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
John
Robinson Supervisor
Bernard Wolsky Supervisor
Ted Bissell Supervisor
(via phone)
Also present were:
Darrin Mossing District
Manager
Daniel Cox District
Counsel
Ronald Benson District
Engineer
Tim Stephens Field
Manager
Numerous residents
The following are the actions taken
at the
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Gatti called the meeting to
order. Mr. Mossing called the roll and
indicated a quorum was present.
SECOND ORDER
OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the July 19, 2002 Meeting
ON MOTION by Mr. Wolsky, seconded by Mr.
Robinson, with all in favor, the minutes of the July 19, 2002 meeting were
approved.
Mr. Gatti asked Mr. Benson, do you
want to give us the highlights of your annual report?
Mr. Benson responded yes, I will be
glad to. The overall systems are pretty
much the same as they have been in the past years. The water and wastewater treatment plants are
maintained properly.
The things we have talked about
throughout the year relating to our expansion of our irrigation system, that
has occurred with that pipeline. The
permitting for the wastewater treatment plant to be able to use that effluent
for reuse water, I will give you an update on that later. It really does not go with the annual
report, necessarily. The systems are in
good condition. They are being
maintained.
The road system we have talked about
in past years - I will put this where everybody can see it. We talked about this last year, as far as
resurfacing the roads.
(Whereupon, Mr. Bissell joined the
meeting via telephone.)
Mr. Benson stated as we have talked
about in past years regarding resurfacing the roads, there was a decision for a
number of reasons to put off that project.
One was that there was a number of
the roads that were still being disturbed with construction activities and it
was the Board's direction to not move forward with those projects until those
activities were done so when we do resurface the roads we are not cutting them
and disturbing them with large trucks.
What we talked about last year is pretty
much the same as this diagram. We broke
the project into four phases. The first
phase would be the older roads first.
The second phase would be the roads on the east side, but to the south,
which is the single-family Cays area.
The reason for that is these are the
areas that there is less activity, as far as construction. There is still construction activity on the
northern part of Newport and the Northern part of Cays Drive. Those areas would then be combined into the
third phase.
Then there is a lot of undeveloped
property on the north which has not been developed yet, so we have put that off
until the latter phase because there would be anticipated construction activity
back in that area at some point when the development occurs.
That is the way we developed the
phases. Basically, it is the same as
what we talked about last year. Last
year we had talked about that the cost of resurfacing the entire road system, considering
the condition that it is in today, would be approximately $200,000 to $250,000
if you add the whole thing up at some point.
We had talked about that normally we
would do, in a community like this, a resurfacing where it is spread out over
maybe a ten-year life. Once you have the
roads maintained, that every ten years you may be working on different parts of
the road, but over a ten-year life you would be doing a resurfacing of the
system.
We had provided a cost of $18,000 to
$24,000 a year if you were on a ten-year cycle once the roads were in sort of a
steady state condition where there is not a lot of construction within the
community.
What we have done this year is we
have made a cost estimate of each of these four phases. That is in the annual report. The first phase is approximately $75,000. The second phase would be approximately the
same amount. The third phase would be
about $55,000. The fourth phase would be
a little bit over $80,000.
What I have done is, I have used a
little bit higher cost per length of road as we went out into the future,
because costs may be up with time. That
is just the way things have been with road resurfacing and the cost of asphalt.
What we have also done is looked at
the rate at which you are currently funding your road replacement account. We are aware that some of that is budgetary
and may not actually be money in the bank yet.
You had approved, a couple of years ago, I think, a $40,000 per year
funding of a reserve account for roads.
Mr. Mossing has told me there is
approximately $68,000 set aside for that, although it is being sort of borrowed
to use for other funds currently. At
some point, that will be replenished.
If you take the funding rate of
$40,000 a year plus the balance on paper of $68,000, maybe at the end of this
coming year if you did the first phase, skip a year, do this phase, and kind of
do it in that type of manner - every other year do a road project - you would
then be able to, with that $40,000 a year level of funding - eventually get all
these roads brought up to the resurfaced condition.
