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
Bernie Wolsky Vice
Chairman
John
Robinson Supervisor
Ted Bissell Assistant
Secretary
Also
present were:
Craig
Wrathell District
Manager
Dan
Cox Attorney
Ron
Benson Engineer
Tim
Stephens Operations
Manager
Mrs.
Duval Collier
Several
Residents
FIRST
ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Gatti
called the meeting to order and Mr. Wrathell called the roll.
Mr. Wrathell
stated let the record indicate that Mr. Burgeson is not present.
Mr. Gatti asked
have we done anything on that?
Mr. Cox stated I
spoke to Mr. Burgeson yesterday and he apologizes that he has missed several
meetings. He has been having some health
issues and he had been considering resigning.
He had a
doctor’s appointment this morning where he expects to be released back to his
full, active schedule as before he started having these problems. He would like to finish out his term through
November of this year. At this point I
do not think he intends to resign. I
believe he fully intends to make the meetings beginning with the next one.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes
of the June 20, 2003 Meeting
Mr.
Gatti stated that each member of the Board had received a copy of the minutes
of the June 20, 2003 meeting and requested any additions, corrections or
deletions.
On
MOTION by Mr. Wolsky seconded by Mr. Bissell with all in favor the minutes of
the June 20, 2003 meeting were approved as presented.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Hearing Adopting the Budget for
the Fiscal Year 2004
Mr. Gatti stated we reviewed
the budget at the last meeting. Mr.
Wrathell did a wonderful job of capsulating each item. Did we say we were going to research the
$40,000 on the capital improvement or did we say we’re going to take that apart
as it came through?
Mr. Wrathell responded capital outlay as budgeted, has
two perspectives, one of which is to give us some extra money to carry forward
to next year before the taxes arrive in November of this year for the next
fiscal year.
Depending on how collections go and where we are with
regard to expenditures, we could perhaps use those monies for capital
expenditure toward the late spring.
Mr. Gatti asked there is no specific item that we have
identified for that, so are we okay on this?
Mr. Wrathell responded yes, sir. I can give you a brief overview on the budget
to help you out.
A. Consideration
of Resolution 2003-8
Mr. Wrathell stated Resolution 2003-8
is a resolution approving the budget as presented. The budget is behind that resolution and
incorporates the revisions to the engineering fees from the last meeting from
$12,000-15,000.
According to my notes, there were no
other corrections besides that increase so this budget reflects the two changes
to the engineering fees from the general fund and the water and sewer fund from
the last meeting.
Mr.
Wrathell stated Resolution 2003-9 with the approval of Resolution 2003-8 will
set the assessment levels for operations and maintenance and for debt service
for the District.
Mr.
Gatti stated we discussed the budget at the last meeting. Mr. Bissell is at a disadvantage.
Mr.
Bissell stated I heard very little about it, but I read it all.
Mr.
Gatti asked are you okay with it?
Mr.
Bissell responded yes.
Mr.
Gatti stated we are officially holding a public hearing today, so that suggests
we open this up to the public, which I will do at this time.
On
MOTION by Mr. Wolsky seconded by Mr. Bissell with all in favor the public
hearing was opened.
Mr.
Gatti stated at the last meeting we passed out the budget and made it
available. I believe Mr. Wolsky has made
it available on the Internet. It is now
appropriate for any questions or suggestions.
Following your comments and the Board’s reception to them, the Board
will proceed to amend the budget in accordance with what we hear, or we will
proceed to adopt the budget.
Mr.
Wolsky stated that was Mr. Wrathell was who put that on the Internet.
Mr.
Wrathell stated we will provide an update after the adoption of the budget
today.
Mr.
Gatti stated the main point is that it has been made available to the public.
There
being no comment from the public,
On
MOTION by Mr. Wolsky seconded by Mr. Bissell with all in favor the public
hearing was closed.
On
MOTION by Mr. Bissell seconded by Mr. Wolsky with all in favor Resolution
2003-8 adopting the final budget for Fiscal Year 2004 was adopted.
Mr.
