The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Coral Springs Improvement District was held Monday, November 20, 2000 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

            Clint Churchill                                      Secretary

            Karl Miller                                              Vice President


            Also present were:


            Gary L. Moyer                                       Manager

            Rhonda K. Archer                                 Finance Director

            Donna Holiday                                      Recording Secretary

            John McKune                                        Gee & Jenson

            Roger Moore                                           Engineer



FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS             Roll Call

            Mr. Moyer called the meeting to order at 4:20 p.m. and stated Mr. Miller and Mr. Churchill are present.


SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS         Approval of the Minutes of the October 23, 2000 Meeting

            Mr. Miller stated that each Board member had received a copy of the minutes of the October 23, 2000 meeting and requested any additions, corrections or deletions.

            There not being any,


On MOTION by Mr. Churchill seconded by Mr. Miller with all in favor the minutes of the October 23, 2000 meeting were approved as submitted.


THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS            Consideration of Resolution 2001-1 Repealing Previously Adopted Investment Policy and Adopting the Alternative Investment Guidelines

            Mr. Moyer stated in 1995 the Legislature required that government agencies in the State adopt an investment policy as a result of the Orange County, California problem with derivatives.  We brought to this Board a fairly complex investment policy that was put together by the Government Finance Officers Association that has a lot more in it than we use.  We invest our money with the State Board of Administration which is a very good program.  Last year the Legislature said if you have complex investment policies there are now a number of things the government agency has to go through to remain in compliance such as continuing education, accounting, and auditing.  They went on to say if you don't have a complex investment policy or don't have any policy, you will fall under the guidelines that are contained in this Resolution which is what we are doing anyway. 

            Mr. Fennell arrived at this time.

            Mr. Moyer stated this Resolution rescinds our previous more complex investment policy and puts us under the more simple investment guidelines.

            Mr. Miller asked what is the net effect of the risk?

            Mr. Moyer responded the State Board of Administration invests several billion dollars of local moneys and they have similar investment guidelines.  They invest in U. S. government securities and the things that are listed in the back-up.

            Mr. Churchill stated the purpose of the change is so that we are not forced to go to a lot of extra reporting and schooling.

            Mr. Moyer stated that is correct and I would not be comfortable with our staff trying to come up with sophisticated investment programs for this District anyway.  The Legislature said in 1995 protection of the public's money is more important than how much you can earn in interest by taking risks.  The return that we get with the State Board is very good, it is in the 6.5% range and is a conservative investment vehicle.  Part of it is in cash, part is in short term securities, part is in longer maturities.  All of it is insured or guaranteed by the U. S. government.  It gives us about half a point higher interest rate return than if we were to go to the local bank and do a CD or money market.  We benefit from that.  The nice thing about the program is that we can call them in the morning, they will wire the money to our account that same afternoon.  We have instant access to the money, almost as if it were cash, yet we still earn about 6.5%.  We find it to be a very good program.

            Mr. Fennell stated that is what we are currently doing.

            Mr. Moyer responded yes, that was approved as part of your 40 page investment policy.  We included in your agenda package the sections of the Statutes that are referenced in the Resolution.  The Legislature said if you have a complex policy and someone is investing in a variety of different things, they need to be certified to do that and they need to have continuing education to do that.  I have seen some sophisticated portfolios of governments before and I think the Legislature is right to require that but we don't do that.  That is why we want to change to get out from under the requirements and just keep our money with the State Board of Administration.

            Ms. Archer stated this doesn't have anything to do with our bond funds which are in trust and invested under the Trust Indenture.  This is only our surplus operating funds that is effected by this policy.

            Mr. Fennell stated then the money will essentially stay in the same spot.  What you are doing is restricting how we can invest it.

            Ms. Archer stated we are repealing our old policy and adopting the guidelines that are in the Statute.

            Mr. Moyer stated we can adopt this Resolution now and if something happens and you feel that we need to be more aggressive in our investment policies in the future, we can change it.

            Mr. Churchill stated we are going to a more conservative investment policy that has less requirements from the State.

            Mr. Moyer stated that is correct.


On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Churchill with all in favor Resolution 2001-1 was adopted.


FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS        Consideration of Bids for Re-Roofing of Main Administration Building

            Mr. Moyer stated the roof on this building has been leaking badly.  It has been 16 years since we built this building and from time to time we patched the roof but we are at a point where the whole roof needs to be replaced.  The air conditioning part of it we have already done.  We had no choice in that matter but we competitively bid the rest of it.  The part we want to do now is the roof repair.

