STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PERMIT, CONDITION OF SYSTEM AND RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

At the April 2006 Board Meeting, I made a presentation on the drainage system, lakes, and the storm water management permit. The summary in that presentation explained that we have eight lakes in Seminole Lakes, and they are all connected either by culverts or swales.

The original storm water permit was issued to the developer and remains in their name. That permit was issued in 1991. The permit was necessary before Seminole Lakes could be developed.

When Seminole Lakes was formed, there was a city ordinance issued with stipulations. One of those was that water quality of the lakes is the responsibility of the petitioner (developer) and eventually will be turned over to the POA.

In July 2003, the developer attempted to transfer the permit to the POA. The POA would not agree to this. Each board after 2003 has agreed that the permit in its present form cannot be transferred to the POA.

Because the POA does not own all the property that the drainage system is on, we hired an engineering firm in September 2003 to study the permit history and recommend how the POA should proceed. Since I was familiar with the system and rules, I did most of the "leg work," working closely with the engineering company. At that time I was Secretary of the Board. One of the recommendations by the engineering company was that before the POA could accept the permit it must have ownership to the property. We do not own all the property. When we accepted the deed from the developer it was only for property designated as "common property" and did not include the golf course, lakes and shorelines owned by the developer. It was recommended that the POA, Developer, their engineering company and our engineering company meet to review how to enter into an agreement. I presented the engineering report to the developer in November 2003 but never got a response. Adding some confusion is the fact that the POA’s President of the Board in March, 2003 signed the request from the water management district for transfer of the permit. That was in error, and the application was never sent on, but the developer did receive a copy. There was never a board decision made to do this, and I cannot explain how this happened.

Ever since the POA assumed responsibility for the common grounds, we have had a maintenance contract to treat our shorelines and the water in Lake A (the large lake).

The developer cancelled his contract with Lake Doctor for the Lakes he owns along the golf course and front entrance approximately 18 months ago. I had mentioned on two occasions to the developer that this would cause algae problems on some lakes. I never received any response.

Significant lake problems started to develop this spring. The main one was with Lake C, which is contained within the golf course and owned by the developer. There also was a large amount of weeds and algae on the front entrance lake and on Lake D. As the POA does not own the water in the front entrance lake or Lake D, our contract does not call for algae and weed control on the developer’s property.

A number of residents living near Lake C on the golf course called me and explained this problem. Weeds were filling up the lake, and there were unpleasant odors due to algae along with fish-kill and many mosquitoes. The board had our management company write the developer on July 24 advising them of the problem and asking them to reinstate their maintenance contract. Some of the residents also contacted the water district, city, and environmental and health departments.

I am going to skip some details, but the developer did issue a contract to Lake Doctor to clean up Lake C and do quarterly maintenance. He did not reinstate the part of his previous contract to maintain his shorelines and water on the other lakes.

The Southwest Florida Water Management District ( SWFWMD) visited our site due to complaints from some of our residents about the condition of Lake C. Because the developer never did re-certifications every two years as required in the permit, SWFWMD requested the developer on August 24, 2009 to have an inspection done. The developer then called SWFWMD and sent me a letter stating that he told SWFWMD that this was the POA’s responsibility.

I then sent the developer a letter referring to our engineering study done on 2003, and why we cannot accept the permit. I also called SWFWMD and sent them a letter telling them the permit remains in the developer’s name and why we cannot accept it.

The developer and I met on September 2 and the results of that meeting were as follows:

It would be an agreement similar to the road maintenance whereas the developer pays an annual sum. This would also be recorded in the County records. The sum offered may not be sufficient, but we are working with Lake Doctor to determine the costs. If we can work this out, we would be assured of all the lakes being attractive again and staying that way.

We will work toward arriving at an agreement where the maintenance and repair costs of the storm water management system would be shared. Many details are involved as different methods can be used to arrive at the numbers. It can be done on how much water drains into the system from the POA as compared to the developer’s property; however, without including the amount of land and shorelines owned by each entity, this could come out very unfavorable to the POA.

The POA will have to hire their own engineering company to ensure the methods used to do the calculations by the developer’s engineering company are not only accurate but fair. Our attorney will have to be involved to give input into the terms of the agreement. The costs are unknown at this time, but they should be reasonable.

This process is going to take many months, but we will continue to keep you informed with updates at board meetings.

Thank You,

Bob Toth

September 14, 2009