around and they came in first on the rebid.  They have a pit in the Wedge so they are probably saving a lot of money there because they have material.  We are recommending award of the contract to Hardrives.  This project is funded through the Heron Bay North assessment bond. 
 
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Gray with all in favor the contract for County Line Road West Phase 1 & 2 was awarded to Hardrives in the amount of their low bid of $1,888,572.56.
 
                     v.      Project(s) Status Report
            Mr. Hyche stated we have basically gone over this earlier.  The reverse osmosis we are looking at design and planning we talked about. 
            Mr. Gray asked when we were talking about the rate study was that for 2.5 MGD?
            Mr. Colon stated the rate study was for all the capital projects including a 10 MGD.
            Mr. Gray asked the number assumed in the rate study for the 10 MGD was what?
            Mr. Colon stated we had the workshop and were all in consensus that it was going to be somewhere around $16 million and we think it is going to come in a little less.
            Mr. Gray asked for the full 10 MGD?
            Mr. Colon responded for the full R.O. plant.
 
            Work Authorization No. 199
            Mr. Hyche stated we have work authorization 199 for the reverse osmosis plant design and permitting.  The original quote for this was $2.1 million and it went to $1.9 million and now we are down to $1.6 million for the design and permitting.
            Mr. Gray stated so we are at 10% not including any supervision just working on the first 2.5 MGD.
            Mr. Colon stated this is for the design of the entire plant.  There is no supervision just design and permitting. 
            Mr. Mendelson asked where it says the design of the facility is it an architect’s conception of what is going to be happening, or the actual layout of the design?
            Mr. Johnson responded it will have an architectural rendering.
            Mr. Mendelson stated this figure we have of $1.638 million.  Do you have any idea what the architect’s fee is?
            Mr. Johnson responded that is a portion of the fee. 
            Ms. Early asked do you mean just for the rendering?
            Mr. Johnson stated the architectural portion is pretty small compared to the actual mechanical and electrical design. 
            Mr. Gray stated the biggest problem I’m having is the previous conversation we had about the fact that it is way up there and we are not really sure what is going on and what it is going to be. 
            Mr. Hyche stated we negotiated with Cory the price and looking at it closer and getting the design down comparing it to designs that we know of Cory narrowed it down to $1.6 million.  Is that an estimate?
            Mr. Johnson responded that is the lump sum fee.
            Mr. Colon stated we think it is a fair price.  This is the design so we can put it out for competitive bid.  We are still going to negotiate with CH2M Hill on the construction services but the first step is to design it. 
            Mr. Mendelson asked under A1 where it says task, design the facility.  That is the architectural design of the facility?
            Mr. Johnson responded that includes architectural, electrical, mechanical, all the equipment that goes into there that is soup to nuts.  That is the design.
            Mr. Gray asked this includes permitting?
            Mr. Johnson responded yes.
            Mr. Gray asked so you are going to draw and permit the entire facility and you are only going to build a portion of the facility?
            Mr. Hyche stated it is going to be designed for a 10 MGD facility to go in that spot but the portion inside will be brought in, the membranes are brought in an actual train so we do them in phases. 
            Mr. Johnson stated the structure is what you mostly permit with the building department.  After that you are basically adding mechanical equipment. 
            Mr. Gray asked so specifically you are building a large building?
            Mr. Hyche responded yes. 
            Mr. Colon stated this is to design the building with the entire 10 MGD in there.
            Mr. Johnson stated there will be ancillary structures.
            Mr. Morretti asked what is the footprint of the property the proposed building is going on?
            Mr. Colon stated in a previous work authorization CH2M Hill did some plotting of where the building would go.  We have already paid for a complete site analysis.  All the previous work authorizations have led up to this.
            Ms. Early stated it is at the existing plant. 
            Mr. Gray asked what is your recommendation?
            Mr. Colon responded we can go as far as saying it is a good price, it was negotiated and we think it is a good price and that is our recommendation.
 
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Gray with all in favor work authorization 199 for the design and permitting of the reverse osmosis water plant in the amount of $1.4 million was approved.
 
            Mr. Colon stated this is for advisement and is not in your package.  Recently the electrician we were using is a CSID employee who put in his two weeks notice to CSID.  He had stated that he wanted to be closer to his house.  The electrician basically is a good electrician and we didn’t want to see him walk out the door so with the board’s permission we would like to hire him.  It would be the same arrangement and wouldn’t cost us any extra because we were already paying for half his salary between us and CSID. 
            Mr. Gray asked do you have full time employment for him because you said you were only paying for half his salary.
            Mr. Colon responded CSID is still going to utilize him in that capacity half of what his salary is.  It is just a personnel move and he is going to come to us.  It is not going to cost us anything. 
 
TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS                     Approval of Financials and Check Registers
            Mr. Hyche stated the next item is approval of the financials and check registers.
 
On MOTION by Mr. Gray seconded by Mr. Mendelson with all in favor the check registers were approved.
 
On MOTION by Mr. Mendelson seconded by Mr. Gray with all in favor the meeting adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
 

 

 

 

 

                                                                                                                                          

David Gray                                                                    Steve Mendelson

Secretary                                                                        President