MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE 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 Wolsky Vice
Chairman
Ted Bissell Assistant
Secretary
Richard Burgeson Assistant
Secretary
John Robinson Supervisor (by phone)
Also present were:
James DeCocq District Manager
Dan Cox Attorney
Ron Benson Engineer
Tim Stephens Utilities Director
Tom Marcella Assistant Utilities
Director
Numerous Residents
FIRST
ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Gatti called the meeting to order and Mr. DeCocq called the
roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the April 16, 2004 Meeting
Mr. Gatti stated that each
member of the Board had received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr. Cox stated I have one
item. Regarding Page 10 in the second
paragraph, we were discussing with the County, the additional sampling and
testing that is going to have to be done once we brought the irrigation system
on line.
We received a response from
the County and they indicated they did not have the resources to assist us.
Mr. Gatti stated I talked with
the City of
Mr. Cox asked were they
concerned about liability. If they could
address that issue, do you think they might be willing? We could agree to hold them harmless on anything
you want if you think it is worth pursuing.
Mr. Gatti stated reading
between the lines, I am guessing they just do not want to mess with this, but I
will pursue it.
Mr. Bissell stated the County
told me there was a possibility that we could piggyback with them on going over
to
Mr. Gatti stated there is no
question about that. If there is an
existing State, federal or municipal contract that we can piggyback off, there
is no question about that.
Mr. Wolsky asked why the
refusal on their part?
Mr. Gatti stated there is no
refusal. What it means is we do not have
to go through the bid process. We can
take the bid process that they have gone through and piggyback on their
contract. It is our own separate
contract, but we are going to piggyback on the bids. We can do this with cars,
the Sheriff's department, and the whole nine yards.
On MOTION by Mr. Bissell seconded by Mr. Wolsky
with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Resolution 2004-02 Designating Rich Hans as Secretary
Mr. Gatti stated this looks like a housekeeping
item. Mr. Hans is from Severn Trent.
Mr. DeCocq stated Mr. Hans is regional manager for this
area and over this District, so if we make him the Secretary, he can sign
ministerially in-house.
On MOTION by Mr. Wolsky seconded by Mr. Bissell
with all in favor Resolution 2004-02 was adopted.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Distribution
of Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2005 and Consideration of Resolution
#2004-03 Approving the Budget and Setting a Public Hearing
Mr. Gatti presented Resolution 2004-03 approving the
proposed budget and setting a public hearing.
Mr. DeCocq stated you are approving the budget for
discussion and final adoption at the public hearing. It is not until you adopt it that it becomes
an actual, operating document.
Mr. Gatti stated subsequent to
the public hearing, there is still opportunity to make changes?
Mr. DeCocq responded
absolutely.
Mr. Bissell stated I think he
should hand them out.
Mr. Cox stated we need to get
one of the speakerphones as a multidirectional microphone, so they could hear
better.
Mr. Bissell asked should the
District purchase that?
Mr. Cox stated I would like to
get a couple of them and leave one here and use one to bring around with me.
Mr. DeCocq stated now, I would like to run through the
proposed budget and have a continued discussion of our proposed assessment
increase to fund the first year of the capital improvement program. Your budget has not changed significantly as
far as your administration. In Revenues,
on the first line, maintenance assessments, we anticipate an increase to
$462. Interest income is $1,200.
The difference in the total revenues is that $1,200 I
spoke about.
On your expenditures, there is
not much fluctuation from last year. The
property appraiser went up slightly, but that has to do with changing your
assessments. Everything else is pretty
much in line. You have increased the
total from $92,000 to $99,000 for administrative expenses.
Page 2 shows your maintenance
expenditures, which has increased about $6,000 for personnel. That is related to raises and associated
taxes and benefits. Health insurance has
decreased. Street lighting has a slight
increase of about $2,000. Capital outlay
is about $35,000. Reserve has about
$76,000.
The total maintenance
increases from about $286,000 to about $364,000, with total expenditures
increasing from $378,000 to $463,000.
The bottom of Page 2 shows where our assessable units decreased. We budgeted that based on the anticipated
sale of the property, eliminating some of your bad debt.
We anticipate your assessable
units to decrease from 1,059 to 916. You
might say that will throw money on fewer units, increasing the price, but you
are eliminating bad debt, which is money you were not receiving any way and had
to make up.
You increased from the
projected assessment per unit. We break
it down on a six-month basis, however, actual assessments are $379.50, which I
confirmed. The six-month projection
shows two numbers, the amount of money collected in the first six months,
divided by the amount of money anticipated to be collected, so there is a
little fluctuation there. The actual you
are collecting is $379.50.
We are proposing an increase
to $537 per unit. We anticipate that
will give us an extra $85,000 in the general fund toward this capital
improvement program.
