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
on
Present and constituting a quorum were:
Dale Lambert Vice Chairman
Ted Bissell Assistant Secretary
Norine Dillon Assistant Secretary
Richard Ziko Assistant Secretary
Also present were:
Ed Goscicki District Manager
Dan Cox Attorney
Ron Benson Engineer
Bob
Dick
Tom Mack Staff
James Perry General Manager
Mark
Kelmack Resident
Numerous Residents
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call
Mr. Lambert called the meeting to order and called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the
Minutes of the August 26, August 30, and
Mr. Lambert stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
There not being any,
On MOTION by Mr. Ziko seconded by Ms. Dillon with all in favor the minutes
of the
Mr. Lambert stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
Ms. Dillon stated I was present at the August 26th meeting and I do not know how that carries over to the 30th as part of the same meeting.
Mr. Bissell stated Mr. Stephens thought he reported to the management company, the Board and Mr. Benson. However, I do not believe he reports to Mr. Benson.
Mr. Goscicki stated that was his response.
On MOTION by Mr. Bissell
seconded by Mr. Ziko with all in favor the minutes of
the
Mr.
Lambert stated each Board member received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr. Lambert stated I have a comment and I do not know whether or not we need to do edit it. On Page 13 there were two motions on the table which were never addressed and we moved on to other items.
Mr. Bissell asked are you referring to the motion about changing the meeting dates?
Mr. Lambert responded I am not referring to the meeting dates.
Mr. Bissell stated that was never voted on.
Ms. Dillon stated I thought it was.
Mr. Lambert stated the motion is here but no detail on whether it was finally voted on.
Mr. Goscicki asked are you referring to Page 13?
Mr. Lambert responded I am referring to Page 32.
Mr. Goscicki stated that was approved.
Mr. Lambert stated the motions on Page 13 are a question of parliamentary procedure. Does anything need to be done?
Mr. Goscicki responded no. You made a motion, which you later tabled.
On MOTION by Ms. Dillon
seconded by Mr. Bissell with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion Items
A. Mosquito Control Options
Mr. Goscicki stated we have not taken any further action on this. I am going to speak to Ms. Pat McNalley today. She is in a position to take some lead with the Mosquito Control Board, find out details of their procedure and what needs to be done in order to petition them formally. If she is unable to take this action, we will take further action.
B. Open Items
Mr. Lambert stated the first item, equipment inventory, is being handled by Mr. Stephens which involves bringing the equipment inventory up to date after Severn Trent Services assembled the major items. Has Mr. Stephens worked on this?
Mr. Dick responded I do not believe so. He just returned from a 10-day vacation, and he has been extremely busy preparing for the hurricane. However, I will ensure this is responded to.
Mr. Lambert stated I believe there only a few items which need to be added.
With regards to the second item, reuse water irrigation, I believe we are waiting for delivery of equipment.
Mr. Benson stated although the equipment has been arriving, the combination of Mr. Stephens’ vacation and my schedule have not given us time to follow up, but I believe we are waiting on one remaining item.
Mr. Lambert stated the third item, which is the fire station, is being handled by Mr. Cox and Mr. Mack. I do not know what Mr. Cox has done.
Mr. Benson stated I provided Mr. Cox with the legal descriptions of the parcels, and we are going to work with the appraiser. However, we did send all legal documents.
Mr. Lambert asked do you know if the appraiser has started his portion of this project?
Mr. Benson responded I have not discussed this with Mr. Cox.
The record will reflect Mr. Cox has joined the meeting)
Mr. Benson stated the Board inquired about the fire station property. I reported I gave you the legal documents.
Mr. Cox stated I received the title reports back, of which there is nothing significant to report. However, we are still waiting for the appraisal.
Mr. Lambert asked do you have any idea when they may send it out?
Mr. Cox responded the appraiser mentioned it will take six to eight weeks to complete. Therefore, we should have it for the next meeting.
Mr. Lambert stated Severn Trent is handling the entrance monuments, which is the fourth item.
Mr. Goscicki stated if you recall, the Board approved Severn Trent moving forward with the purchase order for those signs at the last meeting.
Mr. Dick stated we gave Likens Sign Tech a 50% deposit in order to initiate production of the signs. I received an email yesterday letting me know they are on track. Although the storm has them backlogged, this will happen quickly since they received the deposit. I noticed at the marina entrance some of the tile was damaged which will affect him putting up that sign, and repairs will be necessary.
Mr. Lambert stated I believe repairs will be necessary on the tile here as well.
With regards to the fifth item, portable generator for sewage lift stations, I saw one sitting over there.
Mr. Dick stated that is the permanent generator for the well fill, which arrived last week. We are in the process of working with Mr. Benson to install it. The portable generator will be delivered next week, which is the one on the trailer.
Mr. Lambert asked will it be delivered on a trailer?
Mr. Dick responded yes. This is portable for your lift stations, the other well, or any other equipment, if necessary.
