MINUTES OF MEETING

CORAL SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held Monday, August 18, 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 D. Fennell President

William Eissler Vice President

Glen Hanks Secretary

Also Present Were:

Gary L. Moyer Manager

Dennis Lyles Attorney

Donna Holiday Recording Secretary

John McKune Gee & Jenson

Roger Moore Engineer

Rich Hans District Staff

Bill Joyce District Staff

Rozann Abato Resident

Steve Weinberg Attorney

Anthony Jones Morrison Builders

Michael Morrison Morrison Builders

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call

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

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the July 21, 2003 Meeting

Mr. Moyer stated that each Board member had received a copy of the minutes of the July 21, 2003 meeting and requested any additions, corrections or deletions.

There not being any,

On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the minutes of the July 21, 2003 meeting were approved as submitted.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Acceptance of the Audit for Fiscal Year 2002

Mr. Moyer stated it appears that you have not received a copy of the audit other than the copies I just distributed. We need to file our audit with the State prior to October 1, and we can defer this to the September meeting if you prefer to do that. I will highlight the reports and if you are comfortable approving it based on the reports, we can have a discussion next month about the actual numbers contained in the audit.

On page 1, they indicate that in their opinion the general purpose financial statements referred to above present fairly in all material respects the financial position of the Coral Springs Improvement District as of September 30, 2002. That is typically referred to as a clean opinion letter, meaning that what our accounting staff prepared and submitted to the auditors in fact, fairly represented our financial position. The next 3/4 of the audit deals with various numbers, our financial position which in both the general fund and water and sewer fund are strong, as you are aware. In the back on the audit starting on page 18, the auditor is required to do certain analyses of our accounting system and give opinions on that. One is compliance with laws, rules, regulations, things that we have to abide by and they state the results of our tests disclose no instances of non-compliance that are required to be reported under government auditing standards. Similarly they do the same type of report on internal controls over financial reporting and they state that they noted no matters involving the internal control over financial reporting in its operations considered to be material weaknesses. They are also required to give us a management report and that starts on page 20 and deals with various requirements of the Auditor General. One deals with financial emergencies, they find that we are not in a financial emergency. They also have a supplemental report on recommendations they can make that may not rise to the level of being material weaknesses of our internal accounting system but nonetheless are helpful suggestions. That is shown on page 22. Last year they had a couple of suggestions that they now indicate have been complied with and this year they have no comments relative to the current year. With that, given the fact that it is a clean audit opinion that we are in compliance, that they found no material weaknesses with our financial reporting system and have no current year recommendations, if you are comfortable with that I ask that you authorize staff to provide this to the State as we are required to do and come back next month and talk about the numbers.

On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the audit for fiscal year 2002 was accepted.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Request for the Construction of a Dock

Mr. Moyer stated Morrison Builders has requested permission to install docks on a portion of Lake Coral Springs. It has been this District’s position from day one, not to permit docks or other encroachments within our right of way. One is a liability concern since that would be built on property owned by the District in most cases and secondly, the concern that without having a standard detail for docks, if we permitted a dock and it proliferated throughout the District and they were not soundly constructed, in a major storm they could break away from the canal bank and end up at our pump stations or at a major culvert that would back up the drainage system and provide us problems. It has always been the District’s position not to permit encroachments into District rights of way or easements or property that we own in fee simple.

Ms. Abato stated I live in Mariners Cove that juts out into Lake Coral Springs and I am here because of my request for a dock. Mr. Weinberg is the attorney for the Homeowners Association who actually owns the property behind my house over which you have an easement. I sent a package of information that was provided to the Board prior to this meeting. I have other information I want to share with you. One is the Lake Coral Springs Association approval and a map that shows the location of the property. I have highlighted the docks that have been built and permitted by the City of Coral Springs that are on the “canal”. We are not calling it a canal because the warranty deed shows this as part of the lake. It looks like a canal but it is part of the lake. It has been my understanding that the District has no jurisdiction if these are requested on the lake. There are docks all around the lake over which you have no jurisdiction. We are uniquely situated in a body of water rather than on a canal.

Mr. Moyer stated you are correct about not owning the lake. That was never part of the C.S.I.D. system, although we were granted an easement for the purpose of storage of stormwater within that lake which is part of our South Florida Water Management District permit for retention and detention.

Mr. Fennell asked is this District responsible for drainage out of that lake and keeping it at the proper level?

Mr. Moyer responded yes.

Ms. Abato stated I am struggling with the difference between my lot and those on the main lake. There is one dock constructed on the canal with a city permit.

