Minutes for October 24, 2006
Back to Home Page
DRAFT
Board of Trustees
Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
7:00 p.m. – Building D&E
Madame Chairman Wilma Weglein called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Ms. Weglein’s thought for the day: Politics are supposed to be the second oldest profession; however I have come to realize it bears a very close resemblance to the first. Ms. Weglein requested a moment of silence for our service people serving all around the world. Amen.
Ms. Weglein led the Pledge of Allegiance.
Ms. McCahan called the roll. All Trustees were present. Mr. Malek was present as counsel. Ms. Weglein welcomed Grace Daddario, Community Manager.
Ms. Weglein requested approval of the minutes of September 26, 2006. Ms. McCahan made the motion to approve the minutes. Second Ms. Donahue. Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. Weglein requested approval of the minutes of October 9, 2006. Mr. Smith made the motion to accept the minutes. Second Mr. Bailey. Mr. Carillion requested on page 10 of 10 that Mr. Smith’s reference regarding the resident wanting a manager/Board form of government, and not management companies, should be completed in the minutes so the reference makes sense. The recording secretary will amend the minutes. The minutes were approved as amended.
Ms. Donahue read the Treasurer’s report. (Exhibit A) Ms. Richards asked Ms. Daddario what a “turn lane” account is. Ms. Daddario responded Turn Lane is the name of the company that cleaned the canals.
Mr. Carillion moved to accept the Treasurer’s report. Second Ms. Howard. Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Keegan requested Ms. Weglein to reiterate the policy that the Chair handles all questions; that the Board members do not interact with the person at the podium unless the Chair directs it.
John Barry asked how much the Food and Beverage request list was going to come to. Ms. Weglein responded it is $10, 235. Mr. Barry asked, if the Board goes to 5 members, will the department heads give reports or will the extra work load be given to the remaining Trustees. Ms. Weglein responded that had not been decided.
Jim Malatos reiterated what had been said in the workshop: no vote would be taken this evening on the charter amendments, and the public would get a chance to view the amendments before the vote.
Ed Keeley commented that many of the 18 proposed charter amendments did not need to be in the charter format. Ms. Weglein responded a lot of what Mr. Keeley was referring to had been removed. The final amendment list numbers 12 revisions.
Jan Hannify read a letter she wrote commenting on the fencing at 925 Red Bud Road. Ms. Hannify feels the vinyl fencing is decorative since it has no gates in it. It looks very good, and Ms. Hannify urges the Bay to leave the Vallantes alone.
Ms. Weglein urged everyone to observe the 3-minute limit to speak at the podium.
Pat Clark introduced herself as the Vice President of the Homeowner’s Association. Ms. Clark commented that ARCC approved the Vallantes’ permit; the Vallantes built the structure according to the permit, and then ran afoul of Code Enforcement. Ms. Clark said ARCC and Code Enforcement have to get together on one set of standards.
Tony Vallante said ARCC issued a permit to him to erect a vinyl “wall”. The vinyl structure was okay for 8 months, and then Code Enforcement issued a violation notice, and went before the Violations Committee. He was told to take the gates out of the enclosure so it wouldn’t be classified as a fence. The DOR does not approve vinyl fencing.
Bill Sandt said two years ago after the storms, many repairs needed to be done very quickly. However, the ARCC’s good intentions have gone horribly amok. Mr. Sandt urged the Board to pass a motion requesting the ARCC to provide to the Board by December 31st of this year a list of all deviations and exceptions to the DOR since the 2004 hurricanes; detailed, and with explanations.
Elizabeth Showers questioned Building A parking lot charges. Ms. Weglein asked Ms. Showers to wait until the community manager addressed it in her report.
Nancy Eisele commented at the candidates’ forum most people were in favor of 5 members on the Board. Ms. Eisele feels 5 members jeopardize the quorum if more than one person is on vacation or ill.
Ms. McCahan withdrew the Food and Beverage equipment list. She will confer with Ms. Daddario and evolve a different method. Ms. McCahan acknowledged Mr. Glashauser’s point of order regarding taking funds from one’s own departmental budget.
