MINUTES OF MEETING
PORT OF THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT
The
regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Port of the Islands
Community Improvement District was held
Present and constituting a quorum
were:
Richard Gatti Chairman
Bernard Wolsky Supervisor
Richard Burgeson Supervisor
Ted Bissell Supervisor
Also present were:
Darrin Mossing District
Manager
Daniel Cox District
Counsel
Ronald Benson District Engineer
Tim Stephens Field Manager
several
residents
Mr.
Gatti called the meeting to order at
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Minutes of the December 14, 2001 Meeting
Mr.
Bissell stated on the second to last paragraph of page 14 it should state “Mr.
Bissell” instead of “Mr. Gross”. The same goes for the first paragraph on page
15.
ON MOTION by Mr. Wolsky, seconded by Mr. Bissell, with all
in favor, the minutes of the
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Award
of Contract for the Construction of 10” Fire/Irrigation/Reclaimed Water Main
and Reclaimed Water System
Dr. Benson stated we received three bids for the reclaimed water system project. We have advertised publicly as required. We also sent out invitation to people we felt would be interested in bidding.
Mr. Gatti asked who bid?
Dr. Benson responded Florida State Underground, Mitchell & Stark and DN Higgins. There were other smaller companies that would normally do this kind of work but none of them responded.
Mr. Burgeson stated I was not invited to bid.
Mr. Gatti asked did you want to bid?
Mr. Burgeson responded that is what I do.
Mr. Bissell stated we do not have to accept these bids
Dr. Benson stated we have an engineer’s estimate of $167,830. The low bid was $206,837.
Mr. Gatti asked why are the bids out of line?
Dr. Benson responded we used prices that we have seen in subdivisions throughout Collier County. The price on these bids for the pipe is higher. I am sure that part of that would be the market right now. All of the contractors are very busy.
Mr. Gatti stated DN Higgins, Mitchell & Stark and Florida State Underground are all big companies. They do not do $167,000 projects. We need bids from smaller companies. What happens if we postpone this and look for other bids?
Dr. Benson responded there isn’t a time
situation. You could reject all bids.
ON MOTION by Mr. Bissell, seconded by Mr. Wolsky, with all
in favor, the Board rejected all bids received for the Reclaimed Water System
Project. The District Engineer was directed to re-bid the project.
Mr. Gatti asked is there anything that
changed on the plans or specifications?
Dr. Benson responded we may change a
couple of items on the bid form.
Mr. Burgeson asked where do we get the
plans?
Dr. Benson responded you can send us a
check and we will send you the plans or you can pick them up. The plans are on
display at the Collier County and Lee County office.
A resident asked what was the amount of
the grant?
Dr. Benson responded the grant is in the
amount of $75,000. We originally had requested $100,000. We have to match the
amount granted.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Proposal to Paint Exterior Portion of Water Tanks
Mr. Stephens stated the original contract
that we had was for $10,200. We paid out $5,000 to prime and paint the interior
of the tanks. The contractor had some problems so we have decided to use
another contractor.
Mr. Gatti asked so basically we are
awarding the contract to Executive Services, Inc.
Mr. Stephens responded yes.
ON MOTION by Mr. Bissell, seconded by Mr. Wolsky, with all
in favor, the Board accepted the Proposal from Executive Services, Inc. to
paint the exterior portion of the water tanks.
A. Attorney
Mr. Cox stated at the last meeting I mentioned that the judge had ruled that all of the property owners would have to be joined in that case in order for it to go forward. There was a motion for a rehearing filed. That hearing was held yesterday and the judge denied reconsidering that ruling, therefore, the ruling stands. They have 30 days to serve all of the property owners and refile their complaint along with the homeowners.
Mr. Gatti asked so the individual suing is going to sue every individual here?
Mr. Cox responded that is what the judge told them they have to do in order to go forward.
Mr. Gatti stated I would like for the District to represent everyone so that there are not 500 attorneys out here doing their thing. I want to make sure that everyone subscribes to that unless they choose otherwise. Can we do that?
Mr. Cox responded there are standards for an attorney to represent more than one client in the same matter. The first decision is whether there is a conflict, then get everyone to acknowledge that conflict and consent. The issue would be that the District would not be representing the interest of each landowner. Each property owner has to appear in this case or else they are going to default. They can appear through me or an attorney of their choice. I am not sure that it can be me.