Gatti stated the minutes from the last meeting will reflect an item-by-item
detail that Mr. Wrathell provided. It
explains what each item in the budget provides.
There have to be some generalizations, for example, the capital
improvement budget, which gives us some flexibility depending on emergencies.
That is available if you are interested.
Mr.
Wolsky asked is everybody aware that there is a website and that the meetings
are on that website? Do you have the
address of the website?
Mr.
Wrathell stated if I remember correctly, it is www.fladistricts.com. Hopefully it has been updated on the utility
billing notices.
A
resident stated it is in the upper left-hand corner.
Mr.
Wolsky stated there are three sites on there and one of them is Port of the
Islands. You should be able to click on
that and retrieve all the minutes back to the beginning of 2002. As these minutes are approved, Mr. Wrathell
will put those on the website too. You
will be able to take the budget, follow it with Mr. Wrathell’s explanation of
the budget and have a good rundown on exactly what is involved.
Mr.
Gatti stated that is a tremendous service.
Before any other reports is there anything else?
Mr.
Wrathell responded we also have Resolution 2003-9 to consider, which is the one
where you will set the assessments on the budget. The resolution by title is Resolution 2003-9,
levying a non-ad valorem assessment for water management and roadway costs
within the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District for the period
October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004.
On
MOTION by Mr. Bissell seconded by Mr. Robinson with all in favor Resolution
2003-9 was adopted.
Mr.
Gatti asked for everyone’s benefit could you tell us what this means in terms
of first person effect each year? When
you look at your tax bill you will see an item on there for the C.I.D. That is our portion of your tax bill that
goes into the general fund.
It
has been approximately $269 a year.
Mr.
Wrathell stated the general fund assessment per unit for this year will be
$379.50.
Mr.
Gatti stated that is what that means.
A. Attorney
Mr. Cox stated we have two
things going on. The plan for
reorganization has been filed. I am
reviewing that with the attorneys for Allstate and Mr. Glenn Rasmussen, who
Allstate has brought in to help us with the analysis on the bankruptcy
side. We were supposed to meet Tuesday
and discuss our approach for the planned to the reorganization. I have nothing for you as yet on this.
Mr. Gatti stated reorganization says we take all our
assets and the Court reviews that and says, okay, this is what you have and
this is what we are going to do with it.
Mr. Cox stated right; it is a plan to restructure your
business in a way to meet all the obligations that are imposed against that
bankruptcy estate over a certain period of time, which cannot exceed five years
or something like that.
We are looking at the plan and trying to analyze its
feasibility and whether it is something we can support or whether we have to
object.
Mr. Wolsky asked I assume that when the plan is accepted
that payments will have to be made starting immediately; is that correct?
Mr. Cox responded it is in accordance with whatever the
plan is, and then payments will begin.
Secondly, there was a motion filed today on the
collateral that is the estate of that bankrupt entity. The motion has been set for hearing at the
end of August and is part of what we will be discussing Tuesday. The evaluations and plans are contingent on
the value of the underlying principal and the analysis of both of them is
whether the liquidation of the estate would put the creditors in a better
position than reorganization does. This
will be a critical hearing as to how it will be accepted or not.
Mr. Cox stated we discussed the letter from code
enforcement and Ms. Duval is here today.
I would like to go through the information we have for you. One of the biggest questions we have is who
owns several of these signs.
I have a packet of information for anyone who would like
one. If you begin with the first page,
the sign at Newport Drive on the west side of the road is in the right-of-way
that the District owns. The only way we
will know for sure is to have a survey showing property lines and elevations of
the signs if you decide you want to get these signs permitted.
Mr. Wolsky stated a sign presumes that something is
written on it. If there is a blank wall,
is that a sign?
Mr. Cox responded in this case this was painted over and
there was wording on it, so it is considered abandoned. Is that a fair analysis?
Ms. Duval responded we are trying to determine if you are
trying to keep it as it originally was.
If you look at it you can see where they were all mounted on the
bracket. They are still there. Do you want to put something back on to it
and make it another sign for your community? You can do something else to it,
or you can get rid of it. I am trying to
help the communities as we work our way down.