            Mr. Miller asked was there only one bid?

            Mr. Moore responded yes.  Seven contractors picked up the bid specs and we received only one bid.  We require bid bonds and insurance and sometimes big contractors don't want to bid a job of this size.  You can get a small roofer in but he is not bonded or licensed and we want to get a professional job because we are changing the flashing and there are quite a few details to take care of to make sure it is water tight.  I can get a roofer to bid it but sometimes they are not bondable and sometimes they are not licensed and they don't want to pay the extra premium for that and it raises the price.  It is our policy to have those requirements.

            Mr. Moyer stated because we are in the dry season we have the luxury of a month or so, under State Law a Board can waive the performance and payment bond if it is under $200,000.  If you are saying that would help so the bidder does not have to provide a performance and payment bond, the reality is a roofer is not gong to subcontract the job anyway.  A roofer is a roofer and he is going to come in with his own people and do that work.  I am not too concerned about the performance and payment bond because there will not to be that many subcontractors.

            Mr. Moore stated we had a roofer cut a section out of the roof to find out why we have a problem with leaking and it appears that the original flashing did not come out over the windows far enough and we will come down another 4 1/2 inches.  At the present time it is a two piece flashing and the new one will be a single piece.  There will be a new membrane and an aluminum fascia detail for the windows which seems to be where it is leaking.  Also, we will waterproof and paint the concrete structure because we are getting some water penetration through the building.  That is also part of the bid.  The only other place it could be leaking is the windows and they are in good shape but someday we will have to have the windows re-glazed. 

            Mr. Churchill stated we are concerned about only having one bid. 

            Mr. Moore stated there was interest but when it came time to bid, there was only one bidder.  He bid the spec as we wrote it, he is licensed and insured and he can provide a performance and payment bond.  We can rebid it if that is your desire. 

            Mr. Fennell stated this is not only roofing, but waterproofing and air conditioning. 

            Mr. Moore stated I bid it with the air conditioning but since that time, we have had air conditioning problems and we had to replace the units.  The air conditioning will come out of this bid.  My memorandum recommends that we award the waterproofing and roofing and that we delete the air conditioning. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I wonder if that was part of the reason we didn't receive more bids.

            Mr. Moore stated when you do a roof of this nature the air conditioners have to be a certain distance from the roof before a permit can be pulled.  Most roofers add the price of raising those units into their bid.  In this case not only were they going to raise them but they were going to replace them.  The air conditioners are at the right height but the roofer has to work around the new units. 

            Ms. Archer stated we have done a lot of roof repairs and two years after the repairs are made, we call them to fix a leak under their warranty and they are out of business.  There are a lot of roofing companies that if you give them the opportunity to bid, they will not be around to stand behind the warranty. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what are we getting with the waterproofing?

            Mr. Moore responded they will pressure clean the building, and apply an epoxy coating to seal the cracks and then paint.                             

            Mr. Moyer stated we can contract through a painter for that work.

            Mr. Moore stated that does not have to be included in this contract.

            Ms. Archer stated when it starts to leak who do we call?  The roofer will say it is the painter's problem and the painter will say it is the roofer's problem. 

            Mr. Miller stated I am not happy that there is only one bid but I am not interested in going with another person we are not sure about.  The other contractors backed away from putting up a performance and payment bond and that makes me leery of using someone else.  I agree that it would be better to have it all done by one contractor.

            Mr. Moore stated the air conditioning did make a couple of the bidders nervous.  They usually have repair and raising and in order to replace the units they had to get a sub-contractor.  It is possible that if we rebid this work, we might get more bids if we take out the air continuing. 

            Mr. Fennell asked what do we know about Advance Roofing?

            Mr. Moore stated they have been around for a long time and they were highly recommended by the manufacturer of the roofing material. 

            Mr. Churchill asked is there a legal impediment in awarding this contract?

            Mr. Moyer responded no, we bid it and followed all of the guidelines and we can award it if that is your desire.


On MOTION by Mr. Churchill seconded by Mr. Miller with all in favor the contract for the re-roofing and waterproofing was awarded to Advance roofing.



FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS            Consideration of Request of City of Coral Springs to Share in Landscaping Program

            Mr. Moyer stated there is a letter in the agenda package from Rick Engle who was here earlier.  They want to buffer the park next to the plant site and as indicated in their letter they need to encroach into our property because they don't have any room on their property to install the landscaping.  They are also requesting that we participate and our part of the cost would be approximately half of the $6,000 which will be about $3,000.