The next page is a statement
of revenues versus expenditures per month, through March, totaling across. That shows our actual expenditures and charts
how those numbers were derived.
For your debt service, in
special assessments, we anticipate about $10,000 more collected next year. We anticipate a slight decrease in
expenditures. That is based upon the
methodology.
For the water and sewer fund,
in the revenues we have increased somewhat in the stand-by fees. Everybody pays this to have the ability to
hook up to your water and sewer. Regardless
of whether you use it, the plant has that capacity and we need to fund that
plant. As people come on line, they
still pay the standby fee to have the availability. We have increased that to $451, sewer revenue
stayed the same, water is about the same and meters are the same. The big increase is in the stand-by
fees. We had to do this for a guaranteed
amount of money for these long overdue capital improvements in your water and
sewer system.
Moving down, we have the same
type of administrative fees for management, engineering, et cetera in the
general fund for O & M for those projects and whatever is appropriate in a
proportionate basis onto the water and sewer.
As you run down the line, you have supervisor's fee, engineer, legal, et
cetera. There are not too many
changes. It is proportionate with what
you saw in the general fund.
Administrative expenditures have increased about $3,000.
On page 17 are the proposed
expenditures.
Mr. Gatti stated there is also
$100,000 in bad debt.
Mr. DeCocq stated on the next
page are your actual maintenance expenditures.
We have increased proportionately in personnel. Overtime stayed the same, with a little
increase in FICA and a slight decrease in health insurance.
Operating supplies are $75,000
and repairs and maintenance are about $20,000.
There is a capital reserve of about $69,008 and renewal and replacement
of about $95,000. We had zero last year,
so we want to budget properly for that.
We have increased total maintenance from $341,000 to $420,000, with
total expenditures increasing from $525,000 to $607,000.
Mr. Bissell asked on Page 17,
you are projecting that we overspent the total maintenance by $108,000? The adopted budget was $341,000 and you
project we are spending $449,000.
Mr. DeCocq responded there are
two different ways to do projection. On
is based upon, for example, personnel; you have gone half way through the
year. From the actual we spent, we can
assume we will spend pretty much the same for the second half of the year. Some of these are plugged numbers. For example, bonus pay, so far you gave
bonuses in the first months of $5,775.
In contractual services in the
first six months we spent zero. This is
to get a rough estimate. I do not put
too much into the projections until we get close to adopting the budget. We do a nine-month out for you before you
adopt to show you where you will end up.
Mr. Bissell asked is there an
opportunity between now and Sunday to talk about these things? I am leaving on Monday. Can we adopt this in July?
Mr. DeCocq responded you
should adopt this now. The final will be
in July. You are approving the proposed
budget and adopting the resolution to set the public hearing. This is merely ministerial.
Mr. Gatti stated you were
concerned about the difference between the $341,000 and $449,000. The only big number is the capital reserve.
Mr. DeCocq stated that is
true. You had zero budgeted and we
budgeted $144,000 projected for the next six months.
Mr. Gatti stated everything is
plugging in numbers. The rest all lines
up.
Mr. Bissell stated we will be
over budget by that much.
Mr. DeCocq stated that is not
a big deal if you understand where that is coming from.
Mr. Bissell MOVED to adopt Resolution 2004-03
approving the proposed budget and setting the public hearing and Mr. Burgeson
seconded the motion.
Mr. Gatti stated I know Mr.
Robinson has not had a chance to look at this, but we are not finalizing this
until July, so you will have the chance to review it.
Mr. Robinson asked this is budgeted on less ERC's than
last year because the ones that are gone correct?
Mr. DeCocq responded that is correct.
Mr. Robinson stated that is contingent on this
re-organization plan being accepted, right?
There is a chance it will not be accepted.
Mr. DeCocq responded absolutely.
Mr. Robinson asked do we have an idea when that is going
to happen?
Mr. Cox stated we have a hearing before the court at
10:00 a.m. and the hearing is expressly for the purpose of either confirming or
denying the plan of re-organization. We
will know before the July meeting. The
judge generally issues his orders within thirty days, in my experience.
Mr. Gatti asked did we get Ms. Marchand on the
speakerphone?
Ms. Marchand responded yes, I am here. Is this portion of the meeting open to the
public?
Mr. Gatti responded it is still closed. The public hearing will be at the next meeting
in July.
Mr. DeCocq stated the public hearing is July 23, 2004
here at 10:00 a.m. for everyone's information.
Before you call the question, I ran some quick numbers and verified the
numbers as you requested. They all seem
to be in order. As far as the changes in
your proposed assessment and stand-by fees, everything seems to be in order and
would generate the money.
There was some interest on increasing the capital
improvement revenues. These are some quick,
rough numbers of what you would need to raise and what the potential
assessments per ERC's would be. I do not
know if you want to discuss these before you adopt your budget and give me some
direction. I defer to the Chairman.
