MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE 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
E. Wolsky Vice
Chairman
John
Robinson Supervisor
Ted Bissell Assistant
Secretary
Also
present were:
Craig
Wrathell District
Staff
Dan
Cox Attorney
Ron
Benson, Jr. Engineer
Tim
Stephens Field
Manager
Several
Residents
FIRST
ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr.
Wolsky called the meeting to order and Mr. Wrathell called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the January 17,
2003 Meeting
Mr.
Wrathell stated that each member of the Board had received a copy of the
minutes of the
Mr.
Wolsky stated that several corrections would be e-mailed to the District office
to be incorporated in the final minutes.
On
MOTION by Mr. Bissell seconded by Mr. Robinson with all in favor the minutes of
the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Rate Adjustment in
Accordance with Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson, P.A. Master
Legal Service Agreement
Mr.
Cox stated the firm has been serving as counsel to the District since 1991 and
we entered into an agreement then that laid out a schedule of the attorneys
within the firm and their rates that would be billed on an hourly rate for
those attorneys. Over the course of time
several of those attorneys are no longer with the firm. Several attorneys have worked with this
District without any modification of the rate agreement to show what their
rates were. I have only been with the
District for approximately four years and there has been no amendment to
include my rates. Mr. Anderson was the
primary attorney when we first entered into the agreement and his rate was $160
an hour at that time. We have continued
to bill at that rate no matter which attorney attended these meetings. The current rate for my services to the
District is at the mid-range of what I normally charge. The clerks are reflected at the hourly rate
we normally bill our law clerks for.
When a question is presented, if it requires any in depth research that
can be done from the
Mr.
Wolsky asked can you give us a ballpark percentage of increase over the
previous rates to the present rates?
Mr.
Cox responded it is about a 25% increase.
Annually, that comes to about 2%.
On MOTION by Mr. Bissell seconded by Mr. Robinson
with all in favor the rate adjustment to the rate schedule of the master legal
service agreement with Young, Van Assenderp, Varnadoe & Anderson was
approved.
A. Attorney
Mr. Cox stated at the last meeting we had
discussion regarding the drainage at the Stella Maris subdivision and it ended
up with a broad question of what drainage the District presently has
responsibility for and where the responsibility for all the other drainage
lies. I have researched the plat and can
provided you with the information I have unless you prefer to wait for Mr.
Gatti to be present. He raised many of
the questions.
Mr. Wolsky stated I prefer to wait for Mr. Gatti,
as he is the one who requested that information. We can table that to the next meeting.
Whereupon this item was tabled until the next
meeting.
B. Engineer
Mr.
Benson stated last month we had a question on the drainage at the intersection
of
Mr.
Gatti joined the meeting at this time.
Whereupon
Mr. Benson pointed out the area on the map and stated the numbers on here
relate to the elevation of the curbs and gutter. This is the drainage along
Mr.
Wolsky asked would that alleviate some of the problems?
Mr.
Benson responded yes, that is the problem that some of the homeowners in Stella
Maris have mentioned. When there is less
rain it goes into the inlet. Part of
this relates to the fact that these roads were designed at different times and
added on. This will take care of the
problem. Mr. Burgeson requested that I
bring more detailed information, which is what I have done today.
Mr.
Wolsky asked what would that cost.
Mr.
Benson responded I did not bring my cost estimate with me today.
Mr.
Wolsky asked do you have a ballpark figure?
Mr.
Benson responded it is about $5,000 or a bit less.
Mr.
Wolsky stated it makes sense not to burden Stella Maris with the runoff from
our roads. Do we want to take a vote on
this?
Mr.
Bissell will we be able to go with the $5,000 figure?
Mr.
Benson stated it would require that the valley gutter be removed and that is
where the trench would go and they would put a patch in the asphalt to replace
where the concrete is and it would take out that dip in the road at the same
time.
Mr.
Wolsky asked would that eliminate the diversion of water onto
Mr.
Benson responded yes, at that point all the water would go into the inlet,
under the pipe that is replacing the valley gutter.
Mr.
Bissell stated the rain comes down so fast.
