MINUTES OF MEETING
PORT OF THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Port of the
Islands Community Improvement District was held
Present and constituting a quorum were:
Richard Gatti Chairman
Bernard
E. Wolsky Vice
Chairman
John
Robinson Supervisor
Ted Bissell Assistant
Secretary
Also
present were:
Craig
Wrathell District
Manager
Dan
Cox Attorney
Ron
Benson Engineer
Tim
Stephens Field
Manager
Several
Residents
FIRST
ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Gatti
called the meeting to order and Mr. Wrathell called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the March 21,
2003 Meeting
Mr.
Gatti stated that each member of the Board had received a copy of the minutes
of the
On
MOTION by Mr. Wolsky seconded by Mr. Robinson with all in favor the minutes of
the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Resolution 2003-02
Designating Craig Wrathell as Assistant Secretary
Mr.
Gatti stated I suspect that is a new office?
Mr.
Wrathell responded yes, we have several Board members assigned as Assistant
Secretaries. I can sign off as Assistant
Secretary, but prefer to have the Board members sign off. This is a protection in case we have only a
few Board members present that day. It
is just to bless the public documents that we sign after each meeting.
Mr.
Gatti stated is this just a carry over of what we do every year?
On
MOTION by Mr. Wolsky seconded by Mr. Bissell with all in favor Resolution
2003-02 designating Craig Wrathell as Assistant Secretary was adopted.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Resolution 2003-03
Designating Patti Powers as Assistant Treasurer
Mr. Gatti stated Resolution
2003-03 is a resolution designating Patti Powers as Assistant Treasurer. Who is Patti Powers?
Mr. Wrathell responded Ms. Powers is
Mr. Mossing’s replacement from the accounting perspective. She is the head accountant for this account.
On MOTION by Mr. Bissell seconded by Mr. Robinson
with all in favor Resolution 2003-03 designating Patti Powers as Assistant
Treasurer was adopted.
Mr.
Gatti stated on the South Motel/Marina utility sign-off request, could you fill
us in on that?
Mr. Wrathell stated on March 27, 2003 I received
a letter from Mr. Jeffrey Nunner, a representative for the South Motel Marina
Group. They are proposing an expansion
to the number of slips that currently exist.
Included in Section 5 of the agenda packet is a site plan layout that was
provided to the County. The County is
doing the approval of the overall project, but we are reviewing it from a
utility perspective and the County has asked us to sign-off from a utility
prospective. On the last page are a
couple letters, one of which is a previous memorandum from Mr. Benson
explaining how there was some expansion of ERC’s for that property in the past,
back in 2000–2001 time frame. It
assigned 116.2 ERC’s for water and waste-water, and the importance of this is,
you have a number of hotel rooms, restaurant seats, bar lounge seats and marina
slips assigned to this piece of property.
From a water and wastewater prospective, you have a certain number of
connections. ERC’s are equivalent
residential connections and it is allocated to the overall capacities of the
water and waster water plants.
We
have invited Mr. Nunner, a representative from the hotel and marina here. One concern I have is they were credited 140
marina slips in that time frame and the new project calls for 175. This is an increase of 35 marina slips, which
results in additional ERC’s, unless there were changes in other unit
counts. To facilitate the process and
move it forward quickly, we could have representatives from that group discuss
with us today, what their plans are and put the Board in a position to make a
decision. I will defer to our attorney,
but we probably need to take some action like crafting a resolution and calling
for transfer of ERC’s, which we will have to work out with the District’s
engineer.
Normally, if it was a simple utility sign-off, I
would handle it myself through the engineer for the District but in this
instance I wanted to bring it to the Board’s attention and depending on
discussion today, I will be in a position to take action.
Mr.
Cox stated I would like to introduce Mr. Nunner who is in the audience today.
Mr.
Nunner stated I represent Ten Thousand Islands Development. I have spoken to my client and they are
willing to reallocate the existing ERC’s to allow for the additional required
ERC’s for the 35 boat slips. We would
like to increase the boat slips from 140 to 175 and decrease 5 hotel
rooms. The hotel rooms would decrease
from 132 to 127, which would account for the 4.67 ERC’S required for the
additional boat slips.
Mr. Wolsky asked is there any intent
to have these boat slips where somebody can pull a boat in and live on the
boat?
Mr.
Nunner responded no, there are no livables.
Mr.
Wolsky asked there are no livable boat slips?
Mr.
Nunner responded no.
Mr.
Wolsky asked is the only water they will use associated with taking the boat
out to fish and clean?
Mr. Nunner responded yes, I am
certain that the permit submerged land lease that is in place has some
limitation per the Marina Manatee Protection Plan, that there cannot be
live-a-boards on this marina.
Mr. Robinson that is correct. You can stay up to three days or nine days in
a thirty-day period under the permits that we have. Anything over that is considered a
live-a-board and you cannot do it.
Mr.
Wolsky asked but between those nine days can a person live aboard that boat?
Mr.
Robinson responded nine days throughout a thirty-day period but no more than
three days in one stretch. People can
pull in for a weekend.
Ms.
Wolsky asked you said they were going to transfer the ERC’S from the
hotel. Are these the ERC’S they were
planning to use to build additional rooms?
Mr.
Nunner responded, yes the way the documents are set up, there is a minimum and
maximum number of rooms. I believe it is
124-132 for the I Building and 12–18 for the H Building, so there is big give
or take there. They are planning on
going to 14 out there. They can easily
drop five rooms from what their documents say and still be within the minimums
and maximums.
