MINUTES OF THE MEETING

OF THE PORT OF THE ISLANDS

COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT

The regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors of the Port of the Islands Community Improvement District was held Friday, December 17, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. at the Egret Room, 25000 Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida.

Present and constituting a quorum were:

Richard Gatti Chairman

Ted Bissell Vice Chairman

Dale Lambert SupervisorVice Chairman

Ted Bissell Supervisor Elect

Norine Dillon Supervisor Elect

Dick Ziko Supervisor Elect

Also present were:

Edward Goscicki Manager

Dan Cox Attorney

Tim Stephens Field Manager

Numerous Residents

FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll Call

Mr. Gatti called the meeting to order and Mr. Goscicki called the roll.

SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the November 19, 2004 Meeting

Mr. Gatti stated that each Board member received a copy of the minutes from the November 29, 2004 meeting and requested any additions, corrections and deletions.

Mr. Gatti asked is there something we can do to aid the typist in transcribing our minutes more accurately? There were mistakes in these last minutes.

Mr. Goscicki responded if we could all identify ourselves when we speak, this would be a tremendous help to the person transcribing the minutes. We discussed this at the beginning of the last meeting and none of us ever did it.

Mr. Gatti stated during audience participation we will emphasize the fact that we have to identify ourselves, because whoever is transcribing is obviously having a hard time. We want to approve the minutes, but we made some corrections. Mr. Ziko had the foresight to write down his corrections.

Mr. Lambert stated I also have some here.

Mr. Gatti stated that is great. Do we want to go through the entire minutes or would you like to make those corrections and we will approve the revised minutes at the next meeting?

Mr. Goscicki responded that is a good suggestion.

Mr. Bissell asked what is the first one? I see the list beginning on Page 4 and I have Page 2 as number one. Mr. Ziko nominated Mr. Lambert and Mr. Bissell seconded the nomination. That was seconded by Ms. Dillon.

Mr. Gatti stated if we could approve the minutes this way, it would save a tremendous amount of time.

Mr. Ziko Lambert stated I have a question regarding the motion where we are electing Ms. Ellis and Mr. Ward as Assistant Treasurer and Treasurer. I believe that should have included Mr. Goscicki as Assistant Secretary and Mr. Hans as Assistant Secretary. It is on Page 3.

Mr. Goscicki stated that should be identified as part of that motion.

Mr. Ziko stated other than that,; mine were pretty minor name changes.

Mr. Dillon stated on Page 47, it talks about the mileage rate. That should probably be corrected to millage.

Mr. Gatti stated we will go through Mr. Lambert's listing and approve the minutes at the next meeting.

THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Ranking of Audit Firms.

Mr. Gatti stated the next item is the ranking of the audit firms for this year. Mr. Goscicki has provided us with some material, including a ranking sheet, which I think was is self explanatory. How does the Board want to handle this? One way is to add up our rankings at the end of the sheet for each firm and let that number fall out. On the other hand, even though one firm may rank the highest, when you consider everything, that may not be the firm that we want to select. What is the Board's pleasure? I suggest we total up our rankings and then discuss it.

Obviously, one of these is a bit out of line. By From a ranking standpoint, he might come up in front.

Mr. Gatti stated while he is adding those up, we will go to the next order of business.

Whereupon, this item was deferred and the next agenda item followed.

FOURTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Discussion of Permitting and Refurbishing Signs

Mr. Cox stated Mr. Goscicki and I discussed this since the last meeting. Mr CoxI suggested that the District we have some contract with one of these signs companies in town and they go through this that are familiar with the permitting process all the time.. Rather than just have us go out to bid for the refurbishing of the signs and me do the permitting, it may work to the District's advantage to have the complete package bid by the sign companies includingwith permitting and refurbishing the signs. It may work to your advantage. You could also have the option of splitting out the refurbishing, have them bid it both ways and we could work out my estimate on the time I would have to spend getting it permitted and getting the numbers, and see which one is economically beneficial for you.