Mr. Gatti asked can you develop a vehicle for us to do this?
Mr. Cox responded there is also a provision that if I feel that there is a conflict that would cause me not to take the appropriate course of action for one party in that representation, I could not do it even with consent. What we were concerned about as a firm, is that we have to get clearance from the Florida Bar Association in order to do this. We are going to write a letter to the bar explaining the situation.
A resident stated if I am sued and do not want the District to represent me and do not get a lawyer I will be defaulted. What is this suit all about and what are my obligations for not being represented?
Mr. Gatti responded the suit regards the distribution of the cost of the improvements of the District. The recreational vehicle park was distributed on a basis of 4/10 per unit. The condominiums were distributed on a basis of 8/10 per unit and the single-family homes were distributed on a basis of 1 unit. The owner of one of those product types is alleging that the distribution was unfair and wants it redistributed and changed. That is the essence of the suit. There are state standards that go back decades that use the same increments across special service districts throughout the state of Florida.
Mr. Cox stated there is a challenge to the original assessment methodology and whether a proper allocation of the bond debt was made.
A resident asked what is the effect?
Mr. Cox responded if the District were to lose, my opinion is that a judge cannot tell us how to allocate that money but rather that our allocation was not correct. We would have to come back in and perform a new assessment methodology and see if there is a different distribution of that allocation. If you decide not to respond and do not care about being in default, when and if we have that separate assessment methodology, which has to be done in public, you would have the opportunity to comment. The simple fact is that if the judge invalidates the current assessment methodology there is a potential that your assessments are going to increase.
Mr. Gatti stated the worse case scenario is that instead of paying $1,100 per year, for example, it might be $1,300 per year. The risk to the individual is miniscule. The legal costs are probably three times as much.
A resident asked when you said it would cost the individual a miniscule amount is that on the standby fees?
Mr. Cox responded this has nothing to do with standby fees or ERC’s.
A resident asked is there any possibility a judge could make this retroactive?
Mr. Cox responded I am not certain.
Ms. Marchand stated it has been described that each of the property owners, of which I am one, will be sued. My understanding of what the judge said is that the individual property owners join as indispensable parties so that their rights are protected.
Mr. Cox responded absolutely. The court is saying that each and every one of you is an indispensable party. All that means is that you have to join in the suit but you can choose to waive your right to appear by not responding.
Ms. Marchand stated I do not take that to mean that each property owner is being sued. I take it to mean that the court has decided that the property owner’s rights are best protected by being made aware of the existence of the litigation.
Mr. Cox responded they are actually made defendants in this litigation.
Ms. Marchand stated my understanding is that there will be a full packet of information sent to each homeowner.
Mr. Cox stated each property owner will receive a summons and a copy of the complaint.
Mr. Gatti stated I would like for Mr. Cox to summarize this for us in writing so that the Board can distribute it to the property owners and everyone will understand what is going on.
Ms. Marchand stated it is interesting that this is the route that the District is following. My attorney’s opinion was that the rights of the property owners are protected through the District.
Mr. Cox stated if the property owners and the Florida Bar decides that my firm can represent the property owners that choose to be represented, it is not the District that is representing the interests of the property owners.
Mr. Gatti asked it isn’t?
Mr. Cox responded no, it would be my firm, which also represents the District.
Mr. Gatti stated the District would pay for it, which is the idea. This challenges every special service district in the state of Florida and Allstate has a vested interest in what happens in this case.
B. Engineer
There not being any, the next item followed,
C. Manager
There
not being any, the next item followed,
D. Field
Manager
There
not being any, the next item followed,
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors
Requests and Audience Comments
Mr.
Gatti stated I have a resignation letter dated January 15, 2002 from Mr. Gross.
It reads “ Due to the recent changes as it pertains to my involvement with
10,000 Islands Development, LLC, owners of the hotel and marina properties, I
find it necessary to resign my position on the above Board. Very truly yours,
Leonard Gross”.
The Board unanimously accepted Supervisor Gross’
resignation.
Mr.
Gatti stated as I understand it, it is now the Board’s duty to appoint a
supervisor until the next regular election. Is that correct?
Mr. Cox responded yes, that is correct. That person will fill the unexpired term.
Mr.