Mr. Malek addressed Mr. Santos’s license to paint the shopping center. Secretary of State’s records show that West Florida Maintenance, Inc. was administratively dissolved due to lack of filing annual reports. The Bay’s contract is with this company, and if the company no longer exists, the Bay is exposed to liability. The legal office is working with the community manager to resolve the situation.
The Board tabled the charter amendment vote.
Ms. Daddario commented Mr. Hunt instituted parking fees in the Building A lot during the 2004 hurricane crises. Since the crisis is over, Ms. Daddario rescinded the fee requirement. Permits and stickers are still required, but no money. Permits and stickers are obtained in Building B. Tractor trailers will be treated on a case by case basis and must be owned by a Barefoot Bay property owner.
Don McIntee [1011 Barefoot Circle] said during the 2004 hurricanes he went to every vendor he could find and they were all out of aluminum or vinyl siding with which to effect repairs. He used Hardi Board out of desperation. It is Miami-Dade approved which is the standard for hurricane protection for the State of Florida. Mr. McIntee installed it on the damaged portions of his home. In June 2006 Mr. McIntee received a code violation notice. However, there are many other homes with Hardi Board, cedar shakes, and stucco. Mr. McIntee’s house has stucco up to the roof on two corners; his house was installed in 1982 and he bought it that way. Brevard County states that skirting ends at the floor line, so Mr. McIntee bought a house that has skirting up the roof. Mr. McIntee claims his house is esthetically pleasing and his neighbors like it. Mr. McIntee also claimed relief from Mr. Bohne’s [Karl Bohne, Attorney to the Violations Committee] bad language concerning him as he left the Violations Committee.
Mr. McIntee claimed Mr. Austin charged him with having particle board on his house. Hardi board is Portland cement and silicon; particle board is wood chips and resin. Mr. McIntee’s contention is that he should be properly charged or the charges dropped. The charge was changed in the Violations Committee hearing. It is unacceptable to alter a public record, especially in front of the person being charged.
Mr. Malek recommended that he and Ms. Daddario investigate further and collect all the facts in the case in order to present the Board with a written opinion.
Mr. Carillion moved to effect Mr. Malek’s recommendation. Second Mr. Bailey.
Ms. Howard said “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”. If Mr. McIntee must take down his Hardi Board, every other home in the Bay with deviations should have to modify theirs, too. Ms. Weglein concurred with Bill Sandt about getting a list of deviations throughout the Bay from the ARCC. Ms. Weglein urged all the residents to speak with their neighbors each time a mailing goes out. Effecting changes can only come from dedicated response. Mr. Carillion said a list of “other approved materials” was submitted about a year ago. Ms. Weglein remembered the list, but requested a list with the individual homes that have deviations.
Ms. Weglein asked the recording secretary to read back the motion. “Mr. Malek suggested that he work with Ms. Daddario, the Community Manager, to collect the information necessary in Mr. McIntee’s case and those like it in order to provide a written opinion that would be presented to the Board of Trustees. The motion to do this was made by Mr. Carillion, seconded by Mr. Bailey.” Motion carried unanimously.
Mr. Keegan moved to get a detailed list of allowed deviations by address from the ARCC. Second Ms. Howard.
Mr. Carillion wanted to know what Mr. Keegan meant by “deviations”. Mr. Keegan replied, for example, if a new house goes in and it’s all stucco and no vinyl, a deviation would appear to be in order, and the list would show if it was granted. Mr. Malek said it seems there are two different lists involved. Mr. Keegan reiterated he wants all deviations from the DOR that ARCC has granted. Mr. Malek said “other approved materials” isn’t necessarily a deviation from the DOR. Mr. Keegan said garages might be a deviation, too. Mr. Carillion replied there is a house on Gardenia which has had a garage since 1984. That would be in Avatar’s records, and he doesn’t know how to get into those. Mr. Bailey said there have been many discussions on “other approved materials.” With newer homes coming in, there are updated safety features that the county requires. Is the Bay going to hold these people to an outdated DOR? Mr. Malek suggested that “other approved materials” was designed to acknowledge advancing technology. On other items the DOR is very specific, as in the example of the chain link fence. Motion carried unanimously.