Mr. Gatti stated I am in the County Office or the City Office two or three times a week. I can do the permitting part of it. The challenge is preparing the plans and specifications we need to obtain the permit. That is a bit tricky.

Mr. Cox stated they are the best qualified people to do that. We have the surveys, the elevations and everything we need from the engineers at this point. They may have some things we need to get from them. They could take the information we have, do your design work and fill out the permit. Anybody can basically fill out a permit, but you have to have all the attachments that have to go with it that which becomes the issue.

The other issuething is, that I had some discussion with the Code Enforcement folks. We really do need to take care of this. They also told me that there has been some question about whether or not they can permit the signs on an easement. I have not determined why there are concerns regardingon that. An easement is a perpetual interest in land that would give you theat right forever to maintain it and have that sign there. I cannot see why it is an issuea concern, but there may be an issue there.

Mr. Gatti stated we will put them on public right-of-way.

Mr. Bissell asked hadve we decided which signs we wanted and did not want?

Mr. Cox responded I believe we did.

Mr. Gatti stated that will be the next point of discussion; to make sure we are all on Board in agreement onwith that.

Ms. Dillon stated as I recall we had the companies go out to bid on all signs, select signs and then we were going to look at it from that angle to see if it made sense to at least to do some of them. That is what I recall.

Mr. Gatti stated we may be mixing apples and bananas. We have to determine what the signs should look like.

Ms. Dillon stated we have done that.

Mr. Gatti stated then for the other part of it, you are absolutely right. We should get different signs for different situations. The challenging part is putting the specs together so that the sign company knows what they are bidding and proposing on. Do I have a volunteer who wants to take this on?

Ms. Dillon asked what is the issue? What exactly do we need?

Mr. Gatti responded we need to list the different signs that we have and the ones that we would like a proposal on and to show a create a profile or a demonstration of what the signs should look like. I think we have some around that demonstrateshow what the signs should look like. The heron is sort of what we picked out, is it not?

Ms. Dillon asked do you mean like at the McKay Cays eEntrance?

Mr. Gatti responded right.

Mr. Cox stated what we are going to have to keep in mind when doing in this design to keep this in mind, is that if we are going to have a variety ofto have all these designs we have and to get them permitted, and we have to fall under the common subdivision theme provisions of the County's code. They all have to be consistent in theme and design. The pattern at the entrance to the McKayCayss is a good thing. We have something there that the County has seen and can say we recognize these as signs to a subdivision. They just need to be permitted.

Mr. Gatti asked do we have pictures?

Mr. Goscicki responded yes, compliments of Mr. Bissell.

Mr. Gatti stated that would do it;, a series of good pictures to give to the proposer and have them say we need so many signs and keep in mind when we select somebody that we will probably want them to add to the group some time in the future.

Ms. Dillon asked do we have to permit all the interior signs? Is it only those certain signs? For example, like Sanctuary Point; and there is a sign for Newport, do those do not have to be permitted, do they?

Mr. Cox responded no, those are internal to yourthe subdivision and the location and design for those is not of concern to the County. It is just the ones to the entrances of the subdivisions.

Mr. Bissell asked so basically, we only need three signs?

Mr. Ziko asked so basically, we only need three signs?

Mr. Cox responded right nowcurrently you have a wall sign on each side of Route 41. You have the Cays eEntrance signs,. Yyou have these entrance signs and you have the signs on Route 41 and one that is in the middle of the NNorth EEntrance RRoad.

Mr. Ziko stated but we could do it with three;, the NNorth EEntrance RRoad, the Cays and one over here.. It would cut down on expenses.

Mr. Cox asked do you mean, take out the wall signs on Route 41?

Mr. Ziko responded right.

