MINUTES OF MEETING
PORT
OF THE
COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
The
regular 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
Bernard Wolsky Supervisor
Ted Bissell Supervisor
Richard Burgeson Supervisor
John Robinson Supervisor
Also present were:
Darrin Mossing District Manager
Daniel Cox District
Counsel
Ronald Benson District
Engineer
Tim Stephens Field
Manager
Numerous residents
The following are the actions taken
at the
FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS Roll
Call
Mr. Gatti called the meeting to
order. Mr. Mossing called the roll and
noted that Mr. Robinson was not present at roll call, but will be attending the
meeting.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of the June 21, 2002 Meeting
Mr. Benson I am going to hand over
pages I have marked. They had my name
and Mr. Petty and Mr. Stephens mixed up a little bit. There are a few corrections I am handing you.
ON MOTION by Mr. Wolsky, seconded by Mr.
Bissell, with all in favor, the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER
OF BUSINESS Public
Hearing Adopting the Budget for the Fiscal Year 2003
Mr. Gatti stated our main purpose
this morning is to adopt a budget for the Year 2003. We have resolutions that we have to
pass. Are there comments on the budget?
Mr. Mossing stated I have handed to
you a revised draft of the budget. I
would like to highlight the minor changes that were made to that budget, open
it up for Board discussion, and after the Board has had the opportunity to
discuss it, then open it up for public comment.
The meeting has been advertised as a
public hearing. Upon hearing from the
public, if the Board feels there is a need to make any further adjustments,
they could at that time. Then we would
ask that the public hearing be closed.
There are two resolutions that we would ask the Board to act on at that
point.
Mr. Gatti asked do you want to give
us a brief overview of the budget? Is
that necessary? You have done it before.
Mr. Mossing responded I can, in
general.
Mr. Gatti stated go ahead.
Mr. Mossing stated the budget is
basically the same format that you have seen in prior years in the General Fund
outlining the administrative overhead items, and then also the individual items
that we maintain as part of the General Fund - the landscaping and mosquito
control all fall under those General Fund categories.
On the administrative side there is
an increase of about $1900. We have
adjusted certain minor items. There is a
five percent increase for management fees included in there. We have adjusted the various categories to
reflect what we are actually spending.
Mr. Gatti stated let me ask you
this, if you do not mind. I assume we
are incurring significant legal fees as a result of this suit; is that the
case?
Mr. Mossing responded all of the
legal expenditures based upon the ongoing litigation are being born by the
Trustee and basically the bondholder.
They are not reflected in this budget.
Mr. Gatti asked it is not going to
affect our sewer and water budget or our General Fund budget?
Mr. Mossing responded not other than
the fact that we have non-paying property owners. We have not increased either of our budgets
to reflect increased activity based upon the lawsuit for either attorney or
engineer. I will defer to Mr. Cox on
that to make sure that you are in agreement with my representation.
Mr. Cox stated the way it is working
right now; they are submitting our bills and the bills for Allstate's counsel
to the Trustee for payment out of the funds that would normally be used to
repay portions of the bond.
It is Allstate's money. As holder of the bonds, they have directed
that to happen. I do not know if they
will come back later and try to recover any of these fees that have been spent
or not from the District. I do not know
the answer to that question. They would
probably be within their rights.
Mr. Gatti stated let us go back to
something you said. "They directed
that the fees be taken from the bond fund" at this point in time.
Mr. Cox responded that is correct.
Mr. Gatti stated there is nothing
reflected in this budget that relates to that.
Mr. Cox stated no. There is always the possibility that at some
point Allstate and I are not going to be seeing eye-to-eye. When that happens, they may not direct those
payments to continue.
Right now we are still pretty much
on the same page. I am not foreseeing
any split with opinion, but there is always that possibility.
Mr. Gatti stated I will repeat what
I said earlier. I want to compliment you
guys on the response to their thing. I
thought it was very thorough and complete.
If anybody is interested in seeing that, I brought a copy of it. It is the response to the lawsuit from our
side.
Mr. Wolsky asked would not everybody
have received that?
Mr. Cox responded that made an
appearance - that has appeared in the case.
Mr. Mossing stated that is pretty
much the administrative side of the budget.
Under the maintenance side, from the prior budget that you had, we had
to adjust health insurance. I believe
that went up a few dollars. We had a
mathematical calculation that was updated.
I think in the last month it was $6,055.
It has now gone up to $7,000.