Ms. McCahan requested Mr. Malek to explain what a “point of order” is the audience keeps insisting on. Mr. Malek responded “point of order” comes from Robert’s Rules and this Board is not governed by Robert’s Rules. Recognizing the audience is at the discretion of the Chairperson. The Chairperson is not obligated to recognize anyone who shouts from the audience.
Ms. Weglein addressed an appeal in the matter of 925 Red Bud Road. Ms. Richards commented that while she does not want to be involved in whether the vinyl structure is a fence or a wall, she does not want the residents to be fined for what is a mistake by the ARCC. The Vallantes attempted to abide by the DOR and the permit they received, and then they were fined. Ms. Richards does not think this is fair. Ms. Weglein read Mr. Austin’s recommendation: “I recommend the Trustees support the Violations Committee finding that the property is in violation of constructing a fence of material not approved by the DOR.” Ms. McCahan decried the lack of mention in the DOR mailing (April 2006) about the fencing issue. She reiterated only 3 of the ballot questions were passed by 50% plus 1. Ms. McCahan suggested suspending fines against the Vallantes until another mailing can be arranged and the fence issue resolved by vote of the residents. Mr. Malek said the matter before the Board is the appeal of the Violations Committee decision. The Violation Committee has found this gentleman in violation of the Deed of Restrictions. The Board of Trustees can only uphold that decision, send it back to them for re-consideration, or overturn it. The issue will be resolved when this board comes to a decision about what an enclosure is.
The Vallantes’ vinyl structure is not connected to the house, but could a person pass through the opening? Does the Board hold that a person must be able to pass through the opening? In some documents it states “remove the gates”. What is a particular space? These things are up to the Board to decide.
Ms. Donahue concurred with Ms. Richards in saying Code Enforcement and ARCC must get together. One says it’s okay, and one says it’s not. This isn’t fair to the citizens.
Mr. Austin referred to a copy of case #562-10-06, 925 Red Bud Road, as it was presented at the Violation Committee. (Exhibit B) The comment says “denied”. It was suggested the permit application be brought back with no gate. “Clear opening makes this decorative.” These are instructions from the ARCC. At a later time, the permit application was resubmitted and the ARCC approved the vinyl structure. The ARCC added this comment: “The decorative wall around property with gap at home on all sides.” The way Code Enforcement read that was that the ARCC in talking about having an open gate, the homeowner came back about having a gap at the house. It also says “on all sides”. In the pictures, on the Waterway side there is perhaps a 2 to 3 inch gap. On the Red Bud side, there is some distance with a plant in front of it. There are other vinyl structures in this community built without a permit that have been taken to the Violations Committee and ordered to obtain a permit, which the ARCC then denied. As a result, other vinyl structures have been pointed out to Code Enforcement. Mr. Austin commented the Vallantes’ structure looks “fantastic”, but his job is to enforce the Deed of Restrictions. Mr. Austin believes the ARCC did not approve the structure that is actually there. Mr. Austin believes it is a fence, and that is what was presented to the Violations Committee and they affirmed it.
Mr. Carillion referenced page 2 of the permit where it says there will be no gates. The drawing on the permit shows a gate on each side. Currently, the gate has not been installed. Mr. Carillion commented the only time he votes on the ARCC is to break a tie. The inspectors vote. Mr. Carillion said if he had had to vote on this particular permit, he would have voted for it. The gaps in the structure are as the ARCC approved them. Mr. Carillion concurred with Ms. Richards and Ms. Donahue that the Vallantes are being fined without cause. Mr. Keegan asked Mr. Carillion if his finding is the Vallantes’ structure is not an enclosure. Mr. Malek commented Mr. Carillion can not make a finding that this is an enclosure. The full Board must make that determination collectively. Ms. McCahan asked Mr. Malek if there were some way the Board could postpone a decision and not make Mr. Vallante take the fence down, and not fine him any more, and do the waiting game until the next DOR referendum . . . . . . . . . .” Mr. Malek responded if the Board so chooses they can overturn the Violations Committee decision.