The swales behind the building are supposed to divert the water
out. Instead it is coming down fast,
filling up, and coming back into the ditch and going down where it will not
take it fast enough. By eliminating this
flow we should not have the difficulty we are having right now.
Mr.
Wolsky asked would this eliminate the necessity of the C.I.D. taking over the
maintenance of the drainage system on
Mr.
Benson responded that is a separate question.
The other is a question of the maintenance of that easement and the
swale, so that is a separate issue.
Mr.
Bissell asked would this eliminate a lot of the flooding that has taken place?
Mr.
Benson responded it would reduce the amount of water going into that
swale. It may lessen the comments and
questions from the residents, but the H.O.A. currently has the legal
responsibility for the maintenance.
Mr.
Wolsky stated that is correct.
Mr.
Cox stated you might want to set a $5,000 limitation on that motion.
Mr.
Bissell MOVED to approve the proposal for the drainage improvement construction
in an amount not to exceed $5,000 and staff was authorized to obtain three
competitive bids for the project. Mr.
Wolsky seconded the motion.
Mr.
Kramer asked did this problem exist before the condominium construction
began?
Mr.
Bissell responded we did not have that problem before. Since they put the condominiums in, all the
water comes toward the street from the middle of the building. Before the condominiums, it seeped down to
the ground. All the water now goes out
and down to the street.
Mr.
Kramer asked why are we paying for it?
Should we not charge the site developer?
Mr.
Benson referred to his map and stated when we go to the north and the drainage
for that part of the street goes to the other storm water pond close to the
highway; most of the area along the blue line is vacant.
Mr.
Bissell stated the first condominium drains that way.
Mr.
Benson stated part of it may, but this drainage is for the road. When Cays drive was first built there was no
street here for it to go to. When this
street was built, that connection modified with the C.I.D. drainage
system. That drainage was slightly
altered when Cays Drive was built.
Ms.
Dillon asked is that going to be affected further when they develop that
corner? They are talking about putting a
community activity building in there.
Mr.
Benson responded when they put a building there, by County law, they are
supposed to manage their own storm water on site and not drain it to the
road. It is supposed to remain on
site. The plan is that they have their
own swales at the back of our property and all the drainage is supposed to be
directed away from the road. The County
gives the permits for that construction.
Mr.
Wolsky asked is there a way for us to insure they do that?
Mr.
Bissell stated I have been working with the County on this problem. This vacant field is going to be made into a
ditch. There is a 10-foot easement around
the road. All the water will run down to
the swale on the east side of the canal.
Mr.
Benson stated the water is supposed to go into the Stella Maris drainage
system. The County permits and approves
all that.
Mr.
Wolsky asked would it be advisable to wait until that happens to make this sort
of decision, or can we make this decision and stipulate that whatever happens
here is diverted away.
Mr.
Bissell responded that will be done when the last building is C.O.’d. I received a letter from the County
yesterday.
Mr.
Benson stated I do not believe we have a role in the County’s review process
for matters of this nature. The County
rules are such that the area is supposed to drain into the Stella Maris system,
not the C.I.D. system. The County can
enforce that.
Mr.
Kramer stated there seems to an inconsistency between the water running off the
condominiums and those going north.
Mr.
Bissell stated the elevation is given on the County map every 20 feet or so and
it shows the water going from about the first condo. I know the first condo goes south and the
rest goes north.
Mr.
Kramer stated Mr. Benson’s comment was that it had to be retained on the
buffer.
Mr.
Benson stated my understanding is that the water was to go to the back of the
property. It appears that the driveways
at the front of the property and potentially, part of the roof may drain and
run to that curb and gutter system in front of the property along Cays Drive. That is a County issue as far as
permitting. Some of the water may go
there now, but the intersection I was talking about is where it is vacant, not
where these buildings are.
Mr.
Kramer asked in your opinion, is it consistent with the permit for the water to
run into street?
Mr.
Cox responded this entire area was part of a unified plat for Phase II. It would be that unified plat that would have
to retain all the surface water on site.
This is all part of that plat.
Not each individual parcel has to retain itself.
Mr.
