MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE PORT OF THE ISLANDS
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Port of the
Islands Community Improvement District was held Friday, March 21, 2003 at 10:00
A.M. at the Egret Room, 25000 Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida.
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
Manager
Dan
Cox Attorney
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 February 21,
2003 Meeting
Mr.
Gatti stated that each member of the Board had received a copy of the minutes
of the February 21, 2003 meeting and requested any additions, corrections or
deletions.
Mr.
Wolsky stated on the bottom of page two, the reference to Mr. Gatti joining the
meeting is incorrect. You joined the
meeting on page seven.
On
MOTION by Mr. Wolsky seconded by Mr. Bissell with all in favor the minutes of
the February 21, 2003 meeting were approved as amended.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion of the North Hotel and
Assessment/Debt Analysis
Mr.
Wrathell stated I will try and give you an overview. At the prior meeting we discussed putting
together a debt analysis for the North Hotel and the possibility of shutting
off water. I felt it was appropriate,
with the overall issues to consider, to provide you a more comprehensive
outline of the situation with the off-roll assessments and give you a
description of that. This might also
make, from a policy perspective, the concept of shutting off the water a bit more
complicated.
The
property under discussion is shown in green.
You have on the first page a breakdown of the level of the assessments
for the current fiscal year. These are
the tax bills that went out in November of last year and this is for the current
fiscal year, running from October 1, 2002 through September 30, 2003. These
were the assessments placed on the property.
You can see the parcel number and description. I updated that to reflect the current owner
of the North Hotel. There are parcel descriptions
and the number of units we used to apply the assessments. We have two categories toward the middle of
the page. There is the off tax roll and
the on County tax roll. The off tax roll
is $46,149.53. That is the debt service
portion of the overall infrastructure that was funded. That was taken out of the community-wide
infrastructure. The on County tax roll
number is $57,081.69. As you move over
you can see the breakdown of the overall debt.
The County tax roll assessment includes the maintenance, which is
$23,113.60. Skip over the debt service
because that is the one being billed off roll.
The water and sewer stand-by category
is their share of the water and sewer debt allocation that amount is
$33,968.09.
You
have the debt service category and the debt service remaining, which
incorporates parcels prepaying, so that will reduce the number. With the
exception of one property, the debt service that remains on the property is
equal to the original debt. That is how
we broke it down. The table below gives
you an idea of the totals being billed.
The totals being billed on roll, and how much of this is compared to the
overall Port of the Islands budget. One
issue we might have is, if they are not paying their off roll assessments, they
are probably not paying their on roll tax bills for some of these assessments
as well. That impacts your operation and
maintenance of our budget. It impacts
the debt service of your regular infrastructure and impacts the debt service to
pay off your water and sewer bonds. I
have shown the total actual accounts from above and the percentage component to
the overall budget for Port of the Islands.
These
nine properties you see above represent, in the general fund, which is the
operations and maintenance portion of the budget, 46% of the total budget. The debt service assessment categories, which
pay for the community-wide infrastructure, accounts for approximately 54% of
the overall debt of the District. The
next category is your water and sewer assessments, which goes toward paying off
the debt service on your water and sewer bonds.
That incorporates 49.51% of the debt as well. These properties are approximately 51% of the
overall assessments that are levied in a year.
It is half of what you have out there, so that is why the Port of the
Islands C.I.D. is in a state of financial emergency. We have made a tremendous of progress over
the last few years. The real estate
market is picking up so the situation is improving. That gives you a picture of what is out there
for this tax year. On the second page,
we started the off roll assessments at the request of the bondholder,
Allstate. They requested three years ago
to start billing these particular properties off roll to help with the
foreclosure process to not go through the continued tax certificate sale
process. That allows them to go to
foreclosure quicker and there was not really a market to buy the tax
certificates for these commercial properties.
The debt had probably gotten higher than the actual market value of the
property. They were at least very close.
Fiscal Year 2000-2001 was the first year we were
doing the off roll assessments. The
property owners in some of these instances may change each year. We have identified it by parcel number so you
can follow by parcel number. The
property in question is color coded in green to make it easier. It shows the off roll assessments that were
applied for that particular fiscal year and the amounts paid for those
properties. It will have a date when we
actually received payment.
Below that we showed from a bigger picture
perspective how that compared to that Fiscal Year’s budget in comparison to the
overall size of the budget and the amount of the debt those properties
represented and paid. As you can see,
the tables illustrate the overall collection percentage that the District
had. In that fiscal year 2000/2001,
between the operations and maintenance portion of the budget, which is your
general fund and the two debt services funds, one for the infrastructure and
one for water and sewer, you had 52% collection overall for the District. These properties are playing a large role,
but are not the only properties that had issues at that time.
