Port of the Islands
Community Improvement District

A workshop meeting of the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District was held on Friday, September 17, 2021 at 9:30 a.m. at the Orchid Cove Community Center on 25005 Peacock Lane, Naples, Florida 34114 and also via web conference.

Present (or by web conference) and constituting a quorum were:
Russell Kish – Chair
Teri O’Connell – Vice Chair
Ray Jensen – Assistant Secretary
Michele Holloway – Assistant Secretary
Sam Leishear – Assistant Secretary

Also present (or by web conference) were:
Cal Teague – District Manager
Anthony Pires, Jr. – Attorney
David Schmitt – Engineer
Christopher Dudak – Client Services Manager

Residents

The following is a summary of the discussion and actions taken at the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District (CID) Board of Supervisors workshop.

The Port of the Islands Community Improvement District meeting was called to order by Chair Kish and all Board members were present with Supervisor Jensen and Supervisor Holloway participating via web conference. Also in attendance were Cal Teague – District Manager, Anthony Pires, Jr. – Attorney, and David Schmitt – Engineer. Additionally, Christopher Dudak from PDM participated via web conference.

There were no comments on the Agenda.

A. Comments on Need by Staff

District Manager Teague and Attorney Pires described the purpose of the workshop and summarized the outline of the rules changes to be discussed. Several changes were discussed, including the previously suggested need for the revisions in charges and calculations of ERC’s. This would provide a mechanism for any utility rate adjustments to occur with a resolution of the Board, as opposed to going through the rule making process.

B. Utility Rules with Proposed Changes

Proposals for changes in utility rules are as follows:

• A summary of the suggested changes was included in a packet sent to the Board. These were reviewed and accepted and noted by Attorney Pires, Engineer Schmitt, and District Manager Teague.
• Wherever the utility services are identified, the sections will be amended to include irrigation services.
• Any sections where a state statute is in effect will be left as is or removed.
• A better definition of private and commercial pools was proposed.
• 4.10 refers to liens for unpaid utility bills, and Attorney Pires will research the possiblity of retaining this option.
• Adjustments in utility bills need to be defined, because Sections 4.11/4.21 is not specific. Staff is recommending 2 billing cycles or 4 months. The Board requested that billing cycles be changed to 4 months.
• Staff will be adding Schedule D for Miscellaneous Fees. Also, “Permit Review Fees” will be added.
• Any current reference to meter testing fees will be combined and included in a schedule of fees and charges.
• Any reference to having a staff member present for private fire suppression systems will be left as is and will include a note to work with the Fire District.
• Fee schedule adjustments will reflect no charge for the first request for a reread of a meter by an account holder. After that it will be $10 per request. Turning off a meter by residents or their agents is not allowed.
• When a homeowner leaves for the summer or an extended vacation, they can request one turn on and turn off per year at no cost. This will not be provided if a meter is shut off for non-payment.
• A meter reinstallation fee of $50 (Page 62 Rules) will be created.
• A fee of $100 plus the district’s cost to repair or replace a damaged meter will be included. The fees charged will include reasonable labor costs.
• Section 5.3 has two different amounts for a deposit: $150/$200 for a non-owner resident. It was agreed to strike the $200.
• The fee for any returned checks should be $50. It was noted that this will be charged even if a returned check fee is not charged by the bank.
• A trip fee for requested service by the District will be set at $35 if it is within working hours. After working hours, it will be $50. There was a discussion about whether the trip fee should be included in the meter re-read fee, or not to charge and leave it at $0. Also, there will be no after hours work offered unless it is an emergency situation, such as a water main break.
• There is an application for a temporary meter, which would require a deposit of $1,000. No one on the Board voiced opposition, but the fee structure needs to be reviewed and needs to include a fee equal to 20% of the cost of the meter. Another suggestion is charging $1,000 for large meters and $500 for small meters. This is usually for residential temporary meters used during construction.
• Other changes will be identified and included during the development of the rules changes for Board consideration.

C. ERC Methodology

• Current ERC assignments and the methodology used to establish these assignments was reviewed. District Manager Teague reminded the Board that any changes to ERC assignments will not be effective until Fiscal Year 2023. Current ERC assignments are already on the tax roll.
• There is no methodology for O&M found in the records. Attorney Pires commented that the annual appropriations reflect it, but do not reflect the methodology used.
• There was much discussion on Parcel 13 and how ERC’s are determined. District Manager Teague stated that the Zeman RV Park proposal was for 300 pads which means that 120 ERC’s would be needed. The CID has those available.
• There was discussion on the zoning of Parcel 13, and that a portion of the property has been identified as conservation.
• The Board understood how ERC’s are established or identified for any proposed development. Specifically, there are two assessments, one for operations and maintenance of assets and services, such as roads, storm water, landscaping, and mosquito control. The second is utility ERC’s, and this seems to be the biggest concern. The process for identifying how many ERC’s are needed is based on the analysis that the engineer is using which has been established for identifying utility capacity instituted by the type of development proposed.
• The biggest concern was regarding vacant property. If a development site had been proposed to be one thing, if they had been paying for the ERC’s as established for that specific development, and if that property was sold and the new owner proposed a different development requiring less ERC’s being needed, how does the new owner relinquish the excess ERC’s that are no longer needed?
• The other issue was, how are O&M ERC’s calculated? In most cases, they appear to be the same as what was determined for utility ERC’s. District Manager Teague recommended that a consultant be hired to conduct an O&M Assessment Methodology.
• The discussion regarding relinquishing ERC’s if not required was discussed. The Rules don’t identify an option for the Board to take back the ERC’s once development plans are presented. There was discussion on both sides such as, letting them be relinquished back to the CID or being sold to another developer who needs them. Therefore, the CID needs a rule addressing this. However, it was suggested that both options be allowed, but ERC’s could be transferred to a buyer if that is the first one pursued. If unable to find a buyer, then the CID can consider accepting them, but with the Board making the decision.
• A rule that sets ERC’s for O&M the same as the utility will be considered, instead of a new O&M Assessment Methodology. Attorney Pires will review this option.
• Attorney Pires commented that the CID was started in 1990 and has been accepted, and no one has challenged it. He recommended that a third party evaluate this and see if any changes need to be made.
• Rule changes:
  1. The buyer has the right to sell ERC’s with permission from the Board.
  2. The Board has the right to take back ERC’s if they so desire.
• It was stated that this exercise of rule changes needs to be completed by April 2022 for the Fiscal Year 2023 Budget.

D. Additional Rules for Consideration

District Manager Teague commented that if all vacant property was allowed to relinquish ERC’s, the maximum exposure would be $108,000 +/- on lost revenue.

There were no Supervisor requests or comments.

• Linda Fernandez commented on what was felt to be a discrepancy in assessments on boat slips. She believed that potential purchasers were dissuaded by ERC’s and all other fees and taxes.
• Steve McNamee stated that Brian Jones pulled out, because he felt that ERC’s were a problem. Attorney Pires stated that Brian Jones was told he had to pay all ERC’s at the beginning.
• A resident asked how zoning effects ERC’s, commercial as opposed to residential. It was explained that it depends on the plan that is submitted. The engineer determines the ERC’s and the Board acts.

The Next Regular Meeting: Friday, October 15, at 9:30 a.m.