Click here to load reader

MEDITERRA · PDF fileMediterra South Community Development District 2300 Glades Road, ... 29 Colleen Kvetko Resident 30 Jerry Kumin Resident 31 Rosi Gaul Resident 32 33

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)

Text of MEDITERRA · PDF fileMediterra South Community Development District 2300 Glades Road, ... 29...




    January 20, 2016

  • Mediterra South Community Development District 2300 Glades Road, Suite 410WBoca Raton, Florida 33431

    Phone: (561) 571-0010Fax: (561) 571-0013Toll-free: (877) 276-0889

    January 14, 2016

    Board of Supervisors

    Mediterra South Community Development District

    Dear Board Members:

    A Regular Meeting of the Mediterra South Community Development Districts Board of Supervisors will

    be held on Wednesday, January 20, 2016 at 11:00 a.m., at The Club at Mediterra, 15755 Corso

    Meditera Circle, Naples, Florida 34110. The agenda is as follows:

    1. Call to Order/Roll Call

    2. Public Comments [3 minutes per person]

    3. Presentation: Preliminary Assessment and Options for Wildfire Reduction

    4. Update: Directors and Officers Coverage with Aggregate of $10M

    5. Approval of October 21, 2015 Regular Meeting Minutes

    Action Items

    6. Other Business

    7. Staff Reports

    A. Attorney

    B. Engineer

    C. Manager

    i. Approval of Unaudited Financial Statements as of November 30, 2015

    ii. NEXT MEETING DATE: May 18, 2016 at 11:30 A.M.

    8. Supervisors Requests

    9. Adjournment

    Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly at (239) 464-7114.


    Chesley E. Adams, Jr.

    District Manager


    Please identify yourself each

    time you speak to facilitate

    accurate transcription of

    meeting minutes.


    CALL IN NUMBER: 1-888-632-3382









    A Regular Meeting of the Mediterra South Community Development Districts Board of 5

    Supervisors was held on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at 11:00 a.m., at The Club at 6

    Mediterra, 15755 Corso Mediterra Circle, Naples, Florida 34110. 7


    Present and constituting a quorum were: 9 10

    Ken Nails Chair 11

    Bill Rowe Vice Chair 12

    Ken Tarr Assistant Secretary 13

    Mike Bishko (via telephone) Assistant Secretary 14

    Dallas Luby Assistant Secretary 15


    Also present were: 17 18

    Chuck Adams District Manager 19

    Cleo Crismond Assistant Regional Manager 20

    Dave Robson District Engineer 21

    Jonathan Johnson (via telephone) District Counsel 22

    Alyssa Wilson Hopping Green & Sams 23

    Greg Pick MCA General Manager 24

    Frank Godshall Mediterra North Chair 25

    Robert Greenberg Resident & MCA Board Member 26

    Linda Bobris Resident 27

    Rita Sokol Resident 28

    Colleen Kvetko Resident 29

    Jerry Kumin Resident 30

    Rosi Gaul Resident 31



    FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Call to Order/Roll Call 34 35

    Mr. Nails called the meeting to order at 11:10 a.m., and noted, for the record, that 36

    Supervisors Nails, Rowe, Tarr and Luby were present, in person. Supervisor Bishko was 37

    attending via telephone. 38


    SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Public Comments [3 minutes per person] 40


