|
 |
|
|
| Bay Crest Park Taxing District |
|
|
 TAXING DISTRICT BOARD MEMBERS
Mike Perotti, President..........................584-0725
Mike Cardoso, Vice President.............892 3969
Jan Lentowicz, Secretary......................290-9535
Matthew Blackshear, Treasurer..........202-1343
Harry Paddock........................................884-7322
Chris Roberts...................................... ..323-3761
Patrick Shell............................................885-1510
Bay Crest Special Dependent Taxing District
Minutes of the meeting
February 09, 2009
The President, Mike Perotti at 7:14 PM, called the meeting to order. In attendance were:
Mike Perotti - President
Mike Cardoso - Vice President
Harry Paddock - Trustee
Chris Roberts - Trustee
Patrick Shell - Trustee
Matthew Blackshear - Treasurer
Jan Lentowicz - Recording Secretary
This comprised a quorum necessary to hold a meeting.
Jack Peel, Bay Crest park resident was also present.
1. Treasurer Report. Matthew Blackshear reported that as of January 31, 2009, the Bay Crest Special Dependent Taxing District account balance was $39,879.15. During last month $8,272.69 was spent while $1,907.21 was received. Mike Perotti moved to accept the report; Mike Cardoso seconded the motion, which was approved by vote 7:0.
Matthew Blackshear informed the board that he received a memo from the County stating that tax collection this year is falling behind and it is possible that the collected revenue will be 10-15% less than expected.
2. Jan Lentowicz presented minutes from the last meeting of January 12, 2009. Patrick Shell moved to accept the minutes; Matthew Blackshear seconded the motion, which was approved by the vote of 7:0.
3. Street sweeping. Patrick Shell presented the summary of bidding. There were three proposals (attachments). Patrick recommended Griffin Parking Area Maintenance, Inc. After a discussion about the details of the proposals Mike Cardoso moved to accept Patrick recommendation; Chris Roberts seconded the motion. It was approved by the vote 7:0.
Patrick will contact the company and finalize the contract.
4. Boat ramp. Mike Perotti read the e-mail (attached) in which Jack Peel expressed his concerns about the boat ramp issue. Jack, who was present at the meeting, presented his opinion about the plan:
- the neighborhood does not gain anything from the fact that boat ramp will become a private one; only a few boat owners will notice difference if any
- from the other hand taxing district will be presented with extra costs of maintaining the ramp;
- It is not a good trade off. Taxing district is taking responsibility of the ramp while it doesn’t need to.
- he is not convinced that the community would support this endeavor
- He proposes the referendum on the subject.
Mike Perotti presented his response to this e-mail. This started a discussion in which all the trustees expressed their point of view.
- The county and Parks Department did not do anything with the ramp during last 15 years and taxing district can not do anything also unless it regains the ownership of the property.
- There are a lot of neighborhood residents that are using the boat ramp;
- The proposed solution of the improvement is cost effective, safe and comfortable
- Taxing district presented the plan of taking over the boat ramp over 4 years ago and it was met with overwhelming acceptance by the neighborhood. The finalization of the plan was postponed because of SOCS activities. Now is the time to go ahead with the original plan.
- In the current state the boat ramp is very dangerous.
- There are a lot of new residents in the neighborhood who moved here because it is waterfront community. The boat ramp is the focal point. We need to improve it.
- There is no way that the board will revisit every issue over and over again. The approval for the plan was obtained 4 years ago. And after all we cannot count on 100% approval for every idea that is presented.
It was decided that the taxing district trustee will present these opinion on the next meeting of the Civic Association and ask the audience for the opinion.
5. Mike Perotti presented a letter that he received from Debora Marks (attached) requesting a complete list of properties. It appeared that the letter was a mistake.
Harry Paddock informed that there was no progress in regards to the old oak trees. But the group of residents of that area started a protest action. They were distributing fliers requesting to stop any attempt to cut the trees. He even spoke with representatives of the protesters but they would not listen to any arguments. It was decided that the taxing district trustee will present the reasoning behind the oak trees removal on the next meeting of the Civic Association. The subject will be followed up.
6. Mike Cardoso presented three bids (attached) for the resoding of the medians where the grass died.
The proposals of Felix Sod ($11,513.00), Curra Sod Corporation ($10,513.00) and Bay Area Sod ($11,980.00) seamed very similar. Matthew Blackshear noted that we ca not afford to perform two projects simultaneously. Mike Perotti responded that we have an option to execute the soddig in phases. The subject will be followed up.
