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
Ted Bissell Supervisor
John Robinson Supervisor
Richard Burgeson Supervisor
Also present were:
Daniel Cox District
Counsel
Ronald Benson District
Engineer
Tim Stephens Field
Manager
John Petty District’s
Office
Numerous residents
The following are the actions taken
at the
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Gatti called the meeting to
order at
SECOND ORDER
OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the May 17, 2002 Meeting
Mr. Wolsky stated I have one
correction on Page 3, the third paragraph from the bottom. It says, "Mr. Bissell asked the
following question." It was Mr.
Wolsky who asked the following question.
ON MOTION by Mr. Wolsky, seconded by Mr. Bissell, with all in favor,
the minutes of the May 17, 2002 meeting was approved as amended.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion
of Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2003
Mr. Gatti stated give us a brief
overview of the budget process real quickly in terms of resolutions, our
approvals, and final approval.
Mr. Petty stated the process is a
minimum of sixty days in review and public process. You are at your first public hearing on the
budget. At last month's meeting you
approved the format of the public hearing process, then approval at your July
meeting.
At this time, you are looking at the
budget as proposed by Staff as projected by Staff. We are looking for any comments from the
Board and from the public. We will take
those comments and incorporate them into the budget, bring it back to the July
public hearing process where we will take additional comments. The soonest you could approve it would be at
the July meeting.
It goes into effect on October 1 of
this year. Any impacts in the rates,
fees or assessments would be felt October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003.
Mr. Gatti asked do you want to give
us a little bit of an overview of the budget?
What is the Board's pleasure?
Mr. Petty stated the budget is in
similar format to prior years. There are
no real big surprises in here. I think
Mr. Mossing went over it with you last time, the one or two small things that
you wanted to talk about.
There is one new line item addition
which is a recovery of bad debt or coverage of bad assessments or charges,
which is something the Board, has talked about for a number of years. Other than that, costs have not changed,
other than cost of living, or our service delivery style increases.
Mr. Wolsky stated it seems we are
approaching build-out. We are having a
lot more people in the community. Yet,
our cash flow is not keeping pace with that.
Can you offer any explanations for that?
Mr. Petty responded I think the
Board is probably more familiar than I.
As most of the Board realizes, I have not been with Port of the Islands
for the last few years. I can give you
that information from the past and what Mr. Mossing has brought to my attention
for this meeting.
Which is, the District has been
plagued, since the beginning, with certain parcels not paying for
services. A lot of the issue goes to the
water and sewer budget. In the water and
sewer budget there is a standby fee based on facilities being built for all of
the parcels at a particular point in time per agreement with the landowners at
that time.
Consequently to that, certain
landowners have not paid on those standby fees, so there is a deficit in
certain areas. That is accumulated. There are assessments that remain unpaid on
certain parcels, which historically has been the case out here, I think, for
almost ten years.
When it comes to the cash flow
month-to-month, it is mostly due to the standby fees, I think that you are
seeing. The assessments are more of an
annual cash flow issue versus the month-to-month. Those are the two big items that I am aware
of.
Mr. Wolsky stated I think I asked
the same question at the last meeting. I
would anticipate our revenue to go up because of the increased water usage
because of the increased number of homes.
I think Mr. Stephens told us at the last meeting that our water usage
really has not gone up that much. Water
and sewer has not gone up that much.
I suspect this coming season, when
we get everybody down here and we get the full impact of the now
fully-developed group that we will start to see a change. I am just surprised we have not seen it
before now. When we implement the reuse
line, that is going to knock down our water usage is it not?
Mr. Benson responded no that will be
just another source for the irrigation water.
You are paying the same thing.
That will not change anything.
Mr. Wolsky stated we were discussing
the budget. I am sorry I got off track.
Mr. Bissell stated I would like to
have an executive session with the Board and Mr. Mossing to answer our
questions and do it under personnel, wages, hours and working conditions. There are things here in the budget that I
would like to talk about in an executive session.
