MINUTES OF MEETING
PORT
OF THE
COMMUNITY
IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the Board of
Supervisors of the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District was held
on
Present and constituting a quorum were:
Richard Gatti Chairman
Bernard Wolsky Supervisor
Ted Bissell Supervisor
John Robinson Supervisor
Also present were:
Darrin Mossing District
Manager
Daniel Cox District
Counsel
Ronald Benson District
Engineer
Tim Stephens Field
Manager
Numerous residents
The following are the actions taken
at the
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Gatti called the meeting to
order. Mr. Mossing called the roll and
indicated a quorum was present.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Organizational Matters
A. Oath of
Office of Newly Elected Supervisor
Mr. Gatti asked would you like to
swear Mr. Bissell in?
Mr. Mossing responded yes, I
would. For the record, I am a notary in
the State of
Mr. Bissell responded I do.
Mr. Mossing stated welcome to the
board.
An unidentified speaker asked does
he have to file another financial disclosure statement?
Mr. Mossing responded no, he does
not.
Mr. Gatti asked do we?
Mr. Mossing responded I do not
believe so. Do we have to swear in Mr.
Gatti and Mr. Wolsky?
Mr. Cox responded I think so.
Mr. Mossing asked do you swear and
affirm that you are a resident of the State of Florida and a citizen of the
United States of America and being a Supervisor of the Port of the Islands
Community Improvement District and a recipient of public funds on behalf of the
District, do you hereby solemnly swear and affirm that you will support the
Constitution of the United States and the State of Florida and will faithfully,
honestly and impartially discharge the duties upon me in the Office of
Supervisor of the Port of the Island Community Improvement District, Collier
County, Florida?
B. Consideration
of Resolution 2003-1 Canvassing and Certifying the Results of the Landowners
Election
Mr. Mossing stated, Mr. Chairman, we
will insert the information that occurred at the landowners meeting, which was
the election of Mr. Bissell and the number of votes and, basically, this must ratify
those actions. We would need a motion to
approve that.
Mr. Wolsky stated I move that we
pass that Resolution 2003-1.
Mr. Bissell stated I second it.
ON MOTION by Mr. Wolsky, seconded by Mr. Bissell, with all in favor,
the Resolution 2003-1 Canvassing and Certifying the Results of the Landowners
Election was approved.
C. Election
of Officer
Mr. Mossing stated how about if I go
down the standing positions at this point as Officer and then the easiest way
to handle this is if the Board just confirms that we will leave the Officers as
they exist prior to the election.
Mr. Gatti is Chairman, Mr. Wolsky is
Vice-Chairman, Mr. Burgeson and Mr. Bissell are Assistant Secretaries, along
with myself as Assistant Secretary. Gary
Moyer is the Secretary and Rhonda Archer is the Treasurer.
Mr. Gatti stated unless someone has
any problems with that or if someone wants to be Chairman for a term, or
something.
Mr. Mossing stated I would like to
make a motion to leave the slate of officers as they are.
Mr. Bissell stated I move.
Mr. Wolsky stated I second the
motion.
ON MOTION by Mr. Bissell, seconded by Mr.
Wolsky, with all in favor, the slate of the officers to remain as they were was
approved.
THIRD ORDER
OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the
ON MOTION by Mr. Wolsky, seconded by Mr.
Bissell, with all in favor, the minutes of the
FOURTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Engagement Letter with Hoch, Frey & Zugman for the Year Ended
Mr. Mossing stated this is the
District’s current independent auditing firm and that is a standard engagement
letter to conduct the fiscal year 2002 annual audit, which has concluded
September 30th and we would recommend approval of that.
Mr. Gatti asked this is approving
the information that they have provided us in terms of having to do with last
year's audit?
Mr. Mossing responded the District
is required to have their financial records audited.
Mr. Gatti asked are we hiring these
guys for another year? Is that what we
are doing?
Mr. Mossing responded yes.
Mr. Gatti stated okay. I did not quite understand that. Any problems with that?
ON MOTION by Mr. Bissell, seconded by Mr.