Ms.
Wolsky asked will they present the plans when they have taken the ERC’s from
the rooms as originally planned?
Mr.
Nunner responded yes, but they do not have the ERC’s for that building. Basically the docks are going in and the
units are planned but are not on the drawing board yet.
Mr.
Wolsky asked will you still stay within the ERC’S you have?
Mr.
Gatti asked whose jurisdiction is the approval?
Mr.
Cox responded the District does not have any land use approval authority. That authority lies with Collier County in
this circumstance. The purpose for this
discussion is that in conjunction with filing a site development plan, you must
have a letter of utilities availability, which can come from the County or
another entity such as the District.
Right now we have 116.2 ERC’S allocated to this property. How many hotel rooms are currently built and
on line?
Mr.
Nunner responded there are 86 hotel rooms currently on line in paid commercial
units, which is the restaurant and bar lounge.
Mr.
Cox stated we have sufficient ERC’s to serve the property but we are delaying
having to acquire additionally ERC’s by saying we are only using these
rooms. When we come back for hotel
rooms, you will know that you are going to acquire additional ERC’S. At this point, the capacity is available
since we are not fully utilizing the planned number of hotel rooms, therefore I
do not think we have an issue now.
Mr.
Bissell asked if they are currently paying for 116.2 ERC’s?
Mr.
Nunner responded yes, we are just asking to reallocate those.
Mr.
Gatti asked does Mr. Benson have any problem with this reallocation?
Mr.
Benson responded no. A few years ago
there was reallocation based on a request of the owner of the hotel, of the
buildings that they were going to build at that time. They understood when they built future
buildings that they would have to acquire ERC’S. It has been reallocated more than once.
Mr.
Gatti asked what is the capacity of either one of our plants, in terms of the
1,032 units?
Mr.
Benson responded we have capacity at the water treatment plan for the build-out
of the community with the water and with the wastewater we currently have a
permit for approximately two-thirds of the anticipated build-out capacity. The facility was constructed originally with
ease of expansion. Most of the concrete
structure is there, the equipment and the cost, at a future date, to finish
that facility is a fraction of what it was originally.
Mr.
Gatti asked is that about 700 units?
Mr. Benson responded yes, probably.
Mr.
Gatti asked we are being asked today is to reallocate the ERC’S from the hotel
to the docks, 5 ERC’s; does that summarize it?
Mr.
Cox responded that is roughly the equivalent of five hotel rooms, which would
be 3 ERC’s. The 35 slips requires 2.8 so
that is sufficient.
Mr.
Gatti stated I will open it up for comments.
A
resident asked does the plan include a pumping station, because that would
affect our system?
Mr.
Nunner responded there is no utility.
A
resident asked is it water only.
Mr.
Nunner responded yes, this is wet fill for the County. He wants a letter that the utility provides
has to propose a plan. There is no plan
because there is no main line improvement.
A
resident asked is it a problem for the availability letter to state that it is
water only from the existing pipes?
Mr.
Nunner responded that is fine.
Mr.
Gatti restated the County wants us to approve the plan as the utility
company.
Mr.
Benson stated that is standard. We are
just saying we are going to provide the main.
Mr.
Nunner stated I have no plans to give you because it is all service.
Mr.
Gatti asked can you give us a brief overview of how these slips are going to be
used? You are going to assign one to
each hotel room, I assume.
Mr.
Nunner responded no, they will be sold separately as condominium units.
Ms.
Wolsky asked will the hotel rent some out to their guests?
Mr.
Cox responded I imagine there would always be some with 175 slips. The marina will keep some.
Mr.
Gatti asked what is the relationship with the hotel and the Thousand Islands
Development?
Mr.
Robinson responded Thousand Islands Development owns all the property between
the marina and the hotel.
A
resident asked how many boat slips do we have now? I believe it is more than double the number
of slips that you have out there.
Mr. Benson stated according to the site plan I
have, there are 95 in existence with a proposed 80.
Mr. Wolsky asked are those floating?
Mr. Nunner responded yes.
Mr. Wolsky stated we own one of the boat slips
now and we are charged membership dues in the Condo Association Club because of
our ownership of that boat slip. We also
own a hotel condo and we are charged two memberships to the club.
Mr.
Wolsky stated that is to the club, plus your Boat Condo Association and Club,
but Mr. Robinson said they were going to make some adjustments.
Mr. Wolsky stated I would like to provide Mr.
Benson for instruction on what he said about that.
Mr. Robinson responded I already have the
approval. It is just a matter of talking
to the lawyer on how to get the mandatory membership to the club removed to the
marina.
Mr. Bissell stated that should be in writing and
documented in the manager’s office so if there is any question in the future.
Mr. Cox stated to summarize, the availability of
water utilities will be represented to the County, but not as the sewer.
Mr.
Gatti stated that should be real clear that this is County jurisdiction.
Mr. Cox that is for the land use improvements.
Mr. Gatti stated to give an example, let’s assume
that we do not approve this.
Mr. Cox stated we have the utilities
available. I would find it hard to
testify not approving this. They are
within the number of ERC’s they have already been allocated; we are just
recognizing a shift in the type of internal uses. An ERC represents any number of uses and how
a property owner chooses to use those ERC’S is not a discretionary for us to
approve that use.