            Ms. Archer stated they are not concerned so much about the landscaping material as they are about us allowing them to put it on our property and that we will agree to maintain it.  I told them that we don't have irrigation lines in that strip of land and that we would put in material that will not need irrigation after it is in and that they will have to come out with a watering truck to water it until it is set.  They said that they understood that and they will also work with us on the species.  The Live Oaks take a long time to grow and fill out and Areca Palms either look great or they look terrible.  I told them that we had Ficus Hedges around the rest of the plant site. 


On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Churchill with all in favor the request of the City of Coral Springs to share in the landscaping program for a buffer between the park and the plant site was approved.


SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS            Consideration of Permit Requests from FP&L for Cable Installation at the Following Locations

          A.    Coral Springs Drive, Canal L-204

          B.    Coral Springs Drive, Canal L-201

          C.    Coral Springs Drive, Canal L-203


            Mr. Moyer stated the three permit requests listed are from FP&L to install underground cable at three locations on Coral Springs Drive and Canal L-204, Canal L-201 and Canal L-203. 


On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Churchill with all in favor the permits were approved subject to the special conditions listed in the Engineer's review letter.



          A.    Attorney

            There not being any, the next item followed.


          B.    Engineer

                 1.     Monthly Water & Sewer Charts

                 2.     Update on Construction

            Mr. McKune stated we are proceeding with the water plant expansion.  We met with Mr. Stephenson and we will implement one of his recommendations to the extent of looking at an alternative check valve on the high service pumps.  We are familiar with his recommendation but it is basically an engineer's preference.  We will get some additional cost information but this will not hold up the project.

            Mr. Fennell asked what is the status of the final tank?

            Mr. McKune responded we reviewed our mechanical plans and they are about 35% complete and we will provide the plans to Mr. Stephenson.  I anticipate advertising this in early December.


          C.    Superintendent

            Ms. Archer stated Stacey Ritter has publicly announced that one of her goals during her new term as an elected legislator for the State is to dissolve two of the five water control districts that are in the City.  The two she plans to dissolve are the Coral Springs Improvement District and the North Springs Improvement District.  You will recall when she proposed a bill last year to dissolve all of the Districts in Broward County it ended up being a watered down bill that was directed towards changing the way the Boards were elected and it finally got pulled.  The Board authorized us to hire an attorney, Harry Rosen, to represent us in talking to different entities on our behalf to try to get the bill pulled.  We ended up getting the bill pulled last year and we are proposing that you allow us to enter into the same arrangement this year with Mr. Rosen's firm so that he can represent us and our interests.  We are also taking the proposal to the North Springs Board as we did last year so that you will split the cost.

            Mr. Miller asked what is the fee?

            Ms. Archer responded a retainer in the amount of $5,000 and $5,000 per month commencing October 1, for a period of four months which coincides when the Legislature is in session.  

            Mr. Fennell stated that would be an effort to continue as we are.  Turtle Run has a slightly different District.

            Ms. Archer stated they are a Chapter 190 Community Development District.  Coral Springs Improvement District was created by special act.  This District could convert to a 190 District if we had the City of Coral Springs approval to do that. 

            Mr. Miller stated that doesn't solve our problem.

            Ms. Archer stated in order for someone to dissolve the District, they would have to make certain findings that show they can be more efficient, and cost effective.

            Mr. Moyer stated that would not be done by the Local Delegation, that would be done by the local government and in this case it is the City that would make those findings.

            Ms. Archer stated since C.S.I.D. is larger than 1,000 acres it would go to the Governor and Cabinet.

            Mr. Fennell stated it seems like the District would take on more responsibilities.

            Ms. Archer responded you would have the ability to do more things but you would not be required to do those things.  The election would convert to an elector election.  In a 190 District during the early years it is controlled by the Developer and they conduct landowner elections much like you do but if the District converts to a 190 District we would transition to an elector election and the Board would be elected by the registered voters in the District. 

            Mr. Churchill stated we can do both. 

            Mr. Miller asked what is the feasibility of switching to a 190 District.  Would there be any support?

            Ms. Archer responded I think we will need the support of the City of Coral Springs.

            Mr. Miller asked do you know if they would be open to this?

