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
Ted Bissell Vice Chairman
Richard Burgeson Assistant
Secretary
John Robinson Supervisor (by phone)
Dale Lambert Supervisor
Also present were:
James DeCocq District Manager
Dan Cox Attorney
Ron Benson Engineer
Tim Stephens Operations Manager
Numerous Residents See
attached list
FIRST
ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Gatti called the meeting to order and Mr. DeCocq called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Organizational
Matters
A. Acceptance
of Resignation Letter from Bernard Wolsky.
Mr. Gatti stated we will start by accepting the
resignation of Mr. Wolsky.
On MOTION by Mr. Bissell seconded by Mr. Robinson
with all in favor the letter of resignation by Mr. Wolsky was accepted,
effective as of
B. Appointment of Supervisor to Fill
Unexpired Term (11/2004) and Oath of Office
Mr. Gatti stated next is the appointment of a supervisor
to fill Mr. Wolsky's unexpired term.
There are a couple of ways we can do this. We can select one of the three people who
will be on the Board. The other is to assign
the person that ran for that seat.
Mr. Cox stated the third option is to sit on that until
the election is held.
Mr. Bissell stated I propose we assign the person who ran
for Mr. Wolsky's position.
Mr. Gatti stated that would be Mr. Lambert. There are other people involved here. There is Ms. Dillon and Mr. Ziko. Do you have any problem with that?
Mr. Ziko stated none at all.
On MOTION by Mr. Bissell seconded by Mr. Burgeson
with all in favor Mr. Lambert was appointed to fill the unexpired term of the
vacant seat.
Mr. Gatti asked can we administer the Oath of Office to
Mr. Lambert?
Mr. DeCocq stated I do not see the proper paperwork here
for signature and notarizing. What does
Mr. Cox suggest?
Mr. Cox responded I do not know the oath by heart, but I
believe I can administer an oath. Mr.
Cox, being a notary public of the State of
C. Election
of Officers
Mr. Gatti asked is this item
required at this time? It seems
appropriate that we should get these people seated before electing officers.
Mr. Cox responded Mr. Wolsky
was your Vice Chairman. The only thing
we need to co
Mr. Gatti asked do we need a
motion on that?
Mr. Cox responded that is
correct.
On MOTION by Mr. Burgeson seconded by Mr. Lambert
with all in favor Mr. Bissell was appointed as Vice Chairman.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the
Mr. Gatti stated that each Board member received a copy
of the minutes of the
Mr. DeCocq stated I have a point of clarification on
these. On Page 32 of the June 25th
meeting, there was a motion pertaining to the discussion on setting the
assessments rates. The motion was by Mr.
Wolsky to adopt the second scenario for a total of $551.81 of the stand-by and
general fund increase.
We continued the discussion and I thought we went back
and approved the total of $711, but I see no motion to that effect.
Mr. Bissell stated I believe I was the one that moved
that.
Mr. Burgeson stated you asked me and I said I was
confused and was that the motion we wanted?
It should be in there.
Mr. Bissell stated you said you would make the necessary
changes.
Mr. DeCocq stated at the next meeting we ratified that,
because it was not reflected in the budget.
There should be a second motion.
If you will notice, Mr. Wolsky's motion was never seconded. There was never a vote on it. We went ahead and made that motion. Can I have the Board give me some direction
as far as who made the motion and seconded it?
I do not remember if it was unanimous or not. I cannot remember from two months ago, how
that panned out.
Mr. Bissell stated you can put down either one.
Mr. Burgeson stated I believe I made the motion and you
seconded that. How did you vote, Mr.
Robinson?
Mr. Robinson stated I do not know if I did.
Mr. Bissell stated he had to vote; otherwise he would
have received a letter from management, asking why he abstained. I had that happen to me.
Mr. DeCocq stated I think he voted no, but it has been
two months.
Mr. Bissell stated I think so too.
Mr. DeCocq stated he wanted some increase, but not the
maximum.
Mr. Bissell stated that is right.
Mr. Robinson stated I do not know. I have a lot going on right now.
Mr. DeCocq stated I think you voted no on that because
you were looking at a lower increase.
You could not have abstained.
Mr. Robinson asked what was the motion on.
Mr. DeCocq stated initially, Mr. Wolsky made a motion to
go with the second scenario, which increased overall, the assessments for both
the water and sewer stand-by and the O & M.