The
middle table is the Fiscal Year 2001-2002 records which shows the property that
paid and the dates they paid. It is
encouraging to see that the percentage of collection had increased from the
previous year. That is in line with a
lot of the properties and indicative of real estate picking up. Collections are coming in, so the percentage
has improved. The table one on the top
right is the current fiscal year. This
is the off roll assessments. Parcel M2
has dropped off. They paid off their
back debt and are now on the rolls again.
The collection percentage so far for the year is a bit low, but your tax
bills come out in November and they are not due until April 1st or
the end of March. The history of the
District has been to have some late payments.
The revenues will be trickling in over the next few months. The collection percentage should improve
significantly. As of March 17th,
we have not received any off roll assessment payments yet. History shows that some of the properties
have continued to pay. Some pay as late
as October after the fiscal year is concluded.
We are hopeful that collections will continue to come in for those.
On
the bottom we have taken all three charts and combined them and amalgamated the
entire off roll debt for each of those properties and the amounts paid. I have some questions on Parcel M2. I have not had the opportunity to further
research it, but as I understand it, M2 has satisfied all their
requirements. It shows a percentage
lower than 100% collected. I am pretty
sure that the debt has been, so I wanted to point that out. The table also shows the collection
percentages for those particular parcels.
The table at the bottom of the sheet shows the totals for the three-year
period, the amounts of assessments that have been applied for each category and
the percentage of collection for that.
That is the overall analysis.
That goes back to the bigger issue of potentially shutting off water
service. Your attorney can better answer
these questions, but there are a couple of considerations. If we discriminate for one property when some
other properties show a similar history that may put us in a difficult legal
position. Also, do our administrative
rules provide for a shutoff procedure that the attorney feels comfortable with?
Mr.
Gatti stated looking at the last chart, the off roll assessment, I will define
that as the part of the assessment that we collect directly. On roll means that the County is collecting
it. Somewhere along the line we shifted
some of those. On the last chart, where
we are talking about the off roll collections, we are in arrears about $1.3
million; is that correct?
Mr.
Wrathell responded those numbers across those categories are the totals for the
years.
Mr.
Gatti stated that is the total and we have an accumulation of unpaid debt of
about $1,287,000.
Mr.
Wrathell asked are you referring to the two numbers before the percentage?
Mr.
Gatti responded yes.
Mr.
Wrathell stated the total on and off roll assessments that have been applied
over the three-year period is $4.248 million.
The total that has been collected on and off roll for that period is
$2.285 million. I want to stress that
the tax bills are not officially due until the end of March. This District has a history of payments
coming in later. We have literally
received some significant checks in June in the past. In 2002 we had some big numbers coming in all
the way to September of 2002.
Mr.
Gatti asked is the off roll collection directly to the District or does that
still go through the County?
Mr.
Wrathell responded for the off-roll assessments, we are actually assessing the
property directly and therefore they pay us.
That is what Allstate, the bondholder, requested.
Mr.
Gatti stated I appreciate the implications of dealing with one person. Looking at this, if we did it, we would have
to affect at least nine properties; is that right?
Mr.
Cox stated that is not the remedy.
Mr.
Gatti stated we are looking for a way to get peoples’ attention.
Mr.
Wrathell stated Mr. Cox has been in contact with Allstate and lately I have
been in contact with them quite a bit.
It seems that they are aggressively moving on these types of
things. I defer to you, but I feel that
Allstate may take care of this in the near future.
Mr.
Cox stated the point we are at is that April 1st is our deadline for
filing the proposed orders and memoranda of law with the judge in Allstate’s
challenge of the validity of the assessments.
If the judge rules in our favor, I am certain we will move quickly to take
care of the existing problems. If he
rules against this, the Board will have a lot of work ahead of them. All of this will be worked out to an
extent. If they do not pay then, we will
exercise any remedies we have.
Mr.
Gatti asked do I hear a recommendation that we hold off on this until after
April 1st?
Mr.
Cox responded we file on April 1st.
The judge has generally issued orders within 30 days of receiving all
the information he has requested. I
expect that by the end of April we will have an answer from the judge, perhaps
even by the next Board meeting. I cannot
say.
Mr.
Gatti asked what do you recommend that we do?
Mr.
Cox responded I recommend waiting until after we get a ruling.
Mr.
Gatti asked does the Board have any questions?
Mr.
Wolsky asked does that mean we will not be able to do anything until at least
May 18th at our next regularly scheduled after April?
Mr.
