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
Leonard Gross 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
Carrie Colson Port of the
Several residents
Mr. Gatti called the meeting to
order at
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of Minutes of the November 16, 2001 Meeting
Mr.
Wolsky stated I have some comments about the minutes. Substantively, I think they are accurate, but
the attribution of who says what is really way out of line. Is there some way we can tighten that up a
little bit? You cannot hold the
transcribers responsible, because it is very difficult to identify a voice that
they do not know. Mr. Mossing is present
at the meetings; is there some way you could proofread these and suggest
corrections, or is there some other technique that we could make like saying
Wolsky here, before I speak?
Mr.
Gatti responded I think that would help the transcribers a lot. It is difficult to identify voices when you
are not familiar with them. When we get
going, sometimes it is real rapid fire.
Mr. Wolsky stated absolutely. I commensurate with them having transcribed a number of tapes myself. For example, it will say that Mr. Bissell made the comment that six years ago when I was doing something or another, and Mr. Bissell was not a supervisor six years ago. Or, it will say that Mr. Burgeson said at this meeting so-and-so, and you look at the supervisors who were present and Mr. Burgeson was not present at that meeting. I mean, there are internal contradictions. What would happen if we went to a court and had a court case; could somebody impugn the accuracy of the minutes by saying that they are internally inconsistent?
Mr.
Cox responded I think that in order to challenge that consistency, the person
alleging the irregularity would have to have accurate transcriptions
themselves. If there was a question, we
could go back to the tapes.
Mr.
Mossing stated that is our understanding that if they were ever challenged,
that the tape actually would stand.
Mr.
Gatti stated you make a real valid point.
Let us handle it this way. When I
ask somebody to speak, I will ask them by name. If we sort of control our open
discussion to being acknowledged, I will acknowledge you by name, and that will
identify the person. Then, if for some
reason I do not do it, just mention it, and that will tie the thing down.
ON MOTION by Mr. Bissell, seconded by Mr. Wolsky, with all
in favor, the Minutes of the November 16, 2001 Meeting were approved.
A. Attorney
Mr. Cox stated we have a couple of things we need to discuss today. Present in the audience is Mr. Warren Bloom who is the attorney with Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson who is representing Allstate as the holder of our 1990 Series Special Assessment Bonds. You will recall that back in the budget cycle for the Year 2000 that we had a series of properties that were taken off roll and assessed directly for the portion of their assessments that covered the bond debt allocated to that property. We have had a few of those properties that have not paid those assessments. The time has come now for the District to consider Allstate's request that we begin foreclosure proceedings against those properties as is allowed by the statute. I would ask Mr. Bloom if he has anything he would like to say.
Mr.
Bloom stated what Mr. Cox is referencing, I believe, is from August of
2000. That is how long ago this
was. We requested this Board take
certain of the largest parcels off the 197 tax certificate collection method
and put it on direct collection. The
Board, after some debate, graciously conceded Allstate's request. Of those parcels,
there are now several that still have not paid.
The remedy for direct collection is foreclosure. It is pursuant to Florida Statutes. It is also in the Trust Indenture that the
District signed back in 1990 when it was financing its first initiative. If you take something off the roll and
someone does not pay, the only way you can get any value out of it is by
following the remedies that are required in the documents, which is
foreclosure. The way this works, and we have gone through this several other
times in other districts, is that the District acts in conjunction with our law
firm. We put together a form of
complaint. It is filed against the
property. It is not the individuals who
own the property. In other words, your
remedy is against the property and not against the person. We do not chase after them for a deficiency
judgment. There is an answer and response time.
Then, assuming that there are not hotly-contested matters, within 90 to
120 days, you end up with a foreclosure sale.
The foreclosure sale is where people come and make bids for the
property. The highest bid wins. The money comes in. It is split up among all of the governmental
lien holders of record, and that is how you get probably not all of your money
back, but some of your money back.
Mr.
Wolsky asked if the person who owns the property declares bankruptcy, how does
that affect your ability to collect?
Mr.
Bloom responded a bankruptcy stays Allstate’s court actions. Foreclosure on property is by nature a state
action. The bankruptcy stops that, then
the court can determine whose rights are what.
What you can do is move for relief from the automatic stay, which we
have always been successful with in cases like this. Because, there is not much doubt they owe the
money and have not paid it, and the court will generally say go ahead and go
after the property.