At that point, we were talking in
the past about $18,000 to $24,000 a year being our estimate of maintenance
costs to keep them in that condition for perpetuity. At that point you could probably consider
dropping that $40,000 a year funding level to may be half, which is $20,000 a
year, which I think is what it used to be.
Although I am aware your actual cash flow with collections of money is
going to make the big difference in scheduling of these projects.
That is one way of potentially
funding and scheduling this work. That
is something you will need to think about.
That is one option I have put forward.
Mr. Gatti asked from your
perspective, Mr. Mossing, how are we in terms of money in the bank? How close to that are we?
Mr. Mossing responded we will be in
good shape. The only variable he was
mentioning is the irrigation project, the short-term funding of that. We have increased rates. Hopefully, depending on how those funds flow
through and our future collections.
Mr. Gatti asked when do you see us
doing this first phase?
Mr. Benson responded I think it is
going to be a cashflow-type issue. Mr.
Mossing and I talked that maybe the latter part of this current year.
Mr. Gatti stated it would be good to
do it while people are not here.
Mr. Mossing stated that is why we
are thinking about next summer.
Mr. Gatti stated this time next
summer would work.
Mr. Benson stated that works out
with traffic - with people being here - as well as hopefully funding being
available in the bank a year from now.
Like I said, the other aspects of
your system are pretty much the same as in past years. You will read that in the report. There are not really any major things we need
to bring to your attention. We have been
putting this road situation off for a number of years.
Mr. Gatti stated I am going to take
this a little bit out of order, just to give the people in the audience an
opportunity. This is our annual
engineering report which I think is necessary because of the bond issue. In addition to that, it keeps us posted on
what is going on from a cost standpoint from year-to-year.
Does anybody in the audience want to
ask Mr. Benson any questions?
Mr. Lambert asked once you redo a
section of road, would you then ask a contractor if he was going to post some
kind of bond to make sure there is no damage to the road?
Mr. Gatti responded that would not
be up to the engineer. That would be up
to us, "us" being the community.
Because those are our roads. No
matter how you look at it, the bottom line is that it is all part of what
belongs to us.
In the future, as things occur,
especially in the new roadway system, we are going to ask people to jack and
bore, rather than to just open cut them the way they have been doing it. We are going to have to get a handle on that,
because obviously it has got away from us in this first phase and we have a lot
of cuts all over the place that really should not be there. We will make sure that that happens.
The Board will have to take some
sort of action, but I am going to suggest that before anybody does anything on
our roadway system, they get a permit from us.
They cannot do anything on our roadway system until they get a permit
from us. Then, in that permit, we will
first require them to do it in a good workmanship-like manner. Then, secondly, any problems that we have we
will make sure that it is covered.
Mr. Ingram stated I just noticed in
the R.V. park I know they have pretty much all dirt roads, and in the back past
the water treatment center is all mostly dirt roads. Is that anywhere in the plans? This would be back past Phase 4.
Mr. Benson responded the only other
CID-owned road would be the road back to the water plant. That road is a lime rock road. That is graded periodically by the CID. Any of the roads that are back in the R.V.
park are on private property and are maintained by that owner.
Mr. Ingram asked therefore there is
no plan to change the lime rock road the whole way back?
Mr. Benson responded no. The purpose of that road, as far as the CID,
is for servicing the water and wastewater treatment plant.
Mr. Gatti stated however, in the
future, if the development back there calls for it, we will treat that just
like any other road. Right now it
probably does not make a lot of sense to spend the money that we do not have,
necessarily, to do something with that.
However, if there is development back there, of course that will change
the picture and we would look at it differently.
Ms. McCay stated I have two
questions. The first one, in
consideration for doing Phase 1, any consideration to have curbing put on those
roads as there are on the east side of the community? In addition, any sidewalks? I believe there is already a small portion of
one sidewalk on the east side of Newport Drive, south of, I think, Morningstar.
