MINUTES OF MEETING

NORTH SPRINGS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the North Springs Improvement District was held Thursday, September 7, 2000 at 4:00 P.M. in the District Office, 10300 N. W. 11 Manor, Coral Springs, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum were:

Bill Bell President

Thomas L. Grossjung Secretary

Matt Lauritzen Vice President

Also present were:

Rhonda K. Archer Finance Director

Dennis Lyles Attorney

Roger Moore Engineer

Jane Early Gee & Jenson

Chris Richard WCI

Scott Davidson WCI

Damon Myers S.F.W.M.D.

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call

Mr. Bell called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. and called the roll.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the August 17, 2000 Meeting

Mr. Bell stated that each Board member had received a copy of the minutes of the August 17, 2000 meeting and requested any additions, corrections or deletions.

There not being any,

On MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor the minutes of the August 17, 2000 meeting were approved as submitted.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Hearing to Consider the Adoption of the Water and Wastewater Budget for Fiscal Year 2001

Mr. Bell opened the public hearing to consider the adoption of the water and wastewater budget.

Ms. Archer stated the budget we adopted last month was the general fund budget and represents the assessments that will go on the tax notices. This budget is for the water and sewer utility and is funded through user fees such as the water and sewer bill, connection fees, meter fees and those types of things and is not funded by assessments. The water and sewer budget represents the operation and maintenance of the water and sewer utility and principal and interest on the bonds. We generate a surplus each year specifically to pay subordinate lien debt which is debt subordinate to our senior lien debt that gets paid first from our revenues and if there is any money left over it goes to pay subordinate lien debt. In this instance the subordinate lien debt represents the subdivision line advance program that we have entered into with different developers. This is the program where the developer provides funds to the District to install subdivision lines and as the District collects connection fees and generates surplus revenues, we pay them back for those subdivision line advances. Most of them are advanced by WCI and some are with Shelby Homes. Page 1 of the budget shows the revenues and expenditures. The 1998/99 budget is shown, the audited 9/30/99 numbers, the adopted 1999/2000 budget which is the budget year we are currently in, and the proposed budget for next year. Although, the current year's budget is $9,284,600 in revenue, we are proposing $7,704,000 next year, the bulk of that revenue comes from connection fees and is based on the number of units that we project will be put on line during the next year and that number has gone down. That is consistent with our Engineer's Report that was done in 1995 when we issued the Series 1995 Bonds and we updated it in 1998 and issued the Series 1998 Bonds. We verified the connections anticipated next year with the major developer and confirmed that we are still on line. Even though it appears that we have a significant drop in revenues, it was anticipated and is not a problem. That means we will not generate as much surplus to reimburse the subdivision line program but it is still enough. It is what we anticipated when we issued the bonds. We are making are bond calls without any problem at all.

Mr. Bell asked does WCI anticipate adding 500 single family units and no multi family?

Mr. Davidson responded there probably won't be that much but we will try to obtain 500.

Mr. Richard stated there were several developers aside from WCI who developed multi-family units this past year. We are no longer in the land sales mode which means we are not selling large parcels to other developers. That will be curtailed and the number of units coming on line will be decreased.

Mr. Bell stated you are saying a good portion of the decrease is because you are not going to have as many developers because you are not in the sales mode.

Mr. Richard responded that is correct.

Mr. Bell asked is that long term or short term?

Mr. Richard responded currently, long term.

Mr. Grossjung stated it is inventory of land and not a shortfall in the land.

Mr. Richard responded that is correct, it is inventory.

Ms. Archer stated at the bottom of page 1 are the debt service fund payments that will come due during the year. We budget this on a cash flow basis and pay it on a fiscal year basis and because the principal and interest expense comes due the day after the end of the fiscal year, we budget for those funds to be generated during this fiscal year and they are due October 1, 2001. That is similar to the prior year.

Page 2 represents the administrative budget. The only significant increases relate to the personnel costs and they are not that significant It is proposed salary increases at 5%, which consists of 3% cost of living and 2% merit and related benefits. We mentioned at our last budget hearing that health insurance costs are going up and we anticipate changing health insurance carriers to help with that toward the end of the year.