Ms. McCahan made a motion the Board of Trustees overturn the Violations Committee. Second Ms. Donahue.
Ms. Weglein commented “Then we really don’t have a DOR. By breaking the rules of the DOR, we’re ripping the DOR apart.” Mr. Carillion responded that what had happened is an interpretation by the ARCC. The Vallante’s structure is not a fence because of the spaces at certain areas and it has no gates. Ms. Weglein said the space is only on one side. Mr. Malek commented the ARCC approved a certain permit, and Code Enforcement’s position is the property owner didn’t build the structure in compliance with the permit. Mr. Austin said that was his opinion when he took the violation to the Violation Committee. However, upon listening to Mr. Carillion, he feels the ARCC did approve the structure as built. The violation that was brought before the Violation Committee alleged the structure was a fence. Mr. Malek said pursuant to the rules for the appeal the Board can only make a decision on what is brought before it.
Mr. Carillion commented the inspector for that house is not present. Mr. Carillion said he has seen the house. He is not 100% sure both sides have gaps. A dog could get out of the structure. It’s being used as a decorative privacy device, not to corral anybody. Mr. Keegan said hypothetically if his neighbor came before the ARCC committee and wanted to erect a similar structure at his house, would the ARCC approve it? Mr. Carillion said he couldn’t answer the question because he is only the tiebreaker vote. Mr. Keegan asked him if he had to be the tie breaker vote, which way would he vote. Mr. Carillion said if there were gaps in the structure he would vote for it. Mr. Keegan said Mr. Carillion had looked at about 2,000 of these and is our expert. This is an example of a deviation which adds to the beauty of the Bay. Mr. Keegan said he didn’t think this example was a fence. Mr. Carillion commented there have been other deviations with the blessings of the Board of Trustees. The exceptions are not approved “to the house” but to a specific need. When the need does not exist any more, the exception is vacated and removed. Many houses in the Bay have been approved for decorative walls for years in the name of privacy. Mr. Carillion commented the Violations Committee seems to be going against the ARCC more often recently, and the ARCC will abide what the Committee finds.
Mr. Keegan made a motion that the Violations Committee erred in their judgment in finding the structure is a fence. The structure is not a fence, and [the Vallantes] should not be found guilty of any violation. Second Ms. Howard.
Mr. Malek commented there is already a motion on the floor initiated by Ms. McCahan. Mr. Bailey asked Mr. Malek if the Board specified how large a “gap” was needed in a structure if that would clarify the issue. Mr. Malek’s opinion was that was too specific to fit all situations. Mr. Carillion suggested a “gap” be the size of a gate. Ms. Richards moved the question. Mr. Malek said he didn’t realize the ARCC could issue a temporary permit. If this Board can instruct the ARCC to issue a temporary permit and table the appeal until there is a decision.
Ms. McCahan rescinded her motion. Ms. Donahue rescinded her second.
Ms. McCahan made a motion that the Board direct the ARCC to issue a temporary permit to this house with an unspecified time frame, at their discretion, and the matter will be resolved with the next DOR referendum.
Mr. Malek recommended sending the case back to the Violations Committee with some sort of instruction the Vallantes be issued a temporary permit for a certain amount of time so the Board of Trustees can come up with a decision on the vinyl fence issue. Second Mr. Bailey.
Mr. Carillion objected to the motion. The appeal is before the Board of Trustees to solve, and the Board should solve it.
Ms. Weglein entertained a vote resulting in 4 ayes, 5 opposed. The motion failed.