Mr. Lambert stated with regards to the sixth item, the DEP letter for the Compliance Inspection Report, once the generators done this will also be taken care of.
Mr. Benson stated I met with the DEP in September and we submitted the application to them for permanent modifications allowing various projects which we planned for the next few years, and will be covered in that permit. We are working with DEP and I believe they are satisfied with our progress.
Mr. Lambert asked do they have any questions or problems with regards to what we are doing?
Mr. Benson responded no.
Mr. Lambert asked with regards to the
seventh item,
Mr. Ziko responded no.
Mr. Lambert stated we are on hold with the ninth item, the Proposal for Operation of Water and Wastewater Facilities, until we issue a new RFQ. Are we on schedule with this process?
Mr. Cox responded we are at the point where we should do advertisements, which I will get done for the next meeting. We were looking to read those or open the proposals in December.
Mr. Lambert asked will we have something to look at for the December meeting?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
Mr. Lambert stated we tabled the tenth item, research capacity of facilities with the possibility of adding additional ERCs, for the time being. Does anyone want to comment on this?
Ms. Dillon responded we should table this.
Mr. Lambert stated with regards to the eleventh item, discrepancy between gallons of water pumped and gallons billed, we are squared away with the contractor for installation of new meters when they change over. Is there anything else to report?
Mr. Benson responded Mr. Stephens and I are going to get together and formulate a plan.
Mr. Lambert asked will the plan include a process to regularly change out some meters as they age?
Mr. Benson responded one of the recommendations will be to set up a regularly scheduled meter changeout program, since the community has aged. Basically, these meters operate at a 10-year cycle, and as they either get to 1 million gallon capacity of use or 10 years old, a routine process of changing those out should be in place.
Mr. Lambert asked will this be part of the process?
Mr. Benson responded yes, including identifying which are the older meters as well as getting the process on a schedule The meters we are referring to for this project are already a little over 10 years old.
Mr. Lambert asked what is the status of the twelfth item, which is the grant from SFWMD?
Mr. Benson responded although I am sure it was a competitive process, we have not heard anything one way or the other.
Mr. Lambert asked do they normally tell you whether or not it was approved?
Mr. Benson responded they make recommendations which go to an Advisory Board.
Mr. Lambert asked what is the status of the thirteenth item, which involves installation of missing reflectors for the fire hydrant location?
Mr. Dick responded I made numerous phone calls and went to the fire station, and they were unable to tell me where to purchase the reflectors, and did not have any. I spoke to the Golden Gate Fire Chief, Mr. Doug Peterson, and he was unable to help me. I also spoke to the Collier County DOT, who were also unable to help me. I am going to have to check with AWWA and other locations, and will continue to pursue until I am able to obtain the reflectors.
Mr. Lambert stated we should not do
anything on
With regards to the fourteenth item, painting the fire hydrants, Mr. Gatti was ready to paint them and decided to wait until the end of the rainy season.
Mr. Dick stated I was asked to install reflector signs at the end of the dead end street. The residents at the end of the street to the left informed us they took them down, planted trees in place of them and asked us not put them back up. I put them in the truck and hauled them back to the plant.
Mr. Bissell asked what about the opposite side?
Mr. Dick responded there are no signs there.
Mr. Bissell stated those are the signs I personally gave to Mr. Stephens.
Mr. Lambert stated we need to
determine if we have the right to put them there. I am referring to the area on
Mr. Cox stated the only thing dedicated to the District in that area was the drainage facilities near the plat, and the District later decided that if they are responsible for all the roads, it should also include those roads, however, they did not determine they were going to take responsibility for any of the other common areas, which seems to me to be an HOA function.
Ms. Dillon stated this is a liability issue if someone drives through there and goes into the canal because there are no reflectors to indicate it is the end of the road.
Mr. Ziko stated the road does not belong to us, and in fact, does not exist since the units go completely across the road. Therefore, they are owned by the residents.
Ms. Dillon asked does that mean we do not have to pave that part of the street?
Mr. Cox responded although we do not own them, we agreed to maintain them.
Mr. Lambert stated there are drawings which indicate a public easement in that area. It shows property lines going down there, but it shows it as an easement for a public right-of-way.
Mr. Cox stated I believe it was just for the homeowners in that subdivision.
Mr. Bissell asked is there a liability issue if there was an accident?
Mr. Cox responded yes, that is an HOA responsibility.
Ms. Dillon asked should the Stella Maris HOA look into this?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
Mr. Lambert stated Mr. Bissell should take this to their Board as a homeowner and ask them to put the reflectors back up or they can assume the liability if something happens. I do not know how often anyone can drive through since cars are parked down there most of the time.
Mr. Bissell stated that is the case
at one end. However, cars roaring out of
the other end at
Mr. Cox stated a car ran into my fence and made a hole, therefore, those corner posts did not serve as a deterrent.
Mr. Lambert stated the fifteenth item, truck decals, was being handled by Mr. Stephens and Severn Trent. As of the last update they should be on order.
