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:
Ted
Bissell Chairman
Dale
Lambert Vice Chairman
Norine
Dillon Secretary
Richard
Gatti Assistant
Secretary
Richard
Ziko Assistant
Secretary
Also present were:
Calvin
Teague District Manager
Dan
Cox Attorney
Robert
Edge Field
Operator
Tom
Mack Staff
Christopher
Shucart POI
Sid
Owen POI
Motor Coach Resort
Don
Gasaway POI Gun Club
C.R.
Cleecter Resident
Mary
Ann Gertz Resident
George
Kramer Resident
Duane
Otto Resident
Victor
Ptah Resident
Doug
Smith Resident
Cathy
Weis Resident
Tom
Weis Resident
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Bissell called the meeting to
order and Mr. Teague called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the
Minutes of the October 12, 2007 Meeting
Mr. Bissell stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
Ms. Dillon stated on Page 8 in the
first paragraph under the FOURTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS, one in should replace line of.
On Page 12 in the ninth paragraph, Cays
should replace Sungate. On Page 23 in the fifth paragraph from the
bottom, Mr. Gatti’s house should
replace the District.
Mr. Edge stated sampling should replace handling
in the same paragraph.
Ms. Dillon stated on Page 24 in the
third paragraph under the first motion box, Lambert
should replace Teague; in the first paragraph
under the second motion box, bill for
should be inserted before the plumbing. On Page 27 in the fifth paragraph, re-top should replace to reach off. On Page 28 in the ninth paragraph, option should replace auction; and in the eleventh paragraph, not should be inserted before work.
On Page 38 in the first paragraph, eliminate
should replace illuminate.
Mr. Lambert asked is $131,000 on Page 3 in the fourth
paragraph correct?
Mr. Teague responded yes.
Mr. Lambert stated on Page 12 in the
eighth paragraph, 50 should replace 15.
On MOTION by Ms. Dillon
seconded by Mr. Lambert with all in favor, the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Audience
Comments
A
Resident stated I recall a discussion with regards to paying the bond issue
early and you came up with a $50,000 fee.
Since I do not believe it was ever agreed upon during a previous Board
meeting, I want to know where this stands.
Mr. Bissell stated I was going to
bring it up again today to see if we wanted to proceed with it.
Mr. Teague stated it is listed on
the agenda as Review of Bad Debt Issues,
but it should have been listed as Review
of Current Debt Issues. I do not
believe there is any bad debt remaining.
Mr.
Weis stated I was asked to bring a letter written by Mr. Dave Dwyer, a resident
and retired executive of the Travelers’ Insurance Company. His letter mentions the fact many POI associations
are being denied insurance because of the Fire Protection Class we are in as a
result of our distance from a fire station.
I will provide copies of this letter to the Board. It is just another reaffirmation of the
community’s need for a fire station.
Ms. Dillon asked was there a
proposal for reduced rates?
Mr.
Weis responded the community is paying $1 Million more than it should since
there is no fire station on site.
Mr. Ziko stated if he attended the
last 12 meetings, he would have realized the difficulty we have gone through in
trying to get a fire station here. He
should log onto the website and read the minutes of the past meetings. We discussed the fire station at every
meeting over the last year.
Mr. Lambert stated perhaps you can
find out his source of information because the impact of this depends upon what
insurance company you are dealing with.
Mr.
Weis stated I discovered circumstances in which companies and insurance markets
are not renewing, forcing associations into Citizens Insurance through the state
pool.
Ms.
Weis stated their reason for not renewing has to do with the environment.
Mr. Mack stated I will have to give
a copy of the letter to Mr. Colletta.
Mr. Bissell stated perhaps Mr.
Teague can e-mail this letter to the Board, Mr. Cox and Mr. Colletta for our
records.
Mr. Mack stated a copy should also
be sent to Mr. Summers since he is the head of
Mr. Gatti stated thank you for
putting this together for us because this is more information affirming the need
for a fire station.
Mr. Bissell stated for example, all
of the plantings which were put in on the way into the City of
Mr. Ziko stated while I was at Code
Enforcement I found out the facade which was put in at the Golden Gate Overpass
cost the taxpayers of Collier County $2.5 Million; and it was instituted
because staff of the Grey Oaks Country Club did not want to have their people
looking at an ugly bridge; but we cannot get $500,000 for a fire station. I suggest everyone e-mail Mr. Colletta.
Mr.
Weis stated as you travel around Collier County out to Immokalee Road, you can see
there is room for development of a fire station. I do not understand why the county does not
stand behind you, considering the value of POI.
Ms. Dillon stated we were always
told we had to own the land, but we did not have the land dedicated to the fire
station. We have been negotiating to
purchase land over the last year, but we were unable to come to terms with
anything. The people developing the RV
Park have the land which they were going to give for a fire station, but the county
will probably reject this due to the budget cuts resulting from the property
tax deductions.