Wolsky stated I am trying to avoid a similar situation in the future where
Stella Maris says the C.I.D. is draining into their system, therefore the
C.I.D. is responsible for doing this. If
in the future, there is a possibility that the runoff on the road, will come
down and the water in the ditch runs into this and then comes down. I want to be sure nobody says this water is
running off C.I.D. roads and is our responsibility.
Mr.
Benson stated the original drawings were submitted for the development of Cays
Drive and the storm water ponds along Cays Drive identified these parcels as
having their own water management. The
road and parts of the property were to go to these lakes as per the master
drainage plan approved by the County. We
are talking about one little area that is a problem, because the one that is
supposed to be drained into the gutter, some of it is coming into Stella
Maris. We are trying to fix that
issue. We really have no review of the
site development plans as part of our role as a C.I.D.
Mr.
Wolsky stated Mr. Bissell can file this and make sure that happens and inform
the Board of it.
Mr.
Benson stated Mr. Bissell has spoken with one of the County reviewers so that
person is aware of the issue.
Mr.
Bissell stated I spoke with the head of the County engineers. Halfway back from the condominiums there is a
dot on the map showing the long line going to the back to the swale and the
other coming to the front, and it gives the elevation as it goes along.
On
Motion by Mr. Bissell seconded by Mr. Robinson with all in favor the proposal
for the drainage improvement construction in an amount not to exceed $5,000 was
approved and staff was authorized to obtain three competitive bids for the
project.
Mr.
Wolsky asked how is our permit for the grants.
Mr.
Benson responded we have not heard anything from the Water Management District
so they have not reviewed all the applications yet. Every five years we must renew the wastewater
treatment plant. This was the last set
of information we had submitted earlier this month for the five-year permit
renewal. There was a permit modification
pending with the DEP for quite a while.
They told us they are issuing us a permit to construct those
improvements.
Mr.
Wolsky asked what did they require we construct?
Mr.
Benson responded for the ones we are talking about, we would put the pump in
and make a few changes we had to do at the wastewater plant to tie that into
the irrigation system. They told us they
are going to issue that in a dry line state where we can build it and then when
we get the five year renewal in another couple months, that is when we can
start operating. We will operate in a
limited manner until we make those future improvements, which is why we applied
for a grant from the Water Management District for the filtration system for
the water that comes out of the canal.
It will be approved, but it is a series of steps before we can have the
whole thing implemented and operating.
We can get it built, and that is the key.
This
package was the last set on the stack for the modification and then there is
just a renewal. Everything should be in
good shape. We have a contract open to
do the work at the wastewater plant. We
have to get the contractor to do the next few pieces of the project. It is within the budget we already have
contracted. We discussed keeping the
price within the budget and we were going acquire used equipment. The County had some used irrigation equipment
and then gave it to another County entity.
Mr.
Stephens stated Mr. Wallace, who works for Collier County, has the pumps. He is in charge of having the Lee Cypress
Co-op sewer hooked up and he obtained these pumps as a bargaining chip with
Everglades City to get this work done.
He did not need those pumps and he still has them. He told me when he gives the project back to
the County; he will give the pumps back to the Collier County Commission and at
that time he will recommend they give those pumps to us.
Mr.
Wolsky asked is there any chance they will be diverted somewhere else?
Mr.
Stephens responded I do not know, but this man is in charge and the County
Commission gave him the pumps, so he has control. I told him our situation and he said they
would be using them and would be glad to recommend they go to us.
Mr.
Wolsky asked are the pumps in good enough condition to be worth pursuing?
Mr.
Benson responded yes, it was for a skid mounted irrigation system at the golf
course and they took them out because they wanted something quieter and
newer. There is another similar
skid-mounted irrigation pumping station that was at the Palm River Golf
Course. When the hotel bought the golf
course and revamped it, they put in a brand new irrigation system also. I was told it is still sitting in their
storage yard and it was operating until they took it out of service. For that one, we may have to offer them a few
thousand dollars. That is our backup
position. We still must make a decision
one way or the other by next month because we have a time frame to get that
system on site and hooked up to receive our grant money for the project. With the Board’s approval, I will inquire to
see the lowest potential offer that the other party requires for the surplus
and bring that back to you next month.