Mr. Goscicki stated I will have to follow up since I have not received them. We came up with a design using the standard design of community improvement district companies and will continue to work on this with our local sign company.
Mr. Lambert asked will there be a color to them?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes.
Mr. Lambert asked will they be put on as soon as they are received?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes,
Mr. Lambert stated the eighteenth item, portable defibrillator, was on hold for quite some time.
Ms. Dillon stated Mr. Ziko and I have not spoken due to our busy schedules as well as the onset of the hurricane, however, I plan to hold him to donating this to us.
Mr. Lambert asked do you have anything to report on the nineteenth item, which is review of funds taken in from back payments?
Mr. Cox responded I sent the Board a copy of the audit response letter which I prepared for the audits for last year.
Mr. Lambert stated I did not receive it.
Ms. Dillon stated I also did not receive it.
Mr. Ziko stated I did not receive it either.
Mr. Cox stated I will ensure I send it. It includes detail of how much money came in, how much was sent to the trustee, and ultimately how much was sent from the trustee to the bond holders as well as the remaining amounts, of which I do not recall. There were many sub accounts in the trust account itself where funds are supposed to go through various stages of deposit which became rather complex, therefore, I sent it back to the auditors in order to ensure everything was properly applied as part of their process. It appears with what is on deposit, as well as the funds we should receive between now and then, leaves us with sufficient money to make our November debt service payment. Revenues coming from tax payments in November and December should be sufficient for the next principal and interest payment which is due. By that time we should have everything re-amortized leaving the district in good shape. Therefore, we can inform the Governor’s office we are no longer in a state of financial emergency, with bond payments being more mature than in the past.
Mr. Lambert asked how are we affected when we emerge from the state of emergency?
Mr. Cox responded we are not really
affected. The financial state of
emergency allows the Governor’s office to make a decision to do one of six
things, ranging from appointing someone to manage the financial affairs of the
District, which happened when
Mr. Lambert stated that is the last item on the open items. Can someone look this over while I am away to ensure it is updated and handled?
Mr. Ziko asked what is the status of the twentieth item?
Mr. Lambert responded it is on hold. Actually, we should remove this item from the list.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Attorney
Mr. Lambert asked should the CID send a letter to the residents being switched from potable water to reused water in order to make them aware that if they decide to dig in front of their house, well water will no longer come through the irrigation?
Mr. Cox responded although it is not a legal requirement, it is always good to make residents aware of what is going on.
Mr. Lambert stated I heard rumors residents may be hooked up to this for some of the water in their garage among other things. therefore, I believe a letter will cover us.
Mr. Benson stated I will provide you a map identifying which houses are connected.
Mr. Lambert stated I believe it is better to send the letter making all residents aware of what is going on.
Mr. Cox stated 29 homeowners may come to the next meeting.
B. Engineer
Mr. Benson stated the ongoing project at the wastewater plant with Parkson Corporation is moving forward. We reviewed their preliminary submittal information, edited and approved it as noted in order to keep it moving, and we are working on our design. When we started the project there were different budget categories, of which the major one was Parkson. We were also going to process purchase orders through Mr. Stephens to buy specific items. The largest of those items was the Parkson screen which, as I reported last month, was going to be substantially upgraded at a reasonable cost. We finalized negotiations with Parkson, and we are actually going to get the upgraded screen for reduced cost. We purchased additional accessories which are necessary in addition to the installation cost for $25,000, which was a line item in the budget. I am not sure what needs to be done technically on that because I believe we just processed a purchase order. We told them to start the paperwork as far as what needs to be done in order to have it ready for installation according to our schedule. I distributed a copy of the contract, to which a purchase order will be issued. I am not sure anything has to be done since it is within the budget, and was authorized by the Board.
Mr. Ziko asked when is the project going to commence?
Mr. Benson responded part of the agreement with Parkson was they were not to deliver the equipment until February 2006 in order for us to ensure we had enough money to fund the project. However, we are working with them to have everything ready at that time.
Mr. Ziko asked when they deliver, will we have the necessary concrete work done?
Mr. Benson responded we are
designing the concrete work, in coordination with Parkson
to ensure we are in agreement with regards to equipment and materials, and also
to get them to submit shop drawings for our review, in order to properly fit
our design. All this is moving forward,
and involved a good deal of negotiations on your behalf. This contractor is doing the water line
project, both on the north property and on
Ms. Dillon asked is it going to hold up?
Mr. Benson responded the pipe from a structural standpoint, is exactly the same except for the color.
Ms. Dillon stated I am referring to the wrap.
Mr. Benson stated if someone digs down instead of seeing purple pipe, they are going to dig something up which has a purple plastic cellophane wrap around it, which is acceptable. This is the reason getting the pipe into the ground has taken longer than anticipated. I have someone in my office working with the contractor and everything appears to be on schedule without any problems with regards to meeting the contractual deadlines.
Ms. Dillon asked what is this 4% surcharge for?