Mr. Gatti stated I heard Mr. Nunner saying that
in addition to approving the transferring of the ERC’s, we have to approve the
plan. Is there some sort of formality?
Mr. Cox responded, yes, the County requirements
did not contemplate that typically when approving our utility availability
letter, we have a completely undeveloped parcel and they have to put in all of
the supporting infrastructure and those plans would then be reviewed as a
matter of course by Mr. Benson before approving the utilities availability
letter.
In this circumstance, we have a developed parcel
that already has infrastructure in place and there will not be an expansion of
the infrastructure. It is merely just
tying into it. The County’s ordinance
does not contemplate this but if we make it clear to the County, that
infrastructure that is in place will be utilized, that should satisfy their
requirements.
Mr. Benson stated that is why I suggest we
include in the availability letter, that we are providing them services off of
an existing line.
Mr. Nunner stated it might help this project was
submitted to the County as an unsubstantial change to our existing site development. You might prefer we approve the insubstantial
changes with the hotel.
Mr. Gatti stated for clarification, any time we
can pick up a water customer it would enhances the usage. I have no problem with that. My problem is with increasing the availability
of another 35 boats in this area.
Ms. Wolsky asked is the hotel current with their
stand-by fees and tax fees? If you
approve something and they are not current, are you adding another debt to the
CID’s plant usage?
Mr. Gatti responded that is a bit off-track of
this subject, so I will stay away from that.
Ms. Dillon asked if you are adding thirty-five
boats, have any thought been given to the capability for pump-outs? Some of the boats are not always fishing
boats and they will have holding tanks.
Mr. Gatti responded that is not our
jurisdiction.
Mr. Robinson stated we do have a pump-out
station.
Ms. Dillon asked will that be able to handle the
additional boats?
Mr. Gatti stated that is not our
jurisdiction. That should be handled by
the County regardless of what we are doing here.
Ms. Wolsky asked can you give them permission to
have more water usage if they have not paid their bills?
Mr. Gatti responded we will cut off their water
if they have not paid their bills either way.
That is not a problem.
A resident asked has the County, in reviewing
this plan, done an environmental study?
Mr. Gatti responded that is why I keep asking
whose jurisdiction is. All we are doing
is saying you can use some water. That
is what we have the authority to do or not do.
Mr. Benson stated is there a place where they do
the pump-outs and then it discharges into the sanitary sewer system?
Mr. Robinson responded yes.
Mr. Benson asked where is that?
Mr. Robinson stated down by the dock.
Mr. Benson asked how long has that been in
existence?
Mr. Robinson responded for as long as I have been
here, which is three years.
On
MOTION by Mr. Bissell, seconded by Mr. Wolsky, the South Motel/Marina Utility
Sign-Off Request was approved by a vote of 2 to 1 with Mr. Robinson abstaining
from the vote.
Mr. Gatti stated I will repeat
that we do not deal with hearsay here.
It is not appropriate because everything in the world comes in and out
of the Marina. One issue is that Mr.
Burgeson is retiring from the Board. I
do not know that for sure and there is no indication that he is doing
that.
A number of you have expressed interest in serving on the
Board, which we welcome. When it is
appropriate for us to approach that subject we will. At this time, we do not have anything to base
our going forward with this. Also, this
Board is now an elected Board, the same as the County Commissioner and the City
Council and the State representative. We
have legal obligations we must follow when addressing these issues. Is that a fair statement?
Mr. Cox responded that is very fair.
Mr. Gatti stated until we get a formal statement from Mr.
Burgeson one way or the other, I will have to put this on the back burner.
A. Attorney
Mr. Gatti asked can you tell us that
the case is solved and we will not have any more problems?
Mr.
Cox stated we do not have to do any work right now. Everything was submitted to the Judge on
April 1, 2003. He has ruled, generally,
within thirty days so I expect to hear any time, but have not heard yet.
Mr.
Gatti asked so the bottom line is that we have not heard anything and do not
know anything more than we did two months ago.
If you see that it is not in our best interest to disseminate this
information, we will proceed on that basis.
Mr.
Cox stated over the past few meetings, we have had several occasions to talk
about responsibilities for drainage and other issues related to the roads and
plans for maintenance of all the facilities the District owns.
Mr.
Gatti asked do we have any more of these?
Mr.
Cox responded I just brought six sets.
Mr.
Gatti stated there are some people that are interested in being on the Board
and I would like them to get up to speed.
Mr.
Cox stated these are from the property appraiser’s records. I searched the public records and found every
recorded document that conveys either fee-simple or easement interest to the
District. In my office files, I found
several bills of sale and other documents that are conveying infrastructure to
the District and received copies of the recorded plats. Starting from the northeast quadrant, the
District has fee-simple ownership up to the property where the water and
wastewater treatment plants are located.
We have a dedicated easement for the effluent disposal across this
property and an access road to the well field road, which runs along the
section line out to the well field where we have fee-simple ownership of the
well field. On the south side the
District owns all of the area down to the blocks that are on the east
side. That being Tract D, that is the
conservation that was proposed. We also
own all of this road including Sunset Cay, Venus Cay, and Wilderness Cay. We also own a strip of land that is also a
conservation easement that has some drainage improvements going on. We have easements dedicated by plat for
landscaping purposes along 41. We can
install landscaping and the irrigation infrastructure. We have an additional easement that has our
utility path that runs along that line.