Mr.
Wolsky stated that sounds good.
Mr.
Gatti joined the meeting at this time.
Mr.
Benson stated had an opportunity for some surplus equipment from another C.I.D.
in the area. We inquired on this and
discovered it was not anything we could use.
It has come to my attention that a letter will be coming out regarding a
drinking water system warning. The
letter identifies that there were some bacterial samples collected from the
distribution system earlier this month that indicated a presence of bacteria. This is not of concern as we test for this on
a regular basis and have never had this before.
The DEP rules require you to do more testing. Part of that is that you test the same
location, an upstream location and a down stream location. Mr. Stephens did this and the results came
back negative from the lab. We followed
all the rules, but there is a requirement that you have to notify people that
this happened. The most likely cause was
potential contamination of the sample after it was collected or a lab
error. There is no way to prove anything
other than to test again and nothing came up on the second testing. There have also been questions about chlorine
in our drinking water. We chlorinate the
water so that if any bacteria gets into the water the chlorine disinfects
it. I review the monthly reports Mr.
Stephens submits to DEP and there was plenty of chlorine in the water the time,
so it does not appear to be a health issue.
It is probably a lab error or contamination of the sample after
collection. We will do more tests as a
precaution. In the future, we may want
to consider taking extra samples from different locations.
Mr.
Gatti stated the only problem I have with the letter is that it says,
warning. It should really say
notice. I suspect DEP has a format we
have to follow.
Mr.
Benson responded we followed DEP rules, so we are covered in that regard.
Mr.
Winters asked in Bad Luck Prairie there are often hundreds of people over the
weekend and they do not have sanitary facilities. Is it possible that this may have affected
the safety of our wells and water quality?
Mr.
Benson responded I do not think so, because it would be a persistent
trend.
Mr.
Winters stated I suspect that we need to watch that.
Mr.
Benson stated there is a large area surrounding our wells that is uninhabited,
State-owned property.
Ms.
Marchand stated we had an instance where the waste management truck took out
the water meters. The water was off for
quite a period of time. Are there rules
and regulations whereby if the water will be off for a period of time, that I
should be posting something for the residents?
Mr.
Gatti stated they should be notified.
Ms.
Marchand asked is there a sanitary issue, such as boiling water for a period of
time or running the water through a chlorine cycle.
Mr.
Gatti stated anything on the other side we do not want to get that involved
with. However, any time the water is cut
off it always helps to flush the line out well.
Mr.
Wolsky stated we do that as a matter of course.
Mr.
Benson stated she would need to flush on her side to open that up and get the
fresher in.
Mr.
Gatti stated we spent a few hundred dollars on that meter.
Mr.
Wolsky asked are they liable for that damage?
Ms.
Marchand responded I say they should be.
We got the truck driver’s number.
He did it on his way down to the dump truck. We caught him right away.
Mr.
Wolsky stated waste management has a department that is set up specifically for
this. They are extremely
cooperative. If you call them, tell them
the problem and what the costs were, they will cover it.
Ms.
Marchand stated if they require a letter, I am happy to write it and
substantiate the incident.
Mr.
Wolsky asked would you do that?
Ms.
Marchand responded I will be happy to do that.
Mr. Wrathell stated if you have any
problems, they will have a franchise agreement with the local governments and
in this cases and a franchise agreement
with the county that covers any damages.
We may have to write a follow-up letter, but I do not think there will
be any problem.
Mr.
Gatti asked Mr. Wrathell could you write a letter to the Board?
Mr.
Wrathell responded yes
C. Manager
Mr.
Wrathell stated we updated our minutes for 2001 on the website. Wednesday night I had seen 51 hits, so you
seem to be getting some decent activity on your website.
Mr.
Wolsky stated we agreed it was worth putting the minutes up there and checking
the number of hits to see if people were reading them. We do not want to pay for something nobody is
paying attention to.
D. Field Manager
Mr.
Cox asked do you want to handle the drainage issues today since Mr. Gatti is
present?
Mr.
Wolsky responded yes.
Mr.