Mr. Cox stated those are the ones that appear to have the most damage compared to the entrance here. The one at the NNorth RRoad, I guess;, to one extent you have Orchid Cove that is going to be developed there, the new project. They probably have signage that they will want to have for their entrance amenities. They want to allow them to carry the burden on getting that north side permitted and the only thing you are worried about is the entrance to the Cays and the entrance here, which is going to cut down significantly on your design costs, because you are just going to mirror what you have done there. That may be the most expedient way to go and just have the rest of the signs removed.

Mr. Ziko stated I would be in favor of doing that.

Ms. Dillon asked are you talking about removing Sanctuary Point?

Mr. Cox responded no, just these external signs.

Ms. Dillon stated they reflect badly on the community right now. They all look terrible. The Sanctuary Point sign, and there is one at the Cays at Newport; those signs all need to be fixed. They cannot cost that much.

Mr. Cox stated this District does perform landscaping and the right-of-way maintenance. I could see that being something that the District could take on if it would like to. That is not a problem. I really have to stay focused on these.

Mr. Gatti asked what is the Board's pleasure? We have selected the appearance of the signs and now we have to get somebody on Board to agree to submit a proposal and create the signs. Can you handle that for us?

Mr. Goscicki responded yes, we are already doing some research on some sign companies and we will come back to the Board with some recommendations.

Mr. Gatti asked are we following up on Mr. Ziko's idea?

Mr. Ziko responded that is for the three signs on the major entrances. We will look in to the Sanctuary Point sign and the one that Ms. Dillon mentioned.

Mr. Cox stated what we, as the District, want to permit are the entrance signs to the Cays, the entrance sign on the south side of Route 41 to Newport Drive and we are going to wait and see what the developers of the north quarter piece want to do.

Mr. Gatti stated that is right.

Ms. Dillon stated I think we still need some sort of Port of the Islands continuing theme sign over there. It could be done in such a way that if Orchid Cove wants to add a sign below it perhaps or something to that effect, that would be fine, but I personally do not want them determining what that sign is going to look like because it will probably showcase Orchid Cove.

Mr. Cox stated I have not talked to them, but I imagine it would be something like going north on Route 41 in Bonita Springs;, you have Pelican Landing, which is a very large community. It spans for about three miles through there. They have different entrances to different phases of the development, the Colony at Pelican Landing and the original entrances are Pelican Landing. There would be some consistency to theme, but I think they would want to emphasis that it is Orchid Point at Port of the Islands.

Ms. Dillon stated we do have to consider the NNorth HHotel over there and the additional property in back that could be developed. We have the potential to have several signs there and I was thinking you need one larger Port of the Islands sign to start with and then we could add something afterward.

Mr. Cox stated to the extent that we could do that, it is within the Port of the Islands right-of-way that it owns. If we are looking to go beyond the right-of-way we will have to request easements from these folks.

The other issue is that we must keep in mind is that we are trying to permit subdivision signs, which is much cheaper and not as difficult. Once we start, we could not advertise the hotels on these specific signs or any other commercial enterprise. It has to be strictly the subdivision sign.

Mr. Gatti stated this is an opportunity to get some proposals on signs throughout the entire subdivision and have that included for consistency for all our roadways and everything else. Are we all in agreement?

Whereupon, the Board members indicated their agreement.

Mr. Gatti asked do we need a motion for that?

Mr. Goscicki responded probably a motion to put it out for bid would be in order.

On MOTION by Mr. Lambert seconded by Mr. Ziko with all in favor staff was directed to bid out the removal and/or replacement of the wall signs and to bring up to standard the subdivision entrance signs of each subdivision and also the Sanctuary Point and the Cays at NewportOn MOTION by Mr. Lambert seconded by Mr. Ziko with all in favor staff was directed to bid out the removal and/or replacement of the wall signs and bringing the subdivision entrance signs of each subdivision and also the Sanctuary Point and the Cays at Newport.

With regard to selection of a new Audit firm , Mr. Gatti asked have you had a chance to do the ranking?

Mr. Goscicki responded yes.

Mr. Gatti stated okay, so we will review that now.