We are trying to help make it another sign for the
community people coming in or if you do not want it, help you determine what
you want to do with it. The County is
trying to get everything permitted.
There are several signs that I do not know who they belong to. Everyone says they belong to the C.I.D. but
when you pull the property they are sitting on, it belongs to someone else.
Mr. Gatti stated assuming they belong to the C.I.D., I
urge that we consider this, because we lose control if we do not. The worst thing that could happen is that we
have four or five different kinds of signs in four or five different
locations. We decided earlier that
whatever we do inside the C.I.D. would be with continuity and with good taste.
With the Board’s concurrence I suggest that if they are
not C.I.D. signs, we strive to make them C.I.D. signs. Does anybody have a problem with that?
Mr. Wolsky responded I have no problem with that.
Mr. Gatti stated this is a community effort and I
appreciate comments. Assume for a
moment, that if they are not C.I.D. signs, we strive to make them C.I.D.
signs. We can use that as a benchmark. What do we have to do; get them permitted?
Ms. Duval responded I would like to help the community keep
the signs.
Mr. Gatti stated we would like to do that.
Ms. Duval stated the County has a new code that
everything has to be permitted in the way of signs. The permitting may seem ridiculous, but that
is how it is.
Mr. Gatti stated you want to keep them under control and
we appreciate that.
Ms. Duval stated it is harder getting rid of the old,
ugly stuff and keeping everything nice and new.
In this instance, some of them need to be maintained and some of them
are permitted.
Mr. Gatti stated we are all on the same page.
Mr. Duval stated we just need to put what you want on the
ones you want to keep permitted. Get rid
of the ones you feel are not benefiting the Community get rid of them, so they
are not abandoned.
Mr. Wolsky asked if we decide we do not want to renew
this sign, do we have to knock it down?
Ms. Duval responded no, I need to know what you want to
do with it. If you decide not to use it
as a sign it can stay there and you can just continue planting around it.
Mr. Bissell stated if they become C.I.D. signs, for
instance, if the hotel were interested in putting a sign on there, is that
allowable? If it belongs to the C.I.D.
could we allow the hotel to put a message on there if we decide to do that?
Mr. Cox responded to the extent it is consistent with the
land development code because you already have commercial signs out there for
this hotel project. There may be some
issues to address as to whether we can consider that a unified sign plan. There are ways we can look at that. That is one of the things we would have to
give some thought to. That might be an
issue.
Ms. Duval stated you need to decide what you want to do
and tell the review department. Then you
can ask them what kind of uniform sign plan you can have.
Mr. Gatti asked how much time do we have?
Mr. Duval responded we can work on whatever we need to
work on.
Mr. Gatti stated let me suggest this. We are not prepared to answer your question
right now. We understand what you want,
but are not prepared to tell you anything.
We are all on the same page. The
County’s purpose is to have an aesthetically pleasing appearance throughout the
area. We also want this to look
nice. Let us prepare something taking
into account all the structures and all the entities we have to deal with.
We have the trailer park and the hotel to be concerned
with. We will blend that together and
work with you to proceed on that basis.
Does that make sense to you, staff?
Mr. Cox responded I am not sure we are completely clear
on the direction you want us to take at this point. When you flip through, one thing we must
consider is the standard of maximum allowable and minimum setbacks that are
contained in the sign code. I have some
excerpts here.
Do you want us to get a survey to determine exactly who
owns these things? If they are not owned
C.I.D. easements or fee simple interest, we need to get an easement from the
people who own them. One in particular on
the north side of the road and the farthest one on the east, we will need to
have a legal description prepared. We
will need the boundary lines surveyed and an elevation survey to show the
height of the top of the sign. We will
then get a feasibility analysis because if we require a variance from these two
minimum standards, the cost goes up considerably.
Mr. Gatti asked why are we concerned with the elevation?
Mr. Cox responded you have a maximum allowable height,
measured from the centerline of the centerline grade of the nearest public or
private right-of-way or easement.
Mr. Gatti asked there is no problem here, is there?
Ms. Duval responded I do not really see where there will
be an issue.