Based upon what we are paying per
month, when you multiplied it by the 12 months and split it, it was off by
$1,000 in this fund. We adjusted that
from $6,000 to $7,000.
Mr. Bissell asked it actually went
up $3,000 from the year before? Last
year was $4,066.
Mr. Mossing responded yes, based
upon the budget. What happens is, we
adopt the budget and the health insurance companies initiate their increases in
August and September, subsequent to us adopting. It went up $3,000 from the budget, but you
can see from the actuals that we are projecting to spend the $6,000 in the
current year.
Mr. Gatti asked are we at a public
hearing? Do we need to open up a public
hearing?
Mr. Mossing responded you can open
the public hearing, I believe, at any time.
Mr. Gatti stated let us hear
discussion from the Board first, then we will open the public hearing. Let us start with Mr. Bissell.
Mr. Bissell stated I have
nothing. I brought up my questions last
month, and all of you were on a different wavelength, so I have no comment.
Mr. Gatti stated I totally respect
what you are doing. Again, from the
experience that I am having in another part of the world, our insurance cost is
the highest increase in any part of our budget.
I cannot tell you what the City's thing is, but we are having our whole
benefits package reviewed again because of the tremendous increase in cost.
Are you experiencing the same thing?
Mr. Benson responded health
insurance has gone up quite a bit. It
really has.
Mr. Gatti asked any other comments
from the Board?
Mr. Wolsky responded the only other
thing I noticed is what Mr. Burgeson pointed out, which is the bad debt
difference. Would you say a couple of
words about that?
Mr. Mossing responded yes. In the prior years, when a higher percentage
of the property owners were paying their assessments, we have had some surplus
funds in the prior years. However, we
have been spending those over the last couple of years.
Now, this is a little bit difficult
to read, but if you go to the bottom of Page 2, at the beginning fund balance,
you see $150,000 on the far right under the Total Projected. That was the money we had at the beginning of
this year. You can see we are projecting
a loss of $55,000.
Now, we are projecting to have
approximately $95,000 at the end of this fiscal year in the General Fund. If you can follow those numbers. What it is saying is that in the current
year, we have lost $56,000 and it is due solely to collections. What we have had is start imputing a bad debt
that says we are spending in line with our budget. However, our revenues are not keeping up and
we are slowly tapping into those funds.
Then to also complicate matters is
that we have this irrigation project, which will cost $185,000. We are going to have to pay it all up front
before we get our $75,000 grant. When
you subtract the $75,000 from the $185,000, we also have matching funds of
$70,000.
The net effect is we are going to
have about a $30,000 shortfall that we are going to have to be
out-of-pocket. We are going to borrow
those monies from the General Fund also.
We have collection issues in the
General Fund, and we also have cash flow issues over the next fiscal year
related to this irrigation project. We
do not know what our collections are going to be for next year.
Mr. Wolsky stated the bad debt, the
problem with the collections, transcends or is different than just the piece of
property that is under litigation.
Mr. Gatti stated there is other bad
debt.
Mr. Mossing stated there are three
parcels. You have the parcel that is
under litigation, you have the North Hotel, and you have the North Port
property that are primarily the three main properties that we have collection
issues with.
Mr. Gatti stated I am surprised that
the North Hotel has not done anything either.
Mr. Mossing stated apparently there
is some action going on with the North Hotel.
There is some activity. I am not
exactly sure where it is at right now, but I know there are inquirers and maybe
there has been a change of hands in the property. That may help us in the future, but at this
point it is unknown, unless anyone else has other information.
That is the General Fund
budget. Also, I think if I could have
you turn back to Page 10, which is the start of the water and sewer budget.
Mr. Bissell stated the health
insurance went up 72 percent from the budget of 2002 to 2003.
Mr. Mossing stated we have seen that
in all of our districts that have personnel that have health insurance. They are struggling with the same issue. One district went up 130 percent. It is really affecting a lot of different
entities.
Page 10, we adjusted some of the
revenues. We lowered the sewer revenue
and water revenue based upon our historical information that we have. Those went down slightly.
I have increased the irrigation
revenue from $22,000 to $40,000. We had
another public hearing on a rate increase for irrigation rates. That assumes that the Board will pass that
rate increase for irrigation. To remind
you, that is to help fund that deficit for the reuse system that the District
has entered into.
Again, we had the same adjustment on
health insurance in the water and sewer fund.
I believe those are the adjustments for the water and sewer.