Mr. Keegan made a motion that the Violations Committee erred in their judgment in finding the structure is a fence because the ARCC approved it as a decorative type structure made of vinyl. Therefore, it should be allowed. The structure is not a fence, and [the Vallantes] should not be found guilty of any violation. Second Mr. Carillion and Ms. Richards simultaneously.
Mr. Bailey commented the Board has let the family off the hook, but not resolved the critical issue. Ms. Weglein entertained a vote on Mr. Keegan’s motion resulting in 4 ayes, 5 opposed. The motion failed.
Mr. Keegan made a motion that the fine not commence on December 10th until the situation is resolved between the ARCC and the Violations Committee get together to decide what’s decorative and what’s not, but not to have the Vallantes fined until that is resolved. Second Ms. Richards. Motion carried. Mr. Carillion was opposed.
Ms. Weglein addressed 944 Pecan saying the recommendation is to reduce the fine from $250 a day to $25 a day. The debris has been largely removed. $25 a day will cover the remaining debris. The fine would then be $2,250. Mr. Carillion made the motion. Second Ms. McCahan. There was no discussion. Motion carried unanimously.
A work order was issued to get the camera equipment into working order. If the cameras are not repairable, new equipment will have to be purchased. The replacement cost is approximately $400.
The weir project: Ms. Weglein contacted St. John’s Water Management Authority and requested they inspect the weir project.
The pier is officially scheduled per contract to be completed in March 2007. Mr. Raff intends to complete the project sooner.
The canal cleaning: according to Mr. Hunt there were 3 areas not satisfactorily completed. As a result, the Bay withheld $7,000 from the final payment. Mr. McLaughlin of Turn Lane has made allegations that he was not made aware of these problems, and that Mr. Hunt had not returned his calls. Ms. Daddario said she did not know if that was a true statement or not. The fact of the matter is those three areas will be done before the $7,000 will be paid. Mr. McLaughlin is coming to the Bay this Thursday to view the areas. Ms. Daddario asked Mr. Keegan to be present.
The shopping center painting is about a week and a half from completion. Mr. Santos said he will complete the painting on a weekend when not so many people are going in and out of the shops.
The golf course tent delivery is expected in about 3 weeks. One Source will erect the tent, and if needed, Barefoot Bay Recreation District staff will assist. The district received permits for the site plan for the golf course maintenance building. Frazier Engineering will provide preliminary plans tomorrow. When the Trustees have viewed the plans and released permission, the Bay will go out to bid.
Financial statements: several internal problems have been resolved. There is a chart of accounts. The process of entering the balance forwards from the last audit have begun. Ms. Daddario believes the office can produce financials before February 1st, 2007.
Mr. Carillion asked about the balances Ms. Claiborne spoke of. Ms. Daddario responded the District doesn’t have everything it needs. Mr. Carillion asked what was going on with the manufacturer of the [financial] program. Ms. Daddario does not have any problems with the software . There were some problems with the way it was set up internally, but those have been modified. There may be a need for additional training because staff is not familiar with the software. Mr. Hunt had asked Mr. Malek to send NPT a letter regarding a chart of accounts. Ms. Daddario has obtained a chart of accounts, so the legal office will not send their letter.
Ms. McCahan asked Ms. Daddario about the garbage container at the shopping center that was supposed to be painted in the new colors. Ms. Daddario said the contractor would not receive a final check until a final inspection shows everything is done.
Ms. Daddario said she would be getting credit for a lot of things “on her watch”. She gave credit and thanks to Eddie Geer for making “all these projects happen” and keeping her well informed. “I wouldn’t be able to do it without him.”