Cox responded that is the best thing to do.
Mr.
Gatti asked if the hotel owner starts renting out rooms do we have any
recourse?
Mr.
Cox responded I do not know if he has any business licenses to rent rooms. That is required in Collier County to operate
rental property.
Mr.
Gatti asked does he have a C.O.?
Mr.
Cox responded I do not know.
Mr.
Gatti asked is there any way to find out?
Is there a way we can intervene with that?
Mr.
Cox responded someone could check with code enforcement to see if he has
building permits for the work he is doing.
Is that required?
Mr.
Gatti stated Mr. Bissell compiled this list for me. The engineer for the developer or the head of
the building permits could answer whether they have an occupancy permit.
Mr.
Wolsky asked is that within our purview as a C.I.D. to check on things like
that?
Mr.
Gatti responded we can ask. Enforcement
is County jurisdiction, but if we ask and they have not met all the
requirements, we can bring attention to the fact that they are not meeting
those requirements. Would you say that
is correct?
Mr.
Cox responded the District standards for improvements related to utility
facility roadways and such are that they be installed in accordance with the
County’s requirements. You can certainly
check to see if the utility facilities related fixtures meet current County
requirements for providing service. When
the south was renovated, they had to put in expensive new fixtures for low
volume water use and to fix leaks and that type of thing.
Mr.
Gatti asked since Mr. Bissell has been in contact with these people, is it
possible for the Board to request that he follow up on that? Is that agreeable to you, Mr. Bissell?
Mr.
Bissell responded yes.
Mr.
Gatti stated thank you. This is very
informative to the Board. We were pretty
sure of the gray area and this brings it into focus. The recommendation from staff is to wait
until April to see where we are regarding the lawsuit.
Mr.
Bissell asked is the owner’s name on that?
Mr.
Wrathell responded yes, I checked Collier County’s website and that was the
most recent owner. Interesting enough he
lives in a community that we manage.
A. Attorney
Mr.
Cox stated we are working on our memoranda and they are due April 1, 2003. I expect the judge will rule in our
favor. I feel comfortable with the
status of our work.
There
are two properties on the north side, Northport and the North Hotel, where
applications have been made for tax deed sales.
The Northport property did not sell.
The application was made by the County under the operation of the
statute that if the County holds the tax certificate for two years, it is an
automatic application for tax deed sale.
It did not sell so it went on lands available for taxes. The North Hotel’s deed auction is in late
June. When a property sells for tax deed
sale, it wipes out all existing liens, mortgages or any assessments levied
against it. There is a mechanism for the
survival of capital facilities improvements on special assessment liens if we
file a notice. I need direction and
authorization from you to file that notice on the record for these two
properties.
Mr.
Wolsky asked does that mean the tax deed sale cannot be sold below a certain
amount.
Mr.
Cox responded by law the tax deed the minimum bid price is all outstanding
taxes and assessments still uncollected against the property and redemption of
all tax certificates that were outstanding on the property. They pay off the back debt and we get our
piece then if it sells at the tax deed sale.
If it does not sell, it goes on lands available for taxes and stays
there for two years, then it becomes County property, free and clear of all
liens. Because the County is a political
subdivision of the State, we would not be able to assess future assessments
against that property and our capital assessment revenue lien would be extinguished
by that sale.
If
it sells to a private party, until two years ago, all liens were extinguished
on the property. Several of the firms
that practice special assessments have convinced the legislature that the
assessment liens should survive when they are for revenues that repay capital
assessment bonds. Otherwise, someone
could come in and pick up a property at a tax deed sale and have the
availability of the capital infrastructure funded by those bonds at a windfall,
the tax lien or special assessment liens would be extinguished. The Legislature agreed that as long as the
people who applied for the tax deed or who bid on that property are under clear
notice that there is a capital assessment lien on the property that the
assessment lien will survive. To
accomplish that we file a notarized statement with the tax collector and in the
public records and mail copies to any person listed as a party of interest in
the tax deed application.
Mr.
Wolsky asked if it evolves to the point of a tax deed sale and the liens are
extinguished, who takes the hit on that?
Mr.
Cox responded if the liens are extinguished, technically Allstate takes the
hit, but the provisions of the bond indenture require us to do everything we
can to insure the survivability of that lien.
This is a mechanism that we need to address.
Mr.
Wolsky stated if the tax liens are extinguished I want to know that those liens
are somehow redistributed to the rest of us.
Mr.
Cox stated if we allow the assessment liens to be extinguished and Allstate was
damaged by that, they would have grounds to sue us for breach of contract for
those damages and we would also have their legal fees involved for the
collection or enforcement of the bond indenture. That is how it is redistributed to all of us.