Mr. Robinson stated I voted aye on that one.
Mr. DeCocq stated we never actually had a vote on
that. It went into discussion and then
there was a motion made to go to scenario three, the highest increase, which
was a total of $711 overall for a standard, single-family unit. We remembered here that motion was made by
Mr. Burgeson and seconded by Mr. Bissell.
Mr. Robinson stated I voted aye on that. I wanted the other one, but when the vote
came through I voted aye because everybody seemed to agree on that.
Mr. DeCocq stated good so, that was unanimous. I just wanted to clarify that for the
record. I know we had this discussion
last month, which we will get to.
Mr. Gatti stated along those same lines, when we approved
this Northport division of costs, I know we did that in an executive session,
but did we reconvene and pass that? I
did not see that?
Mr. Cox stated let me explain what is going on.
Mr. Gatti stated if you want to wait, we can finish our
business. We do want to make sure we are
covered there.
On MOTION by Mr. Bissell seconded by Mr. Burgeson
with all in favor the minutes for the
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Acceptance
of the Audit Report for Fiscal Year 2003
Mr. Gatti stated we are now on acceptance of the audit
report for Fiscal Year 2003.
Mr. DeCocq stated your audit was prepared this year by
Golstein, Zugman, Weinstein and
There is also a request for additional funds from them
associated with this audit and I want them to be present at the time you
approve or disapprove that. I do not
feel comfortable discussing this without them being present. Frankly, they should be here to discuss that
with you.
Mr. Gatti asked is the additional funds request, is that
an extra to their packet?
Mr. DeCocq responded yes, you will see that later
on. That is the next item, co
Whereupon, this item was tabled to the next meeting.
Mr. Bissell asked do we have a copy of the contract that
we have with them?
Mr. DeCocq stated I am certain that we do. I will bring that to the next meeting.
Mr. Cox state we should give them a letter, telling them
why that has not been paid, that they need to explain their report and telling
them the question, so they can be prepared.
Mr. DeCocq stated all right.
Mr. Burgeson asked are the additional costs over and
above what was originally contracted?
Mr. DeCocq responded yes, item five is the co
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Co
Mr. DeCocq stated for this item, they are requesting, the
estimated audit engagement letter was $4,900 for additional auditing proceeds
relating to it, number one, the allocation of assessments between funds and,
number two the accounting for and disclosure of bonds and interest
payments. They are asking for $500 for
each of those items.
That comes to an extra $1,000. That is one reason I am not ready to discuss
this unless they are here to explain this to the Board.
Mr. Gatti stated well the point is that they have to
justify the request for extra funds. If
they just want extra, that is one thing, but if we requested additional work
beyond what their scope of work was, that is another matter.
Mr. Bissell stated I do not believe the Board requested
additional work on that.
Mr. DeCocq stated we internally may have had to request
additional work or once they got in there, it may have been more than
anticipated. That is for discussion.
Mr. Bissell stated they have been our auditor for the
last few years.
Mr. Gatti stated we will see what they have to say.
Mr. DeCocq stated you have these audit reports now. If you want to read through those and if you
have any questions, please feel free to e-mail or contact me so that I can
compile a list of question for the auditors so they can come in prepared to
answer those.
Mr. Gatti asked could we make sure the people who will be
sitting on the Board receive a copy of that, if possible?
Mr. DeCocq responded absolutely.
SIXTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Attorney
Mr. Gatti asked could we start out with this Northport
development issue, where we agreed that our share is $160-some-odd-thousand and
Allstate was $400,000.
I know we did this in executive session? Is it obligatory for us to reconvene and pass
this or was this general direction.
Mr. Cox stated I will explain what happened and what
actions we need to take and you can take the actions you wish.
What was proposed was a payout of a set amount of money
by Northport that was going to be a pro-rata distribution between all the tax
certificate holders, the bondholder and the C.I.D. At the time the letter was written from
Northport there was an estimated $160-some-odd-thousand dollars coming to the
District.
When it came down to
distributing the funds because the tax collector made them go through certain
processes, there was an additional layer of fees and costs involved that
reduced the amount that was available to payout to all of the parties that were
subject to receiving funds. Everybody's
payout went down a bit.
Ours went to $154,000.
We had to act on this by August 31st or there was going to be an
additional layer of costs and expenses that would have gone in, with additional
interest and it would have reduced everybody's pro rata payout even less.