Mr. Goscicki stated I looked at the overall ranking and added those points across to see if there was a clear indicator of a favorite choice by the Board. There is not. When you look at the rankings, they were pretty well spread all over the place in terms of who was ranked number one; all except Bergman Hopkins. Each of the other three firms received at least one first place ranking. All of the other three firms received at lease one second place ranking. When you add the rankings and run those across and total them, at that point, the lowest score would be the highest ranked firm.

Bergman Hopkins received 17 points, indicating they were the lowest ranked of the four. The other three firms received a total of 10, 11 and 12 points. You have the three firms of DuFresne & Associates, Grau and Company and Rodriguez & Traub, all ranked fairlypretty consistently by the Board members. Again, there is no clear indicator of a first preference. Probably the firm that received the most consistently high rankings would be DuFresne and Associates. They were not ranked least by anyone. They received two ones, a two and two threes. Grau & Company received two ones, a three a four and a two, and Rodriguez & Traub received a one, two twos a three and a four. We have some significant experience with Grau & Company. They have proven experience in this work. Some of the other firms, I can advise you that $4,750 is not sufficient to do this work and that the price cost will be higher.

As you saw this year, a more realistic number is between $12,000 and $15,000 for the accounting firm to do this work. That $4,000 bid tells me that firm did not have a full understanding of the nature of the work involved. We recommend that you consider Grau & Company or Rodriguez. They areRodriguez is new to the business, but their price indicated a decent understanding of the work.

If the Board chooses to go with one of these firms we will meet with them and make sure they have a clear understanding and will come up with a not-to-exceed with that firm before we bring approval of their contractthat back to the Board for approval of their contract. The Board also has the option to select none of these firms and start the process over, or to go back to your current auditor and ask if they want to continue.

Mr. Gatti asked what is the Board's pleasure?

Mr. Lambert stated last year at some point; we paid the auditing firm spent $2,500 to the auditing firm for the GASB34 conversion. In Grau's documents they mention their estimate is $15,000 to do the audit and there was an additional $3,000 for GASB34.

Mr. Goscicki stated there are two elements to this. One is, the work you paid for to- date was not to audit for GASB34 compliance, but to get you in conformance with the GASB34 requirements. That was making sureensuring your accounting system was in compliance with these new requirements dealing with asset management and overall fixed asset inventory. The increased audit cost is now auditing that process, which creates another level of effort for them as part of the audit. Those were two separate efforts.

Mr. Gatti asked how about we go down the line and each one of us suggests who we want to do the audit?

Ms. Dillon responded I want to go with Rodriguez. I thought their price was more in line with reality. The reason I chose them over Grau was that Grau was too expensive. They had a glitzy proposal, which reflects the size and scope of the company, but I do not feel glitz is necessarily the way to go. I like Rodriguez for a lot of reasons. They seem to have experience with GASB34. Those are my first top two. The first one I really discounted. Dufresne, I did not feel Dufresne had the same qualifications. My choice is Rodriguez.

Mr. Ziko stated my first choice was Dufresne. They are basically at $5,000. When you look at Rodriguez, who bid $10,000, and Grau, who bid $18,000;, we could run a $13,000 overrun with Dufresne and still be less than Grau. If it does cost us a bit more;, I am trying to figure out what we did with last year's audit. That was a lot of money for very little use.

I feel if we went with Dufresne or Rodriguez, we wouldill be well ahead of the game even if we ended up spending another $5,000.

Mr. Gatti stated you need to pick one.

Mr. Ziko stated I pick Dufresne.

Mr. Lambert stated I had Grau listed as number one. I made my listing without looking at their cost estimates and then reviewed that afterward. What put them ahead in my mind was their prior District experience. They seem to have done a lot more work than any of the others forin situations that look very similar to ours.

Rodriguez and Bergman, I scored very low on prior District experience based on what I was reading in their presentation. I would go with Grau even though it is a bit more expensive. I am sure the others would be coming and asking for more money.