Mr.
Wolsky asked there is that potential?
Mr.
Cox responded yes.
Mr.
Wolsky stated the Board might have been operating under the assumption that we
have had a cash flow problem, as your predecessors have made clear to us, that
it is not a bad debt, but a cash flow problem.
Are you saying there is a great potential of this becoming a bad debt?
Mr.
Cox stated the only way it can become a bad debt is if it goes to the
County. If nobody buys it, that is
forfeiture and it is available for taxes.
The County can use the property for County purposes or they can convey
it to the municipality within which the property lies. We can argue, for various reasons, that the
property of the County if not used for County purposes should come to the
District.
Mr.
Wolsky stated we could end up owning it.
Mr.
Cox stated if we end up owning it, they could claim and may claim that if we
receive ownership, that we hold it in trust to them under the bond
indenture. If we sold it, then the
monies we sold it for would first have to go to pay the bond debt attributed to
that property then any surplus comes back to the District. It is a twisted circle. The debt never actually becomes bad debt,
because there is always a recovery under some mechanism.
Mr.
Wolsky stated if someone does not pick up the property because of the burden of
debt that it has, somehow that has to be discounted or somebody has to take the
hit.
Mr.
Cox stated I do not see any way for that discounting to happen for tax
certificates that have been issued and sold for any past assessments.
Mr.
Wolsky asked is the property then still burdened with the debt and still
non-productive?
Mr.
Cox stated if it goes to the County, all of the past assessments are going to
be extinguished. That is all of the tax
certificates that have either been sold or issued in favor of the County. Those are gone. If we file this memorandum notice asking for
your authority to file, the future special assessment survives on that property. If the County owns it, the County is a
political subdivision of the State, so it is immune from taxation. That means that under no circumstance can
they be assessed or taxed for property that you own. That is only the State and the County. Municipalities and Special Districts are
exempt from taxation as long as you are using the property for a public
purpose. If you own property that is not
held for a public purpose, that property is subject to taxation and ad valorem
or special assessments.
Mr.
Wolsky asked since this has such a tremendous impact on the community, may I open
this up to the audience and let them ask questions?
Mr.
Gatti responded yes.
Mr.
Cox stated if the County or the District sold the property, then the special
assessments would be collectable against that future property owner.
Mr.
Wolsky asked how does one distinguish between the taxes due on there and the
standby fees and so forth, which are the fixed costs of running the water
plant. Where do they stand in hierarchy?
Mr.
Cox responded your stand-by fees and maintenance assessments are levied annually
and the lien to that property then attaches when you adopt your annual budget
and your resolution levying the special assessments. That lien is a brand new lien each year.
Mr.
Wolsky asked are the old ones then extinguished?
Mr.
Cox responded the old ones continue to be a lien until collected, but if the
tax deed is stricken off to the County that is gone.
Mr.
Wolsky asked is it then a bad debt?
Mr.
Cox responded only to the extent that we have not collected the money. With a lot of them we had tax certificates
that sold and we collected our money. We
no longer have income from that anyway.
For instance, the North Hotel property has only two years, or maybe the
current year’s assessment that we have not collected on that property. There was one tax certificate that sold and
it is that person who filed for the tax deed.
Mr.
Wolsky asked what about Northport?
Mr.
Cox responded Northport has two or three years where tax certificates have not
sold on that property and we would have exposure of about $1.5 million. It has the zoning in place whereby it is
about a break-even proposition for someone to pick that up for what is owed on
it and develop it and sell everything.
They may walk away with a bit of money.
Mr.
Wrathell asked with the understanding that when the process moves forward and
there is the possibility that the property goes to the County, if the
bondholder knows there is a possibility that it may go to the County in a
two-year period; if I were the bondholder I would try to work a deal with any
potential private parties looking to purchase the property. I would rather take a percentage than take
nothing. With your experience, do you
feel there is a strong possibility of that happening?
Mr.
Cox responded there was an attempt before on Northport that they got close to a
deal, but there are other players. You
have tax certificate holders, Allstate, the property owner and properties out
there that have multiple years of tax certificates there are five or six
separate tax certificate holders on each of those properties. There were too many people with too much at
stake; trying to structure how that joint venture was going to pay out. A lot of this is going to cure itself if we
are successful in this lawsuit.
Mr.
Wolsky asked are you looking for Board approval to file?
Mr.
Cox responded yes, I am looking for approval to file the notice of potential
tax deed purchase or sale.
Mr.
Wolsky stated now we will take five questions.
Mr.
Shriver asked is any of the subject property the target of the State or the
land acquisition program that is presently going on?
