MINUTES OF THE MEETING
OF THE PORT OF THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The continued meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Port of the
Islands Community Improvement District was held
Present and constituting a quorum
were:
Richard Gatti Chairman
Bernie Wolsky Vice
Chairman
Ted Bissell Assistant
Secretary
Richard Burgeson Assistant
Secretary
John Robinson Supervisor
Also present were:
Craig Wrathell District
Manager
Dan Cox Attorney
Tim Stephens Utility Director
Warren Bloom Nabors, Giblin &
Nickerson
Several Residents
FIRST
ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Wrathell called the meeting to order and called the roll.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval
of the Minutes of the November 21, 2003 Meeting
Mr. Gatti stated that each
member of the Board had received a copy of the minutes of the
Mr. Wolsky stated in the
middle of the meeting we agreed that meeting would be continued and at the end
it was adjourned. So there is internal
conflict in the minutes.
Mr. Wrathell stated so that
should be indicated as continued rather than adjourned at the end.
Mr. Cox stated that should be
recessed.
Mr. Wolsky stated so that is
incomplete because December 5th and December 15th meeting should be included
before we approve the minutes for this meeting.
Mr. Wrathell asked is it your
recommendation to bring them back next month when we have all those meetings
minutes to approve?
Mr. Gatti responded we will
deal with the minutes at the next meeting.
Whereupon, this item was
continued to the next meeting and the next item followed.
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion
of Administrative Purchasing Policy
Mr. Gatti stated the discussion of administrative
purchasing policy will be put off. We
have a lot of people here and we can that do later.
Whereupon, this item was tabled to the next meeting and
the next item followed.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration
of Purchasing a Mixer for the Wastewater Plant
Mr. Gatti stated the consideration of purchasing a mixer
for the wastewater plant we can also table to the next meeting. Mr. Benson is not here and we should put that
off until the next meeting anyway.
Whereupon, this item was tabled and the next item
followed.
FIFTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Attorney
Mr. Gatti stated now we will
get into the continuation of Mr. Cox's report.
Mr. Cox stated over the past
three months or so we have been discussing various aspects of the plan that
resulted from a consensual conference that we felt would lay out the parameters
for what we can consider claims against the debtors' estate, what we thought
could lead to a consensual plan.
I am about to introduce Mr.
Bloom with the firm of Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, which represented
Allstate in these proceedings. I have
asked Mr. Bloom to come down today to inform you of Allstate's perspective and
opinion of what we discussed.
If it is okay with the Board I
will let him talk to you about how this came out and why we are at the point
that we are now.
Mr. Bloom stated good
morning. I am Warren Bloom from Nabors,
Giblin & Nickerson. We represent
Allstate Insurance Company as the bondholder regarding this C.I.D. Mr. Cox correctly characterizes that we had a
meeting about three months ago, maybe longer.
Representatives of the tax collectors for
We are going to talk about the
conditions that were acceptable to all the parties, what that involved. Mr. Cox has probably gone over this in
detail, but Ms. Marchand's plan was to be funded by a variety of sources, one
of which was the tax collector who was to pay the tax certificates off that
principal.
Allstate's guiding principle
in this case is precedent. Allstate's
position was and still is that we are happy to settle for less than what is
owed on Ms. Marchand's property, but we cannot take any less than the tax
certificate holder would get on a percentage pro rata basis. The reason why is because the statute's for
special assessments have the same priority level as real estate taxes and that
principal is very important to Allstate because they have billions worth of
this debt in Florida and similar of this type of indebtedness in other states.
Maybe more creative minds than
I can probably figure out something else. The ERC's are presumably the conservation
piece that would be purchased by the County.
Is that correct, Mr. Cox?
Mr. Cox responded yes.
Mr. Bloom stated what we came
up with at that meeting was, if the District were to take ERC's instead of
cash, the District would take ERC's in exchange for what would otherwise be due
only in cash under the plan and Allstate comes out within a few cents of being
on equal priority with the tax certificate holders.
I understand you have had
plenty of deliberation on this and there is a sense of why does the District
get stuck with the ERC's, rather than cash?
Allstate is empathetic and sympathetic on that. It is not so much an economic issue as an
issue of precedence for Allstate.
We really do not have the
ability or willingness to take anything less than what the tax certificates
will lien on this thing. Regarding the
precedent value, there is another District in Sumter County, Florida where we
have a similar dispute and that can be held up to say, well you are going to take
less than the tax certificate holder because you somehow have a lower priority.
