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
Dale
Lambert Vice Chairman
Ted
Bissell Assistant
Secretary
Norine
Dillon Assistant
Secretary (via Telephone)
Richard
Ziko Assistant
Secretary
Also present were:
Edward
Goscicki District
Manager
Dan
Cox Attorney
Ron
Benson Engineer
Bob
Dick Field
Manager
Robert
Edge
Cal
Teague
James
Shucart POI Hotel &
Sandy
Cameron Resident
Jean
Cungel Resident
George
Kramer Resident
Tom
Lewjeski Resident
Doug
Smith Resident
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Gatti called the meeting to
order and Mr. Goscicki called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the
Minutes of the October 13, 2006 Meeting
Mr. Gatti stated each Board member
received a copy of the
Mr. Lambert stated starting on Page
7 there are some items attributed to Mr. McKay, which I believe are
incorrect. I believe some of them belong
to Mr. Gasaway and Mr. Mack. I am not
certain how to point out all of those.
Mr. Goscicki stated just indicate
where they are and send them to me in order for us to copy them into the record.
Mr. Lambert stated for clarification,
I was under the impression all Board members present were in favor of not doing
anything with ERCs. On Page 30, I am not
certain whether or not Mr. Gatti’s comments reflect this. Does this need to be clarified in the minutes?
Mr. Cox responded I believe it is
fairly clear from Mr. Gatti’s statement approximately six paragraphs up from
the end of this, right now we should let the market work its course and we should
keep an open mind.
Mr. Gatti asked what do you want me
to clarify?
Mr. Lambert responded I did not
necessarily read through that all Board members were in agreement to not doing
anything with ERCs. Perhaps I misread
this.
Mr. Gatti stated I will repeat what
I said there, and I do not believe the Board is in a position to arbitrarily
decide the value of an ERC. The
marketplace should determine this. We
will react to it and try to keep an open mind.
If there is an opportunity to better the community as a result of doing
something I would like to see it happen, but I do not want to shut the door on
the possibility.
Mr. Lambert stated the last comment
I have is on Page 43. This is a question
of parliamentary procedure. Mr. Gatti
stated if we were going to talk about lawsuits with Orchid Cove, he would not
chair the meeting. Can the Chairman
decide whether or not he is going to chair a meeting?
Mr. Gatti responded I do not know if
this is possible, and what your answer will be.
However, I will not do it regardless of what Mr. Cox says.
Mr. Cox stated I do not believe this
Board has ever formally adopted any specific rules of procedure, but if the
Chairman wishes to initiate a discussion or participate in making a motion to
this effect, he can certainly step down as Chairman.
Mr. Gatti stated I want to discuss
this momentarily with the Board’s permission.
Ms. Dillon wrote me what I believed was a highly insulting letter
indicating all of the things I do wrong as Chairman to this Board. Her opinion is appropriate, and if the rest
of the Board feels this way, there is nothing magic about me sitting here. If you do not like the way I do things, I
have no bad feelings one way or another.
I have been doing this for 14 years and it may be appropriate to step
down and let someone with a different view take over. With the election of Mr. Bissell, can we
address the issue of electing a Chairman at the next regular meeting?
Mr. Goscicki responded this is
usually done at the December or January meeting, which is usually the first
meeting after the elections. We have
election officers.
Mr. Lambert stated the election must
be certified.
Mr. Goscicki stated it should be
certified by November 18th.
We can bring this up at the December meeting. It would be an agenda item entitled, Election
of Officers.
Mr. Gatti stated the Board can
choose to do something right now.
Mr. Lambert stated I do not believe
it is necessary to do anything now.
Mr. Ziko stated it will be
appropriate at the next meeting.
Mr. Goscicki stated I believe it is
appropriate to wait. If you do it now,
you would still have to have an election of officers after Mr. Bissell was
certified assuming the election was certified and Mr. Bissell is certified as
re-winning the election. You would have
the newly constituted Board and have the election of supervisors at that time.
On MOTION by Mr. Lambert
seconded by Mr. Ziko with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Manager’s
Report
A.
Consideration
of Resolution 2007-1 – A Resolution Declaring Certain Tangible Personal
Property Surplus Equipment and Authorizing the District Manager to Sell or
Dispose of Said Equipment as Expeditiously as Possible and Providing for an
Effective Date
Mr.
Goscicki stated before we can dispose of surplus property owned by the
District, this Board first needs to do a formal resolution declaring the
material as surplus since you are a public entity, and it no longer has any
value to the District. Once the Board
takes this formal action, we can move forward with a bid process.
Mr. Gatti stated since we discussed
this, I believe it is appropriate to adopt this resolution.
Mr. Bissell moved to adopt
Resolution 2007-1 Declaring Certain Tangible Personal Property Surplus Equipment
and Authorizing the District Manager to Sell or Dispose of Said Equipment as
Expeditiously as Possible and providing for an Effective Date.
Mr. Ziko asked is there anything
else besides the three vehicles we are looking at disposing of?
Mr. Goscicki responded I want to
offer an amendment to this resolution if I can impose on Mr. Benson to describe
the additional equipment we would like to add to this. It essentially involves some of the surplus
equipment at the water treatment facility.
Mr. Benson stated we have been
storing the package treatment plant which used to be over by the North Hotel at
the wastewater treatment plant for close to 15 years in hope of using the steel
tank for another purpose. For a variety
of reasons and especially in the earlier years, we just did not have the money
to do anything with it. I know there
were some questions in the past when we had some tours up there about possibly
cleaning up the wastewater side and this is one of the big items which needs to
be disposed of. A number of years ago
the CID acquired a surplus effluent filter from
Mr. Ziko asked how do we dispose of
this?
Mr. Goscicki responded we literally
have to put together a bid document describing the facilities, put it out for
bid and see if there is a cost or a revenue which gets offered to us to take
this material away.
Mr. Benson stated it is basically
scrap metal. One company expressed an
interest in acquiring it for scrap and I do not want to disclose any
information since we are going to bid it.
They basically will charge us a fee to haul it away. Although the fee is reduced by the cost of
the scrap metal, we still have to pay something.