Mr.
Cox responded the last I heard from the Director of the South Florida Water
Management District, he said no. It is
more urban than the characteristic properties that they are trying to acquire
with the availability of the sewer facility and the water facility. The zoning and planning designation on those
properties make it too valuable for them to want to acquire it by eminent
domain.
Mr.
Wolsky stated that is a good question because if this property goes to the
County, then the County establishes the value.
It is worth looking into.
Mr.
Cox stated I have not taken it beyond going to the County.
Mr.
Wolsky stated that is an interesting potential.
Mr.
Wrathell stated in my experience with the City Manager in the Keys, we were
trying to purchase some environmentally sensitive land through the Carl program
administered by DEP. The only thing I am
concerned with is that in my experience, when they do the appraisals, the State
tends to be conservative and after a non-competitive purchase price. Moreover, we would still have the issue of
whether or not the State would pay off the outstanding debt.
Ms.
Wolsky asked to clarify what you said earlier, if this goes to the tax deed
sale and the County takes it, do the property owners and the Port of the
Islands development have to pick up the debt to Allstate that was not paid on
the property?
Mr.
Cox responded no, that does not trigger reapportionment of the debt. The only thing that can trigger
reapportionment of the debt, where anybody would be subject to picking up more
or less of the capital assessment is the judicial nullification of our
assessments that we did. If we lose this
lawsuit that is what can happen.
Ms.
Wolsky asked that will be a potential?
Mr.
Cox responded yes, with the capital standby fees and operations and maintenance
we were discussing, we had to structure in a bit to cover these costs we have,
recognizing that we are not going to have quite enough money anyway. There should be no effect on those two,
because they are separate assessments unrelated to that. The only thing that would change is if
properties are developed on the north side and started paying assessments, our
collection percentage would go up and the assessments accordingly go down.
Ms.
Wolsky stated my question was aimed at the debt service,
A
resident asked do I understand correctly that Northport went to tax sales and
if it is true and it goes to the County in two years then do we only have one
more year to go? Would the tax person at
the County, if they felt that Northport had to pay off what initiated prior to
the law, would the lands be available for taxes for seven years and not two
years?
Mr.
Cox responded that might be. I will have
to check that.
On
MOTION by Mr. Wolsky seconded by Mr. Bissell with all in favor Mr. Cox was
authorized to file the notice of the tax deed file in the public records for
the District’s capital assessment that has been levied against the Northport
property.
Mr.
Bissell stated it sounds like whoever it is, will not be a loser in any case.
Mr.
Cox stated we lose if the property goes to the County.
Mr.
Bissell asked can they come back to us?
Mr.
Cox responded no.
Mr.
Wolsky stated our overall concern is if there is a financial failure at some
point, how or can that ever be redistributed to the existing properties that
are paying.
Mr.
Cox stated I do not think it will be that difficult. We anticipated this question was going to be
asked. Over the past year and a half we
have been pulling together files to get that information so that if we were
asked, we could address this quickly.
Mr.
Bissell stated after development is completed they are going to discuss
resurfacing roads, so we will need some information by then.
Mr.
Cox stated since we started our road-resurfacing fund all of the properties
along those two streets have been assessed and it would be appropriate for the
C.I.D. to maintain that road. That
maintenance is some evidence that it is dedicated to us if we took it. Perhaps we could have some more formal
documentation. We can maintain
facilities we do not own as long as it benefits residents within the District. This does benefit the residents and they are
being assessed their share.
Mr.
Gatti stated particularly on Newport Drive.
Mr.
Cox stated we own just past the first finger canal road.
Mr.
Gatti stated I am saying that Newport Drive serves a fifth of the community
when you take into account all those townhouses. We will look at that as one big package.
B. Engineer
Mr.
Gatti stated Mr. Benson could not attend today, so at the next meeting we will
have him present the question on the property on the other side with the
drainage easement.
C. Manager
Mr.
Wrathell stated Mr. Stevens and I have been working on looking on some grant
funding for the water and wastewater plants to help us pay for the security
improvements that are being completed.
Mr. Stevens is still talking to the D.E.P. folks. I have checked with E.P.A. and they have a
program where some grant money is available.
Unfortunately it appears they are shooting for some of the larger
facilities, serving 100,000 people or more, but I will look into it anyway. They indicated that the program currently
only provides funding for planning and design costs. The funding is more targeting for the bigger
systems. I will keep looking at
that. I have some other contacts that I
can look into to see if there is additional grant money out there. We will continue to work on that. From everything I have heard, money is rather
tight. Hopefully we will have something
to report back to you at the next meeting.