Mr. Gatti stated let us open the
public hearing. This gives you an
opportunity to comment on the budget or to have your say on anything you would
like relative to the budget.
Ms. Wolsky stated I know there was a
piece of property on Cays Drive that went into foreclosure. For instance, it was over $9,000 due on
it. If and when that property is sold at
a foreclosure sale, does the District get their back monies?
Mr. Cox responded yes. None of the property was subject to a
mortgage when the bonds were levied. Our
bond is the first lien on any of the property out here.
Ms. Wolsky stated from my reading of
it, there was no lien except the tax.
Mr. Mossing stated there is a good
chance we already have our money. If a
certificate was sold on the property, we get our money. When that transaction occurs, the certificate
holder gets paid back. The only way we
would get additional funds is if they went to sell a certificate and no one
purchased it. Then on foreclosure, when
that certificate was paid, we would get money.
It is probably in all likelihood that we already have our money.
Ms. Wolsky stated the same with the
North side Hotel. The advertisement said
that all taxes and back ad valorem was included in the sale. Could not the auction company get their money
if they sold it at the auction?
Mr. Cox responded what they were
saying in that is that the sale would be subject to all outstanding
assessments. Therefore, whoever
purchased that property, if they paid $1 for it, they have assumed liability
for all of the outstanding assessments.
Ms. Wolsky asked is not that the
obligation of the company that is selling that to make sure it is paid?
Mr. Cox responded not necessarily.
Mr. Gatti stated let us focus in on
the budget.
Mr. Dillon asked if the hotel was
sold under those conditions, why are we still carrying it as a bad debt? Should not that have been paid before he
could have taken title?
Mr. Cox responded he took title with
it subject to the outstanding assessments.
It is up to him if he decides he wants to pay them. He has been in communication with Allstate to
talk to them about the bonds. We have
talked about how to respond to his statements.
I have not really heard anything else after we replied to his comments on
the bonds.
I do not know where it is at right
now. However, the gentleman is aware
that he owes it.
Mr. Mossing stated by placing it as
bad debt that is just for reporting purposes.
We are not forgiving debt obligation.
Those monies will be collected at some point in the future.
Mr. Gatti stated it is a
conservative way to look at the budget.
Mr. Mossing stated at some point,
when all of these bad properties develop in the future, the District is going
to get a windfall of funds that are sitting out there in certificates on these
properties.
Ms. Wise stated on the insurance
issue, in the figure that you have for this coming budget - this 2003 - you
said your insurance increases occur in August.
What kind of a percentage did you figure for the increase in August?
Mr. Mossing responded I think it is
about ten percent.
Ms. Wise asked do you think that is
sufficient? Did the insurance company
give you any indication?
Mr. Mossing responded they give you
a range. They are not really
specific. Therefore, we have not
received that. They do not really give you
much information.
Ms. Wise stated I would be
worried. I think you should use twenty
percent. I understand the increases in
insurance, because I am working with other groups that have the same issue. Do we pay 100 percent of the insurance for
our employees?
Mr. Mossing responded yes.
An audience member stated on the
irrigation, we are showing a 25 percent increase in revenue for irrigation.
Mr. Wolsky stated this is subject to
the future increase in rates which will be the subject of another public
hearing.
Mr. Mossing stated right after this
section.
Mr. Gatti stated the public hearing
is closed.
Mr. Mossing stated if the Board does
not have any other discussion, we would recommend adoption of the first
resolution, which is Resolution 2002-03, which is in effect adopting the budget
as presented. The next resolution,
2002-04, will levy the non ad valorem assessments.
A.
Consideration of the Annual
Appropriation Resolution 2002-03
ON MOTION by Mr. Wolsky, seconded by Mr.
Bissell, with all in favor, Resolution 2002-03 was approved.
B.
Consideration of Resolution
2002-04 Levy of Non Ad Valorem Assessments
ON MOTION by Mr. Burgeson, seconded by Mr.
Wolsky, with all in favor, Resolution 2002-04 was approved.
FOURTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS Public
Hearing to Consider the Adoption of a Proposed Rule Amendment Increasing
Irrigation Consumption Rates
Mr. Gatti stated let me see if I can
wrap this up in one quick sentence. We
spent $185,000 to utilize the by-product of our wastewater treatment plant for
irrigation, which is effluent from the wastewater treatment plant.
This is common. We do it totally throughout the County and do
it totally throughout the City. It is
not something that is unusual.
We have a windfall from the Water
Management District that gave us $75,000.
The $185,000 really cost us $110,000.