Mr. Gatti stated that may be confusing as it is almost a
separate issue. For everyone here, we
are proposing to raise the stand-by fees to have some money to work with for
repairs. The water treatment plant is in
bad shape. We do not have money for this
right now, so we have to increase our fees.
These things must be maintained.
Mr. Wolsky asked is that a valid use of stand-by fees?
Mr. Cox responded your stand-by fees are your fixed cost
of the project, actually producing the treatment of the waste, not for capital
improvements. When we operate the plant,
whether we treat one gallon or a million gallons a day, we have certain costs
that are fixed. Then you have variable
costs that are captured with your user fees and your fixed costs are captured
with stand-by fees. Some renewal and
reserve would be an appropriate use of stand-by fees.
If you look at some of our actual numbers, we are not
generating enough standby fees to generate the reserve.
Mr. Gatti asked so; we are okay with what we are doing?
Mr. Cox responded yes, it is a viable alternative to
levying additional maintenance assessments.
On VOICE VOTE with all in favor the prior motion
adopting Resolution 2004-03 was passed unanimously.
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Consideration
of Resolution 2004-04 Calling for Public Hearing to Impose Special Assessments
Mr. Cox stated Chapter 197 allows us to use the uniform
method of collections placing our assessments on the tax roll. Any time you levy an assessment for a
specific purpose for the first time you have to hold an additional public
hearing on that specific assessment.
This capital improvement plan assessment that is being built into your
assessments, I am taking a conservative approach to the statute and saying that
is something we need an additional public hearing on, to determine whether it
is appropriate to use the tax collector versus the direct assessment method.
We discussed this earlier and I perceived your direction
to be collecting it on roll. Therefore,
I need you to adopt Resolution 2004-04, which is a resolution of the Port of
the Islands Community Improvement District to authorize advertising of a public
hearing to utilize the uniform method of levying, collecting and enforcing
non-ad valorem special assessment and expressing the intent of the Board to
utilize the uniform method of collection pursuant to Section 197.3132, Florida
Statutes and Rule 12(D)18 of the Florida Administrative Code as amended to
provide for an effective date upon your adoption.
We will advertise it for the same public hearing date on
which we consider your budget.
Mr. Wolsky asked do you recommend we do this?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
On MOTION by Mr. Wolsky seconded by Mr. Bissell
with all in favor Resolution 2004-04 was adopted.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion
of Easement Vacation for Lot 86
Mr. Gatti stated I need some clarification on this.
Mr. Cox stated a year or two ago, the summit buildings
asked us whether we would enter into an agreement with them that would allow
then to encroach on the drainage easements behind Lot 86 in Phase II.
This Board adopted the use agreement and that was put in
place. It was subsequently determined by
Collier County that the County also had to authorize this. They have asked the County to entirely vacate
its interest in the drainage easement behind Lot 86. When you do that the County requires letters
of no objection from the other entities who might have an interest in the
County having that drainage easement.
That is what they have asked you to provide
Mr. Robinson stated I cannot hear what is going on.
Mr. Gatti stated we are talking about a vacation of the
easement for Lot 86.
Mr. Robinson stated I remember what that is.
Mr. Gatti stated if I recall correctly, the County
approved this subject to our approval.
Mr. Cox stated I do not believe the County has acted on
this at all. Until they receive our
letter of no objection, they will not move forward.
Mr. Gatti asked did we say we would provide that letter
and that we would not object? We said we
would not object provided that they maintain the capacity of the swale.
Mr. Cox stated this Board took formal action on the
agreement to allow them to encroach on your easement provided that your volumes
were unaffected and they build it in accordance with the plans that Dr. Benson
had approved.
Mr. Gatti asked has that been accomplished?
Mr. Cox responded I do not know.
Mr. Gatti stated we may need our engineer to confirm
this, but my recollection is that Mr. Benson said it had, in fact, been built
in accordance to meet the volume of the easement on each side. That was our condition on approving this.
Mr. Wolsky stated that is right. Dr. Benson stated that at a previous
meeting. Having done that, what affect
does the vacation of this easement mean?
My understanding is that the County is saying they do not have any
responsibility and they are saying by vacating this easement, that we do not
have any responsibility; is that correct?
Mr. Cox responded they are requesting we issue a letter
of no objection to the County, vacating its interest. That would not have any effect on any
interest the C.I.D. has by virtue of those plat dedications.
Mr. Gatti asked did we not do that already?
Mr. Cox responded we have consented to their encroachment
into our easement area, provided they meet those specifications.
Mr. Gatti stated they have done that, so what is the
problem?