Mr.
Bissell asked who does it benefit; does it benefit Allstate or does it benefit
the individuals that have this property?
Mr.
Bloom responded the individual who owns the property would say it does not
benefit them, because they have not paid.
Just the same way as I have a mortgage on my house, if I do not pay
SunTrust every month, chances are they will foreclose and take my house. Allstate bought the debt. The debt is ultimately secured by special assessments
on the land within the District. The
ultimate security for the debt is the land. It benefits Allstate, because they
are not getting paid anything now.
Presumably, they will get paid something when the land is foreclosed
upon and sold.
Mr.
Bissell stated I believe there is some property that people have taken options
on, or whatever.
Mr.
Bloom stated the lien of the CID is senior to any option, any commercial
mortgage. If, in fact, the foreclosure
goes all the way through, anybody who has like personal property rights - like
if I had an option on your property - they get wiped out. That is the law. That is the deal.
Mr.
Wolsky stated we have significant interest in those properties, too. Where do we fall in that hierarchy? We have two pieces that will be involved; one
is recoverable from the standby fees, or whatever you want to call them.
Mr.
Cox stated from the perspective of the District, I want to clarify a couple of
things. First is that we would have to
join any party who had an interest in that property that we wanted to
extinguish, because of our superior lien as the defendants. Any person that had
an interest in the property, be it an option or whatever, would have an
opportunity to be heard. We are not
doing anything that would violate any person's due process rights. That being the primary concern, that their
interest in the property could not be extinguished without them being a party
to the proceeding.
Mr.
Wolsky asked that is why you will be involved with Mr. Bloom?
Mr.
Cox responded that is correct. The
second thing is what impact this has on the CID. The CID, with the primary lien against the
property and the magnitude of the lien, would bid in the property at that value
and would have that property then which we would market. The proceeds from the sale would be in a
constructive trust to be used to pay the bonds that were allocated to that
property. If we accelerate the full amount of the bonds, even the future due
bonds on the property, that sale would go to that whole segment of the bond
issue. It puts the District back into a
position where we may be able to come out of our default, because we have
addressed that portion of the bond that is causing the delinquency.
Mr.
Gatti asked what is the staff's recommendation on this?
Mr.
Cox stated let me give you the second issue.
That is, once we have title to that property, we also have title to the
ERCs. That gives you some flexibility in
determining to what extent you want those ERCs to develop, or how you want to allocate
them among the properties that we then have. As far as my recommendation, it is
that the bond indenture is clear that in the event that we use the 170 method -
the direct assessment method - and the property owners do not pay, the bond
indenture says that the District shall, to the extent permitted by law, declare
the entire balance of such delinquent property to be foreclosed at its expense
to cause the property to be foreclosed pursuant to law. You have contractually obligated yourself to
take the action.
Mr.
Gatti stated we set that action the last time we met. Now it is just a matter of implementing
it. Does the Board disagree with any of
that?
Mr.
Cox stated I would like to have one more thing on the record for this
discussion. Notwithstanding the part
that the bond and interest would be at our expense, I believe Allstate has
agreed that they will compensate for the legal fees.
Mr.
Gatti asked our legal fees?
Mr.
Cox responded yes.
Mr.
Gatti stated so it is a win/win situation for us.
Mr.
Cox stated I believe so.
Mr.
Wolsky stated I have one question. If
the CID has control of the ERCs, can they be sold then?
Mr.
Cox responded sure, and that is assuming that nobody comes in and out-bids the
District at the foreclosure sale. We are
exploring whether and to what extent the foreclosure and the distribution of
the proceeds from the foreclosure sale would extinguish tax certificates out on
the property, too. It could be it will
make those properties much more marketable.
Mr.
Gross asked is the whole debt going to be accelerated so the whole remaining
bond would be foreclosed upon?
Mr.
Cox responded what is allocated to that property.
ON MOTION by Mr. Wolsky, seconded by Mr. Gross with all in
favor, the foreclosure proceedings are approved for currently direct-assessed
properties.
Mr.
Cox stated the second issue I have for you also involves Mr. Bloom as the
representative of Allstate in its capacity as the beneficial owner of the
bond. We also have now some other - I do
not know how many - single-family properties or actual smaller properties that
are not paying their assessments. At the last meeting, they asked us to monitor
that tax certificate sale process and see at March of next year whether or not
these properties have not paid. The
request today is you take the same action for these properties that we have
done with the larger properties, and direct assess them during the next budget
cycle if indeed there are properties that do not pay.