Mr. Cox asked by "executive
session," do you mean not open to the public?
Mr. Bissell responded right.
Mr. Cox stated the only reason you
can have a closed meeting is to discuss litigation strategy or litigation
settlement.
Mr. Bissell stated that is Florida,
then, because I am not used to that.
There are things here in the budget we can talk about it now, or we can
talk about it in July.
Mr. Gatti stated let me suggest
something. If you are uncomfortable
discussing this in public, why do you not put your questions in writing to Mr.
Mossing, and then he will respond to it.
If you are not satisfied with that, then we can do it here.
Mr. Bissell stated if you want to
discuss some of the things, we can do it now.
We are talking about budgets.
Mr. Gatti stated listen to what I am
saying.
Mr. Bissell stated it has nothing to
do with personnel. It has to do with the
budget here.
Mr. Gatti stated go ahead.
Mr. Bissell stated management has
asked for a five percent increase in the accounting and recording
secretary. I do not have any comment on
that whatsoever. Then when it comes to
personnel, Mr. Mossing is asking for a five percent increase in personnel. If I could have the Board's attention so that
they follow me.
There is no hospitalization, no
medical, there is no social security, there is no pension. They are also asking for a five percent
increase in health insurance and pension.
Health insurance is going up 49 percent from last year. I have negotiated in two different public
forums. When you give a five percent
increase, where I came from and my knowledge, let us say there is $5,000 and
you give them a ten percent increase, then they would get $500.
Of that $500, if there is an
increase in health insurance, that comes out of that $500. Pension comes out of that $500. What is left then goes into wages. The way Mr. Mossing is presenting this;
personnel then would get a 7.6 percent increase.
Now, what is the Board's pleasure or
comments on that?
Mr. Gatti responded I can comment
from a different world experience. This
is the City of Naples. We are going
through our budget process there, too.
The highest increase of any of our things is health insurance. Health insurance has gone out the
window. I cannot tell you that ours is
up 49 percent, but it is way, way up there.
In terms of your other comments,
where you give a person a five percent increase and then all the benefits come
out of that five percent, I have never heard of that before.
Mr. Bissell stated that is going on
in the Northern-tier states right now.
There are strikes starting in September by personnel.
Mr. Gatti stated it is just a matter
of how you want to approach this. I
think if I can summarize your point, your point is that the 7.6 percent is too
high?
Mr. Bissell responded I want the
Board and the community to be aware of that.
The cost of living - when you have your social security increase of a
certain percent, then they took Medicare out of that. You did not get that increase.
Mr. Gatti stated the only thing,
again, I can share with you is the City of Naples. We got a seven percent increase last year,
and this year we got a ten percent increase to keep up with things, which is
high. I admit that. However, it gives you a reference point.
Quite candidly, from my experience,
a five percent salary increase is not an exorbitant amount. Adding 2.6 percent for benefits is, to my
surprise, low.
Mr. Burgeson asked was your ten
percent plus your insurance?
Mr. Gatti responded it is two
different packages.
Mr. Burgeson stated five percent
does not seem exorbitant to me.
Mr. Gatti asked when you pass on a
five percent salary increase to folks, does that include benefits and all of
that? Have you ever done that? It is just a matter of how you look at
it. It is a little bit of semantics.
Mr. Bissell stated okay. If the Board is comfortable with it,
fine. I was just bringing it up.
Mr. Gatti stated let us address your
point. Does the Board have any problems
with what is being proposed?
Mr. Wolsky responded no, I just have
a comment. One of the reasons we hire
the District Managers is to make decisions and proposals like this.
Mr. Bissell stated we cannot rubber stamp
everything they do.
Mr. Wolsky stated let me
finish. What we are doing is discussing
whether that is a reasonable thing.
Shall we take a vote on it?
Mr. Bissell responded no.
Mr. Gatti responded I do not think
so. Not unless it is an issue.