Robinson, with all in favor, the engagement Letter with Hoch, Frey & Zugman
for the Year Ended
FIFTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS Acceptance
of Bid for the 1994 Ford Ranger
Mr. Mossing stated the District
placed an advertisement in the paper declaring this vehicle as surplus and
following those procedures that are applicable to local governments for
disposing of items that are deemed surplus.
The only bid that we did receive was
from Mr. Stephens for $260. That was the
only bid we received on that vehicle and we recommend that the Board accept Mr.
Stephens bid for that vehicle.
ON MOTION by Mr. Bissell, seconded by Mr.
Wolsky, with all in favor, Mr. Stephens’ bid for the 1994 Ford Ranger was
approved.
Mr. Gatti asked before we go on to
staff reports, is there anything else that we have to cover?
Mr. Mossing stated no.
SIXTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS Staff
Reports
Mr. Cox stated I think what I would
have to say would be best if Mr. Benson starts his presentation and then if you
have question regarding the implications of what he has to say today.
A. Engineer
Mr. Benson stated there was a
question a few meetings ago about a drainpipe that had caved in over by the
hotel here. That pipe is a pipe that,
essentially, the sole purpose is to take the water from a catch basin along the
side of the CID road over to the canal.
There were a few questions then and
I researched it and said that the catch basin was in the CID roadway. It appeared that that is the only way that
the water from that area can get out to the canal, which it needs to. Mr. Cox and I concluded, and I think you
accepted our conclusion, that that was something you need to take care of. I think it is still ongoing.
Mr. Stephens stated it is still
ongoing. We have to put the asphalt on
top of it, but the rest of it is complete.
Mr. Benson stated since there was a
follow up question, I did download from the Tax Appraiser's Office maps of the
property in the CID district and this shows where all the lines are on an area
photo. I mean this is based on them
putting the property boundaries into a GIS system. If there is a question about where exactly
these roads are, in addition to the information I have reviewed, I am relying
on how they are depicting this because Mr. Bissell had a question.
As you can see, the property that
the CID owns is on this side. This is
the road. This is the catch basin. The only thing really that goes in this pipe
is that catch basin. That is the basis
of conclusion that we had previously made and nothing has changed. That was a question I wanted to verify.
Mr. Wolsky asked what is the date on
that? Is it the date that you downloaded
it or is there another date on it?
Mr. Benson responded the date of the
photograph, I believe, was January of 2000 for rural areas.
Mr. Cox stated I am pretty sure it
is 2000 and they did the urban areas in 2002.
Mr. Benson stated there was a
question this month regarding a similar situation. Similar in the sense that there was a
drainage pipe up by the north hotel that caved in and the question was, was
that CID responsibility. I talked to Mr.
Cox and received information from Mr. Stephens and I printed out a photo of
this area.
What you have there is that the CID
road going to the north goes up to the hotel and then it goes to the east and
then it goes up to the utility property.
The road that goes to the left, or to the west, is basically a private
road. There is a parking lot for the
hotel here and this is not a CID road.
This is a private road.
The area where the pipe is over
here. I did check, because there is a
catch basin here and there is one over here, this catch basin drains the CID
road. This catch basin drains out this
way. This one is yours. This one is not. Mr. Cox and I both have that same conclusion
and that was a question.
Mr. Benson stated if you look at the
red lines coming up this way and then going this way, that is the CID's
property. That is their road. This is all private property. It is not the CID's.
An unidentified speaker asked could
you just show me those catch basins you are talking about?
Mr. Benson responded the catch
basins are right here and one right here.
This one is the hotel's. This one
is the CID's property.
An unidentified speaker asked where
does this one go?
Mr. Benson responded this one here, as
I understand it, comes over this way.
Mr. Cox stated you guys did the
canal.
Mr. Bissell asked where does the
catch basin actually go?
Mr. Benson responded the catch basin
is located here and right there.
Mr. Bissell asked the first one is
at the corner of that hotel?
Mr. Benson asked this one?
Mr. Bissell responded no. The other one. That one.
Mr. Benson responded this one is
right in this area right there. There is
one on each side.
An unidentified speaker stated it
goes underneath the road and then there is a huge sinkhole.