Mr. Gatti asked do you see a height issue?
Ms. Duval responded I also do not see a height issue.
Mr. Gatti stated so there is no height problem and no
setback problem.
Mr. Cox stated our sign at the front is at the maximum.
Mr. Gatti stated there is no height problem or setback
problem. A setback problem deals with
the right-of-way. Mr. Benson, is the
Route 41 monument?
Mr. Benson responded your minimum setback in a
residentially zoned District; in this case residential portions of PUD-zoned
properties are ten feet from a property line.
We may not necessarily have an issue with the right-of-way here, but
with the way I see the property descriptions for the road, we may be too close
to the commercial parcel behind it.
Mr. Gatti asked do we have this area monumented?
Mr. Benson responded I think so.
Mr. Gatti stated we are not talking about a major survey
here.
Mr. Benson responded it would not be a major survey
issue. One of the key issues is that
some of these are on private property.
If the C.I.D. wants to be responsible for those signs, a lot of the
properties do not want to have responsibility and it is a C.I.D. responsibility. I believe we have to make that legal by
having an easement.
Mr. Gatti asked do we want to be responsible for these
signs?
Mr. Wolsky responded I believe so.
Mr. Bissell stated I agree with Mr. Wolsky.
Mr. Gatti asked is there any problem with that? If we do not control these signs, it could
get out of hand.
Mr. Cox stated it is out of hand just by the fact that
they are not signs any longer.
Mr. Bissell stated I suggest the Board appoint Mr. Cox to
look into the situation and report back to us with exactly what needs to be
done. If he needs to proceed, I suggest
we approve financing the survey or whatever is needed.
Mr. Cox stated that is what I am trying to do now. If you want to be responsible for them, we
need to begin the permitting the process.
To obtain a permit, we are going to need a survey showing boundary lines
and elevations.
Mr. Gatti stated we can deal with that. Mr. Benson will do a survey that identifies
the signs only. You do not have to do a
major survey, just identify that front property line and the one in back,
identify the setback and we have it.
Mr. Benson stated we need a couple of other minor survey
easements at this time.
Mr. Cox stated I am pretty sure that one of the signs is
within an easement owned by the District.
There is one sign I feel we will need an easement for. I am sure that the property owner will be
more than willing to grant us that easement and I request permission to obtain
that from them.
Mr. Wolsky stated there is a sign on the other side called
Sanctuary Point. It is rather
expensive.
Mr. Cox stated it is internal, within the
subdivision. Once you get off of Route
41, you do not see it from there. Do you
travel downward?
Mr. Wolsky responded yes.
Mr. Cox stated that was probably permitted in another
way.
Mr. Gatti stated I received complaints from somebody on
the site. They said it is a nice sign,
but it is in disrepair. Either fix it or
take it down. Do you come into play on
that?
Ms. Duval asked is it within a Community?
Mr. Gatti responded you can still do it, but if somebody
chooses not to respond, I am really asking, is the internal roadway system
within your jurisdiction?
Ms. Duval responded yes, we just need to know about it in
order to do something.
Mr. Gatti stated I am surprised.
Ms. Duval stated yes, we can go within a community. Normally we do not drive around in there.
Mr. Gatti stated these are private roadways, but I do not
know whether that is true or not.
Ms. Duval stated that is a gray area.
Mr. Gatti stated I know we can call you in to cut the
grass if somebody does not do it. We can
call you in to have somebody move a trailer out of the right-of-way or
something like that.
Mr. Benson stated it is my understanding that the roads
were built with public bond funds therefore they are public roads.
Mr. Gatti asked were they dedicated as public roads?
Mr. Cox responded I prefer to stay on track. I can get into roads if you like.
Mr. Gatti stated no, we can continue.
Mr. Cox stated so we are going to get the surveys. We are going to get the easements if
necessary. The last sign on the
southbound side of the road, the Cays entrance sign, is in obvious disrepair as
these pictures show. Before we can get
this permitted, I am sure we need to repair that. Do you want to get a cost estimate for any of
the signs that need repair, or signs that need to be lettered?