Mr. Benson responded this letter is really more informational because I do not think there is a way under our contract to address this.
Mr. Bissell stated we have a contract for a certain amount.
Mr. Cox stated their letter is asking you to accept this surcharge. We can process a change order if you are willing to do so, which reflects the 4% interest.
Mr. Benson stated they are going to send us a bill with an extra 4%. Our recommendation will be to process it and pay the contract amount through the end of the project, at which point we will have to work something out, however, I do not believe we are responsible to do this as per our contract. The Board may choose whether or not to accept it.
Mr. Ziko asked can you stall them long enough in the process that they will not walk off the job if we do not pay them what they are asking for?
Mr. Cox responded I would be surprised if they walked off the job over a conflict of 4%.
Mr. Bissell stated they may have been able to make a profit if we made contracts for their fuel several months ago.
Mr. Benson stated the other issue is the pvc pipe which all contractors are having difficulty getting. It is a petroleum-based material, and factories, which produce it, were damaged in some of the hurricanes, therefore, prices increased. I am surprised we did not get a request for an increase due to pipe costs increasing.
Did you receive a memo from me with regards to ERCs for commercial development?
Mr. Ziko responded no.
Mr. Benson stated these handouts are
informational and no action is required today.
Severn Trent was contacted by the owner of the commercial property on
Mr. Ziko asked what property are you referring to?
Mr. Benson responded the entrance at
Mr. Ziko asked do the 20 ERCs cover both properties?
Mr. Benson responded both sides together add up to 20; I believe it is one parcel.
Mr. Ziko stated it is two parcels.
Mr. Cox stated it is two parcels for assessment purposes.
Mr. Benson stated I believe it is
voted in one deed, but it may have been 12 and 8 in the past, and I cannot tell
you which corner was 12 and which corner was 8, but it
totaled to 20. Again, there is
discussion about what may be done on the property, and I am not sure this is
significant today, but my concern is the fact that we have a list of equivalent
development for ERCs which were set up when the
property was first planned of how it was going to develop, which was done when
everyone was planning utilities and getting State and County approvals for the
original plan. We do not have all the
potential items they may do on the property identified.
Mr. Bissell asked if this is done for a mens’ and ladies’ restroom, does it total to two ERCs?
Mr. Benson responded yes. If you add multiple toilets, as with a convenience store, you have to multiply it by the number of toilets.
Mr. Goscicki asked are you adding up fixtures?
Mr. Benson responded yes. Shopping centers and office space are usually done per 100 square feet. If the shopping center has food, you add which portion the food may generate to the square feet of the shopping center. There are also various types of food outlets and restaurants. You currently use .2 ERCs per seat in the restaurants on your property if you calculate correctly. A convenience store or food establishment will probably go on that property. However, it will not be a full service restaurant as in a hotel. Therefore, it should be something less, of which there are different factors to consider. We calculated on the higher side because there are more choices. If you have a convenience store, you add the food portion and the gas station portion together. We may want to discuss this issue before a developer comes in.
Mr. Lambert asked did you add more categories which we did not have before?
Mr. Benson responded that is correct. There are probably things they may ask for, and I believe we should be proactive in making the equivalencies and conversions through our office, and we can tell them how they read. They should be aware of how many ERCs they have, otherwise they very likely will come in through the County process and do their own calculations.
Mr. Cox stated I will make a couple
of suggestions. This may be something we
will have to adopt through a formal rule-making process, in which we will have
to notice and hold a public hearing. You
can try to identify the potential uses for ERCs now,
and adopt a rule of those specific equivalents.
You can follow
Mr. Benson stated it lists some items, but some interpretation has to be applied.
Mr. Cox stated in other words, you are adopting a methodology which will be applied to possible uses, in order that you are not trying to guess what may be used on the property.
Mr. Lambert asked how does use of this methodology affect the existing categories, such as the hotel or marina?
Mr. Cox responded there must be several manuals which use the same methodology in order to come up with answers.
Mr. Benson stated although this is a
State chapter applying to septic tanks, Collier County adopted it for both
their utilities and water system in order to be able to have one reference as
opposed to having multiple references.
We should use the same procedure as
Mr. Ziko
asked will the plans be sent to
Mr. Benson responded we approve the utilities only, review the drawings for details of the utilities and provide a letter of utility availability. The County has allowed us to keep this under our equivalency by authorizing the amount of ERCs which are necessary based on how many ERCs they already have.
Mr. Ziko stated if the County comes to you, you can possibly bring it to the Board before it gets approved by the County.
Mr. Benson stated that is not exactly how it works. Usually, the developer will come to us since the County requires utility approvals, however, some items do not always get to us through the County processes soon enough, but I do not think any ever totally slipped through, but it just depends on the review process.
Mr. Goscicki stated for
clarification, since you are the utility owner and operator,
you approve use of the facility. The
County approves the utility connection and ensures there is enough capacity in
the utility system on the water and wastewater side to serve the proposed
development. They are going to look for
a sign-off by the utility owner/operator stating they have sufficient capacity,
whether it is for Port of the
Mr. Ziko stated it appears these two properties have many ERCs, which makes it possible for them to erect a building in order to use them completely.
