The URL can be used to link to this page

BCC Minutes 09/20/2004 (w/CRA & CRA Advisory Board) September 20,2004 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY Naples, FL September 20, 2004 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, that the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Collier, and also acting as the Board of Zoning Appeals and as the governing board( s) of such special districts as have been created according to law and having conducted business herein, met on this date at 9:00 a.m. in SPECIAL SESSION in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: CHAIRMAN: Donna Fiala Jim Coletta Fred Coyle Tom Henning Frank Halas ALSO PRESENT: Patrick White, Assistant County Attorney Bill Neal, CRA Chairman 1 ..-___ _"^ ~ ".~ ··,Co_.om_, "._ COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ~ AGENDA September 20, 2004 9:00 a.m. Donna Fiala, Chairman, District 1 Frank Halas, Commissioner, District 2 Fred Coyle, Commissioner, District 4 Tom Henning, Commissioner, District 3 Jim Coletta, Commissioner, District 5 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003-53, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS". ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. 1 September 20, 2004 IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774-8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. 1. Adoption of Agenda 2. Announcements & Correspondence 3. Consent Agenda Items A. To approve and execute the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area Executive Director employment agreement amendment between the Community Redevelopment Agency (CRA) and D. Aaron Blair. B. To approve the Site Improvement and Impact Fee Assistance grant applicants within the Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. 4. Bayshore/Gateway Triangle Items A. To approve the Collier County Community Redevelopment Agency requesting advanced funds from the Board of County Commissioners for the design and installation of the Davis Boulevard Streetlight Project. 5. Discussion Items A. Bonding B. Ruffina Annexation 6. Citizen Comments 7. Adjournment 2 September 20, 2004 September 20,2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: I am calling to order the board on this fine day, September 20th. Please stand and say the Pledge of Allegiance with me. (Pledge of Allegiance was recited in unison.) Item # 1 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you for being with us this morning. And I'll turn this over to you, Aaron Blair. MR. BLAIR: My name is Aaron Blair, for the record, Director for the BayshorelGateway Triangle Redevelopment Area. The first thing on here is the adoption of our agenda. If you all, or any of the advisory board members don't have any changes, we would just like to adopt the agenda. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I have no changes. Board members? Okay, we have no changes. Do we need to -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve the agenda as IS. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Motion to approve the agenda as is from Commissioner Coletta and a second from Commissioner Halas. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. And opposed, like sign. eN 0 response.) 2 ---.. September 20, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: 5-0. Item #2 MR. BLAIR: And the next thing I'd like to do is allow advisory board chairman Bill Neal to speak, if he would like to at this time, just about any type of correspondence or announcements he might have. MR. NEAL: Good morning, CRA Board. I'm Bill Neal, your chairman, in case you've forgotten. Here I am again. And we've accomplished quite a bit since the last time we met together. A lot of things have happened, and we're going to discuss them with you this morning. There's a very important individual on our committee that's running a little bit late this morning and we'll hold off a particular issue until he gets here. But I would like to thank you and show you our appreciation for allowing us to hire an executive director to run our CRA. It's amazing how much we've accomplished in a short time by having this position. We have an office over on Linwood Avenue. We have visitors averaging probably five or six a day, plus several meetings that Aaron Blair conducts with people. It's very interesting that folks are coming into there and checking on the opportunities and the growth opportunities that we have at the CRA. I might mention to you that Aaron will talk to you this morning about a number of projects with this board up here. I think we can safely say in the next two years, not counting the Ruffina proj ect, that we'll probably have over $300 million worth of projects. It may shock you to hear that, but I'm saying to you that from the things that we've talked about, the people we've seen, the projects we know about, that 3 September 20, 2004 there will be possibly over $300 million of projects going on in the CRA area in the next couple of years. This has a tremendous effect on our TIF funds. And so we can be proud that the things that we're doing are working the right way. But I just wanted to mention those things to you because coming up on the agenda is a recommendation for our executive director to get an increase in his salary. And I'm here to say to you that the entire advisory board backs our individual 100 percent and recommends that you approve that. Thank you very much. MR. BLAIR: One thing I wanted to do, just so you guys have an idea of kind of what's going on in the area and provide you an update, is to go over our board that we have here. This is a board that I use in our conference room over there in our office. This is just the Bayshore board because it has more information on it at this time than the Gateway Triangle does. But what it shows you are items that are -- would be highlighted in green, which are projects that are either slated to start this year or be completed this year. As you see down towards the bottom of the board, there's some projects: Botanical Place, Cirrus Point. And in between them is an apartment complex called Baypoint South, which is going to be converted to condos as well, called Abaco Bay. All three of those proj ects together are going to equal somewhere in the sum of about $60 million within the next two years. That's going to be a huge impact on our neighborhood when those three projects are completed. Botanical Place is being cleared as we speak, as well the new East Naples firehouse, which is directly north of that. Abaco Bay, which isn't listed, it's in between those two condo proj ects, is being converted as we speak as well. Just further north of that you'll see some smaller projects called Cottage Park, which is on the left side of the map there in the middle, which is basically five new single-family homes which are bringing in 4 September 20, 2004 the new style of architecture that the neighborhood has been looking for since 2000 when you all as the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Bayshore Drive zoning overlay. Directly next to that is a project called The Lofts. Now that's going to be our first mixed-use building. It is a rehab of an older building, but it's bringing in some new businesses to the area that would have never existed before this CRA was established. Further north up towards the bridge for the -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Do you have a map or something that you could kind of show us exactly what you're talking about, what areas you're referring to? MR. BLAIR: Basically, this is the area of The Lofts, what I was speaking of here, which basically is a two-story older building that is being converted to -- the upstairs can be converted to loft space to house the influx of artists and art galleries that are starting to move into the Bayshore area. That is just becoming a very popular area for that type of atmosphere. There's two brand new art galleries coming into the area this year. One of them is going to be in The Lofts building and the other one's a conversion of an old Dixie Plumbing building, which is going to be a new glass-blown art gallery. A little bit further north up here by the bridge, when you're coming from US 41 to the bridge, there's a bunch of vacant property right there which right now has been put into one person's hands. The individual purchased it and has shown me some of his preliminary drawings for this project, which is going to be a massive project. I mean, it's over $100 million of projects, which will be our very first, brand new mixed-use downtown style buildings to be