We then have a drainage easement further along with no maintenance
responsibility. We have drainage
easements between a couple of lots. This
road is still being shown as being owned by Harbor Club Development, Inc. We have an easement over the road, but we do
not own it.
On the west channel the District also owns the
road at Sunrise Cay. When it was platted
the District dedicated a road easement and then, when they also conveyed all of
the development lots at the auction Port of the Islands, also conveyed Tract R
to the person who purchased all of these development lots. The purchaser is still in town and I have
been in contact with her representative to work that out.
There is a drainage easement that covers several
of these lots and runs along the perimeter.
That easement was dedicated to Collier County with no responsibility for
maintenance and there is no dedication of the drainage easement to the District
so we do not have any interest in that drainage easement at this point but the
County does. There is also an easement
for drainage purposes from the road that is also in favor of the County. That instrument recording that easement shows
that if there is a C.D.D. established on the property that the County will
quitclaim its interest in that easement to the C.D.D. There is another drainage easement that is in
favor of the developer and also Port of the Islands Inc. There are other drainage easements recorded
either through plats, in a separate instrument or with the Declarations of
Restrictions and Covenants along the seawall of the Newport Cay and Morningstar
Cay areas. There was a drainage easement
dedicated by plat along the perimeters of the Phase II part of the east channel
and in several locations between lots, which provide drainage out from the
road. The question came up, if we own
those drainage easements, were we also responsible for maintaining the rip
rap there.
The Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for
Phase II property is recorded at Official Record 1696, Page 736 and provides
that the District is responsible for maintaining the drainage easement area but
that the responsibility for repair and maintenance of the sea wall was each of
the individual lot owner’s. The same
thing applies to Morningstar Cay and Newport Cay. Those restrictions and covenants are recorded
and have the same provision that the drainage easements are the responsibility
of the developer, but the sea wall is the responsibility of the individual lot
owner. In summary we have a drainage
easement along the perimeters and cross-sections on each of the properties in
that area. Then multiple utility
easements are all in place along the roads that provide the utility services we
need. We do not have any drainage
easements in favor of the District and the County.
Mr. Bissell asked are they to the developer and
the developer gave it to the County?
Mr. Cox stated we have to deal with the road
ownership on the west channel, that being on the Evening Star Cay, Newport
Drive and the Road at Stella Maris. I
haven talked to Mr. Stokes yet, but I have a call into his attorney and I have
talked to representatives of Ms. Prague and I spoke with Mr. Barnhard, who gave
me the contact information for the people involved with the County who can sign
on behalf of Port of the Islands. The
representatives of Ms. Prague agree there is no reason why she would want to
own a road and they will quitclaim that to us.
They will ask Port of the Islands Inc. to quitclaim any interest in this
road. And assign the reservations included in the plat to the Developer to use
the drainage easement areas that are identified on the platt. I am still a bit concerned about the drainage
easement on Evening Star Cay. I talked
to the County attorney and he feels we can have an assignment from the County
of the easement rights and that would give us the right to the drainage
easements and then we can accept responsibility for maintenance in that
assignment agreement.
Mr.
Wolsky asked is there no intent or possibility that the C.I.D. would become
responsible for the maintenance of blow-outs in the seawall or the rip rap ?
Mr. Cox responded that is correct.
Mr. Wolsky asked nothing that you are
contemplating on the other two pieces of property would lead to that, right?
Mr.
Cox responded that is correct.
Mr.
Benson stated many years ago, there was an issue with the Developer retaining
by not filing the proper papers and turning over to the District as
discussed. They said they would do that. It probably never was done but it was
discussed.
Mr.
Cox stated they are not going to have any problems with quitclaiming that road
to us.
Ms.
Wolsky stated you pointed out the sea wall at Sanctuary Point and Newport
Drive. Did it say anything about the sea
wall at Stella Maris.
Mr.
Cox responded I have not reviewed the Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions
yet, but the way this was platted, that sea wall is separate from each of the
lots. The way our easements are
described as being part of these lots, we do not touch that sea wall therefore
we do not have interest it.
Mr.
Gatti asked what are you recommending?
Mr.
Cox stated we will attempt to obtain a quit claim deed from the people who
still own Evening Star Cay. I have
spoken with a couple of representatives and find no reason why they will not
honor it. I have spoken with Port of the
Islands Inc. also. The drainage
easement, I will try to work out something with the County to see if we can get
an interest in those drainage easements.
Mr.
Gatti asked does Board have any problem with this. We should own all of the roads within the
District. Some of the roads are
collector roads that everybody uses. To
say we will pay for some roads but not others is an inequity. I suggest we approach this matter to own all
of the roadway systems. I defer it to
the Board whether that is acceptable.
Mr.
Bissell asked if the Developer owns the roads you are talking about is he
paying Property taxes on those roads?
Mr. Cox responded this road is assessed at the
value of $200, so at the current millage rate for the County, it is not worth
printing a bill so I doubt they are sending them bills. I am sure there is a provision that if your
tax is less than X number of dollars; the local government can opt not to send
you a bill.
Mr. Bissell asked if a road was taken and given
to the C.I.D. would there would be some agreement with the Stella Maris
Association that the drainage and easements going out to the swale, and the
swale would become part of the County’s like the others are?
Mr. Cox responded we do want them to be part of
the County and the County does not want them.