Mr. Bissell stated okay, so it is
not an open catch basin.
An unidentified speaker asked part
of the curve?
Mr. Benson responded it is curve and
a catch basin.
Mr. Bissell asked is that why that
road is blocked?
Mr. Benson responded I believe so.
An unidentified speaker stated we
did that for safety reason.
Mr. Bissell stated because you have
a sinkhole.
Mr. Benson stated right. There was a question as to the one at the
south hotel is the CID's and the one at the north hotel is not the CID's. We did research it and this, I think, is a
reasonable conclusion.
There is one other area that I know
of that may be a similar question in the future if there was to be some
maintenance and let me show you where that one is located.
Again, first I want to let the Board
see because they need to see. If you
come down first to the hotel and you come down
The hotel and marina did some work
in the last few years and they did add some other drainage areas here and some
inlets to their property that attached that same pipe. The pipe crosses their property, but it does
serve on a drainage system.
I have prepared another little
sketch so that you can see that it is draining your area and what you will see
is this is the property that CID owns.
There are drainage swales here.
There are inlets that go into a pipe
that goes out to here. This is the
property that is owned by the marina.
This is the retention basin that they constructed. There are inlets here. I believe there is one in the middle of this
parking area that went to the same pipe.
I guess what I need Mr. Cox to help
determine what we need to do regarding this pipe. It's original purpose was to drain that one
there. The original purpose, from
everything I can gather, is that it was to drain those drainage structures
along the road, which is the CID's property.
Now let me back up. The reason there is a road at question on
this one by the hotel here, is that it is clear that this drains the CID's
property. It is part of the CID's drainage
system that they are maintaining when they acquired the property for the roads
out here.
What I cannot find, and I do not
think Mr. Cox was able to find either, is was there ever a document for the
easement for that pipe.
There are two that I can find that probably
do not have any documents. What we
talked about a month ago and then I think two months ago also was that at some
point we need to have a legal document prepared and then signed by these
property owners allowing us this easement and pipe that is ours that it is
using now that we are maintaining this pipe on their property.
This one is one that would be in the
future if it ever needs serious work, or needs to be dug up.
I guess the question is how do we
want to handle this one. Is the entire
pipe all the way out to the canal the responsibility of the CID or the fact
that the private owner of the property also uses that pipe and what the status
is there.
Mr. Gatti stated let me give you a
real quick overview on this and then we will do whatever the Board wants to do.
I suspect the hotel would be
reluctant to give us a perpetual easement through here without knowing what is
going to happen in this parking lot in the future because I remember seeing
some plans and there was a building proposed for this site.
An unidentified speaker stated that
will not happen.
Mr. Gatti stated if you are willing
to give us an easement at this point, then my point is moot.
Mr. Cox stated we have prescriptive
rights. We have an easement, but it is
just that it has never been memorialized.
Mr. Gatti stated so we have
prescriptive rights there now. Draw up a
little easement and if these guys go along with it, that is the end of
that. Do we need a ten-foot easement and
then the twenty-foot for construction?
Mr. Benson responded yes. I think ten feet would probably all you
need. I guess part of the question on
this one is do we need one to go all the way to the canal or just to the structure
that is there so we tie in to it, theoretically.
Mr. Gatti asked do we go west or all
the way here?
Mr. Benson responded your drainage
needs to go all the way to the canal, but part of that system now is part of
the marina's drainage system.
For the CID to be responsible for
this portion of the pipe that gets from your drain structure over to theirs and
from their drainage structure out to the canal is their system. Which way do we want to go?
Mr. Wolsky asked who is going to be
responsible for repairing this in the future?
Mr. Benson responded I think that
may end up how we handle it. It may end
that if in the future there was a maintenance need and it is on the part of the
system that serves their property as well as our property, who is responsible
then. I do not know.
Mr. Wolsky stated how do we decide
that.
Mr. Gatti stated given the amount of
taxes that the hotel pays and everything that goes with it, I think we should
maintain our storm drainage system. I am
just kind of repeating what happens in other governments. When you are drawing water from public
property like a street or an alley or something like that, you are responsible
for wherever the discharge is.