Mr. Bissell asked what about the
trustee fee? Why, because we have bonds,
do we need a trustee?
Mr. Cox responded it is required in
the trust indenture. To provide an agent
for the collection of the funds and the proper distribution of the funds for
the various accounts that were established under the bond. They were principally involved, too, in the
disbursal of funds for the construction and acquisition of infrastructure. They held a construction account and
disbursed on our recommendations.
Mr. Bissell stated that is new to
me, too. What about the
transportation? I see that that was
budgeted and spent. What was that spent
on?
Mr. Gatti asked what page are we on?
Mr. Bissell responded I am on Page 1
of the budget book.
Mr. Petty responded travel and per
diem, as you can see, there is nothing that has been expended to date this year
so far. They have left the whole $250
expected, which is typical of us to do, because per diem is costs that the
Board or Staff may incur in District business.
It is just budgeted for the same amount as it was last year.
Mr. Bissell asked in the landscape
maintenance, then there is additional landscaping; what is that - additional
landscaping?
Mr. Stephens responded flowers,
anything that may need to be replaced.
Any trees or anything that dies that is not covered under our normal
contract. It is replacement and
extracting fees for taking a tree out or the like.
Mr. Bissell stated irrigation water;
it is raining almost every day and we are having irrigation still going
on. Should that be shut off, and is that
our responsibility, or is that the landscaping company?
Mr. Stephens responded they take
care of that for the District roadways.
They are responsible for watering in the times that it is watered.
Mr. Bissell stated I see we are
paying for the water.
Mr. Gatti stated we will make them
aware of the fact that they should be shut down.
Mr. Stephens stated I have requested
them to put rain shutoffs on all of them.
Mr. Bissell stated I have a
different experience and I am not used to the way they do things down here
yet. The only way I will get to know
that is by asking questions.
Mr. Gatti stated that is what I want
you to do.
The next public hearing will be at
our July meeting.
Mr. Cox stated for the adoption. We could take public comments, if you would
like.
Mr. Gatti asked would any audience
member like to make a comment?
An audience member stated explain to
me this bad debt that is suddenly going to be in our budget. It is almost $48,000 to the general fund that
we have not had in the budget before.
Mr. Gatti stated that is the new
line item that we talked about at the last meeting and this meeting.
Mr. Petty stated it is nothing more
than putting as a line item the expected cost of unrecoverable charges.
Mr. Gatti asked this is some of the
fees we are not collecting?
Mr. Petty responded this happens
every year, and it is always booked. It
has just never been shown in the budget as a line item. We have done that so that the residents are
aware of that.
An audience member asked is that
likely to change depending on what happens with the lawsuit?
Mr. Gatti responded no, not
necessarily. The lawsuit involves one
property. This involves a whole series
of properties.
Mr. Petty stated let me state, if I
could, that does not mean that we will not try and recover those fees. This is nothing more than a balancing number
for the annual budget. It does not mean
that the debt is forgiven.
Mr. Gatti asked any other comments
from the audience?
(No response.)
Mr. Gatti asked any other comments
from the Board?
(No response.)
Mr. Gatti asked what action do you
need from us now?
Mr. Petty responded no action at
this time.
Mr. Gatti stated at the next meeting
we will anticipate closing up this budget and passing the resolution.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Resolution # 2002-2
Calling an Election to be Held on November 5, 2002
Mr. Gatti stated there is going to
be an election November 5th and we need a resolution calling for that election.
Mr. Cox stated I was contacted by
the Supervisor of Elections who requested that the Board pass this resolution
setting the election for the two seats that will be vacant and subject to be
filled by the vote of the registered voters within the District now that we
have reached over 250 registered voters.
Mr. Wolsky asked what about the
third seat?
Mr. Cox responded the third seat
would be a landowner election, like we have had in the past, where you get one
vote for each acre or parcel of land that you own. If the parcel exceeds an acre, you get a vote
for each acre that you own.
Mr. Wolsky asked who is Seat 2 and
who is Seat 3?