Mr. Bissell stated my first choice was Dufresne. I have to agree with the comment that was made previouslyior, that we could spend a lot of extra money and still come in below the $9,500, $14,000 or $18,000. My first choice is Dufresne.

Mr. Gatti stated we are legally obligated to do the audit.

Mr. Cox stated these numbers you have here;, this $4,750, $8,500, these people are not bound by that at all. Once you rank them, we go to number one and say, we want to make sure you have a full understanding of the scope of work and what is your not-to-exceed price. These numbers could change. Generally, your considerations includeare the other factors inwhen ranking them and thenat iscomes the consideration of cost.

Mr. Bissell asked when they sign a contract for a certain amount of money, after Mr. Goscicki talks with them, regardless of who it is, that is what we pay them?

Mr. Cox responded yes, then we will have a not-to-exceed price.

Mr. Gatti stated we have four people and all different choices.

Ms. Dillon asked what about your choice?

Mr. Gatti responded based on qualifications,; I went with Grau & Company. That was my number one. When I looked at the numbers I totally agree with Mr. Goscicki. We have been told repeatedly, and the bids last year went from $12,000 up. When people come in at $4,000 or a bit more, it suggests that they do not know what the scope of work is. It wasis also a good point that even if we add a few thousand dollars to that, we canwould still come out ahead.

Mr. Bissell stated last year the low bid was $3,700 and it went up to $21,000, I believe.

Mr. Gatti asked how much was it?

Mr. Bissell stated the low bid was $3,700 last year and the high bid was $21,000.

Mr. Gatti stated from a qualification standpoint, Grau & Company is heads and shoulders above everybody else. Rodriguez was middle ground and I thought that was where we should be until I reviewed their experience in depth and did not see it there. If it was coming out of my pocket, I would deal with Grau. Considering what Mr. Bissell said, I would also like to see Dufresne.

Ms. Dillon stated I have a problem with a company coming in with what appears to be a deliberate low bid, so that they can come back. If you give me the impression that you do not know what you are doing and you are going to fix it later, I do not like that.

Mr. Gatti stated we have had a few years of experience with our current company and they did it at $12,000 last year and came back with an increase request for $2,500 because they said it was not enough. That is why I did not even look at the $4,000 bid.

Mr. Goscicki stated to further explain some of the numbers;, when we go out for auditors, typically we go out with twenty Districts at a time that we are soliciting auditing firms for. Some of them will give a more standardized pricing. This District is much more financially complex than several of our other Districts that we manage are.

Mr. Gatti asked do you recommend Grau?

Mr. Goscicki responded Grau; we have a working relationship with Grau and know their experience. We also recognize Dufresne with has good experience. The other two are relatively new and do not have C.D.D. experience.

Mr. Gatti stated so answering that question,; I would go with Grau. What is the Board's pleasure?

Mr. Lambert stated I would go with Grau.

Mr. Gatti asked did I see in Rodriguez' a disclaimer that this was not the total amount and that this was subject to some modification?

Mr. Ziko responded Mr. Goscicki advised that this is not the final amount. We seem to be locked between Dufresne and Grau. Maybe you could talk to them and find out if they understand the scope of this project and why is the GASBE34 is included in Grau's proposal when we already paid for it and ask if they cwould they knock the price down from $18,000. We need to make sure Dufresne knows what they are getting into. Maybe their price would go up. I do not know. You mentioned that you have dealt with both of them and respect both of their opinions. You recommended that this Board make a decision on qualifications.

Mr. Goscicki stated the price is there as an indicator, but thisit is a quick and rough estimate on their part for the basic service. You have multiple funds. You have a complex financial history that we need to make sure they are aware of. We are confident the price will be in the range of $10,000 to $12,000 as a minimum, whoever we bring in.

Mr. Ziko stated we are already starting out at $18,000.

Mr. Goscicki stated that price could come down. We have not yet discussed this with them. The price is an estimate on their part at this point.