Mr. Gatti responded let me answer
the question. Believe me, I am not being
a smart-alec. I am answering the
question as honestly as I possibly can.
We can have anything that we are willing to pay for. If we want curb and gutter in our roadway
system, we can have it. All we have to
do is develop a consensus of enough people who are willing to pay for it. That is the only way to answer your question
on both sidewalks, curb and gutter - anything that we want like that.
The other issue that comes into
mind, and it is kind of complicated, people on that side of the canal have
already paid for the curb and gutter and the sidewalks and everything
else. Then the issue comes up, would
they be willing to pay for it on this side.
It is a very, very complicated issue.
It is strictly a financial thing.
It is way beyond the scope of what we can answer here.
You have to get enough people in the
community who would be willing to pay for those things and we can have
them. That goes to anything - guarded
gates - anything like that. We are a
small government here, just like the County, just like the City. We have certain authority that we can do
things like that. However, the bottom
line is we have to pay for it.
Ms. McCay asked has there been any
recognition of what the community might be favorable to or against?
Mr. Gatti responded people have
asked for sidewalks. When the issue of
paying for it comes up, then the tone changes a little bit.
Ms. McCay stated my only point was
that it is quite nice having the curbing and not having the grass destroyed on
Newport Drive, in particular. It is
quite an additive to the community as a whole.
Mr. Gatti stated putting curb and
gutter in is much more complicated than just going out there and putting some
concrete down. You have to establish a
storm sewer system. Because what the
curb and gutter does is capture the storm water. Then you have to put that storm water some
place, then that has to go some place.
It is way beyond just putting in curb and gutter.
Then you have to level the street to
the new curb and gutter - to the new grades.
It is very, very complicated and very, very expensive. I would guess that putting curb and gutter in
this section here would be in excess of a half-a-million dollars.
Mr. Marchand stated the north side
entry road is in relatively good shape, and I can understand and appreciate why
it is pushed out to the furthest.
A request I know that has been made
of me, because of all the walkers and the bicyclists in the community who bike
over there a lot and stop at the office and ask me why the lines are not
painted anymore identifying the safety areas for the cyclists and walkers. I have to say I cannot do anything about it
because it is a CID road.
Is it not possible to perhaps put at
least on the agenda the repainting of those safety things for the walkers and
cyclists?
Mr. Gatti responded I think that is
a good point. I think we have to look at
the entire community and what we should do.
Mr. Benson, with the Board's concurrence, why do you not see what a
striping contract would cost us to freshen everything?
Mr. Benson asked the whole
community?
Mr. Gatti responded sure. Depending on where we are going to do the
resurfacing, we obviously want to do the painting after that. However, we are talking about next summer, so
a year from now.
Ms. Marchand stated seeing that the
north entry is going to be done so far in the future, you get good bang for
your buck and do it that way.
Mr. Gatti stated I think the whole community
needs it. With the Board's concurrence,
we will go with Thermo so we have some permanency and see what it costs, and
then we will go from there. I have some
names for you, Mr. Benson, if you need them.
Mr. Benson stated we can talk after
the meeting.
Ms. McCay stated on Phase 3, at the
entrance to Stella Maris Drive South, there is this substantial dip in the road
which is a drainage-type dip, which I gather drainage crosses from Cays Drive
into Stella Maris. It is quite
substantial. I do not know that it
really needs to be there at all.
I gather from a number of people who
do paving all the time and recognized codes that that thing really should not
be there. It is quite a dip if you drive
across there all the time.
Mr. Gatti stated Mr. Benson will
take a look at it and we will take it into consideration. If there is a problem there we can deal with
it.
Ms. McCay stated it could be taken
out, I think.
Mr. Gatti stated normally if it is a
defined swale, it is usually because of drainage. Mr. Benson will have to take a look at it.
Mr. Benson asked it is right by the
entrance to Stella Maris?