Mr. Cox responded they are still in violation under the
County codes because the County has not consented to their encroachment into
that easement area. Rather than having
the County consent to that encroachment, they have asked the County to vacate
its interest.
Mr. Wolsky asked what is the County's interest in this?
Mr. Cox responded the County has essentially the same
interest that we have, a dedication for drainage purposes over and across those
areas that are designated on the plat.
If you recall prior discussions, a dedication is simply an offer. Until there is affirmation and acceptance of
that offer, the dedication does not vest.
The County says it has never accepted the dedication and
has never maintained it, so it has never implied any kind of acceptance, so it
did say it does not really have an interest, which is legally true. Until they actually terminate it and say no,
we are not accepting, they can come in and accept it.
Mr. Wolsky asked if we approve this letter, does this set
a precedent? Does that apply only to
this lot or the whole drainage system?
Mr. Cox responded that applies only to this lot. Whether this sets a precedent, it is not
something you have a firmly adopted policy on.
You can review the facts related to each situation and then make your
determination, whether you object or not, in the future.
Mr. Gatti stated we have already stated publicly that we
do not object to this.
Mr. Bissell stated we made a mistake in that.
Mr. Gatti stated I am just trying to clarify the record.
Mr. Cox stated you have not made any formal statement
regarding the County's vacation of the County's interest in this drainage
easement. You have consented to the
encroachment in the easement area, provided the conditions are met.
Mr. Gatti stated right and we set the conditions. We have our portion of it. Whatever our involvement is, the County asked
us to look at this and approve it or not, subject to our input, which is a
letter of no objection. We have done
that in this meeting.
Mr. Cox stated I do not believe we have.
Mr. Gatti asked where did the criteria come from that
they had to meet the volume of the swale on each side?
Mr. Cox responded that was to allow then to encroach on
the easement, but does not make the easement go away. This makes the easement go away.
Mr. Gatti stated I am not supporting vacating the
easement. My ultimate point is we are
getting into a lawsuit that we cannot win because we have already approved our
portion of this.
Mr. Wolsky stated I recall Mr. Cox saying that this would
not constitute approval.
Mr. Gatti stated my point is we do not have the
jurisdiction to approve it, the County does.
They said we will approve it subject to you saying it is okay. It was almost an informal courtesy. We said we do not object provided you
maintain the volume of the swale. Now
are we going back and saying we do not approve it?
I am not saying this is right or wrong. We cannot possibly win a lawsuit on this.
Mr. Cox stated given this letter of no objection, if the
County vacates its interest that does not affect your interest. Your easement is still there. Their use of that easement is subject to the
conditions imposed by the agreement.
Mr. Bissell stated when Mr. Benson sent one of his men to
look at the easement the owner kicked him off the property.
Mr. Gatti stated that does not apply to this.
Mr. Bissell stated it does involve it. I took a picture. When it was done, these are the pictures that
the County took and that property was then lowered. They put in the berm. We had a rain and the water went underneath
the berm, took the rocks, moved them down and the sand. They fixed it. They went out again. They put pipes in with the County's
approval. When the pipes were in it
still happened.
They took out the wooden berm. They pushed out the top of the swale. They pushed out the rocks and put that
in. It is clear in the pictures
also. I do not know if it has happened
again, but rock has been put in. Here is
a picture. The sand has come down at low
tide and even at medium tide.
Mr. Gatti stated this is all fine. I think you are saying they did not construct
it to our satisfaction. If that is the
case, I have no problem with it. What do
we want to accomplish here today?
Mr. Bissell responded I do not know. Who is going to be responsible for
maintaining that area? Who is going to
finance doing this?
Mr. Cox responded we have a use agreement recorded in the
public records that they have indemnified the District from any claims, damages
or modifications to this area.
Mr. Bissell asked what are they going to do with the sand
that is going into the canal?
Mr. Gatti asked what do we want to do? I will not support vacating that
easement. The Board may take whatever
position they want. Are we going to tell
this man to take three feet off of his pool?
There is no way, based on prior Board actions that we could win a
lawsuit here.
Mr. Bissell stated we would not be in a lawsuit. We are just telling the County that we do not
approve of it.
Mr. Gatti stated we have already taken action to approve
it subject to certain conditions.
Mr. Wolsky stated we are telling the County we have no
objection to the County vacating the County's interest. We live in Collier County and pay taxes
here. The County is vacating their
interest in something that we are not willing to pick up the interest in. That means nobody is in charge.
Mr. Cox stated the dedication to the County is clearly
without any maintenance responsibility on behalf of the County.
Mr. Gatti asked how could we take a swale that goes
across the entire length of that property and vacate ninety feet of it?
Mr. Cox stated the County is vacating its interest. It does not affect the District's interest.