7. There were no other subjects, so the meeting was adjourned.
Mike Perotti - President Jan Lentowicz – Secretary
___________________________ _________________________
Treasurer report
Balance Debits Credits
December 2008 Month End Totals $46,244.63 $1,292.52 $41,362.41
Check No. 2060 Native Lawn (1/31/09) $1,200.00
Check No. 2061 City Of Tampa Utilities (12/23/08) $200.00
Check No. 2062 TECO (12/05/08) $200.00
Check No. 2063 TECO (12/05/08) $200.00
Check No. 2064 Jan Lentowicz reimbursement $106.99
Check No. 2065 Sign star Final Payment $4,188.53
Check No. 2066 TECO (Lopez Light Pole Fee) $2,177.17
Hillsborough County (DR#841?) $1,905.31
Account Interest $1.90
January 2009 Month End Totals $39,879.15 $8,272.69 $1,907.21
E-mail exchange
From: A. Michael Perotti
Subject: Re: Boat Ramp
I agree with the comments. We should make a well thought out presentation at the next civic assoc. meeting (which is what Jack was talking about).
___________________________________________________________________
From: Blackshear, Matthew T.
Subject: RE: Boat Ramp
It is an interesting email that seems to be based on the erroneous assumption that the County is presently doing anything for the benefit of the boat ramp (aside from blowing debris on the boat ramp into the canal once every several months). As Steve Eggert discovered, the County does not allocate a single cent for the benefit of the boat ramp. Moreover, the taxing district cannot install a dock (or any other improvements) on property that Bay Crest (or its consenting residents) does not own. This means that the boat ramp--what should be a tremendous and unique asset for Bay Crest--will continue to look deteriorated and trashy. I think most residents would prefer a boat ramp/park area of which they can be proud. Another erroneous assumption in that email is that the privatization will benefit "few of our residents." Aside from the trash and noise disruption caused by non-residents using the boat ramp, the fact (and I tell you, it is a fact) that most non-residents refuse to obey the no-wake ordinances results in waves washing silt from the shoreline down into the canals, which likely is a substantial contributing factor to our need for dredging. It also results in damage to seawalls and docks (especially floating docks) owned by many residents in old Bay Crest. Do we have any quotes on what the insurance cost will be? The best way to address thoughts of this nature will be to provide solid evidence of what it will cost to accomplish this project. If there is going to be a meeting about this issue, we need several Trustees to attend to ensure that whatever information is conveyed is accurate.
___________________________________________________________________
From: A. Michael Perotti
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 8:11 AM
Subject: Fw: Boat Ramp
Here we go. See emails below. My response was after he emailed asking if a neighborhood referendum was needed for taking over the boat ramp as he feels it is a bad idea and wants to lobby against it.
A. Michael Perotti
___________________________________________________________________
From: E L JACK PEEL
Subject: Re: Boat Ramp
Hi, Mike
Thanks for your prompt reply on this matter. I'm still troubled at the prospect of taking on something of this magnitude that will benefit few of our residents. Once done, it can't be undone as the county and Parks Department would be most reluctant to take the ramp back over again.
I'm not as convinced as you that the community would support this endeavor if they knew all the details and cost of what is being proposed. At the next Association meeting, I want to speak to the audience about the matter and get their reaction. In the interest of fairness, I invite you or a spokesman from the TD to present your side of things.
Look forward to seeing you there.
Kind regards from
Jack Peel
___________________________________________________________________
From: A. Michael Perotti
Subject: Re: Boat Ramp
When the idea was initially floated several years ago as part of the reason for increase the tax limit increase. While not universal, we had overwhelming support. The only reason we stalled was at the request of SOC's- so they could pursue their dredging effort. That has now become a moot point. To the board's knowledge nothing substantive has changed with the strong majority of homeowner's favoring it. As such we have decided to move forward with it again. Only a vote of the board is required although we always invite and request the input from the neighborhood at large. That is why I am pleased that it has been reported in the newsletter on multiple occasions over the past few years.
A. Michael Perotti
___________________________________________________________________
From: E L JACK PEEL
To: A. Michael Perotti
Subject: Boat Ramp
Hi, Mike
I see the boat ramp issue is back on the Taxing District table. As you know, I have reservations about the wisdom of this action. My question is who makes the final determination? Would it require a referendum of the community, or can the TD board alone make that decision?
Jack Peel
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