We authorized Kyle Construction to build that line. We still have not received a hookup permit,
but that is neither here nor there.
In order to pay, we have what in the
budget?
Mr. Mossing responded basically, we
were short $35,000.
Mr. Gatti stated we have to increase
the irrigation rates to make up for that $35,000. That is what this is all about.
Mr. Benson stated just to clarify,
the reason we had some of the money already there was in the original bond, you
were going to build part of this line eventually and there was money put in the
reserves.
Mr. Gatti stated this is a good
thing, because (a) we are reusing water that would normally be totally wasted,
and (b) it is real ecology in its truest sense.
Protecting the environment in the truest sense.
Mr. Wolsky stated I would like to
add something. The reason that the
Southwest Florida Water District gave it to us in the first place was because
this is the direction that the State wants to go in preserving and reusing the
wastewater. They made us aware of this
grant, then they approved the grant, because this is the way they would like to
see all water districts head. That is
why we got the money in the first place.
An audience member stated the rate
for irrigation was around 52 cents per thousand gallons, and it is going up to
a dollar. What was the formula for
coming up with the dollar?
Mr. Mossing responded we looked at
the historical flows of the irrigation and the revenue being generated. That increase is hopefully going to generate
about anywhere from $16,000 to $18,000 a year in additional revenue. We are short $35,000. It was just an increase that would hopefully
offset and fund that deficit in as short a time as possible.
Mr. Gatti stated it was a modest
increase compared to what we needed.
Mr. Mossing stated yes.
An audience member stated it looks
like it is making it up in about three years.
This is not a one-year thing.
Mr. Mossing stated depending on how
people adjust their consumption, which may impact the amount of revenue that we
get in. I would say two years.
An audience member asked how will it
affect our sewer rates?
Mr. Gatti responded it does not
affect it at all. It is just irrigation.
An audience member stated the
increase pays off the $35,000 in two years.
Does it come back off then? Does
the dollar drop back once it is paid up?
Mr. Mossing responded that is up to
the Board, but I would assume yes, that you would want to do that. Hopefully, two years from now, the growth of
the community will offset it.
Mr. Gatti stated that is the thing
that I keep looking for. That as we
build more and more units out here, and there is more and more usage, that
somewhere along the line that big consumption is going to bring some of our costs
down. Right now, a few of us are paying
for the whole system. As that
denominator gets bigger, our costs should be going down some. That will be a question that the Board will
be faced with.
Mr. Mossing stated we will continue
to look at the water and sewer fund each year.
ON MOTION by Mr. Wolsky, seconded by Mr.
Robinson, with all in favor, the Proposed Rule Amendment Increasing Irrigation
Consumption Rates was approved and adopted.
FIFTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Staff
Reports
A. Attorney
(There being none, the next agenda
item was addressed.)
B. Engineer
Mr. Benson stated I would like to
give an update on the permit with the DEP for the reclaimed water system. We still do not have a permit. However, in dealing with them on one issue,
which related to the fact that we already had a system that has water from the
canal in the pipes, we are adding reuse water to that to supplement it, their
rule does not address that.
It looks at it the other way, as if
you have reuse water then if you want to bring another source of water in the
mix what do you do. Which there is a
whole lot of things that we would then have to do if they looked at it that
way. We have been trying to convince
them that was not pertinent.
We think we are getting somewhere
with that. As I mentioned last month,
they have gone to Tallahassee internally within their department to get some
interpretation. We are hearing that that
may be dying off. Unfortunately, they
have brought up a separate issue.
That issue relates to, in order to
do this project and minimize the cost; we are using all the existing facilities
that the CID already has as their investment.
Without getting into all the technical details, let me just summarize
it, if I could. If you have any
questions, I will be glad to answer them.
When you built the wastewater
treatment system, we built a system with an investment of over a million
dollars. We built concrete tanks and the
equipment. The concrete tanks are a
large part of that over a million-dollar investment. We still are only using half of that
system. I mean half of that treatment
system was built almost ten years ago.
Half of it is sitting empty.
What we proposed to the State was to
use the volume of that concrete basin to store any water that is produced that
would not meet the standards for reuse water.
There is a requirement in the rule that you must have the ability to
store up to one day's worth of capacity in the event it did not meet the
standards. That way, you are not putting
potentially something that was not safe out to the customers.
Instead of building a new tank, we
said let us use what is sitting here.