Mr. Gatti stated the County does not do anything
anyway. We are going to get into a
problem here. Here is how these swales
come about. Port of the Islands
originally says we want to have a Development District. In order to have a Development District, you
must meet these criteria and provide detention.
That is mandated by South Florida Water Management.
These swales provide the detention we need in this
subdivision we need in order not to flood.
Now we are talking about vacating this?
Mr. Cox responded we are talking whether the District
objects to the County vacating the County's interest.
Mr. DeCocq asked if the County vacates their interest,
what effect does that have on us, the way it operates or any standard that
would apply to the swale?
Mr. Cox responded it has absolutely no effect on the
District's interest in the swale or the District's rights under the use
agreement.
Mr. DeCocq stated I understood earlier, you said you have
no objection to the change in that swale as long as it held the same capacity.
Mr. Robinson stated that was as long as it met with
County approval.
Mr. Cox stated it was constructed in accordance with the
specifications of the District Engineer and the agreement says this does not
obviate the need of the property to get any other approvals necessary from the
County.
Mr. DeCocq asked so, there would be required County
approval and sign off on anything they are constructing in the swale?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
Mr. DeCocq asked is the County, given that and the fact
that they want to vacate, are they now shunning their duties of approval and
leaving this in limbo?
Mr. Gatti responded the County is not saying we want to
vacate this. We are saying we want you
to vacate this.
Mr. Cox stated we are saying we have no objection to
that.
Mr. Gatti stated but I do.
Mr. Bissell stated this is a dead horse.
Mr. Bissell MOVED that the District not approve
vacation of the County's interest in that swale. Mr. Wolsky seconded the motion.
Mr. DeCocq stated the motion is to not approve the
County's vacation of the easement and not issuing the letter saying no
objection; is that right?
Mr. Cox stated the motion is to not issue the letter of
no objection for vacation. That is the
question.
Mr. Wolsky asked if we approve this motion, we do
nothing?
Mr. Cox responded you do nothing.
On VOICE VOTE with all in favor the prior motion
was amended to not issue the letter of no objection to the County's vacation of
the easement was passed.
Mr. Gatti asked now what else do we want to accomplish?
Mr. Bissell responded nothing, because Mr. Cox told us
they are going to take care of that swale themselves; is that right?
Mr. Cox responded right.
Mr. Gatti stated so we have problems with how it is being
maintained. I want this off the table.
Mr. Burgeson stated we should send them a letter.
Mr. Gatti stated it should be a letter that they have to
maintain the swale.
Mr. Burgeson stated also, that they bring it back to
where it is supposed to be.
Mr. Robinson asked I need to look at the minutes of the
meeting where that was approved. Could I
get those?
Mr. Wolsky responded I will send you a copy.
Mr. Gatti stated in the meantime the motion is passed and
we maintain that easement. Speaking
about the County, we can get you up here.
I will introduce this first.
Mr. Burgeson stated I want some questions answered
first. I spoke with Mr. Cox and Mr. Benson. I want to
know the procedure with regard to an approved plan by the County, what
authority the District has and what procedure the District has that any
developer has to follow with regard to roads.
Mr. Gatti stated let me set the scenario. A developer goes to the County and the
planning department reviews the setback requirements, the density of the lot
use and so on. They in turn, send it to
the other department, such as traffic and engineering to look at it.
Now that information comes back and the County tells the
developer you can develop this site subject to these conditions. You have to do this with the traffic. You have to do this with the storm sewer, et
cetera.
Mr. Cox stated you are at the point right now of
obtaining a zoning change or a change in entitlements that property has to
certain developments. The County does
the reviews and imposes restrictions in that situation. Once those entitlements and your zoning is in
place, you have the land development code that governs how that property is
then developed. The land development
code has specific requirements for densities and intensities of use.
The land development code has standards for landscaping
and surface water management systems, access to public rights-of-way and how
far the separations have to be from each other for these access points. These are all clearly spelled out in the
code.
When you submit a site development plan, they look at
that plan to see if you are within the requirements that are outlined in the
code. If they are, it is a
non-discretionary approval on the part of County staff.
Mr. Gatti stated to go back, it ties into public
property.
Mr. Cox stated on a public right-of-way.
Mr. Bissell stated this is not public.
Mr. Cox responded yes it is.
Mr. Bissell stated the County says it is not.
Mr. Cox stated the County is wrong.
Mr. Gatti stated I am challenging that, if it is their
right-of-way.
Mr. Cox stated it is not the County's right-of-way.
Mr. Gatti asked it is ours, but they have jurisdiction?
Mr. Cox responded right.
Mr. Gatti stated if it is their jurisdiction, they can
fix it.
Mr. Cox stated it is their regulatory jurisdiction. It is our proprietary jurisdiction.
Mr. Bissell stated they said they approved the site
development, but they cannot do anything on private property. If it is not State, County or federal, they
have no jurisdiction.