Ms. McCay responded yes.
Mr. Benson stated let me add one
thing. Mr. Stephens maintains the
water/wastewater treatment plant and that system and has the license with the
State, as far as these facilities, to operate them and operating reports. For this year, just like in the past, the
water quality and the effluent quality are better than what you have to meet as
a minimum. We have no issues there. He is doing a good job.
Mr. Gatti stated once we got those
filters cleaned up everything levelled off pretty good. That is all taken care of and it is all
behind us.
Mr. Benson stated it is in the
report regarding those issues. However,
since it was not a problem, I did not mention it.
Mr. Mossing stated we would like to
have a motion to accept the report.
Mr. Gatti stated let us do it at the
next meeting. Mr. Bissell will then get
a chance to review the report and we can accept it at the next meeting.
FOURTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS Discussion
of Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Response Act of 2001
Mr. Gatti stated this has to do
primarily with our water treatment plant and what steps should be taken and are
being taken to protect the water supplies.
Mr. Mossing stated we have provided
this to the Board as information only at this point. Reading it briefly, I do not believe that we
would meet the thresholds of this legislation.
Nonetheless, we do have a water treatment plant that needs to continue
to review the security that the District is taken - security measures.
Mr. Wolsky stated the amount of
people required to meet the threshold, as I understand it, is 3300. We fall way below 3300.
Mr. Mossing stated even though we
will not meet that threshold, I think this Board still needs to see this.
Mr. Gatti asked do you need any
action from us?
Mr. Mossing responded no, other than
it did look like there may be some potential for some grant money out there at
some point in time. We looked at
additional measures, whether it is maybe security cameras or what have
you. At this point, I think it is just
to make sure that Mr. Stephens is looking at any steps or any recommendations
that he might have to improve the security of the plant.
Mr. Gatti stated this is kind of the
politically correct thing to do sort of thing.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Attorney
Mr. Cox stated I have a couple of
things. First off is the bond holder
contacted me last week and asked that we begin the process foreclosing on some
of the properties that we have direct-assessed and that have not paid.
The monies for my fees will be paid
out of the trust funds so that there is no impact on your budget. However, we do need to move forward with
that.
The second thing that they asked is
that any properties that have tax certificates that have been issued to begin
the direct assessment of all of those properties in addition to the ones that
we already are.
Mr. Gatti stated I am trying to sort
out in my mind. Are there some pros and
cons to this? What are the
ramifications? We are just starting
foreclosure on properties.
Mr. Cox responded yes, the
ramifications, good and bad - well, first, it is an obligation under the bond
to do it. If we did not do it after they
have requested it, then they could sue us.
The second benefit that I see, is my
reading of the statute is that you can join tax certificate holders and
extinguish their interest when you extinguish all of the other interests in the
property.
Mr. Gatti asked the bottom line is,
your recommendation is that we go ahead with this?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
Mr. Wolsky asked do you need a
motion to that effect?
Mr. Cox responded please.
ON MOTION by Mr. Wolsky, seconded by Mr.
Robinson, with all in favor, the District Attorney is authorized to proceed
with foreclosure on unpaid direct-assessed properties.
B. Engineer
Mr. Benson stated I have a couple of
items to provide updates on. One is the
permit application with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for
our conversion to a effluent/reuse system.
I met with DEP for approximately
three hours shortly after our last meeting.
Some of the issues that they had started to bring up went away, which
was good. However, there are still a couple
of items.
In order to minimize the cost of
this project, and I gave a little report on this last month, was that we were
utilizing all of the existing volumes of tanks and things to have for storage
so we would not have to buy and build new tanks at this point.
In order to do that, one of the
requirements is that one of the tanks have a volume equal to one day's rated
capacity of the plant. Our current rated
capacity is 200,000 gallons per day in order to make this change and again, do
it using things for multi-purposes where possible.
We are probably going to have to
limit ourselves to a capacity of 180,000 gallons per day because of the sizes
of our tanks is only 180,000 gallons.