    Ms. Linda Bobris, a resident, stated: 42

  • MEDITERRA SOUTH CDD October 21, 2015


    Dear Members of the Mediterra CDD Board, 43

    There are issues related to the public relations image of the community, 44

    the distress caused to members of the community and cruelty to the 45

    animals involved. The focus of these remarks regards the issues related to 46

    the agreement under discussion as others have addressed the foregoing 47

    concerns. 48

    Parties to the Contract prior performance: 49

    The Mediterra Community Association (MCA) has acknowledged it killed 50

    15 deer in violation of the terms of a prior agreement with the CDD 51

    Districts. That agreement expired in August of 2014. The CDD District 52

    took no action in this regard to stop the unauthorized killing of the deer. 53

    Both parties were in violation of their duties. The MCA for not abiding 54

    by and managing to its authorizations and the CDD Districts for not 55

    intervening and ensuring that there was proper oversight, contractual 56

    authorization and communication regarding the deer killing activity. This 57

    is indicative of a lack of control and inattention to proper contract 58

    management. 59

    Over-population of deer: 60

    The agreement under review refers to deer overpopulation. No evidence 61

    exists that this is the case. There is an unwillingness on the part of the 62

    MCA to use qualified resources expert in deer management to assess the 63

    situation in Mediterra and advise on best practices. These resources have 64

    been forwarded to the MCA and CDD without action on their part. The 65

    CDD needs to balance their position to include non lethal means of 66

    managing deer. This is not a consideration of either the MCA or this 67

    agreement. This agreement focuses on culling. 68

    The consequences noted in the Recitals such as collision with cars and 69

    diseased transmission are moot points. These consequences are either 70

    unproven, not present or biased by views of deer management data from 71

    outside of Florida. In any event, these risks will exist regardless of the 72

    number of deer on CDD property. Even if just 1 Deer. 73

  • MEDITERRA SOUTH CDD October 21, 2015


    Third Party Contractor: 74

    The CDD Districts cannot absolve themselves of their legislated duties 75

    by deferring to the MCA who in turn further defer to a Contractor. That 76

    moves control 2 steps from the legislated source. The MCA is a non 77

    public body and not organized under the same legal construct or 78

    responsibilities as the CDD. Further the contractor the MCA intends to 79

    hire to do the culling has no direct responsibility to the CDD. The 80

    Rejoinder agreement that is referenced to in this agreement asks that the 81

    contractor be bound by this agreement. That deflects responsibility from 82

    the MCA to the contractor. The CDD will not know if that contractor 83

    agreement was signed with full knowledge by the contractor of the legal 84

    and liability taken on. Further the contractor may modify or otherwise 85

    disqualify the rejoinder agreement. The CDD Districts will not know if 86

    the Rejoinder was signed for convenience, without due diligence by the 87

    contractor or under pressure to get the contract work. The Rejoinder 88

    deflects responsibility of this agreement to the Contractor. It effectively 89

    renders this agreement meaningless. The Contractor is actually 90

    executing the deer culling. 91

    If a contract such as this is to be executed it should be between the 92

    Contractor and the CDD and not deflected to an intervening party like the 93

    MCA. 94

    Insurance indemnification: 95

    There are terms in the contract stating that the parties hold each other 96

    harmless for damages and that liability insurance is a requirement. We 97

    have already seen that the MCA did not abide by the first agreement and 98

    that the CDD did not take correction action or was otherwise aware of the 99

    infractions. The CDD has no way of controlling or auditing the actions 100

    of the MCA, its staff and its contractors. The MCA can withhold 101

    information and be non-communicative. Such actions would never be 102

    transparent. Given that the agreement is a 10 year term there is high risk 103

    in such an arrangement. 104

  • MEDITERRA SOUTH CDD October 21, 2015


    Despite the insurance and indemnification the CDD is not relieved of its 105

    responsibilities to be the primary party for deer management. In the event 106

    of an insurance claim the carrier will look closely at the control 107

    weaknessses in this contract and take action accordingly. 108

    If it is determined that the CDD willfully and knowingly put itself in a 109

    position where it lacked control and oversight the protection afforded by 110

    insurance may not materialize. The same applies to the MCA. This 111

    agreement can be construed in such a willful action and thereby deemed 112

    reckless. 113

    There is no mention of insurance to protect the residents, of Mediterra, 114

    their children or pets or other persons present on the Mediterra property 115

    who may suffer harm due to the actions of the Contractor. The amount of 116

    insurance in the agreement is not adequate to cover such open ended 117

    risks. These risks could potentially cause death. Further the Contractor 118

    himself is at risk if mistaken for an intruder by a resident. 119

    Notice of Hunting: 120

    The 24 Hour notice of intent to hunt is not adequate even between the 121

    CDD and MCA. The CDD and/or MCA need to inform and remind 122

    residents well in advance of hunting to mitigate risk of harm or injury. 123

    There is no mention in the contract of providing this information to the 124

    residents. This places the liability for damages on the MCA and CDD as 125

    they a