MINUTES OF MEETING

CORAL SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held Monday, January 27, 2003 at 4:00 P.M. in the District Office, 10300 N. W. 11 Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum were:

Robert Fennell President

William Eissler Secretary

Karl Miller Vice President

Also present were:

Gary L. Moyer Manager

Rhonda K. Archer Finance Director

Dennis Lyles Attorney

Donna Holiday Recording Secretary

John McKune Gee & Jenson

Roger Moore Engineer

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call

Mr. Fennell called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the November 25, 2002 Meeting

Mr. Fennell stated that each Board member had received a copy of the minutes of the November 25, 2002 meeting and requested any additions, corrections or deletions,

There not being any,

On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the minutes of the November 25, 2002 meeting were approved as submitted.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Award of Contract for the Purchase of a Loader/Backhoe

Mr. Moyer stated included in your agenda package is a memorandum from Mr. Moore outlining the bid process and his recommendation.

Mr. Miller asked do we currently have this piece of equipment?

Mr. Joyce responded yes, it is about 12 years old.

Mr. Moyer stated this is a budgeted item in our capital projects budget.

Mr. Moore stated my recommendation is to go with the second low bidder since the low bidder did not conform to the bid specs as outlined in my memo.

On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Miller with all in favor the low bidder was determined to be in non conformance and the contract for the purchase of a backhoe/loader was awarded to the second low bidder, Nortrax Equipment Co., Inc. in the amount of $49,316.00.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Request for Permit Modification for Centerline Commercial, Cypress Run, Parcel C-C, Canal L-203

Mr. Moyer stated included in your agenda package is a copy of a permit that the District issued in 1994 for the original surface water management and drainage outfall. This is a modification of that permit and as indicated in the letter they propose the construction of a .2 and .08 acre dry retention area for an office park with an existing drainage system and retention area to be refurbished and reshaped. They will use the new dry retention area and existing drainage system for both quantity and quality with no direct outfall connection. Rather than discharging into the L-203 Canal, this is an onsite modification and is beneficial to us in that it reduces the pollutant loadings going into the canal.

On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the permit modification for Centerline Commercial, Parcel C-C, Cypress run was approved subject to the conditions listed in the engineer’s review letter.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Work Authorization No. 21 For Wells 8, 9, 10 & 11

Mr. Moyer stated this is for contract administration and construction observation services for the installation of the four new wells that the Board recently awarded.

Mr. McKune stated construction is going slower than I would like but we are working around the schedule of the city park. We have one well that is totally developed and we are ready to do the testing. Once the testing is done on that well, we will purchase the pumps for all four wells. Most of the piping between the wells is already installed. The wells are powered with the existing emergency generator that is already installed. That gives us four new wells that can operate during a hurricane or if FP&L is out of service. That more than doubles your emergency well water supply.

On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Miller with all in favor Work Authorization No. 21 for Wells 8, 9, 10 & 11 was approved.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Change Orders

A. Change Orders for Water Plant

Mr. McKune stated Change Order No, 1 is for the Water Treatment Units Rehabilitation contract. As we got into the job we were able to take down the largest of the three units and totally refurbished it interior-wise, got rid of all of the calcified caked on lime, put in a new spray ring, did some metal repairs, blasted and coated it and put it back into service. That plant will be able to operate for a good number of years. Any other repairs that may be necessary can be made with the plant in operation. We put that plant back into operation and moved over to Plant No. 2 which is the second largest plant that we have and the more we got into it, the more it fell apart. We are talking about those items that are not observable until a plant is totally down and we take off some of the calcified lime, and look at what metal is left. You get under the catwalks, the support platforms for the large impeller and drive unit and the extensive pan under the aerator with support members underneath. None of that is able to be rehabbed. Unfortunately we didn’t anticipate this degree of repair when we took the bids. We tried to reduce the amount as much as possible by putting in the amount to rehab Plant No. 2 and deducting as much as we could from the remaining work on the other two plants. The thought being for the third plant which is the smallest of the three, we will rebid in another project. Therefore, we can reduce this particular job as much as possible.

Mr. Eissler stated the original plant has probably lived its life and short of building a new plant, there is not much we can do and you can’t find out what is underneath it until you take it down.

Mr. Moyer stated the first plant was built in 1974. The second plant that Mr. McKune is talking about was built in 1978. The third plant was built in 1984. They have been around a long time.

Mr. Fennell asked what does a new plant cost today?