Mr. Mack stated let me clarify
this. We came to an agreement with the
lot owner. The county was going to raise
two-thirds and the CDD was going to raise one-third, or approximately
$200,000. However, the county backed out
due to the budget issues going on this year.
Mr.
Kramer stated I canvassed my neighbors and asked them if we could handle an
assessment in the amount of approximately $600 for a fire station, and everyone
was in agreement. They were not as
concerned with fire protection as they were with having
Ms. Dillon stated they were
referring to a temporary facility.
Mr.
Kramer stated a temporary facility can become permanent. However, if we put the land in their hands it
will certainly set their opinions apart one way or the other. I believe a $600 assessment over a three-year
period is small in order to have what this community needs.
Mr. Lambert stated your neighbors
represent a small portion of the entire community. However, we are not certain how to determine
this because you are referring to residents in single-family homes and there is
a fairly large amount of people residing in condominiums. Perhaps someone should get a petition
together and gather signatures in order to determine how all residents feel
about paying an assessment. We must
ensure we are spending money responsibly, and I do not have a problem spending
the money for this if everyone out here agrees they are willing to accept an
assessment to get the job done.
Ms. Dillon stated we also did not
want to end up owning a $500,000 piece of property for which the county was not
going to approve for use. This was a
major issue because we did not want to spend the community’s money and be left
with this parcel from the county.
Mr. Cox stated it is not just a
matter of having land to build on. The
annual operational cost of a fire station is what they were concerned about
with the uncertainty of the constitutional amendment which was being proposed
at the time, and its effect on future revenue especially since it was scaled
back considerably.
Mr.
Kramer asked is this similar to the situation we had with the budgetary issues
on the property we had on the corner near the RV Park?
Mr. Cox responded this may not be a
major issue.
Mr.
Kramer stated I wonder if there is any value in applying for purchase of the
land up here, and possibly sell the piece of land we are going to get for a
fire station and trade it for something.
Mr. Cox stated I do not believe so
because the property must be designated as a public use facility as required by
the PUD application. Therefore, the
purchaser will have to re-do the PUD in order to change the land next to the wastewater
treatment plant to some other use.
Mr.
Kramer stated perhaps we can make a deal with the developer to give us a cash
contribution in lieu of having to provide this.
Mr. Cox stated this is up to the
developer.
Mr. Ziko stated I believe we should
keep the land, even if we do not use it for this purpose. You are raising many questions, without
offering alternatives. We have been
working on this diligently and trying to get something to work. We are looking for a solution, as opposed to
another problem.
Mr.
Kramer stated I thought the solution was to purchase the lot on the corner.
Mr. Ziko stated we were not able to
come to an agreement with the owner.
Mr. Mack stated I discussed the
county leasing the land from us with Mr. Dan Summers from
Mr. Lambert stated we may not be
able to reinstitute our offer based on what the real estate market is doing.
Mr. Mack stated Mr. Wanklyn called
me last week. He represents the property
owner and asked me to discuss the offer directly with the owner in order to see
what he can do to make something happen.
I told him we only have $200,000; and since the county rejected us, we
cannot afford anything more. I suggested
the possibility of him donating the land to us, in which case he can take a tax
deduction. However, I have not heard
back. I will not know how the county
feels about this until we send a letter to them stating what we believe the
property is going to cost per month, along with the fact that they will own the
property in 30 years. They must have a
figure they can work with to determine whether or not it fits into their
budget.
Ms. Dillon stated this is just to purchase
the land and does not include the cost of the fire station.
Mr. Mack stated the cost for a
temporary allocation is approximately $50,000, which is not expensive.
Mr. Lambert asked is it true a
temporary station does not count for the District?
Mr. Mack responded it counts for the
county if the land is going to be built upon.
Mr. Bissell asked are you referring
to insurance?
Mr. Mack responded that is correct.
Mr.
Gasaway stated I would like to introduce Mr. Sid Owen. He is the Project Manager for Outdoor Resorts
of
Ms. Dillon stated we have a Developer’s
Agreement which will probably get done today and outlines what you agree to do.
Mr. Ziko asked which portion of the
road are you referring to?
Mr.
Gasaway responded it appears to be parallel to the wastewater treatment plant
at the boundary.
Mr. Ziko stated I thought you
already rough-graded this road.
Mr.
Gasaway stated we did not. We actually
paved the road which we moved over to your property. I am referring to approximately 200’ at the
entranceway. We want the road to come
around at the stormwater management
area.
Mr. Ziko asked what is going to
happen to the road we currently use to gain entrance to the plant?
Mr.
Gasaway responded our project will not affect this at all.
Mr. Ziko asked which road are you
referring to?
Mr.
Owen responded we are leaving the road where it is and will add another one on
either side.
Mr. Lambert asked are you
rough-grading the roads for 90 degree turns up there?
Mr. Benson responded no.