Mr. Goscicki stated it does not have
to be a formal bid process because of the dollar value which is involved, we
can do solicitation of proposals by multiple members and it is the same for the
vehicles. We will just solicit prices.
Mr. Benson stated I encourage we try
to do this as quickly as possible with some quotes on the items at the
wastewater plant since it does not involve a lot of money, instead of a formal
bid process. We can dispose of the
material in a timely manner relative to other work which is being done.
Mr. Goscicki stated we will do those
two separately.
Due to the lack of a
second on the motion, the previous motion died.
On MOTION by Mr. Lambert
seconded by Mr. Ziko with all in favor Resolution 2007-1 Declaring Certain
Tangible Personal Property Surplus Equipment and Authorizing the District
Manager to Sell or Dispose of Said Equipment as Expeditiously as Possible and
Providing for an Effective Date was adopted as amended.
B.
Field
Manager
Mr.
Dick stated you have the September Operations Report. I was asked last month to include the
maintenance and sludge hauling information on the back which is being deducted
from the contracted amount, so you can see the tabulations at the back of that
report. The second package includes the
contract requirements to supply to the Board an equipment condition list. Mr. Benson and I along with our maintenance
staff evaluated the equipment. We put
together a list of all equipment in its current condition, whether it is
operational, marginal or in need of replacement. Also attached are the inventory lists which
were required to be submitted at the 90 day point in the contract, which is
where we are at. The tools, equipment
lists, and other inventory lists are also attached.
Mr. Goscicki stated according to the
terms of the contract structure, we must have the same relative inventory we
started with at the end of the contract including an inventory of tools and
chemicals, and we either pay the dollar difference or ensure the same inventory
is there.
Mr. Lambert asked was there any major
surprises when you wrote the list up as far as material condition of the
equipment?
Mr. Dick responded I would not call
them surprises, but there are some significant issues which we need to address
to maintain the reliability of the facilities primarily on the water plant
side, and the
Mr. Lambert asked is this above and
beyond the items we have on our five year plan?
Mr. Dick responded some of it is
included.
Mr. Ziko stated I notice this
inventory list is dated today. I want to
know when this inventory was taken because the drums of mosquito mist are
fairly expensive. Does it go back to
when you took the contract over?
Mr. Dick responded I documented
chemicals on August 1st.
Mr. Ziko stated this is really a
list as of August 1st, not today.
Mr. Dick stated I am submitting it
today, but the mosquito control chemicals were all documented on August 1st.
Mr. Lambert asked will it be a big
job to look through this list and highlight the items which are not
accommodated on our five year plan and give me a copy rather than us trying to
determine what is included?
Mr. Benson responded Mr. Dick and I
did the walk-through together prior to August 1st and I will provide
the Board and Mr. Dick a summary list of major items since we did this together. I am certain many of those items are
identical and I do not anticipate any surprises.
Mr. Lambert stated this will help us
see what is or what needs to be on our plate.
Mr. Ziko stated two meetings ago we
requested a new chlorinator. Was it installed?
Mr. Dick responded it is actually an
analyzer which we just received, but it was not installed. It took six weeks to receive.
Mr. Ziko asked is this going to be
installed in the small building on the north side?
Mr. Dick responded yes. I also included the inspection report for
Soto Landscaping who contracted by OLM.
There is nothing of any real significance. One item which affects the CID is on the last
page. There is a category called Notice to Owner. On the left entrance to Union Road there is a
large ficus tree leaning over and touching the telephone lines. I talked to Soto about giving me a price to
remove this tree.
Mr. Gatti stated it looked like we
did some damage to the irrigation coming in.
Will this be covered under the irrigation company?
Mr. Benson responded it will be more
economical if the landscape contractor handles this.
Mr. Gatti asked will this be taken
care of one way or another?
Mr. Dick responded that is correct.
Mr. Lambert stated if we have
landscaping or irrigation work which Soto needs to do, perhaps we should
consider running the line down Union Road and start to irrigate in the summer
to ensure the sod the developer put in does not die. Sooner or later I believe we are going to have
to do this.
Mr. Dick stated I believe this is an
excellent idea.
Mr. Lambert asked will it be
expensive?
Mr. Benson responded the irrigation
lines are done by landscape contractors.
Mr. Lambert stated it appears they
have sprinkler heads fairly close within 5’ or 6’ of the edge of the
pavement. At this time, I do not believe
we need to worry about the east side until we see how it is going to turn out.
Mr. Bissell stated there is a line
down the center from years ago. Is it
still usable?
Mr. Benson responded that is the
potable water line which is still in use.
Mr. Bissell stated I am referring to
the little line.
Mr. Benson stated there are no
record drawings which indicate this.
Mr. Bissell stated when we were over
there I questioned someone who said it used to be the old irrigation line.
Mr. Dick stated I will look for the
line to see if it is there, if it can be used or repaired as opposed to
installing a new line.
Mr. Benson stated I will guess it is
not in good shape.
Mr. Dick stated there is no cost associated
with putting a proposal together. I will
talk with the landscaping company.
Mr. Lambert stated they currently
have paving work to do over there.
Mr. Dick stated I will talk to them
and see what it would cost.
Mr. Benson stated we need to ensure
where we have easements crossing the property to the east of the road
connecting from our irrigation main over to the right-of-way. We potentially may have to get an easement
from the property owner.
Mr. Dick stated Mr. Robert Edge is
our Chief Operator and some of you have met him out in the field. For those who have not, he will be attending
these meetings, providing information and answering any questions. The water plant is operating in full
compliance. The wastewater plant still
has a total nitrogen problem. Mr. Benson
and I put together a proposal to make the necessary repairs to the sludge
recirculation system. This is a
component designed to remove nitrogen from the wastewater treatment
process. This particular part of the
operation has not been operational for several years, and subsequently we have
been having total nitrogen violations.
Mr. Benson stated at the last
meeting, I passed out a communication I had with Mr. Dick with recommendations
of how to repair the pipes which are plugged.
Basically, Mr. Dick is responding to my recommendations and the
magnitude of repairs have not been done, but the independent cost evaluation is
in the anticipated ballpark.
Mr. Goscicki stated we want to bring
the authorization to the Board for approval.
Mr. Gatti asked what do you need
from the Board?