Mr. McKune responded a lot depends on the ancillary work. If you are just talking about the plant itself, it is about $1.00 per gallon of capacity. A 3 MGD plant is $3 Million. You don’t want to bulldoze it and build a new one.

Mr. Miller stated the problem is that we continue to get change orders and the three of us have no objective way of knowing if this is a normal experience for similar boards or if this is something that can be avoided and handled in a different fashion. I am not very convinced that we are handling everything in a totally economical manner. It just seems that we do things randomly. I don’t know if there is a better way to do it. There are audit services that will look at the entire facility and will give an outline of what should be done and a cost effective way of doing it.

Mr. Fennell asked what exactly are we doing for the water treatment plants?

Mr. McKune responded we are refurbishing all three treatment units. You will have a totally new pumping system, new electrical power and control system with new high service pumps. You have enough high service pumps to carry you forever with sufficient redundancy that you should be able to operate during peak periods with the largest pump out of service. You have enough emergency generator capacity to run everything you need to run during a hurricane. You are in much better shape than most utilities, or you will be when this is done. We have three water plants and we want a fourth water plant which will be a redundant plant to be equal in capacity to the largest of the three that we presently have.

Mr. Miller stated we had an outside audit done once but it didn’t address the issues I wanted to see addressed. Considering the amount of money being spent, do you think it would be worthwhile to have someone come in and give us a long term outlook? We are spending a lot of money on one opinion.

Mr. Moyer stated whoever comes in the base line you start with is, we have a lime softening treatment system and there are changes in technology and a lot of people are now going to membrane softening which is cleaner and nicer and the membranes are inside a building and it is totally different from what we are doing. In order to go from our current technology to membrane softening would probably be a very big number.

Mr. McKune stated you would be starting from scratch. Had membrane been available when we did these plants, we would have used it.

Mr. Moyer stated if you change technology, what is the cost and if you keep what you have and look at what has been proposed by Gee & Jenson in the five year capital projects plan, it all starts to make some sense in that context.

Mr. McKune stated four or five years ago we presented our estimates of what it would take to totally rehab the water plants and wastewater plants. When we started out it was $4 million to $5 million on the water side and up to $10 million on the wastewater side. Those numbers were reduced in working with Mr. Moyer and doing this in phases. We are trying to make this as cost effective as possible and keep the rates low.

On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor change Orders 1 with Intrastate Construction. for the Water Treatment Units Rehabilitation Contract in the amount of $68,237.29, Change Order No. 4 with Intrastate Construction Corp. for the water Treatment Plant Improvements Contract in the amount of $139,482.31 and change Order No. 5 with Intrastate Construction Corp. for the Water Treatment Plant Improvements Contract in the amount of $43,987.08 were approved.

B. Change Orders for Wastewater Treatment Plant

Mr. McKune outlined in detail Change Order No. 3 and Change Order No. 4 for the wastewater treatment plant.

On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Miller with all in favor Change Order No. 3 in the amount of $124,851.49 and an additional 65 days and Change Order No. 4 in the amount of $42,627.52 with Intrastate Construction Corp. for the Wastewater Plant Improvements Phase I contract were approved.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports

A. Attorney

Mr. Lyles stated as you are aware the District must submit a draft bill codifying its special acts and amendments into a single act. All districts in Florida are required to do that by 2004 so we have one more year to do this. We did this, this past year as we have on two previous occasions by submitting 30 copies of the proposed codification bill with the changes mandated including repealing all acts relating to the District. Last October 4, this bill was submitted with all the copies and economic impact statement and other technical requirements to the Legislative Delegations Executive Director. We were notified they received it and we were listed on a list of special acts that would be subject to public hearings early in 2003 by the Legislative Delegation. Sometime in the period between the filing of these bills and the conducting of a hearing, there was a meeting of the Legislative Delegation at which they decided they were going to require sponsors, some member of the Delegation would have to sponsor all bills, including for the first time, bills such as this. This is not in a written manual for preparation and filing of such bills that is promulgated annually and again this year and which we followed but we learned of this a couple of weeks ago and with the help of the lobbyist that has assisted us in the past, Ron Book, found a sponsor in State Senator Skip Campbell. Senator Campbell notified the Delegation staff that he was the sponsor for this bill and that he had filed it. It is my understanding again from talking to our lobbyist, Mr. Book that conversations were held with the Chairman of the Delegation, Senator Geller, because he has to sign off on all agenda matters. I was advised that occurred and when I checked again, one last time, last Friday with the Delegation staff, I was advised that we were not going to be on the agenda, public hearings are today, and we would have to come back again next year with our codification bill. In the meantime there have been discussions with Representative Ritter who as you know favors changes to the special acts that create this District and the North Springs District, again by Mr. Book. She has not contacted anyone to my knowledge at the District, any staff person or member of the Board, but Mr. Book proactively went to her to talk about what was going on because again we were advised that she had sent a letter to every member of the Delegation asking that they not sponsor our bill so that no action could be taken on it until she had a chance to meet with the Board and the elected officials of the District. That has now occurred. There is a joint meeting scheduled for Thursday with the North Springs Board and Representative Ritter to talk about these issues and we are advised by Mr. Book that she wants us as a District to agree with her and to execute some sort of document in writing that evidences that agreement, that the change in our District Board should be made by special act of the legislature, not the procedure spelled out in Chapter 189, F.S. which requires a petition and referendum process, so that I expect that her own bill that she will file at some point in time, will receive a more favorable reception by the legislature and by the Governor’s Office. Again, I have not spoken with Representative Ritter, nothing I have to say to you is firsthand information, it is by virtue of what I hear from the staff of the Delegation, from Mr. Book and what I see in writing put out by the Delegation.

Mr. Miller stated I traded emails with her on this. We seem to have gotten to an agreement on how the Board should be constituted, so we are not opposing her interests on that. As long as we are on the same page, I hope we are approaching this in a cooperative fashion.

Mr. Lyles stated I was asked if there could be any sort of commitment on the part of the Board and I said the Board makes its own commitments and I am sure will attend this meeting with an open mind and with the idea toward being constructive. Last year when these discussions occurred, the Board indicated they didn’t have a problem with this change and that is part of the record of the meetings of this Board and part of Mr. Fennell’s discussions one on one with Representative Ritter that he informed the rest of the Board about. That is all part of the position conceptually at least that the Board has adopted. No one has been working at cross purposes except we were unable to have an action which we are required to take by Florida Law, completed with the Delegation. We stopped short of complying with our duty. As far as the meeting on Thursday, that is the time you will talk directly with Representative Ritter.

There are technical issues that will have to be agreed upon. As an example, when does this start. What mechanically will be done to the make-up of the Board. If she is talking about in essence substituting a special act amendment she will file for the presumed successful referendum process, then the Board automatically goes from three to five members, although since it is a special act there is nothing to say that has to be done. What she has said directly to Mr. Book and what he has repeated to me is, she is definitely going to require that the elections be conducted as a popular election as opposed to a landowners election. No other specific changes have been reported to me as being sought by Representative Ritter at this time.

Mr. Miller stated that is my understanding.

Mr. Fennell stated that did pass last time and was vetoed by the Governor. The reason he vetoed it is because there are already laws in effect that if the people want to change the way the elections are conducted, they can have a referendum and vote on it.

Mr. Lyles stated there are two ways to change the way the elections are done. One is to have a referendum and the other is by special act of the legislature.

Mr. Fennell stated the special act was vetoed last year. If we are going forward with changes, should we change something else? Should we go with a Chapter 190 Community Development District. We should think about whether or not we should do that. What does that change for us?

Mr. Moyer responded that doesn’t change much of what you are doing. It does have more powers that have to be granted by the City but the basic powers that come with a 190 Community Development District are water management, water and sewer, roads, street lighting, basically what we are currently involved in. If you want parks and recreation or security or things like that you would have to get approval from the City of Coral Springs. We would probably not ever do that. We would stay in the business we are currently in.

One thing to let Representative Ritter know is when the Governor vetoed that bill last year, the Governor knew it had this Board’s support. I think she needs to know that because any politician who doesn’t get something done, in the back of their mind may think someone sabotaged it. That was not the case.

Mr. Eissler stated according to the article in the paper she is doing this because she feels the citizens are not being represented and complaints are not being acted upon.

Mr. Moyer stated that has been her premise but when we asked for specifics, they are lacking.

Mr. Eissler stated since I have been a member of this group, I don’t remember a complaint.

Mr. Miller stated I asked Representative Ritter about the specifics and she said they are made to the City. Do we have a contact at the city who gets complaints? I don’t see why they would sit on them at the City.

Ms. Archer responded they don’t. When they get a complaint which is only a couple of times a year, they call us right away.