Mr. Gatti asked which one are you talking about?
Mr. Cox responded this one where you see the corner on
the top has rotten wood. It needs a bit
of tile work. It should be cleaned up
and have new lettering.
Mr. Gatti stated that is a reflection on the
Community. That says Port of the
Islands. When people think of Port of
the Islands they see that and it is a reflection on everything that is here.
Mr. Cox asked if you are going to develop a sign plan,
who do we want to design them and do we want to obtain cost estimates to narrow
down what we want to do to these signs, what we can afford to do and what we do
not want to do. We need to discuss these
issues now.
Mr. Gatti stated I will ask two or three people from the
community to form a committee, work at this for a while and come back to us
with a recommendation. That will not
necessarily lock us into anything, but may be a good way to go. Is that dangerous?
Mr. Cox responded no, they are not making any
decisions.
Mr. Gatti responded no.
Mr. Cox stated they are just
coming together with recommendations.
Mr. Wrathell stated it must be
an informal advisory group, because there are Sunshine issue we would need to
be concerned about it if you form a
committee.
Mr. Wolsky stated that is one stipulation.
Mr. Cox stated the last issue involves the signs going
into the RV resort. They are substandard
materials as compared to the rest of the signs.
Again, there is the issue of the final construction cost and how you
want to deal with that. That can come at
a later date.
Mr. Gatti stated to get back to the Community thing, I am
not looking for a committee to go out and say we should have a sign here and
one there. I am looking for someone to
say, these are the standards that we should have for the Community,
particularly within the requirements of the County, and this is what we expect
the signs to be. They may come up with
an idea that blends in with what we want for the Community in the process. Does that work?
Mr. Cox responded in Section 2.5.51.6 of the code that I
provided for you, this is the section that describes what is permissible for
home permits and signs within residential Districts. It is essentially for Community
identification signs that is the type of permitting you are allowed. Anything beyond this falls within commercial
sign standards and different permitting criteria would apply. You need to keep this in mind as we move
forward.
Mr. Gatti stated we would like to put these people in
touch with you so you can give them a quick primer and we can go from there.
Ms. Duval stated sure.
A resident stated I remember a few years ago the sign at
Sanctuary needed some cleaning up and Mr. Stephens was doing some painting and
cleaned them up and had the tile power washed.
I thought they did a good job. It
was no major deal.
Mr. Stephens stated right; it was not that big a deal.
Mr. Gatti stated you have a point. We have many resources in the community and
active people looking for something to do.
We are all interested in the Community, so there is a lot of opportunity
here.
A resident stated on the issue of the signs, it is an
image.
Mr. Gatti stated that is right.
A resident asked do you think that all the signs need to
conform to the same type of lettering?
Mr. Gatti responded that is exactly what I am saying.
A resident stated the sign for the gun club has a
different lettering.
Mr. Gatti stated yes, we are talking about standards like
the big, blue Heron and that sort of thing.
That is wonderful. Now we must
keep rolling.
Mr. Cox stated regarding the permit fees, I have attached
the provisions for the permit fees. It
is nominal. The minimum fee per sign is
$75 and we can do a unified permit for all of the signs so we have a
standard. It is not very much money in
that regard. Over the next month we will
bring you back the results of the feasibility studies. We cannot get into the estimate of cost
because you will have to decide on the design first.
Mr. Gatti stated we need a sign plan.
A resident asked does this discussion apply to the
waterway signs?
Mr. Gatti responded we have no jurisdiction on the
waterway signs.
Mr. Cox stated regulatory signs are not governed by this
entity.
A resident stated I think she is talking about the run
down Port of the Islands Marina signs.
Mr. Gatti responded no, she is talking about signs in the
water.
A resident asked at the meeting where are you going over
the reorganization plan; is that open to the public?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
A resident asked do you know when it is?
Mr. Cox responded it is August 27th and I
believe it was at 3:00 p.m. and they scheduled us for two hours.
B. Engineer
Mr.
Benson stated since the last meeting the draft permit for the five-year renewal
permit we have been working on. We have
to advertise that permit and Mr. Wrathell will discuss that after the meeting
to make sure that is done.