Mr. Gatti asked we do not have to decide today, do we?

Mr. Goscicki responded no.

Mr. Gatti stated I think it is a good idea to meet with the two we are zeroing in on and see if they know the scope of work and secondly, if Grau & Associates wcould come down a bit. Both of them are coming into a better idea of what the scope is.

Mr. Bissell asked did you get a written statement from each of them, like Dufresne, indicating what their experience is?

Mr. Goscicki responded their experience is in their proposals already. I have a concern about going to them and trying to negotiate competitive pricing. I feel that is inappropriate in professional service.

Mr. Gatti stated I understand.

Mr. Cox stated the CCNA says that you will rank them one, two, three and four and we will go to number one. Your manager has the knowledge to negotiate the price and determine whether it is a reasonable price or not. You can say you think that somewhere between a range is reasonable. If we are not successful negotiating with number one, the statute provides that only then can you go to number two.?

Mr. Gatti stated the point is, ; do they both understand the scope of work? We cannot have one come in at $18,000 and one at $4,000 and both be looking at the same set of circumstances.

Mr. Goscicki stated both of these firms are qualified to do the work. Based on the qualifications they presented, whom does this Board feel is the most qualified to do the work?

Mr. Ziko responded that all goes into qualifications. If they are gong to spend another $13,000 over to get more than another one firm… and you say they are both qualified;, I think you did not put a column in here to rate the pricing.

Mr. Goscicki stated that is correct. These were not hard, fast bids. This is not the kind of service where you are buying a commodity and you are askingstating here is my specification. Give me a price. We gave them an indication of the services required for this audit. They gave us their qualifications to do this work. You are ranking based upon qualifications. The pricing is just one of the indicators. That is why the ranking form does not include pricing. It was just there for supplemental information.

Mr. Ziko stated but you do have pricing on the qualification form and that swayed me a lot. We are fiscally responsible for this District and $15,000 in the District's pocket is just as good as in Grau's pocket. If they are not up –to- date on what they are doing, maybe Grau overbid it. Maybe Dufresne underbid it. Do they know what the package is about?

Mr. Lambert stated if you look at these people on their qualifications and what they presented in their documents;, they all read the same document to prepare their bid from. Forgetting about the price, one is a lot better than the others when you go through all of this. When you look at higher education degrees, how many extra hours they put in for CPE requirements, that company comes out on top forin all those thingsareas.

Mr. Ziko stated to me that mean they made a better brochure.

Mr. Lambert stated that is not our problem though.

Ms. Dillon stated CPE requirements are reported with all CPAs. Every CPA has to go through a certain number of hours of CPE every year. I did not put a lot of stock in that.

Mr. Gatti stated again, we are meeting legal requirements. That is why we are doing this. Within those legal requirements there are certain parameters that have to be met. This audit is not something that goes on the shelf someplace and we satisfy legal requirements. The firm that is doing this must understand that and I think we are okay.

Mr. Lambert stated I agree.

Mr. Gatti stated I suggest that you are completely satisfied that both the firms completely understand the requirements and are going to meet them. If there is a question as to whether one can do it for less or more, I understand you cannot negotiate that.

Mr. Goscicki stated we cannot negotiate two against each other. We negotiate with one and if the price is not right, we go to number two.

Mr. Gatti stated the question is who to start with. I propose we Sstart with the low guy and see if hethey totally understands the scope of work if the Board approves. If he understands the scope of work and knows that we have to meet the legal requirements of the audit and this is what youwe expect. Are you they totally clear on that? Are there any changes in what youthey are proposing? If there are not, we go ahead.

Ms. Dillon stated I can buy that.

Mr. Ziko stated I agree.

Mr. Lambert asked can we do that when you put a job out for bid like this?

Mr. Cox responded this is a request for qualifications.

Mr. Gatti stated this is not a bid. It is a request for proposals. It is the same in the engineering field. It is the same in the auditing field.

