process.
The next item of contention was the corrugated pipes themselves that failed. Residents
stated the original permit had called for a concrete pipe, and asserted the County had
erroneously approved installation of an inferior corrugated pipe. Ms. Giordano
relayed that the residents felt the County committed the permitting error, and therefore
the County should pay the replacement costs. Staff explained that the original
developer chose to use metal rather than concrete, which was allowable at the time.
Additionally, the IRF owned the canal and was responsible for approving the permit;
the County had no input in the original construction of the culverts.
County Attorney Shuler then discussed the recently received letter from the HOA's
new attorney that argued the cost should be spread among all homes along that
stretch of 1st Street SW, not just the WEII residents. Attorneys Shuler and Hicks
explained that the culvert under 1st Street SW provided a public benefit because it
was a public road, making it the County's responsibility. The crossover culverts
offered a private benefit only to the subdivision's homeowners; the County could not
assume responsibility since the culverts did not benefit the public
Attorney Hicks then provided a timeline of communication exchanged between the
County and Attorney Sweeney, including the October 9, 2023 email of Attorney
Sweeney's approval on behalf of the HOA to accept the assessment and start work,
and a January 31, 2024 email from the Attorney Sweeney asking why the project had
not started given the HOA's approval.
Ms. Giordano maintained the HOA had never agreed to the cost or assessment. She
stated residents were present today to ask that the assessment be shared among all
homeowners on 1st Street SW, or not assessed at all. The Board suggested there
was a communication breakdown between the HOA and Attorney Sweeney, and the
County had gone to great lengths to communicate the facts. They did sympathize with
the residents for the cost factor, but noted the County's offer was intended to save
them money by combining the projects and offering 15 years with no interest to repay.
Waters Edge Resident Shalini Patel questioned how this cost was her responsibility.
She felt the County had failed the residents by issuing a final permit for a corrugated
pipe instead of a concrete one. Mr. Javed explained IRF was the permitting agency
that approved the developer's choice of construction materials, not the County, and
that corrugated pipes were an allowable option at that time.
Resident Leticia Wood received clarification from Attorney Hicks that the April
assessment hearing was advertised in the newspaper, as required. The County then
sent postcards to the residents informing them of this meeting so they could voice their
concerns and receive clarification. Mr. Hicks added that the issue of responsibility has
been ongoing since 2014, with the County always maintaining they were not
responsible for the culverts. Administrator Titkanich read from the referenced email