Mr.
Bloom stated it is the same rationale. We seem to have some good results with
direct pay as opposed to the tax certificate method.
Mr.
Wolsky stated one observation is a lot of people watch what the big property
owners are doing, and when they fail to pay their just portion, the little
people say, well why should I pay when they are not paying.
Mr.
Gatti stated that is all the more reason that we should take this action.
Mr.
Gross asked are we saying that they are one year behind; is that what you are
saying?
Mr.
Cox responded yes, as far as not having paid.
If they do not pay this coming tax year, we are going to direct assess
them next year.
Mr.
Gross stated they have two years to clear it up.
Mr.
Cox stated right. Then, once we direct
assess them, if they do not pay, they have that same opportunity. If in March of 2003 they have not paid that
direct assessment, then I am sure Mr. Bloom will be back to ask that we perform
foreclosure on those properties.
ON MOTION by Mr. Gross, seconded by Mr. Bissell, with all in favor, parties delinquent as of March 2002 shall be direct assessed in 2003.
Mr.
Gatti asked how many properties are we talking about in single-family?
Mr.
Bloom responded it is not a lot; less then half a dozen.
Mr.
Gatti stated just so we do not set a bad pattern, it makes sense to do this.
Mr.
Cox stated the last thing I have for you today is as you will recall Olde
Florida Investments is a property owner within the District that has sought
relief under the reorganization provisions of the bankruptcy code. In conjunction with that, they have filed a
challenge to the assessments against that property. We have filed a Motion to
Dismiss in which we raise two arguments.
The first is that these types of assessments did not fall within the
definition of a tax, which the bankruptcy court would have jurisdiction to
evaluate and determine whether it was valid or not. The second argument we raised was that if the
relief granted to the petitioner in that action was granted, that would result
in potential effect to the rest of the property owners within the
District. Therefore, all of the property
owners within the District were necessary parties to this action for the court
to properly adjudicate the merits. The court ruled against us on our first
argument, but ruled for us on our second argument, and dismissed the
complaint. They do have leave to amend
by joining all of the property owners within the District and refiling by
December 27th. We are still up in the
air about owners if they decide to amend their complaint and refile.
Mr.
Gatti asked when they refile, will everybody in this District receive a notice?
Mr.
Cox responded everybody in the District will be made a party of the action.
Mr.
Gatti asked will they receive a notice?
Mr.
Cox responded yes.
Mr.
Gatti stated people are going to come out of the woodwork when that happens.
Mr.
Cox stated you are going to get service of process. I have a feeling that will happen.
Mr.
Gatti stated we do not have a newsletter anymore. This type of information, as you can appreciate,
somebody is going to get that notice in their mailbox. We will have to make a point to sort of
capsulate that in some sort of a statement that we, the Board, send out, and
tell people that they can anticipate that and what the ramifications are. Anybody got a problem with that?
Mr.
Gross asked no. Can we also have one
attorney represent all of us if we have to answer?
Mr.
Cox responded yes.
Mr.
Gatti stated that is part of what I am suggesting.
Mr.
Cox stated either everybody can hire the same attorney, or everybody can hire
different attorneys. I think with my
representation of the Board, it would not be appropriate for my firm to
represent the other property owners. I
have not necessarily studied that.
Mr.
Wolsky stated I do not understand what is involved. What will be the nature of the complaint
against the individual property owners?
Mr.
Cox responded what I think we would have to do is do an amended assessment
methodology, taking into consideration the factors that are identified by the
court as what caused the original assessment allocations to be invalid. It is possible that that could result in a
different allocation of the bond debt. It would still have to be based on the
two-prong test that we applied to special assessments, which is that it could
not exceed the benefits that the property owner receives from improvements that
are financed by the bond. Each property
owner who is similarly situated would pay the same as all other property owners
that are similarly situated.
Mr.
Gatti asked would it not be appropriate for the CID to represent the entire
community on something like that?
Mr.
Cox responded it is kind of a reverse action.
Mr.
Gatti stated for us to suggest that every one of us out here get an attorney to
respond to this thing is ludicrous.
Mr.
Cox stated I have never seen a class-action defense.
Mr.