There
is nothing else new there we have been working on.
Mr.
Gatti asked is there anything we should be concerned about?
Mr.
Benson responded no, it is what we had asked about to go into the reuse
program. It allows us to do that in a
phased approach. The first phase would
be the east channel area because that is the easiest for us to hook up
first. We are in a phased program to
gradually accomplish providing reuse for the entire C.I.D.
We
have some capital improvements to do before we can serve the entire Community.
Mr.
Wolsky asked this incorporates our changes to comply with the grant we
received; is that correct?
Mr.
Benson responded that is right. We have
completed the grant project.
Mr.
Wolsky stated you explained the last time that the five-year plan was coming
due while you were trying to incorporate those changes and they were dragging
their feet, making those changes.
Mr.
Benson stated right; we have a permit that will allow us to do reuse for the
entire Community. Before we do the
entire Community, we must do some capital improvements. We applied for a second grant, which we did
not get. At this point, in my reports I
will go with the capital improvements we recommend for next year. Some of that will include the necessary
things to have the entire Community on reuse.
Unfortunately
the first grants only gives us a permit for part of the Community.
Mr.
Wolsky asked will we have to apply for another permit when the time comes?
Mr.
Benson responded no, the permit identifies the entire areas in the east channel
and the west channel areas. It
identifies the east channel as Phase I and the west channel as Phase II. We will be doing reuse under this
permit. As we finish construction of
these additional improvements, we may have to ask for minor modifications to
continue improvements, but that is not major at this time. The major battle was this five-year
permit.
The
other thing we had last month was that we had sent in the final documents to
the Water Management District to close out that first grant. I do not know if the $75,000 has been sent
from the Water Management District for the C.I.D., but if not, it should be
sent shortly.
C. Manager – Consideration of Meeting
Schedule for Fiscal Year 2004
Mr. Wrathell stated in your agenda
package under Section IV, is the proposed meeting schedule for next year. I have one recommended change. For the Board and the public’s benefit we try
to keep the third Friday of each month.
The July 16th meeting
falls on that third Friday, but that creates a problem if we want to continue
with the budget adoption the way we did this year. We will not have the required 60 days between
the May 16th meeting and the July 16th meeting. If it is acceptable to the Board I recommend
amending the July 16th meeting to July 23, 2004 so we have time to
transmit our proposed budget to the County.
On
MOTION by Mr. Wolsky seconded by Mr. Robinson with all in favor the meeting
schedule was adopted as amended to reflect the change in the July meeting to
July 23, 2004.
D. Field Manager
Mr. Stephens stated I checked with
the County and they are not interested in spraying for the mosquitoes for
us. They have no plans in the near
future at all to spray. I tried to get
them to come down for us, but they don’t want to expand any more right now.
Under
the development agreement, they are not allowed to aerial spray down here. They are not going to do so even if that were
in place because we are surrounded by public lands. They do not want the aerial pesticides. If you spray and you have a good breeze, it
can blow the mosquitoes back in. I
checked with Jacksonville and they see no reason for aerial spraying.
Mr.
Gatti stated I do not know if they are in a position to know. It would have to be folks that are involved
in the agreement here. Does anybody know
if they spray Everglade City?
Ms.
Duval responded they do the same thing Mr. Stephens does.
Mr.
Gatti stated that is our answer then.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor's Requests and Audience
Comments
A
resident asked on the bankruptcy proceedings, does that count all of her assets
or all of the assets related to the property that is in arrears?
Mr.
Cox responded it is the entity that is in bankruptcy.
A
resident asked does that mean her other assets are not involved?
Mr.
Cox responded only the assets owed for Olde Florida Investments Limited are
involved.
A
resident stated regarding the time around July 4th when we lost
water service, I called the plant and then I tried Mr. Stephen’s cell phone and
got a recording. I tried the management
company and that shoots you back to Mr. Stephen’s. That being a Holiday weekend it was unclear
whether anyone was aware of the problem.
Mr.