Mr. Lambert asked will there be a
problem getting a tractor/trailer out to the plant?
Mr.
Owen responded we have approximately 45’ with the tow vehicle.
Ms. Dillon stated they will not be
coming down this road.
Mr. Benson stated they are required
to put a radiant on the road further to the south in order for these
motorcoaches to gain entry and tow trailers, which will also allow delivery
trucks to gain entry for what we normally have delivered. They are being safe from what I have seen so
far of their preliminary work.
Mr. Lambert asked is there anything
in the area he is referring to which may be negatively impacted by this work, such
as the sea grapes?
Mr. Benson responded we cannot move
the road yet. We have a permit from the
SFWMD for this stormwater management area.
They are proposing in the Development Agreement to relocate this
stormwater management area from our property onto their property. They can take the water which is now going
into this stormwater management area when they put in the lake; after which we
can have the road relocated.
Mr. Lambert stated I do not want us
to run into any problems with someone else who is supposed to be doing this.
Mr. Ziko stated the grading will not
commence until the lake is done.
Mr. Benson stated the last section
cannot be done until they build the first lake and obtain a permit for
stormwater which allows us to get rid of our stormwater.
Mr. Ziko asked will we have enough
capacity in our current stormwater management area when they do this
re-grading?
Mr. Benson responded we have to wait
for them to build their first stormwater management lake before we can fill in
our stormwater management lake.
Mr. Ziko asked how far can he grade
down there now?
Mr. Benson responded the area needs
to be as small and tight as possible in order for them to change it, as we
discussed in the previous meeting. The
road currently runs through here and they can build up to here, but not beyond
there until they do something to take the stormwater we currently have. We cannot fill our stormwater management lake
until it is replaced; after which they can build it up to here and connect to
the existing road.
Mr. Ziko stated I was under the
impression the sea grapes run all the way down through the entire property.
Mr.
Owen stated I was not aware of this.
Mr. Benson stated this was one of
the items we discussed with Mr. Henderson last month.
Mr. Lambert stated we are basically
going to address your question today on our agenda, but it may not be where you
think you are based on from what I just heard.
Mr. Benson stated you may be able to
get up to a certain point, but it will have to remain temporary until you take
care of the next step, which can be done at some point as per Mr. Henderson.
Ms.
Weis stated this gentleman’s company donated the land for the fire
station. The next step is for the
community to petition the county to build the structure. The earlier discussion focused on financing,
but I just need to clarify whether or not there is land.
Mr. Ziko stated although we have the
land through verbal communications, the PUD must be presented and approved by the
county. Once it is approved and is
designated as an area for a fire station, we can proceed.
Mr. Bissell stated if the plot is
approved and the land is given to us, they can put up a temporary station which
will satisfy insurance requirements.
Ms.
Weis asked do you have a timeframe to assess from in the event the insurance
company threatens to cancel the policy because your fire station is too far
away?
Mr. Cox responded the PUD process
will take approximately one year or less. If the county helps us with financing to build
a new fire station or put up a temporary one, they will have it operational within
six months of completion of zoning for the temporary station, for a total of
approximately 18 to 24 months.
Ms. Dillon asked have you talked to anyone
with regards to the status of the PUD?
Mr.
Owen responded we are not there yet and it is going to take time. Do you have a draft agreement?
Mr. Benson responded they need a
series of things to go in there with their PUD.
As part of the PUD process, they are going to rezone the property to
enable a permanent as well as a temporary fire station, since it also requires
proper zoning. However, Mr. Henderson
and Hole Montes have done the preliminary work, but there are still some things
which must be done prior to submission.
As Mr. Cox stated, it is a county process which has many requirements
and takes approximately one year.
Ms. Dillon stated the Developer’s Agreement
is a key part of this.
Mr. Benson stated they are going to
show the county they are providing property for a fire station.
Mr.
Ptah asked will having this gentleman’s generous donation to plan for the fire
station outlined in the Developer’s Agreement assist in negotiations with the
county or help ensure we can have a temporary facility?
Mr. Cox responded there are two
types of interest in property; llegal interest and beneficial interest. We can commence discussions with the county stating
they are obligated to donate this property to us once the zoning is complete as
long as you have a contract with an equitable or beneficial interest in the
property, which provides a good basis for discussion with the county.
A
Resident stated our condominium is also willing to pay a special
assessment. Perhaps you should come up
with Plan B, which is to consider purchasing property since we have had experiences
such as this before and they have fallen through with no backup plan. We would like to get a petition together
indicating we are willing to pay to purchase property since I believe we are
one year away from this donation. There
are many properties up and down the road in this market. Do you believe this petition in which we are indicating
we are willing to pay a special assessment to purchase the land helps you to be
more comfortable with having Plan B?
Ms. Dillon responded community
support for an assessment will be helpful.
The
Resident stated condominium residents are not confident in this gentleman’s
donation.