Mr. Cox responded 2 and 3, I
believe, are Mr. Gatti and Mr. Wolsky. I
believe Bissell, Gatti and Wolsky are up for election.
Mr. Wolsky stated I have a problem
with this, because if it is Mr. Gatti and Mr. Wolsky, we both are in a
four-year term. Does this mean that
arbitrarily we are being changed to a two-year term?
Mr. Cox responded no.
Mr. Wolsky stated then let us define
who the seats are.
Mr. Cox stated let me give it to you
straight. Once 250 residents or
qualified electors residing within the boundaries of the District is reached,
we have an election for the three board seats.
Two of those are elected by the qualified electors.
One of those Board members will
serve a two-year term, and the other a four-year term. The remaining Board member whose term is
expiring shall be elected for a four-year term by the landowners, and is not
required to be a qualified elector.
We have established the two seats
that are going to be open. Yes, we
arbitrarily said one is for a two-year term and one is for a four-year
term. To run for one of these seats, you
have to go to the Supervisor of Elections and qualify. You can qualify in two ways.
One is by providing a petition
signed by, I believe, ten percent of the qualified electors residing within the
District, so that would be approximately 25 people. I believe there are 251 registered voters.
The other option is that you can pay
the filing fee, which is a percentage of the total salary that you could earn
in your position for the year. I believe
that is around $75 for the filing fee.
You also have to open a campaign
account, but Collier County waives this if you do the petition with 25
signatures and you are unopposed. It
really depends on who wants to go qualify for those two seats, and who wants
the two-year term and who wants the four-year term, or who is willing to take
those.
Mr. Bissell asked you said the other
is a three-year term?
Mr. Cox responded the other would be
a four-year term, and it is elected by the landowners.
Mr. Wolsky stated this is the first
time I have ever heard of the seats being referred to numerically. Seat 2 and 3, I presume that there is a 1, a
4, and a 5. Where did that come from?
Mr. Cox responded I called Mr.
Mossing and said which two seats do you want to put on the resolution, and
which ones do you want for the two-year term, and which one do you want for the
four-year term, and he said Seats 2 and 3, and Seat 2 will be a two-year
term. I said okay.
Mr. Wolsky stated that seems to me
very arbitrary.
Mr. Cox stated we can flip them
around if you want.
Mr. Wolsky stated no, I just assumed
that Mr. Gatti was Seat Number 1, because he is the Chairman.
Mr. Petty stated you are being
assigned the seats for the first time because of this issue of 250-plus
registered voters in Port of the Islands.
The seats are not yours because you are an incumbent. The seats are for anybody that wishes to
run. Whether you are an incumbent or not
does not matter, and you do not get any special preference.
Therefore, assigning a number is an
arbitrary issue without impact. If 2 and
3 are the ones that are up, and one is a four-year term and one is a two-year
term, those people on this Board that wish to run again have to decide what
seat they are running for. They may be
in competition with an existing Board member.
Since there is a four-year term and
there are three people, they have to decide which one they are going to run
for. The good news is you can run for
the first one, and if you miss it, you may be able to run for the land owners
thereafter since there is a land owners election on the second Tuesday of
November, I believe it is.
Mr. Wolsky stated the landowner’s
election is what has been happening in the past.
Mr. Petty stated that is what you
are used to doing.
Mr. Wolsky asked would that occur in
this environment here?
Mr. Cox responded sure.
Mr. Wolsky asked that would happen
at the same time?
Mr. Burgeson stated some of these
terms have to be up. I just want to know
if my term is up.
Mr. Cox responded no, yours is 2004.
Mr. Benson stated the terms that are
up are Mr. Gatti, Mr. Wolsky and Mr. Bissell.
Their terms expire November 2002.
An audience member stated two of the
seats, Seats 2 and 3, will be voted on in Everglades City in a regular election
and be on the ballot.
Mr. Cox responded that is correct.