That is a minor thing as far as DEP is concerned. We just have to make them aware of that, that
we are willing to do that.
Only, though, when we are in the
mode of operation of providing effluent for reuse. If we are going to provide effluent for
disposal as we currently do, we would retain our current capacity. That is a technicality. I think they were reasonable in working with
us on that.
They asked us to update them on
actual irrigation rates. Mr. Mossing and
Mr. Stephens provided me with that information and we will give that to DEP.
Just as a matter of information, I
think there was a question about this previously. Why do we not just use the effluent from the
wastewater plant for all of our irrigation needs? I got the updated information from Mr.
Stephens and Mr. Mossing.
Our generation of reclaimed water is,
let us say, approximately 60,000 gallons per day during a period of time when
we would need closer to 200,000 gallons per day. There is a big shortfall.
We still need water from the canal,
or else what we have proposed would be to take some of the raw water that comes
from the wells that is normally used for water treatment that is excess right
now, and use that for irrigation. We
have to show DEP where we are getting the water and that we are doing the right
thing there.
Mr. Gatti asked what kind of volumes
are we projecting at buildout?
Mr. Benson asked for all the
systems?
Mr. Gatti asked would we get close
to these numbers?
Mr. Benson responded the water
treatment plant would be, I think, 450,000 gallons per day and the wastewater
plant, potentially at buildout, could be more like 300,000 gallons per day.
Mr. Gatti stated so we would meet
these numbers then.
Mr. Benson stated the irrigation, we
would not expect to go up as big of an increase from where it is today. Because we are irrigating a lot of this
property already with the common areas and things.
We would be getting closer. We still would have some shortfall, and then
we also need this canal system for fire protection where you need large volumes
potentially for a fire for a short time.
The key problem is the same problem
we have talked about before. That is,
there was a new rule a couple of years ago that does not really necessarily
make a lot of sense, and they have admitted that. They are now working with us to get a
variance and/or an exception. I was just
checking my messages just a minute ago, because I am waiting right now for a
call back from DEP from the head of the local office.
I have talked to the people
there. One of the folks in the office
was calling this morning and the people that are handling this said there has
been a lot of action in the last two weeks internally with the top people in
their office and they think that they are probably going to give us this
variance now, which they told us a month or two ago, maybe not. I was hoping I would be able to tell you we
have the approval today, but we are very close at this point.
We have time, still, with our grant
money. It is not going to expire, so we
are still okay with that regard.
I do have, though - you may have
heard about this, but if not - Collier County we were hoping was going to give
us a pump station that they had surplused.
We knew all along that Everglades City was in the running for this. Well, the County gave it to Everglades City.
Mr. Wolsky asked even though they
did not want it as they said?
Mr. Benson responded Everglades City
came back and said they wanted it. It is
a little bit more complicated then that, actually when we found out about why
they chose to give it to Everglades City.
Mr. Gatti asked but it is gone,
though, is it not?
Mr. Benson responded it is gone.
Mr. Gatti stated that is the end of
that discussion.
Mr. Benson stated basically the
County was receiver for part of a system out there, so they were kind of like
trying to do something to help out Everglades City's system. It is gone.
I am working with trying to locate
all the other surplus and spare equipment that I know of in Collier County, and
there are some other pumps that we know of.
Mr. Gatti stated we will talk to Jim
Colletta next time and not let him get away.
Let us get back to this permitting
thing. You have one jurisdictional
agency that controls our funding and that we pay into that gives us $100,000 to
put this thing in. Then you have another
agency telling us we cannot do it.
Mr. Benson stated I had a discussion
with the people at DEP about this. What
I told the folks at DEP in the meeting at the end was that there are a lot of
people here at Port of the Islands, they are residents of the community, they
want this system. There is no health
concern of why they are not issuing us the permit.