Mr.
Gatti stated I would emphasize the remoteness of our facility. I know they are going to a population number.
Mr.
Wrathell stated if you plead your case well enough, there might be an
opportunity. I am trying to talk to some
old D.E.P. people I know and hopefully they will be able to help us.
Mr.
Gatti stated I am surprised that S.F.W.M.D. has not come up with something.
Mr.
Wrathell stated I have not contacted them.
I have been mostly dealing with D.E.P. and E.P.A. D.E.P. is primarily responsible for the
package treatment plants for certain sizes and upward. They are generally involved in monitoring
plants like ours.
Mr.
Gatti stated S.F.W.M.D. has a program where they come up with up to $100,000 a
year for improvements to water quality and water systems within the
District. It would not hurt to ask.
Mr.
Wrathell asked do you have the name of the individual?
Mr.
Gatti responded Clarence Teares. I can
get involved if that will help.
D. Field Manager
Mr.
Wrathell stated we discussed some damage that a waste management truck had
caused. You were copied on a letter that
went out to the County again. The
approach at this point is a franchise agreement with waste management. They seem willing to help us collect the
monies. A gentleman by the name of Mr.
Lodge who works at the R.V. Park has offered to be a witness for us.
Mr.
Gatti asked what is the background on that?
Mr.
Wrathell responded there was waste management vehicle that ran over a water
meter at the corner of Glen Club Road and crushed the pipe and broke two
valves. The water had to be shut off
going to the gun club. The cost of the
repairs that Mr. Stevens put together was $80 for materials; labor was $240,
and equipment rental, a backhoe for $495 total.
Mr.
Gatti asked has anybody contacted the service group at waste management? They will bend over backwards on something
like this.
Mr.
Stephens responded there was one person contacted in waste management and they
asked us why they should pay for it.
Mr.
Gatti stated if you get to the service group they will bend over backwards for
public relations. When they spilled that
gas, we called them and they were there the next day.
Mr.
Stephens asked do you have a number or a name?
Mr.
Gatti stated I will try and get that for you.
If you speak to the right person you should not have to go through a
lot.
A
resident stated we contact waste management within minutes and they flatly said
they would not respond to a phone call.
That is why we came to you.
Mr.
Wrathell stated we had requests for establishing a local number to reach our
offices in Coral Springs, so the residents are not paying any money out of your
pocket. We established a local number,
so you can call us any time without any long distance charges.
The
last item is an issue with a damaged sign.
We were to make sure the sign was put up and determine what it would
cost. The third was contacting the
individual. We have had conversations
with a couple of the Board members and I am still trying to get the name of the
individual whom reportedly caused the sign damage and establish a cost for the
repairs.
Mr.
Bissell asked what about collection for the water breaks. They had to put up the water that was lost
during the breaks and then you had to put up by meter, where they used it.
Mr.
Stephens stated we put a meter up but were unable to collect anything from the
break. It was before the meter. It was
broken in the meter box and went in and out of the box. It would be a rough estimate.
Mr.
Bissell asked are you billing where the meter is?
Mr.
Stephens responded there is a meter there.
Mr.
Bissell asked did you bill for the labor of the installation of the meter and
the removal, plus a water usage?
Mr.
Stephens responded I believe we are just billing for usage. They move the meter around when they
want. They move it from fire hydrant to
fire hydrant.
Mr.
Gatti asked did they break one of our lines?
Mr.
Stephens responded a truck that was delivering concrete backed over our line
and broke it.
Mr.
Bissell stated there was water running there for several days.
Mr.
Stephens stated I thought it was just that one afternoon. We did not know about that.
Mr.
Stephens stated I have been working with Mr. Benson on that. He has not gotten me all the information yet.
Mr.
Gatti stated I have received a couple of notices from E.P.A. having to do with
our water and you have been copied. Is
that covered with you and Mr. Benson?
Mr.
Stephens responded I have not received that.
Mr.
Gatti stated I will give that to you.
Mr.
Wolsky asked what about the police request to put barbed wire around our water
treatment? Has anything come of that?
Mr.
Stephens responded we have the barbed wire around and have the new gates
up. We have one gate left to finish up
and we will be done. We have a tear in
the fence they are going to fix. They
should be in pretty good shape as far as security.
Mr.
Bissell asked if we have a problem again with test results when should that
information go out? Should they boil
their water?
Mr.
Stephens responded we take a sample; submit it and we are notified of the
results within 24 hours from the lab.
That water is already gone and we have to retest. If there is a problem, we notify people
immediately as best we can.
Mr.