An audience member stated the third
seat, which is a four-year term, will be voted on by the homeowners at a Board
of Directors or a homeowners association meeting.
Mr. Cox responded well, not an
association meeting. A landowners
meeting.
An audience member stated one is
done not as an election thing in the County; one is an in-house election.
Mr. Cox responded that is correct.
An audience member stated the other
two are County elections.
Mr. Cox responded that is correct.
An audience member asked when do
they all become County elections?
Mr. Cox responded as each term expires
afterwards. The next election, when Mr.
Burgeson's and Mr. Robinson's seats become available, those two seats will be
elected through the County electors again.
Then, at the next election following that, your entire Board will be a
100 percent qualified elector elected Board.
Mr. Bissell stated whoever gets the
two-year term will be up for election again.
Mr. Cox stated at this time, the way
that the statute was originally contemplated, it was understood that the
landowners have an interest in the management of the District because they are
the ones who are paying the assessments and more directly impacted.
It is done to phase out the
landowner as you reach these numerical thresholds of qualified elector
residents within the District. However,
still allowing the landowner a phase-out time to still manage the project until
their interests have been taken care of.
In this District, it has taken us
several years to reach the 250. In a
typical district, you would phase out in the first three elections because they
build out a lot faster. That is really
the reason. It gives really an
eight-year time frame for a major development that is subject to a community
development district to be under landowner control.
Mr. Burgeson asked what did you say
about landowner control?
Mr. Cox responded landowner elected
board.
Mr. Burgeson stated you folks need
to understand; it is not a landowner-controlled board.
Mr. Cox stated absolutely not. I did not mean that. I meant landowner elected.
Mr. Burgeson stated these are all
residents.
Mr. Cox stated the other point is,
is after this election, we will have the two qualified electors at the next
election, we will have four Board members seated who are qualified elector
members. Then it goes into the timing of
the takeover.
Mr. Gatti stated we need passage of
Resolution 2002-2 calling for an election on November 5, 2002.
Mr. Wolsky asked where is this
elucidated; is that 190?
Mr. Cox responded yes, 190.006,
sub-section (3).
ON MOTION by Mr. Bissell, seconded by Mr.
Wolsky, with all in favor, Resolution 2002-2 was approved.
Mr. Gatti asked what has to happen
now; do you take it from here?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
Mr. Petty stated those whose terms
expire that wish to run again should contact the Supervisor of Elections to
find out the criteria that you may have to go through.
An audience member stated again,
that is open to any resident.
Mr. Cox responded any qualified
elector - anybody that is registered to vote in Florida.
Mr. Wolsky stated the last figure I
have is 254 qualified residents in the District here.
Mr. Cox stated that sounds familiar.
Mr. Wolsky asked is that still the
operative figure?
Mr. Cox responded I have not seen
anything different. I would think,
because that was last July. They usually
report that in July. I would guess we
will have the updated number for you next month.
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Consideration
of Request to Reduce Drainage Easement for L-86, Sunset Cay from 20 feet to 15
feet and Consent to Use Easement Area Agreement
Mr. Benson stated that is an item I
forwarded to the Manager's office and am passing out here. Mr. DiRoma with Summit Builders contacted
me. They were in the process of building
a home and realized that they had this drainage easement at the back of the
property. I have prepared a blow-up here
of that same exhibit. If you will look,
I will briefly explain it.
The property line is at the water
line on the back of these lots. From
that water line in twenty feet is an easement to the Community Improvement
District. Obviously, part of this is the
bank of the canal. There is 12 feet that
is an improved swale. It is a retention swale
for water management. That is from the
landside back 12 feet.
What is being proposed is building
the deck of the pool into where the swale is.
I told Mr. DiRoma to make a proposal that we might consider. This basically is an exhibit he prepared.
What he is proposing is that the
part of the swale that they would fill, they would then put a retaining wall,
which would be a bank that is stable - it is not earth anymore, but then the
bottom of the swale is going to be deeper.