Gatti stated even to develop that we are talking about spending all kinds of
money here that is going to be absolutely unnecessary.
Mr.
Gross asked what would the conflict be?
Mr.
Cox responded I have not discussed it with my firm partners yet to see whether
they feel like we would have a conflict.
Mr.
Gatti asked what if we overrule the conflict?
We acknowledge that there could be a conflict, we take that into consideration,
but we want you to do it anyway?
Mr.
Cox responded there are provisions in the Florida Rules that govern the conduct
of an attorney and the relationship with their client that do permit waiver
after full disclosure. There are also
provisions that if that attorney feels at any time that representation could
result in a conflict that the attorney could not give his full and fair
representation to one of the parties because of his obligation to the other,
that you cannot have that dual representation.
Mr.
Gatti stated find a way to do it.
Mr.
Cox stated I appreciate your confidence.
Mr.
Gatti stated it makes sense from a community standpoint. First of all, this is a community action, the
way it began. It would be nuts for each
one of us to, first of all, understand what it is all about, much less defend
ourselves against it. Find a way to do
it.
Mr.
Cox stated until the complaint is filed, I would assume you do not want me to
spend a lot of time on it.
Mr.
Gatti stated right. Filing a complaint
against however many properties we have out here, that is going to be some
dollars, too.
Mr.
Cox stated logistically - I woke up screaming in the middle of the night when I
thought about it last night.
Mr.
Gatti stated that is what I thought.
An
Audience member asked is this a suit against the people on the bond issue?
Mr.
Gatti responded let me make it real simple for you. Somebody does not want to pay their
share. That means the rest of us have to
pick up that part of the cost. It is as
simple as that.
An
Audience member stated I know that.
However, some of us have paid off our bond issue; are they included in
that?
Mr.
Gatti responded that kind of nuance will have to be worked out, but that is
what it amounts to.
An
Audience member asked Phase 1 does not have this bond, correct?
Mr.
Gatti responded right.
An
Audience member asked are they included, too?
Mr.
Gatti responded no.
An
Audience member stated if they do not have the bond, and the other people paid
their bond off, they do not have the bond either.
Mr.
Gatti stated we are ten miles from that sort of thing.
Mr.
Wolsky asked would this then transcend our little place here and be applicable
against all the other places in Florida?
Mr.
Cox responded it possibly would set a precedent that any other situation would
have to follow it. Bankruptcy is a
little bit different animal. If this
were in a district court of appeal, yes.
In the bankruptcy court itself, I do not think it has quite that
precedential bearing as it would in other courts. If it goes to an appeal through either the
middle district or eleventh circuit, that is a possibility.
Mr.
Gatti asked do you have anything further?
Mr.
Bloom stated that is an excellent question, and Dan is right. Procedurally, bankruptcy courts, such as a
bankruptcy court in Fort Myers would only apply to Fort Myers. Even if it goes to the district court, it is
like persuasive, but not controlling. As an editorial comment, Allstate takes
this very seriously, even though the parcel we are talking about here is not a
huge amount of money for Allstate.
Because of the possible precedential effect, what it could do to
districts like your District and the financing in the billions of dollars as
has been done here, in California and Texas, Allstate is committed to making
sure this lawsuit is defeated soundly.
It is an important issue for Allstate, the District, and other
districts.
Mr.
Wolsky stated in previous meetings, we depended upon the advice of our
attorney, and our attorney assured us that certain things were absolutely in
conformity with Statute 190.
Mr.
Bloom stated I am not an economist, and I have not gone back painstakingly
through the assessment methodology on this.
We feel very, very, very confident that everything was done correctly. The standards in Florida are such that you
have to be arbitrarily capricious, all kinds of things, before you can set
aside an assessment. Like you said,
because of the precedential value here, our clients take this very seriously
and we are aligned 100 percent with the District on this. This has to be taken care of and gotten rid
of.
Mr.
Gatti asked do you have other issues with the Board, Mr. Bloom?
Mr.
Bloom responded I do not.
Mr.
Cox stated that was all I had.
B. Engineer
Dr.
Benson stated I have a couple of items.
The last meeting we talked briefly about our contract with the South
Florida Water Management District Big Cypress Basin regarding funding for a
reuse system. I sent a letter to the
Water Management District on behalf of the CID. We have received Amendment Number 1 to your
agreement with the District.