Page 3 is the plant operations. We have new positions budgeted in the plant. A lot of it relates to the longer number of hours that we have to run the plants, the rating of the plant and the number of hours and types of operators that have to be there during those hours along with the technicians we have to hire to keep things going. In addition to this budget you have the wastewater treatment and transmission costs that we pay to Broward County for the sewer.

Mr. Grossjung asked how many more people are represented in the salary and wage increases which is up from $200,000 to over $300,000?

Ms. Archer responded there is a schedule in the back of the booklet which shows that last year we had positions budgeted and they were not all filled last year. It is anticipated they will be filled this year. I believe there are two additional people budgeted.

Mr. Bell stated the same question would apply to field operations on page 4 but the new positions explain that.

Ms. Archer stated we had 7 men last year and it added up to about $200,000 and this year we have 9 men plus two of the men will go from a "C" license to a "B" license and we have budgeted an increase for that.

Mr. Bell stated when you go from a "C" license to a "B" license there is $1.20 per hour increase plus benefits. Did you say two or three people will do that this year?

Ms. Archer responded it is the two men going from trainees to getting a "C" license.

Mr. Grossjung asked what causes it to go from needing seven men to run the plant to nine?

Ms. Archer responded the new plant expansion and the additional hours that we are running it. We have to have someone there 24 hours per day.

Mr. Bell asked why is there a differential on health and life insurance?

Ms. Archer responded everybody's needs vary and a lot of our people are single and they don't need family coverage, we offered a cafeteria plan about ten years ago and we said that we wouldn't pay more than $375 per month per employee. They can use that for whatever they want to. Some of these employees if they don't have family coverage and they sign up for everything and go with an HMO, don't even get up to $375 level. Their expense to the District is lower than the $375 per month.

Mr. Lauritzen asked do they get sick days?

Ms. Archer responded yes, they get one a month which accrues but they don't get paid for them. We started a program a year or two ago because we had one or two employees who never used their sick days and to show employee appreciation for not using the sick days, we gave them a gift certificate at the end of the year. The next year there were a couple of more employees who did not use their sick days and the program ended up being positive for the District.

Page 4 is similar in that we are putting on an additional crew. We are proposing to lease an additional truck, an F350 so that we can put a crane on the back of it to help with lift station maintenance.

Mr. Bell asked what is special pay?

Ms. Archer responded some people call it a Christmas bonus but we call it special pay and they get $10 for every year they have worked for the District.

Page 5 shows the projected surplus and the distribution of that surplus. The 1995 Subordinate Bond Issue has been paid off and the money flows to the developer line reimbursement program. We anticipate we will have $1.9 million next year available for that program. We ended last year with about $2.8 million and we budgeted $2.9 million. I will talk to you later in the meeting about the developer line reimbursement program. Now that the audit is done for fiscal year ended September 30, 1999 it is time to write another check out of the $2.8 million that we generated. We are not increasing rates. We are continuing to generate a surplus. We are adding new connections and we are increasing personnel costs and other operating expenses such as the lease of the truck to cover the increased service area.

There being no comments or questions from the public,

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Grossjung with all in favor the public hearing was closed.

On MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor Resolution 2000-3 evidencing the adoption of the budget was approved.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of a Contract with South Florida Water Management District to Obtain $25,000 Grant and Agreement to Modify our Water Quality Monitoring Program

Ms. Archer stated this is a project that Roger Moore, the District's Project Manager, has been working on and there is a representative from South Florida Water Management District here today to talk about the program and answer any questions you may have.