That is what we have
done. I know Mr. Cox has relayed this to
you, but I thought it made sense to have a direct representative of Allstate
come down to express that. That is where
we are. I assume that the deal we had
with Ms. Marchand, she is working on and it is still on the table, I hope.
Ms. Marchand stated the delay
has caused problems with the financing part, but it was crossed.
Mr. Bloom stated this is an
unusual situation where Ms. Marchand and I are kind of reading off the same
page. We would like for this to go
forth, but the only way I am aware of to make it work so that the dollars come
out pro rata, based upon what is in the tax certificates and the debt assessments,
is for the District to take ERC's rather than cash.
Mr. Cox asked are there any
other issues that you feel Mr. Bloom could elaborate on for you before we go
into the closed session.
Mr. Gatti asked should we talk
about legal fees at this point or should that be covered in the closed session?
Mr. Cox responded sure.
Mr. Bloom stated if I may
speak to that, one of the quid pro quos on this is the way we read the statutes
and the way my firm has interpreted it, and we have a bunch of Supreme Court cases
on assessments, is that one of the assessable costs for levying assessments is
defending assessments. It is not
uncommon for a city to levy assessments and people to say we do not want to pay
it.
That cost is frequently built
in or added on to the assessments. Our
take on this legally is that if Allstate so desires, we have the ability to
request that the Board of Supervisors request that they be reimbursed for the
fees or, depending on how the Court ruled, a lesser amount of fees that we have
paid your counsel or monies that would otherwise go to Allstate for defending
the assessment challenge that Old Florida brought against the assessment, which
we eventually prevailed on.
As part of this ERC acceptance
as opposed to cash, Allstate would, in essence not pursue that avenue of
recovery of legal fees. I should have
brought that up as one quid pro quo in the middle of the equation. Do we know how much they were?
Mr. Gatti responded $1,200,000
plus.
Mr. Wolsky stated it was
approximately $1,250,000, including Allstate's fees.
Mr. Bloom responded yes,
everybody's.
Mr. Wolsky stated that
includes Mr. Cox's fees.
Mr. Bloom stated I also
believe we have Mr. Hale's fees in there.
Mr. Cox stated we have the
cost of all our experts. We had an
expert appraiser, a planning expert and the engineer's had prepared multiple
exhibits and that incurred quite a bit of cost in there too.
Mr. Bloom stated there was a
whole trial and that was very expensive.
Mr. Bissell stated are you
saying that we should perhaps pay for Allstate's recovery.
Mr. Gatti responded no, that
is not what he said.
Mr. Bissell stated he said
everybody.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Attorney/Client Session
Mr. Gatti asked Mr. Cox; do
you want to go into the executive session before we open this up?
Mr. Cox responded yes, we
could do that. We can take it to the
executive session, let me tell you in what respect we will follow the issues we
will need to be able to address once we come out of the executive session and
make the final decisions that need to be done.
Mr. Gatti stated with the
Board's permission, I would rather do that.
We will listen to what Mr. Cox has to say. Mr. Bloom, will you be available?
Mr. Bloom responded yes, I am
with Mr. Cox.
Mr. Gatti asked are there any
other pertinent points that we want Mr. Bloom to address. I do not want this to get into a negotiation
at this point. Are there any other
pertinent points we want to ask Mr. Bloom before Mr. Cox takes over?
Mr. Wolsky responded no, but I
would like to ask him a couple of questions after the session.
On MOTION by Mr. Wolsky seconded by Mr. Bissell
with all in favor the meeting entered executive session.
Mr. Gatti stated the regular meeting is now reconvened. Mr. Cox, because these people have been so
patient, will you capsulize in five minutes or less what we have tried to
conclude here.
We
cannot make everybody happy, but we can level it off so that we are both
unhappy at the same level as you are.
Please kind of put it together so the audience knows where we are.
Mr.
Cox stated a good point to start is to explain where we are in the proceedings
so you understand the basis where all of this has come about. We were successful in defending the special
assessments that were levied for the debt service, operations and maintenance
and capacity reserve assessments levied by the District.
The
next step in this process then is for the debtor to present a plan for
reorganization that would allow all of the creditors of the debtor to recover
at least as much as they would in the event of a full liquidation. Is that pretty much the standard?
Mr.
Bloom responded I believe so under Chapter 11, yes.
Mr.
Cox stated when you look at what would happen under a complete liquidation of
that estate and the problems that are there with environmental problems, you
have a substantial amount of the property that is subject to the effluent
discharge easement for our wastewater treatment plant. It does not seem likely that we would be able
to recover, we being all of the creditors of the debtor, more under that
scenario than under the proposed consensual plan.