It is going to be not as wide, but it is going to be deeper. The amount of soil they are going to fill
here, they are going to take out on this side so that the volume of the swale
would be the same.
Also, the curing capacity of the
water going from lot to lot would be the same with this cross-section. I have checked that. It is equivalent. That is the proposal they are making. Effectively, the width of the swale is
narrower, but it is a little deeper.
Mr. Bissell stated again, we had a
lot of problems over at Stella Maris with our drainage. The County was involved. I called Tom Cook this morning. He looked it up and called me back. He said that is a County easement. They have to come to the County to take care
of this.
Mr. Cox stated Mr. Bissell informed
me of that this morning. I did not check
the plat when I drafted the resolution.
I assumed that since we had the maintenance responsibility for them,
that we had the ownership of this as well.
I can verify that and make revisions to the text of the document to
reflect the appropriate - if the County does indeed own that - and the owner
has to go to the County for the modification of the easement as well.
I know that having modified
easements that the County holds before, that the consent of the Board will be
necessary. Because we are going to have
to show that we are okay with it County if you are okay with it, go ahead. Just maybe approve this subject to the
revisions to the document to more accurately reflect the conditions.
Mr. Gatti stated I am surprised the
County comes into play.
Mr. Cox stated I am surprised
too. I also was going to mention that to
the gentleman after the meeting that South Florida, I know they have a twenty
foot access easement on the north part of here to get to the weir, but I do not
know about anything on the south side.
Generally, the Water Management District does require twenty-foot
maintenance easements around your man-made water bodies. It could be there is something there for
South Florida also.
Mr. Gatti stated I have no problems
with what you are proposing, but the only thing I would be concerned with is
except, as it would blend into your neighbor's lot on each side so that there
is a nice transition. I assume that is
being proposed.
Mr. Benson stated right.
Mr. Wolsky stated the only question
I have is that it seems that there are so many blowouts, because of the rain -
if we have exceptional rain - there are a number of places along the various
Cays where rain has just blown out.
Your next-door neighbor, Mr. Nasky,
has had three blowouts - I am talking to Mr. Zyka. It is a very real problem. The way to correct that is sort of an arbitrary
thing. I have never heard anybody give
me a valid solution for that problem. If
there were a solution, I do not understand why people just allow their lot to
blow out and run into the canal.
Mr. Gatti stated the whole idea of
these retention areas is for the water to build up to a certain level and then
overflow, you know, to capture that first inch or two of rain and then flow
over into the canal.
Mr. Bissell asked are you asking for
a maintenance easement?
Mr. Gatti responded a reduction in easement
from twenty to 15.
Mr. Benson the CID has an
easement. This document, and the
attorney is going to have to address this, but my understanding is the CID has
an easement when it was platted. The CID,
I guess as far as their part of that, can do what they want, as far as reducing
that easement. If there is another
entity, be it the Water Management District or the County that also has an
easement, they will also have to go to them.
Mr. Bissell stated I was just
repeating what I was told.
Mr. Cox stated I am beginning to
think now that when I have read these plats before, what it does say is to the
CID and Collier County the drainage easement with maintenance responsibility
being with the CID. That allows the
County to theoretically drain some of their stuff.
Mr. Gatti asked what is the Board's
pleasure on the concept? Do we have any
problem with it?
Mr. Bissell responded if the County
approves it, I have no problem with it.
Mr. Gatti asked why do we not have a
formal motion that the Board has no objections to this, and we approve it
subject to any outside entity approval that is required, be it the County or
South Florida or whoever?
ON MOTION by Mr. Wolsky, seconded by Mr.
Robinson, with all in favor, the request to reduce the drainage easement for
L-86, Sunset Cay, from 20 feet to 15 feet and consent to use area agreement was
approved subject to approval by any outside entity (ies) approval that is
required.
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Attorney
(There being none, the next agenda
item was addressed.)
B. Engineer
Mr. Benson stated I have a couple of
items. One is, at the last meeting there
were some questions regarding water rights.