Mr. Goscicki responded since this is
over the contract limit, we need the Board’s approval to move forward.
Mr.
Dick stated the cost is $15,070.95.
Mr. Lambert asked can your people do
this work to avoid going out to bid?
Mr. Dick responded that is correct.
On MOTION by Mr. Lambert
seconded by Mr. Ziko with all in favor the proposal from Severn Trent Services
to repair the sludge recirculation system at the wastewater plant in the amount
of $15,070.95 was approved.
Mr. Dick stated in working with the
landscaping company on the Route 41 median, we have done a lot of the line
locating. They are doing directional
boards for wiring and irrigation pipes.
It is going to involve having the 10” main on each side of the
bridge. I also have a proposal to do
those two taps.
Mr. Gatti asked is this going to be
on each side of the bridge or going both ways?
Mr. Dick responded there are going
to be slabs on both sides and I am not certain if we can hang a pipe on the
bridge.
Mr. Benson stated you do not want to
do this.
Mr. Dick stated I also have a
proposal for $3,162 to do those two inch taps, bring up the grade and install a
meter box.
On MOTION by Mr. Ziko
seconded by Mr. Lambert with all in favor the proposal from Severn Trent
Services to install two 2” taps, bring up the grade and install a meter box in
the amount of $3,162 was approved.
Mr. Dick stated we are working with
Powell Construction on Newport Drive to relocate fire hydrants. Mr. Edge is working together with them to get
this work done.
Mr. Gatti asked was one broken?
Mr. Dick responded there is a
hydrant which needs to be repaired.
Mr. Gatti asked has it been
repaired?
Mr. Dick responded it has not been
repaired, but we will get it done. In
the meantime, we need to bag the hydrant.
Mr. Lambert asked was this one of
them which had to be moved back?
Mr. Dick responded yes.
Mr. Ziko asked was any of this work
included in the bid for the road or was it altogether separate?
Mr. Benson responded it was
separate.
Mr. Gatti asked do we have to look
forward to replacing all of these hydrants?
Mr. Benson responded I hope not.
Mr. Dick stated I do not believe
so. I believe these are minor repairs.
Mr. Gatti asked did a stem break on
this one?
Mr. Dick responded that is
correct. It just continues to turn,
which is only a minor detail. Lastly, Mr.
Edge initiated painting of the fire hydrants.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney’s
Report
Mr. Cox stated with regards to the
monument sign easement, Mr. Benson has been in contact with the developers of
the project on this property and quite a few issues have been discussed as to
how the relocation of the potable water line is going to work. This issue on the easement will get settled when
we do the developer agreement. I spoke
to Mr. Wanklin who is still looking at how he wants to deal with this and wants
to know if we acquired any of the property he has for the fire station.
Mr. Ziko asked are you referring to
the Cays Drive property?
Mr. Cox responded that is
correct. Those are still being
negotiated, but no one is willing to sign anything yet. If we work through these two projects, I believe
we will be ahead. The fire station
project comprises approximately 1.9 acres which were appraised at $250,000, but
Mr. Wanklin is not interested in selling the property for this amount. His initial offer to us is approximately $8
per square foot, which totals to approximately $675,000. When I questioned him about this, it was
simply a matter of economics. The land
has ERCs associated with it, which is worth a certain amount of money, but if
you separate the land from the ERCs, the value of the property decreases.
Mr. Ziko asked does $675,000 include
the ERCs?
Mr. Cox responded it does not
include ERCs. His thought was two acres
with two or three ERCs with a small restaurant within a convenience center or
gas station arrangement is worth approximately $1 million.
Mr. Gatti asked how many ERCs go
with the property?
Mr. Cox responded there are none.
Mr. Gatti asked how many ERCs are
attributed to the property?
Mr. Ziko responded there are 20 ERCs
between the two, but they have not been assigned to either side.
Mr. Cox stated this is the dilemma
we are currently in. I believe $8 per
square foot is high, and to skew $250,000 may be low.
Mr. Ziko asked how long do we
negotiate before we go into an eminent domain situation?
Mr. Cox responded we must try to
negotiate a good faith purchase of the property with the property owner, and we
have informally done this. There is a
formal process required in order to proceed with the eminent domain
action. The first thing we must do is
petition Collier County for authority to exercise our power of eminent
domain. Chapter 190 expressly states a
CDD may exercise eminent domain only with the permission of the general purpose
local government within the jurisdiction to grant it, which is Collier
County. I can possibly write a letter
asking to be on the agenda to discuss this issue before the Collier County
Commissioner. However, I believe they
only have one meeting in December and we probably will not get on their agenda until
January. Once we have this approval, we may
commence the actual negotiation under the eminent domain statute. We have to make a written offer outlining the
property owner’s rights and the detail of the project compliance as it is
necessary for the community. The
property owner has 30 days to consider our offer and respond. We can then make a final written offer in
response to any counter offer we make.
At this point, you have established the value. For example, we can offer $400,000, which is
brought before a jury, comprised of 12 randomly-selected people from the
community who will determine the value of the property.
Mr. Ziko asked are they chosen from
this community or the entire county?
Mr. Cox responded they are chosen
from the entire county, in the same way any other civil jury is selected. If this jury of 12 people determine the value
of the property reasonably close to us, everything will be fine. If they come in at $600,000, you have a
$200,000 incremental increase in the value of the property for the benefit of
the property owner. The statute requires
the condemning authority to pay the property owner’s legal fees at cost. If we came down to a full jury trial, you are
going to have costs associated with your expert appraisers as well as the
property owner’s expert appraisers, which will amount to approximately $15,000
to $20,000. You are also responsible for
their attorney fees. According to the
statute, if the incremental increase to the property owner is up to $250,000,
the condemning authority pays 33% of the incremental increase as the attorney’s
fee. Therefore, in our example the
$200,000 difference will generate $66,000 in attorney’s fees plus the cost,
which will total to approximately $85,000 to $100,000 in attorney’s fees and
costs going to the other side in your eminent domain.
Mr. Ziko stated you already have us
losing it.
Mr. Cox stated I look at it from
every perspective, which is the way you need to look at it.