Mr. Moyer stated there is a factual issue that needs to be resolved and that is our engineer’s have concluded that in fact that is a canal of the District and that we do have jurisdiction over that and I assume that they have looked at the permit request and came to that conclusion.

Mr. McKune responded we don’t own it but we have a drainage and maintenance easement over it. I have a copy of the plat with me that shows that easement.

Mr. Morrison stated from the standpoint of a businessman and contractor relating to Lake Coral Springs, my company has been fortunate to be awarded almost every dock built on that lake at this time. There is in excess of 25 docks that we have built.

Mr. Fennell asked how did you build them if you didn’t go through us?

Mr. Morrison responded that is part of the reason I am here. I don’t understand the inconsistency. Until the job for Ms. Abato and her neighbor for the last five years we have pulled permits through the City of Coral Springs and Lake Coral Springs Association. It was my understanding that your issue was with the finger canal and not the lake itself but it now sounds like you have an issue with docks on the lake.

Mr. Fennell stated you have brought up a bigger issue and that is there are 25 docks on that lake that have not been permitted by us and there is the possibility of obstructing the flow of drainage and damaging our pumps. That is a serious issue.

Mr. Morrison stated I am here to address the issue of the finger canal.

Mr. Fennell stated everyone in this District pay assessments to maintain the canals. Our main goal is that we don’t flood.

Mr. Weinberg stated essentially in 1988 Florida National Properties constructed that lake with the intention of constructing home sites. In 1988 there was an easement for the purpose of the finger portion. There were two easements, one is for the heart of the lake and one is for the finger portion. The one that we are speaking about was recorded in 1988 and was a grant of easement for the construction of a canal and for water drainage and flowage. The position of Lake Coral Springs Association is that these people who bought on the lake which includes Ms. Abato, paid lot premiums to the Developer and were told throughout the development process that this is a lake for community use and docks are permitted.

Ms. Abato stated we understood that we could build a dock and get on the lake.

Mr. Weinberg stated the question is the construction of a dock unreasonably interfering with the intent of the easement. Case law stands that, the person who holds the easement CSID, cannot unreasonably interfere with the use of the property to the extent that it interferes with the dominant tenant. There were three things brought up, (1) the concept of liability. I don’t believe the District has liability because you don’t own the property and to the extent that you think you do, I’m sure there could be discussions of a hold harmless agreement between you and the unit owner. Secondly, as it impacts on wood and other debris floating into the pump station, I know that the Army Corps of Engineers allow docks on the intercoastal and all other navigable water ways. There are ways to construct docks that minimize the risk to an acceptable level.

Mr. Fennell stated you have to convince me that there is no significant danger at all to this.

Mr. Weinberg stated my position here is as attorney for Lake Coral Springs Community Association and the Lake Coral Springs Community Association is not objecting to Ms. Abato’s dock.

Mr. Fennell asked are they taking into account that they are responsible for the drainage of that lake? Are they assuming that responsibility?

Mr. Weinberg responded no. With all due respect I’m not sure this Board has jurisdiction over that lake and this issue. You don’t own the land. This is unlike District property. The only way you can stop this would be to make a claim that the dock in and of itself interferes unreasonably with your use of it as a drainage canal and for flowage. I would ask for an engineer’s opinion on that. I also understand that this particular location is at a dead end canal so there are no flowage issues but more of a storage issue. I would like to see the District have a formal opinion on it because that would help the homeowners in the District. With respect to the Lake Coral Springs Association, they own the lake and they do not object to the installation of a dock subject to proper construction. A dock with three pilings is not going to effect flowage. It is conclusory to assume that a dock cannot be constructed in accordance with the South Florida standards to assure the District that it is properly constructed. If that argument were correct no one would get a permit to build a house in Florida, because hurricanes can come through and destroy it.

Mr. Moyer asked who guarantees the maintenance?

Mr. Weinberg responded the homeowner.

Mr. Moyer asked what happens if the homeowners doesn’t maintain it and five years from now there is a rotten deck.

Mr. Weinberg stated you would come back to the Lake Coral Springs Association. It is their property and we would turn around and go back to the unit owner and they repair or remove the dock.

Mr. Moyer stated now you are putting an additional responsibility on the Board to not only visually inspect but engineering inspect docks on a periodic basis to make sure they maintain their structural integrity, which is something we are not in the business of doing.

Mr. Weinberg stated the City of Coral Springs and their permitting process has jurisdiction for improvements on property. The issue here is we have the property owner, the Lake Coral Springs Association and the unit owner who abuts that lake wanting to improve it, both parties agree and you hold an easement over the property. The question for this Board is, do you have jurisdiction and to the extent that you believe that it impedes your use of that easement, then you can raise the objection and it can’t unreasonably interfere with the use of the property by the owner.