Cox stated when we originally issued the bonds in 1990 this area had been
platted as single family residential.
These roads were in place; two hotels, the marina improvements, and the
RV Park were here. Two years before we
issued the bonds the District acquired ownership of the road, down to Route
41. We purchased that with a promissory
note that was retired with bond proceeds.
At that time we owned all of the drainage and the roads in this area on
the map. This was platted and there was
one drainage easement running between two lots that was reserved to the
developer and the roadway from where we acquired title, was reserved to the
developer. We subsequently acquired this
road, but that is something we can clear up with Mr. Barnard. He is the last surviving director of that
corporation that retained the ownership of that road. Subsequent to the issuance of the bonds, the
road was constructed, with the exception of Stella Maris. That was built with bond proceeds. When this was platted the roadway was given
to the District with the responsibility for maintenance. There are also easements created on the
perimeters of the finger canals for drainage purposes and there were multiple
drainage easements in between several of the lots. Roads were also given to the District with
responsibility for maintenance. The
conservation area was give to the District.
Area E is a drainage and landscape easement. Area F is a drainage and landscape easement
that was also given to the District.
Mr.
Wolsky asked when you say we have the easements on these areas, does that mean
we have the responsibility for maintaining the rip rap?
Mr.
Benson responded the east channel rip rap was installed with bond proceeds paid
solely by these lots adjacent to the rip rap.
Mr.
Wolsky asked can anyone who gets a blowout to submit to have the C.I.D. repair
the blowout for them? One resident has
had four blowouts that he repaired himself.
I am trying to correct a slight disparity to our reaction to one place
and another.
Mr.
Wolsky asked do the easements behind all of the houses on the east side belong
to the District?
Mr.
Benson responded yes.
Mr.
Wolsky asked does that include the swale areas behind the homes?
Mr.
Cox showed Mr. Wolsky on the map, the area that was dedicated to the
District. Because it was dedicated to
the District does not mean we accepted it.
I have not reviewed the minutes to say that we accepted that responsibility. It is a contractual relationship, but it is
just an offer. Whenever there is a
dedication, it is an offer to give it to you.
You do not have to accept it before it is complete.
Mr.
Wolsky asked to your knowledge, we have not accepted that?
Mr.
Cox responded I have not reviewed that.
That needs to be done.
Mr.
Wolsky stated I have that on a CD and can search for any record of easements
being accepted by the District.
Mr.
Cox stated it is a limited time frame.
This was platted in 1991 or 1992, so that is when we would have taken
action on that. The last part that was
platted was the Evening Star Cay subdivision.
Those drainage easements were dedicated to Collier County with no
responsibility for maintenance. There
was no mention of the C.I.D. in that plat, which is unusual when it comes to
drainage because the District was given the roadways and Areas A, E, C and D.
Mr.
Wolsky stated I recall discussing this with Mr. Anderson, head of the
Homeowner’s Association of Evening Star Cay.
We came across a document that turned over the responsibility for those
areas to the C.I.D. Is that correct?
Mr.
Cox asked is that directly from the Homeowner’s Association?
Mr. Cox stated I searched on the public records
on the Port of the Islands, looking for any assignments or agreements that
conveyed these drainage areas that were reserved to the developer to us and I
did not see those. I will have to check
with the Homeowner’s Association.
Mr. Wolsky stated I can give you a
copy of that.
Mr.
Benson stated there were some tracts given to the C.I.D.
Mr.
Cox stated the easements were for landscape and recreation purposes. There was no mention of drainage in
conjunction with anything for the C.I.D.
There is a ten-foot easement for drainage behind the houses.
Mr.
Wolsky asked is that seawall?
Mr.
Cox responded all of this is seawall and this is rip-rap. The Stella Maris plat gave responsibility for
the maintenance of the perimeter drainage easements to the Homeowner’s
Association and gave the District the right to drain into them.
Mr.
Bissell stated but the H.O.A. has never accepted it.
Mr.
Wolsky stated it is my understanding that the platting document states that
Stella Maris is responsible for the maintenance of the drainage on that particular
item.
Mr.