            Ms. Archer responded I don't know.  One of the things that will be a benefit to us is the way the Board is elected because from time to time the City has  indicated they are not happy with the way this Board is elected.  They are elected by electors and they would like to see you elected by the electors.  We can say that is why we are converting. 

            Mr. Moyer stated it will increase the Board from three members to five members.

            Mr. Fennell stated it might be a good idea to go forward.  One of the issues that I have is the residents of this area have made a huge investment in this plant and they essentially own it.  There were offers to buy us out and that is because we are fairly well run and funded.  In fact capital can be drawn out and applied some place else.  I am interested in protecting that investment for the people who paid for the plant.  No one stepped forward such as the City, County or State and helped us get this District started, we were self financed.  I have no problem with an electoral election and that might be a solution.

            Ms. Archer stated Mr. Lyles has done some preliminary investigating on what would be involved to convert this District to a 190 because that was his recommendation last year. 

            Mr. Moyer stated the way Chapter 190 is written, it says you have to have 100% consent of the landowners but a sitting Board of an existing District can represent that 100%.  You are vested with that power to convert this District if you so desire.  Financially you will have to pay as part of the petition process $15,000 to the City which covers their cost of reviewing our petition.  It goes to the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission.  There are various steps you take to get there.  The process will take about four months to complete.  If we are going to do this as a preemption of possible legislation I think you need to get going on it quickly.  I think you have an argument that we learned from last year that the City desired that our Board members be elected by popular vote and we are trying to accommodate that request. 

            Mr. Fennell stated I think we can do both.

            Mr. Miller stated I agree, hire Mr. Rosen to do the same function he did last year and maybe Mr. Lyles can present some kind of report at the next meeting as to how we go about doing the conversion and the pros and cons of it.

            Mr. Churchill stated maybe Mr. Lyles can give us the specific downsides if they exist.  In terms of downsides to the interest of the residents.

            Mr. Moyer stated the one downside that is obvious is that rather than having the Legislative Delegation determine your future, it solely rests with the City of Coral Springs.  If they want to take over the water and sewer system by non-emergency ordinance they can take it.  There is a showing they have to make and that is that they can provide the service at a quality equal to or better than, at a price equal to or lower than what you are providing it.  Politics being what politics can be, they can come up with some report that will say that they can run this District more effectively at a lower cost.  That is your risk. 

            Ms. Archer stated that is not much more risk than we have now.

            Mr. Moyer responded that is correct.  I have great respect for Mr. Rosen but in Ms. Archer's presentation it made it sound like Mr. Rosen was the prime reason this bill was pulled last year but it was Hamilton Forman who is a very strong political figure in this County who did a lot of that work.  Mr. Rosen will have his job cut out for him this time. 

            Mr. Miller asked if we change our status, do you think that will satisfy Representative Ritter and if it doesn't is the City of Coral Springs going to have too much pressure on it to keep good relations with her that they won't consider doing this?

            Ms. Archer stated Mr. Rosen is planning to meet with her,

            Mr. Fennell stated I think this should be an alternative that we look at. 


On MOTION by Mr. Churchill seconded by Mr. Miller with all in favor Mr. Rosen was retain as outlined above and in the engagement letter that will be made a part of the record.


            Mr. Fennell stated I would like Ms. Archer to prepare a report on what I will call a rebate to our owners of the excess capital we have.  I suspect that we have excess capital of about $300 to $400 per household.

            Mr. Moyer stated we can look at that.

            Mr. Fennell stated I want that prepared and also the mechanisms we have to go through in order to write everybody a check or decide if we can give everybody a rate cut for awhile.  I want to know exactly what we can do.  We are at a point where we know what expenditures are going to be, how much excess money we have and if we don't need it in the future I want to know that and if we don't need it for several years, we may be better off giving that money back to the people.  I want it in a way so that I know how much that will be. 

            Mr. Churchill stated basically what we are asking her for is the terms of our assets and potential outlays.


          D.    Complaints

            There not being any, the next item followed.


EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS         Supervisor's Requests and Audience Comments

            Mr. Fennell asked how are we doing on our newsletter.

            Mr. Moyer stated we haven't done anything yet but we will have a draft for you at the next meeting.


NINTH ORDER OF BUSINESS            Approval of Invoices


On MOTION by Mr. Miller seconded by Mr. Churchill with all in favor the invoices were approved.


            Meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m.





Clinton Churchill                                                   Robert Fennell

Secretary                                                                  President