Mr. Cox stated Chapter 190.012 says that the District may
own, operate and maintain roadways subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of
the general-purpose local government within which the District is located. That means in our situation, subject to the
County's land development code regulations that are in place, we own, operate
and maintain those roads.
Mr. Gatti asked can they tell us what to do with the
roadway systems?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
Mr. Robinson stated the way I read that, they can tell us
what not to do, but not necessary what to do.
Regulatory means that we can do what we want to do as long as they say
it is fine. They cannot come in and say
this is what you have to do with your roads.
Mr. Cox stated we own, operate and maintain these
facilities for the purpose of promoting use and enjoyment of the lands within
the boundaries of the District.
Mr. Bissell stated they also said in the City of Naples,
the County cannot tell the City of Naples what to do with their streets or
their boulevards.
Mr. Cox stated they are general-purpose local
governments. We are special purpose
local government. There is a
difference. We have a singular, narrow
purpose to own, operate and maintain facilities, systems and equipment to meet
the concurrency requirements imposed by Chapter 163, Florida Statute.
That means putting the water, sewer, streets and drainage
in place to support the development of the property within the District and
maintaining it.
Mr. Gatti stated I am going to test this. We are going to review these plans, approve
them or disapprove them, but not exactly the way the County wants us to do
it. We are going to do it on our roadway
system. I know we are going against your
advice.
Mr. Burgeson stated I am not going to be the
example. My objection is that I do not
want someone going around and instructing that man (Tim Stephens) to come to my
office and tell me to shut down everything or they will go to the police. That cannot happen again in my office.
I did what I was supposed to do and then to have people
treat me like dirt; I do not like that.
I will not put up with it. What I
have built out here, I think went up in value, so I am not building junk. I will not be treated like I am. I followed procedure. Is it the opinion of this Board and these
people that I am building junk?
Why would they send this man and put it on him. I want a procedure implemented where somebody
has a complaint, they go to the gentleman we hired and make their
complaint. That person calls whomever it
is, whether they have done something wrong or someone else, they settle
it. If it is not settled, it is brought
before the Board, correct?
Mr. DeCocq stated that would be the standard procedure.
Mr. Burgeson stated that is the way I want it. I do not want anybody being picked out any
more and do not want this man going around and doing things like that. It is not his responsibility and should not
be put on him.
Mr. Robinson asked who is this gentleman?
Mr. Burgeson stated I mean Mr. Stephens. It is not fair. I want a procedure established. If you want to look at these prints, my
office door is open to anybody who has a question. I have never refused anyone who asked to see
what I had going on. If anyone wants to
know what I am doing they can walk over and get the information.
If you think I have done something legally wrong, go
through the procedure. What was done to
me cannot happen.
Mr. Gatti stated that was a mistake.
Mr. Burgeson stated this is not the first or the second
time. I got turned in over here for
using a fire hydrant. How much is gray
water per gallon?
Mr. Stephens responded it is about $1 per thousand
gallons.
Mr. Burgeson stated I put a $300 or $400 meter on that
was destroyed because it is gray water.
So for $1.50 per 1,000 gallons that I could not use on filling the
retention ponds. I am putting in a meter that is useless. But nobody complains when you ask me to
blacktop something and I do that. The
County asked me to repair all the sea walls in Stella Maris that were not my
fault. This was approved by the
engineers and I did this at my expense.
They complained about the patches down by South
Barfield. I resurfaced them and no one
complained. I got called out for a lift
station that I had to bring in the top Hole Montes engineer and the
construction people. It was a failed
pump further down. Do you remember that? It was a dual pump system that had nothing to
do with me.
Mr. Gatti stated everything you said is valid, but as a
courtesy to this Board, it would be appropriate for you to inform the Board of
what you are doing on our right-of-way.
The County has directed me to do this and I want you to see what I am
doing. Do you think that is appropriate?
Mr. Burgeson responded absolutely, but when this all
happens it has a very negative effect.
Mr. Gatti stated to deal with the subject at hand; you
want to penetrate those islands on the other side. You are doing it at the County's mandate.
Mr. Burgeson stated absolutely, I have a set of drawings
that we did that does not show the cut-through or anything.
Mr. Gatti stated I understand that and that is the
scenario that I tried to create when we first started talking about this. You went in for site development approval and
as part of that; they said you have to do this and this, which included things
on C.I.D. right-of-ways, which affects the aesthetics. I am not saying you are doing anything wrong,
but this affects the aesthetics, the transportation and the facilities of that
area.
Mr. Burgeson stated I understand and have no objections
to that or to coming here and presenting what I am doing, but I will not set a
precedent by bringing my prints in handing it there and saying, by the way, we
approve it, now you approve this one.