Everybody that was involved, Allstate, all the tax
certificate holders and the tax collector had signed onto the agreement. Mr. Gatti was out of town and I did not get
in touch with him to find out what direction he wanted me to take. We were under time constraints and in the
exercise of judgment, accepted the $154,000 on behalf of the District.
Mr. Gatti stated so the judgment that had to be made is
that we accept the $154,000, rather than the $166,000.
Mr. Cox responded yes, $166,000. The ramifications of not accepting the
$154,000 is that the deal would have fallen apart and the exposure to the
District of being the sole party of making that deal fall apart seemed to me to
justify taking the lesser amount, a bird in hand, kind of analysis, versus not
just what would we have later, but what exposure we would be facing later.
I felt like the direction
given to us in the executive session was to cut the best deal we could and make
sure that we got a proratable payout with everybody else. You cannot take action in an executive
session, but there was no action taken.
We were given some direction to justify doing what we did. On that basis, I would ask you to ratify that
action.
Mr. Gatti stated it was the
general philosophy of the Board to do exactly what you just described. It was lose it all or get a portion of
it. That was your discussion with the Board. I do not think the Board has any problem with
that.
Mr. Burgeson asked do you know
what the guy paid for the land?
Mr. Cox responded I cannot
recall.
Mr. Burgeson asked $2.8
million?
Mr. Cox stated I do not know.
Mr. Burgeson stated that is
what I heard.
Mr. Cox stated a good portion
of that was rebated back by the parties.
Mr. Burgeson stated I do not
know why anybody would do that.
Mr. Cox stated the Department
of Revenue said the only way you could clear that property out was that they
had to redeem the tax deed. They had to
write a check for the full amount of the taxes and everything else out there,
for $2.8 million. Then the tax collector
had to take that money, break it up and send it to all of the tax certificate
holders and the District and Allstate and all of that.
We had to turn around and
rebate the money back to get us down to our proportionate share of what we had
agreed to accept. We actually got a
check for a few days for around $400,000 and something, but we had to rebate
the $250,000.
Mr. Gatti stated we ended up
with $155,000, so nothing really changed in our discussion except that we went
from $167,000 to $155,000.
Mr. Cox stated everybody else
also went down proportionately. I think
Allstate was supposed to get $450,000 and they ended up getting around $325,000
or something like that.
Mr. Gatti asked does anybody
have any problems with that?
Mr. Burgeson stated there are
still other pieces of property in the same kind of situation where there's
money owed, right?
Mr. Cox responded right, we
still have two more pieces of property out there and if we can settle this one,
I will give you an update on those.
There has been some activity on that also.
Mr. Burgeson asked is it our
intent to settle on that also.
Mr. Gatti stated speaking for
myself; I suggest we look at each individual situation as it shows up. I do not know that we can say generally that
it is the philosophy of the Board that we will accept them all. We can make those judgments one piece at a
time.
Mr. Cox stated we actually
have two situations that can be fairly distinguished with the other two, based
on their status. It is a bit different
for each of them. I do not think we are
setting any kind of precedent if we do not want to. If somebody comes in with a deal that will
ultimately reduce the amount of uncertainty of going forward with litigation,
then we are willing to entertain their proposal and be rational.
Mr. Burgeson stated plus you
are going to get to do higher assessments now that will increase.
Mr. Bissell stated I requested
the Executive Board minutes, but have not yet received them, so I do not know
what to say. I do not know who said what
and I do not know what involvement each Board member has in the construction of
anything that is going on there. I am
not going to vote until I get those minutes and I see how we are obligated to
do what. No motions were passed in open
session, so nothing is above-board at this time.
Mr. Cox stated those executive
session minutes are sealed until the conclusion of the litigation.
Mr. Bissell stated not to me,
the are not.
Mr. Cox responded yes, they
are.
Mr. Bissell stated that is
different than what you told Mr. DeCocq.
Mr. Cox stated I told him I
would give them to you, but as far as them being available, I will give them to
you, but I do not have them either. This
particular court reporter did not get my new e-mail address and that has never
come back to me.
Mr. Bissell stated we did that
in May and this is three months and we have nothing.
Mr. Cox asked did we not do
the discussion on this last month?
Mr. Gatti responded we did it
the month before. Can we put a direction
on this?
Mr. Cox responded the
discussion we had in those minutes was essentially, there was an offer out
there for an amount of money to come to all the parties to be distributed
proportionally.