Mr. Benson stated I think so if the
pipe was there originally.
Mr. Gatti stated that is what I
would recommend. The only reason we need
an easement, and this is where it gets a little tricky, is if they put
something in here that would be tremendously expensive to restore or repair, or
something like that, then we have a little bit of a problem
As long as it is a parking lot, it
is no big deal and if you are willing to give us an easement through this
parking lot, I would say go for the whole thing. That is what I would recommend.
Mr. Bissell stated when Mr. Robinson
comes back at the board meeting with the authority to do this; I see no problem
with it.
I have another question in the same
order. We are on Stella Maris. The two drainage structure on each side drain
the street and that curb and gutter and the outlets were there before any of
the construction was done at the building.
Is it CID's responsibility to maintain those?
Mr. Cox responded let me try to
explain what differentiates this because the answer is no, it is not for the
CID to maintain this.
Under the common law of easements,
and that would be what we govern since we have no document, it actually conveys
the easement to us for the pipe here at the south hotel.
You would be responsible for
maintaining the easement for your intended purpose. It is just like if I gave you an easement for
roadway across my property so that you could access your property, you have to
build the road and you have to maintain it.
My obligation is not to do anything
to inhibit your use of your easement, but I do not have to do anything
affirmative to assist your use of the easement.
That is why we determined that the
responsibility for these pipes laid with the District, even though they were on
the property and possibly even, you know, gave some drainage relief to that
property.
Now, with any type of interest in
property that you convey, you can set terms on how you convey that property,
the extent to which you convey it and who has responsibilities for certain
maintenance, for example.
When the drainage systems were
installed at Stella Maris, it was done by plat and the conveyance of those
systems was done by plat. That document
specifically states that the District has the right to drain through that
system and that it has no responsibility for maintenance and that maintenance
responsibility for the drainage system lies with the Stella Maris Homeowners Association.
Mr. Bissell asked can that be
changed?
Mr. Cox responded if the Board is
willing to accept the responsibility for maintaining it, it can absolutely be
changed.
Mr. Bissell stated to me it is the
same as what we are doing right here.
Now, I may be wrong, but that is the way I look at it.
Mr. Gatti stated it is a little
different. This goes into a retention
area, does it not?
Mr. Wolsky responded no. It goes into the canal.
Mr. Benson stated it goes directly
to the canal. Their retention area
overflows into that same pipe that goes into the canal.
Mr. Cox stated I would have to check
that because that would make sense. I
mean we are not supposed to drain any water from this property into the canal
straight.
Mr. Benson stated that is correct. When the level fills up to the overflow into
the retention area, it goes into that pipe.
Mr. Gatti asked then they are using
it as a conveyance to the canal too?
Mr. Benson responded right.
Mr. Gatti stated the only problem I
have with the other side is that that was supposed to be a swale system and
that was the
Mr. Benson stated at the back of the
houses, between the houses and the docks, that is what the homeowner is
responsible for. Mr. Cox, am I correct
that the drainage of the road is the CID's?
Mr. Gatti stated the original plan
shows swales between the homes and they did not want those swales, so they
piped it. That is what created the
problem because instead of having a percolation effect, you have a flow through
that pipe and you have a tremendous force coming out at the sea wall and then
you have a problem.
Mr. Benson stated there is actually
a couple. One is drainage of the road
goes through pipes that go back to the back of the property. At the back of the property there is also a
swale system.
Mr. Gatti asked how can we wrap this
thing up?
Mr. Bissell stated let me just ask
one thing, unless I misunderstood you.
There was supposed to be a swale between the buildings?
Mr. Gatti responded right.
Mr. Bissell stated but when they put
the swale in when the man stood at the bottom of the swale all he saw was the
base of the house. It was so deep and
that is why they got permission from the county to put in the pipe.
Mr. Gatti asked what would you like
to do, Mr. Bissell?
Mr. Bissell responded I would like
to see the CID take easement of those pipes and maintain that in the
future. They are plastic pipes the same
as they put in over here.
