POSTED January 17, 2018

Materials were received January 4th - due to webmaster's personal situations they were not posted until 17th, my apologies

Letter from Riley lawyer - click here

CSM Board response - click here

POSTED: December 11, 2017

Fellow CSM Residents:

The recent flurry of blast emails, many of which mischaracterize facts, has prompted the Board to provide this community-wide communication, rather than deferring to the CSM Website. With apologies to those who prefer not to immerse themselves in the details of the paving project, we offer the following perspectives on the topics raised.

Road Safety and Environmental Concerns

The Board believes that roadway safety is a serious concern, whether the roads are paved or not. We also acknowledge that paving the roads may encourage higher speeds.

While we take this problem very seriously, we also recognize that CSM exists on an island, the overwhelming majority of whose roads are paved and almost none of which incorporate meaningful speed control measures. City studies show that almost all accidents involving vehicles and pedestrians and/or bikes have occurred at major intersections or the entrances to commercial parking areas. Moreover, EMS/fire officials disfavor some more radical speed control measures, as they can impede rapid response to emergencies.

There are multiple approaches to speed control (e.g., signage, warnings, speed humps, speed bumps, etc.). The Board believes that we should calibrate our approach to the severity of the problem and remains open to any and all options in doing so.

As to the environmental impact of the paving project, we defer to the conclusion of the environmental regulators who have scrutinized the plans and concluded that it will result in a net benefit to our environment.

Paving Contracting Process

The Board believes considerable misinformation has been circulated concerning the contracting process relating to the paving project. From early on in the process, plans, budgets, proposals and permits related to the project have been posted to the CSM website for those interested to review. Final plans and contracts needed to await the issuance of required state, regional and local permits. The Board also believed that it would be imprudent to enter into binding contracts until the special assessment was collected and the Association could be certain it could make contractor payments.

As to the selection of contractors, at the time of the April annual meeting and the special assessment vote, the Association had a paving proposal from PMI and a proposal from Soon Come to undertake certain development/landscaping work, both conforming to the preliminary plans of the consulting engineer. With these in hand, the Board was able to size the proposed special assessment (i.e., not to exceed $3,900 per lot).

The Association only received the last of the required permits on November 3. On November 19, the Association received a paving proposal from Soon Come that matched the specifications of the earlier PMI proposal, but was approximately $10,000 less expensive. The Soon Come proposal was presented by Todd Webber, who was previously employed by PMI and attended the second town hall information session of the Road Study Group. The decision to award the paving contract to Soon Come was the result of multiple factors, including (1) the contract specifications and price, (2) the perceived advantage of having a single contractor responsible for paving and related improvements/landscaping, (3) Soon Come’s reputation and experience on Sanibel, (4) the interest in having Todd Webber (now with Soon Come) supervise the paving, and (5) on site inspections of multiple other area projects undertaken by Soon Come’s designated paving subcontractor.

Contrary to recent emails, the Soon Come proposal (which is posted to the CSM website) does not provide for payment in advance, but only 30 days following completion of the project. It also contains specifications, insurance requirements (including liability and workmens compensation) and warranty provisions that reflect substantial and time-consuming effort by members of the Road Study Group and afford substantial protection to our community.

The Board recognizes that some members of the community would prefer that CSM’s roadways not be paved. While that opposition does not mean that those members are foreclosed from sharing thoughts on the paving project, we urge them to avoid mischaracterizing facts and/or heightening rhetoric in a manner that will only serve to further divide the neighborhood.

The Board of Chateaux Sur Mer Improvement Association

_______________________________________________________________

Posted: December 8, 2017

More Road Safety

I’m sorry but I think you’re overreacting lets wait to see you until the road is paved and see if anything at all is necessary

Frank Pelly 4622 Rue Belle Mer

_____________

This safety problem has been going on since the runway has been paved and before We were told when the runway was being paved they would put in speed barriers They never did There excuse was it would impede fire engines and ambulances In my 18 years living inCSM I have never seen a fire engine and maybe an occasional ambulance There have been numerous problems with speeding especially on Rue Belle Met Marc Rowe on his bicycle and his dog were almost hit by a car recently Signs and talking to people will not solve the problem The board will not act to solve this problem until someone is injured and the association is sued

Jack Madaras

Posted: December 3, 2017

ROAD SAFETY

Marc Rowe’s email:

I have had many similar experiences with cars and trucks traveling on our roads at excessive speeds. This is certainly not something new. As a past director of a level 1 trauma center I have witnessed the tragic consequences of speeding on narrow roads without sidewalks. There is scientific data to show that speed increases when roads are paved. Are there any plans for speed control when the roads are paved- signage- islands- choke points- speed humps? Perhaps pedestrian accidents are statistically rare on residential roads in Sanibel but one injury or death is a hundred percent to the family and friends of the victim. I don’t want to sound dramatic but I know it can happen- I have had the the unbearable experience of informing loved ones too many times. I sent in my assessment but would be glad to contribute funds to make the new paved rounds safer. Trauma research has unequivocally demonstrated that The key to trauma management is PREVENTION NOT TREATMENT. Robin Is it possible to forward this email to the Board? Thank you
Marc Rowe

__________

Marian Sabety’s email:

I write this not to slow progress on the paving project, itself, but to now demand that the Detailed Design of this Road be approved by all CSM owners, so that we can ensure that slow speeds are automatically imposed through various methods (speed bumps, rumble strips, speed cushions, bump knobs, or speed humps). CSM walkers, and our kids, should not fear drivers racing past—oblivious to passers-by. Til now, hearing an approaching car on the sand/shell road offered a warning, but with paving, sound is muffled—and often silent with an electric/hybrid car.

I’d like to ask that the road committee produce and circulate a plan for speed bumps AND digital cameras that will record those ignoring our speed limit for our review, and approval.

One of the tests of the Runway was to have been calculating the resultant increased speed with paving. We were assured a speed bump would be installed on the Runway, but was not. The email below is the latest proof of what we all know to be true: Paving increases driving speed, as we witness with the Runway, now. Driving speed has been a concern raised often in the context of 'no pave' discussions. The email below tells us that this issue remains unresolved—and should be a #1 element to the detailed design of the pending paved road.

Marian

________

CSM Board’s reply

Dear Ms. Sabety,

We reply to your December 2 email expressing concern with respect to driving speeds following the paving of CSM’s roadways. We share your concern and that echoed by Marc Rowe’s recent email on that issue.

That said, we disagree with your suggestion that the proper next step is a community-wide referendum on one or another plan to address a problem the dimensions of which we do not yet know. While we recognize that paving may encourage some to drive faster, we are not prepared to judge at this juncture what measures CSM residents (who constitute a majority of our traffic) and others require to stick to our posted speed limits. As described in the Road Study Group presentations (and suggested by your email), there is a wide variety of options to address speeding (signage, roadway warnings, speed humps, speed bumps, etc.). While the Board agrees with Marc Rowe that prevention is the best approach, we also believe that the prevention measures should be tailored to problem at hand.

We remain open to all options, but hope that the expense and inconvenience of more extreme speed control measures can be avoid by all community residents exhibiting greater restraint and control on our roadways (paved or unpaved).

The CSM Improvement Association Board

__________________________________________________________________________

Posted: November 18, 2017

Dear CSM Board Members and Road Study Group,

QUESTIONS FOR NOVEMBER 21, 2017 BOARD MEETING ABOUT PAVING CSM ROADS

As a courtesy to the Board I am sending you in advance of the November 21 meeting questions that I believe others in CSM may raise at the meeting and would like to have clarified before the Board votes to proceed with implementing the road paving construction permit from the City. This is to allow the Board time to prepare responses for the meeting and to share them with CSM members – either in advance of the meeting or at the meeting. In any event it would help those not able to attend to have responses in writing through a message to all CSM members or on the website.

1.Have the engineer and construction companies incorporated all the requirements in the City permit into amended plans for paving the roads and communicated any adjusted costs to CSM leaders?

2. Specifically, the City Permit in section 11 c. and in the attachment from the Natural Resources Dept. prescribes extensive actions to be taken for improving the bayou side of the already paved runway in order to meet environmental requirements. How will the Board incorporate these construction and maintenance requirements into specific actions to revise the paving plans?

3. In view of the extensive requirements in the City Permit will the approved assessment of up to $3900 per property be adequate to implement the planned paving after the engineer and construction companies incorporate all these Permit requirements into final costs? If the budget responsive to all City permit requirements will exceed the $3900 assessment amount will the Board communicate with CSM members BEFORE taking any further action to implement the paving? Will another CSM members vote be required?

4. Will the Board communicate with CSM members what actions it will be taking to adjust the overall paving plans to meet the City Permit requirements BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION? The previous plans were on the CSM Website, as is the City Permit, so I recommend that the Board place on the website the revisions to the previous plans to meet City requirements BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION.

Thank you for your consideration,

Ray Albright

Dear Ray:

We respond below to your questions in advance of the Board’s November 21 meeting concerning paving our roads. As you requested, we are also posting your email and this response to the CSM Website for the benefit of other interested members.

For ease of reference, we have repeated your questions below, followed by our response (in italics).

1. Have the engineer and construction companies incorporated all the requirements in the City permit into amended plans for paving the roads and communicated any adjusted costs to CSM leaders?