Again, working with them, because it is not exactly the way the rule
is. They brought this up. In dealing with that, they mentioned that
potentially they would have to get an interpretation from EPA in Atlanta. I guess when we go to Tallahassee that is not
high enough. Now we have to go to EPA in
Atlanta.
I am talking to them, hopefully this
afternoon or early next week and we are going to try to resolve this next
little hurdle. Hopefully next month we
will be able to report that we have the permit.
I am sorry it is taking this long.
The alternative would have been we could have identified the project and
built things that we thought were not necessary at this time. They will be needed eventually out here at
Port of the Islands.
When your capacity - number of
customers - is generating enough wastewater, we will eventually have to build
an approximately 300,000-gallon storage tank. Again, we were trying to put those costs off
into the future. Again, I think we will
be successful; it is just taking a little time to try to not have to spend that
money.
Mr. Wolsky stated based on thirty
years of service with the government, the longer it takes, the queasier I feel
about it. Because it just drags on and
on and on. It seems to me that there are
two entities out there - Southwest Florida that wants this to be done, and
another, DEP, which does not want it to be done, or wants all the t's crossed
and all the i's dotted. It seems to be
counter-productive for the two of them to be adopting these positions.
Mr. Benson responded I agree with
you that it seems like it is counter-productive. Unfortunately, I think Mr. Gatti can confirm,
when we were doing a similar project for the City of Naples, obviously much
larger, we had the same issues with reuse. We have the Water Management
District telling the City of Naples they have to do it, and use as much as
possible, and DEP looking at things from a different perspective. You have to jump through the hoops.
We have been through the same type
of thing - different technicalities, but similar types of things with Collier
County on a project in the past year or so that is a $60 million project. Again, you would say, everybody is trying to
accomplish the same thing, why are we having these issues. Unfortunately, that is just the way things
are.
One of the things that I have chosen
to do is, in dealing with permit writers that work for the government, to
maintain a relationship where we do not go in fighting things out unless we
have to. Obviously, the next time you
meet with them for that same client or for another client, you do not want them
to take an adversarial position right from the start.
I have tried to avoid taking things
to a certain level until I have to.
Mr. Benson stated I hope to have
good news at the next meeting.
C. Manager -
Consideration of Meeting Schedule for Fiscal Year 2003 & Selection of
November Meeting date for Landowners Election
Mr. Mossing stated by statute we are
required to advertise the next fiscal year's meetings by September 30th.
Mr. Gatti asked can we not have it
just during the regular meeting?
Mr. Mossing responded yes. That is what is anticipated. On the 15th that we would have the landowners
meeting, and we have it listed on here twice.
We need a motion to accept the meeting schedule.
ON MOTION by Mr. Bissell, seconded by Mr.
Wolsky, with all in favor, the meeting schedule for Fiscal Year 2003 and November
meeting date for the Landowners Election was approved.
Mr. Mossing stated the Supervisor of
Elections has confirmed that there are 279 registered voters within Port of the
Islands.
D. Field Manager
Mr. Stephens stated I contacted a
couple of people about the mosquitoes that were using mosquito magnets, which
we talked about last month. It seems to
be not feasible for the area.
Mr. Gatti stated we have been going
through cycles. Right now, the cycle
seems to be on the no-mosquito side, so that seems to be okay.
SIXTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS Supervisor's
Requests and Audience Comments
Mr. Bissell asked what about the
pump from the County?
Mr. Benson responded we still do not
have the surplus pump yet from the County.
They still have it and are holding onto it. We are the only ones that are asking for it,
but they have not signed it over to Port of the Islands.
Mr. Gatti asked should we contact
Mr. Colletta?
Mr. Benson responded he was here at
a public meeting and made it clear that he thought Port of the Islands ought to
get the pump for a dollar. If it was not
Port of the Islands, it might be Everglades City. Everglades City does not want it. I copied the minutes of the meeting with him
stating that and gave it to County staff to let them know that he thought that
you ought to get it.
Mr. Gatti stated I will call him
this afternoon.
Mr. Benson stated anything like that
that you would do would help.
Mr. Bissell asked the stop signs
that are out here where the hotel is, how do they read them? They are so bad. Can they be purchased and new ones put in?
Mr. Gatti stated you probably have
not had any exposure to this. The hotel
did this originally. It is our property
now. There are only two signs. They come from Fort Lauderdale. In fact, if you need a couple I can get them
through the City at our cost. We buy a
bunch of them.
Mr. Bissell stated I have another
question. Coming from your place, you
stop here in front of the hotel. There
is also a stop sign for the hotel. Do we
need that stop sign?