Essentially, the only term that has changed is to extend the agreement
by ten months. Again, what we are doing is making sure you do not have a chance
of losing your grant money.
Mr.
Gatti asked we have the matching funds for that, right?
Mr.
Mossing responded yes.
Mr.
Cox stated the agreement has been reviewed and is in order.
Dr.
Benson stated you will need to have that signed by the Chairman.
The
other item on that same project was, at the last meeting, again, just because
of the timing, we discussed it would probably be best to go ahead and
advertise/start the process for the bids.
The only thing holding up the project has been getting our permit from
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. We can go ahead and start that process. As soon as we have the bids and go through
that process, the bids are contingent on award, based on getting the
permit. Construction cannot be started
without it. This will speed up the project, potentially. We have advertised the
project. Plans and specifications are
being sold in our office. A couple of
companies so far have purchased plans.
They are $100, which covers the printing cost. We also sent copies, at no charge, to the plan
room in both Collier and Lee Counties so small contractors can view the plans
without having to buy them, if they want to.
That is in the works.
Mr.
Gatti asked who has taken out plans so far; do you know?
Dr.
Benson responded I would have to check.
Mr.
Gatti stated make sure Kyle, Mixon and Stark get those.
Dr.
Benson stated we are going to be sending out a notice.
Mr.
Gatti stated they are good for these kinds of jobs.
Dr.
Benson stated the estimate we have for the work is in these documents as about
$170,000. The grant was $75,000, and you
have to spend at least $150,000 to get the $75,000. It is still in the same ballpark.
Mr.
Gatti asked what is the time frame for construction?
Dr.
Benson responded I believe we have identified approximately three months.
Mr.
Gatti stated the only point is that we do not want to be pumping salt on to
shrubbery again this year.
Dr.
Benson stated we have the opening scheduled on the 8th of January, because we
had to get through the holiday season.
Mr.
Wolsky asked last meeting when we talked about your chart and your visual aid
there, you said you would make available an electronic copy of that?
Dr.
Benson responded to you and anybody that would like it. I have not gotten that diskette yet. We are still waiting on the permit.
Mr.
Gatti stated you cannot expedite that, unfortunately.
C. Manager - Consideration of Revised Direct Assessment Request from District Bondholder
Mr.
Mossing stated the item under Manager was taken care of by Mr. Cox under the attorney's
report. I mentioned last month that Ms.
Colson, with Port of the Islands Construction, might come to the Board and
request a variance under the transfer of ERCs.
The rule that the District has in place, which basically states that in
order to complete the transfer of ERCs from one property to the next, one of
the items on the list is that they pay all current assessments. Their property
tax bill has not been paid for 2002, and it is technically not due until March
31st of 2002. However, under a strict
reading of the rule, they need to pay that assessment today in order to
complete the transfer. What she is
requesting, I believe, is a variance under that rule to say, allow them to pay
on March 31st their property tax bill.
Mr.
Cox stated I think one way for the Board to address this to avoid having to
consider a variance is to give staff direction on are we properly interpreting
the word "current" in this event.
The assessments and taxes are due right now, but they are not past
due. They have not gone delinquent,
because you have until March 31st to pay.
Mr.
Gatti stated let me suggest that the request be submitted to staff, staff
review it, and see what recommendations you would come back with at the next
meeting, rather than us trying to make a decision here. That does not hurt you, and it gives you a
little bit more time, then you guys can look at it a little bit. Does that make sense?
Mr.
Wolsky responded it depends on what their time line is.
Mr.
Gatti stated March.
Ms.
Colson stated these ERCs, I do not technically need until the third
building. However, it is a project that
I have already started on and is a concern of ours, is if it is going to be
allowed at all. That is our
concern. Just like he said, that is how
we feel. The taxes are not past
due. They are due March 31st. We have loans on both pieces of property and
the bank will not allow you to have delinquent taxes on it. They will force us to pay the taxes.
Mr.
Wolsky asked how can we change that? If
the bank is adamant on that point, what can we do that will change the bank's
attitude?
Mr.
Burgeson responded let me speak as not a Board member. That is not the point. The point we are making is, in cash flow, to
try and come up with that type of stuff when it is not in our budget at this
time, our budgets show it due in March, and that is the way we have projected
our business all along. To try and come
up with that type of thing right now when we interpreted that it is not due -
although you get a discount, which we are not going to take - we are going to
pay the taxes when they are due. What Ms. Colson is saying is, there is no way
the bank is going to loan you any additional money with back taxes. No bank that is funding a project is going to
let you go with back taxes.