developed in the area. And it's going to be significant. We'll probably see a sales trailer or some sort of drawing on that here in the next month out on the property. Just one more thing I'll give you an update on so you have 5 September 20,2004 another aware -- Thanksgiving weekend, around the bridge there, there's an art festival called the Haldeman Creek National Art Festival, which is going to be the sister show of the Naples National Art Festival. It's put on by the same group, the Naples Art Association. And it's a two-day event and they're expecting to bring anywhere from 30 to 40,000 people into the neighborhood. The following weekend after that, down here in The Lofts building, plus some smaller types throughout, is going to be the Bayshore Christmas Walk, which is the second annual Christmas walk which was held last year as well, but this event's going to be much, much larger. Well, this map doesn't show it, but within the Gateway Triangle, for all of you who are aware of the Gateway Triangle effort, where Davis Boulevard and 41 come together, we are working on design and implementation of the landscape project for the tip of the corner there around the Union Motors that's there now and down to Commercial Drive. It's going to basically be a phase one of a landscape enhancement for US 41 that we're looking for as far -- and as well as the mini triangle. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And Davis Boulevard, do you want to tell them -- just for your information, Davis Boulevard, they never installed streetlights on Davis Boulevard and so this group has gone after funds from the state and also wants to put decorative lighting in, so they're paying for that. MR. BLAIR: And if you all don't have any more -- go ahead. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, Aaron, back when we were doing the stormwater drainage improvements in the Bayshore area -- MR. BLAIR: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- we could not get access to that property south of Botanical Place. Will we now be able to get access to that area when it's -- while it's being redeveloped, or is there still a problem? 6 ---~-,- September 20,2004 MR. BLAIR: This here, Cirrus Point? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. BLAIR: The developer of that said he would work willingly with any type of needs that we would have for stormwater improvements, so -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Do you know if our stormwater people are aware of that? MR. BLAIR: Yes. They come to our meetings regularly and we're in talks with them regularly. We've been looking at this property where the old Lake Talley (phonetic) property is, and we're getting that lake cleaned up, as well as a boardwalk to the park from there, so we would have a park next to it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Good, good. That's a good development. MR. BLAIR: If you all don't have any other questions on just development in general in our area -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Item #3 MR. BLAIR: We'll move on. As you see, we laid our agenda out so we have consent agenda items. If there's any questions that you have on them, feel free to ask. If not, then we'll treat them as they are. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any questions on the consent? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would like to ask a question about the grant applications. Is there any determination of need associated with these grant applications? 7 September 20, 2004 MR. BLAIR: Basically, as far as financial need, the application doesn't take into consideration any type of financial need. Basically the application is filled out, you give us your estimates, you show us the work, you give us before pictures. There's a point system for the improvements. If you're going to do "X" amount of improvements, you get higher points. If you're a first-time applicant you get higher points. If you -- you know, throughout that process there's a point system that everything is ranked on and that's how we treat it. It does not take into need for financial assistance type things. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Are these grants going to be federal and county, or is it strictly just county? MR. BLAIR: They come straight out of our TIF. This is -- basically this is our third cycle. We've gone through two cycles already so we've had a couple projects completed, and we've reimbursed them 50 percent of the funds that they requested. CHAIRMAN FIALA: I had just a slight correction on 3eA) where we were talking about voting for the increase in salary for our executive director. And it mentions that the CRA board chairman was also part of the unanimous approval. I didn't vote. I mean, I sat there and I listened but I didn't vote, so I thought we'd better just know that. MR. BLAIR: Clear that up. Sorry about that. Okay. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So do I hear a motion to approve the consent agenda items? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Motion to approve. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Second. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion to approve from Commissioner Coletta, second from Commissioner Halas. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. 8 September 20, 2004 COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. And opposed, like sign. eNo response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. You now have an increase in wages, and much deserved. MR. BLAIR: Thank you. Item #4A The next item, as you are well-- Commissioner Fiala brought up, the Davis Boulevard streetlight project. We do have a project that transportation received a grant, FDOT safety grant, for the installation and design of the Davis Boulevard streetlights. You'll see on Page 6 in your packet. That's a preliminary estimate that we got from transportation for just standard lighting to be installed and designed. Of course, in the area of Davis Boulevard we want to do decorative lighting, which would be the next sheet over. Now the grant that transportation received was for $632,000. In order to do an upgrade to the decorative lights, it would cost us an extra 180 out of the CRA fund, which the advisory board didn't have any issues with paying that fund. What we are looking to do, the advisory board would like to see if the CRA were to request an advance on the $632,000 in funds so that we can push this project ahead of schedule instead of waiting until 2006- 2007. So what the advisory board is asking is that the CRA board would ask the County Commissioners for an advancement of funds of the $632,000, which would be refunded to them in 2006,2007. Now, if you have any questions on this particular project, there is 9 September 20, 2004 someone here from transportation that probably could help me explain the project a little more. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: I don't need any explanation on the proj ect. The proposal or something in the works is doing some annexation into the City of Naples. Is there e sic) going to approach the City of Naples for a cost share? And also, how is it going to match up with the existing lighting within the City of Naples? MR. BLAIR: Well, for the Davis Boulevard street lighting we're probably going to mimic what we have on 41 already, which are those green decorative lights. The selection of lights hasn't, you know, taken place yet, but just from preliminary talks that's what we're looking forward to. COMMISSIONER HENNING: I guess that I would hope that you would consider a unified theme up and down US 41. Or you might want to distinct (sic) yourself from the City of Naples. MR. BLAIR: Right. I think that was the idea behind Davis choosing the green lights that the county has now on 41 compared to choosing something that the city has; like going with what we have to keep our distinctiveness from the city. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Did you say green lights? MR. BLAIR: That's what's on 41 right now, they're green, the poles. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. And that's what the City of Naples has also -- MR. BLAIR: Well, directly across the bridge, they're white -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- the paint's peeling off of them but they -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, they're talking about the decorative lights, those white lights that are over the bridge that the city has -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, okay, I understand. 