Mr. Eissler stated before we get too far down the road with this. From a legal standpoint, do we have jurisdiction over this? If not, it is moot. We are wasting their time. If we have jurisdiction that is another story.

Mr. Lyles responded the question is going to require a little more work than I have done since I walked into the room today and was handed additional documents over and above what was in your back-up for the meeting. It is my understanding that the Association is the fee owner of this lake bottom and that those documents exist and Mr. Weinberg does not make representations he cannot support with documentation based on my experience. We have jurisdiction to the extent that we have been given as a District an easement for drainage and flowage purposes only. We have that jurisdiction and the responsibility as a District. This is why we were created and that is why we exist and we have to ensure the drainage and flowage is maintained so that it functions properly. Where we are getting a little murky is in my experience, the nature of this easement and the wording of the document that created the easement versus other documents that we have had experience with that have more specificity with respect to what can and cannot be built. Some of our easements specify that no structure of any kind whatsoever can be constructed within the easement. This one does not appear to have that limitation. I have to hear a little more from our engineer about this before I can be comfortable advising the Board where the line is but I am comfortable telling you that you do have some jurisdiction. You may not have as much flexibility in this particular instance in exercising that jurisdiction as you do with respect to other easements that are crafted differently and worded differently and conveyed to the District by other property owners.

Mr. Fennell asked can someone point out on the map, the drainage flow from that lake?

Mr. McKune pointed out the location of Lake Coral Springs and the outfall into the District’s canal system at Atlantic Boulevard and then to the pump station.

Mr. Fennell stated I think we are back to the question of will this present a danger to those in the District.

Mr. Hanks asked what is the dock made of?

Mr. Morrison responded it is made out of pressure treated pine marine pilings and 2 X 8 pressure treated framing with 2 X 6 pressure treated decking. Usually there is railing on the side. In a general sense, the homeowners are trying to get from a steep bank onto a small level landing area where many homeowners are enjoying paddle boats. The embankment doesn’t allow for this because it is rocky and has weeds and minor obstructions that prevent that. The Association has restricted the size and configuration of the docks. Not only is the Coral Springs Building Department extremely thorough and tiresome with the way they inspect and regulate me, they require me to have a structural engineer to inspect the job, a threshold special inspector to see to it that the pilings are put in correctly. We jackhammer into rock to get the pilings in. We are embedded and anchored like docks I build on the intercoastal, just because of the strata of the lake bed in trying to get the dock anchored correctly so that it doesn’t float.

Mr. Hanks asked how far down do you go?

Mr. Morrison responded we are getting about 5’ embedment typically. The piling configuration is designed by a P.E., he tells me our spanning and bolting and so forth, stainless and galvanized hardware. Speaking from our company’s standpoint, we are not talking about plywood, mom and pop structures that huckleberry finn is floating around the lake on. These are well-built, well-engineered structures that are just enough to allow the homeowners access to the water. Ms. Abato’s in particular is only 10’ X 20’ and on the leading side, we go from the embankment out to about 5’ over the water with three small pilings and it is anchored on the landward side.

Mr. Eissler asked are all the docks constructed like you just outlined?

Mr. Morrison responded yes, to the same degree and permitted. The one that is most annoying is her neighbor who has a permit to construct one.

Mr. Moyer stated the City should be telling you to check with us.

Mr. Morrison stated we were told by the City of Coral Springs Building Department to go through the two Associations and WCI to get the permit. There was never any attempt to circumvent your office.

Mr. Fennell stated we are concerned that our two pump stations operate properly and that they are not jammed up with debris.

Mr. Weinberg stated threshold engineers in Florida are generally only brought in on three story building and higher to certify construction and we don’t even have that situation here but because of the subterranean issue with pilings they are bringing in a threshold engineer. If it can be constructed to proper standards I believe that is something the District can say is a reasonable accommodation.

Mr. Fennell stated my issue is keeping the system safe. The next issue is risk, what is the risk that something like this is really going to happen.

Mr. Weinberg stated I think the issue here is one of jurisdiction and the unreasonable interference with the property owner. Here, the property owner is the Lake Coral Springs Association and the abutting contiguous homeowners. I think the easement obligates the property owner to not unreasonably interfere with your use of the easement for purposes of drainage and flowage. I don’t know the answer but I know the Association would like the District to accommodate this installation and the unit owners will pretty much do anything within reason to accommodate the District in constructing a safe dock.