Cox stated I have not looked at whether your declaration of condition and
restrictions might address it or whether the Stella Maris H.O.A. has executed
the plat and acknowledged it.
The District was given the right to drain into
those with no responsibility for maintenance.
In summary, the only thing that by plat, was given to the District for
responsibility for maintenance, was the perimeter drainage easements and the
drainage easements in back of these homes.
We purchased these roads and are therefore, responsible for the
maintenance and drainage associated with those roads. I do not know whether there was a subsequent
agreement, but I did not see anything. I
have not been able to find any platting for those and I assume this was done by
declaration of condominium for those.
Mr.
Wolsky asked is there any difference between the way seawalls are treated and
the way rip-wrap is treated?
Mr.
Cox responded I know of no legal distinction.
A
resident asked there is a new home on Sunset Cay that has built their pool out
into the swale and I cannot believe that this is allowed. Can someone see to that?
Mr.
Bissell responded the County is checking into that.
Mr.
Stephens stated he came in here with the plan and you approved it.
Mr.
Cox stated he gave us a revised drainage plan for that area that modified the
depth.
Mr.
Benson stated it narrowed the width of the drainage easement, but made it
deeper. There was a document prepared to
allow them to modify the width of the easement under certain conditions, but
they still must meet the requirements of the County. They proposed an equivalent amount of storage
volume of water as well as ability to transmit water. I went out there this morning and it does not
look like they have completed what they said they were going to build.
Mr.
Cox stated the County is responsible for setting standards of what is allowable
for subdivision of property and the construction of your improvements. Our responsibility is that the owner of the
property can do it with the caveat that if we have problems, they must restore
it.
Mr.
Bissell stated the County will not C.O. that until they have checked whether
permits were given and whether there were any variances. They will handle it. It is not a C.I.D. issue.
Ms.
Dillon asked how can it not be a C.I.D. issue if the C.I.D. owns the land
behind those houses?
Mr.
Bissell responded I believe we gave them a variance.
Mr.
Cox stated we entered into an agreement with the property owners for consent to
use the easement area. We said they
could use the easement area if they reconstruct the drainage swale in
accordance with the plans and specifications that were submitted to Dr. Benson
and approved by him. If they do not do
that we can order them to remove those improvements and they must take them out
and restore it to the way it was.
Ms.
Dillon asked conversely, I can extend my pool deck if I want to?
Mr.
Cox responded if you submit plans that meet the approval of the engineer and
the Board of Supervisors agrees.
Mr.
Benson stated it must also meet Collier County requirements.
Mr.
Gatti stated the County establishes the setback requirements from the
seawall. In the case of a rip-wrap I
imagine there is some sort of a line established. The setback to the swimming pool is 15 feet
and the setback to your house is 25 feet.
That is what the County enforces.
Our covenants say that our side yards have to be ten feet, whereas the
County says it can only be seven feet.
If we were to make an issue out of this, the ten feet would become a
civil matter and the seven feet would become a County matter. As it relates to the back of the yard that is
a County issue if you encroach on that.
A
Resident stated the County regulation on that is 20 feet from the water
line. If you give them five feet, under
what authority did you override the County?
Mr.
Benson stated we merely told them they could use a portion of the
easement. It is up the County to approve
plans and permits.
Mr.
Gatti stated on my house it is 15 feet.
Perhaps Phase I is different.
A
resident stated it is different they changed the setback after some houses were
already built.
Mr.
Gatti stated we cannot override the County jurisdiction on any of that.
A
resident stated if the County says 20 feet and at the meeting, you allow him 15
feet, you overrode the County.
Mr.
Wrathell stated the Improvement District is subservient to the County. We are a mechanism below that. The County Land Development Regulations
supercede anything we do and we must follow that. Hypothetically, if you were within a
municipality it would be the same. If
someone has exceeded the County code, that is a County issue. It is outside our jurisdiction.
Mr.
Gatti stated we can make the restrictions stricter than the County through covenants
on our deeds, but we cannot change the amount of feet that the County
requires. This is a civil matter.
Mr.
Cox stated I am saying that we cannot violate County setbacks. We simply allowed them to come into the
easement area.