Mr. Gatti stated we should try to
simplify this. The Board needs to
determine whether or not we are ready to spend this money and proceed on this
basis.
Mr. Lambert asked are we going to
lose our negotiation abilities when we state what we are willing to do?
Mr. Cox responded if you want to
have a fire station within your community, you have to situate two or three
properties for consideration. You need
to select which property you want to go after in the first line of
discussion. Personally, I believe you
should look more closely at the three-acre parcel close to your existing rights
for water treatment. At some point you will
need to expand those facilities, and you are going to need land. You can use 1½ or two acres for the fire
station and community center, and still have land available for the expansion
of your systems. The other two are
equally attractive for a fire station, but they do not offer you any potential
of expansion of your wastewater or water treatment plant.
Mr. Ziko stated I want to know if we
need more land to expand because I thought 1,032 acres was our buildout, and we
supposedly have a good amount of land.
Therefore, I do not believe we should go after more land at the water treatment
plant when it is not really necessary.
As a result of the tour Mr. Dick gave us of the treatment plant in
Golden Gate, we will be condensing the plant if we went with reverse osmosis in
place of what we currently have. Therefore,
I do not believe the land is really an issue whether the fire station is
situated on three acres or on the corner of Cays Drive.
Mr. Benson stated there are a couple
of considerations. First of all, you are
going to build a new water plant at some point.
You need to determine where on the water plant property you will build
it in order to keep the existing facility operational while you are building
the new one. Another issue is you have
needs in your CIP for additional storage tanks in the future for irrigation
water as well as potable water, which require property. We identified some potential sites on
property for those 15 years ago. There
was discussion over the last couple of years and questions by the Board with
regards to putting other buildings for storage of equipment such as mosquito
equipment.
Mr. Gatti asked do we have storage
for one-day’s usage?
Mr. Benson responded we do not have
this for potable or irrigation water.
Mr. Gatti asked is this a
requirement?
Mr. Benson responded one-day usage
is not required. However, we are
required to have one-day storage of our wastewater treatment plant effluent for
rejection in case the facility is not functioning properly.
Mr. Gatti stated I thought the city
had to have one-day storage.
Mr. Benson stated it is a rule of thumb.
Mr. Gatti stated it is a good idea
which is desired in the industry.
Mr. Bissell asked are they going to
give us half of the land?
Mr. Cox responded the people
involved in the transaction changed. As
a result, I do not believe we can rely on any prior commitments.
Mr. Bissell asked is the land still
available for purchase?
Mr. Cox responded I am not certain,
but if you decide to proceed with the exercise of eminent domain, you must
ensure you select the right piece of property in order to avoid doing this
again in five years.
Mr. Goscicki stated there are no funds
budgeted in your capital improvement program for the purchase of property. You have discussed over the last 1½ years the
possibility of getting property donated, but there are no funds aside in this
current fiscal year to do this.
Mr. Gatti stated this goes back to
my original question to the Board. Do we
want to consider spending $400,000 or tell Mr. Cox to shut it down?
Mr. Goscicki responded if you decide
to move forward, but do not have the cash on hand to do so, you will have to go
through some short-term financing. I talked
to Mr. Cox and ran some numbers for a preliminary discussion.
Mr. Cox stated if you incur debt for
this type of project, you will have to assess the community. This will be considered a new assessment and
it will have to go through the complete assessment process which requires
certified letters to every property owner within the community, public
hearings, adoption and levy of the assessment as well as agreements with
property appraisers and tax collectors to collect the money for you. There are many issues which need to be taken
into consideration.
Mr. Gatti asked what action do you
want from the Board?
Mr. Cox responded I want you to
understand your current position. You
need to determine what steps you want to take.
Mr. Lambert asked do we have the
ability to reallocate some of our funds or redo the budget if we decide this is
more important than something else?
Mr. Goscicki responded absolutely. We have a significant capital improvement
program for this year currently underway, with more than $1 million committed
to the water and wastewater fund. We
have $700,000 in the general fund for capital improvements, and some of those
projects are already moving along. If
everything else remains the same, we will not have to increase assessments. However, your cash reserves will get further
dwindled. The water treatment plant
leaked last year, and if it does not hold up through this year you are
absolutely out for a new bond issue along with an increased assessment to cover
the cost. There is no way to cover the
cost of a new water treatment without redoing your entire assessment structure.
Mr. Ziko stated when the special
assessment occurred two years ago, we did not go through this whole procedure
which you are discussing.
Mr. Cox stated it was maintenance of
existing projects in which you previously went through the assessment
process. You have never been through an
assessment process for property acquisition for a fire station.
Mr. Ziko stated if we have to spend
$600,000, what will it amount to for each property owner?
Mr. Cox responded Mr. Goscicki ran
some numbers today. If you borrowed
$600,000 at 4.5% interest over five years, you are looking at approximately
$142,000 annually in debt service, of which $5,000 will amount to $142 per
property owner for five years. However,
when you have a fire station fully staffed and operational on this property
your property insurance will decrease. Currently,
you are probably Class 10 fire-rated which means your facility is far
away. You have hydrants which may bring
you to Class 8 or 9, but you are still at the highest tier for fire insurance. When you have a fully staffed fire station
who can respond within minutes, your fire insurance will decrease.
Mr. Lambert stated I wonder how much
insurance will decrease. Our homeowners’
insurance has gotten expensive, and I question whether or not anyone will
notice a decrease.
Mr.
Cox stated the reason we have gotten such big increases is not related to car
insurance, so you are not going to get too steep of a relaxation, nor is it
going to be a percentage of what you are currently paying. It is the percentage of the component. You can look at your tax bill, call the insurer
and ask them for the rate if you have a fire station fully staffed and
operational all the time within three miles of your home.
Mr.
Ziko stated some of this is not what the rate will go to, but whether or not
you can get insurance from the company.
Companies are not writing if it is not within five miles of the
station. This opens up a vast amount of
opportunity for people here. We have a
fairly good cross-section of the audience right now, and I wonder how many
people are willing to spend $150 annually for five years to have a fire station
on the property.
A resident stated it is actually more because
you are just referring to the interest on the loan, and not repayment of the
principal.
Mr.
Lambert stated this is the total amount.