Mr. Robinson stated I cannot
hear whoever is talking.
Mr. Cox stated under the
scenario that was presented, we would have gotten $165,000. That scenario changed and it was the best
deal we could cut. That was the
direction I thought we were given, which is why we took the deal we took.
Mr. Gatti stated I agree.
Mr. Bissell stated the money
that was given to the District and the money that was rebated, have those
checks been cut?
Mr. Cox responded I believe
they have. It was very
time-sensitive. Everything had to happen
in a coordinated fashion, so the deal did not fall apart. It would have added a substantial amount of
expense and property that was not going to be borne by the developer.
Mr. Bissell stated I was told
yesterday, this deed had already been approved by the Board. That was the first I had heard of it. That was approved by the Board, the land was
sold and new development has already begun.
Mr. Cox responded the person
who told you that either misunderstood what happened or said it in a way that
led you to misunderstand what they meant.
You cannot make decisions in an executive session. I can make settlement strategies with you. The Board gave me direction to cut the best
deal I could. That was the direction I
took out of the meeting.
Mr. Bissell stated that is why
I wanted the minutes.
Mr. Gatti stated now we have
to get Mr. Bissell a copy of those minutes.
Can we get that accomplished? I
do not know if we can do anything retroactively, but it sounds like this is
complete. It is a done deal, yes?
Mr. Cox responded that deal is
done, yes.
Mr. Gatti stated we still have
an obligation to furnish that. You were
not here obviously.
Mr. Bissell stated no, Mr.
Wolsky and I had to leave and Mr. Cox preliminarily gave us a little
information before we left that day.
That was the last I had heard about it until this individual told me
about it the other day. That is why I
requested the Executive Board meeting last month.
Mr. Gatti stated let me
summarize my recollection.
Mr. Cox stated I got a call
this week and I was trying to get them and have not as yet.
Mr. Gatti stated we want you
to have the minutes. My recollection is
that the Board approved the concept. We
knew that it was not specific. We did
not know whether the other two parties to this agreement had agreed to it.
Mr. Cox stated at the time of
this meeting there were still tax certificate holders who have not even signed
off on this one.
Mr. Gatti stated our general
direction to Mr. Cox was to cut the best deal we could. We understood that. I keep saying $167,000. It was plus or minus a few bucks or whatever
it was. Our general direction to you was
to cut the best deal you could and we agreed to the concept. You followed up on that.
Again, I feel obligation to
help you understand what happened and that is fine.
Mr. Cox stated let me
interject something for your co
I do not think it is fair to
Mr. Bissell that he be asked to do it because he has not seen the minutes. I think we cut you the best deal you could
get. To make this thing go through and
not impede progress on getting the lands, getting the deal done and getting
this piece of litigation out of our hair.
I think we cut the best deal we could.
Mr. Gatti stated we need to
satisfy the other Board members and bring together the discussion that we had
and make sure that Mr. Bissell gets the minutes.
Mr. Lambert asked are these
things that need to be acted upon at this meeting?
Mr. Cox responded it can be.
Mr. Burgeson stated it can if
Mr. Bissell decides to go along.
Basically, what you have done is what you said you would do.
Mr. Bissell asked who is going
to do the building over here?
Mr. Burgeson responded not
me.
Mr. Gatti stated I appreciate
your question, but that really does not have anything to do with it.
Mr. Bissell stated if Mr.
Burgeson is going to build, he cannot vote.
It would be a conflict of interest.
Mr. Gatti stated I accept that
part. For us to get personal in who's
going to build there, we would like him to build there, but we do not like the
other.
Mr. Bissell stated no, it is
just a conflict of interest.
Mr. Burgeson stated I would
not vote. Personally, I would rather not
vote. I just do not like to get involved
if there is any indication it had anything to do with me.
Mr. Gatti stated I accept the
question. If it goes beyond that, then
it is totally out of the question.
Mr. Bissell stated something
like that would have to be above board, so there is no problem later. That is why I ask these questions.
Mr. Gatti stated there is no
question about that. What else can you
tell us?
Mr. Cox asked as to the other
two properties?
Mr. Gatti responded well,
finish up on this. Somebody bought that
property for $2.8 million and then had to give it back.
Mr. Cox stated they got back a
good chunk of that. The net payout is
probably somewhere around $1.25 million.
Mr. Gatti asked whatever they
do there is going to be done within the existing zoning?