There was a question about what Collier County billed. In the past, when this question has come up,
I brought comparisons.
The County raised their rates in
April of this year. I have prepared a
handout that I will pass around. There
are some extra copies for anyone in the audience.
There was a statement at the last
meeting of a water bill being 40,000 gallons per month, of which a good bit of
it was irrigation. Again, in response to
the question I have done a calculation using the new County rates. The typical person in the County would use
potable water for irrigation. They would
not have the irrigation water like you have, although some people in the County
- not the majority - have reclaimed water.
The County charges three
things. They charge for potable water,
they charge for sewer. If you are one of
the few people that has irrigation by reclaimed water, they charge for that.
The rate is $12 a month availability
charge for water; $18 a month for sewer; and I believe it is just under $5 a
month for irrigation. On top of that,
you pay by the use. I gave you an
example for the person that had the comment regarding 40,000 gallons a month.
You can see, depending on if you use
reclaimed water or if you use potable water for irrigation, that person's
average bill could be between $92 and $170 a month for that particular
customer. That gives you an idea of here
in Collier County right down the road from here what you would be paying.
You can see that Port of the
Islands' charges are reasonable. I think
even what Mr. Mossing was proposing may even be reasonable. Again, I have not checked what Mr. Mossing
was proposing last month, but this gives you the numbers.
One other item, last month you
approved a contract with Kyle Construction to install the extension of the fire
and irrigation water main, which will eventually be tied into the wastewater
plant for reclaimed water, also to be a source.
They have installed the pipe. I
am going to pass out the first page of their first pay request. They have done the bulk of the work.
They installed the pipe. I am verifying the exact number here before I
sign the application for the exact amount, but they have asked for $122,118.75
of the contract amount you approved for $185,687.50. Again, we have to verify the exact length of
pipe, but it is going to be very close to what they have asked for, if not
exactly what they have asked for. If
anything, the number would be slightly smaller.
What I am bringing to your attention
is a pay request for $122,118.75, again, subject to my verification of
quantities. You will need to approve a
payment.
Mr. Bissell stated if you checked
this and approved this as far as engineering is concerned, I would move that we
approve the $122,188.75 payment.
Mr. Petty stated typically, when you
are doing construction contracts, our office gets a requisition request from
the engineer. It is verified as far as
the dollars, we make sure we have crossed our t's and dotted our i's. I would ask that your approval be subject to
any of those conditions.
What I was asking, again, was for
approval that I would send the signed form over to the District Manager's
office and that this is the amount that would be the maximum.
Mr. Wolsky stated just a question on
procedure. We have approved this
contract in the amount of $185,687.50 at last month's meeting. Do we have to approve each payment then? It would seem to me that the initial approval
would cover the disbursement of the funds also.
Mr. Petty stated if I could address
that, the Board is asked to approve each and every payment.
ON MOTION by Mr. Bissell, seconded by Mr. Wolsky,
with all in favor, the payment to Kyle Construction not to exceed the amount of
$122,188.75 was approved contingent upon approval by the Engineer.
Mr. Benson stated the permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection is required prior to us
hooking the reclaimed water from the wastewater plant into the line at the
other end. We talked to the DEP this
week. They still are in the process of
reviewing this application.
There is a concern at the local
district about a technicality on this permit.
They are asking for clarification from Tallahassee for Port of the
Islands. Again, this is the technicality
we talked about before, the fact that you are adding reclaimed water into a
pipe that already has another water source.
They are interpreting the rule kind
of in a backwards way as if you already had reclaimed water and now you are
putting the other water into the pipe.
There is a rule about that.
We are still pushing them very hard
about this issue, and it has gone all the way up now to their people in
Tallahassee in that office. We should
have an answer in a matter of days now.
I will personally call someone in Tallahassee that heads-up this
reclaimed water group between now and the next meeting if we do not have it
resolved by then.