I said, the people want this. Usually people would call DEP and complain to
try to stop something that they do not understand. I told them, and I hesitate to say this, but
I told them I am to a point of suggesting to people at Port of the Islands the
names and phone numbers of who to call at DEP.
Also, that it would make a very interested news story to the Naples
Daily News.
Mr. Gatti stated the reason I brought
it up is, let us get Clarence Tears involved.
Can we not? How much has he given
us?
Mr. Benson responded $75,000.
Mr. Gatti stated he has given us
$75,000 to do it. He is in charge of the
water in this part of the country, and they are giving us $75,000 to do
it. We have another agency that comes
out of our same tax dollars telling us we cannot do it. That is ridiculous.
Ms. Marchand asked what are they
objecting to?
Mr. Gatti responded to get into the
detail of that is like going up there and trying to talk to these people.
Mr. Benson stated I will tell you
this, they actually have admitted this to me that they made a rule change
basically to protect, in their opinion, some of the bureaucrats that work for
DEP.
What it is, as Mr. Gatti said, the
Water Management District generally regulates water that is used for
irrigation. We have a permit from that
agency for our irrigation source.
DEP does not regulate that. DEP regulates when we use effluent from
wastewater plants for irrigation. Our effluent,
they have no argument with, is far better than the minimum standard for
that. They are not concerned about our
effluent. Our effluent is cleaner than
the water that they have in the canal.
What they are saying is, is
potentially if we put our effluent in the same pipe with the water from the
canal which they have no control over, that if something was ever to happen,
health-wise - just the fact that somebody's dog got sick from drinking the
water or whatever - that they would blame it on the water coming from the
wastewater plant, not the water coming from the canal. Which, in reality, the water from the canal
is worse than the water from the plant.
Mr. Gatti asked what happens if we
just hook up, Mr. Benson?
Mr. Benson responded you would be in
violation of your DEP permit.
Mr. Gatti stated all right. Follow through on it and do what you have to
do.
Mr. Benson stated they have no
authority over the water from the canal.
However, if we are now putting the two together, they are saying we have
some authority and we are going to make you treat the water in the canal to
where it is as clean as the water coming out of your wastewater plant. You cannot afford to do that. That is a half-a-million dollar project.
C. Manager
(There being none, the next agenda
item was addressed.)
D. Field Manager
Mr. Gatti stated tell us about
mosquitos.
Mr. Stephens stated well, we have
been working on keeping them down.
Mr. Gatti stated I think it has been
good. I think it goes through the
cycles.
i. Authorization to Sell 1994 Ford Ranger
Mr. Stephens stated we have a little
Ford Ranger that we have had for a couple of years.
Mr. Gatti stated in today's world,
the way things are going, just make sure you follow every absolute procedure
that is required for disposing of public property.
ON MOTION by Mr. Wolsky, seconded by Mr.
Robinson, with all in favor, the 1994 Ford Ranger is declared surplus and Staff
is authorized to property dispose of the property.
ii. Authorization
to Re-bid the Landscape Maintenance Contract
Mr. Stephens stated the contract has
expired. It was a one-year with another
year renewal. We have come to that
point.
Mr. Gatti stated I think Cypress
does a great job. Anybody got any
problems with that?
ON MOTION by Mr. Wolsky, seconded by Mr.
Robinson, with all in favor, Staff is authorized to re-bid the landscape
maintenance contract.
Mr. Gatti asked is there anything we
should add or change the contract in any way?
Mr. Stephens responded if you want
to add or take something away, everything is fine. We do not have any problems. It is just that it expired.
Mr. Bissell asked why do we need to
re-bid it?
Mr. Gatti responded it is a public
contract and it had a one-year extension on it, which we took advantage of, and
now that contract has expired. We are
sort of obligated to re-bid it.
From our standpoint, of course, we
can take the attitude, well, they are doing a good job, the price seems to be
okay and everything else. However, there
may be somebody out there that wants to bid this contract and because we are a
public entity, he has a right to do that.
Mr. Bissell stated yes, I
understand. Thank you.
SIXTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS Supervisor's
Requests and Audience Comments
Ms. McCay stated I am not sure whose
domain this falls in. It has to do with
a water meter issue.
Mr. Gatti stated here is what I am
going to ask you to do. This is a
specific problem that concerns just you?
Ms. McCay responded no.
Mr. Gatti stated after the meeting,
get together with Mr. Stephens. We like
to keep the discussion to what is of interest to the entire group. Just get together with Mr. Stephens and he
will solve it. Anything else?
Ms. McCay responded yes. Just for edification regarding the reclaimed
water, I just went through that type of thing where I worked - installing it in
a residential area - got the grants, all the engineering, and had to put it in
ourselves. As it turned out in the end,
the South Florida Water Management people were okay with it, but the EPA was
not.
The long and the short of it turned
out these municipalities, and we had two municipalities, backflow
preventers. Because they were so
frightened that that water - effluent water - was somehow going to get mixed up
with either sources from the well water, from the ponds, and/or from the City.
Mr. Gatti asked what is your
question?
Ms. McCay responded it was not a
question, it was just a comment.
Mr. Ingram stated you were
mentioning the foreclosure of different properties. Is it mentioned which properties those are
that you are beginning foreclosure proceedings on?
Mr. Cox responded they have not
identified yet exactly which ones they wish us to move forward with.
Mr. Gatti stated I do not know you,
sir.
Mr. Ingram stated my name is Tracey
Ingram. We are looking at possibly
occupying the north building. We are
entertaining the notion right now, and doing due diligence on the area and
becoming more acquainted with all of you.
Mr. Gatti stated I think I speak for
the Board, we want to work with any entity that wants to get involved in this
area. We are, in fact, a government
agency, but we like to work with the people that have heavy investments here or
are going to make heavy investments here.
If you have any questions or any problems, we would be glad to address
them.
Mr. Ingram stated what concerned me,
I think, a little bit about the engineering plan for the road development, is
if someone did go in and remodel or redo the north building and do some
development in that area, there are some serious potholes and stuff like that
that would be more serious problems if you decided to just to road resurfacing
that would not really be planned for five/six years out. That would be a big concern of mine if we
were to go into that area.
Mr. Benson stated if there are
potholes to be repaired, that is a different issues. Pothole repair would be part of the annual
maintenance.
Mr. Gatti stated the only reason
that there are potholes, and I know exactly where you are talking about, is
because nobody uses that part of the world right now. There are no reasons for us to have potholes
any place in the community.
Mr. Mossing stated in conversation
with that group, if they do decide to develop that and they are looking also at
other properties, that would also, I believe, resolve a lot of our cashflow
issues, which was a concern in making our time frame for resurfacing those
roads. Should that develop, I think that
that whole schedule could be re-thought.
Mr. Gatti stated that is another way
of saying we would really like to work with you.
Mr. Ingram stated it is a beautiful
area out here. The big section, Section
8, was already bought up by the County due to tax resale, and then that went up
to Everglades National Park. Are you
guys aware or have you discussed the issues with them reflooding the strand?
Mr. Gatti responded we are aware of
it, yes.
Mr. Ingram stated I have heard some
stuff about it, but I was not sure. I
know the canal system around here should pretty much protect this area
directly. I know that is going to make a
lot of water in the area around.
We would really like to work with
you, too. I mean, we are looking at
opening up and possibly doing a conference center or something.
Mr. Gatti stated you can talk to any
one of us.
Ms. Marchand stated first of all,
let me say how happy I am to hear that something could happen at that north
hotel. Because I think as far as the
community is concerned, it is becoming a problem.
Unfortunately, in relation not just
to that, but primarily the problem with the North Port property going to the
County, I do not know if you folks are aware of the amount of unacceptable
people that are just coming in to the property and making use of it. They have actually made a couple of little
roads up on the North Port where they just park and drive and do whatever. They go fishing.