Mr.
Mossing stated this in no way negatively impacts the District from a cash flow
perspective.
Mr.
Gatti stated I understand that. I am just trying to get some breathing room for
the party making the request, and that is why we will refer it to staff. We can look at this in February, some
time. It will almost become a moot
point. You are not in any kind of
trouble, because the taxes are not due until March.
Ms.
Colson stated just from our standpoint, it is something that has been on-going
for us for quite some time. We would
like assurance that this is going to happen, because we are selling this
property with this.
Mr.
Gatti stated you have the ERUs, though.
Ms.
Colson stated I do not have enough ERCs for this project unless you let me
transfer them. That is the question.
Mr.
Mossing stated they have met all the requirements to transfer the ERCs, except
this one stipulation which Rhonda Archer in our office is interpreting to mean
that they need to pay that now.
Mr.
Gatti stated let me see if I can make this simple. What action do you need from us today to
satisfy the request, one, and two, what is the staff's recommendation on the
request?
Mr.
Mossing responded to defer to counsel to review that if he is comfortable with
"current" meaning March 31st of 2002, we are comfortable by signing
the document.
Mr.
Gatti stated so it is right back to what I said. Let us defer it for a month while Mr. Cox
looks at it.
Mr.
Cox stated if the interpretation is such that, in my opinion "current"
means not past due, not in arrears, and that we can legitimately do the
transfer under the rule that we have in place without further Board action, and
that I am authorized to make that call.
ON MOTION by Mr. Bissell, seconded by Mr. Wolsky, with all in favor, the transfer variance for ERCs to Port of the Islands Construction is approved subject to interpretation and approval of District Counsel, as authorized. The motion passed by a vote of 4 to 0, with Mr. Burgeson abstaining from the vote.
Mr.
Cox stated we will get an abstention letter to attach.
D. Field
Manager
Mr.
Gatti stated let me fill you in on what happened with the road entry and waste
management. We talked to waste
management. What happened is, one of
waste management's trucks had an oil leak and we were concerned that it would
affect the roadway. They came out,
looked at it, I looked at the roadway, and they assured us that there is
nothing that can be done now, and I agree with them. They assured us that if
anything goes wrong with the roadway that they are committed to fix it at
whatever level we request, so that sort of takes care of that. Mr. Stephens and I had talked about that.
A
Supervisor asked did they assure us of that in writing?
Mr.
Gatti responded just verbally.
Mr.
Bissell stated they power washed it, because I called on my own - not as the
CID - about that. I was assured it was
power washed, then the sun would take care of the rest.
Mr.
Gatti stated if something goes wrong with it, all we have to do is drop them a
note saying, this is to confirm. I will
give you the language.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisors Requests
and Audience Comments
Mr.
Bissell stated we talked about tearing up the streets in the Cays, and when Jim
was here - you were on vacation - he looked into the manhole that in the
drawings they were going to go straight across and tear up the road to get to
that. That is stubbed in. In the plans for the fourth building, looking
at the manhole, it has already been stubbed in.
Mr.
Stephens stated that is what the engineer's drawings show.
Mr.
Gatti stated we really have to do something about how we handle these roadway
things. We have a bunch of cuts out here
that the hotel made. They have to be
repaired. I talked with Mr. Burgeson and
his contractor is going to be in here doing asphalt work some time in the near
future. I have asked that that
contractor fix those crossings. There is a couple of ways to do it. We can either take them out and redo them, or
mill them and redo them. We have left
that up to the contractor, just so it comes out right. Whatever the costs are, we are going to come
back at you guys for, unless you want to do it.
We have to get that stuff fixed, and there is a window of opportunity
here where there is a contractor out here and we have to take advantage of
it. If you would look at these guys when
they are doing this work, I would really appreciate it.
Mr.
Dyer stated I am more than happy to help.
Mr.
Gatti stated I get a lot of calls at home about stuff unrelated to the
District. For the audience, do not
misunderstand when myself or a Board member says, hey, we do not have anything
to do with that, that we are trying to put you off and tell you go some place
else. It is simply that the Board does
not have jurisdiction on private property. We have jurisdiction over the
right-of-way. We have jurisdiction over
the water treatment plant. We have
jurisdiction over the sewage treatment plant.