This
works out between all of the creditors and the debtors. It comes down then to as Mr. Bloom
alluded to earlier, none of us is going to recover all of our money out of
this, so we have to make sure that each of these liens is treated, as law
requires it is equal in dignity. There
is a pool of money that was made available to the debtor to solely pay one
class of creditors that being the tax certificate holders.
That
amount roughly equated to 54 percent of their total claim. To treat the District and Allstate, through
the District, equally we would need to also recover 54 percent of our
claim. That works out to a number once
you figure in the amount of taxes that have to be paid of about $1,450,000
roughly. These numbers are not
exact. It is back in our calculations
that we have been working with. They are
close. They are not exact.
When you take what has to be paid for taxes and
what would have to be paid to Allstate to get them at 54 percent, the District
would have to recover cash or cash equivalent in the amount of $475,000 to our
client. We have also incurred over the
course of the three years that this has been going on, quite a bit of legal
fees and costs.
Allstate incurred legal fees also. The total amount of fees and costs are
roughly $450,000. You heard Mr. Bloom
say earlier that they had taken a reading that they can ask the District to assess
for those fees to recoup those costs.
There is not enough money to fully fund the plan, so the Board was asked
to consider the acceptance of the ERCs as the component of their recovery.
We put a value on those ERCs and then there is
cash that needs to be raised to get us to the full amount after you apply the
value of the ERCs. Allstate has
indicated that they would accept whatever cash component we recovered as full
payment of the $450,000 that they claim to be owed to them for legal fees.
That is kind of where we are, between a rock and
a hard place. To recover anything, we
have to pay it to Allstate or we have to be faced with continuing litigation
whether to do anything with Allstate's claim.
It could go on for another year or two.
That is where we are. What
happens if we accept these ERCs? Is
there going to be an impact on the rest of the community? Yes, there's going to be an impact on the
rest of the community.
We are going to have less ERCs to spread the cost
of the wastewater treatment plant and the operation and maintenance costs. We are also going to have a property that
previously was not paying its assessments, that has committed to paying its
assessments. That is going to offset
some of that impact that comes from having less ERCs to spread this over.
Those are really the issues that were presented
to the Board for consideration as to whether they were willing to accept the
proposed plan modified to a couple of degrees, but essentially whatever monies
are available, we would accept the ERCs and enough funds to pay Allstate and
whatever cash is left over that comes to the District, would be turned over in
full accord and satisfaction of all attorneys' fees in the Allstate claim.
Mr. Gatti stated thank you. If I were in your position one of the
questions that would come to my mind is what does this mean to me at the end of
the year? We put some numbers
together. They are on the back of the
envelope numbers. If we varied, we
varied on the conservative side.
Mr. Cox stated we were looking at the annual
budget for O & M. The annual budgets
are roughly $750 per unit for an assessment.
Does that sound right?
Mr. Bloom responded for a single-family ERC.
Mr. Cox stated and about half of that is for O
& M and $380 a month is for the capacity reserve. If we take out the number of ERC's the
District is receiving because we are just going to hold these in the bank and
if somebody later needs additional development rights we should be able to sell
them.
If we just take them out of the mix and divide
the current year's assessments by that it would be roughly $75 to $100 per
year, per ERC. A multi-family unit would
be .8 of that and you are looking at roughly $60-80 per year.
Mr. Gatti asked what is the impact on the
assessment of the water treatment plant and the sewer treatment plant? The answer to that is zero. It does not affect that in any way. Am I correct?
Mr. Cox asked do you mean for the debt service?
Mr. Gatti responded for the debt service.
Mr. Cox responded right, there would be no impact
for the debt service.
Mr. Gatti stated the assessment that you are
paying stays the same. Potentially there
is an increase to your bottom line, cutting to the chase of something between
$80 and $100 per year.
Mr. Cox stated the long-term impact from this is
that first off, we are also in the process of foreclosing on two of the other
properties on the other side. We want it
completely blanked out. When we are all
said and done, all of the debt service associated with the properties North of
Route 41 are going to be extinguished so someone is going to leave on the south
side.
If you recall, about four years ago we had talked
about splitting those two separate bond issues and refinancing the south side
performing component of the bonds at favorable market rates compared to the
non-percent of that now. Once this
process is complete we stand in a better position to either approach Allstate
or some other institutional investor and received a more favorable interest
rate and potentially is able to reduce that service assessment.