Bissell stated there was not really a problem, but when they got their
notification it upset them. I have had
some comments about the water at the end of the line.
Mr.
Gatti stated you must let us know the specifics and we will try and address it.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor's
Requests and Audience Comments
Mr.
Wolsky stated Mr. Burgeson is going to resign and the Board’s policy has been
to appoint someone to fill the remaining portion of that person’s tenure as
permitted by law. Can only residents of
the County sit on the Board?
Mr.
Cox responded when you start, you are elected by the landowners, one vote per
acre, or if you own a portion of an acre you get one vote. We have reached the point where the District
is over six years old and we have over 250 voters who are registered with the
Supervisor of Elections in Collier County living within the boundary of the
District. We have begun the process
where as each term expires; someone will be elected by qualified electors. It must be a qualified elector living within
the boundaries of the District. This
seat is an unexpired term, so you must appoint someone to this seat. That restriction is not applicable, but that
does not mean you cannot pick someone who is a qualified elector or take that
into consideration when you decide who you want to appoint. You are not yet limited to qualified
electors.
Mr.
Wolsky asked there is no requirement?
Mr.
Cox responded there is no prohibition.
Mr.
Wolsky asked if anyone in the audience is interested in serving on the Board
for this term, please contact the Board and we will take that into
consideration and vote on a person to be appointed to Mr. Burgeson.
Mr.
Bissell asked could you put that on the Internet?
Mr.
Wolsky responded yes.
Mr.
Wrathell stated before we appoint a new Supervisor, we will need a letter of
resignation from Mr. Burgeson.
Mr.
Cramer stated it seems unusual to me that the Board has not invited the owner
of the North Hotel to attend a meeting and discuss what he is planning. Has the Board made any move in that
direction?
Mr.
Wolsky stated I have never met the gentleman.
Mr.
Cramer stated I do not know if that is the forum for us to sit down as a
community, being interested in what he is doing over there. The C.I.D. doing this is another forum.
Mr.
Cox stated the target issue is the provision of the services that we own to the
properties within the jurisdiction of the District. The Board’s interest in this is that the
facilities are adequate for us to provide those services. That gives us a segway to see if they have
brought it up to code.
Mr.
Wolsky stated we have established that he is in arrears in his assessments.
Mr.
Cox responded that is right. With
arrearages in these assessments, the remedies are strict. If you are collecting it on roll the Chapter
197 provisions apply in the tax certificate sale and if you are collecting if
off roll that is Chapter 170 and you have the option of foreclosing on that
property. In a couple of months the
waiting game will be over.
Mr.
Gatti asked what is the appropriate way to contact this person to make him
aware of the ramifications, a letter?
How do we legitimately get him in front of this Board and talk about his
assessments? Is that appropriate?
Mr.
Cox responded if he is not paying we can initiate foreclosure or if it was on
roll, we wait for tax certificate sale.
Mr.
Gatti asked have we asked Mr. Bissell to contact the people he has been in
touch with to determine whether he has a certificate of occupancy.
Mr.
Cox stated the private remedy that is available to you is the enforcement of
the Collier County Code of ordinances.
That is through the code enforcement Board and inquiry to make sure they
have the proper permits. Those are your
private, individual remedies.
Ms.
Cane stated I have some comments about Newport Drive. I did not realize the County owned it. In the Port News on the second page there is
an article about how crowded it has been with vehicles, bicycles, walkers. Since that should be resurfaced soon, would
it be possible to put in a little walking strip along the side of the road.
Mr.
Cox responded when we first adopted this road-resurfacing program there was
some discussion about curbing or sidewalks to accommodate pedestrian use along
Newport Drive and building it into the fund somehow.
Mr.
Gatti stated we have had this request on a number of occasions. We can have anything, but we have to pay for
it.
Ms.
Cane asked do you have any idea how much it might cost us per unit?
Mr.
Gatti responded that is complicated. In
the east side of the channel all of these facilities are in. To ask them to pay for those facilities on
this side would be inequitable.
Ms.
Cane asked did we pay for theirs?
Mr.
Gatti stated if we ask the owners on the north side of the street and the hotel
to pay for a bicycle path that serves our part of the community that is
inequitable. If we want a sidewalk or
bike path, we have to pay for it. Then
you look at the specifics of putting in a bike path. It is easy to say widen the road two or three
feet, but you have water meters, driveways and drainage facilities. I see people walking that road while going to
work and I slow down and do not interfere with them. That is the easiest solution. It is more complicated and expensive than
adding a couple of feet. We can ask Mr.
Benson to come up with an estimate and ask staff whether we can come up with
those funds. In order to make this
equitable, it would be concentrated on the area that it serves. Is that fair?