Mr. Gatti responded yes.
Mr. Bissell stated that question
came up before.
Mr. Gatti asked what is the point;
we want to take it out? What is the
Board's pleasure?
Mr. Cox stated I know in subdivision
approvals, now, when you have traffic control markers like that, that is part
of your site development plan.
Mr. Gatti stated Mr. Stephens, take
the sign out.
Mr. Stephens stated that is the one
going to your place. Replace the one
coming out of the hotel?
Mr. Gatti responded yes. Any stop signs that we have, replace them.
Mr. Bissell stated I received this
morning, July 19th, from Robert and Martha Genung. It says, "Dear Ted: I am seeking permission to erect at the exits
of Newport and Cays Drive a sign that would say “Return safely - lights on -
buckle up - it is the right thing to do.”
The sign would be sandblasted type and would be about two foot by two
foot in size. We could work together on
the colors. Too many people do not drive
with their lights on and this is my opinion. It is a very unsafe operation. I have some funds in the community chest to
pay for this, and the material and the erection would not cost the CID
anything. Thank you."
Mr. Gatti asked what is the Board's
pleasure?
Mr. Wolsky responded my own personal
opinion is that we cannot protect people from themselves. If people choose to drive unsafely, putting
up a sign is not necessarily going to change that. On the other hand, if a concerned citizen
like Mr. Genung wants to do that.
Mr. Burgeson stated it is just that
you will get sign upon sign.
An audience member stated it is not
his money. Homeowners have essentially
put that money in the kitty.
Mr. Gatti stated that is not an
authorized sign, and I would discourage it on our property. Whatever the Board's pleasure.
Mr. Wolsky stated I will go along
with you.
Mr. Gatti stated I do not think we
should kill fish. Am I going to put a
sign up there that we should say we do not want to kill fish?
Mr. Bissell stated I will tell Mr.
Genung that the consensus is that we do not want the signs.
Mr. Gatti stated we do not want
unauthorized signs. We treat this as a
public right-of-way. We do not want
unauthorized signs on the public right-of-way.
We would not allow that in the City.
An audience member stated I have a
question about the Northside Hotel. They
have trashed our roads. When you come
down the road, it really looks terrible.
The grass is not being cut. Is
there something that can be done? It is
unsightly.
Mr. Cox responded call Collier County
Code Enforcement.
Mr. Gatti stated wait, let us take
it apart a piece at a time. What grass
is not being cut?
An audience member responded at the
Northside Hotel.
Mr. Gatti stated because the grass
from the hotel to the roadway is ours.
If that is not being cut, that is our problem.
An audience member stated no, coming
up the road it is all cut. All around
the hotel. The trees are all bushing
into each other. It is really bad.
Mr. Gatti stated then it is a Code
Enforcement problem. As Mr. Cox says, we
have to call Code Enforcement. That is
the same as any empty lot we have in any of the subdivisions.
Along that line, for whatever it is
worth, we used to have a bunch of us that used to go along the highway and go
through the area and pick up all the trash.
I do not know if a bunch of us want to get together on Saturdays and do
that, or not. We can think about it.
An audience member stated when I say
trash; I mean bags and boxes of trash outside the door of the hotel.
Mr. Gatti stated I guess it is Port
of the Islands Realty that has the sign up here. That must be Tom Bernard. We should reinstitute that. Because that is a worthwhile program. It is good to clean up, especially around the
bridge and all that. A couple of us used
to get together on Saturday mornings and we would pick up this whole area.
Ms. Sykes stated last month I raised
the question of the No Parking signs along Cays Drive where the median is. As I remember, the Board was going to look
into what we could do about that.
Mr. Gatti stated let me suggest
something. You are asking us to put up
signs on an anticipated problem. Why do
we not see if we have a problem before we put up the signs; is that reasonable?
Ms. Sykes responded okay.
An audience member stated I received
a fax from Collier County Notice of Election.
It is for anyone that wants to be a candidate for the Board. All the information is there. Procedures.
SEVENTH ORDER
OF BUSINESS Financial
Statements and Approval of Check Register
ON MOTION by Mr. Bissell, seconded by Mr.
Wolsky, with all in favor, the invoices were approved.
EIGHTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
ON
MOTION by Mr. Wolsky, seconded by Mr. Bissell, with all in favor, the meeting
was adjourned.
Secretary / Assistant Secretary
Chairman
/ Vice Chairman