Mr. Moore stated about a year and a half ago the Miccosukee Indians filed a law suit in Federal Court against South Florida Water Management District and the State of Florida over discharges into the Everglades. They actually shut down one of the S-9 pump stations on the C-11 Canal just south of Weston as a test case with S.F.W.M.D. South Florida was almost forced to evaluate and permit all of the discharges going into the Everglades. Many years ago, North Springs obtained a permit to discharge into the Everglades and S.F.W.M.D. contacted us about six months ago and said they are under review and need to coordinate with anyone who discharges into the Everglades and as a condition of our permit, we are required to take samples at certain locations. They asked if we would modify the permit and take the samples in different locations so that the water quality could be monitored. It is a letter modification to the permit. It doesn't change the conditions of the permit other than the location of the sampling points. In addition, in the main pump stations that discharges they are willing to give us an automatic sampler. This sampler will work automatically on rainfall and take multiple samples fairly quickly. They will pay for that and we will jointly install it in our pump station no. 1. This is in the best interest of monitoring water quality in that area. In conjunction with that they have offered to give us some money to do a few other things; possibly to pay for some testing for pesticides in the lakes; identify and add additional staff gauges so that we have correct elevation readings and a few other projects as listed in the material that was provided to you. They had some money left over in their budget this year and they suggested they could fund about $25,000 and add that on to the incentive to sign the agreement to modify our permit to change the locations for the testing. That is the item before you today. The attorney has gone through the language and he has a few comments. A representative of South Florida Water Management District is here to make a presentation or to answer any questions you may have.

Mr. Lyles stated I have been through the draft agreement and we had a chance to talk with a representative of South Florida Water Management District before this meeting and they are redrafting in certain areas, this agreement. As I understand it this is a new program and a new set of documents has been called for and this is their first attempt at it. There are one or more government agencies that they are entering into similar agreements with. My comments are relatively minor and deal with how the insurance requirements are described and notices and how termination language is incorporated. None of it is what I would call substantive, there are some things I would like to see changed and they have tentatively agreed to make those changes and they are revising those paragraphs. If the Board is in agreement because there are timing issues since we are at the end of everybody's fiscal year, we want to lock in this funding for the District and we are suggesting that you approve this document for execution by the President subject to the final changes being made and submitted to me and when that document is submitted for signature, it will be the transaction that Mr. Moore described.

Mr. Myers stated the way these agreements have been put together through our procurement group, they have a standard, boiler plate for the legal language we just discussed and it is basically made up for construction contractors and other consultants who do work for us. It is not developed for cooperative agreements with other local governments. It is not appropriate for the agreement and we are willing to work to get those details worked out. There are a lot of things that are not applicable to the agreement and don't need to be in the document. We are doing that with another water control district. We did one of these agreements last year in Palm Beach County. Their legal staff didn't make those changes. I don't think there should be a problem and I don't have any concerns over satisfying your counsel's concerns.

Mr. Bell stated are there any concerns on our part that they would come up with different results in the new locations? What is the technical reason for modifying the locations of the testing?

Mr. Moore stated the current permit requires almost all of the tests around pump station no. 1. The modification to the location is that about 1/3 of the tests will be at pump station no. 1, 10% around pump station no. 2 and the balance throughout the District to see if any contaminants would be pulled from one area or another. If anything is identified we will have a location to start. Three or four of the sites are where we border on the farming area and we have control structures to make sure that we are not getting any contamination from the farm areas and it is in our best interest to put a sampling point in that location.

Mr. Grossjung stated perhaps the real motivation is the suit that the Miccosukee Indians brought against South Florida Water Management District and to help them comply with their requirements to get a better sampling than just at one location.

Mr. Moore responded that is correct.

Mr. Myers stated there is a little more history than the Miccosukee law suit. In 1994 the Legislature passed the Everglades Forever Act which requires all waters discharging into the Everglades to meet State standards by the end of 2006. North Springs Improvement District is meeting State standards. The unknown is the phosphorus standard that is being developed. It is not a finalized standard yet; it is still a narrative standard. We anticipate that being done in 2002 or 2003. The level that we believe will come out will be a very low level of phosphorus that most basins will not be able to meet under their normal conditions, even with the extensive water management system that you have in North Springs. We are trying to anticipate that, find out where the problem areas will be, not just phosphorus but other parameters, and hopefully, before 2006 we will be able to develop and implement management practices so that we can meet State standards by 2006. It looks like we are not going to be able to do that and we need to know that now because we need a plan to meet those State standards by the end of 2003 and submit that to D.E.P. for a permit modification. The South Florida Water Management District actually had to get a permit for all structures that discharge into and from the Everglades. There are 40+ structures. North Springs is one of those structures that is not operator owned by the S.F.W.M.D. but is permitted by the S.F.W.M.D. It does come under that permit and comes under our requirements to ensure that safe standards are met in 2006.