Mr. Gatti stated take a look at
that, Mr. Benson, and see what the ramifications are. My only concern, Mr. Bissell, is the impact
down at the seawall. The way that is put
together is almost an accident waiting to happen because you have that
tremendous flow coming down to the seawall and that does not hold and if you
have a tremendous storm and you just have a lot of water coming through that
pipe.
That is not the way it was
designed. That is why it was designed
originally with the swale area.
Take a look at it and see what the
ramifications are and let us be consistent.
I agree with what you are saying.
If we are going to do something one place, let us do it on the other
end.
Mr. Benson stated are the
ramifications are who maintains it in the future. Right now it is clear the way the documents
were presented and prepared that the Homeowner's Association maintains it.
Mr. Gatti asked is there a problem
doing that?
Mr. Cox responded from my
perspective?
Mr. Gatti responded no, physically.
Mr. Benson stated I do not think
that there is a real physical problem. I
know there was talk about doing some modifications to that system to put some
relief pipes.
Mr. Bissell stated we have that
done. That is completed.
Mr. Gatti stated you put a bubble up
in there so that it bubbles up into the retention area and then you do not have
that.
Mr. Benson stated no. It is actually when the retention area fills
up, instead of waiting for them to overflow across the sidewall, there is some
relief pipes that go to the canal.
Mr. Gatti stated take a look at it
and see what the ramifications are and if you think there is going to be a
problem there, we should know about that in advance. I agree with you, Mr. Bissell. I think we should be consistent.
Mr. Wolsky stated we should be
consistent and I think the question that I have in my mind is Mr. Bissell's
request for the CID to take over the maintenance of that because we have done
this other thing. Is there a causal
relationship there?
If they are two different things, if
they are apples and oranges, then we are not responsible and should not take it
over.
If we are responsible by virtue of
the fact that we are trying to do this for this particular piece of property in
the hotel, then we should administer it.
Mr. Bissell stated if Mr. Benson
would come out and notify me when he is coming so I can show him exactly what
has been done and then he can come back with the recommendation to the Board
and I would go with your recommendation.
Mr. Benson stated one thing that I
think I need to maybe just mention and to make sure I am saying this
correctly. I believe the CID is
responsible for the maintenance around these other lots that are the single-family
homes.
Mr. Gatti asked is that the swale
system?
Mr. Benson stated that is the swale
system.
Mr. Cox stated right. I have not looked at that plat lately, but it
seems that is what I recall.
Mr. Bissell stated remember we had
to get permission for the person that is building over here a home right now
that they could come out close to the swale and take part of the swale.
Mr. Cox stated that is right.
Mr. Gatti stated my general sense of
it is that we should maintain the storm sewer system because one way or another
it effects the entire property.
Mr. Wolsky asked why did we not take
over the maintenance of that when the builder completed Stella Maris? It seems to me that you did not do it
properly and that is why you recommend that we not do it.
Mr. Benson responded I am not sure
there was ever a request to take over the drainage.
Mr. Gatti stated let me share with
you why I think we should take over the maintenance of the storm sewer
system. The Homeowner's Association is
organized and everything else. In a lot
of cases, we can send Mr. Stephens out there and in a lot of cases we can do
the work ourselves and that sort of thing.
We are more capable of doing this
kind of stuff. Whereas a Homeowner's
Association or an individual homeowner does not know where to come and get a storm
sewer. You do not go to a hardware store
and buy one of these. That is the idea
and we should be consistent. I guess
that is the other thing that I think is important.
Mr. Bissell stated Mr. Benson; I
want to thank you for your research on my questions about this other project
over here.
Mr. Gatti stated take a look at it
and see the way it comes together. I
think the general sense of the Board is that we should sort of maintain the
storm sewer system.
Now, if there is a problem out
there, the other thing I would expect you to say is something has to be fixed
before you take it over just like we do the roadways.
Mr. Benson stated I believe there
has been something done. I will come out
and look at it because I was asked to go out this year. At that point, basically, it was not CID's
responsibility. Any work that was done
was done by the Homeowner's Association.
I do have one other follow up item
from last month and that was you authorized me to make an application for a
grant from the
I did complete the application and
we turned those in. That has been
submitted. I have copies here.
