Minutes for April 24
2007
Back to Home Page
Board of Trustees
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
7:00 p.m. – Building D&E
The Barefoot Bay Recreation District held a regular meeting on April 24, 2007 in Building D&E, Barefoot Bay, Florida. Chairman John Keegan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Thought for the Day
Mr. Keegan requested a moment of silent prayer for the troops in Iraq who are about to lose their lives and limbs while our country’s leaders can’t figure out whether we should be there or not.
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Mr. Keegan led the pledge of allegiance to the Flag.
Roll Call
Ms. McCahan called the roll. Ms. Donahue was excused. Mr. Repperger was present as counsel.
Approval of Minutes
Mr. Keegan entertained a motion to approve minutes from the meeting of April 13, 2007. Ms. Crouse requested the minutes be amended to remove “Ken Austin” from the motion, and cause it to read “Code Enforcement Director”. Ms. Weglein made a motion to accept the minutes as amended. Second Ms. Crouse. Motion carried unanimously.
Treasurer’s Report
Ms. McCahan read the Treasurer’s report. (Exhibit A) Mr. Bleau made a motion to accept the Treasurer’s report as presented. Second Ms. Weglein. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Keegan commented on the “Governmental Statement of Revenue and Expenditures”; he indicated Ms. Daddario would answer questions at the next meeting. Mr. Ferris commented that last fall the District’s average payroll per month was around $45,000; since the District’s workforce has been reduced, Mr. Ferris wants to know why payroll is $54,000. Mr. Keegan indicated Ms. Daddario would answer at the next meeting.
Ms. Weglein requested to table ARCC changes to the next meeting. She has a meeting scheduled with Ms. Voltz (County Commissioner) on Tuesday [May 1, 2007]
Ms. McCahan amended the agenda to add 7F – Discussion of Pier payment
Questions/Remarks From the Audience
There were none at this time.
Unfinished Business
Trustees Rules and Regulations: Ms. Weglein discovered an approved version dated 2004. Ms. Weglein referenced page 5of 9. [Mr. Keegan commented that as the Trustees “go through these” he will entertain for a consensus on each change and ask the Board for a final motion at the conclusion of discussion.] “The Board may also appoint an assistant secretary . . . . . . . . . . .” Ms. Weglein commented the Board has operated without this provision for a long time. Another member of the Board steps up when the Treasurer or the Secretary is absent from a meeting. Ms. Weglein asked to eliminate the formal assistant positions, the paragraph under Section 2 and the one under Section 3. The Board agreed by consensus.
Mr. Keegan clarified the term of office at the bottom of page 2. A Trustee’s term of 2 years starts the first Tuesday after the election. The Board agreed by consensus to use this reference.
Mr. Ferris referenced page 3 of 9, Article IV. There is a difference between an emergency meeting and a special meeting. Mr. Ferris requests an explanation and operating procedure added to the Rules and Regulations. Mr. Ferris suggested a special meeting required 7 days notification, while an emergency meeting is 48 to 72 hours. Mr. Repperger will verify the legal notification requirements for each type of meeting and clarify the definitions of what comprises either and both. Ms. Crouse requested the time frames be placed behind the word “at any special meeting called by the Chair person” with the notification requirement in brackets to avoid a renumbering process. The Board agreed by consensus.
Mr. Ferris requested an annual meeting between the Home Owners Association and the Board of Trustees be made a formal commitment. Mr. Bleau commented the commitment could be honored any time during the year, but should not be added to the Rules and Regulations. Ms. McCahan requested the commitment be assigned to one of the daytime meetings in January or February. Mr. Ferris concurred. Mr. Klosky asked that the meeting between the Home Owners Association and the Trustees occur each March. The Board agreed by consensus.
Mr. Keegan requested the word “liaison” be substituted for the word “designee” where ever it appears. Mr. Ferris suggested the positions should line up with current practice and be placed in the Rules and Regulations. Mr. Keegan suggested the liaison positions be added as an addendum to the document. Ms. Crouse commented the addendum would require the document be reissued each time the liaisons changed. The Chair person names them in a meeting. Mr. Bleau and Mr. Allan concurred. The Board agreed by consensus: “liaison” will be used; the Chair will continue to appoint liaisons. Section 3, Article 2 will remain as is.