We have jurisdiction over the distribution and collection of those
materials, and what have you. We do not
have jurisdiction on private property and matters that relate to private
property. Two or three calls I got this month, the electrical work in one of
the buildings. It has nothing to do with
the CID. Somebody put in a boat ramp
that somebody else does not like. Has
nothing to do with the CID. The only
point I am making is the CID's jurisdiction is set by state statutes and we are
very confined. We can expand that to
some things we are not into, but that does not relate to anything to do with
private property.
An
Audience member stated we have looked at the restrictions that are in our
deeds. Who is responsible for enforcing
those?
Mr.
Gatti responded covenants that run with your property are a civil matter. However, in the instance of our area there,
Phase 1, we have a group. When somebody
exceeds the covenants that are within our deed restrictions, then we as a group
have to get together and say, hey, we are going to bring some private action
against that individual, and that is the only way you can do it. In the case of
homeowners' associations, that has to be done within the association. In the case of the entire District, we need a
master homeowners' association. We are
now at the point where the developer no longer has the majority of the
controlling votes or interest in this community. It is now with us. Somewhere along the line we are going to have
to develop a master homeowners' association that can look at all of these
things.
An
Audience member stated we have a master association.
Mr.
Gatti stated the individual phases do. I
am saying across the entire community.
An
Audience member stated across the whole community there is a master
association.
Mr.
Dyer stated I am happy to hear we will possibly have some repairs on the
streets, because that needs to be done.
My question is, what is the right-of-way in our area?
Mr.
Gatti responded look at that map.
Mr.
Dyer stated my question is, as I go down Newport Drive, especially where the
yellow fire hydrant is, there has been a ditch that has been dug out for a year
with somebody trying to check cable. You
look there, you see electric lines, TV. lines, irrigation lines, fuel
lines. Do we have any way we could go to
a governmental authority and say, look, clean this mess up? That is dangerous.
Mr.
Gatti responded Code Enforcement with the County.
Mr.
Dyer stated I think the CID should send a letter to Code Enforcement.
Mr.
Wolsky stated the CID has nothing at all to do with Code Enforcement.
Mr.
Gross stated you, as an individual, could call them up and do it.
Mr.
Dyer stated then I will have to do that.
Something needs to be done. I
developed land projects as large as what you have here for years. If we did one of these things and left it in
those condition, we would never get another permit. It is about that simple.
Mr.
Gatti stated welcome to South Florida.
Mr.
Wolsky stated I work with the CIA. I
told my builder if we ran espionage the way he builds houses, we would be
speaking Russian now.
Mr.
Lambert stated I do not believe we need to just accept it.
Mr.
Gatti stated we are not suggesting that.
Mr.
Lambert stated it comes off that way.
Mr.
Gatti stated we are not. Here is our
dilemma in a lot of this stuff. When we
say, do something, it is us. We do not
have a major staff. We do not have a
structure here that we say, hey, you take care of that. We have a few of us folks that sit up here on
the Board and when we see a problem, we try and handle it. The fact of the
matter is, it is a community and we do not have an internal administrative
structure that can handle these sorts of things. I do not think we want to afford one, but the
point is, we do not have that.
Therefore, when something like this happens, the only way we can resolve
it is to talk about it and then one of us make a telephone call.
Mr.
Burgeson stated I would like to make a comment as an audience member, and not a
Board member. When Mr. Genung called me
on the looks of our trailer over there at Stella Maris, sometimes you just keep
working and you just do not notice it.
You are there every day. We went
and built a fence and all that stuff around it to make it look nice. There is
just some things that if somebody mentions it, and it is something we can take
care of, we try to take care of it, because it only helps our sales. If it is something we can help out with, we
help out with it. There are stages,
though. On our side where we are
developing Sunset Cay Lakes, it is going to go in different stages. Some things will not get done until certain
things are done. We replaced an old lift station in order to develop that
piece. That is going to be turned over
to the community. It is a $60,000 lift
station that you are not paying for. You
are going to get a brand new lift station that is going to work substantially
better than the one that was there way back on that field. There are positives along with
negatives. The thing is, you do work at
it. When you see something that has been
done, once it is finished and developed, it looks nice. As a whole, this community does look nice. I
have been here since 1984. I have spent
ten years with U.S. Home in four counties.