Mr. Bissell asked would the C.I.D. be responsible
for maintaining them.
Mr. Cox responded these two outfall easements and
the two outfall easements that are draining the road; we have already
determined that we are responsible for maintaining those two, correct?
Mr. Benson responded we assumed that, based on
the fact that C.I.D. was offered that road and said they would take it. Maybe the proper papers were not recorded.
Mr. Cox stated the dedication was accepted, which
has caused a bit of the confusion.
Because of the seasonal development and platting at different times,
there is no consistent review so the language is different on every plat. A dedication is of an easement to maintain that
road and a piece of the title still goes to the person who filed the plat. There should have been a quitclaim deed filed
afterward and that was never done. This
is a cleanup of the public record.
Mr. Wolsky stated the plat from Stella Maris says
the responsibility for the maintenance of the drainage rests with Homeowners
Association of Stella Maris. Are you
suggesting that by taking over this road, C.I.D. becomes responsible for that? If we are responsible for the easement there,
how does that impact our liability for any problems on the seawall?
Mr. Cox responded the easement does not touch the
seawall.
Mr. Benson stated it is not the same property.
Mr. Wolsky asked is there no relationship between
the drainage on that wall and a potential problem with the seawall?
Mr. Cox responded I cannot answer that.
Mr. Gatti stated that is a relevant question if
we take over.
Mr. Cox stated our easement does not touch that
seawall. The seawall is a separate
property and I cannot see how it is related to our drainage easement.
Mr. Gatti stated it is related to our drainage in
that the roadways drain into those easements and a lot of water
accumulates. If there is a blowout, how
does that not become our responsibility because we have caused it?
Mr. Cox stated you are getting into the liability
of approximate cause of damage and that is one answer that has to be
determined. The second thing is what our
duty involves in that regard and did we breach that? If we properly maintain our drainage system
as it was designed, we have fulfilled our duties as to that drainage area and
arguably we would not be liable.
Mr. Gatti stated in my opinion, that agreement
was breached when the developer did not put the swales in between those houses,
which could hold a lot of water and now it is just a surface of degrade. Those units at Stella Maris were not built
according to plans approved by the County.
Mr. Wolsky asked are we setting a precedent that
makes us responsible for damage to the seawall and if we accept that responsibility
for Stella Maris one could argue we must accept responsibility for the rest of
the properties.
Mr. Cox stated I understand where the concern is,
but we are not there yet as to how we would accept the responsibility for the
seawall.
Mr. Gatti stated if you assured us that by doing
this, we are not accepting responsibility for the seawall and rip rap, I am
comfortable, but we must know this. If
we accept responsibility for the seawalls we are looking at costs that go
beyond anything we have seen.
Mr. Wolsky stated that is right.
Mr. Gatti stated you are saying we will not have
responsibility?
Mr. Cox stated I am suggesting that we have fee
ownership to all the roads. The drainage
easements are totally up to you. I am
not making any recommendations as to the drainage easements yet.
Mr. Bissell stated the County has the easement of
the rest of the swales on the east side and the C.I.D. has the responsibility
to maintain them.
Mr. Cox stated the Stella Maris Homeowners
Association with the responsibility for maintenance to the Port of the Islands
Community Improvement District with no responsibility for maintenance,
reserving on the Harbor Club, Inc. with no responsibility for maintenance and
to Collier County with no responsibility for maintenance; a blanket drainage
easement over all of Tract R and all of the drainage easements as shown for the
purpose of maintaining the water management facility. Stella Maris has maintenance responsibility
for the drainage easements. The County,
Port of the Island, and Harbor Club, Inc. has the right to use those and no
responsibility for maintenance.
Mr. Gatti asked does anybody have a problem with
the idea that (a) we try and obtain ownership and (b) we maintain all of the
roadway system in the community?
Mr. Wolsky responded only insofar as the points I
just raised. If it makes us responsible
for maintaining the seawalls and the rip rap, it may be suicide for us to
accept responsibility for the maintenance of all roads. If it does not, it is within our responsibility.
Mr. Bissell stated the road does not belong to
the County, it belongs to the CID. What
if the Homeowners Association does not want to make an agreement?
Mr. Cox responded what agreement do we need?
Mr. Gatti stated the Homeowners Association does
not own the road.
Mr. Wolsky stated if they do not want to give us
the road, they can keep it.
Mr. Gatti asked the Developer owns it, is that
correct?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
Mr. Gatti asked are you asking, morally if they
do not want to give it to us, do we say go on and keep it? It is not for us to say keep it, because they
do not own it to begin with. We are
saying you do not want to give it up. It
is not your prerogative.
Mr. Bissell stated when the water comes off the
street, through the pipes, over the sidewalk and it cuts big holes, whose
responsibility is that?
Mr. Cox stated the responsibility for the
maintenance of the drainage easements is with the Stella Maris Homeowners
Association.
Mr. Bissell asked you can put all the water you
want with no responsibility for maintaining it?
Mr. Cox responded that is correct.
Mr. Bissell asked when we purchased that
property; did we take on all those obligations even though we did not sign for
it?
Mr. Cox responded it is public record
information. The plats were recorded.
Mr. Gatti asked are you suggesting that we not
accept Stella Maris?
Mr. Bissell responded no, I suggest you take and
accept the swale around Stella Maris as you would for the rest of the
development on the east side.
Mr. Cox stated we do not have any drainage
easements.