Mr. Moyer stated the calls they get are seldom related to water and sewer. The calls they get are about algae or trash in a canal. I think we have a program that is environmentally responsible in the way we treat the canals and unfortunately that is the reality of living in South Florida with 40’ wide drainage canals.

Mr. Fennell stated three or five members doesn’t make any difference. We want elections held on normal election date when other elections take place.

Mr. Lyles stated you may want to have some understanding among yourselves what you mean by common dates. Right now you are scheduled to have a landowners election in June of this year and that costs no money. That is people voting with proxies or on their own behalf. If that is the date we are talking about as the election of new Board members, that is going to be a special election and you are going to pay quite a bit of money to the Supervisor of Elections office to conduct an election throughout the District. If you are talking about having it when there is a city election or general election that will cost very little because you will have a couple of line items to an electronic ballot that will already be prepared. You need to make that clear on Thursday that that is what you mean by a common date.

Mr. Miller stated it makes sense to have it when the City of Coral Springs has their next election.

Mr. Lyles stated as a general rule when it comes to election matters you want to follow what Chapter 190 spells out for community development districts on a state-wide basis which seems to be proper and fitting by the legislature for a number of years. They have elections that are conducted at the same time as general elections in November. They are a five member Board, a popular vote and staggered terms.

Mr. Fennell asked are there any kind of landowner elections in 190 districts?

Mr. Moyer responded it is time specific. With a 190 the landowners control for either 6 years or 10 years depending on how big the district is. If it is less than 5,000 acres it is 6 years and if it is more than 5,000 acres it is 10 years. Then there is a phase out program that in the sixth year two members are elected by general electors and one is elected by landowners and there are two carry over landowner supervisors. In the eighth year four of the five supervisors are elected by general election in a C.D.D. The legislative intent when 190 was adopted in 1980 was that there should be a time when the residents and registered voters take control of the board rather than landowners. The reality is that you are sitting here now, you don’t represent a developer and you are probably the best representatives of the public at large in the District that we could get, whether you are elected by general election or landowners. You are not representing a developer.

Mr. Lyles stated under your special act technically you could still have a non resident, non registered elector on this Board voted by landowners, as long as the person was a resident of the State of Florida. You haven’t had a member like that since I have been involved in the District.

Mr. Moyer stated the reality is to the credit of Coral Ridge Properties, this Board has never had a developer representative on it. They have always been representatives of the community at large.

Mr. Fennell asked do we need a consensus of the Board?

Mr. Lyles stated I hesitate to have you do that because to be consistent with what we have all said to or in the direction of Representative Ritter, we are going to come to the meeting on Thursday with an open mind and listen and think about it and react to what is discussed at that time. If you were to take a position today other than to reiterate the position you have taken before which is you have no objection to popular elections as long as it is done in a relatively economical fashion by combining the election with one that is being held at least city-wide if not county-wide, that you will stick with that.

Mr. Fennell stated the general feeling of the Board is that as we have in the past we would be in favor of going to general elections, probably stating in 2004 if that is the convenient time with two and three electors with staggered terms.

Mr. Moyer stated to give you some perspective, North Springs has a different set of facts than C.S.I.D. Although they have three Supervisors and they are elected by landowners, as a concession to the City of Parkland, that District is divided into thirds; one member elected by the Coral Springs section, one member elected by the Parkland section and a third member runs at large. That was an amendment to the North Springs act some years ago.

Mr. Fennell stated another thing I want to bring up with Representative Ritter is security which is a big issue to us, especially given that we received information that a water system was broken into. This election is great but what is the state doing for us as far as security? We are paying an additional 5% to 10% of our total budget for security. We rely upon the state government and federal government to protect us and what has the state done for us in the last year and a half? I don’t see any rules come out, I haven’t seen anyone help us. I haven’t seen any money come our way to pay our expenses for what we have to do due to their lack of security. I want to push that. I think the state has to step up as well as the federal government and help us out. Right now, they are not.

Mr. Moyer stated Friday D.E.P. adopted emergency rules relative to notification of D.E.P. and various health departments if there is a forced entry.

Mr. Fennell stated they want us to notify them but I want help. I want someone here to help. Not only do we have to have security but a very sharp way of responding if there is an intrusion. There are issues that I want her appraised of.

Mr. Eissler stated fortunately we have money to have security.