Mr. Keegan asked if the document named “Conduct of Trustees at a Meeting” was considered part of the Rules and Regulations. No answer appeared on the tape.
Mr. Keegan asked if Mr. Repperger could present a corrected copy of the Rules and Regulations at the next Board meeting. Mr. Repperger agreed this could be done.
Mr. Bleau made a motion we let our attorney . . . . . . . Second Mr. Allan. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Bleau commented this will no way affect the change in this resolution. If we change any other part of it verbatim, then we’ll have to change the resolution number. We’re not doing that; we’re just changing some of the words. Ms. Weglein commented when you’re taking an assistant secretary and an assistant treasurer out completely eliminating, that is a change in the document. Mr. Keegan observed “it hasn’t bothered us up to now. We haven’t had one.” Ms. Weglein responded there was a resolution on it, and the changes affect the document itself. Mr. Repperger commented “Pursuant to what you’ve done in the past, you adopted a resolution when these changes were amended, and I think you should be consistent the next time in adopting a resolution which incorporates the changes and readopts the document.”
Mr. Repperger’s office will bring back a resolution adopting the amended changes and then a copy of the Rules with the amended changes incorporated in them. Mr. Bleau agreed with this, and Mr. Allan concurred.
Resolution 2007-1: Mr. Keegan commented Mr. Repperger feels the document is now legally sufficient to address all the properties in non-compliance. Mr. Repperger recommended a hardship provision be included which will afford the Board an option to review each on a case by case basis. Mr. Austin commented the document does not address those non-compliant cases already in litigation. Mr. Repperger commented the Board may want to exempt the cases in litigation from the provisions of this resolution. Ms. Crouse objected to the 10% clause on page 4 of 7. She feels the Board should not be involved in stating how much a homeowner should deposit with a contractor or how much the contractor should or shouldn’t accept. Ms. McCahan commented some contractors were asking for half or more. The language in the resolution was to protect people from thinking they had to give 50 or 75% rather than to get into the business of the contractor.
Mr. Repperger: that is not the way that I read that section. That may have been the intent originally. The way that it’s written, “of at least 10%” . . . . . . .that being the case, it is not really accomplishing the goal that you’re stating, of protecting people by requiring 10% and nothing more than that.
Mr. Repperger stated the language as written and Ms. McCahan’s recollection of the intent “are two totally different things”. The intent as written is to demonstrate, from the homeowner’s perspective, that they have obtained a bona fide contract for the improvements. They must take a first step to come into compliance within the timeframes as allotted by the letter that will be sent out. Ms. Crouse feels the 10% clause negates flexibility to use the document in the future with loans or insurance arrangements. Ms. Crouse cited the scarcity of contractors during the last hurricanes, and that the clause might cause a scarcity of contractors in the next hurricane. Mr. Repperger commented if the Board is uncomfortable with the 10% clause, the Board might want to redefine terms as to what constitutes a bona fide contract to reflect from the respondent’s point of view that they are making a good faith attempt to comply. Ms. Weglein suggested removing the clause and leaving in the words “a deposit”. Mr. Repperger responded this could encourage small deposits which would allow for cancellation of contracts for the purpose of delaying coming into compliance. Mr. Allan said there are a number of individuals over the past couple of years who have done just that. Mr. Allan advocated keeping the 10% clause.
Mr. Keegan entertained a motion to accept the resolution with the 10% clause left in and a hardship provision added. Mr. Bleau made the motion. Second Mr. Klosky. Motion carried with 7 ayes 1 nay. Ms. Crouse voted no.
Mr. Keegan commented Mr. Repperger incorporated those clauses PRIA suggested. Ms. McCahan made a motion to accept Resolution 2007-2 as written. Second Mr. Klosky.