Mr. Bissell stated the County does, but you say
they do not have it around Stella Maris.
Mr. Cox stated the County has the drainage
easement on Stella Maris but they do not have any responsibility for
maintenance. They do not have any
responsibility for maintenance on the west channel either.
Mr. Bissell asked does the C.I.D. have
responsibility? Did we discuss before
that the C.I.D. had responsibility of maintaining the swales on the east side?
Mr. Cox responded on the single-family portion of
Phase II, the eighty-nine lots, the plat dedicates the easements and
responsibility for maintenance to the District.
There is a specific expressed statement in the declaration of covenants,
conditions and restrictions for those lots that says that the homeowner or
property owner would be responsible for maintaining the rip rap and the
District will maintain the drainage easement only.
Mr. Gatti asked what do you want to accomplish?
Mr. Bissell responded I would like the C.I.D. to
be responsible for Stella Maris as it is for the rest of the east side of the
canal.
Mr. Gatti stated Stella Maris has seawalls, the
rest of the District has rip rap.
Mr. Bissell stated I am not asking anything for
the seawall, just for the maintenance of the swale.
Mr. Gatti asked how do you feel about the road
way at Stella Maris, what do you want to do with that?
Mr. Bissell stated that should go to the C.I.D.
along with the drainage. I cannot see
how one can drain something on somebody’s property and not be responsible.
Mr. Cox stated the assignment of that
responsibility was made by the dedications on the plat.
Mr. Bissell asked in the State of Florida they do
not need to reveal this at the time of sale?
Mr. Cox responded in the State of Florida you are
deemed to have notice of everything recorded in the public record affecting the
property you intend to buy.
Mr. Gatti stated I will accept a motion to direct
our attorney to take the necessary steps, without spending any money, to get
all of the roadway systems dedicated to us, as long as it is in the public
interest and when it is no longer in the public interest it reverts back to the
original owner.
There being none,
Mr. Gatti asked where do we go from here.
Mr. Robinson asked looking at the north side, when
you say all the roads are you talking about all the roads that are platted here
and the ones that go off.
Mr. Cox responded we are already own all the
roads on the north side.
Mr.
Robinson stated the road that goes west is considered our property; the driveway
into the hotel and the RV resort, correct?
That is not what we are talking about as far as taking control of the
roads.
Mr. Gatti stated we cannot take over the
roads. That is a misnomer. We can ask people that have those roadways to
turn them over the C.I.D.
Mr. Cox stated this road was acquired with bond
proceeds. Sunrise Cay Road was built
with bond proceeds. We built these roads
and we have fee title to them. This road
was built by the developer and the plat dedicated Stella Maris Drive to the
District with responsibility for maintenance.
They have retained title to the fee simple interest in that, but we have
the responsibility to maintain that road.
If we have the responsibility to maintain it, we should own it.
Evening Star Cay is the same story. The road brings us to the extension of
Newport Cay in this area. The only road
that I am asking the District to obtain title to that we did not build with
bond proceeds and we have never been assigned maintenance responsibility. Nobody has the responsibility for the
maintenance of that road. If the
homeowners association was still in existence that would be the entity that you
could say has responsibility for that road right now but as it is nobody does.
Mr. Gatti asked could you repeat your
recommendations?
Mr.
Cox responded we need to acquire title to the roadway systems that we do not
have, that consist of the improved roadways, not of the internal driveway for
the hotel.
Mr.
Gatti asked you are asking that we acquire fee simple title to the roadway
systems that we do not have?
Mr.
responded that is right.
Mr.
Gatti asked are those Stella Maris roadways?
Mr. Cox responded Stella Maris, Evening Star and
the south part of Newport.
Mr.
Wolsky asked is that without acquiring responsibility for the drainage?
Mr.
Cox responded right now we are talking about roads, yes.
Mr.
Bissell asked which road?
Mr.
Cox responded that is Evening Star Cay, Stella Maris Drive and Newport Drive,
which includes Morning Star Cay and Newport Cay. It is all that is colored dark on your map,
not the drainage easement, just the roads.
We will discuss drainage next.
Mr.
Robinson asked is the only portion of that we currently do not have the
responsibility to maintain is the south part of Newport?
Mr.
Cox responded yes, along with Evening Star.
Mr.
Benson stated I recall the south part of Newport, Newport Cay and Morning Star
Cay was probably discussed with the developer of Port of the Islands, Inc. and
there was an intention that it was to be transferred. It may never have been done.
Mr.
Cox stated we already are responsible for maintenance on Evening Star Cay.
Mr. Wolsky stated I remember sections of the
minutes where Mr. Anderson, President of the Homeowners Association of Evening
Star Cay turned over responsibility for the maintenance of the road.
Mr. Cox responded that was done by the plat.
Mr. Wolsky asked we do not own the road?
Mr. Cox responded we do not own it. It was dedicated to the District with the
responsibility for maintenance. That means
we have an easement over that road. We
can maintain it. We do not have to have
fee ownership of this road.
Mr. Gatti stated there is unnecessary
confusion. We do not own any of the
roadways, the City does not and the County does not. When they are dedicated, they are held in the
public interest by whatever entity that is and the way to vacate that road is
when those public interests are no longer served. We do not own fee simple title to any of
these roads.
Mr.
Cox stated there are some that we do own fee title to.
Mr.