B. Engineer

1. Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

2. Update on Construction

3. Presentation on Membrane Packaged Technologies – Request to Proceed with Pilot Program

4. Capital Projects Update

Mr. McKune stated there is a supplier willing to bring in a membrane unit and we pay for a short term lease to run a pipe for maybe 4 months. The cost for us through a lease agreement is up to a maximum of $25,000 for the total project. If it proves successful, it will allow us to save perhaps $500,000 on what we are thinking of doing in the wastewater plant in the future. It has a lot of potential benefit and we would like to do this pilot plan on this site.

On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor staff was authorized to enter into the lease agreement for the pilot program of membrane packaged technologies in an amount not to exceed $25,000.

C. Superintendent - Continuation of Discussion of Water Management Permit Renewal Policy

Ms. Archer distributed the proposed policy and stated I would like the Board to review the material and I will place this on the next agenda for your consideration.

Also Mr. Book, who set up the meeting with Representative Ritter and has been representing our interests would like you to consider the proposal that I am distributing. We thought the proposal was going to be for $40,000 based on what he gave us two years ago and the North Springs Board agreed to pay$20,000 of that at their last meeting. This proposal is for $60,000 and your half would be $30,000 and $30,000 for North Springs. We will take it back to them at the next meeting.

Mr. Miller asked is this necessary, since we are in basic agreement with Representative Ritter? He is asking for more money than when we faced a threat. How do we know that the Governor will veto this? We spent $20,000 last time and if we had known the Governor was going to veto it, we could have saved the money.

Ms. Archer responded I think it was vetoed because Ron Book talked to his staff telling them there is a provision in Chapter 189 to do this. Representative Ritter doesn’t want to follow the law that is already in place, she wants to do it differently. Two years in a row his office has vetoed the bill and said they want her to follow the law that is already in place. Again she is wanting to do it differently. I don’t see that anything has changed as far as the Governor’s office is concerned. In addition, if you agree to a bill with Representative Ritter today, what ends up going to Tallahassee and what ends up getting changed on the floor when she is up there, you are not going to have Ron Book monitoring if he is not working for you and you won’t know what she is proposing in Tallahassee. She changed it several times in the past and the only way we found out about it is because Ron Book sent us a copy of the revised bill.

Mr. Fennell asked did he set up this meeting?

Ms. Archer responded she told everyone on the Delegation that she was going to meet with us before she wanted them to consider our codification bill but she made no effort to meet with us. He asked if we wanted him to set up a meeting and I thought it was time she talked to our Boards. It was at my request that the meeting was set up.

The best thing that could happen to this Board is to convert to a 190 District, because you automatically move to a five member elected board, and have the higher purchasing guidelines. Chapter 190 is up to date legislation that gives you what you need to efficiently manage these Districts and it gives Representative Ritter the elected body she wants. It seems like you get a lot by converting to a 190 District.

Mr. Fennell asked is there a 190 District in the Coral Springs area?

Ms. Archer responded Turtle Run is within the City and was created by the City of Coral Springs. They have a very good working relationship with the City. They entered into a four party agreement to make improvements to the intersection of 441 and Sample Road. The City of Coral Springs came to the Turtle Run Board and asked them to be responsible for maintaining the landscape improvements because we do a better job than they do.

Mr. Fennell asked how difficult is it to convert to a 190 District?

Mr. Moyer responded this Board would petition the Governor & Cabinet to create a 190 District and Chapter 190 permits you as the Board of Supervisors of an existing District to do that. Usually in order to get a C.D.D. established you have to have 100% consent of the landowners.

Mr. Fennell stated that may be worth doing because we get what we want.

Mr. Miller stated in the short term we are going to have to consider this proposal. We want to cooperate to the greatest degree possible with Representative Ritter.

Mr. Lyles stated on those elements you have agreed to. The problem will come once it is in Tallahassee, we will no know what is happening unless we have someone like Rob Book.

On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the proposal from Ron Book was approved with the understanding that North Springs will pay half of the fee and with the further understanding that we cooperate to the greatest degree possible with Representative Ritter on the element of converting the District to a popular election such as a 190 District.

Mr. Fennell stated converting to a Chapter 190 seems like a good idea.

D. Complaints

There not being any, the next item followed.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor's Requests and Audience Comments

There not being any, the next item followed.

NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Invoices and Requisitions

On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the invoices and requisitions were approved.

TENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion of Security Plans

The Board and staff discussed security plans for the District.

Meeting adjourned at 6:30 p.m.

William Eissler Robert D. Fennell

Secretary President