Mr. Cox responded that is what
I understood. They are going in with a
site development plan. If you recall,
one thing we discussed was where we were going to put our fire truck. They are redoing the site plan to try to
accommodate.
They are talking with the
County about whether the County would rather have the access directly onto
Route 41 or to the little road there and then have them come out of that
intersection to go out to Route 41.
These kinds of things are in process.
Mr. Gatti stated if they are
asking for kind of a variation, it would not come to us. It would go to the County.
Mr. Cox stated absolutely.
Mr. Gatti stated we have to be
involved.
Mr. Cox stated the site plan
process is a little different than if they had to change the zoning. You asked if whether they were going to stay
within the existing zoning. Under the
existing zoning, they have a planned unit development that has everything east
of the road as conservation area and everything west of the road is developable
as multi-family, residential. I believe
it was three stories, maybe two stories of parking to take care of storm surge
and stuff like that.
I believe it was one of the
two and 150 multi-family units, roughly, that can be built in that area that is
all west of the road. I have not seen
the proposal, but there is some discussion about putting some land for us to
have the fire station on. It could be
that it would give the County additional information if we were to, in some
way, support that.
Mr. Bissell asked could this
be low-income housing?
Mr. Cox responded no, I do not
think it is going to be low income.
Mr. Gatti stated they paid
$2.8 million for the property.
Mr. Cox stated there again, I
think it was like one-and-a-quarter. You
get your horizontal infrastructure costs in there and before you even start
building, you are going to have $15,000-20,000 a unit in your impact fees. On a multi-family unit you might be looking
at building another $8,000. Before you
even start going vertical, you are going out $30,000 and it is hard to do
affordable housing at that kind of land cost.
Mr. Gatti asked have we got
anything to be concerned with at the wastewater treatment plant or the water
treatment plant?
Mr. Benson responded my only
question was I think the PUD that was approved had more multi-family units than
they had ERC's.
Mr. Cox stated I cannot do the
math in my head any more. We had 117
ERC's. That is roughly 150. It is 146 units.
Mr. Benson stated the original
PUD was for more than that.
Mr. Cox stated I think the
original PUD allowed up to a number, but there is no way that you could put
that many units on that property.
Mr. Gatti asked what are the
ERC's, 117?
Mr. Cox responded yes, 117.
Mr. Gatti stated and you
divide that by point, 8.
Mr. Cox responded right, that
is 146 ERC roughly.
Mr. Benson stated but the PUD
standpoint, which is County zoning, when you ask the zoning question, my
recollection is that they approved more units by the County than they have
ERC's. This means in order for them to
build them and get water and sewer, somebody would have to sell them some
ERC's.
Mr. Cox stated right and that
would be approved by the Board through the ERC transfer process.
Mr. Burgeson stated the zoning
licenses are up to, I think, 230.
Mr. Cox asked did they move
some of the density from that at one point?
Mr. Burgeson responded no.
Mr. Cox stated I know they had
talked about it.
Mr. Benson stated that is the
only thing they would have to come to you for is, if they needed more ERC's.
Mr. Cox stated that is the
only thing they have to.
Mr. Gatti asked is a public
hearing required on these?
Mr. Cox responded no, a sight
plan review, as long as it is consistent with the zoning, is a
non-discretionary staff-level decision.
As long as it complies to the letter with every requirement of the land
development code, drainage, landscaping, parking, signage and you name it, then
they have to approve it.
Mr. Gatti stated the only
input we have is in terms of furnishing water and sewer, right.
Mr. Cox responded right.
Mr. Bissell asked do I
remember correctly, that you cannot buy and sell ERC's, but you can transfer
them if you own the property? You buy
them and then transfer them.
Mr. Cox stated we have two
mechanisms, two properties that are owned by a common owner. We also have a provision for the transfer
between properties that are under separate ownership.
Mr. Bissell asked we do?
Mr. Cox responded yes, but the
only way that you can transfer ERC's is if all of the assessments have been
paid on those ERC's through the date that you want to transfer. If anybody wanted to move it off of one of
the properties as ERC's right now, they would have to bring them current on
bond debt and O & M assessments.
Mr. Gatti asked we have to
approve that, right?
Mr. Cox stated and you have to
approve it.
Mr. Bissell stated the only
thing I ever heard was transfer within.
Mr. Cox stated we have only
ever done it between commonly owned properties.