Mr. Cox stated if the District were
to purchase any one of the other properties which were still available around
here, we would still have to go through the same process of changing the zoning
on the property; and it will still be one year or more before we would be able
to commence the project.
The
Resident asked is there anything else which can be done to expedite this
process?
Mr. Lambert responded there are only
a handful of available properties here at POI.
I recall there was nothing down the road either way within the five mile
limit. I looked at this one time and the
only parcels which are not owned by the state or federal government are small
ones for signs. Therefore, we are
limited with regards to our options.
The
Resident stated there are only two parcels here. There are nine parcels which are over 10
miles away and five which are eight miles away.
Mr. Ziko stated I checked these
categories with three or four different insurance companies, and they have a
blanket statement if you live south and east or north and west of Route
41. If you live on the other side of
Route 41, you are in a different category than we are on this side. These categories are convoluted by the insurance
companies themselves with regards to what they are going to give you. I would like more clarification as to why the
property across Route 41 is half the cost of what this side of Route 41 is. I would like to see the fire station on the
corner of
Ms. Dillon stated if the community
were to come to the CID with a signed petition indicating the majority of
residents agreed to an assessment, it will not necessarily have to be used, but
considered part of longer range planning and I do not see a problem with this.
The
Resident asked can you give me a figure for assessment purposes?
Ms. Dillon responded it will be
approximately $600 per ERC for the land.
If you live in a condominium, which is .8 ERCs or a private home which
is one ERC, the assessment will be approximately $600.
Mr. Cox stated the assessment
analysis will change the ratio and perhaps everyone will benefit equally.
Ms. Dillon stated everyone will pay
the same amount.
Mr. Bissell stated you need
approximately 550 signatures.
The
Resident asked do you need everyone to sign or just a majority, such as 75%?
Mr. Bissell responded we need more
than 50% of the landowners of the developed lots.
The
Resident asked how many developed lots are there?
Mr. Benson responded I will find
out.
The
Resident stated I am also concerned as to what will happen once we fall into
one of these insurance categories.
Ms. Dillon stated undeveloped lots
will not factor into this.
Mr. Ziko stated if you determine the
RV Park on an ERC assessment basis, they currently have none in place, and they
are going to be paying on 183 ERCs, which I do not believe they are going to
agree to.
Ms. Dillon stated this is a petition
of intent, and it is not necessarily going to be done.
Mr. Ziko stated if we are able to
get 75% of the people who are currently occupying the building down there to
sign the petition, I believe it will probably hold enough weight to present to
Mr. Colletta.
Mr.
Gasaway asked can we talk to Mr. Colletta and get this fast-tracked?
Ms. Dillon responded we have been
doing this.
Mr. Cox stated Mr. Mack along with
many other people have been working diligently in trying to carry this forward.
Mr. Mack stated Mr. Gatti and I have
breakfast with Mr. Colletta every couple of months in which we discuss this and
keep him informed as to what is going on.
He can only do so much, especially since the
The
Resident asked will purchasing the property from them expedite the process?
Mr. Ziko responded we still have to rezone
the land for the fire station.
The
Resident asked does it have to be zoned for what he wants to do with the land
as well as for the fire station?
Mr. Bissell responded we will have
to do the same.
Mr. Cox stated while there have been
promises before from people to donate a fire station, no one has ever made this
promise and gotten to the point of engineering of a site plan; negotiation of a
Development Agreement; as well as all of the other work he has put into this. I believe he has probably spent close to
$400,000 already in engineering and planning staff to prepare this petition,
and they are not just going to walk away from this.
The
Resident stated it is encouraging to know they plan to actually put up the
money and move forward.
Mr. Cox stated I believe he has
already spent a considerable amount of money along with the land cost.
Mr.
Ptah stated State Farm has been my home insurer since I moved here in 1991, and
my insurance premiums have increased also.
I had Marsh Mcclellan through a company I am involved with check this and
other participating insurance brokers. They
determined if I drop State Farm in order to look for other insurance, I cannot
go back to them. I had Travelers’ Insurance
back in
Mr. Bissell stated I also have State
Farm, and they will tell you if you have a fire station next door to your
property, your premiums will not change.
Mr.
Ptah stated I agree with the petition, but if the general population is aware a
generous gentleman is donating us land and he has a Development Agreement specific
to a fire station, I do not know who is going to vote positively to an assessment.
Mr. Cox stated we have no guarantee
Mr. Bissell stated my windstorm
portion was decreased by $1,600.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s Report
A.
Consideration
of Audit Fee Agreement Engagement Letter from Dufresne & Associates to
Perform the Audit for Fiscal Year 2007
Mr.
Teague stated this is a renewal letter or authorization to proceed in the third
year of a three-year agreement with your auditors, Dufresne &
Associates. This is a pre-arranged agreed-upon
fee.