Gatti stated that is the exception and you explained that regarding the roadway
back to the treatment plant. The rest
are roadway systems we would never own.
Where do we want to go with this?
Mr.
Cox stated these are strictly roads at this point.
Mr.
Gatti stated I sense there will be deterioration of the roadway systems in the
future. For example, who is responsible
for the main roadway system? How can
that not be the C.I.D?
Mr. Cox asked which one?
Mr. Gatti responded the one on the far side or on
Newport Drive. It serves the entire
community. How can anybody but the
C.I.D. be responsible for that?
Mr. Wolsky stated I totally agree with you but
there is no problem of maintenance of seawalls connected with that?
Mr.
Gatti stated yes there is. Some of the
easements that go out to the bay have the same thing on that side. We have pipes all over that go into the bay
so to that degree, we have some responsibility.
Mr.
Wolsky stated the only solution to the problem is for somebody to move that
something be done and put it to a vote.
Mr. Robinson MOVED that the C.I.D. attempt to
obtain dedication for all of the roadway systems in the community along with
the responsibility of maintenance. The
motion died due to lack of a second.
B. Engineer
Mr.
Benson stated there was a letter sent on March 25th to Mr. Cox from
the D.E.P regarding a notice for N.P.D.S. permitting requirements for storm
water. I briefly verified some things on
the D.E.P. website regarding that. We
are, in Collier County, an urbanized area that was defined to be a part of this
program based on the 2000 Census not the 1990 Census. If we are part of the urban area by
definition, we have to submit an application by June 1, 2004.
There is a notice that they are still working on
the rules so we could not submit yet. If
we went by the 1990 census, we would have to submit something potentially by
this summer. The next step is do we meet
the other conditions?
Mr.
Gatti asked is this the E.P.A.?
Mr.
Benson responded this is D.E.P. This is
N.P.D.S. It is storm water. The City, Collier County, the City of Naples
and Bonita Springs have to participate in this next round because they meet the
criteria of the 2000 Census. It is
something that the City and the County is working on.
Mr.
Gatti asked can we piggyback on the County?
Mr.
Benson responded we can do that if we need to.
We do not have to do anything immediately because we are not a part of
Lee County. We are part of the area that
would be in the following year. I have
printed a map of the areas that are included.
They do not go out to Port of the Islands. It stops by Fiddlers Creek. We are not shown on the map and may not even
be a part of it. We have plenty of time,
if we need to be a part of this.
Mr.
Cox stated we simply enter into an agreement with the County that they are
going to do the monitoring and we may not even need to pay them.
Mr.
Benson stated there are also some population thresholds and we may not even be
within the threshold to have to participate.
We will follow through on what we may have to do.
The permit renewal on the wastewater treatment
plan is in the works. We received a
letter requesting additional information, which we complied with. This is a
five-year renewal.
There was
a question regarding Lot 86 in the Cays at the last meeting that I was unable
to attend. Was there anything that you
needed on that?
Mr.
Gatti responded no, we tabled that because there is some disagreement as to
whether the builders had lived up to their agreement.
Mr.
Benson stated here are some copies of photos that were taken at a site
inspection on March 14th.
There were some site visits in February.
When they built it, it was not quite what the agreement was with the
C.I.D. so the builder was notified what he had not complied with and he
modified the system. This is the
finished product and does comply with the agreement that the C.I.D. entered
into, which allowed the 12- foot-wide V-shaped swale to be 6feet wide, but it
was to be rectangular.
Mr.
Wolsky stated putting up a wall, shaving off the ends will not hold that amount
of water. The water will seek its own
level. The water that is being contained
behind that wall will just run around the sides.
Mr.
Benson stated I think the water will not reach the top board any way. I estimate that his higher than the adjacent
earth and berm. At the back of the
vacant lot next door is where the depression is and then it will come in and go
through this other area.
Mr.
Wolsky stated our permission to use the easement is being interpreted as
usurping the County’s right to make that decision and the County says the
C.I.D. allowed that to happen.
Mr.
Cox stated the agreement expressly states that the applicant would be
responsible for getting all approvals required by Collier County. We are not, in any way, usurping Collier
County’s authority. Collier County is
taking the position that they do not want anything to do with these drainage
easements either. They want to turn them
over to us. The County does not
recognize any interest in these drainage easements.
Mr.
Bissell stated they had a 4-foot swale between that wooden wall and the
pool. They increased it to 6-foot and by
doing so; they pushed out the top of the rip rap. If you look at the rip rap from across the
channel, it is still even with the fill that they put in on the top of the old
rip rap, it is still about a foot-and-a half lower than the surrounding
lots. The water coming down from the
east side flows west. It comes down the
swale, takes a right-hand turn, goes toward the canal and then takes a left
down the channel that they made. When it
rains, that bare dirt will go down and fill up into that storage area that was
made. That should have been covered with
sod. The County engineer says that the
high water mark is a foot-and-a-half back from where it was in their other
drawing. The mean high watermark is a
foot-and-a-half closer to the pool.
Mr.
Gatti asked where you want to send it to?
Mr.
Bissell responded all the water that is coming down is going to bring this dirt
and put it here because this is lower and this.
Mr.
Gatti stated this is not his property?
Mr.
Bissell stated no, but it was sod in the construction that took it. I suggest to the Board that we hire or ask
the County engineer to mark the high water mark or to have a marine engineer to
mark the high water mark so it can be measured to 15 feet.