The consulting engineer and Road Study Group have reviewed the requirements of the City permit and communicated with both the regulators and Soon Come as to supplemental measures required to comply with the City permit. Any program to pave the roads will be designed to comply with all permit requirements and cover related costs.

2. Specifically, the City Permit in section 11.c. and in the attachment from the Natural Resources Dept. prescribes extensive actions to be taken for improving the bayou side of the already paved runway in order to meet environmental requirements. How will the Board incorporate these construction and maintenance requirements into specific actions to revise paving plans?

See the answer to Question 1, above. Revised project plans will include additional groundcover to comply with City Permit section 11.c. On-going maintenance of HOA property will comply with the City’s fertilizer ordinance.

3. In view of the extensive requirements in the City Permit will the approved assessment of up to $3900 per property be adequate to implement the planned paving after the engineer and construction companies incorporate all these Permit requirements into final costs? If the budget responsive to all City permit requirements will exceed the $3900 assessment amount will the Board communicate with CSM members BEFORE taking an further action to implement the paving? Will another CSM member vote be required?

Based upon input from the consulting engineer, prospective contractors and the Road Study Group, the CSM Board believes that the paving project can be completed in compliance with the applicable permits within a budget financed by a $3,900 per lot special assessment approved by the membership at this year’s annual meeting.

Where the City Permit requires the submission of supplemental plans, those plans will be posted to the CSM Website and available for review by interested members. Where the City Permit requires other actions, applicable contractors will be instructed to comply with those actions and/or the Board will take the required action (e.g., the giving of certain required notices). Required member notifications will also be posted to the CSM Website.

Yours respectfully,

The CSM Board and Road Study Group

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

UPDATE: NOVEMBER 1, 2017

Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 9:39 AM
Subject: RE: Chateaux Sur Mer Roads

Dear Mrs. Schmidlin,

As I mentioned to you over the phone last week the City’s initial involvement with the proposed pavement and drainage plan for Chateaux Sur Mer was solely to determine whether or not the review and approval of a development permit from the City would also be required the same as with any other agency’s permitting requirements.

After this determination was made Staff met with the project’s Engineer Jim Strothers and HOA representative David Coleman two weeks ago on the 16th of October to accept the development permit application, proposed plans and permitting fees. As I explained to the two of them, and to you last week over the phone, the proposed plans for this project will have to be formally reviewed by Staff prior to the issuance of the development permit and the subsequent commencement for any of the proposed drainage and road resurfacing work. Upon completion of the review and the attachment of any appropriate condition the permit can be released.

While you have indicated that the project’s review is delaying the HOA’s fee assessment the permit review is still underway and not complete at this time. However, I can assure you that the permit’s final review and approval should be forthcoming no later than by the end of this week. I will let you and the project’s engineer know when the permit is ready to pickup.

Thank you for your patience and please call me directly with any questions you may have.

Jim Jordan

________________________________________________________________________

NOTE: Click on the word 'view' to link to the reports!!!! It should be the ONLY word that is a

different color!

_________________________________________________________________________

RSG Environmental Supplement Information: Note some materials when uploaded to website MAY be not in a form

that your computer 'likes'...this is a volunteer effort...Debbie

Click here to view RSG Environmental Supplement Part 1 - Overview March 19, 2017

Click here to view RSG Environmental Supplement Part 2 (pix 1) March 19, 2017

Click here to view RSG Environmental Supplement Part 2 (pix 2) March 19, 2017

Click here to view RSG Environmental Supplement Part 2 (pix 3) March 19, 2017

Click here to view RSG Environmental Supplement Part 2 (pix 4) March 19, 2017

Click here to view RSG Environmental Supplement Part 2 - Sanibel Slough March 19, 2017

Click here to view RSG Environmental Supplement Part 2 - TMDL info March 19, 2017

Click here to view RSG Environmental Supplement Part 2 - Nutrients for TMSL Sanibel Slough March 19, 2017

Click here to view RSG Environmental Supplement Part 2 - ComLakes Data March 19, 2017

Click here to view RSG Environmental Supplement Part 2 - SCCF Baseline Water Quality Report March 19, 2017

Click here to view RSG Environmental Supplement Part 2 - Sediment Report March 19, 2017

Email Responses:

Click here to view CSM response to Schmitt email March 18, 2017

Click here to view CSM response to Enright email March 19, 2017

Click here to view RSG response to R. Albright

Click here to view CSM response to R. Albright, J. Egan and M. Rowe March 12, 2017

Click here to view CSM response to M. Sabety

Click here to view CSM response to J. Maderas

RSG Information:

Click here to view Project Status Report 2/28/17 Strothers

Click here to view Road Study Group Presentation of February 28, 2016

Click here to view Q&A Road Study Group

Click here to view. Deed (Selected) Report

Click here to view Road Study Group Presentation of Feb 4, 2017