Gatti stated I certainly was aware of it and I appreciate the concern and
appreciate the problem. Mr. Stephens,
how often do you check the phone over there?
Mr.
Stephen responded if you leave a message over there, that phone will
automatically call my call phone and I get the message, but if it is late at
night, sometimes it takes twice. If I
don’t answer it, there is another ring until I answer. I believe at the time I was called, it took
me thirty minutes or so to respond. That
is the only time I got the call.
The
cellular people had a problem with sending messages. Anyway, the problem was we had a broken
line. All the water ran out into the Bay
and we had a failed solenoid switch that happened at the same time at the water
plant, so they all went dry.
A
resident here is my point. Would it be
possible to change the message on the recorder, so that when someone else
calls, we can know that the problem has been reported and that we are not going
to be without water for a long period of time?
Is
there a way to call in and change the message on the recorder, so that when
people call they know it is addressed?
Mr.
Stephens responded I would have to come in and change the message myself. Usually in that emergency situation, I cannot
call everybody back. I had more than
forty phone calls. I was solving the
problem and cannot call everybody back.
Mr.
Benson stated our front desk is manned 24 hours a day. If something like that happens and we know
about it as we get a lot of call too, you are welcome to call here and my front
desk will pass the situation on to anybody.
We are here 24 hours a day. You
can call here, rather than the C.I.D., just to know about it.
A
resident stated I called to see if they had water and the girl at the front
desk said, I know you have no water and I think they are working on it.
Mr.
Gatti stated you make a good point. We
simply need to be assured that everything is being done to inform you there is
a problem. That is first, and then
dissemination of that information can be checked on. If we can utilize the hotel, that is
great. We then have to relay that to the
community. Initially, you can let the
front desk know when you get the information as a matter of procedure and we
can let people know to call the front desk when there is a problem and we will
make sure you get the information.
I
see your point because people call me and I do not know what to tell them. I call Mr. Stephens and he is also in an
awkward position. People want to know
when the water will be back on. We do
not know what the problem is. We know
there is a problem, but is it a broken water main, a valve shutoff, or an open
valve?
Somebody
ran over a valve and sheared it off.
When Mr. Stephens tried to cut it off up here, the valve was not working
and there were all kinds of problems.
A
resident stated I thought it was a water main break.
Mr.
Gatti responded no, it was not.
A
resident stated there was a two-inch bank that feeds the swimming pool over
here.
A
resident stated I am from Coral Springs and moved in December. When we had any kind of problem there, they
notified us to boil water until further notice or it was on the news. What if there was something wrong with the
water? We could have gotten very sick.
Mr.
Stephens stated any time you lose water you always boil the water for 24 hours
unless notified differently. That is
standard procedure. I am telling you
that now for your information.
A
resident stated every time there is a water main break we boil the water until
they tell us not to.
Mr.
Stephens stated that is a State requirement.
Mr.
Wrathell asked do we also have requirements where we are notifying and talking
with the DEP and the DOH about their noticing requirements depending on the
situations? You might want to talk about
that for their benefit.
Mr.
Stephens stated we talk with them and they tell us what to do as far as samples
and what to do with the samples. They
tell you to boil the water. I tell
people when I see people. It is a small
community and I figured it was standard and everyone knew that. We have been doing this for years.
Mr.
Gatti stated in Mr. Stephens’ defense, Coral Springs has a sophisticated water
system.
A
resident stated I called the 954 number to ask them about this and they were
not too helpful. They said they were
going to send two separate samples to Fort Meyers and if they come back with
bacteria, then we will tell you to boil your water. By then everybody could be dying. I do not know what we could get from
water. That does not make sense that
nobody knows anything.
Mr.
Wolsky stated if you come up with a procedure for what to do in case of an
emergency, we will call the hotel and have some information. Send me that in writing and e-mail that to
me. I have a hundred plus of people who
want to be notified of changes and things happening in the Community. It is like a Community bulletin board, so you
can write me an e-mail if you want your address added to the e-mail.