Mr. Cox stated we also are going to be able to
defray some costs that would have had to have been incurred in order to fully
service the District at build out. There
are certain components of the project that were deferred because we did not
need them when we were only servicing 800 or 900 ERCs, but we would need them
when we get up to the $4,054. It would
take forever to be able to take care of those costs.
Mr. Gatti stated with the Board's permission I
would like to open this up to the audience.
Is that okay with you? What I
would ask is that it is not that we are not interested in opinions, but
opinions do not change anything.
If you have any questions regarding what we are
talking about, we have our attorney here to answer them. If I do not like what you are doing that does
not change anything. Please raise any
questions you have at this time.
A resident asked on these ERCs we are talking
about what seems to have so much value, what happens to them? Does Collier County own that property?
Mr. Gatti responded you own them.
A resident asked we own them anyway?
Mr. Gatti responded no you do not own them
anyway.
Mr. Cox stated right now the ERCs run with the
property that they have been allocated to.
Collier County is going to acquire title to the developable portions of
what is called the conservation area.
They are willing to accept deed restrictions. They have told me they want to use that
property to sink some wells for future potable water supply back to the end of
Route 41 to the south water treatment plant.
This adds an additional water supply area. They do not want to use it for any kind of
development other than that. They are
willing to accept deed restrictions that allow only that use on the property. That use that we propose is an EMS Station
with no training facilities and passive recreation.
Mr. Gatti stated the correct answer to your
question is those ERCs become ours.
Mr. Cox stated they are going to be stripped from
the property. They are not going to be
allocated to any property at all. This
Board will hold these ERCs now.
A resident asked do we get them anyway, no matter
what happens?
Mr. Cox responded they would stay with whoever
purchased the property.
A resident asked what are they going to do with
them?
Mr. Cox responded they could use them.
A resident asked not without our approval though,
right?
Mr. Cox responded sure.
Mr. Gatti stated that runs with the property.
Mr. Cox stated those ERCs are their property
rights and their interest in that is that the Board would have no
discretion. As long as the plan they
propose only uses that number of ERCs we have to approve. By taking this lot that we propose, that the
plan proposes, the Board would have 143 ERCs.
They would then turn around and adopt a rule that establishes what a
person would have to pay to acquire one of these ERCs to develop in the future.
Collier County impact fees currently for
multi-family units and for a multi-family unit of 750 to 1,500 square feet are
currently $3,680 per unit. A
multi-family unit is a .8 ERC. You are
looking at roughly $4,500 per ERC value if we want to adopt Collier County's
impact fees.
In the future, if somebody were willing to
develop the portions of this District that have not been fully developed they
would need additional ERCs. Everybody is
topped out right now.
A resident stated we do not have any land
available.
Mr. Cox stated that is not true. The South Hotel has an approved site
development plan that would utilize between 75 and 80 ERCs at some point. Northport has an approved site development
plan for 250 units, but only enough for about 150 units of ERCs. Whether that is ever developed to the 150 or
250 level it is speculative. It is
speculative as far as the hotel, but it is also speculative as far as a timing
issue, not as to a certainty.
At some point this hotel property is going to a
developer because there is very limited R2- zoned property in Collier
County. That is the only zoning of the
District that allows for 100-foot towers.
When you get up eight stories they can be worth a lot of money, but you
have to feel like you would have eight stories.
Mr. Gatti stated we have a question here.
A resident stated you first came up with a number
of $1,450,000 as a total and then you are saying the C.I.D is $475,000 and
legal fees are $450,000.
Mr. Cox stated yes.
A resident asked those kind of wash out against
each other, right?
Mr. Cox responded legal fees are not included.
A resident asked those are not included in the
$1,450,000?
Mr. Cox responded no.
A resident asked is it just the $475,000 that is
part of the $1,004,000?
Mr. Cox responded right.
Mr. Gatti asked are there any other questions?
A resident asked what time frame do you
anticipate for the authorized negotiations with Allstate for restructure of the
bond issue at today's low interest rate to put the Community back on a sound
footing?
Mr.
Cox responded that is hard to say. These
proceedings would probably take six months to get the confirmation
roughly. Probably within that six-month
period we will be concurrently trying to resolve the other two Allstate's. Hopefully we will have everything done by the
end of this fiscal year because we have a lot of work to do in restructuring
the assessments.
What
do you think is close for a refunding bond, nine months to a year?
Mr.