Mr. Cox stated it is possible, as part of their process, to do some mixed use commercial development with a couple of residential units, however, I am not going to try to determine whether or not they have enough or too many ERCs at this point.
Ms. Dillon stated I would like to discuss with Mr. Gatti whether or not the CID can get on a checklist to see building permits.
Mr. Cox stated when someone comes down for development approval, you have to provide Concurrency Certificates, which is a requirement of the Growth Management Act stating before development is approved you have to show that the basic essential facilities are there to support development. Therefore, the developer comes to us for a capacity letter, which is essentially authorizing the fact that we have water and sewer capacity to support development. This is not required for roads because the transportation network taken into consideration is U.S. 41. The internal subdivision roads are not taken into consideration because they are not public facilities per this requirement. We are not a regulatory body. We are here to operate and maintain these facilities, and we do not have a place in the building permit process because the commitment to capacity to the subdivision was already made.
Mr. Lambert asked can we refuse to approve someone if they are coming in with something above and beyond what has been allocated to the property?
Mr. Cox responded we are only obligated to approve the capacity we have, which is why the County requires that letter early in the process, and do not approve 500 units on something with only 150 units of capacity. We do not have a legitimate interest in the building permits as a District.
Ms. Dillon stated we were just
trying to find a way to get the opportunity to look at plans before they are
approved through
Mr. Bissell stated I spoke to Mr.
Joe Schmitt from
Mr. Benson stated
Mr. Bissell stated Mr. Schmitt informed his department heads to do this., however, I am not sure if it is actually done.
Mr. Benson stated the only thing they ever asked us about is utilities, which we can hold back approval on as we did once for this hotel. We told the prior owner of the hotel we would not give them a letter of utility availability for everything which the County approved them to build. We went on record and wrote a letter stating how much utility availability they were allowed based on our utility ERC formula in relation to this hotel. The change had to do with their restaurant. We told them how many seats we were applying to our books. They had 80 seats and wanted to expand to 200, but the utility availability limit is 140 according to our records. We wrote this in a letter in order that the County went through their process from that point further, and would not let them build anything which they did not have utilities for. I was called by a representative of the property owner asking questions about their amount of ERCs. I told this representative it has not been identified yet, and we would have to go to this Board with their request unless the Board was to adopt something prior to the request.
Mr. Ziko asked can you refer them to Chapter 64E.6, which is what we are using to obtain information?
Mr. Benson responded I can only do this if the Board adopts it.
Mr. Goscicki stated the burden should be on the petitioner to demonstrate to the Board a development proposal based on the Board’s authorization of 20 ERCs’ capacity to be reviewed by Mr. Benson who will review the proposal in relationship to negotiations with the petitioner as to whether or not they are meeting those standards.
Mr. Benson stated I wrote this memo for the Board’s information. If you were to ask me what the equivalency is, this memo serves as my answer to you. If someone makes a request not based on the Board’s recommendation, we do not want to have a potential conflict.
Mr. Lambert asked where do you stand on this Mr. Cox?
Mr. Cox responded you basically have two choices. One is for the Board to adopt either a methodology or table of equivalencies, whichever one you choose. The second one is to handle each situation on a case by case basis. The advantage of adopting a rule is that you set a precedent which establishes guidelines, which if not met are rejected. If they meet the guidelines, they are approved. It is certainly a situation where you know the answer before the question is asked. The second option gives you some flexibility, however, the increased burden is that your decision must be based on competent and substantial evidence. If someone makes their presentation based on scientific analysis behind their conclusions as to how many ERCs are necessary, Mr. Benson will have to produce an analysis which comes up with a different number. Therefore, you are surrounded by competing experts who create a fairly debatable situation.
Mr. Lambert stated having this spelled out ahead of time makes this situation more straightforward. It is not our business what type of bar they may put there. It is the County’s business. We are not in here to be on patrol.
Ms. Dillon stated it does give us advance notice, and I am not sure someone will want to build something if they found out the entire community was opposed to it.
Mr. Lambert stated we should not become involved with everyone’s business; I believe we should take care of our own business.
Mr. Cox stated I got the information on the HOA. Do you want us to advertise for the Board to adopt a rule? Do you want it to be a methodology such as Chapter 64 or some other methodology which Mr. Benson may find more appropriate?
Mr. Benson responded I told the individual who was asking I felt it was appropriate to follow this procedure since Collier County has it in their land development code, unless the Board decides to adopt a different methodology.
Mr. Goscicki asked is this procedure following a methodology rather than a proscribed table?
Mr. Benson responded yes.
Mr. Lambert asked can you go back at a later date to amend something like this if accepted?