We have never had a situation where somebody's come to us for the other.
Mr. Benson stated what I
understand is, they have the zoning for more than what they have ERC's
for. As long as they build only the
number of units that they have ERC's for, I do not think we have anything we
can do other than accept it because they paid for the right to those
ERC's. It is only if they go for more
than what they already got as ERC's.
Mr. Lambert asked could they
actually build those units and expect us to give them additional ERC's
somewhere?
Mr. Cox responded no.
Mr. Lambert asked they would
not allow them to go ahead and build them.
Mr. Cox responded one of the
things involved in getting your final site plan approvals is to have a letter
of water and sewer availability that is going to provide that water and sewer
and all we can tell them is that we will provide for 146 units. The site plan would not be approved if it
were more than 146.
Mr. Bissell asked was Ms.
Marchand given the same opportunity that Northport was? For instance, he got this for about half of
what it was worth. Was she given the
same opportunity that perhaps she could come up with the money to pay off what
she had and keep her property?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
Mr. Gatti stated we would have
to go through the same process that we went through with these folks.
Mr. Bissell stated I am asking
if we offered that to her?
Mr. Cox responded yes, we had
a deal worked out to the exact amounts that were necessary for everybody to get
their pro rata share. We had everybody
signed off on it and it never happened.
Mr. Bissell stated okay.
Mr. Gatti stated I want to
wrap this up.
Mr. Bissell asked what is your
feeling on what he is asking for?
Mr. Burgeson stated that is
the reason I asked if it had to be today.
If it does not have to be today, I would rather delay it and have you
guys vote. Personally, I am not involved
in that piece at all, but if something happened and somebody came to me and
said well, if you will do this or that and I end up in it, that is what I want
to avoid.
Mr. Bissell asked could we ask
for the information we requested and then have a special meeting later this
month and sit down and bring everyone up to date on it?
Mr. Burgeson stated I would
still rather not vote on it.
Mr. Gatti stated we do not
have a problem with that.
Mr. Cox stated I do not think
you have a legitimate reason to abstain.
There is no direct puniary benefit to you.
Mr. Gatti asked can he vote?
Mr. Bissell responded he
cannot vote.
Mr. Cox stated Mr. Robinson
cannot vote.
Mr. DeCocq stated Mr. Cox is
only asking that you support the philosophy.
Are you asking them to ratify the agreement?
Mr. Cox stated agreed.
Mr. DeCocq stated in that case
I would say you might want to.
Mr. Cox stated that is what we
need.
Mr. Gatti stated Mr. Bissell
wants to see the minutes. Does Mr.
Robinson have any comments on this?
Mr. Robinson stated I would
not mind seeing the minutes either, but I agree with what you said on the
philosophy that Mr. Cox did.
Mr. Gatti stated you have your
direction.
Mr. Bissell asked what is that
direction for the rest of us?
Mr. Cox responded to get you
the minutes.
Mr. Bissell asked when are we
going to vote on it.
Mr. Cox responded at the next
meeting. That is something else I need
to talk to you about.
Mr. Bissell stated you said
August 30th.
Mr. Cox stated the decision
had to be made by July 31st on the agreement.
When we signed the agreement that had to be done by the end of last
month.
Mr. Bissell asked who signed
it.
Mr. Cox stated he signed
it. I asked him to. Mr. Gatti was out of town. I had it set up for Mr. Gatti to sign it and
I changed it at the last minute. Mr.
DeCocq signed it. I asked him to. I accept full responsibility for the decision
that was made. I feel like it was a very
good one.
Mr. DeCocq stated for the
record, I agree with the decision that was made from the standpoint that when
this first came up two months ago, Mr. Cox came to me and said does this make
sense to go in this direction? I said,
absolutely. That is the way that we have
been proceeding. It is the best
deal. Do not rock the boat. If everyone else agrees, we agree and get
some money out of this.
Mr. Gatti stated that is the
direction you received from the Board.
Mr. Burgeson asked will you
ratify it then at this meeting?
Mr. Bissell responded I will,
if you make the motion.
On MOTION by Mr. Burgeson seconded by Mr. Bissell
with three voting Aye and Mr. Lambert voting Nay, to accept the Newport
Settlement concept as approved at $155,000 as presented by the attorney was
ratified.
Mr. Gatti asked what about the other two pieces of
property?
Mr. Cox responded on the RV property, there are a couple
of different things going on in the background.