Wrathell responded yes, if these issues were completely resolved and we were
quick, that would probably be a four to five-month time frame. But we are not there yet.
Mr.
Cox stated I would say a year to a year-and-a-half or two maybe.
Mr.
Gatti stated I know you have brought this up a number of times and it is a good
idea, because now is the opportunity to take advantage of the low interest
rates. You folks are paying nine percent
now.
Mr. Cox stated we could definitely do that
concurrently with what we are doing here.
Mr. Wrathell stated what would end up happening
is, as you resolve these lawsuits, it would help the underwriters market your
bonds and get you a better interest rate.
You are looking at, could the interest rates continue to increase? Yes, and at the same time, does it make it
easier to market the bonds if this all gets cleaned up? I think it makes it much easier to remarket
these bonds for a potential refunding.
A resident asked is it too early to start
renegotiations with Allstate?
Mr. Cox responded they could start it, I am sure.
Mr. Bloom stated I suggest we double track it and
start talking to them now so they will see the light at the end of the
tunnel. We would like to discuss the
issue that was spoken about several years ago and start doing it now and start
talking about it now.
Mr. Gatti stated okay, does the Board have any
questions?
Mr. Bissell asked what are the two pieces of
property they are foreclosing on?
Mr. Cox responded Northport and the North
Hotel.
Mr. Bissell asked so it is the North Hotel and
the little parting, Northport?
Mr. Gatti responded yes. Ms. Marchand?
Ms. Marchand stated my question relates to the
impact on the Community. Northport, the
North Hotel and my property have not been performing and the District has not
received those dollars for a number of years; definitely Northport and my
property. Why did you think the equation
would have a financial impact on each ERC?
Mr. Cox responded because that is what the impact
will be. I do not know when Northport is
going to be performing.
Ms. Marchand stated I mean these properties have
not been performing to date.
Mr. Cox stated we have 143 ERCs that are taken
into the mix. Instead of dividing it
across 1,032 units, we are dividing it across 890.
Ms. Marchand stated but the money that came in
equated to even less than even the 890.
Mr. Cox stated I still think there is going to be
an impact.
Mr. Gatti asked has the Board got any comments
they want to make?
Hearing none,
Mr. Burgeson MOVED to authorize staff to pursue
final negotiations on the consensual plan under the parameters previously
discussed and Mr. Robinson seconded the motion.
On VOICE VOTE with Mr. Bissell voting Nay and
four voting Aye, the motion carries and the prior motion was approved.
Mr. Gatti asked what do you need for direction from us?
Mr.
Cox responded I think we have covered it all.
Mr.
Gatti asked Mr. Bloom?
Mr.
Bloom responded I have nothing further for your consideration.
Mr.
Gatti stated a number of people in the Community have talked about refinancing
this debt. What is the feasibility of
that?
Mr.
Bloom responded one aspect is are these bonds coming out of a no call period
now? Are these 1990 bonds?
Mr.
Cox responded I cannot remember. They
were callable in May I think.
Mr.
Bloom stated the feasibility is involved again, what we started is carving off
the other side creating the equivalent of a new District or downsizing of the
District. That is not that hard to
do. The business aspect of it is the
actual discussion with Allstate as to what rate they would find acceptable or
what they would find acceptable to get taken out of the deal.
They
have mentioned this before. His idea is
not unique. It is a good idea. This side of the road I have discussed with
certain people. You all pay your taxes
and your assessments and it is building out.
I cannot make any promises, but I think it is feasible.
Mr.
Gatti stated thank you.
Mr.
Cox stated I have one more item.
Assuming we get all of this implemented, the plan is accepted and we
proceed to a confirmation. We are going
to have to have a revised assessment methodology prepared and adopted by the
Board to reflect those 143 ERCs being taken out of the mix. We will probably need to start advertising
and getting that ball rolling so that we can have this all done by the adoption
of your budget for Fiscal Year 2005.
Mr.
Bissell asked this is done by management, right?
Mr.
Cox responded that is correct.
Mr.
Gatti asked what do you need?
Mr.
Cox responded authorization for staff to proceed with the actions necessary for
you to adopt a new assessment methodology for your capacity reserve O & M
assessments during this ensuing year.
Mr.
Gatti asked what if we as a C.I.D. picked up that load?
Mr.
Cox asked where will you get the money?
Ultimately, you have to build it into the budget. Mr. Bissell has it.
On MOTION by Mr. Burgeson seconded by Mr.
Robinson with all in favor staff was authorized to revise a new assessment
methodology for the capacity reserve O & M assessments during the ensuing
year.