Ms. Dillon stated I noted in the
budget figures we paid them $15,000 out of both funds, which I do not
understand. We budgeted $7,000 out of
each fund and when you go to Auditing Services,
the year-to-date actual is $14,000. We
are $7,000 over budget in both funds showing $14,000.
Mr. Teague stated part of the
portion was for two years, but according to the Fee Schedule, you are being
charged per fund. They anticipated there
were only two funds, when you actually have three funds.
Mr. Ziko stated Schedule A has the
following fees: $5,500 per fund for the Annual
Basic Fee; and $1,000 each to Preparation
of Financial Statements and Preparation
of Entries to Convert, for a total of $7,500. Two paragraphs down it states, Assuming two funds, the total fee for the
above-mentioned items will not exceed $14,000. We are already at $15,000.
Mr. Teague stated this is assuming
there are two funds, but there are three funds.
Mr. Ziko stated this page discusses
the cost of each fund.
Mr. Cox stated the Per Fund Basic Annual Audit is $5,500; the
Per Person Financial Statements are
$1,000 and Preparation of Entries to
Convert to Government-wide is $1,000 per fund for a total of $14,000. You only have one financial statement.
Mr. Ziko stated this totals to
$7,500.
Mr. Cox stated you are doubling the Preparation of the Footnotes, even
though you should not be.
Mr. Bissell stated they have been
our auditor for two or three years.
Mr. Teague stated this will be the
third year.
Mr. Bissell asked did they just determine
we had three funds?
Mr. Teague responded when this
letter was prepared three years ago, it was based on two funds, after which
they realized there were three funds.
However, we entered into this agreement in 2005 when they were new to
the District.
Mr. Lambert stated we should have
caught this the first time around.
Mr. Ziko stated I have comments with
regards to the audit they sent us.
Mr. Teague stated perhaps we should resolve
this item before we proceed to the audit or we can push this item back if you
have some concerns with renewal.
Mr. Ziko asked is this a pre-agreement
letter?
Mr. Teague responded that is
correct.
Mr. Ziko stated I want to know what
services they are providing to charge this fee.
Page 31 indicates we spent more than $15,000 for items 2006-01 and 2006-02, and those are also the only two items which they commented
on.
Mr. Teague stated those are two more
than we usually get.
Mr. Ziko asked has the $14,000
deficit for overpayment of those two items been corrected?
Mr. Cox responded the Demand Letter
went out one week later.
Mr. Teague stated I have a copy of
the letter which went out on
Mr. Ziko asked will we receive any
interest since the Demand Letter was the result of the 2006 Audit, which was
caught one year later?
Ms. Dillon responded this is part of
the audit. We found this several months
ago when Mr. Benson raised the issue.
Mr. Cox stated Mr. Benson was trying
to contact them for payment, but they did not respond.
Mr. Ziko asked have they responded
yet?
Mr. Cox responded I have not
received a response.
Mr. Teague stated we also have not
received a response and they have been ignoring our calls.
Ms. Dillon stated as I recall from
the last meeting, you were going to try to contact them and if they did not
respond, Mr. Cox was going to send a threatening letter.
Mr. Ziko stated I thought Mr. Benson
was working on the inventory for the second item referring to the Fixed Assets Records.
Mr. Benson stated we have done some
things at different times, but I do not recall a recent request for this. The District Manager provides a list of Fixed
Assets, which are sent to us for our opinions relating to some of those
items. However, we do not actually prepare
the schedule, but we can all work to get what is needed.
Mr. Ziko asked do we have many fixed
assets?
Mr. Teague responded I believe we
do.
Mr. Benson stated I gave an updated
price list as to how much some of these things were worth approximately one
year ago.
Ms. Dillon stated they are listed in
the Financial Statements and are part of our budget.
Mr. Ziko asked has this all been
corrected?
Mr. Teague responded yes.
Mr. Lambert asked was most of this
outlined when we signed the contract with Severn Trent to operate our plants?
Mr. Teague responded I believe so.
Mr. Lambert stated there is a whole
list of items.
Mr. Benson stated I believe the
requirements constituting the format for the types of items and how they are
presented have changed.
Mr. Teague stated the change was
part of GASB 34, which not only requires having a list of them, but you must also
depreciate and basically reflect you are being responsive in planning for
replacement of these assets. However,
everything which was added since we took over as well as from the previous
records has been updated, but they may be looking at the format, in which case we
can certainly do an asset management plan which will also establish a reserve
fund.
Mr. Ziko stated since we have spent
$15,000 on an audit for Fixed Assets
Recording and Internal Controls,
I want to know if they were corrected.
Mr. Teague stated although Item #1 was
not corrected, I believe Item #2 was corrected, but I will check.
Mr. Benson stated the last time I
recall working with someone in your office was related to getting quotes for
insurance because they needed estimates of value for different assets. Therefore, this may not be the correct list
and we may have to update it.
Ms. Dillon stated the audit is not
clear with regards to the format. There
must be a certain format which they are expecting to follow.