Mr.
Gatti stated Mr. Benson is saying that they are not increasing the capacity of
the swale area, but maintaining the capacity of the swale area by different
geometric.
Mr.
Benson stated it is not our job to confirm whether they meet County
requirements. We simply allowed them to
build in the easement if they can get County approval.
Mr.
Cox stated our agreement was that it be built to the specifications give to the
engineer. If they finish and it is not,
then they must fix it.
Mr.
Benson stated it does not appear like the drawing they submitted, but I must
verify that.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor's
Requests and Audience Comments
Mr.
Bissell asked have we been paid for the signs that Mr. Stephens replaced? We have had numerous water breaks by the
contractor. Have they been billed and
paid?
Mr.
Wrathell responded I will have to check on that.
Mr.
Bissell stated if they have not paid yet, perhaps we could commence with a lien
on the property.
Mr.
Gatti asked what is going on in terms of the hotel?
Mr.
Wolsky asked were you going to look to see if they had a C.O.?
Ms.
Marchand stated at the last meeting I indicated that the RV Park had serious
concerns about what is going on. Certain
residents were burning old rugs on the ground and there was a propane tank on
the other side of the street from it.
They have trash everywhere. I
have called code enforcement about the fact that they were doing renovations
and the officer said they were not doing anything. The road caved in and is still not
fixed. The RV always used the westerly
road and it is now not useable and it is causing havoc. I have serious concerns for the
community. The volunteers at the hotel
have been panhandling throughout the community on our property.
Mr.
Wolsky asked In terms of the bond issue and taxes, what is the hotel
standing? That would tell us what kind
of leverage we have.
Mr.
Wrathell responded the hotel is one of six or seven property that the
bondholders requested that we apply direct assessments to. They can do a closing similar to someone not
paying their mortgage. I am not aware
that any payment has been made to date.
Mr.
Wolsky stated we have reports that they are getting ready to open for business
and rent rooms. Can they do that without
paying the back taxes?
Mr.
Cox responded yes.
Mr.
Wolsky asked what leverage do we have?
Can we turn off their water?
Mr.
Cox responded if they have not paid their water bill.
Mr.
Wolsky stated we can find out the status of that.
Ms.
Marchand stated I have spoken to the County and the owner of the property
thought he had bought it without a tax certificate for the 1999 taxes and the
2000 tax certificate holder has purchased the subsequent certificate and is
taking it to a tax sale. According to
the County that will happen some time in May.
I am saying that the certificate holder has paid up and is taking it to
a tax sale.
Mr.
Gatti asked is the leverage we have the County restrictions?
Mr.
Cox responded we have outstanding direct assess bonds that we could institute
foreclosure proceedings with against the property. I have been discussing foreclosure with
Allstate for the past ten days. We have
ordered foreclosure reports for which I need to develop complaints on those
properties. I have not yet been given
direction from the bondholder to file those complaints at this time.
Mr.
Wrathell stated I will put together a report of the outstanding assessments on
that property. It is more of a legal
decision as far as shutting off the water.
The way the assessments are applied, if those assessments are paying for
the water and sewer portion, that is a legal question. I can gather the date and present it at the
next meeting.
Ms.
Marchand stated the hotel owner is clearly unaware of the C.I.D. assessments
and bonds. He did not know he was being
billed separately by the District. Could
someone, perhaps write him a letter and invite him to come to a meeting so he
could be educated?
Ms.
Wolsky stated if those tax certificates were picked up by a certificate holder,
then some stand by fees has been paid.
Ignorance is no excuse for not knowing the law. He had to have a lawyer to make a land deal
like that.
Mr.
Gatti stated we must have concern for the entire community, however if it is
going south on us, we must do whatever we can to protect ourselves.
Ms.
Wolsky stated it sounds like those certificates have gone to foreclosure sale.
Mr.
Wrathell stated there is a combination.
We have multiple years, where no one is any longer interested in buying
those tax certificates and Allstate is asking us to apply the assessments
directly. They are trying to fast track
the foreclosure proceedings.
Mr.
Wolsky asked is there any way we can determine his intentions. We heard he was going to open for business on
a certain Monday.