The only thing that has really happened is that we have filed our motion
for foreclosure. It will take some time
to serve everybody that has to be served in the process. There is a broad expansion on who is involved
in this.
It will not be everyone in the District this time. That will take some time to work its way
through the Courts. There is some stuff
in the background that is happening, so I do not really know what to say about
that. It is in the process and it could
be that we will have another situation like that will have to come back to you
and that we will describe what our options are at that time.
Mr. Gatti stated you described to me why there could not
be an auction this month or until we had certain things resolved from our
standpoint. Would you explain to the
Board what that is?
Mr. Cox stated we filed a motion for foreclosure. We also filed what is called a lis
pendens. A lis pendens is a notice to
everybody in the world that there is litigation involved in that property. If anybody did buy that property, and they
happened to buy it through existing foreclosure action, they would be bound by
whatever Court decision happened.
So, if they bought it and a foreclosure order was entered
the next month they would have to buy it again at auction to keep it.
Mr. Bissell asked did you not tell us at one time that
this would be over by December?
Mr. Cox responded we are pushing to do that. If we can get everybody served by the end of
September, which is conservative, I think we can probably do it a little
quicker. They then have twenty days to
file their answer. There are no disputed
facts. The only thing is, as a matter of
law, how is the money distributed? We
file a motion on that by the middle of October and have it set for December
hearing and have an order by December.
It would be tight, but we are shooting for it.
It is going to be during the next fiscal year and the
sooner we can get that one resolved, the better.
Mr. Gatti asked is there any range of money that we would
get out of this deal?
Mr. Cox responded it has been discussed that if it goes
all the way through foreclosure, we would take the appraisals that were done
during the litigation, most of which are within about two years old, have them
updated and have a minimum bid of a fair market value. We would make that bid, we being all the
parties in interest there.
Mr. Gatti asked do we set the floor?
Mr. Cox responded that is what we would be looking to set
the floor.
Mr. Gatti asked does anybody have any questions on that?
Mr. Cox stated regarding the North Hotel, they filed a
Motion for Dismissal, which is kind of untimely, but we have to deal with
it. I think it was done to delay what
was going on. They have been negotiating
for some grant monies for an assisted living facility there. It is a national firm that specializes in
that type of facility. It is not your
lower end. It is definitely not upper
end. It depends how it is funded, but it
is not Medicaid, I was told.
Mr. Gatti asked it is not Medicaid?
Mr. Cox responded that is what I was told. Procedurally, it is kind of stale-mated right
now until we get a hearing.
Mr. Burgeson stated I think I am going to meet with the
people next week. I met with them over
the last I do not know how many years.
Mr. Robinson stated I cannot hear whoever is
talking.
Mr. Burgeson stated it has nothing to do with the
meeting. It is informational. A gentleman called me this week. He has some people coming over, new people,
to show what it is. He feels there is a
possibility they might get funding. I
mean the guy's been working forever to get this funding. I do not know if he will get it or not, but
anyhow, they still have an interest.
Mr. Gatti stated it still scares you when you talk about
federal funding.
Mr. Burgeson stated that is forever, so who knows.
Mr. Gatti stated that opens the door, Mr. Bissell. That kind of wraps up what we have. This is kind of a community interest.
Mr. Schroeder asked will our current water and sewage
handle the existing ERC's?
Mr. Gatti asked do we have any concerns about our
capacity of the wastewater treatment plant or the water treatment plant?
Mr. Benson responded the water treatment plant has enough
capacity for all planned ERC's in this community, which are over 1,000.
Mr. Gatti stated that is 1,032.
Mr. Benson stated the wastewater plant has some
improvements that need addressing at some point in time when we get our flows
up. We are only at thirty percent of our
current permit.
The current capacity of the wastewater plant probably
served seventy or eighty percent of our ERC's.
It was built to be expanded at a reasonable cost when we finally get to
the point where we may need that last bit of capacity. It was built about 12 years ago and we are
still at less than thirty- percent capacity.
At some point we are going to have to spend a little bit
of money. It was always planned to serve
the 1,032 ERC's, so it is a matter of where will all of these be built?
Mr. Gatti stated of course the question is can we get
some of that money out of the new development?
Mr. Cox stated that is what your stand-by fees are
designed to cover.
Mr. Gatti stated that takes that into account.
Mr. Burgeson asked are we going to have fire protection
out here as part and parcel of this new development?