10 September 20,2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- and the green lights, after -- yeah -- open your eyes when you drive. COMMISSIONER COYLE: The green lights are the ones that go green, yellow and red. MR. BLAIR: Oh, okay. I see what you're saying. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I just wanted to make sure. Everybody ignores them anyway, so it doesn't make any difference. I have a couple of questions. MR. BLAIR: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: You're going with the decorative lighting proposal, which is the second one on Page 7, right? MR. BLAIR: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now, the -- how much money do you have available at the present point in time? MR. BLAIR: In our current budget, before we go into this new budget cycle, right now in reserves we have $700,000, approximately. That's what we have in our-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, the $632,000 from FDOT has already been allocated for Fiscal '05 and '06; is that correct? MR. BLAIR: What you'll see on Page 8, that's the sheet from FDOT, and it shows the project in there, their work plan. It states when the funds will be available: '06-'07. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Now, anything can happen between now and then, right? MR. BLAIR: Right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If the county advances the funds and FDOT were to revise their allocation, what would the CRA be willing to do? MR. NEAL: And Mr. Henning, I'm Bill Neal, the chairman of the CRA, in case you were late. COMMISSIONER HENNING: How are you? MR. NEAL: I did the proper introduction of myself this time. I 11 September 20, 2004 forgot to do that the last time. Anyhow, I would assume, after looking at the entire project, that the CRA advisory board would recommend proceeding with the project, period. It has to be done. It's part of our beautification program, landscaping program. And the green lights that we're talking about, they're on Bayshore. We've already started that theme. So yes, we'd probably get a 100 percent recommendation from our CRA advisory board. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Thank you. And you have enough money to do it? MR. NEAL: Well, yes, we do. As a matter of fact, somewhere along the line I hope we get in the discussion this morning about the bonding power that we have. And it may become crucial as far as the Ruffina issue is concerned. But we'll save that for a later discussion. But with the amount of TIF money we're coming in with our new fiscal year next year, plus the 700,000 bucks we have at this point, we're going to have plenty of money to do a lot of things. Again, with the bonding opportunity also. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Now what is the total time frame for this work to be done? MR. NEAL: Well, I think the FDOT is the issue here and not the CRA, so maybe our folks from the transportation department can talk about that. MR. TIPTON: F or the record, Bob Tipton, traffic operations director. What we're looking at is design this fiscal year. And we will have a design ready by July, except that funding from DOT would make us wait another year before we could actually start implementing the design. That's why they've asked that this be moved up the year. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. And what I'm really getting at is that when you're asking for the advancement of the funds, you're 12 --'"-~-"""'. September 20, 2004 not asking for the entire amount of money to be advanced immediately, you are looking for the funding necessary to keep this project moving toward completion. And I'd like to make sure that we have an understanding that if the board were to approve the advancement of the funds, it wouldn't necessarily have to be a lump sum deposit from the county immediately. MR. TIPTON: The way the DOT will work it is we have to build it and then they reimburse us. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. MR. TIPTON: So we're going to have to put up the -- the DOT's share is $632,000, so we're going to have to put that up regardless of which year we build it, and then we'll be reimbursed. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I understand. But if you put it up in increments between now and July for the design and then you allocate money for the actual construction beginning in July of next year, then you will have put up the $632,000 and you will be eligible for reimbursement by FDOT. But we don't necessarily have to put $632,000 into your bank account today -- MR. TIPTON: Correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- right? Okay. So in other words, what we're really saying is that we would agree to advance these funds, assuming the board were to approve this. We will advance the funds, but we will advance them as you need them. Is that -- is that what you're saying? MR. TIPTON: I think that can be done, yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: There's no time limitations? I mean, if they need them in January rather -- MR. TIPTON: And plus the fact that because FDOT operates on a different fiscal year than the county does, we could actually be into our '06 fiscal year before the funds were advanced, while DOT was still lagging in their '05, so they would be on a nine-month advance. COMMISSIONER COYLE: But we -- if we approve this we 13 _..~-_.... September 20,2004 would advance you the funds as you need them, whenever you need them. MR. TIPTON: I'm not -- I'd have to talk to purchasing to see if we can actually let a contract for construction without the money in the bank. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. TIPTON: I'll find out. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And it would have to be in your account rather than the county's account; is that what -- MR. TIPTON: Oh, I'm with -- no, it'd have to be in the-- COMMISSIONER COYLE: I understand. But it'd have to be in the CRA's account. MR. TIPTON: It would have to be in the county's account. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. MR. TIPTON: Because the county would be doing the project. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I think I've got it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm concerned. If we end up putting county money into a fund like this and where you -- we get close to accomplishing all the tasks that we want, what's not to say that somebody could come in, like the city, and cherry pick and pick this whole area out? Where does that leave us? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Well, you know what? We just have to try and guard against that happening. It's a shame the way it is. And I think that the whole CRA board is -- is very concerned with that. They want to make sure that the triangle and all of the rest of the property in that area stays with the CRA. They are making every effort to make it -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what I'm concerned about. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And us too. And not only in that area, Commissioner, also farther on down there are a couple other projects that touch the tip of the city. And let's face it, the city can't grow 14 September 20, 2004 unless they annex. That's the only way. And we're a prime target because we're right there. So we're hoping that we can -- we can ward off any future annexations. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Here we are taking county tax dollars to enhance an area which really needs it, but then all of a sudden we end up with a situation where the county no longer has control over it. And I have concerns about putting that kind of money in there and not having control of it. That's my only concern. MR. NEAL: We're going to really get involved in this in greater depth as far as the Ruffina proj ect is concerned, because your CRA advisory board is really concerned about the annexation process the city has taken underway. And they can cherry pick, and we want to talk to you in some depth about that in the next few minutes. However, as I say that, and I'm referring to our counsel over here, there's a bonding privilege that we have in the CRA that we could use to tie up this whole CRA project without invasion by the city. And as a result of the discussion this morning, we may want to enact a bond provision immediately in order to stop this whole process. So I'm kind of getting ahead of the story but some -- we're really going to get into that. Thank you. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Well, I was just thinking ahead of time. Sometimes my wheels are up here turning. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So I'd like to make a motion to approve the advance that -- advancement of the dollars to the Davis Boulevard lighting -- decorative lighting project, with knowledge that the state will pay us back. And in whatever incremental way that it needs to be advanced. If we need the whole amount before we can begin, then so be it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll second that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, I have a motion and a second by Commissioner Halas to approve the advancing of the $632,000. 15 _.w____, September 20, 2004 All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Opposed, like sign. (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: It passes unanimously. Item #5 rns.CJJSSED A~OVED MR. BLAIR: Thank you very much. The next item is bonding, and one of the things that we wanted to bring to your attention is that we are moving in the direction to bond, or something in the likeness of a bonding, to increase our funds so that we can become a bigger player, one, in the real estate market that's in this area; and two, to really take our CRA to the next level. And reality is in our CRA the way things are moving and the way developers and real estate investors are moving in so quickly to buy stuff up, in order to really push the redevelopment area in a way that we would see would be best, that we're going to have to go in and start purchasing properties and putting properties together, doing RFPs. One of the example is in the past when we talked about the mini-triangle project -- and maybe that was premature when we originally talked about it, but reality is right now that within the mini-triangle there's about five properties that are on the market right now. Now, if we were able to move forward quickly on bonding, we would probably want to go out and try and get those, if possible, you 16 -----~..". September 20,2004 know; in a fair real estate transaction go out and purchase those five properties. That would put us in a position where we're the largest player in the mini-triangle and it would definitely help guide what's going to happen there. So one of the -- basically we wanted to put this item on there just to give you an update that we are going to be proceeding with something, so you will probably see something in the future with an attempt for bonding from us. And that is the reason why. If you have any questions, I'll -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: In this whole big, huge picture of redevelopment, are we setting aside areas for greenspace and some kind of a linear park of whatever effect here? MR. BLAIR: We have areas within our redevelopment plan that call for, you know, there should be a park in this area. One of them -- one of the areas that we talked about before was this property here where we are attempting -- in our redevelopment plan it calls for us to have a park connection to Sugden Park. So whether that is just a boardwalk to there or, as we talked preliminarily with Parks and Rec, maybe to include some boardwalks through in e sic) in the water for education purposes. So that is an attempt that we need some neighborhood parks in the triangle, maybe with the stormwater properties that stormwater owns up there. COMMISSIONER HALAS: That was my next question. If I use the stormwater properties there can we do that, to have some kind of a parkway around that or a walkway. MR. BLAIR: It would also increase the attractiveness of the area for people who want to build new homes around those areas instead of just having a stormwater -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Exactly right. MR. BLAIR: Correct. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Very good. 17 '~~~~---"'-'- " September 20, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Any other questions, board member? eNo response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. MR. BLAIR: Okay, the next item is Ruffina annexation. This is probably the biggest thing that we're dealing with to date in our redevelopment area. I believe every member on my advisory board would like to at least say something about the annexation, so I'm going to allow them to speak on the issue and we'll get into it. MR. NEAL: Just briefly, before we have Phil McCabe and Bill Mears get up here and talk to you about the annexation issue related to Ruffina. Both have done a tremendous amount of work in researching this. And Patrick White, our attorney here, also has done some work on it. And Phil is going to present the city's viewpoint and Bill Mears will represent our viewpoint. What we're hoping for is an agreement, an interlocal agreement to resolve this entire issue. We think -- we think we have the making of an interlocal agreement, having conversed with all parties, and we want to share that with you this morning. If we do have an interlocal agreement, it certainly avoids a messy legal situation. And if we do not get the interlocal agreement, there are things that we would be recommending to you to do in order to assure the integrity of our CRA. And that would come under the bonding aspect that we talked about a little bit earlier. So I'd like for you to hear these two gentlemen telling you about the issues and then we'll talk about it further after that. Thank you. Phil, would you like to present the city's viewpoint first? MR. McCABE: Thank you. Good morning. For the record, I'm Phil McCabe at 699 Fifth Avenue South. The annexation has been an issue going back and forth and back and forth, and it's become a large issue or a non-issue, and what we'd like to be able to do is put it behind us, bring it to a closure. And what 18 _.......... September 20, 2004 I'd to do is just address a few issues, a few points to suggest to you that from the economic perspective I think it's a good deal for the county and I think it's a good deal for the city and also for the CRA. So I've highlighted these points. And if you bear with me, I'm just going to go through them. The CRA presently receives approximately zero tax flow from the Ruffini esic) project -- I think it's Ruffina? Ruffina. We get literally nothing from that, the CRA does. If the property's been fixed -- it was fixed back when the CRA was established, and no improvement to it, although I think tearing down the building was a great improvement to it. But it's literally fixed. Once the property is developed and the new assessed values are placed on it, we can only guess what they're going to be, but anywhere from I would say $60 million to $100 million of assessment. And for round numbers and to average it out, I did an $80 million assessment. If it's assessed at $80 million, the CRA will enjoy approximately $310,000 of cash flow or taxes. That's the county. As far as I'm concerned that's the county. The county's getting over $300,000 of taxes. We are focusing those tax dollars into the CRA, but it's county money and you have the right to veto how that money is spent, you the CRA, County Commission. Presently the county receives -- and I'm only guessing, I don't have the assessed value of the property, but I would guess that property, the assessment of the property may be $15,000 of taxes a year. That's what we're getting right now; that's what the county is getting. That's what the county would lose if the -- if it's annexed, that -- because as you well know in the CRA, the assessment was fixed to the county. You would lose that $15,000 but you would gain $310,000. You also would lose, if it's annexed into the city, a .0804 mills of unincorporated taxes. That's approximately $64,000 upon the improvements. So if the property goes to $80 million, you the county, 19 September 20, 2004 as it's now structured, would be able to assess it above and beyond what we were giving the CRA, .0804 mills, $64,000. So you would lose that as well. So then the debate is well, what are we losing, what are we gaining, we the county? The county, as soon as he pulls permits, will receive impact fees, and I'm guessing at it, several million dollars, at least several million dollars. I've just paid several million dollars on a project on Bayshore. The county gets that 100 percent. The county gets that impact fee. The county and the city have some kind of an interlocal agreement where the city on an annual basis gets a meager couple of hundred thousand dollars. I guess it's -- maybe it's an interlocal that may be -- agreement that may be raised again in the future. But right now the county is getting