Mr. Gatti asked how much is the
application for?
Mr. Benson responded we have applied
for a grant of $50,000, but we would have to spend $50,000.
Mr. Gatti asked we have to come up
with the matching funds?
Mr. Benson responded that was the
amount. I said last month that $100,000
was my rough estimate. I did the work
this month to prepare and it seemed like the right number.
We also, on your behalf, requested
an extension to the time to execute the grant and we did get an extension
through, I think, the end of June. I
sent that over to you and I think you executed it and send it back. We are okay on our current grant.
I am hopeful that we have a good
chance to get this grant based on my discussions with Mr. Tears. Hopefully, you have good standing there.
In the next few days I'll give some
additional information that goes along with what we have applied for this grant
to do to, hopefully, get our permit issued.
That will be happening in the next week or so and, hopefully, we will
have news on that permit shortly.
Mr. Gatti asked how long is it going
to take to hook up?
Mr. Benson responded actually we are
going to then acquire some pumping equipment so it is going to take some
time. It is not going to be just a
matter of weeks.
We have to work with the contractor
and figure out if we are either going to have the contractor buy the pumps or
are we going to acquire the pumps and just pay him to install. I am going to have to work that out once we
get DEP's authorization.
Mr. Gatti stated the only reason I
asked is dry season is coming up.
Mr. Benson stated I do not think we
will be able to necessarily count on that this year. I'm sorry.
Hopefully we will have the permit in the next 60 days.
Mr. Gatti stated you were going to
mix your comments with Mr. Benson's. Did
that happen?
Mr. Cox responded pretty much.
Mr. Gatti asked anything else? You want to tell us anything about the
lawsuit.
B. Attorney
Mr. Cox stated that nothing is going
on. We are kind of waiting for time
periods to lapse for production.
Mr. Gatti stated we have a lot of
new faces here. Give us the dates.
Mr. Cox stated 14th, 15th and 16th
of January at the Federal Courthouse in
An unidentified speaker stated it is
a Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
Mr. Cox stated yes. It is Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday.
C. District
Manager
Mr. Mossing asked Mr. Benson, on the
grants and from a cash flow standpoint, will you at some time in the near
future kind of put a time frame to when you think we are going to spend which
monies and how quickly we are going to need that additional $100,000.
Mr. Benson responded yes, I will.
Mr. Mossing stated then I can report
back to the Board to make sure that we are going to be okay from a cash flow
standpoint. I think we are.
Mr. Gatti asked we front the money
and then we get fifty back?
Mr. Benson responded yes, we do.
Mr. Mossing stated I do not know if
we will finish the first grant and then be able to request that $75,000 back
before we spend the next hundred in the second grant or if we have to spend all
grant monies and then request it all at once.
Mr. Benson stated we are going to
try to close out the first grant so that you can get the reimbursement towards
the second grant.
Mr. Gatti stated
Mr. Mossing stated just one item
that I believe I circulated to the Board members yesterday or the day before
regarding a request from Marlene Marchanel on two water and sewer utility
accounts.
Mr. Gatti stated please give us an
overview there.
Mr. Bissell stated I have not seen
that. Do you have an extra one?
Mr. Mossing responded yes. Mr. Benson might know more about it than I
do, other than what is in writing.
Mr. Gatti stated I think we
understand the mechanics of it. What I
want to understand is the numbers.
Mr. Wolsky asked may I make some
comments about it?
Mr. Gatti responded go ahead.
Mr. Wolsky stated let me read the
first two paragraphs. Concerning water
and sewer utility billings. In
mid-October, I, Marlene Marchanel, received the water and sewer bill for the
September 4th to October 1st 2002 service period. All our accounts have been paid in full
except for account number so and so and so and so. Partial payments were made on these two
accounts, as the billings were thousands of times higher than the previous
months billings and historically. We
regularly read the meters to check for inconsistencies as well as checking for
wet areas, which can identify leaks.
Unfortunately, due to being short staffed and it being the wet season,
two very damaging leaks went unnoticed for a period of time. At prior CID meetings it was identified that
the District's staff when regarding such unbelievable readings brought it to
the attention of the property owner.