Mr. Goscicki responded it can always be amended, however, commercial development, capacity fees and capacity allocation is always a contentious issue when you deal with larger city and county governments from my utility management history. This becomes not only a negotiated issue, but a litigious issue where developers will file a claim against the utility entity. They will build the facilities, and bring back the true data to the utility.
Mr. Ziko stated the developer along with our interpretations have the same goal. Therefore, we are better off.
Mr. Goscicki stated it is a good process, whereby a methodology is set up in which they present, sit down with Mr. Benson and work out an agreed-upon methodology of what the capacity is.
Mr. Benson stated my concern today
is that when this party gives me a submittal and asks me to review it as part
of the process for
Mr. Ziko asked is Chapter 64 standard here or is there another State standard?
Mr. Benson responded Chapter 64 is the State standard.
Mr. Ziko stated it would be fair to everyone if we adopt Chapter 64.
Mr. Goscicki stated
Mr. Lambert asked do we still have to hold a public hearing in order to go adopt this?
Mr. Cox stated we will advertise it for the next meeting and have a rule ready.
On MOTION by Mr. Ziko seconded by Ms. Dillon with all in favor staff authorized Mr. Cox to prepare and advertise a resolution setting rules for utility capacity rates to be voted on at a public hearing to be held on Friday, November 18, 2005 at 10:00 a.m. in the Egret Room, 25000 Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida.
Mr. Benson stated I was approached
by the engineer representing a contract purchaser for the property owned by Ms.
Marchand on the north, and our firm was hired. My partners are starting the zoning and land
use process with
Ms. Dillon stated it is a good idea for them to make a presentation.
Mr. Benson stated I gave them an option to make the presentation at the next meeting, however, they may not be ready.
Mr. Lambert stated we should give them a timeframe of a half-hour, which should be reasonable to present what they are going to do.
Mr. Benson stated I am not sure if
they can use that as part of the
Mr. Cox stated the County requires the neighborhood’s approval. They are not doing this gratuitously.
Mr. Goscicki stated they still have
to meet their advertising requirements.
We can add this item to our agenda, but I assume
Mr. Bissell asked have other contractor had to do this?
Mr. Cox responded other contractors did not have to go through land use changes. We have to do a rezoning in order to get the property configured properly and get maximum use of it. This property on the north side has a straight line across one-third of the property and it limited some of the upland areas for zoned conservation which should not be the case. You must hold a neighborhood meeting when rezoning is taking place.
Mr. Benson stated other properties may have gone through similar processes when the County did not have this requirement.
Mr. Cox stated it is a new requirement adopted approximately two years ago.
Mr. Goscicki stated since the Board is willing to listen to their presentation, I will ask Mr. Benson to let me know if they can meet at the November or December meeting.
Mr. Lambert stated we are not under any obligation to advertise our meeting anymore than they ever do. It is their responsibility to ensure everyone in the neighborhood and surrounding area is aware of this.
Mr. Goscicki stated if they are required to hold a public meeting, they are then required to allow public input. I have been to these meetings within my own community, and they can become long and drawn out. I suggest making their presentation the last item on your agenda, and after you adjourn your meeting, they can open their meeting to the public, since they are required to keep some records and report back to the regulatory agency.
Mr. Lambert asked will you ensure they understand this?
Mr. Goscicki responded yes.
Mr. Benson stated there was
discussion at the last meeting regarding the stormwater
management system in the Cays Subdivision.
I sent some information via email this month, and I spoke to Board
members individually when they had questions.
Back in the early1990s, there was a plat in that subdivision which was
part of the County process establishing the lots in the Cays. Lots 42 and 90 were discussed at the last
Board meeting. I reported the owners of
Mr. Goscicki stated for clarification, I understand what you are saying is even though the District clearly has a 20’ easement respected in these developments, the history of swale development may or may not actually stand outside the District, and as these developments come into existence now with homes being developed and built, we may encounter some situations where a swale extends outside your easement, and has a neck down because this person has the legal right to build.
Mr. Lambert stated if someone builds in an area which is perfectly legal, he can possibly cause himself and his neighbors a drainage problem.
Mr. Goscicki stated although he is within his rights to develop on his property by staying outside our easement, the District will possibly be faced with an issue which may need to be addressed in the in future. The idea may be to put these residents on notice that due to the nature of the development over the last 10 to 20 years, there may be situations where their swale has extended outside the easement.
Mr. Lambert asked what can the Board do at this point in time?
Mr. Benson responded we discussed
these swales in the past since the CID is responsible for their
maintenance. However, we really have not
done much to maintain them. If there was
some obvious erosion, you may throw some dirt over it in order to keep it from
becoming an eyesore or problem, however, people are developing these lots, and
some areas will be narrower than others, requiring some maintenance. There are also rumors going around with
people saying that homes are not being built in the right place or the property
line was moved, which is affecting our swale.
Mr. Cox, Mr. Goscicki and I discussed that we do not feel a person can
be told they cannot build on property you do not encumber or have a
responsibility for. Basically, you do
not have a legal right beyond a certain point, however, the plat documents
approved by
Mr. Lambert asked is there anything subjective about the mean high water line when a surveyor goes out there?