A
resident stated I noted in the budget last month that the North Hotel is in
arrears for quite a bit of money. How
did that happen? They had the option to
pay off all the back dues as part of the sale agreement. I heard they were to pay off their back
taxes.
Mr.
Gatti stated the sale was totally separate.
As far as I know it had nothing to do with the assessment.
Mr.
Cox stated that was an open auction, so they could not tie the taxes to that.
A
resident stated I would think that you could put in all the phone numbers here
and then when there is a water break you could leave a message on that and that
machine would automatically call all those phones. If we pick it up, we will hear them say a
water main broke, or if they have an answering machine, you could put it on the
answering machine. You could combine
that with his e-mail system.
A
resident stated I do not want to create waves or complain. This is all new to me. I have always had a big City take care of
everything for me. I only needed to take
care of my home.
Mr.
Wrathell stated she has a good point. I
am quite familiar with Coral Springs and our firm manages both the Coral
Springs and the North Springs Improvement Districts, which are what you are
accustomed to from a water and sewer perspective. You are talking about a municipality of over
100,000 people and we have a lot more resources.
The
person you spoke to at the Coral Springs office was probably a utility billing
person versus someone who has Mr. Stephens’ or Mr. Benson’s expertise in water
and sewer issues. I apologize if you
received an unsatisfactory answer. That
individual did not know the correct answer for your problem.
I
was also made aware of the issue and spoke with Mr. Stephens in the morning and
he was working on it at 4:00 a.m. or something like that, so he was on the
issue immediately. We do recognize and
appreciate your concerns.
Mr.
Gatti stated we do not appreciate everything that Mr. Stephens does because he
is laid back, but he is around here a lot and does a lot of work in the early
morning hours that we do not know about.
With all the lighting we have had, I went by at 2:00 a.m. and I saw Mr.
Stephens’ truck and he was fixing a switch and he got the electric company to
come up.
He
is on salary. Sometimes you look in the
budget and see what he makes and you wonder, but it is nowhere near
enough. He has three licenses that are
hard to come by, a water treatment plant, sewage treatment plan and an
operator’s license. We should definitely
appreciate him. I know I do.
Mr.
Stephens stated I am also licensed for mosquito control.
SIXTH
ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of Check Register
Mr.
Bissell asked what was the motor starter for $112?
Mr.
Stephens responded that was a starter for the motor at the water plant.
Mr.
Bissell asked how much horsepower is that motor?
Mr.
Stephens responded that is ten-horse power.
Mr.
Bissell asked what are the truck repairs at Texaco for $735?
Mr.
Stephens responded that was for the air conditioner, tune up and oil change.
Mr.
Bissell asked in which vehicle?
Mr.
Stephens responded that is for the mosquito truck.
Mr.
Bissell asked what was the warranty on that?
If you take it to a dealership, what do they give?
Mr.
Stephens responded I have no idea what the warranty is on that.
Mr.
Gatti asked how old is the truck?
Mr.
Stephens responded it is a ’92 or something like that.
Mr.
Gatti asked it is a 1992? That warranty
has run out.
Mr.
Bissell asked the irrigation system for $51,000; what is that?
Mr.
Gatti asked is that payment to Carl Construction?
Mr.
Stephens responded yes, that is Carl.
Mr.
Gatti stated that is the final payment and we recover $75,000 of that.
Mr.
Benson stated that was final payment toward the contract you authorized.
Mr.
Bissell asked on the road repair for $5,000 I though we were not doing road
repair until we were built out?
Mr.
Stephens responded that is your ditch over here that is underground.
Mr.
Bissell stated I understand that. Is
there some way you could put more detail in these?
Mr.
Gatti responded we appreciate your questions.
Do not feel inhibited.
On
MOTION by Mr. Bissell seconded by Mr. Robinson with all in favor the check
register was approved.
Mr. Wrathell stated for the Board’s information, with the software
we use, we can only include so much detail.
Mr.
Gatti stated that is all right. We want
Mr. Bissell to ask questions.
Mr.
Wrathell stated we do have copies of invoices if you ever need them.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
On Motion by Mr. Wolsky seconded by Mr. Robinson
with all in favor the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 a.m.