Mr. Cox stated I believe the list
was not updated when we acquired new fixed assets; and when we eliminated
things, they were not removed from the list.
The reason I am saying this is because another city I represent was
still carrying a lift station which was dismantled several years earlier.
Mr. Teague stated the person who
handles this coordinates your capital improvement records with your fixed
assets of the community. Therefore, I am
not certain if they are requesting this be put on a particular form, but this
is the only one we have seen at any of the districts I work with, and I am not
certain why it is there. However, I will
check on it and get you an answer.
Ms. Dillon asked do we have a choice
with regards to the fee after we sign the agreement for three years?
Mr. Teague responded you can always
terminate the auditor.
Mr. Bissell stated when we had this
out for bid; the others were more than $15,000.
Mr. Cox stated there are three
different districts which have open bids on audits over the last 1½ months, and
this is in line with what they are paying.
Mr. Lambert moved to
approve the Audit Fee Agreement Engagement Letter from Dufresne &
Associates to Perform the Audit for Fiscal Year 2007 and Ms. Dillon seconded
the motion.
Mr. Ziko stated I want to know
exactly how much this is going to cost us.
Is this going to cost $17,000 or $14,000 this year?
Mr. Teague responded it will
probably total close to $21,000 for all three funds, or approximately $7,000
per fund.
Ms. Dillon asked can we look at
another auditing firm since this is the end of our contract?
Mr. Teague responded yes.
Mr. Cox stated you may want to
commence the process since it has become more cumbersome, possibly in March.
Mr. Bissell asked can you advertise
this?
Mr. Teague responded we will start
the process, but I believe we should wait until after the year begins, possibly
in February.
Mr. Ziko asked is it possible for us
to get some money back from this contract as opposed to letting it arbitrarily
increase by $7,000?
Mr. Teague responded the rate did
not increase. It is the same rate and
$14,000 was for two funds, but you always had three funds.
Mr. Lambert asked did they increase
anything for the cost of living?
Mr. Teague responded they did not. However, if you are interested in extending
for another year, I can probably get a reduction for this year and next year.
Ms. Dillon stated I believe you
should tell them we intend to look for a new auditor.
Mr. Teague stated they are not going
to reduce the fee since they already have a contract for this year. This firm typically does a good job, but
almost all of the auditors we worked with sent them late. There is no reason you should be seeing this
audit now. You should have seen it five
months ago.
Ms. Dillon stated this happens every
year.
Mr. Cox stated there has been some
personnel turnover problems this past year because almost every District is
looking at their audits late. This has
been a chronic problem.
Mr. Lambert moved to amend
the prior motion to approve the Audit Fee Agreement Engagement Letter from
Dufresne & Associates to Perform the Audit for Fiscal Year 2007 and Severn
Trent Services was authorized to negotiate a one-year extension on the current
agreement in exchange for a rate reduction on the Fiscal Year 2007 Audit.
Ms. Dillon asked what if you cannot
negotiate this?
Mr. Teague responded we will go with
this letter, but if we can then we will pick up the next.
Ms. Dillon seconded the
prior motion.
There being no further discussion,
On VOICE vote with all in
favor the Audit Fee Agreement Engagement Letter from Dufresne & Associates
to Perform the Audit for Fiscal Year 2007 was approved and Severn Trent
Services was authorized to negotiate a one-year extension on the current
agreement in exchange for a rate reduction on the Fiscal Year 2007 Audit.
Mr. Teague asked what will you
consider an acceptable reduction?
Mr. Lambert responded I believe a
reduction of at least 10% or more is reasonable.
Mr. Bissell stated they have come in
several months earlier than in the past, otherwise we would be expecting it
next March.
Mr. Ziko stated perhaps you can
include a limitation for them in which we get the new audit by next March or
April.
Mr. Teague stated we voiced this concern
to them since they have been late on every district I handle; and they said
their goal is to send it out by April. I
believe this is a necessary tool for your budget preparation.
Ms. Dillon stated since the original
agreement was written so long ago, it ceases to have any impact. I know this is a regulatory process which
must be done, but it is of little value as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Bissell stated I complained to
them approximately two years ago and their excuse was they were still waiting
for Severn Trent to come in with their requests.
Mr. Teague stated I do not believe
this, but we have everything ready to go and they will have it on Monday or
Tuesday since you approved it. We must
ensure we have a contract with them. Our
deadline is November 1st, at which time we have everything ready
from closing out for the previous year; and we know what they are expecting.
B.
Acceptance
of the Audit for Fiscal Year 2006
Mr.
Teague stated your fund balance increased substantially. Overall net assets increased by $1 Million
and the General Fund increased by $289,000.
Mr. Ziko stated I understand this
was controlled from the roads and all of the capital improvements which were
done in 2007, which really does not mean anything.
Mr. Lambert stated this audit
contains a management letter which makes the assumption there were no issues
with their standards. Why do we have various
problems in the financial area?