Mr. Benson responded at this point, the mean high water line has nothing to do with the establishment of these lots. They were established by the area where the mean high water line was agreed to in 1990, which is why they put this other survey line and measured the lot boundary from in order that this is not argued about ever again.
Mr. Lambert asked can we determine the location of the back lot line by measuring from front to back?
Mr. Benson responded yes, and it is a reference line which the surveyor refers to. The line on Page 2 depicts some type of monument at these corners. The surveyor can reestablish these by measurements from everything else out here, therefore, his property line is approximately 14’ to that point.
Mr. Lambert asked can all of this be different today than when this was established?
Mr. Benson responded if the sun moved the rip raft, you cannot move the mean high water line further out because it does not affect his property anymore.
Mr. Lambert stated what approach would you recommend to the Board?
Mr. Cox responded this goes back to a lengthy discussion we had a couple of years ago over the course of three or four meetings with regards to the maintenance of the drainage swales and what service level should be set, which does not entail responding to issues as they come up or routine maintenance. The decisions which come into this are how intrusive you want to be on these properties. If you are going to restore all of this back to the original configurations by getting all the drainage swales inside your easements, you are going to be digging up everyone’s backyard.
Mr. Goscicki stated I recommend you deal with this on a case by case basis. If a property comes up where the swale has migrated and is impinging on this property, which causes you to have to go back four lots and restructure the swale, we can take it up on that basis.
Mr. Benson stated you should not be surprised when someone builds a pool seemingly in your swale. We must require the owner to have it surveyed, ensure it is being built correctly, and rely on the professionals to obtain the County permits. We do not give them an approval.
Mr. Lambert stated no individual Board member should give their opinion either. We should reference all this through you.
Mr. Goscicki stated the point for the Board and the community is if they see the District modifying the swale, it is not because they are accommodating the homeowner to bring the swale back to its’ original location. Dr. Benson’s message that there is perception within the community that the Board is extending a benefit to a particular property is quite the opposite.
Mr. Benson responded I told this person to rely on his professionals who are dong this for you. However, and this is my opinion, he is responsible if something is built in the wrong location.
Mr. Goscicki stated the Board’s review does not forgive the developer’s responsibility.
Mr. Ziko
asked is the recorded high water line from 10 years ago located in the area on
Mr. Goscicki responded it starts from the high water line at 20’.
Mr. Benson stated it is 20’ from the high water line back into the property. They call this particular line the survey witness line, which may or may not be at the top of the rip raft, but generally is.
Mr. Ziko stated the effective use of our swale is down to 8’.
Mr. Benson stated it can be down to 6’ in that area on one side of the property.
Mr. Ziko stated if something happens on the property, the owner cannot come back and claim the swale was incapable of holding the water because it was built into the swale, therefore, this is the owner’s problem, not ours.
Mr. Lambert stated they did not build into the swale.
Mr. Ziko stated they did not build into our determined easement of the swale, but they have cut down the flow of water by building to the extent of their property.
Mr. Benson stated the property owner who made the mistake and built too far back asked me for a remedy. I told him he is responsible and should come up with a remedy and I will tell the Board if I believe it is appropriate. They proposed to modify the swale from a shallow ‘v’, which is 12’ wide and 1 ½’ deep, to deeper to the same bottom, but wider and rectangular in shape instead of a flat triangle. We looked at this and told him this will hold as much water volumetrically per foot, and it will also pass water from one lot to the other from a drainage point of view because it is supposed to flow gradually after a storm to an outfall structure and carry the same amount of water. When we are faced with this in the future, we need to do something like this, but not as extreme. We may have to do something where instead of it being 1 ½’ deep with a four to one slope, which gets you back 6’ on each side, to a three to one or two to one slope. We will have to make it steeper to stay within our property.
Mr. Ziko asked who is responsible for this?
Mr. Benson responded the District is responsible for the maintenance of these drainage structures.
Mr. Goscicki stated you then increase your maintenance costs since you can no longer run a mower across the area on a four to one slope.
Mr. Benson stated the homeowner can mow.
Mr. Goscicki stated the homeowner will not be able to mow either if there are vertical slopes.
Mr. Ziko stated it was his determination to move his property back to where it was.
Mr. Goscicki stated you are dealing with two different situations. In the first situation it was the homeowner’s fault where they infringed on the easement, making it their responsibility. The second situation is where this is all the property they own and the property owner has done nothing outside of their property, in which case it is the District’s responsibility.
Mr. Benson stated I believe you only have so much physical property for drainage purposes, and you must determine how to make the best use of it. You cannot force the property owner to put the swale into the property which has no easement. If he chooses to do this, he may rather it be a gentle slope going back in his property. If he cannot, then we are responsible, however, I believe we have the right to have the ditch be whatever we need it to be as long as it is in the easement.
Mr. Lambert stated they may not like what we do.