I think it is attracting a number of
unsavory people to our community.
Mr. Gatti asked are you talking
right across the street?
Ms. Marchand responded no, no. We have had some problems. The police are well aware of it. I have come to the point that we are taking
every license plate that comes in and out of the property, especially this time
of year.
Mr. Gatti stated it is a spinoff of
this park development across the street.
Ms. Marchand stated probably. It could be.
Yes, it could be.
Mr. Gatti stated they leave a mess
there, too. Every place they go, between
beer cans and stuff.
Ms. Marchand stated I think it is
wonderful to hear that something may happen at the north hotel, because that is
the answer. This does not happen that
much in season, because there is so much other activity.
Mr. Gatti asked from a legal
standpoint, who has jurisdiction over that property now?
Mr. Cox responded the property owner
is still North Port Development, Inc.
The process, when it goes for tax deed sale and no one bids on the
property is, it stays on a list of lands available for taxes for two years.
Ms. Marchand asked who is
responsible for the property in the interim?
Mr. Cox responded North Port
Development, Inc.
Ms. Marchand asked until the two
years are up?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
Mr. Gatti stated it is literally a
no-man's land, is what it is. That is a
good point. It is going to get
worse. Let us chew on that. I do not know if we can get the Sheriff's
people involved, or not. It is still
private property.
Ms. Marchand stated they are
patrolling a lot more. They are very
good. They are patrolling a lot
more. Like I said, they are more than willing. I mean, I have their fax number and every day
I fax them a new list of tags. They are
running them.
Mr. Cox stated you might ought to
give Tom a call and see if he will put some no trespassing signs up. That would give the police officers a lot
more authority to say something.
Mr. Gatti asked do you know Tom
Bernard?
Mr. Stephens responded yes. I will talk to him about that.
Mr. Cox stated you might just want
to let him know that if somebody gets out there and gets hurt, it might be an
issue.
Mr. Gatti stated my thought in getting
things accomplished is to make it as easy as possible for the owner. Why do you not ask Mr. Bernard for permission
to put some signs up and then put some up?
Mr. Stephens responded okay.
Ms. Marchand asked does he need it
written?
Mr. Gatti responded no. Because if somebody says we put the signs up,
we will deny it anyway.
Ms. Marchand stated just do not
blame it on me.
This is a long-range one, but it
goes back in relation to the irrigation thing.
Is there any chance, long-term, that the actual pipeline which is
running across my property with the effluent, that it could actually be done
away with with the new systems?
Mr. Benson responded that will
always be a backup system for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Cox stated I have one more
thing. You know we argued motions for
summary judgment back about three weeks ago in the court proceedings. I expect between now and the next meeting
that we will have an Order from the Judge on those arguments. I would like to schedule a off-the-record
session, or closed session - we will still be on the record.
As you recall, last time we had a
court reporter come in and transcribe the session for us. I just need authorization from you to
advertise and conduct that closed session for purposes of discussing litigation
strategy.
Mr. Gatti stated just go through Mr.
Mossing and when you are ready let us know.
Mr. Wolsky stated in line with that,
we will be travelling. If there is any
change, if there are any meetings called or any meetings cancelled, please put it
in an E-mail.
Mr. Cox stated we will just do it
like we did the last time. We will do it
as the last agenda item for our regularly-scheduled meeting.
Mr. Gatti stated let us kind of look
at that, because unless you need some direction that is going to influence a
case we will schedule that after our next regular meeting.
Mr. Wolsky stated I would add, if
anything comes up pertaining to the case or anything else that you feel the
Board of Supervisors should know please put it in an E-mail and send it to
us. Because I am not going to be
answering the telephone.
SEVENTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS Financial
Statements and Approval of Check Register
ON MOTION by Mr. Bissell, seconded by Mr.
Wolsky, with all in favor, the invoices were approved.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
ON
MOTION by Mr. Wolsky, seconded by Mr. Robinson, with all in favor, the meeting
was adjourned.