So, the next guy comes and says this is the way we have done it.
I am following the correct steps. I called Mr. Cox, Mr. Benson, and Mr. DeCocq.
Mr. Bissell stated as a point or order, this is a
discussion, not a Board meeting.
Mr. Burgeson stated yes, but I am not interested in
yours.
Mr. Gatti stated from my standpoint, because it involves
our right-of-way, it would have been appropriate because it is the right thing
to do. I support you.
Mr. Burgeson stated yes, I did not want to set a wrong
precedent. He just told us the law,
right?
Mr. Bissell responded right, that is how he interprets
it.
Mr. Burgeson stated if it is agreeable, from now on, when
I do something, I will bring it in and show the Board from now on.
Mr. Gatti stated that is what we asked.
Mr. Burgeson stated I was told to shut down or the police
would be called.
Mr. Gatti stated that was a mistake. I accept responsibility for that, so we can
let that go. Would it be appropriate for
you to show us what you are going to do over there and get the Board's opinion?
Mr. Cox stated you have no authority for approval or
disapproval. You can give an opinion.
Mr. Gatti asked how about suggestions? He is cooperative, supports the community and
we want to suggest something.
Mr. Burgeson asked do you know how long that took to get
a plan approved by the County? To go
back in with a suggestion, if it effects the County's approval, no way.
Mr. Gatti asked are you saying we have no jurisdiction on
what happens on our right-of-way?
Mr. Cox responded the purpose of this District is to
provide a mechanism on the provision and maintenance of infrastructure to
support the concurrency requirements imposed by the Chapter 163, Florida
Statutes. That is your function, a
single, sole purpose.
Mr. Robinson stated we cannot hear a word he is saying.
Mr. Cox stated simply said, the function of this Board is
as the entity that provides and maintains infrastructure to support the
concurrency requirements of Chapter 163.
That is for water, sewer, transportation, drainage and all the public
facilities that you finance for the purpose of supporting the development of
this property, the development of this property has to be consistent with
County regulations.
He has an approved plan.
It is your job to support the development of the property.
Mr. Burgeson stated as this is just discussion, the
families have a community that has more than doubled in value and should pull
together to make a beautiful community.
That is the point of this community.
People come here to enjoy retirement.
This inner fighting cannot continue.
People should realize there is a sunny side to this community and go
along with it and look at what has been done and how nice it is.
Mr. Bissell asked this is a Board meeting; is it not?
Mr. Burgeson responded go home to your mother.
Mr. Bissell asked are you telling me to go home to my
mother or Mr. Gatti?
Mr. Gatti stated please fellows. I take responsibility.
Mr. Burgeson stated it is not Mr. Gatti.
Mr. Bissell stated it is me, then.
Mr. Gatti stated come on now. Here is the essence of these plans.
Mr. Burgeson stated all of these units are dumping out
onto Cays Drive. It is a reduced amount
of density from what we were allowed.
Mr. Gatti asked does everybody understand?
Ms. Marchand asked if this is an approved plan from
County, then the beef is with the County.
Mr. Burgeson stated the County has approved this and then
made some corrections. These were things
we had to do. Instead of putting in 86
units, we are putting in fifty and they wanted a cut-through in the medium, for
which we capped off the sprinkler systems and they have sprayed the line to go
out so the traffic can go straight across the median and take a left.
We also are going to try to put in some nice
landscaping. In centerline we had some
100-year-old Cabbage Palms that are worth about $50 when you plant them. We are going to take that out and intend to
make a really nice entry into a community where we are building these homes.
They also said that because of the four buildings in
Stella Maris that are already built, they said the traffic will have to go into
Stella Maris and turn to go back out.
The County is requiring that after you get past the first building you
come to, they want to put in a yellow line and make it available to come down
to one lane of traffic. The other one is
for all the people to get into the left lane, make a U-turn and go back out.
Mr. Gatti asked does everybody understand? When you go on that side, you see the
roadways that Mr. Burgeson put in. Where
that roadway comes out, he is going to penetrate that island so people will not
have to go all the way around. That is
the right thing to do, from an engineering standpoint.
I have no problems with that aspect of it. The gore they are asking you to put in here
and narrowing to one lane, I ask you to delay that to the very last.
Mr. Burgeson stated that is just a matter of paint,
really, so I have no problem delaying that.
Are you telling me to just do what the County says?
Mr. Gatti responded no.
This is a difference of opinion.
I am a registered engineer in Florida and I do not like the way we are
going to narrow this down.
Mr. Burgeson asked do you know how many months that took
me, so I could even build this. I am a
year delayed.
Mr. Gatti asked all I am asking you is to delay putting
that paint in, okay? If anybody says
anything, you can tell them the C.I.D. requested that.