Mr. Gatti responded let me tell you what is the problem
with that. The fire Districts, we
generate an assessed evaluation of about $80-90 million. Do not hold me to that figure. We paid .4 millage on that. That is higher than anyone else in
They want to keep us in their
District, but
Mr. Cox stated the commitment
was, with regards to this project, if the County will approve them setting
aside and acre or so for us to put a building on for a fire house that they
will include it on their site plan and it all has to fit what the County will
let them do on the east side of the road.
That is the issue.
Mr. Gatti stated so we would
at least have the profit.
Mr. Lambert asked does the
C.I.D. have any involvement, if something like that happens? Is that in or out of the bounds?
Mr. Cox responded under the
statute, we can fund fire facilities. We
did, in fact, fund the fire hydrant, the fire hose and the pump from the canal
here in the District. We have that
statutory power to fund building a building, but we have to get caught up on
some other stuff first.
Mr. Gatti stated the C.I.D. is
almost like a municipality. We can fund
the park. We can fund the
firehouse. We can hire private security
if we want police protection. It just
felt like a municipality.
Mr. Cox stated yes, you just
cannot make laws.
Mr. Gatti stated anything
within that public realm; we can set a millage for that and charge ourselves
for that, our course, because we are a Special Service District. Anything of a municipal nature, we can do as
long as we are willing to pay for it, sidewalks, roadways or whatever.
Mr. Bissell asked how much
would we save on our homeowner's insurance?
Mr. Gatti responded the
average guy here is probably paying around $1,000 a year for fire protection.
Mr. Bissell asked $1,000? You are under-insured.
Mr. Cox asked do you mean your
millage on the fire protection?
Mr. Gatti responded sure, yes.
Mr. Cox stated what are your
premiums on your insurance policy?
Mr. Gatti responded I have no
idea. My insurance would go down, but I
bet everybody is paying between $500 and $1,000 in fire protection.
A Resident stated you
mentioned the millage that we are paying on .4.
I heard that another community is paying 1.5. Who sets this millage?
Mr. Gatti responded the
County.
A Resident asked they
arbitrarily set it for this particular District? How is that arrived at?
Mr. Cox responded I have never
been to one of their budget sessions. I
will have to look at that. I do not
know.
A Resident asked why are we
the highest?
Mr. Cox responded the others
have homestead exemptions.
A Resident stated there was a
lady from the County who said we could vote which Fire District we want to go
to. If we get this piece of property
over here, do we not have leverage to go to
Mr. Gatti stated when
Commissioner Colletta was here; I spoke with him afterwards and asked why can
we not do what you just described. He
said you must get permission from the
I do not want to get into this
because I do not know what I am talking about, but this Fire District includes
everything in the
I think
Mr. Cox responded it has to be
uniform within the District. If not,
they violated the constitution.
Mr. Gatti stated we can dig
into it a bit. Commissioner Colletta has
an open session where you can go to his office or wherever he meets and ask all
the questions we want.
Mr. Bissell stated Mr.
Colletta said that he would come here if we asked him. The attorney for the County had petition
forms that were used and I have a couple of those copies that we can petition
to get out and into
Mr. Gatti asked anything else?
Mr. Ducoffre asked what is the
zoning of the RV park and if the zoning were to change would we be involved in
the rollback?
Mr. Cox responded the current
zoning is -- There is a total of 95 acres or something like that. I think about thirty acres are zoned,
residential tourist, RT and there is history behind the development down here
and it being located within the Big Cypress area of critical state concern and
there is an agreement that talks about how rezoning can be done. Essentially it would never rezone beyond that
kind of proportional use.
We would only ever have about
thirty acres of it that can be developed at the RT density, which is 16 units
per acre, which would allow something in the neighborhood of 500 multi-family
units out there, but they have only got enough ERC's and we will only have
enough capacity to serve about 250 multi-family units. This Board will never have a vote in any
rezoning, but it is a public process and everybody that lives down here will be
able to be involved in it.
Mr. Gatti stated okay, we are
getting off the subject now.
Mr. McNally stated you
mentioned an assisted living facility possibility over there. I am somewhat familiar with that. Most of the specific audiences are targeted
through the folks at the service. Does
that indicate anything along that line?
There is a certain illness or a certain need they target.
Mr. Cox responded my discussions were they are saying they are trying to get this funding. What is your timeline? What is your probability of s