Mr. Cox stated I believe the
community will benefit financially in the long run from doing this. In the short term, you have to borrow this
money without collateral since you do not have the property. Therefore, the collateral will be the collection
itself. It cannot be your land. The process of taking the land is going to
require you to have this money in hand before I can get an order taken.
Mr. Lambert stated we will have to
complete the assessment process before we collected the money.
Mr. Goscicki asked do we have to go
through the assessment process even if it does not increase because the project
is considered a different use?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
Mr. Ziko asked can we move from one
fund to another fund?
Mr. Cox responded you can borrow the
money from your funds if you have it, and it will have to go through the court
registry in order for me to obtain a quitclaim.
You can change titles of property, borrow the money and pay back your
funds. I am certain Mr. Goscicki and I
can work this out.
Mr. Ziko stated if we cannot get on
the Commission’s December meeting, perhaps we should plan to get on the January
meeting and we can decline if we decide not to proceed. I do not believe we should wait an additional
month since we have been discussing this fire station over the past 2½ years.
Mr. Goscicki stated as your manager,
I caution against eminent domain. I was
involved in a number of utility acquisitions as a governmental entity in which
we were purchasing private utilities, and eminent domain invariably turned out
to be extremely expensive. It is a good
tool for a governmental entity to use when you do not have willing seller and
you need to acquire the property, but if you have a willing seller you are
almost always better off negotiating a price.
Mr. Ziko stated perhaps if we put
this in there, it will bring him to the negotiating table because we go month
after month without any results.
Mr. Cox stated we try to use eminent
domain as a tool to decrease the price, but invariably the associated costs are
going to eat up any benefits you get from a reduced price, unless you peg him
at the number the jury awards to the property.
Mr. Goscicki stated I believe the
better negotiated position is the one Mr. Cox pointed out. You have multiple properties to look at. You are not dealing with a single
seller. You have options to negotiate,
which I believe will decrease the price.
Mr. Lambert asked does this
discussion take place in an open meeting format?
Mr. Cox responded at some point it
will.
Mr. Bissell stated I spoke to my insurance
agent and one of my neighbors has the same insurance company and I talked to
their agent. There will be no decrease
in our insurance if the fire station were here.
I want the audience to know if they have this insurance company, they
are not going to get a decrease.
Mr. Cox stated I believe it goes back
to the way insurance is priced in this area.
The biggest bulk of your premium is related to wind and storm damage,
which is a small component. If you have a
$4,000 policy, your prior insurance premium component of the premium may only
be $250 to $300. A 10% reduction will
probably amount to $25 to $30. Applying this
to $4,000 is negligent, but over the course of 20 years you have recouped $150
per year for five years. You will
realize the savings magnitude greater than what it is going to cost.
Mr. Gatti asked what is the Board’s
sense?
Mr. Goscicki responded I assume the
fire service includes EMS service, which is valuable. I am not certain how you put a price tag on having
an EMS station with a two minute response time as opposed to a 15 minute
response time. In most communities I
have worked and lived in, this is a critical area. People are not as concerned about their house
burning down, as they are worried about how soon EMS will arrive when someone
is having a heart attack.
Mr. Cox stated EMS services are not
validly financed through special assessments since they do not enhance use,
enjoyment, value and marketability of property.
Mr. Ziko stated since the fire
personnel are also EMS-trained, I believe it will be valuable to the community.
Mr. Lambert stated we still need to
determine how we are going to pay for it.
Mr. Ziko stated I still believe if
we get on the Commissioner’s schedule in January, at least we will proceed in
some way and perhaps the owner will be goaded to talk before this happens. Can we drop off the commissioner’s schedule?
Mr. Gatti responded I do not
understand what you are referring to with the Commissioner’s schedule.
Mr. Cox stated in order for the
District to exercise the powers of eminent domain, it needs authorization from
the County.
Mr. Lambert asked when do we reach
the point of no return?
Mr. Cox responded you start to incur
potential legal fees and costs to the property owner when you begin the formal
negotiations process. If you were to
reach a purchase price under the eminent domain statute process, they can
recover any attorney’s fees, appraisal fees or business analysis fees they
incur.
Mr. Lambert asked is this the case
when we are in the negotiation stage?
Mr. Cox responded this is the case
unless you can get them to negotiate those fees away, but they do have this
right.
Mr. Ziko stated I wonder what our
chances are of getting something for less than $600,000 with the appraisal
company you used. We are looking at the
worst case scenario all the way down the line.
Do we have a chance?
Mr. Cox responded you may not be
able to get anyone to buy it for this price without any ERCs. You have two acres with no right to connect
to a water and wastewater facility. Our
appraiser says it is worth $250,000. I
can work with him and try to get the price as low as possible, but he currently
owns the land and this is a limited commodity.
Mr. Lambert stated he is holding us
hostage on the easement because of this process.
Mr. Cox stated this is not
necessarily the case. He is still
looking at this area and what we want to do.
We basically have couple of options there as well.
Mr. Lambert stated I believe you
should continue talking to him, and in the meantime, perhaps we should look at
prioritizing the three parcels of property and determine which one we should
center our efforts on. I do not like
what I am hearing.
Mr. Ziko stated I do not like this
either.
Mr. Lambert stated I want us to have
a fire department out here, but not at this cost.
Mr. Ziko stated we do not know what
these people across the street want for their property right now.
Mr. Cox stated I understand they are
working with their planners to develop an ultimate project out there, and they
are not willing to talk about it until they understand what they are going to
do.
Mr. Gatti stated no matter what we
decide to do, it is going to be a year or two down the line before this issue
is settled.
Mr. Cox stated if we go through eminent
domain using quick take procedures, we may be able to get title to the property
in July.
Mr. Gatti asked are you referring to
July 2007?
Mr. Cox responded this can be done
in eight months. I will try to send a
letter to the county early Monday morning asking to be placed on the January
agenda.
Mr. Lambert stated we will not know
our costs until the trial takes place.
Mr. Cox stated you will make your
final offer and when you apply for the quick take you have to deposit the money
into the registry of the court plus a certain amount for legal fees. You get title right away, but you will have
to deal with the jury’s determination of whether it should be more or less.
Mr. Gatti asked how much do you
think it will cost?