Mr. Allan commented there are a lot of volunteers who “just show up” at an event. Security checks will not be performed on everyone who shows up to help out. Discussion suggested that if Robin Phillips doesn’t know them, they don’t belong there. Ms. Crouse noted the resolution requires that the management of Barefoot Bay be responsible for the supervision of youth activities. Mr. Keegan noted this provision might be sufficient legally, but it doesn’t protect the children from someone who casually shows up. Mr. Repperger responded there is no definition of what “supervision” of youth activities is. The term should be further defined as it is definitely of concern; if something happens, liability is an issue “no matter what”. Mr. Bleau suggested Robin Phillips be responsible as “director of the Youth Program”. Mr. Repperger commented the Board is capable of defining what group of people should undergo background checks. Mr. Allan suggested persons not parents of the children in the group should be subject to background checks. Ms. Crouse suggested forming a committee or “supervisory Board” within the Youth Group structure that would be a “finite group” to receive security checks, and those people would oversee the volunteers. Ms. Crouse asked if the Board were prepared for the cost of each background check, or if anyone knew what it would cost. Ms. Weglein commented the Youth Group has received donations which have been placed in a special account. She asked if the money for the background checks was going to come out of that account.
Mr. Keegan: Those in favor of the resolution with the changes and the additions by[our insurance company] and our attorney raise your hands and say “aye”. Motion carried unanimously.
New Business
Mr. Keegan commented the Board had requested Ms. Weglein to review The Torpy Group’s “final” billing of $33,000. Mr. Keegan said he did not request anything from The Torpy Group during the month in question. The Community Manager did not either. Mr. Keegan commented Mr. Repperger has phoned The Torpy Group every day and still not received an answer or any files. Ms. Weglein handed out a spread sheet of items she felt might be of interest to the Board. The audit issues on the bill are for research that was done at the District (in-house) and regarding procedures to be used in hiring a new audit firm. The District felt it was capable of hiring an audit firm; assistance was not solicited from The Torpy Group. Ms. Weglein sent a letter to Mr. Malek with a contract for the auditor to be reviewed. The firm charged over $233 to review the contract. Ms. Weglein feels this amount is excessive. Under general representative charges for transition of file [from the Torpy Group to Gray Robinson] the amount is $7,663.75. Individual accounts [unpaid assessments, violations, etc.] show $332.50. Individual accounts “office conferences” regarding transition is $8,487.50. “T. Torpy” charged $2,046.48 for copying, organizing and transfer of files and travel. The total for transition amounts to over $18,500. Ms. Weglein commented reviewing the bills requires going over general representation and individual accounts because cases are not grouped under a specific client. Ms. Weglein suggested that Mr. Keegan, as Chair person, might approach Mr. Torpy for a reduction of the billing since Mr. Torpy has not turned the files over to Mr. Repperger.
Mr. Repperger said he did not wish to disparage anyone about why Mr. Torpy hasn’t returned his telephone calls “since last week”. Mr. Repperger commented his initial meeting with Mr. Torpy regarding transition was helpful; Mr. Torpy provided detailed assessments of individual cases and open matters. They assisted in this manner to attempt transition to Gray Robinson. Mr. Repperger commented his phone calls were an attempt to transfer files pending resolution of the bill in question. Mr. Repperger stated as of this date he is not aware of any time-sensitive issues in the files.
Mr. Keegan reiterated the motion as the Board’s intent to deduct $18,530 from the [April 6, 2007] bill. Ms. Weglein said “negotiate a lower fee”. Mr. Bleu made a motion that Mr. Keegan should, by letter, request a reduction in Mr. Torpy’s fees. Ms. Weglein made the motion. Second Mr. Bleau. Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. McCahan commented Mr. Raff, of Raff Engineering, telephoned her at home regarding his final payment on the pier construction. Mr. Keegan explained a check for $49,000 had been cut and was waiting for Mr. Raff to pick up. The final payment [representing 10% of the entire contract] could not be released until the DEP approved the pier. Upon final approval, the money will be released immediately to Mr. Raff. Ms. Weglein commented Frazier Engineering was required to send all permitting documents to DEP for final approval after the walk-through on April 17. Ms. Weglein commented the District was avoiding the situation which occurred with the weirs wherein the money was paid before St. John’s approved the project. Mr. Allan asked that all efforts be made to expedite the process for Mr. Raff. Ms. McCahan expressed concern that the District is holding Mr. Raff hostage in the face of Frazier or DEP not performing in a timely manner on their end. Ms. Crouse commented the District’s position is not unusual, but it is unusual for the contractor to phone the Trustees individually.