Mr. Gatti asked I gave Mr. Stephens
a notice from the DEP having to do with, what, water certification?
Mr. Stephens responded if you
remember, last month I gave all of you a copy of our Consumer Confidence
Report. It is all set. Certification has been sent back.
Mr. Gatti stated Mr. Wolsky asked me
what that CCR stood for and I did not even know.
C. Manager
(There being none, the next agenda
item was addressed.)
D. Field Manager
Mr. Gatti stated tell us about
mosquitoes.
Mr. Stephens responded they have
become really bad. As everybody knows,
we have been spraying about five/six days a week right now, and trying to spray
between rain showers.
Mr. Gatti stated they seemed to be
down this last week.
Mr. Wolsky asked what is our annual
cost for spraying for mosquitoes; does anybody know off the top of their head?
Mr. Stephens responded $13,000, I
believe. Something like that.
Mr. Cox stated you are budgeted
$13,500. Your actual through 5/31 has
been $6600.
Mr. Gatti asked is there any possibility
that we could adopt something like the mosquito magnet as a technology for
controlling mosquitoes?
Mr. Cox responded an additional
capital expense would be there. I do not
know if you are talking about the Board buying them. You certainly could.
Mr. Gatti asked would it be possible
to work out that the Board pays half and the residents pay half? Something like that.
Mr. Petty responded if I might
suggest, there are probable studies with other mosquito controlled districts on
those types of things that certainly your field manager can contact and see if
they have had any success or if they have any pilot studies going. He can come back to you at the next meeting
and report. Before you expend the money,
find out what is out there.
Mr. Gatti stated right. Is it conceptually feasible?
Mr. Stephens responded it is
conceptually feasible that you could do a pilot study of limited expense for a
certain period.
Mr. Gatti stated I have followed the
development of this mosquito magnet at the University of Florida. According to everything I have seen, it
actually works.
Mr. Burgeson stated we have three of
them out in our courtyard out here.
Mr. Gatti asked how do they work?
Mr. Burgeson responded they are
amazing. You still get bit, but the
difference between walking out here and standing out here for five minutes, and
the difference between standing out there, you stand there for five minutes,
you have to run. If you get in my
courtyard for five minutes - even 15 minutes, 20 minutes, a half hour - you are
going to get bit maybe once or twice, but it is just amazing the difference
between in that courtyard and out here, which is the reason we got it.
Mr. Gatti asked how about the kill
rate? You can control that by actually
sweeping out the amount that are dead.
Is there not a central place where the dead ones go?
Mr. Burgeson responded yes, a little
collection bag. The initial investment
would be expensive. It is not cheap to
run them either. It is about $11 to fill
up a canister and it lasts about 19 days.
It is worth it for clearing out an area where you plan on having a lot
of people.
Mr. Gatti stated look into it, Mr.
Stephens, and see what you can come up with.
I think the key there is participation.
You make the point, you have them in the courtyard, but you do not have
them outside the hotel. If one guy does
it in a neighborhood and somebody else does not, it will not help.
Mr. Burgeson stated it will clear
out a back yard. If individuals want to
put them in their back yard, it will clear out their back yard and their
neighbors will have mosquitoes and they will not. That is the way they work.
Mr. Stephens stated I have a couple
more things. I would like to get a new
computer.
Mr. Gatti stated you have to put it
in as a budget request.
Mr. Stephens stated it is a budget
request. I just wanted to bring that to
your attention. I have different prices
on it.
Also, my truck lease runs out this
month. I would like to get a new truck.
Mr. Petty stated I do believe that
the lease is up on the mosquito truck this month. I think Mr. Mossing has already made
arrangements to get you a new one.
SEVENTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS Supervisor's
Requests and Audience Comments
Mr. Bissell stated I would like to
see the District purchase some No Parking signs to have along Cays Drive where
the new construction is going in. Order
them now and put them up after construction is completed. There is one unit now that is in the
completion stage.
If we had some parking signs