Mr. Moyer asked do you think the Association will indemnify the District?

Mr. Weinberg responded I would not recommend my client do that if I were asked that question. I have a feeling that there would be far more debris in the lake from building material and lawn furniture and roof structures than would be from a dock in a catastrophic event. I understand your concerns but I imagine the debris in the lake would be far greater from the homes surrounding the lake than that of the docks. If that is the concern, then no one should build on the lake.

Ms. Abato stated I agree that there are things in our backyards that will end up in the water way before the dock would.

Mr. Moyer stated we didn’t permit that. No one can say you permitted it, you are responsible for it.

Mr. Fennell stated in five or ten years those docks will deteriorate.

Mr. Weinberg stated I am asking the Board to go back and work with the engineer to find out what the risks really are and how we minimize those risks.

Mr. Fennell stated I think we need to look at this again and see what the potential hazards are. We haven’t heard from our engineer yet. We will review this.

Mr. Eissler stated we need a legal opinion as to jurisdiction. If we were to grant a permit for this, what is our liability? There are a lot of things that need to be determined before we come to an agreement on what we are going to do. We need input from the engineer and attorney before we do anything.

Mr. Moyer stated we will look into this with the attorney and engineer and place this on the next agenda.

Mr. Hanks asked can we get a copy of the plans that your structural engineer reviewed?

Mr. Morrison responded I will provide that to you.

Mr. Weinberg stated if you will provide that to me, I will put together a legal presentation and forward the package to Mr. Lyles who can then distribute it to the Board members.

Mr. Lyles stated our next meeting is September 15 and I will not be available for that meeting. I think the engineering review is the more significant portion of this issue. I don’t know if you want to deal with this at the September meeting that I may or may not be at or I can work with Mr. Weinberg and tell him that it is more likely going to be at the October meeting.

Mr. Fennell stated if you can put it off to October it will be better because there are a lot of issues.

Mr. Lyles stated with your permission I will work with Mr. Weinberg directly and tell him that it will be on the October agenda and give him the issues we have. We want to do a good job and not postpone it again.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports

A. Attorney

There not being any, the next item followed.

B. Engineer

1. Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

2. Update on Construction

Mr. Moyer stated we awarded last month the contract for the divers to go through the culverts and clean them and we awarded the contract to the low bidder who was substantially lower than everyone else. We have had difficulties with that contractor and request the Board withdraw the award and go to the second low bidder which is Underwater Diving Services.

Mr. Fennell asked what are the difficulties.

Mr. Moore responded we started out in the North Springs Improvement District and the contract documents specifically say that a suction type device should be used rather than a pressure cleaning jet device. They assured me that that was what was going to be used. He brought that device to the job site but it was a combination of pressure and suction and he used pressure for the cleaning which we told him was not acceptable. He said that was the way he bid it. His references checked out and he has done a fairly good job of cleaning it, but it doesn’t meet our requirements and we mutually agreed to terminate the other two contracts which is CSID and Sunshine. I have a signed agreement that we mutually agreed to not work on the other contracts for non performance.

Mr. Eissler asked what is the difference in price?

Mr. Moore responded for CSID he bid $4,850 and the next low bidder was $7,000 and the third low bidder was $11,000.

Mr. Lyles stated I think it would be more accurate to say that rather than being in breach of a contract that he didn’t actually meet the bid specifications. He submitted a price and we attempted to enter into a contract with him but he didn’t have the right equipment that was called for in the bid specifications. We actually have a low bidder not being able to perform and the second low bidder who is now able to perform and who had submitted a bid of $7,000 is still willing to enter into the contract so he is in effect the low bidder that meets the qualifications since Raider Environmental did not have the proper equipment. We are in essence awarding it to the actual low bidder which is Underwater Diving Services.

On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the contract for the culvert cleaning was awarded to the lowest, responsive bidder, Underwater Diving Services in the amount of $7,000.

C. Superintendent

Meeting Dates for Fiscal Year 2004

Distribution of Water and Sewer Budget

Mr. Moyer stated under another Florida Statute we have to advertise our meeting schedule and what is in your booklet is the same schedule we currently have.

D. Complaints

There not being any, the next item followed.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors Requests and Audience Comments

There not being any, the next item followed.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Invoices

On MOTION by Mr. Eissler seconded by Mr. Hanks with all in favor the invoices were approved.

On MOTION by Mr. Fennell seconded by Mr. Eissler with all in favor the meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m.

Glen Hanks Robert D. Fennell

Secretary President