Mr. Grossjung asked is our permit to discharge, perpetual?

Mr. Myers stated this system has been built in accordance with the permit, it is a perpetual permit, however, there are other conditions to be maintained. If there are State standard water quality problems in accordance with the Everglades Forever Act, we will have to do something to meet State standards. This is our first step to find out if there is a problem, where it is, if we can fix it easily and if we cannot fix it easily, know it ahead of time so that we can plan to do something more substantial if needed.

Mr. Bell asked is the bigger challenge for the Everglades the sugar concerns?

Mr. Myers responded yes, that is a whole other group of what we call the Everglades construction project where they are building storm water treatment areas and they are looking at advanced technology to treat and meet that standard, whatever it is going to be. That is not my group but it is in the South Florida Water Management District. We work with them on research technologies and what might be applicable in that situation and what we can use in our basin. The Everglades agricultural area has implemented a B.M.P. program, best management practices program, which has been very successful. They have reduced their phosphorus level by almost 50% in the last four or five years. We are hoping we can do a few best management practices that are geared more towards the urban type basins to be much closer to the new standard.

On MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor the grant, modification to the permit and agreement with South Florida Water Management District was approved subject to the Attorney's review and the proper District officials were authorized to execute the documents.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Construction Related Items

A. Award of Contract for Pine Island Road and Trails End Extension

Ms. Early stated on August 31, five bids were received for the Pine Island Road and Trails End Extension contract and the lowest base bid was received from Ryan Incorporated Eastern in the amount of $853,696.20. The Engineer's estimate was $1,098,877. Our letter indicates a tri-party contract with WCI, the District and the contractor. WCI has to pay for the remaining two lanes on Pine Island. The District's portion of payment will be two lanes on Trails End and WCI pays for the other two lanes. The total fee is not paid by the District. The District pays for two lanes and that is a four lane roadway. WCI pays for the other two lanes and they also pay for curbs.

Mr. Lauritzen asked is this amount for the whole job or just our portion?

Ms. Early responded it is for the entire job and each requisition we do will be split. The contractor will submit a pay estimate and I will split the costs.

Mr. Lauritzen asked have we done work with Ryan Incorporated Eastern before?

Ms. Early responded yes, the last job they did for us was Heron Bay Commons.

Mr. Richard stated they are also doing work for us currently.

Ms. Archer asked does our portion come out of Supplement 3?

Ms. Early responded Supplement 2 and 3.

Ms. Archer stated not only will it be split three ways with the contractor, but also the District's portion will be split two ways by two different bond issues.

Mr. Bell asked is that school under construction?

Ms. Early responded yes.

Mr. Richard stated they are scheduled to be finished by March and they will start putting in the furniture and will be open by next August.

Mr. Lauritzen asked will Trotters Lane be a public road?

Mr. Richard responded yes.

Ms. Early stated that is what this contract is for, Trotters Lane, it is now Trails End and it will extend 200' or 300' past the school.

Mr. Richard stated this contract is for the small section in front of the school. The other section will come before you later in the year.

On MOTION by Mr. Lauritzen seconded by Mr. Grossjung with all in favor the contract for Pine Island Road and Trails End Extension was awarded to Ryan Incorporated Eastern in the amount of their low bid of $853,696.20.

B. Work Authorization No. 59 for Heron Bay East Hydraulic Modeling and Culvert Sizing

Ms. Early stated this work authorization is to update the water management system that we have. WCI provided us with a proposed development of all of their remaining land and we have a conceptual idea of what some of the Beaty property is expected to look like and we want to model the basin in order to size the remaining culverts for all of the interconnects and lakes. Each time a new development comes on we will be able to plug that area in and get a culvert size ready for the rest of the work.