Mr. Cox responded I believe it is
80,000 square feet times eight will be $640,000. Document stamps are 70 cents per one hundred,
which totals to approximately $5,000.
Title insurance is $5.35 per 1,000 which will be $3,504. Those are your largest expenses. There are no realtor fees, but there are
recording fees.
Mr. Gatti stated we are at three
quarters of a million if we go with his price.
If we can negotiate down, it will be less. Although there are variations, no matter how
you cut this we are talking about spending $500,000 to $700,000, and I am not
certain we ready to do this. Perhaps we
should put this on hold and think about it since we are not going anyplace with
it today.
Mr. Cox asked do you want me to try
to get on the January agenda?
Mr. Ziko responded I believe we
should proceed and get on the January agenda.
If you can negotiate with him, perhaps we can get on the February
agenda.
Mr. Cox stated if I send them a
letter on Monday, they may tell me the earliest date to get on their agenda and
be heard is January or February.
Mr. Gatti stated I applied to the
county in order to seek a variation approximately two weeks ago. I paid a $2,000 application fee, and was told
I will get on the agenda in six months.
Mr. Cox stated there is a lot of
work involved in seeking a variation.
This situation involves walking in and telling the County Manager we
need a fire station.
Mr. Lambert asked have you spoken to
the developer?
Mr. Cox responded I have.
Mr. Lambert stated I am worried if
we start this process and we start talking about eminent domain, he may tell us
to go ahead with it. Do you sense he is
this type of person?
Mr. Cox responded I personally do
not like to use threats during negotiations since it always seems to
backfire. I want to continue working on this
and try to determine what he will sell this for.
Mr. Lambert stated perhaps you
should keep eminent domain out of the conversation for now.
Mr. Gatti stated perhaps it is best
to see what the development of the trailer park is going to be since it may
have a tremendous potential influence on what we are doing.
Mr. Ziko stated if they will not talk
to us until the planning is done, we may have to wait two years.
Mr. Gatti stated they do not want to
talk to us because they are in the planning stages, but this does not mean they
will not be ready to talk to us in the future.
Mr. Cox stated this property is
going to be part of the RV Park which is owned by Residential Tourist who has
the most density associated with it. If he
sells those three acres right now, he will potentially lose a substantial
bargaining tool with county staff on what he is trying to accomplish, even
though he is not going to maximize his own potential of the property as far as
I know. Since he still has this as a
negotiating tool, I can understand why he does not want to sell at this point,
and this is why he is trying to get us to go to the north side.
Mr. Gatti asked does it make sense
for us to hold back until we see what he is going to do?
Mr. Cox responded I do not know this
man. However, I do know Mr. Wanklin.
Mr. Gatti stated forget about the
individual and look at the circumstances.
Does it make sense for the property owner to work with us on getting us
a fire station?
Mr. Cox responded in my experiences
in working with the county on proposals for different developments, it may be
beneficial to him to use the property as a public use parcel.
Mr. Gatti stated the county is interested
in developing both a fire station and EMS facility out here, which I am not
going to get to discuss. However, keep
this in mind.
Mr. Lambert stated instead of
directing Mr. Cox to get on the agenda for January, perhaps he should continue
to work with Mr. Wanklin and try to close the gap. We may need to initiate some conversation
with these people and let them know having this on their plan could be
advantageous to them.
Mr. Cox stated I will be glad to
work with Mr. Wanklin since we have somewhat of a rapport.
Mr. Gatti asked is this a problem?
Mr. Cox responded this is not a
problem. However, if I call the
developers of the RV Park as the attorney for the District, it may set a
different tone than if someone from Severn Trent called.
Mr. Gatti stated it will not hurt to
call them and let them know we are negotiating with more than one party, and we
have more than one option available.
Mr. Lambert stated we should wait
another month and see what we can accomplish.
Mr. Ziko asked can someone from your
staff call the people at the RV Park, as opposed to Mr. Cox?
Mr. Goscicki responded we do not have
staff who are experienced in land acquisitions and negotiations. Therefore, I do not recommend Severn Trent
getting involved in this.
Mr. Lambert stated perhaps Mr. Mack
can have a conversation with those people.
Mr. Cox stated on this parcel, I believe
we are going to get the word out there are no problems with these areas on this
side. On the other side the options are
basically to move the wall over to our easement or to try to apply title to the
property on which the wall stands. It
has been there for a long time and it will be cheaper to tear the wall down
inside the area than paying me to try to mitigate this.
Mr. Ziko asked what wall are you
referring to?
Mr. Cox responded I am referring to
the monument for the entrance signs on Cays Drive.
Mr. Benson stated part of on our
property and part of it is not.
Mr. Cox stated the piece which is
outside of our property is not big, and it can probably be moved onto our
property by being torn down and rebuilt.
Mr. Ziko asked on which site will it
be built?
Mr. Cox responded it will be built
on the west side. You may want to direct
Mr. Dick to ask the sign company what the incremental increase in cost will be
to do this.
Mr. Lambert stated I do not want to
tear it down at this point.
Mr. Ziko asked what is the problem
with getting the easement for the sign?
Is Mr. Wanklin refusing to give it to us?
Mr. Cox responded he has not said
this. He is looking at how it fits in
with what he planned for the property and how it is going to affect anything he
is doing, and he is extremely deliberative.
Mr. Ziko asked will we have to move
closer to Cays Drive?
Mr. Cox responded it will have to be
moved closer to Route 41.
Mr. Ziko asked will the county allow
us to do this?
Mr. Cox responded it is in our
easement area outside of their right-of-way.
Mr. Gatti stated just do a sketch
and show us what is involved.
Mr. Benson stated we will bring it
to the next meeting.
Mr. Cox stated I will scan it in and
email it to everyone.
Mr. Ziko asked what is the status of
the sign out here which is on our property?
Mr. Cox responded we raised a couple
of title questions which they are looking at and will get back to us
shortly. We are still trying to understand
the chain of title as well.
Mr. Gatti asked what is the issue?
Mr. Ziko responded they took down
our sign which was generic and stated Marina,
and put up their sign which is advertising the resort. I believe this is a blatant action on their
part without asking us. I want them to
put our sign back up.