However, unfortunately, that was not the case here.
Then Ms. Marchanel puts down the
figures. I challenge her figures because
the highest bill was for $2,562.88. The
bill next to it, which was supposed to be thousands of times more expensive,
was $52.25.
I divided it out and it turns out
that the first figure was 49 times higher than the previous figure. That is inaccurate.
Secondly, if you can come up with a
figure saying thousands of times, that would be perhaps a dollar or two dollars
for that period of time.
Ms. Marchanel stated you have my
apologies. I was pressed by the dollar
amount. I did not do the mathematics of
it. My apologies.
Mr. Wolsky stated I just wanted to
correct that because to let something like this go unchallenged, it just means
we accept it and we do not accept it.
Ms. Marchanel asked so it was
actually 49 times higher?
Mr. Wolsky responded 49 times
higher.
Ms. Marchanel stated in one
month. I count a little more than that
because one was a 27-day period and the one you refer to is a 37-day period.
Mr. Gatti stated let us round this
off so we do not get tied down into this thing.
The average bill is about $600 to $700.
That is what your average bill is and in comparison from $600 to $700,
your bill was $2,562. Is that a fair
statement?
Ms. Marchanel responded yes.
Mr. Gatti stated so let us keep it
in those round numbers. Then at the
bottom on the other one, your bill was $1,300 and your average bill is about
$300. It is four times as much in one
case and four times as much in both cases.
That is what we are talking about.
Mr. Wolsky stated the second thing I
would like to say is the cause of this leak, as my understanding is, is that
the CID is responsible for getting water to you and through the meter. If anything interdicts that flow or is
incorrect in that or if the meter readings are incorrect, that is our fault.
After it goes through the meter, it is
my understanding that we are unable, as a CID Board, to forgive any
overages. Is that the case?
Mr. Gatti responded let me control
the meeting. I think, historically, we
have forgiven sewer bills on leaks like this because I think the rationale was
that we are not treat the water. Our
rationale for attaching the sewer bill to the water is you use so much water
and the result is so much sewer. This
obviously did not go into our sewer system.
Mr. Wolsky stated in that regard,
let me make a comment on two people who came up to me who own swimming pools
and they said the water evaporates from their swimming pool and they would like
me, as a CID member, to do something about that because it does not go through
the sewer system.
I thought that was a frivolous
request because I have a swimming pool too and I really do not consider it to
be a valid argument.
On the other hand, if we forgive a
sewer bill because it does not go through the system, then are we going to be
giving a recourse to people with swimming pools? I mean, fair is fair.
Mr. Gatti stated I understand.
Ms. Marchanel asked may I read the
paragraph where I was?
Mr. Gatti responded sure.
Ms. Marchanel stated I said I
realize that the water is used whether I like it or not and it needs to be
paid, even though water usage at that time of the year is extremely low and
requires special attention due to that fact.
However, I can guarantee that the water leak never went through the
sewer and as such, was not subject to the services, which justify sewer fees.
I am not questioning the water at
all. The water alone, the costs are
higher than the peak time of the year.
Never mind the time of year that it was, but I was just hoping that
something can be done on the sewer.
Mr. Gatti asked can you give me a
thumbnail sketch if somebody pays two dollars for a sewer and water bill, how
much is sewer and how much is water?
What is that proportion?
Ms. Marchanel responded almost
double.
Mr. Gatti stated for every two
dollars you pay in water, it is a dollar in sewer.
Ms. Marchanel stated no. Sewer is more expensive.
Mr. Gatti stated sewer is two
dollars.
Ms. Marchanel stated it is 1.7
higher, I think it is what it comes to.
Mr. Gatti stated so that kind of
gives us an overview. What is the Board's
pleasure? Mr. Wolsky, I hear what you
are saying because I have had the same requests, but I know that we have
forgiven sewer bills and, as a matter of fact, we have done so for the hotel.
Mr. Cox stated I know where I live at the sewer bill is capped just for that purpose. It is capped at 8,000 gallons, so if it goes over that you only pay for that amount because they have realized that there is water breaks and things that happen