New Business
CEB #695-03-07 1047 Wren Circle. The amount of the fine is $75 for debris; this case is a repeat violation which was dealt with by the Violations Committee in August, 2006. The repeat violation went to the Violations Committee on March 14, 2007. Mr. Austin commented Code Enforcement had recorded 6 violations for debris in 2006. The Violations Committee gave the resident a break in August 2006 by not ordering a fine, but did enter a “repeat violation” order with the attorney.
Mr. Klosky made a motion to uphold the $75 fine. Second Ms. McCahan. Motion carried unanimously.
CEB #501-07-06 1177 Waterway Drive No carport, no shed, debris $22,900 Mr. Austin commented this address is now an empty lot. Although the owner contends he was only aware of the debris issue, all notifications were sent to the address recorded with the Brevard County assessor’s office as required. The owner visited the Code Enforcement office to discuss the violations, so he should have been aware. The debris was removed the following day. The contract for demolition was received October 20, 2006 which shows the owner was aware of violations. However, Mr. Austin recommended adhering to the owner’s letter that he was not aware of the scope of violations; he requested the Board to reduce the fine to $2,139.84 for debris which includes $239.84 in actual costs. The reduced fine amount is to be paid by June 30th, 2007 or the original fine amount is in effect. Ms. Weglein asked if the owner agreed to the agreements. Mr. Austin responded he had discussed the matter with Mr. Hoffman and informed him the matter was to be presented to the Board of Trustees. Ms. Crouse asked if it were possible Code Enforcement had not clearly stated what all the violations were. Mr. Austin responded Mr. Hoffman purchased the home as a speculative venture and attempted to sell it in hurricane condition without repairing it. Mr. Austin commented the purpose of appeal is not to have the Board of Trustees hear new information, but to ascertain that all the procedures were properly followed by the Violations Committee. By its order, the Violation Committee was satisfied that all notification had been made. Mr. Allan noted precedence and asked that the fine be reduced further. Mr. Austin responded that this property was knowingly bought in a state of violation and little attempt has been made to bring it into compliance. It presented a danger to other homes in the area. Previous cases have represented a genuine hardship, which this one does not. Mr. Austin recommended keeping the initial reduction.
Ms. McCahan made a motion to approve Mr. Austin’s recommendation. Second Mr. Klosky. Motion carried. Ms. Crouse voted no.
Community Manager’s Report
Mr. Keegan read Ms. Daddario’s community Manager’s report in her absence (Exhibit B). Mr. Bleau asked where the staging area for the seawall construction will be. Mr. Keegan said he will find out.
Attorney’s Report
Mr. Repperger said other than what was discussed already, he had no report at this time.
Committee/Trustee Reports
Mr. Ferris reported residents are signing the new RV lot forms in Building B.
Mr. Klosky reported the HOA luau was a success. There is a street dance on Sunday, April 29th. Mr. Klosky requested personnel be scheduled on weekend to help clean up after the dance, and at D&E to help with set-up on week ends. Mr. Keegan suggested Mr. Klosky contact Ms. Daddario.
Ms. Crouse reported that Mary Ann is now the Calendar Coordinator. Mary Ann has a good grasp of set-up and clean-up requirements. Tables, umbrellas and chairs have arrived for the pools. At Pool 2 the Coke machine was repaired. The shutters look good on Building C.
Ms. Weglein and Mr. Austin are meeting with Helen Voltz and the Brevard County code enforcement director. The meeting may help Barefoot Bay with its permitting process. Ms. Weglein addressed the dirt situation at Crystal Bay. Mr. Bleau remarked Clayton Homes is putting another house in Barefoot Bay without necessary permits. Ms. Weglein responded she would check it out because of all the problems ARCC has had with Clayton Homes. Mr. Ferris commented he would like to understand the area of variances: sometimes ARCC grants them, and other times the County does. Ms. Weglein remarked the County permitting office must have books of rules “on this stuff”.
Mr. Keegan received a telephone call from the Sebastian permit section regarding a contractor who does aluminum work whose license is no longer in force. Mr. Keegan commented he will talk with the ARCC Committee about that. Mr. Keegan remarked the residents are going to be on the District’s “candid cameras” so “wear your best clothes”.