Mr.
Wolsky stated we have a sidewalk in front of our house that we paid for and we
paid for the sidewalk all the way down the road. The general principal is that people who
would benefit from a common element like that should bear the cost of it.
Ms.
Cane stated I am just afraid of accidents.
Mr.
Gatti stated that is a valid point.
Ms.
Cane stated as you go down Newport to Morning Star Cay as we turn right into
the main swimming pool there is huge hole by the side of the road.
Mr.
Gatti asked could you take a look at that?
Mr.
Stephens responded I believe I looked at that and we have to cut that asphalt.
Mr.
Gatti asked is that an asphalt failure?
Mr.
Stephens responded that area needs to be raised up. It has a valve for the water.
Mr.
Gatti asked is it the pavement or is it off the pavement?
Mr.
Stephens responded there is a second area where the leak was last winter that
settled about 7 inches in the pavement that will take your front end right out.
Mr.
Gatti asked is that on Newport Drive.
Mr.
Stephens responded yes, on the south end.
Mr.
Bissell stated perhaps Mr. Stephens could go to the City or the County and get
some blacktop and put it in that hole.
Mr.
Barrows stated there is water in the walkway and I see it all the time. I do think we really need to carry it a step
further.
Mr.
Gatti stated we will ask our engineer to come up with an area of design.
Mr.
Barrows stated the most logical place to put it is on the west side of Newport
Drive. I have walked that whole thing
and it is level and flat. There are no
utilities in the way. If the entire
burden was put on the 140 owners of Sunset Cay, that is paid for. I do not think you would have an argument if
they were the only residents funding this.
Mr.
Gatti asked can we isolate a group of people?
Mr.
Cox stated our budget cycle is coming up.
Perhaps the manager’s office could build in another fund for the
sidewalk. Between now and then we will
get Mr. Benson to do the numbers on it and have Mr. Wrathell analyze it from
the perspective of who should be assessed for it and report that to you as part
of the budget process in July.
Mr.
Gatti stated some people want this and are willing to stand up and pay for it,
but there is the other side of the fence that we have to consider. If you say to some people that it will cost
them money to put in a sidewalk, they will say they do not want a
sidewalk. If we are going to ask people
to pay for this, they have to be a very strong minority against it.
Mr.
Wolsky stated it is like the mosquitoes.
We have all different opinions on how to handle those.
A
resident stated there is an excellent walking path on the north side that is used
by a number of residents from the south side and the east end. There was a request to look at the cost of
just having the lines repainted for the safety of the people who walk. The owner at the North Hotel has decided
to repair the storm water drain going in
on the west side and he did this by dumping concrete into it and did not
replace that drain. I think this is
going to compromise the drainage system on the north side. The one that goes to the east side and the
west side are interconnected and lead up to everything else. I am afraid it will come to a dead stop
there, because they poured concrete in there instead of repairing it.
Mr.
Gatti stated I will take a look at it. I
am not sure which one you are referring to.
Mr.
Stephens stated she is talking about when you are facing the North Hotel and
you take a right to go to the plant.
Mr.
Gatti asked is that past the basketball courts?
Mr.
Stephens responded right. Before the
courts there is an inlet on each side of the road. It collects on both sides and drains out into
the wetlands. It does not go the other
way.
Mr.
Bissell asked does it drain east?
Mr.
Stephens responded yes.
Mr.
Gatti asked are you saying he poured concrete in the inlets?
A
resident responded yes.
Mr.
Stephens stated not those, but the one that drains on the west side.
A
resident asked where does that go?
Mr.
Stephens responded to my understanding, it went to the canal.
A
resident asked does this mean all the drainage from the west side is not going
into the canal now?
Mr.
Stephens responded probably not.
A
resident stated the road is going to be compromised.
Mr.
Gatti asked will the entrance into the properties be flooded? We will have to look at that.
A
resident stated I wanted to clarify if those two east and west drains were
interconnected. If they were it will
also affect the one on the east side, which is the District’s.
Mr.
Gatti asked are you saying that the west one is going into the wetlands and the
east one is going into the canal?
Mr.
Stephens responded no it is the other way around. Unless it backs up so much the water comes to
the east into our drains it will go the other way.
Mr.
Gatti stated he is the one who will be flooded.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of Check Register
Mr.
Gatti presented the check register for approval.
On
MOTION by Mr. Bissell seconded by Mr. Wolsky the check register was approved.
SEVENTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
On
MOTION by Mr. Wolsky seconded by Mr. Bissell with all in favor the meeting was
adjourned at 11:20 a.m.