Mr. Teague responded they do not
look at everything.
Mr. Lambert asked were these the
only two issues they found in their investigation on Page 31?
Mr. Teague responded that is correct
and of 13 audits I presented this year using approximately four different
auditing firms, these are the only two issues we have had. Therefore, they are not looking at individual
expenditures to determine which account they should have been charged to.
Mr. Lambert stated I understand what
they are doing and the process, I just find it difficult to believe they only
found two issues. Do the auditors
provide other information to your accountants?
Mr. Teague responded I do not
believe this is the case. The first
thing we brought to their attention was the issue under 2006-01 Internal Controls, which we have been working on for
approximately four months.
Mr. Bissell asked have you ever seen
an audit which did not recommend improvement of internal control procedures?
Mr. Teague responded I have not.
Mr. Cox stated this company has been
handling financial management for several local governments for 27 years.
Mr. Teague stated I believe Mr.
Lambert is referring to some of our past problems. Our accounting system was not working well
since we were using a non-controlled software program, which caused many problems
related to human error. We invested $1
Million in a state-of-the-art software program, which everyone is getting used
to, resulting in less errors.
Ms. Dillon stated we see an
improvement.
Mr. Teague stated our competition will
go through this as well because they are also going to have to upgrade their
accounting software.
On MOTION by Mr. Lambert
seconded by Mr. Ziko with all in favor the Fiscal Year 2006 Audit by Dufresne
& Associates was accepted.
C.
Update of
Signage Issues
Mr.
Teague stated Mr. Ziko and I spent two hours with the county negotiating some
signage issues and we got two issues resolved.
The two small directional signs can be installed; they are being made
and will be put up. We also received
approval to cover the sign on the arch.
Mr. Ziko stated they want it to
match the paint on the arch.
Mr. Teague stated Mr. Cox and Mr.
Benson are involved with this issue. I spoke
to Mr. Benson’s staff and they are ready to submit a request, but we will have
to submit an application first.
Mr. Cox stated Mr. Bob Blain with
Hole Montes is a former Director of Planning for
Mr. Benson stated you must bring the
check with you.
Mr. Ziko stated the woman we spoke
to told us it usually costs $500.
Ms. Dillon asked do we have any
sense of when this is going to be resolved?
Mr. Cox responded I believe the
letter went out earlier this week and it will probably take a few days to receive
a response back from them.
Mr. Benson stated I believe the
letter may have just gone out because one of my staff members was preparing the
exhibit a couple of days ago.
Mr. Ziko asked did you copy Mr.
Colletta on this letter?
Mr. Cox responded I do not want to
copy Mr. Colletta at this point.
Mr. Ziko stated the two hours Mr.
Teague and I spent with them were extremely frustrating. Everything we asked for was denied.
Mr. Bissell asked where do we stand
and what do we need?
Mr. Cox responded we are going to
wait for a response from them. Perhaps
you should authorize the $500 expenditure for the pre-application meeting which
Mr. Blain and I can attend since we may be able to work something out with them.
Mr. Benson stated we do a lot of work
for the Utility Division of Collier County, and they hire us to go through the
same kind of process in which they force the county department to follow these
rules. They transfer money through
different budgets or they will not let you have a meeting. Sometimes the consultant must bring a check
for payment and get reimbursed from another county department.
Mr. Ziko stated they thought POI was
an HOA, which was frustrating for us as representatives of the CID.
Mr. Bissell stated we already have
money invested with your engineering firm in which you said you had your
individuals working.
Ms. Dillon stated I believe we
should move forward and authorize the $500 and see if we can get this resolved.
On MOTION by Ms. Dillon
seconded by Mr. Lambert with all in favor, an expense of $500 was authorized
for Mr. Cox to attend a pre-application conference with
Mr. Teague stated I want to discuss
a statement I made at the last meeting in which I told you Severn Trent pays
the cost of a Saturday FedEx delivery.
This is not the case for POI. We
pay for a Saturday or one-day delivery only when it is our fault because we
have not gotten the package to you on time.
We are required to send it out one week before which is a Friday, and
you meet on a Friday. Therefore, we
cannot get it to you until Monday.
Mr. Ziko stated you can send it out
on Thursday.
Mr. Teague stated we cannot get it
done in this timeframe because our accountants have not gotten your financials
done and you have verbatim minutes, which take quite a while to complete.
Mr. Ziko stated the financials are
one month late. Perhaps you can send it
out one day earlier and save the postage.
Mr. Teague stated you have a good
point.
Mr. Bissell stated you need an
office manager or administrative assistant over there.
Mr. Teague stated they will have to
go out on Wednesday because our packages are sent out via Second Day Federal
Express.
Mr. Ziko stated you should send them
out on Wednesday.
Mr. Teague stated you get them
electronically now.
Mr. Lambert stated I like this.
Mr. Ziko stated I also like it, but
I still want a printed copy.