Mr. Cox stated we are trying to
determine whose sign it was.
Mr. Ziko stated since it sat on our
property for 10 years, I believe it is our sign.
Mr. Cox stated this is what we are
trying to work out.
Mr. Ziko stated according to Collier
County, it is on our property. At the
last meeting on Page 11, you told us you will have an answer.
Mr. Cox stated I am trying to get
you the answer.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Engineer’s
Report
Mr. Benson stated with regards to
the wastewater treatment plant project, the equipment was fabricated. WEFTEC, which is Water Environment Federation
held their annual technical meeting and exposition during the last week of
October, in which they display their products.
Approximately 30,000 people in this business attend each year, but I was
not able to attend. The people at
Parkson sent us photographs of a piece of equipment which they fabricated and
put on display. There is a sign on the
side of it which says, Property of Port
of the Islands Community Improvement District. However, they asked my permission to do this,
which I gave to them. A few years ago
when there was a request for some of this work, people said they wanted to have
a showplace project and asked us to find some new technology to replace equipment
which was not working, and they are using something which is exciting and
new. With regards to the time schedule for
the wastewater permit from DEP, we are still waiting for it, but as I told you
in the last meeting we were closing the gap on the steps and they gave us the
draft permit. We advertised it in the
Mr. Lambert asked once we get our
permit, are we set as far as the installer and material?
Mr. Benson responded we have a
contract and they are waiting for the typical building permits from the county.
With regards to the hotel
redevelopment, last month there was a motion for me to negotiate this water
line issue among other things, which we did.
I emailed you a memo yesterday at 4:00 p.m., which is a summary of our
negotiations, and then at approximately 4:30 p.m. I got confirmation from Mr.
Vogel. Basically, he added a few dollar
amounts in my memo which were within what we discussed. The developer is going to relocate the water
line so we do not have to rely on the old pipe which is on this property. If you look at the last page of the exhibit,
the blue lines are the existing water lines across this property providing
water to the people further down Newport Cay.
The pink line indicates where they are going to move the line in order
to avoid using the other existing lines.
They are going to do this at their cost, and Mr. Vogel clarified they will
pay the entire cost up to $25,000. If
the cost is significantly in excess of $25,000, the attorneys may have to get
involved in the wording. They may ask
the District to share in any costs in excess of the first $25,000 in a 50/50
split. We are talking about 400’ of 8”
water line. Their engineer estimated
what it may cost, and our actual price for an 8” water line this last year when
we put some new pipe in was approximately $49 per foot. This will amount to approximately
$20,000. The odds of it going over
$25,000 are small, but with the way they expressed it being significantly over,
I will let the attorneys worry about the exact language. I believe this is fair considering the
discussion we had last month was to come up with any sharing.
Mr. Gatti stated let me understand this
drawing. Where is Route 41?
Mr. Benson responded Route 41 is at
the top of the page.
Mr. Gatti asked where is the new
water line going to be?
Mr. Benson responded the blue line
represents the existing water line, and the pink line is basically installing
it along Route 41 and Newport. We do not
have to come all the way here and cross through their property.
Mr. Gatti asked is this our property
or their property?
Mr. Benson responded this is the
next item. As I mentioned last month we
will not want to install the line in the U.S. 41 right-of-way because it is a
long process and they can force us move the line at a later date if they decide
to widen the road. Therefore, the
developers agreed to install the line outside of U.S. 41 at the northern edge
of this property and give us an easement at no cost. Newport Drive is one of the areas Mr. Cox,
the owner of the property, his engineer and I discussed and got the title search
done, and we are all looking at who owns what.
This may require clarification. I
indicated here they will provide us an easement for the water line anywhere
crossing their property, and in exchange we will relinquish any claims to
owning any of the water lines we no longer need which currently cross his
property. I believe this was our
understanding.
Mr. Gatti asked what about this
area?
Mr. Benson responded this area will
be abandoned or they may use it for the internal part of their system.
Mr. Gatti asked are we going to give
it up?
Mr. Benson responded we are giving
up the line right under the parking lot out here. We asked them to install a master meter for
their potable water as well as their irrigation service. I met with the engineer and we have a plan
for where to locate the meter. Basically,
the existing and proposed buildings will be served through a master meter, and
they will probably retain the existing meters for use in dividing the bill
amongst different condominiums.
Mr. Gatti stated we will have one
meter entering into the property.
Mr. Benson stated it will probably
be on this corner out here on the property.
Mr. Gatti stated this is an
advantageous situation for us.
Mr. Ziko asked where will the meter
be?
Mr. Benson responded it will
probably be over on this corner of the property.
Mr. Ziko asked is it for irrigation
or potable water.
Mr. Benson responded it is for both.
Mr. Ziko asked are we bringing
potable water down Newport Drive?
Mr. Benson responded that is correct. Our line will run along Route 41 and down
Newport Drive, and it will not cross here.
There is a connection at both ends of the property, and there is
probably another connection down here which will no longer be used. Therefore, we will cut the line to prevent
them from taking potable water. They will
put the connection up here and install the meter. The existing lines on this property, some of
which we used to feed water to Newport Cay, will be kept by them for their
internal distribution.
Mr. Ziko stated we will not have any
connection on this pink line going down Newport Drive coming into this
property.
Mr. Benson stated it will be a
straight shot.
Mr. Lambert asked do you see the
north/south line of new pipe ruining the new pavement we are going to be laying
down?
Mr. Benson responded we are
installing it on the easement to prevent this from happening. It will be along the edge of the tennis
court, between the tennis court and the pavement.
Mr. Gatti stated it will be a good
idea to do this before we put the pavement down because one way or another it
is going to get ruined.
Mr. Bissell asked can the pipe be installed
now and capped on each end?
Mr. Benson responded this is a
possibility. However, I need to discuss
another item. According to item #3 on my
memo, the developer requested approval of their proposed median cut of Newport
Drive. The drawing on the last page
shows a small oval around the area of the proposed median cut. There is the existing road which comes from where
the commercial property is located and tees in at Newport to the one going to
the southbound lane of traffic. They
basically put a median cut which lines up with part of the entrance to this
building tee, and they will make a median cut there. I told them I recommend doing this while we
are paving the road so we do not have to come back later, potentially put in a
new piece and disturb existing new asphalt.