Whereupon,
Item 3 was addressed out of order.
THIRD
ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion
of Administrative Purchasing Policy
Mr.
Wrathell stated we discussed this on several occasions and Mr. Bissell
discussed this prior to the meeting.
Perhaps it would be wise to give you an opportunity to review this
again. There are really two changes that
were made.
One
is under Item 2C on your first page under work authorizations. I put a caveat in there that says all work
authorizations shall be approved by the Board of Supervisors unless deemed an
emergency purchase by the District manager in Section 17. That means if there is a hurricane or
something like that and we cannot get the Board together and we need to just go
take care of something.
The
most significant change is on Pages 14 and 15.
We had discussed numerous issues such as utilization of the District
credit card and how that is to occur and a car allowance and utilization of
District vehicles.
I
created a section called 18, miscellaneous purchases and tried to wrap all of
those last little issues that we wanted to incorporate into that section, so
there has been almost no change at all made to this document other than
grammar-type corrections.
Section
18 is the one you may want to definitely review before the next meeting.
Mr.
Gatti asked are you okay with this or should we look at it some more?
Mr.
Bissell responded I think we should all look at it and I mentioned on this one
that is car allowance that you are talking about that if we give a 250 per
month, that means that Mr. Stephens and the other gentleman would have to pay
taxes on that amount. If we paid
mileage, he would not have to. That
would be just a check given to him.
Mr.
Gatti asked please go over that and see what you want to do with it and at the
next meeting we will try to follow you, okay?
Mr.
Bissell responded okay. That is one of
the reasons I think we should not pass this today.
Mr.
Gatti stated Mr. Bissell has done a lot of work on this and for the benefit of
the audience; it formalizes a lot of our purchasing policies on how we spend
our money and control of dollars.
Whereupon, Item 4 was addressed out of order.
FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Consideration of Purchasing a Mixer for the
Wastewater Plant
Mr. Gatti stated we will have to put the next
item off, purchasing of the mixer, as Mr. Benson is not here.
Mr.
Wrathell stated actually, I believe Mr. Stephens was going to address the
purchasing of a mixer.
Mr.
Stephens stated yes, the best price we could find for a mixer was $7,400, plus
freight, plus a crane to set it, plus an electrician to hook it up. There are extra costs there, which I am not
exactly sure what that would be.
Mr.
Gatti stated I would like Mr. Benson to look this over before we do anything
with it. Is there any urgency?
Mr.
Stephens responded this came from his office.
I would like to go ahead and get it.
We really need it or I would not bring it here to you. He recommended it.
Mr.
Bissell asked what were the other bids?
Mr.
Stephens responded most of them were over $8,000. I have those and can give you the others if
you want to look at those.
Mr.
Wrathell stated this is a perfect example of why we are having a purchasing
policy. This would fit into the criteria
of requiring written proposals for this amount so you would have written
proposals on record. That will enable
the Board to have that information versus having to ask Mr. Stephens at a
meeting.
Mr. Bissell MOVED to purchase the mixer as
proposed by staff including the ancillary costs involved and the Mr. Robinson
seconded the motion.
Mr.
Wrathell asked do you want to set a not to exceed amount?
Mr.
Bissell responded I would not because we do not know what has to be done. The charges will be whatever is there.
Mr.
Stephens stated it is $500 or $600 roughly.
They cannot even tell me.
Mr.
Gatti stated that has been moved and seconded.
On VOICE VOTE with all in favor the prior motion
was approved.
Whereupon,
Item 5 was re-addressed out of order.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports
B. Engineer
There
not being any, the next item followed.
C. Manager
There
not being any, the next item followed.
D. Field
Manager
There
not being any, the next item followed.
Mr. Gatti asked shall we pay the bills?
Mr.
Wrathell responded
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor's Requests and Audience
Comments
Ms.
Marchand asked will there be another January meeting or is this it?
Mr.
Wrathell responded I think we left it that there would be no other meeting in
January.
Mr.
Gatti asked is there a need for one?
Mr.
Wrathell responded I do not think so.
Ms.
Marchand asked did you schedule all of them for the last Friday of the month?
Mr.
Wrathell stated we scheduled those as the beginning of the year so that is
consistent with what exception of what we have been doing lately because of the
litigation.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
On MOTION by Mr. Burgeson seconded by Mr. Wolsky
with all in favor the meeting adjourned at 10:40 a.m.
Secretary / Assistant Secretary Chairman / Vice
Chairman