Mr. Bell asked you have a vision of what the Beaty property is going to look like?

Ms. Early responded yes, Lennar has an option to buy the Beaty property and we have seen a conceptual layout of the area. We need to bring that into our overall master development plan. Based on the hydraulics we need to model the rest of the area based on all of the new development in order to size all of the interconnect culverts that we have to put in. Right now we are digging the lakes for Heron Bay East and I think there are five or six proposed culverts that have to go in and in order to size those correctly, we want to do a model. Instead of just picking a 96" culvert, if we only need a 72" culvert we can save $20,000.

Mr. Bell asked is the western property also taken into consideration?

Ms. Early responded they have an option on that but we have not seen a preliminary layout. We can split the cost of this between Supplement 2 and Supplement 3, but the majority is Supplement 3.

Ms. Archer stated it was anticipated in the bond issue that we would have to do this modeling. Will the Beaty property be Supplement 4 and 5?

Ms. Early responded if that is how they want to approach it. They are not in Supplement 3 but the pump stations were sized to include that area. I don't know if you can spend bond money on that.

Ms. Archer stated there may not be enough validated.

Mr. Grossjung stated if it is not included in Supplement 3 and you are not sure we can expand Supplement 3, how can we take the money out of Supplement 3?

Ms. Early stated this is just to add a basic area to the model. We are going to pay for the model from the remaining money in Supplement 2 and 3. We will lump this as one total area to put in the model. When they start developing they can't use Supplement 3 money.

Mr. Grossjung asked can we use it for modeling but not development?

Ms. Archer responded the bulk of the model is related to Supplement 3.

Ms. Early stated I am not going to size any culverts in the Beaty property. I am just going to say there are 400 acres to put in the model so that we know it is included in the model. Once they start developing either their engineers or we are going to have to size those culverts in order for it to work with the overall master plan.

Mr. Lauritzen asked when will that be?

Ms. Early responded they have come to us a few times with their layout.

Ms. Archer stated they have been talking to us too. It is probably in the near future. They are doing their due diligence.

Mr. Grossjung asked is there no issue about using Supplement 3 bond money modeling non Supplement 3 area?

Mr. Lyles stated I wasn't here when we did the Supplement 3 bond issues and I haven't reviewed any of that.

Ms. Early stated if you read the Supplement 3 bond documents it says that those areas are included in the design.

Mr. Lyles stated I haven't been involved so I can't give an answer one way or the other. I am sure that what Ms. Early is telling you is exactly right.

Ms. Early stated in that book it also says that as we develop Supplement 3, we have to make sure that we are providing the drainageway or some form of drainage to those parcels.

Mr. Grossjung asked is it at our discretion to expand Supplement 3 to include the Beaty property?

Mr. Lyles stated I will get the documents and review them because the people from Lennar are asking a lot of questions and at this point it is just questions and due diligence and they have an option and nobody has applied for a permit to do anything. It is very preliminary and from my point of view I haven't spent any time on it yet. I will review the Supplement 3 issue. I am sure it is fine but I will take a quick look at it.

Mr. Bell stated based on what we have done before, they are well over a year away from any development in our projected model.

Ms. Archer stated that is correct. Similarly when we go to the County and are looking to add capacity and do expansion on our plants, the sooner we get an idea of when they are going to go on line, the better so that we can plan.

Mr. Richard stated they have to do zoning and platting and they are a long way away even if they close early.

On MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor Work authorization 59 for Heron Bay East Hydraulic modeling and culvert sizing was approved subject to counsel's review of the bond documents for the funding.

C. Work Authorization No. 60 Revised for the Water Distribution System Master Plan Update

Ms. Early stated this is the same principle as the water management system. We are currently doing the wastewater system and feel it is now time to do the water system.

On MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor Work Authorization 60 revised for the water distribution system master plan update was approved subject to counsel's review of the bond documents for the funding.