Mr. Benson stated since they used their property to the maximum, we must use what is left for our purpose.
Mr. Lambert stated I believe we should proceed on a case by case basis as we have done in the past.
C. Manager
Mr. Goscicki stated Mr. Dick will update you on hurricane activities and what has been done over the last couple of days in terms of recovery.
Mr. Dick stated we prepared the best
we could in obtaining diesel fuel and chemical deliveries in advance of the
storm, knowing these items would probably be difficult to get after the
storm. We came back on Monday after the
hurricane passed at approximately 3:00.
I drove down and assessed the situation since I could not reach Mr.
Stephens on my phone. The plant was
running on generators since there was no utility power anywhere. We had plant power, but no power to the well
field or the water collection system. We
determined at that point to leave the water plant off since we were depleting
our storage to almost empty. We put our
plan into action to bring down portable generators. I spoke to the Collier County Sheriff on
Monday evening, and he felt the efforts for restoration were more towards 29 in
Ms. Dillon asked is any of this covered by our insurance?
Mr. Cox responded anything not covered by insurance should be reimbursable by FEMA.
Ms. Dillon stated I personally think we should authorize these expenditures now and wait for reimbursement.
Mr. Dick stated most of these are reliability issues. Again, we are running water and wastewater, and if a piece of equipment fails, its backup may not be operational.
Mr. Lambert stated we will have our generator back on the wellhead area within 60 days, and I believe we have money budgeted for these types of repairs.
Mr. Goscicki stated there are sufficient funds in your renewal and replacement budget. We are looking for Board authorization to undertake these emergency actions as well as authorizing myself as the General Manager to handle these types of emergency situations.
On MOTION by Ms. Dillon seconded by Mr. Bissell with all in favor staff authorized Mr. Edward Goscicki to act as General Manager and undertake all emergency situations within the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District.
Mr. Ziko asked will you apply to FEMA as well as our insurance company?
Mr. Goscicki responded absolutely. We keep detailed records through work orders, and photographic documentation of the damage. We unfortunately learned last year how to deal with FEMA effectively with regards to our other operations.
Mr. Dick stated another storm-related issue is the fact that we are still on a boil water notice. I have to confirm with Mr. Stephens that we received acceptable bacteriological test results. Since this has not done been done yet, I do not know if the tests are acceptable.
Mr. Lambert asked is it possible to add to the bill underneath usage a notice that any time the water pressure drops, you need to boil water?
Mr. Dick responded we do not believe the water is unsafe; it is a precautionary measure. When the pressure goes to zero, as it did in this case, there is a possibility that if there is a slight leak in the underground pipe, groundwater can potentially get into the pipe, at which point there can be bacteria in that water. We then flush the lines until good and treated water starts to flow again. However, the State requires us to test the water for two consecutive days, and once positive results come back from the laboratory, we can rescind the boil water alert.
Ms. Dillon asked what timing is involved?
Mr. Dick responded I am going to make those phone calls today until I get a response from the lab and I hope to be able to tell you we are rescinding the alert today. However, for the time being, we ask you not to consume the water. You can shower with it, use your toilets and cook with it. If you boil the water for two minutes and cool it, you can drink it. You should not make ice cubes with it, unless you boil it and put it in your ice trays.
Mr. Lambert asked do you have anything else to report?
Mr. Dick responded we have a proposal to replace the doors and the windows.
Mr. Ziko asked is this at the water plant?
Mr. Dick responded it is for all doors and windows at the water plant, including an entrance door to the wastewater plant, along with all windows and double doors at the water plant.
Mr. Benson stated this has been on the engineering report for approximately five years.
Mr. Dick stated we brought in five contractors, and this is the only one who submitted a proposal.
Mr. Lambert asked how much is it?
Mr. Goscicki responded $12,240 plus tax.
Mr. Dick stated I expected the price to be higher.
Ms. Dillon asked is this hurricane glass?
Mr. Dick responded no.
Mr. Lambert asked if we ever change out our water system, will this building still be used for the same things which it is currently being used for?
Mr. Benson responded yes. For example, the building was used differently before it became the original water plant, and some rooms which were for process use are now for storage.
Mr. Lambert stated this is not something we are going to ever tear down; we have a need and use for it.
On MOTION by Mr. Ziko seconded by Ms. Dillon with all in favor the proposal from Access Door & Glass for replacement of doors and windows at the water and wastewater plant in the amount of $12,240 plus tax was approved.
Mr. Goscicki stated the only other item I have on the agenda for the Board’s approval is the meeting schedule for this fiscal year, which keeps to the Board’s schedule of the fourth Friday of the month with the exception of November and December due to the holidays, as discussed at the prior Board meeting.
Ms. Dillon moved to approve the meeting schedule for Fiscal Year 2006 and Mr. Ziko seconded the motion.
Ms. Dillon stated I want to verify they have spoken to the hotel and reserved the room for those days.
Mr. Goscicki responded yes.
Mr. Perry stat