Mr. Teague stated we previously
discussed whether
Mr. Bissell asked does this include
interest?
Mr. Teague responded it does not.
Mr. Cox stated you cannot charge
interest until you actually send a bill.
Mr. Teague stated this was for the
tax year of 2000. We checked the
information which Mr. Bissell sent us, and this is the amount each year for
which it was short.
Mr. Ziko stated I believe we should
write this amount off and start a new one now as opposed to going back seven
years for $75 per year.
Mr. Teague stated I want to ensure
you all agree with what we are going to do.
Mr. Ziko asked can the new owner ask
the prior owner for this money since the property has changed hands?
Mr. Cox responded you can only go
back three years to correct a tax roll.
Mr. Ziko stated we are not even
looking at $700.
Mr. Bissell asked has the issue been
corrected?
Mr. Teague responded yes.
Ms. Dillon asked does the current
tax bill which went out reflect the correct amount?
Mr. Teague responded it does reflect
this.
The last item which was discussed
last month was the bill for the road improvements for plumbing from Eddie
Bock. They billed the hotel $4,500 and
we asked Mr. Edge what portion was applicable to the hotel, which I believe was
$150.
Mr. Edge stated that is correct.
Mr. Teague stated since the bill was
made out to the hotel, we can ask them to re-bill it minus the hotel’s portion;
or we can pay the entire bill and ask the hotel for reimbursement.
Ms. Dillon stated we do not want to
do this.
Mr. Teague stated we will pay minus
what the hotel owes and tell them to go to the hotel for the remainder. The other option is to give the hotel our
portion and ask them to pay the actual bill.
I will discuss this with them.
Mr. Lambert asked did you say the
Florida State Underground Demand Letter was sent?
Mr. Teague responded that is
correct.
Ms. Dillon asked what is the status
of the money we had in reserve with Mr. Wanklyn?
Mr. Cox responded I have not sent
your check yet because we were close to an interest anniversary month and if I
cut a check right now, you are not going to get this months’ interest. However, you will receive this small amount
of interest if I send the check within the next couple of days.
Ms. Dillon asked what is the status
of the $4 room rental credit?
Mr. Teague responded this was
already taken care of.
Mr. Lambert stated a few months ago
you sent us a copy of an Excel spreadsheet which I understood went to the
county to determine what people should be billed for taxes. Perhaps you can e-mail a copy to the
Board. Do we know how many people actually
paid their bond off last year?
Mr. Teague responded I am not
certain, but I can get this information.
Mr. Lambert stated I want to ensure
the taxes of those who did not pay it off were taken care of appropriately
since I believe there are some people who may not realize an error was made.
Were
the Hydro-Guard units ordered?
Mr. Edge responded yes.
Mr. Lambert asked is a proposal for
installation necessary?
Mr. Edge responded I have one.
Mr. Ziko asked can you tell me where
they will be installed?
Mr. Benson responded we are going to
do an evaluation of your systems and recommend the two most important locations
to install them, but we are not finished yet.
Ms. Dillon stated you were going to
put a memorandum in the file with regards to the bad debt payoff because we did
not want to indicate this was paid off without an explanation for future
reference.
Mr. Teague stated I will take care
of this.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Old
Business
A.
Stella Maris
Assessment Questions
Mr.
Teague stated since I did not indicate this in my summary, it was not handled;
for which I apologize. However, I will
carry it forward to the next meeting; and I will have a full report available beforehand. One of the lots was not assessed for O&M,
but as common ground and there was a series of questions which needed to be
answered.
B.
Water
Billing Questions and Turn On/Off Policy
Mr.
Teague stated the survey which I distributed will help us determine the
possibility of implementing a rulemaking procedure for late, turn-on and turn-off
fees when a resident does not pay their water bill, which Mr. Cox will
address. Usually we do not charge a turn-off
fee. However, a fee is implemented when
we re-connect them. We looked at five
different utilities, City of
Ms. Dillon stated Mr. Cox has told
us this is a long process and if we wish to implement, it must be advertised.
Mr. Cox stated the process of rule
development must be advertised in a newspaper 30 days prior to the date which
you are actually going to discuss the rule.
Rate payers within the District who will be affected by the rule can
request a workshop be scheduled, which has to be advertised 14 days before the
workshop date and those two dates cannot coincide. Therefore, if we ran the ad for rule
development for the December 14th meeting, we will have to get it in
the newspaper by Wednesday or sooner.
Ms. Dillon asked do you have enough
time to put a package together for us to look at?
Mr. Cox responded it is nice to have
this comparison, but in order to set the actual rate for the water and sewer,
there needs to be an analysis of costs.
Ms. Dillon stated for clarification,
we are not only referring to rule development for turn-on, turn-off and late
fees; we are also looking at our entire structure and whether we should be
charging more for water.
Mr. Cox stated I recommend you do this because it has been five years since something was