D. Acceptance of Utility, Drainage and Flowage Easements for Heron Bay South

Ms. Early stated Heron Bay South is an area which we currently have out to bid for the paving, drainage, water and sewer. This item is to swap easements based on our design. Originally when it was platted it had some water and sewer and drainage easements for the District and when we actually designed it we moved some things around. This is giving WCI back easements and they are giving us the correct easements.

Item D is Heron Bay South and Item E is the same thing except it is the easement for our water main to the ground storage tank. We originally had a 20' easement and this will correct the easement to the correct location. It is a swap in giving back the original easement and accepting the new easement.

On MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor the utility, drainage and flowage easements for Heron Bay South were accepted.

E. Partial Release of Utility Easement and Acceptance of Grant of New Water Main Easements to the Ground Storage Tank

On MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor the partial release of utility easement and acceptance of grant of new water main easements to the ground storage tank was approved.

F. Grant of and Acceptance of FP&L Easements

Ms. Early stated I would like to table this item until next month.

SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports

A. Attorney

Mr. Lyles stated there is a minor report and that is since the last meeting we were sued by Bergeron Land Development Company over a dispute of payment on certain items having to do with Heron Bay. There was a delay in funding from WCI and apparently negotiations broke down and they filed suit and as soon as they filed suit Ms. Early contacted me and explained what was going on. Essentially, it was over before it started. They agreed to accept the original amount, no cost, no fees, no penalty or interest. We did some quick settlement papers and the matter has been resolved. It all goes into the Heron Bay construction activities and will be funded from that source and not the District in general. We did get sued but it has been resolved satisfactorily.

B. Engineer

There not being any, the next item followed.

C. Superintendent

Ms. Archer stated I am distributing a schedule that I mentioned earlier when we talked about the budget. In May we did a subdivision line reimbursements for the developer based on the final audited numbers of the September 30, 1998 audit. Since we now have the September 30, 1999 audit it is time to do that again. I take the audited numbers and recap them because in the audit numbers you have things like depreciation expense which is a non cash item they take out of our operating income statement and it makes our expenses look higher than they were. The depreciation expense is something like a book entry, instead of depreciation expense we budget for principal expense that we pay on the bonds which they don't show as an expense in the audit. We add back in depreciation, take out principal on the bonds and recalculate the interest on the debt service payments that were made, subtract out any subordinate lien debt that we may have, then we take out in accordance with the bond documents the money that we need to send to the renewal and replacement fund each year and the capital outlay program. We then calculate how much money we have to go into the line reimbursement program and that comes down to the $2,964,000. In May when we paid the funds for that program, we paid a little bit more money back than what we had available because there is a purchase price on the subdivision lines and it depends on which year you pay it back. If you pay it back within the first three years, you pay 105% of the original cost, during the fourth year you pay 106%, all the way out to 110%. We had to add a little bit of money to that for the interest carry and I knew we had a lot of money sitting there waiting for this audit to come out so we spent $77,000 more than what we had on May 1. I subtracted that out of this money. That leaves $2,887,000 that we can buy subdivision lines with and I have identified the oldest subdivisions that total $2,885,000 that we can pay back with this money. The first page of the schedule is labeled Developer Advance Agreements, and in May we paid back subdivision lines on this schedule totaling $2,150,000 but we didn't pay for the major mains totaling $1,112,000 plus the purchase price which actually grosses it up to $1,194,000. We are paying back all of the major mains and that will make those subdivision lines paid in full. We carry that number over to the next page and add to it the first seven or eight projects until we get to $2,885,000 and those are the ones we propose to purchase from WCI out of this year's surplus funds. I am asking the Board to approve the disbursement of $2,887,523, not to exceed that number subject to our standard preparation of the bill of sale and execution of that bill of sale by the developer.

On MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor staff was authorized to disburse not to exceed $2,887,523 to WCI for line advances in accordance with the attached schedule and subject to receipt of the executed bill so sale for same.

SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor's Requests And Audience Comments

Mr. Bell asked did you have an opportunity to notice a public hearing for the sewer cap?