Mr. Malek commented he would work with Ms. Daddario to ascertain what else may be needed from NPT regarding the financial software package. Mr. Malek inspected problem properties this week with Ken Austin, Ms. Daddario, and Mr. Carillion. The legal office contacted IRS regarding 200 Calico Court and the tax lien. IRS is working with the legal office on a solution to that property. The Board approved a plan to remove 918 Laurel Circle. The property should be cleared by November 15th. At 406 Raven, discussions are underway with the owner. At 637 Hyacinth, there is no carport and there is some debris. The fine against this property is a bit more than $8,000. The owners have a contract to sell the house; the new buyers will bring the property into compliance. The District cannot hold that buyer’s “feet to the fire”. The board can work with the current owner, but not the prospective purchaser. Mr. Carillion said he doubted the current owner would come up with nearly $20,000 to fix the property before it’s sold. Mr. Malek said the property seemed to him to be a candidate for demolition.
Mr. Carillion made a motion to reduce the fine at 637 Hyacinth and work with the owner to bring it into compliance. Mr. Malek clarified the motion as asking him to reduce the fines excluding the costs. Second Mr. Bailey. Motion carried unanimously.
Claudia Howard commented the painters at the shopping center are doing a “lousy job”. The tenants complained they are not getting the trim they asked for. The Laundromat tenant asked Ms. Howard for an air conditioner. Ms. Howard was approached about leases. Ms. Daddario replied the leases are on her agenda. Ms. Howard informed the Board she is undergoing surgery and will miss the next 3 Board meetings. Mr. Carillion commented the Board has turned down the A/C issue at the Laundromat four times. Mr. Bailey suggested circulation fans in the Laundromat. Mr. Keegan commented the legality of it should be addressed in the lease. Either the tenant is required to cool it, or the Bay is. Mr. Carillion said at one time it was suggested the Bay put a small room in so one area could be air conditioned, and the tenant turned down the proposal.
Ms. Donahue commented Tennis Court #3 is unsafe to play on. Mr. Bailey invited Ms. Daddario to make an inspection tour of the tennis courts with him.
Ms. Weglein commented Ms. Daddario, Mr. Austin, Ed Geer and she are meeting with Commissioner Voltz and the sheriff’s office regarding the vandalism in the Bay. Ms. Weglein talked with St John’s Water District regarding the weirs. They are sending her a copy of the letter that was previously sent. Crystal Bay is a problem again. Ms. Weglein asked Mr. Malek about the employees’ handbook. Mr. Malek commented he sent it to the former community manager and he will send it to Ms. Daddario.
Mr. Smith asked if Crystal Bay had performed their soil samples. Ms. Weglein said she found an agency who could read the results. Ms. Daddario commented she and Mr. Geer went to Gladiolus to appraise the situation. Mr. Geer went to the sales office where their staff phoned the construction site to water it down immediately. Ms. Weglein suggested District staff telephone Chris Hill in Commissioner Volts’ office each time there’s a complaint about flying dirt from Crystal Bay.
Ms. McCahan reported during the last week the shopping center had graphic sexual graffiti written on the roof. Property Maintenance painted over it. Ms. Donahue said Josh and Sarah wrote their names on the trash receptacle.
Gary Goetz commented on the Violations Committee proceedings concerning Mr. McIntee. He spoke also on Mr. Vallante’s fence. Ms. Weglein said each time the DOR goes to referendum, not enough residents are interested in returning them to get things passed. People ignore them. She said it is Mr. Goetz’s responsibility as a homeowner in Barefoot Bay to “get the vote out”. Mr. Goetz’s agreed to go beat on doors the next time there’s a referendum to encourage people to return the ballots. Mr. Goetz is not in favor of a management company for Barefoot Bay.
Robin Phillips said on January 6, 2007 in Building A from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. she and the kids are starting a Youth Club. It’s a work in progress. Ms. Phillips invited volunteers to help out.
John Barry commented if Ms. Weglein did not get any assistance from the Sheriff’s office perhaps Barefoot Bay would like to get up a vigilante committee. (There was general laughter.)
Elizabeth Showers thanked Ed Geer for seeing to it the canopies got put up, and especially the one at the Lounge.
Ms. Weglein entertained a motion to adjourn. Mr. Carillion made the motion to adjourn. Second Ms. Howard. The meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m.
PHONE: (772) 664-3141
FAX: (772) 664-1928