I know what construction is. We
closed over a thousand units a year. I
have seen all kinds of stuff. What takes
time is, you are Port of the Islands.
People do not come out to Port of the Islands when you are the fastest
growing county in the United States, and they can work without driving forty
miles/fifty miles - some of our subs come seventy miles. Some of them come from Miami. It is not a picnic. Nobody is having a picnic. It is a fight from Day One to try and build
anything and work on it. We try to do the best, but like I said, sometimes you
do not see the trees for the forest. If
somebody calls like Mr. Genung did, we will try to do whatever we can to make
it work better. We are not here to
destroy this community. I do not think
the work we have done out here has destroyed the community, when you look at
the resale value of what these people have paid for these units and what they
are selling them for. I have had people make more money on their unit without
closing it - selling it to somebody else - and I have to pay the closing costs
on top of it. They made twice what I
made. There are positives. Sometimes you dwell on the negatives.
Mr.
Gatti stated I want to re-emphasize what I said to this gentleman here. Please do not think we make light of this
stuff. It is just a matter of how we can
control it, that is the point. Let us
make an assignment here. There are
problems with that retention area out there.
Somebody has to make a call to Code Enforcement. Mr. Gross, we would look to you to talk to
the new owners of the hotel, yes? Make
them aware of it. Let us not start out
by being hostile. Let us give them an
opportunity to correct the problems.
Mr.
Gross responded yes. It is the same owners, just Howard and I are being bought
out. My son will still be here.
Mr.
Gatti stated let us make them aware of what those problems are, and give them a
chance to take care of it. Then, we can
make a call to Code Enforcement; does that make sense?
Mr.
Wolsky stated to expand on that, there is a formal overall homeowners'
association - a master. We just never
implemented it. I think that association
should be implemented. That is the
association that would take care of some of these problems instead of the
individual ones. We cannot do it as a
Board. It is not our problem. Anybody
can call Code Enforcement for any infraction they see or ask about. They should to protect the neighborhood. I think we should activate the association so
they can talk as a group about this formality.
I think it would benefit the whole area.
Mr.
Gatti stated I think one of the things we have to do is start this newsletter
again. Until we get participation by the
entire community, we are sort of floundering over this thing. We have twenty people in here today. If we start something, there will be forty
different people and nobody is going to know what is going on and everything
will be very confusing.
Mr.
Dyer stated I agree during construction we all have ups and downs and we all
have problems. The same problems I have,
you have. In reality, to expound about
the next guy making a profit, that is part of the ballgame. You are making a profit on the project here,
and in-turn, we would expect the details to be taken care of. The problem I
have right now is like the TV. cable, for instance. I see 200 yards of it laying on top of the
ground out here. I called, and they do
not return the call.
Mr.
Gatti stated we are going to talk about that in a minute after we adjourn the
meeting. We are going to talk
specifically about cable.
Mr.
Dyer stated I will be glad to help.
Mr.
Wolsky stated I did not mean to be flippant or frivolous in my comment about
espionage and the builder. Is that what
you took offense to?
Mr.
Lambert responded I was offended at the fact that something was mentioned about
a master association, obviously that is something that could work here at this
point. It was brushed aside. Then the question was raised about people,
the way they do business, and that sort of thing, and that was brushed aside.
Mr.
Wolsky stated we are prohibited by the rules of what CID business is from
delving into questions like that. Every
now and then we start talking about the master homeowners' association, which I
tried to start in 1995 when I first moved in here. Eleven people showed up at my house. People do not want a master association
here. If you do not think that is the
case, try to resurrect the one we have.
I think we really need one. What we do not need is condo police going
around and telling us we cannot do this or we cannot do that. We need a master association. One of the aspects of that is an
architectural review committee, which I sat on for a while, but which fell into
dis-use because nobody paid any attention to it. What we do here is CID business. You can surface something like this, but you
are going to have to do it on your own. You are going to have to form some sort of
organization. This is not the place to
do things like that. I am sorry, but
that is how it is.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Financial
Statements and Approval of Check Registers
ON MOTION by Mr. Bissell, seconded by Mr. Wolsky, with all
in favor, the Financial Statements and Check Registers were approved.
ON MOTION by Mr. Gross, seconded by Mr. Wolsky, with all in
favor, the meeting was adjourned.
Darrin
S. Mossing Richard
Gatti