Ms.
Marchand stated they are trying to get the employee housing ready and rent that
out as apartments and that is where they will get their staff to operate the
hotel.
Mr.
Stephens stated I have put together prices from different companies and I
wanted to see if I could do this verbally.
The State has given us a lot of direction on security for the water
plants. I got a couple of companies to
come out. They were going to put barbed
wire all around our fence on the top.
The cheapest price was around $7,000.
I can bring you something next month.
We are being scrutinized for security by the State.
Mr.
Gatti asked have they established a certain criteria they want us to meet
regarding Security for the State?
Mr.
Benson stated there is a certain requirement for report and such. I thought we were in compliance.
Mr.
Stephens stated it is not mandatory, but they are strongly recommending that we
do this.
Mr.
Gatti stated without that resource we do not have a community, so we must be
proactive.
Mr.
Benson stated we should do this, but they cannot force us right now.
Mr.
Gatti stated Mr. Benson can look this over and be sure they are putting
together something reasonable.
Mr.
Wrathell stated we might want to contact the DEP and see if there are any
grants available. There should be
something and perhaps we are eligible.
Mr.
Kramer stated a gentleman asked me to bring your attention to a pothole on the
corner of Newport Drive and Sunrise.
Also, I noticed on Cays Drive at the southeast corner, many tree limbs across
the sidewalk.
Mr.
Gatti asked is this private property.
Mr.
Kramer stated it is on C.I.D. property.
Mr.
Gatti responded we are responsible.
Ms.
Marchand stated anyone who has traveled on the north side can see that the
westerly side of the road has caved in.
I have had two estimates on it and it is approximately $3,500 to do
it. I am looking for direction from the
Board, but it is not on my property. The
amount of traffic forced to go the easterly route is making a mess of the road,
which is the District’s responsibility.
Mr.
Gatti asked do you have a perpetual easement?
Ms.
Marchand responded yes, I do.
Mr.
Gatti stated it is partially your responsibility.
Ms.
Marchand stated it is not my property.
Mr.
Gatti stated you have rights to the use of that road for your RV Park.
Mr.
Cox stated you have the right to maintain that easement.
Ms.
Marchand stated it is a matter of time that there will be an accident. There is not enough room for the vehicles to
go both ways. We will take care of it.
A
resident stated I want the Board input concerning the navigation channel from
Port of the Islands out to the Gulf. We
have several locations that, at low tide, we have lost a lot of water due to
infiltration of sand and sediment, washing both ways in filling that in. It is my concern that if we leave it
unchecked for much longer we will lose direct access to the gulf. It means a lot of you are a boat owner. If you are a property owner and you no longer
have direct access at low tide to the gulf it will dramatically reduce the
value of the waterfront property. My
concern is how do we open those channels.
It is only in a few areas. Is it
possible for the C.I.D. to contact Mr. Colletti’s office? It will take a lot of time to take care of
this. If we lose this, it will be
difficult to get this back.
Mr.
Gatti stated when this area was initially developed; the developer put those
signs in. As recently as two or three
years ago the County took over the signage.
In terms of dredging the canal the time, money and permitting process is
extensive.
Mr.
Wolsky stated the problem is what to do about it.
Mr.
Gatti stated we can talk to the County.
There are certain canals around Marco Island that the County
maintains. Your point is well
taken. Perhaps we can get together and
express our interests to the County.
Mr.
Mack stated on the fingers on Cays Drive there are a lot of pepper trees. Whose responsibility is that to take those
out?
Mr.
Wolsky responded it would be the property owner.
Mr.
Benson asked are they vacant lots?
Mr.
Mack responded yes.
Mr.
Benson stated before you apply for a C.O. there is no enforcement policy. The County gives everyone a five-year period
to take care of his or her exotics.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of Check Register
On
MOTION by Mr. Bissell seconded by Mr. Gatti with all in favor the check
register was approved.
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
On
MOTION by Mr. Gatti seconded by Mr. Bissell with all in favor the meeting was
adjourned at 12:40 p.m.
Secretary / Assistant Secretary Chairman
/ Vice Chairman