Wolsky stated normally it has been the Board’s policy to appoint someone who
represents one of the large developmental interests in the community, which is
why Mr. Gross was initially on the Board. Since Mr. Gross is no longer with
10,000 Islands, LLC, he is no longer involved as an owner in this community. He
asked that the Board appoint John Robinson, the new hotel manager to fill his
term.
Mr.
Gatti stated as Mr. Wolsky stated the Board has always tried to have equity in
the representation throughout the community. It would seem appropriate that the
hotel be represented.
Mr.
Burgeson asked do we have condominium representation? There does not seem to be
any continuity.
Mr.
Gatti stated there are two ways we can handle this. Mr. Robinson has expressed
his interest in being on the Board. Should we see if there are other people in
the community that would be interested in serving on the Board?
Mr.
Burgeson responded my suggestion would be that if there is a homeowner who is here
year-round, we give them an opportunity.
Mr.
Kramer asked are we going to start electing board member on the county ballot?
Mr.
Gatti responded yes, two years from now.
Mr.
Kramer asked why is it important to appoint someone now based on their interest
in the community if that is all going to change in a general election?
Mr.
Cox responded there are three seats coming up for election in November 2002.
Those seats currently belong to Mr. Gatti, Mr. Wolsky and Mr. Bissell. Two of
those three seats will be filled by qualified electors. There will be a
Landowners Election for the third seat. Each landowner will get one vote per
every acre or parcel that they own. At the 2004 election one of the elector
elected supervisors and the two seats whose term is up will be filled by the
electors. In 2006 the last landowner elected supervisor will be replaced by an
elector. It will be four years before there is a fully voter elected board.
Mr.
Bissell asked do you have to be a registered voter in Florida in order to be
elected?
Mr.
Cox responded yes.
Mr.
Mossing responded I believe you also have to be a resident of the District in
order to vote in the general election. If the owners of the commercial
properties are not residents of the District they will not be able to vote.
Mr.
Wolsky stated three of us will be up for election in November 2002. Will our
names be on the ballot?
Mr.
Cox responded no, whoever wants to run for that seat has to go to the elections
office and qualify. You have to pay a qualification fee of about $75 or you can
gather signatures on a petition and the fee will be waived. You have to open a
campaign account and report your campaign spending. Basically you have to
follow the full public office process.
ON MOTION by Mr. Wolsky, seconded by Mr. Burgeson, with all
in favor, John Robinson was appointed to fill Mr. Gross’ unexpired term of
office.
Mr. Bissell asked Mr. Cox have you had an
opportunity to look into the ownership of the wells and the right-of-ways?
Mr. Cox responded as far as the access
and the plumbing that comes from the wells, we have an easement, which is
perpetual.
Mr. Bissell asked who owns the property
where the wells are?
Mr. Cox responded I do not know. I will
put a memo together for the Board.
Mr. Gatti asked why are you asking?
Mr. Bissell responded because we may have
to renegotiate the easement when the water main system is put in.
Mr. Cox stated if we have an easement or
a fee simple ownership of the property where those wells are, then we have a
very well recognized property interest that if the government were to try to
change would have to be done through condemnation.
Mr. Gatti asked what are we trying to
accomplish with this discussion?
Mr. Bissell responded I just want to know
what rights we have to the well site.
Dr. Benson stated every five years the
Water Management District renews the water use permit. We are currently
operating under an extension because they are behind schedule.
Mr. Wolsky stated the District has gotten
involved with Comcast. Dr. Benson sent an electronic copy of the site plan to
their engineer who has promised to come up with a feasibility study if they can
provide cable service to this community.
A resident stated I suggest that if we
are going to resurface all of Newport Drive in the next year or two, we should
consider having the people that destroyed the existing road make a contribution
of about 80% of the replacement cost and apply those funds to the resurfacing.
I have a lot of people requesting a walkway on the west side of the street.
Mr. Gatti stated that is difficult to do
that after the fact. Had we done that ahead of time it would have been great.
Regarding the cuts made by the hotel, I have no problem going back on that. I
think it is a great idea.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Financial Statements and
Approval of Check Registers
ON MOTION by Mr. Bissell, seconded by Mr. Burgeson, with all
in favor, the Financial Statements and Check Registers were approved.
ON MOTION by Mr. Wolsky, seconded by Mr. Burgeson with all
in favor, the January 18, 2002 meeting was adjourned.
Darrin
S. Mossing Richard
Gatti