Mr. Goscicki stated I suggest a motion by the Board ranking Dufresne & Associates as the number one firm, Grau & Company as number two and Rodriguez as the third-ranked firm and Bergman Hopkins as your fourth ranked firm.

On MOTION by Ms. Dillon seconded by Mr. Ziko with all in favor the auditing firms were ranked Dufresne & Associates as the number one firm, Grau & Company as number two, Rodriguez as number three and Bergman Hopkins as the fourth ranked firm.

Mr. Gatti stated that is with the understanding this is based on the discussions that, they totally understand the scope of work to meet the legal requirements of the audit process. I see a lot of faces here and we are happy to have the community involved.

FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff Reports

A. Attorney

Mr. Cox stated I distributed to the Board a letter that I received from Northport Development, Inc. in regards to the proposed grant of the property for the fire station. I need to explain to you;, we basically we have to goet back with a counter-offer because some of the requests they have made in this letter are not items this Board should be involved with or they are items that we need to clarify.

First is the proposal for a 40,000 square-foot parcel, which is roughly three-quarters of an acre. We need to verify that if that, in fact, would be sufficient or whether we need the full acre. I cannot recall whether Mr. Bissell spoke with the fire department about their size requirements for the parcel.

Mr. Bissell responded no, that was somebody else. They were concerned about them having a training facility here and they did not want that.

Mr. Cox stated you did not want it to be big enough for them to do anything like that. 40,000 square feet is a pretty good-sized property. It is sufficient to put a fire barn on it that will hold a couple of engines and maybe an ambulance. I would think that would be okay. We could verify with both fire Districts that we are currently considering dealing with and have a standard before we respond back, if you want me to check on that.

Mr. Gatti stated weasked can assume we need another 5,000 or 10,000 square feet and they will go along with it.?

Mr. Cox stated I think we can.

Mr. Gatti stated whether it is 40,000 or 50,000 does not make any difference. They cannot develop it anyway and it is a matter of rezoning.

Mr. Bissell asked is that Northport Development or is it Orchid Cove now?

Mr. Cox responded yes, it is Orchid Cove. I will make sure that we have the appropriate signatures from all parties involved. I will take care of all the technical issues and obtain the correct signatures.

The first issue I see is under Paragraph 1. I do not have a problem agreeing that the C.I.D. will be responsible for getting all the approvals necessary to put the fire station there. I do not think that is something we should burden them with. I have a problem with the last sentence that says applying for our governmental approval cannot commence until the project has been completed.

I suggest we agree that we will not proceed to seek our zoning approvals until they get all their entitlements in place and all their governmental approvals in place. I do not think we want to wait a year-and-a-half for build- out and then spend six months getting our entitlements in place when they should have their entitlements in place in six or seven months. We can start over then and could be in construction in a year-and-a-half instead of just beginning the entitlements process. I suggest we go back with that counter offer on that point. We do not want to interfere with them getting their entitlements, but we also do not want to wait until construction is complete before getting ours.

Mr. Ziko asked we are basically reserving zoning a recreation area, right? It is an open space area that has nothing to do with him anyway.

Mr. Cox responded right;, the second is this is, Paragraph Number 2, his request that the C.I.D. affirmatively support all efforts to prevent the existing Northport Bay P.U.D. Ordinance from expiring and that he his requesting for our support to include passage of one or more resolutions in support of such efforts. I have made this comment before when the Board wanted to involve itself in the permitting processes, specifically with regard to the road and how traffic patterns were designed and so forth.

That is really beyond the scope of authority granted you by your enabling statute. We have to decline to pass any resolution. We can affirmatively assert that the Board does not have the authority under its enabling statute to involve itself in development of approval processes and we cannot object to anything that they do.

Mr. Ziko stated that sounds like it goes against the Sunshine Laws. We cannot do that.

Mr. Cox stated you are right. If the board essentially agreed to do something within the scope of its authority, your decisions