Mr. Burgeson stated I am going to paint it when it is time. We will see when that time comes. I make no promises either way.
Mr. Gatti stated this is where I have a problem. I understand the land code and the zoning
code. Does that apply to our
property? Are you saying it does?
Mr. Cox responded yes, there are two spots within Chapter
190, saying first, that you own, operate and maintain roads subject to the
specifications, conditions and jurisdiction of the County. Secondly, all the development within the
boundaries of the District must be consistent with both the comprehensive plan
and the land development code of the general-purpose local government within
which they are located.
Mr. Gatti stated so; I guess I should be addressing the
County, rather than Mr. Burgeson.
Mr. Robinson stated if this was ten years ago and you
were going to do the kind of job this developer was going to do. I could see what we are doing here, but we
have seen the developer go through this neighborhood and everything is
beautiful. I do not deal with the
County, but if we trust what he is doing, he will continue to do it.
You do not want to throw bureaucracy into what he has to
go through to put a road in. If it is
legal and the County is the one that says it, if I were Mr. Burgeson, I would
not come to the C.I.D. every time either.
I would do what is necessary and legal and continue to make the
neighborhood the way I have done it.
There are things that will take months or a year and there are things we
have been talking about for three years.
Mr. Gatti stated I appreciate what you are saying and you
are right. My problem is the County says
this is what you have to do. We have to
live with it. Maybe I am addressing the
wrong person, but the County says you have to do this. I went to the County and had extensive discussions
on a different matter.
I said if those are your streets fix them. The response was only excuses. We have to live with the results of what they
do. We have had zero input into it.
Ms. Marchand asked may I ask a question?
Mr. Gatti stated we will hold up on that until this is
put to bed. You are going to put this in
exactly the way the County told you to do it.
Mr. Burgeson stated within a time frame.
Mr. Gatti asked are you supporting this?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
Mr. Gatti asked as a courtesy in the future, if you could
come in and say this is what you are doing, we might have some
suggestions. We respect what you have to
go through with the County. This is our
community. It works both ways.
Mr. Burgeson stated it works well when everybody works
together.
SEVENTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Attorney
Mr. Cox stated I need a quorum by Tuesday morning to
discuss two litigation issues. This is
to discuss the Old Florida bankruptcy litigation and the Northport foreclosure
litigation. There has been a settlement
offer made on Northport that I need your input on.
Mr. Burgeson asked could we do it at ten o'clock Tuesday
morning?
Mr. Cox stated due to certain work Mr. Robinson must attend to, we would like to do it at 10:30.
Mr. Cox stated we will continue this meeting. This being a public hearing at which this was
announced, sufficient notice was given for the purpose of what we are doing.
Mr. DeCocq stated so that is Tuesday, the 25th at 10:30
a.m.. This is an executive session,
correct; and executive session means it is closed to the public?
Mr. Cox responded right, but a court reporter will be
present.
Mr. Bissell asked can we make a request that the June
meeting be held on the last Friday of the month?
Mr. Cox stated I have a special meeting with one of the
Cities I represent and Mr. Bissell also indicated he had to be out of
town. We would ask that be on the 25th,
instead of the 18th of June.
Ms. Marchand asked so, is the meeting being changed to
the 25th of June?
Mr. Gatti responded correct.
Mr.
Cox stated I have one other item. We had
a meeting with code enforcement regarding our signs and they asked us to pick
up the pace on the approvals for those.
I have the legal descriptions I need from Hole Montes. We need to get somebody started on our design
plan and get somebody to sketch it out and start forward getting our approvals
once we have the easements in place.
Mr.
Gatti stated I would like to turn this over to the community.
Ms.
Marchand stated if you are forming a committee, I would like to participate.
Mr.
Wolsky stated the only problem with setting up a committee is that it is
subject to the Sunshine law.
Mr.
Cox stated as long as you do not delegate your decision-making authority to
that committee. In other words, the
committee can develop a couple of different designs.
Mr.
Wolsky stated it is strictly advisory.
Mr.
Cox stated right; they can say we looked at this. We would be happy with either one and you
guys make the decision, or we have narrowed it down to this one that we
prefer. Please make that decision. That committee can meet outside the Sunshine
Law.
Mr.
Robinson stated we want them to be uniform.
We already have signs that are up to code and look great in the
Cays. If we are doing the same type of
setup, they will have to look the same.
Those are beautiful signs.
Mr.
Wolsky asked which signs are you talking about?
Mr.
Robinson responded as you drive up and turn right in your area.
Mr.
Marchand stated that would also include the big sign going in on the north side
for the RV Park, the golf club and the motel.
Mr.
Cox stated that becomes a commercial sign if you have anything about either of
those entities on that sign. We are
permitting our subdivision signs. We
will not be involved in permitting commercial signs.