Audience Participation
Laverne Wisbowski , Gladiolus Drive, said American Land Lease advised the residents they were going to “seed and hay” that end of the “Crystal Bay” property in December [2006] then leave it alone. Recently, the ground was plowed up again. Two elderly residents have suffered serious sinus infections due to the blowing dirt. Ms. Wisbowski spent nearly $400 treating her dog for ringworm which her veterinarian says is from the dirt. The dirt is oily and has ruined rugs and screening. About 200 homes are affected. Brevard County at one time instituted an injunction against Crystal Bay, but it was lifted without notifying Barefoot Bay. Commissioner Voltz said it was because there weren’t enough complaints. Ms. Wisbowski commented that when the contractor hayed and seeded in back of her property he was so vindictive he raised the chute above the fence line and allowed the mess to blow over the fence. The gutters were full of hay; she hosed it off her screens and off her roof. The problem is also affecting property values in the neighborhood because the houses are so filthy; the older people cannot keep up. Pictures were sent to the County Attorney with letters as proof, but none of the letters were answered. Nancy Alvarez of Channel 6 news filmed the problem for television.The boundary fence between Barefoot Bay and Crystal Bay was so poorly built the 4 x 4’s could be pulled up barehanded and blew over in the first wind.
Larry Moffat, 714 Gladiolus, introduced pictures into evidence. Crystal Bay stripped 260 acres two years ago this May. In November 2006 Helen Voltz called a meeting in her office with the County Attorney; she informed the residents who attended the County was prepared to issue an injunction against Crystal Bay. Then the residents were informed it couldn’t go before a judge until March 2007. The residents waited for the next development, then found out the injunction was dropped for “lack of complaints”. Mr. Moffat read a letter given to him by Jean Van Leuven; Ms. Van Leuven’s asthma has been aggravated by the dust and dirt from Crystal Bay to the extent she was hospitalized for a fungal infection in her lungs and a sinus infection. Mr. Moffat stated he personally carried over 40 letters to the County, but received no response.
Mr. Keegan asked Mr. Repperger if the Board could do something about this. Mr. Repperger commented there is a concept in the law called “standing”. It describes whether or not a certain party has standing to bring a lawsuit against another party; technically, [you] must be a “party of interest” to the action, i.e., the problem must also involve District property.
Mr. Keegan requested that Mr. Repperger research the matter of standing, and also to contact the County attorney regarding why the injunction failed. Mr. Repperger agreed to bring back a report to the Board and recommend action. Ms. Weglein commented the County said the injunction is “on hold”. Mr. Allan reminded residents they have personal rights and more clout in a group if they should decide to choose a class action suit.
Audience Participation
Vicky Rosso commented the dirt from Crystal Bay reaches 642 Wedelia Drive, too. She suggested a class action suit might put an end to the problem. Ms. Rosso requested a different crew to count ballots than participated in sending them out. Ms. Rosso defended the youth: she has seen plenty of hooded adults out late on bicycles. Ms. Rosso commented there should be an oversight system of “checks and balances” in District operations. Ms. Rosso wants the 5th wheels and RV vehicles removed from the Building A parking lot.
Dale Page complimented the good time had by all at the luau on Saturday evening; District staff was outstanding. At 10:15 p.m. on the Building A plaza there were about 8 kids running their bicycles up and down the planters around the trees, using them as ramps. Mr. Page went into the pool area and telephoned the sheriff’s department. Mr. Page joined with “a security person” to get several rowdy residents out of the pool and out of the pool area. The sheriff hadn’t showed up for 45 minutes, so Mr. Page went home.
Nancy Eisele thanked everyone who participated in the Home Owners Association orientations. The orientations will start again in January 2008. Ms. Eisele reported she’d been told by the Melbourne Police Department that criminals cruise parking lots like ours just to take the spare change out of unlocked cars. She cautioned everyone to lock their cars and homes.
Charles Mershon commented that on page 6 [#9] of the Charter the Board is charged with maintaining security guards deemed necessary for the operation and maintenance of the facilities of the District. Mr. Bleau requested in addition to security cameras, security guards be provided for in the new budget. Ms. McCahan requested a workshop for security discussions.
Adjournment
Mr. Keegan entertained for a motion to adjourn. Mr. Bleau made the motion to adjourn. Second Ms. Weglein. The meeting adjourned at 9:12 p.m.
PHONE: (772) 664-3141
FAX: (772) 664-1928