Mr.
Robinson stated this survey is certified by a licensed Florida surveyor showing
the main high-water mark. This is the
best anyone can do.
Mr.
Benson stated per the requirements, the County and State did a survey to
identify that line relative to before and after they built the building. We have to take their word that the licensed
professional did his job correctly.
Mr.
Bissell asked as a professional engineer, are you saying that the main
high-water mark is below the rip rap?
Mr.
Benson stated that might be the location.
This is a licensed survey.
Mr. Bissell stated because they are licensed does
not mean they are knowledgeable in the area of the Corps of Engineers
designating where the high-water mark is.
Mr. Cox stated when this surveyor makes a
certification that the property was surveyed under his license and direction
and meets the requirement of law, and he signs it; he is doing something within
his expertise. I cannot imagine that you
would sign something that you cannot certify.
Mr. Bissell stated the County engineer is saying
that it is a foot-and-a-half back from where it was on the map.
Mr. Gatti asked what is your recommendation on
this?
Mr.
Benson responded the person from the County that came out may or may not be a
licensed professional engineer. As a
professional engineer, I do not designate where the mean high-water mark is. That is, by State law, something a surveyor
who is registered and licensed by the State, has as part of their statutory
rules. When the surveyor surveys that
and makes that statement, the County person either accepts that or has another
surveyor survey it. I would not do that
outside of what the law says I am supposed to do. I have to accept that it was surveyed
properly. The County person, I assume,
has to do the same thing. If they
question that the surveyor located it properly, they would have to send another
surveyor out. I am going by the plat,
the survey and what the easements show.
We legally said they would have a variance from the width of this
easement from some number of feet to something less. I could look up what I have, but they have
complied with what they asked for and we granted. What I looked at was from a storage of water
standpoint, with what they were proposing be equal to or better than what
existed before. For storing water, that
complies. For transferring water from
one side of the house to the other, depending on which way the water would
flow; the same amount of water could flow from Point A to Point B. That was the basis of my recommendation that
you approved. Whatever other rules the
County may have for building in Collier County and other developments, they had
to comply with those. We only said what
we could do and that was storing water and transferring water from Point A to
Point B. This does that.
Mr.
Gatti asked is the capacity of what he did, the same on each side of the lots?
Mr.
Benson responded that is correct.
Mr.
Bissell asked but they changed directions of the water, right?
Mr.
Benson asked changed the direction how?
Mr.
Bissell responded they changed the direction of the flow of the water in that
swale.
Mr.
Benson stated the water does not flow in that swale. It flows from the lots and sits in that swale
and there is not really a flow of water.
It is storage.
Mr.
Gatti asked are you saying that based on what the Board did and based on your
activity on the field, they complied with what permission we gave them and they
complied with what the County requested.
Mr.
Benson responded I do not know about what the County may have requested.
Mr.
Gatti asked what the County requirements are?
Mr.
Benson stated I do not think anybody from the County has said that they have
done anything one way or the other.
Mr.
Gatti responded there were County people out there.
Mr.
Benson stated I would have thought the issue with the County and what they
would have to do to get permission is the setbacks and things of that nature
and we do not have anything to do with that.
Mr.
Ziko stated the setbacks the Board approved were against what the County set
up. When you approved going five feet into the swale, you usurped the County’s
authority of the setbacks. They had
everything complied to. The high water
marks do not comply to County standards.
Mr.
Gatti stated I believe the motion in those minutes say, “subject to any
requirement of any jurisdiction.” We did
not object to it provided that they meet other County requirements.
Mr.
Ziko stated provided they do but I have not seen a variance. I am across the canal and there has not been
a variance in the County. Somebody came
up with an idea that there was a vacate variance or something.
Mr.
Gatti stated read the motion.
Mr.
Ziko read the referenced motion from the prior meeting. Mr. Benson with all of his engineering work
on the depths of what that swale now becomes, is in effect approving that 5
feet further into the swale.
Mr.
Gatti stated this is subject to the County’s approval.
Mr.
Ziko asked why would you do all that engineering work if the County has not
approved it?
Mr.
Benson responded I did not do any engineering work. I reviewed what the developer or builder
submitted.
Mr.
Ziko stated on the plat that your professional engineer sent in, does that show
the County setback on that? If it does
not, he is in violation.
Mr.
Gatti stated you are confusing some terms.
Mr.
Benson stated yes, it is 30.7 feet from the lot line to the principle
structure. I do not know what the
setbacks are there.
Mr.
Gatti asked what setbacks are we talking about, the rear yard setbacks. That setback does not have anything to do
with the easement.
Mr.
Ziko stated the setbacks from the high-water mark to the structure is 20 feet
by County standards.
Mr.
Gatti asked what is it?
Mr.
Benson responded the principle structure is 30.7 feet from the main high-water
line. The back of the pool is 13.7.
Mr.
Ziko stated the back of the pool in the County is considered a major structure.
Mr.
Benson stated that is up to the County to give the owner of the property the
variance for the structure. We were not
doing anything about that. If he went
for a variance from the County, he would have to ask for the variance to the
setback. That has nothing to do with
drainage.
Mr.
Bissell stated they never asked for a variance.
Mr.
Benson stated that is not our issue.
Ms. Dillon stated they have not applied for variance. It has not gone before the planning commission. I have spoken to the supervisor of permitting who know