Ms. Archer responded right after the last meeting I put together a schedule of single family, multi-family and commercial and it was supposed to be advertised for this meeting. I will provide you with a memo tomorrow morning on the schedule and where that is. It will be on your October agenda.

Mr. Richard stated in Parkland Isles we are having a little problem with people fishing and walking along some of the canal banks. Because of the way the right of way is set with the units backing up to it and the District owns and maintains the buffer that surrounds the entire area, people are parking and walking around the vegetation and fishing. It is irritating to the people who live there. I told them it was District property and I am not sure how to stop people from doing that but the request came from the association that I address the Board on this issue. The request is two-fold, one, is to see if we could get the District to put up a "no fishing no swimming" sign or something because we can't call the police unless it is posted. The other question is if we can get permission to put some plant material inside the District right of way. I am not sure that will inhibit people from going through but it might discourage them a little bit. It is not a guarded community and we have made that known to the association. It is a restricted access community and that is all it is. I talked to Ms. Early and I talked to Mr. Schooley to make sure that it wouldn't inhibit his ability to get in to do maintenance on the canals. There is no reason not to put plants in since it won't inhibit maintenance. The maintenance of the plant material will be done by the master association. Currently, we are doing an agreement similar to the Commons so they will pick this up as well, the District will pay for it but there will be an agreement for them not to manage it but over see it. It will ultimately come before the Board and what I am doing now is seeing if this presents a problem to anyone here.

Mr. Bell stated this happens throughout the entire District. Why is that different?

Mr. Richard responded it is not and in the past there were many instances where fences and/or vegetation were put in ahead of time.

Mr. Davidson stated the reason this place is so bad is because it has been a spot where people can drive up even before there were roads put in. They continue to do that "favorite spot" kind of thing.

Mr. Richard stated this particular canal has been here a long time.

Mr. Bell stated if I were to drive by there would I find a larger number and higher frequency of fishermen?

Mr. Richard stated you can go there any time of the day and they are there. It is what used to be the end of Coral Ridge Drive.

Ms. Archer stated you can't do "no fishing" signs because we can't regulate fishing. You can put "no trespassing" and "no swimming" signs up but not "no fishing".

Mr. Richard stated it will allow us to call the police because it is posted at that point. Up until you actually post a site, apparently there is not much they can do. They will come out but they won't do anything.

I think we need to extend the landscaping into the right of way. I don't think you will ever stop someone from fishing.

Mr. Bell stated as long as they are on the easement and it is a favorite fishing hole, why would they not just proceed down further regardless of how much landscaping is put in?

Mr. Lauritzen asked is the problem with the people who live there?

Mr. Richard responded that is correct because the fishermen are in their backyards. We are not suggesting to put plant material all the way down through the area but that we make it a little more difficult so that they have to go down on the slope rather than walk across the berm and through someone's yard. They pick the flat areas and that is the problem.

Mr. Grossjung asked is the association paying for the plant material?

Mr. Richard responded yes. They are not asking the District to pay for or maintain it.

Mr. Bell stated you are suggesting that the association is going to submit a request to the Board to allow them to put in some sort of landscaping on our easement.

Mr. Richard responded that is correct.

Mr. Lauritzen stated that will not interfere with our ability to maintain that easement.

Mr. Richard stated that is correct, that is why we had a discussion with Mr. Schooley. He doesn't access this particular lake from that location.

Mr. Bell stated we have to anticipate the worst case scenario and that is a homeowner comes in with pictures with how obnoxious it is at any given time of five or seven people in their backyard. I would be sympathetic to that issue, not that we have any direct control but if the request is simply to allow the association to plant something on our easement and it doesn't cause a disruption for us, I would be hard pressed to deny the request to attempt to resolve the problem in that manner. If a letter came here requesting that I think I would have to support it.

EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Invoices and Requisitions

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

On MOTION by Mr. Grossjung seconded by Mr. Lauritzen with all in favor the meeting adjourned at 5:35 p.m.

Thomas L. Grossjung William Bell

Secretary President