In addition, it will look better when it is all done at once. There will not be any seams or cracks. Also, there is the tendency for potholes to develop. Therefore, they agreed to my recommendation
and we have a contract with a paving company.
We will get a change order on the contract, and we already have straightforward
unit prices. You take the dollars per
square yard for pavement times the number of square yards and add it to the
contract. It comes out to a little less
than $20,000 with the pavement costing approximately $19,000, which is our
estimate. We are waiting on a price
confirmation from the contractor, and according to Mr. Vogel’s letter, he
clarified they will pay for the median cut up to a cost of $25,000, if we get a
price from the contractor. If he wants
more than $25,000, then we will tell them it will be done later, which I believe
is a fair offer.
Mr. Gatti asked is curb and gutter
indicated there?
Mr. Benson responded whatever the
county requires as part of their STP for the median cut is indicated. The median cut is obviously required by the
county in order to approve the development.
Normally, we have a meter connection fee where the CID provides the
meter. If we had 100 individual condominiums,
we would give them 100 meters, and there will be 100 meter fees costing $250 to
recover our cost, as I understand. We
are going to force them to install a master meter. They will have to purchase and install the
meter. Since installing a master meter
is more expensive than an individual meter, we must determine how many
individual meters add up to the master meter, and if we force them to purchase
the master meter instead of the individual meters through the CID, whether or
not we should charge a meter fee. I
believe we should indicate on the proposal they either pay for or install the
meter and we should not charge a meter fee since we will have to estimate the
meter fee. The irrigation system
operates in the same way. There is a
single master irrigation meter and I believe we would have installed a master
meter on those condominiums as well. There
is an existing 8” fire protection line looping through this property. The sole purpose of the line is to have fire
hydrants which were installed on this property by the owner at his cost. He did this because the county required it
for fire protection at one time.
Therefore, the line does not have any meters since it is only for fire
protection and it is a loop. A loop line
is difficult to meter and if you put in a meter at both ends of the loop with
backflow prevention you will not have any pressure on the lines. As long as they had no connection to this
other than these existing fire hydrants, it was another clarification, but it
is not necessary to install a meter on a line servicing fire hydrants.
Mr. Lambert stated there will only
be a charge if they ever had to use it to run those pumps in order to keep the
line charged. The water is going to come
out of the canal.
Mr. Benson stated for clarification,
we have fire hydrants which provide fire protection throughout the community
which we do not meter.
Mr. Goscicki stated the hydrants
belong to them.
Mr. Benson stated we made it clear
they are responsible since they own and maintain it. There is a time factor with regards to this
median cut because we are starting paving on Monday on the Cays Drive area, and
Newport Drive will be paved one week later.
If we are going to have an understanding with them in which they are
going to pay for the change order, perhaps Mr. Cox should write an agreement to
be authorized by the Board.
Mr. Cox stated I believe we should
ask Mr. Vogel to do the first draft of the agreement in order for him to
indicate the most costly part of the document.
Mr. Benson stated since we are
trying to get this paving done, perhaps the Board can approve it subject to Mr.
Cox’ review.
Mr. Gatti asked can we approve the
entire package?
Mr. Lambert responded I do not
object to any of this.
Mr. Ziko stated I wonder if you can
actually get all of these approvals done.
Mr. Gatti asked do you have a
problem with it?
Mr. Bissell responded no.
Mr. Ziko moved to approve
the proposed median cut of Newport Drive in exchange for the developer
reimbursing the CID for the cost of a change order with the contractor
currently paving Newport Drive subject to review of a written agreement by Mr.
Cox and Ms. Dillon seconded the motion.
Mr. Lambert asked is there anything
else involved other than the items on your memo?
Mr. Benson responded with regards to
the area of the signs and this new water line which is going down Newport around
the tennis court, someone must have a title search done, which I believe the
owner is probably going to do since we raised some questions. Do you want Mr. Cox to hire a title company
to search it on your behalf?
Mr. Gatti responded we should not
have to do it if they are going to do it.
Mr. Benson stated they may not share
it with us if the result does not benefit them.
Mr. Bissell asked did they have a
title search done when they were purchasing the property?
Mr. Cox responded this is not
mandatory.
Mr. Gatti stated we are either going
to get an easement or it is our property.
Mr. Benson stated we need to
determine whether or not we already have an easement.
Mr. Lambert asked are we going to
compromise ourselves by getting this other work done?
Mr. Gatti responded I do not believe
so.
Mr. Bissell asked will there be any
cuts in the new road?
Mr. Benson responded this is why we
are trying to do everything now. I
pushed them on the timeliness of getting this median cut done which is to our
benefit, and they agreed to do this. Mr.
Bissell asked if it was possible to get the water line installed as quickly as
possible before paving. However, I am
not sure anyone can do this quickly.
Mr. Bissell stated perhaps it can be
installed and capped.
Mr. Benson stated this is possible.
Mr. Bissell stated we may have to
ask them to bore it.
Mr. Gatti stated we can get it done
if we were authorized to do so.
Mr. Bissell asked will you consider
boring?
Mr. Benson responded I do not
believe so because the cost will be considerably higher than $25,000 and we
would be sharing the extra cost.
Mr. Gatti stated boring an 8” pipe
will cost us a fortune.
Mr. Cox stated there is no way you
will get a permit from DEP to do this.
Mr. Benson stated my proposal
consists of a combination of my memo and Mr. Vogel’s letter since he clarified
two items.
On VOICE vote with all in
favor the previous motion was approved as outlined in Mr. Benson’s memorandum
to the Board dated November 9, 2006 and a letter from James Vogel, Esq. to Mr.
Benson dated November 9, 2006.
Mr. Gatti asked do we need DEP
approval to get the water line capped as Mr. Bissell suggested?
Mr. Bissell responded there is
probably an interpretation of the rule.
It is possible to get this done if we told them we were just doing
maintenance and replaced only a short section.
Mr. Gatti stated perhaps we can
install the lines ahead of time and cap them subject to DEP approval.
Mr. Benson stated I will talk to them about this. Board members may or may not be aware of this