all of that impact fee, all of it, several million dollars. Remember, you're only giving up $64,000 on an annual basis. The developer has come to us and offered to us, the CRAAB, to landscape the triangle right at the point. Right now that's one of the projects on our plate. We are wanting to landscape the -- immediately over the next several months the triangle area itself where the gas station is, the old Burger King was, and just to spruce it up. Developer has offered to pay for that. The city has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into the west corner of Sandpiper. There's a park right now sits right there. The developer will be investing hundreds of thousands of dollars into the east corner of Sandpiper. He's going to mirror that park on the west side with a park on the east side, which is right now county property . The city has invested over a million dollars into the landscaping and to the hardscape of the Gordon River Bridge. The city has asked that they be allowed to retain the right of taxing the property in the normal 1.1 mills if it's annexed into the city. That's 1.1 mills that is 20 September 20, 2004 above and beyond any taxes that would be received by the county. So if that property remained in the county it would not be taxed at 1.1 mills. There's no loss to the county of that tax, that's a tax in addition. That property owner has to pay that tax in addition, if they so choose to annex to the city. One of the privileges of annexing to the city is paying an extra 1.1 mills. The project itself would be -- would represent the largest investment into the CRA. Also, just for the record, in case one may think I may have some bias here to the City of Naples, I own a lot of property in the county. I happen to live in the county and I own The Inn at Pelican Bay, which is another business in the county. So I'm looking at this on a balanced base. I'm looking at this on the economic terms in the benefit to us, to everybody, to the county, to the city. My recommendation is that the CRA agree with the CRAAB resolution and bring the issue to a closure. And in my humble opinion, this is just a great deal for the county. And I would suggest that we create an interlocal agreement, get it on the table and get it done. We have so much business ahead of us. I think it's a real good deal. And then finally and lastly, one must ask why is the developer annexing into the city in the first place? And I think that this is the larger issue that we're looking at here. And we need to recognize that he and others may be thinking about annexing into the city for a variety of reasons. And I would suggest there are much more serious problems here in the county than the issue that we have here of an interlocal agreement. And I think you guys, you people understand what those problems may be and why this developer wants in the city and out of the county . Very, very difficult to get things done in the county. Very difficult in your planning department and your permitting department. That's the issue. That's the larger issue that I think we need to look at. 21 "------.-. - September 20,2004 Thank you. Anybody have any questions? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Oh, yes, Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. McCabe, I wish you had an overhead of some kind that we could see so that you compare these figures. But what I'm missing is a summary of financial impact on the county if we agree with the interlocal agreement. And I understand that there are dollars that seem to flow back and forth and then there's additional taxing authority and all that sort of stuff. But what I'm missing is a bottom line analysis that shows the total fiscal impact on Collier County if we were to accept the memorandum of understanding. The other thing is, I don't have the memorandum of understanding. I haven't seen it. Has anybody seen it? MR. McCABE: Well, I think the only thing you may have right now in front of you is the resolution that we passed. I don't think there's a memo -- unless the county attorney has done a memorandum, okay? But the only -- where we are on this is the county attorney was asking our CRAAB, first of all, the advisory board to come to some conclusion and pass a resolution of what we would agree to and then what we would recommend to you; and that's where we are today. So it's that resolution that we passed. And that resolution that we passed was merely asking you, the CRA, to agree to -- and the county commission agree that this property remain part of the CRA so we enjoy the TIF monies from it, and this would be what would be incorporated into this interlocal agreement. The city agreed to the fact that this is going to be part of the CRA forevermore. And the city agreed that the tax revenues -- the county tax revenues are exempt from anything the city can tax. In general that's the perspective of the resolution that we passed, Commissioner Coyle. 22 ..,~-".~.__.,. - ,.-.. .--"'.'-~-...-_. "'""',"""'>_",--- ....-....,-.",,'..-- September 20, 2004 Now, you're asking for -- I think you're asking what I've been asking for and that is a spreadsheet. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Exactly, yeah. That's what I MR. McCABE: Just to see what the dollars are. But I think the bottom line is that the dollars to the county are going to be extremely positive, because you can remember those TIF monies are county dollars. Those are county dollars. And also the fact that the taxes, the 1.1 mills that they will be allowed to tax that property, is above and beyond; that would not be normally taxed. So we're -- when I analyze it from that economic perspective, I see it as being a good deal to the county and we know the investment that that is going to yield to us in further improvements all around. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, I don't have even a draft of that resolution, okay, so I don't even have that in this packet. But let me ask you something else. I have met with the city council on this issue many times, and each time I have been told that there was an agreement in their mind with respect to a memorandum of understanding. Has anybody in this room seen such an agreement? MR. McCABE: We have not. We have not. We've discussed it. To be fair to the county attorney's office, they've put a lot of time into this and they're trying -- they have met with the city, and the city manager and the county manager have discussed it. Let me read you our resolution, because this is where I think it's at right now. This is what the city has agreed to. The city has agreed to, in principal, what this resolution -- how this resolution reads. And we passed this at our last CRA meeting. Donna was there and it was unanimous by our CRAAB. The City of Naples recognizes post annexation of the CRA district for the life of the CRA. That Collier County continues to recognize its continued contribution into the TIF Fund 187 for the life 23 ,--,-,-.-- September 20, 2004 of the CRA. And the CRA agrees to exempt the City of Naples from any TIF contribution for the life of the CRA. So what that is saying is -- what that is saying is that the TIF is exempt, the sipt e sic) is secure -- the TIF is secure for the life of the TIF and the city would agree to that. All the city is interested in is that 1.1 mills. And that has been agreed to by the city verbally. I don't know if anything's been put in writing. In fact, my request last week was that we write an interlocal agreement, we reduce it down to an agreement so we can debate the agreement then. COMMISSIONER COYLE: That's what I've been asking for for six months. MR. McCABE: Right. Exactly. Now I think that's the next step. I think if you, the CRA -- and that's why we're here today, we the CRAAB. We're here today so that you may agree to this in principle what our resolution is saying. And we're here today to argue for that. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I need to ask the county attorney's representative, do we have any draft agreement, either from the city or involving the city in any way with respect to this? MR. WHITE: Assistant County Attorney, Patrick White. Commissioner, no, we do not. When we began our discussions with the city's representatives some number of months ago, we did provide them with copies of an interlocal agreement that would be a vehicle by which the terms that Mr. McCabe and the CRAAB have agreed that we could implement. Certainly it is not a monumental task to be able to create a draft interlocal agreement. It would be a three-party agreement between the county, the CRA and the city. And as I understand it, from what the CRAAB has put forward, that was my request and recommendation to Mr. McCabe when he and I and Mr. Blair met, was to have those precise terms recognized and agreed upon. Without the terms there's nothing to put into the vehicle. So we're here today with the hope that there will be some clear 24 September 20,2004 direction on what this board believes are the appropriate terms. I understand that we can infer from the CRA board's action today what the Board of County Commissioners' direction would be. But ultimately, as you recognize, we would have to have both the CRA board and the BCC effectively agree as to what that agreement would say, and of course then have the city sign on as well. The timing becomes a bit of an issue with respect to how this would occur, because the city is scheduled on the 29th of this month to finally consider matters with respect to the annexation. One of the elements that we're talking about, one of the terms we're talking about, the first of them Mr. McCabe mentioned was the idea of the city recognizing the continuing existence of the CRA area, which I believe should be put into the interlocal as a commitment on the part of the city to do so by resolution. COMMISSIONER COYLE: If we don't do that before they take annexation action, however, is it too late to do it? MR. WHITE: I don't believe so. Many of the matters that we're talking about, as you've indicated, are fiscal in nature. And I, like you, have been asking for those numbers. Lawyers are very constrained to advise about the law if they don't have the facts. And these are some of the most critical facts that I think we need in order to counsel both the CRA advisory board, this board and the Board of County Commissioners. But in that regard, as soon as we have them, certainly we can help. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Well, I guess my position is I need to hear from Mr. Mears because I guess he has an opposing position or at least a different position. And then I need to know who do we talk to to get the figures. MR. MEARS: And that's one of the core issues. My name is Bill Mears and I'm an advisory board member. And let me start by saying that we have substantial agreement on 25 -~------ ,. September 20,2004 the advisory board. This is a great project. It's good for the county, it's good for the city. It ties the area together. The re -- I think at the heart of the confusion, as has been explained to me by Attorney White and by the attorneys of the Florida Redevelopment Association, there is no established law around annexation and CRAs, there are no precedents. Every prior instance -- and there's never been exactly this situation previously, that I've ever heard about anyway -- but every other instance has been settled by an interlocal agreement. So there are no court cases, no attorney general rulings, and the two statutes are completely separate. Section 163 that we operate under doesn't mention annexation. It deals with formation of a CRA and involvement of various municipalities and counties in that process, but there's no section in there that says if part of a CRA is annexed here's what happens. And on the other hand, although personally I've never read it, I've been told that the same is true on annexation. It just doesn't get into the topic. So the CRA board has, I guess, the basic problem that we the advisory board urges you to proceed to come up with an interlocal agreement so that we don't have to wind up spending untold hundreds of thousands or more on groundbreaking legal activities. But you've got to create it. And obviously, to do that you need a number of things, one of which is the economics of the issue laid out very clearly on paper. In our CRA documents we've got the actual resolution that forms the CRA and then we have the trust agreement. And the trust agreement lays out very clearly what happens to all of the tax income from the CRA area over the life of the CRA. And what it says, in essence, is that all of the development money, all the improvements are going to go back into improving the CRA area, the county area, so that when the CRA board or the advisory board looks at any development, whether it's on Bayshore or whether it abuts the city, all of the tax increment funds from that have to be looked at in terms of 26 September 20, 2004 being reapplied back into the blighted area. By my layman's reading of what we've got is if the city were to move unilaterally to annex that property, they would have to do so subject to the existing trust agreement, because there's no law that says that the trust is wrapped up. So that would say that by doing nothing, the CRA protects the existing position. But I don't know. One of the points that Attorney White mentioned to me actually this morning is that that problem would be different if we had already bonded the area, that somehow since we haven't actually executed a bond it's murkier than if we did have a bond. So that raises something to think about in terms of the funding for doing it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Henning? COMMISSIONER HENNING: We're to have a joint workshop with the City of Naples on October 4th, the afternoon of October 4th, and I'm going to make a motion that we direct the chair of the CRA to request of the county manager to put on the table for discussion the joint boards or joint elected officials to discuss the annexation of Ruffina. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. That's a motion. Do I hear a second? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would second it, but I have to caution all of you that the decision on annexation will be made -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: 29th. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- before October the -- October the 5th. That's a problem. I think we definitely should talk about it on October the 5th, there's no question about it, but I would suggest that we not stop there. We need to get some memorandum of understanding in place before the city council takes action on the annexation of Ruffina, because once they've taken action, it is my worry that the law then will prevail, and since there's an absence of law on how this is to be handled, we are left in a very difficult position. 27 '--'-.' September 20,2004 So if the city in fact is willing to leave the TIF funds with the CRA and take only the taxes that they themselves assess Ruffina, the annexed property, then I think that is a fair solution to the problem. And I believe that based upon what I have experienced in this process over the past six months, that this is not going to get done unless this board and the Board of County Commissioners forces it to be done. And I think that what we have to do is direct the county staff and the county attorney to develop a memorandum of understanding that we can review as quickly as possible, if necessary in emergency session, and get it to the City of Naples prior to their annexation of Ruffina. And then yes, on October the 5th I support Commissioner Henning's motion that we need to talk about this -- COMMISSIONER HENNING: October 4th. CHAIRMAN FIALA: October the 5th. COMMISSIONER COYLE: October 5th, I think. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes, they changed it to the 5th. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Oh, the joint meeting? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Okay. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And so I think that this is an issue that will come up again. We need to talk about it. MR. WHITE: Just one point, Madam Chair, on the Commissioner's comments, if I may? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Uh-huh. MR. WHITE: Yes, the annexation is scheduled for final hearing on the 29th by the city, but the city could approve that annexation with a condition or subject to the completion and entering into of the interlocal that we're discussing. And if it were your direction today to prepare an interlocal agreement, certainly we would circulated it probably within the next two days for your review and ultimate consideration either in emergency session or the regular meeting, because the board's meeting on the 28th, next week at that time, and 28 September 20, 2004 there are budget meetings are well. So there are some opportunities for that interlocal to be reviewed. But assuming that, then the city certainly is in a position where it could make the approval subject -- of the annexation subject to this type of an interlocal. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But we'd have to ask them to include that, right? MR. WHITE: I believe, yes, that would be the most appropriate thing to do, assuming for the sake of discussion that we would in our office and with staffs assistance be able to create a draft interlocal that contains all of the elements we're talking about today. I think we can. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I would be very reluctant to see that the city council take action on the annexation of Ruffina without having received a memorandum of understanding from us that we approve. I think it's very risky leaving this thing hanging out there. I believe we need to direct something be done. We need to approve it and we need to send it to the city with a request that they take that into consideration and make it part of their annexation decision. We need to make it very clear and specific. And we have a motion on the floor to talk about this issue on October the 5th. Perhaps it would be appropriate to have a vote on that motion and then I'd like to make a motion concerning the memorandum of understanding -- or the interlocal agreement. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Very good. Any further discussion? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Opposed, like sign. 29 September 20, 2004 (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. So that is approved to request having our county manager add the Ruffina annexation subj ect onto the workshop for October 5th. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Or I wonder if it wouldn't be better just to broaden it to any annexation, just overall annexation policy in the future. MR. McCABE: Commissioner, I think the discussion of annexation is very appropriate at the workshop and it may be more broader if we can bring this issue to a closure before them. And I absolutely agree with you that September 29th is the critical day and I think time is of the essence. And I have spoken with the city manager directly and he and I and Mr. Mudd actually have a meeting scheduled for this afternoon, I think it's 4:00, 4:30 or something, we're trying to bring this to -- to reduce this to a document for the September 29th city council meeting so that the city council, when they do annex, which they will annex, they will annex conditioned upon this agreement. I think we're encumbered to get this done and I think all's we have to do -- and I think Patrick White is looking for that guidance from you -- if you would agree in principle to that resolution that we passed at the CRAAB, and Patrick and the city attorney can get a document done and in a -- for your -- for your final review, but at least we will get that, I will personally get that in front of city council at that September 29th meeting. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Phil, the problem is, of course, that the Board of County Commissioners has to act on that before it goes to the city council, so we have to make sure that we get something that the Board of County Commissioners can -- can review and hopefully approve. So we're shooting for a shorter deadline than the 29th of course, so -- and then before I make my motion on this let me say that the proper treatment of the CRA funds is in the best interest of the county and the city. This area is an entrance to the city, 30 -_.".,.._.~ September 20, 2004 a major entrance to the city. They're concerned about it. It is counterproductive for the city to take any action which would deprive the CRA of money necessary to redevelop the area. So I would make a motion that we direct the staff, the county staff including the legal staff and the CRA advisory board, to work together to get an agreement, an interlocal agreement draft which assures the integrity of the TIF funds following the annexation of Ruffina. And if we can do that, then I would -- you know, I, for one, would support it. But -- so I'll make the motion that we direct the staff and the legal staff and ask the CRAAB to get together as quickly as possible and draft an interlocal agreement between Collier County and the City of Naples which would assure the integrity of the TIF funding following the annexation of Ruffina by the city. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And I'll second that motion. Oh, Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Does this fall in line with what the people that have been working so diligently on the CRA -- does this fall in line basically with what you'd like to see happen? MR. NEAL: Yes. Our best hope is to have a general agreement to avoid all the legal ramifications. And there's a couple of points that COMMISSIONER HALAS: Because I want to make sure we have the TIF funds to come back to. MR. MEARS: And this gets precisely to where I think we all want to get, which is to get it reduced to very clear language so everybody can know what's going on. MR. WHITE: And just for the consideration of the CRA board today, I'm just going to briefly restate what my understanding of those three terms were that were mentioned by Mr. McCabe in -- are what was brought forward by the advisory board's resolution when they last met and unanimously voted to approve. That being as follows: 31 September 20, 2004 One, that the city would recognize post-annexation via a resolution the continuing existence of the CRA area in the area that's annexed. Two, that the county would continue to recognize and make its contribution to the tax increment fund as to the taxes for the general fund. As we know, the unincorporated millage would drop off post -annexation. And third, that the CRA, this board, would agree to exempt the city from making a TIF contribution during the term of the CRA. Those are -- that's my understanding of what that board did, and I'd ask those present who were at that meeting if there's anything that I've misstated or mischaracterized to please correct me now. MR. MEARS: The only issue that was discussed at length, and I thought personally was out of it, but one can't tell until you hear a read, is that concept of exempting the city from anything. There's no exempting. It's the city's coming in under the CRA and the rest is-- MR. NEAL: That's a key word, Patrick. It was in the original discussion, the "exempt" in the second resolution. Phil, you remember that or Aaron, do you have that? And we eliminated that term as a part of our -- as a part of our recommendation to the CRA. It shouldn't cause any confusion if we just take the points that you just said and present them in a resolution. Phil, did he cover each point to your satisfaction? Because theoretically or technically or verbally, the city seems to have already agreed with what we're trying to accomplish here, if Phil's report is right from the city end of it. So we don't need that issue in there about exempt. MR. WHITE: I have to differ with you on this. I apologize. This is the central and fundamental and threshold issue, as I have tried to articulate to everyone that I've spoken with this about. MR. NEAL: By whom? By whom? MR. WHITE: For the city. 32 September 20, 2004 MR. NEAL: Yeah, the city has put that in, not us. MR. WHITE: But it's also a critical issue in terms of everyone's understanding, because as it was presented before -- MR. NEAL: I have to ask Mr. McCabe whether or not that's critical in his discussions with the city. MR. McCABE: I think Patrick talks a different lingo than we do. And what I think he's doing -- MR. WHITE: Perhaps. MR. McCABE: Well, I mean, it's legal, it's a legal -- in reducing it to an interlocal there is certain terminology that has to get into it. And I understand what he's asking of you, and I don't have a problem with that. I think we have achieved -- if you would agree to this discussion today, I think we've achieved the principals, and then I would suggest we just allow the attorneys to write the document and get it in front of us. But it definitely -- what Patrick just recited achieves what we're trying to do. COMMISSIONER COYLE: I don't understand the exemption language. If it is a legally required phrase, then perhaps you can explain it to us. But my primary concern is to make sure that funds that went into -- or tax increment financing funds that went into the CRA as a result of the increase in valuation of Ruffina will still go into the CRA. That's my primary concern. MR. WHITE: And I think we may have to have a slightly more detailed discussion, because all of the taxing authorities are required by statute to make contributions. We've implemented that through county regulations in the creation of the trust account and fund for this CRA area. And those taxing authorities are required, unless they're otherwise exempt, to make those contributions. They write a check and give it to the county -- or excuse me, to the trust account. All I need to know is whether the advisory board, or more correctly at this point this board, want the term of the interlocal 33 ^ 'M,"'_~'"~""~"_~-" September 20, 2004 agreement with respect to the city as a taxing authority to be exempt from making its contribution or that it would continue to be, as we believe legally is the position, required to do so. Because it is the central issue. If the city is going to be afforded the opportunity just as to Ruffina to be exempt from making its contribution to the trust fund, and the CRA gets a commitment from the county that the county will continue to make its contribution, then I think that the third element, which is that the city would be asked to recognize the continuing existence of the CRA area by resolution, tends to fall all into place. That equation doesn't balance, however, if the city's going to be asked to effectively put in writing as part of the interlocal agreement that it will continue to make some financial or a total financial contribution to the trust account of its millage. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, let -- here's -- look, if they're going -- if they would get $310,000 of TIF funds into the CRA if it stayed in the county, then I would expect the CRA would get $310,000 in TIF funds if it's annexed by the city. And, you know, how do we get there? MR. WHITE: The city has as of yet not been willing to concede this very point, Commissioner. In fact, as recently as this morning coming up the elevator for today's meeting I had a conversation with the city attorney, and the best that they're able to -- as far as I understand it -- agree to do is to ask the Attorney General's office as to the appropriateness of some yet to be fully finalized questions that deal with what the legal effect of annexation is on an existing CRA area. Now certainly there's two ways to go with that: One is that we agree on what those questions ought be. We ask them and hope that we can get a timely answer by the 29th and we take whatever direction the Attorney General gives us. But the direction may very well be that post-annexation CRA areas dissolve. There is no 34 September 20, 2004 authority therefore for any tax increment funding account to operate, and there would be no legal requirement on the part of the city or the county to make any contribution to that TIF account. That's a possibility . The other of course is the -- we could choose -- and I'm not suggesting this but it's a possibility, it could be litigated so that a court, a judge would tell us what the law is. This is a very open area of law, so much so that in the next proposed legislative cycle the Florida Association of Counties is proposing a series of statutory amendments, both from the CRA side in Chapter 163 and in the annexation statutes for municipalities, some degree, greater degrees of clarity. I can tell you that the model that is used for other taxing authorities such as special districts like fire districts, is that there's a four-year post-annexation transition during which the contributions of that taxing authority are still required to be made, but thereafter they terminate. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Well, you see, I really don't care what the law says, I really don't. And I've told the city council this. We ought to do the right thing, and we can do that with an interlocal agreement. The law doesn't govern that interlocal agreement, I don't believe. If we agree to do it we could -- MR. WHITE: It merely authorizes it, that we have the authority to enter into it. That point, I think, is abundantly clear. The law in Chapter 163 and elsewhere in the statutes gives those authorities to the CRAs and to local governments, including the city. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And this issue of asking the Attorney General for an interpretation has been around since Mayor June this year, and apparently nobody's done anything with it, so -- MR. WHITE: We took your direction in that regard, both as to the CRA and the Board of County Commissioners, that we did not agree to the form of the questions that were asked by the city. And we again have attempted to work to formulate what those appropriate 35 September 20, 2004 questions ought be without the asking of them actually predetermine the outcome in the answers in favor of either side. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Mr. McCabe, what I'm hearing here is that the city really hasn't agreed to this. MR. McCABE: Yes, the city has. They -- Patrick is correct, the city went up to the Attorney General's office and was requesting certain legal opinions. But the city -- the Attorney General's office has been explicit: We can enter into an interlocal agreement. The city wants to enter into an interlocal agreement, that is absolute fact. And they want to enter into an interlocal agreement similar to what we're discussing today. And that's why I was suggesting that we maybe want to leave a little bit of that language in there that Patrick is suggesting because of state statute. But I think -- I think what Patrick just recited to you, what we're asking that you agree to achieve all of what we are looking for and the City of Naples. COMMISSIONER COYLE: It provides the CRA with the same amount of TIF funding -- MR. McCABE: Absolutely. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- that they would have had had they stayed in the county. MR. McCABE: One hundred percent. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And that's, I think, what we're all saying we'd like to see. MR. McCABE: That's right. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then there must be a failure of communication then -- MR. McCABE: There has been, no question about it. COMMISSIONER COYLE: -- somewhere. MR. McCABE: And I think if you come to -- as a board, as the CRA, if you come to a consensus here today and agree with what we're asking you, I think the communication issue will be dealt with. 36 ~--~"""" September 20, 2004 MR. WHITE: Could I ask that someone, either Mr. McCabe or the form of the motion, expressly identify what is to occur post-annexation with the city as a taxing authority in terms of its contribution to the trust fund account? That's all I truly need to know. And I can assure you that as expeditiously as humanly possible, there will be a draft interlocal agreement for everyone to look at. And I'm willing to go so far that if our office can do what else it needs to look at it today, I will attempt to have that for your consideration tomorrow morning. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Let me see if I can cut through this and make sense of it myself. Once it is annexed, the county no longer assesses a tax against this property. The city then has that responsibility, right? MR. WHITE: There are both. Presently there are the county unincorporated and the county general fund. COMMISSIONER COYLE: And then the county incorporated -- yeah, general fund. MR. WHITE: Post-annexation, my understanding of the operation of law that mandates what the property appraiser and tax collector do is that as to the unincorporated fund taxing, that in the beginning of that next tax year there is no longer anything on the trim for that obligation. In place of it there is then the city's millage that's applied, and I believe that's the 1.1 mills that Mr. McCabe referred to. And the threshold issue is whether or not we are asking the city to make that contribution or we're going to exempt them, as we have exempted many other special districts. We have made the policy choice to allow, for example I believe, libraries and other types of districts to be exempt from making any type of a taxing contribution to the trust fund account. Now, I'll tell you that there is no statute that says that we can or cannot do what we're proposing to do by interlocal. And because 37 September 20, 2004 there is no prohibition against it and there otherwise is broad authority to enter into interlocal agreements, our office's position is that we would be able to implement the type of agreement, whether it says that the city would be exempt from making the contribution as a taxing authority or required. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. My feeling is that whatever money the CRA loses as a result of annexation will be replaced by the city. So whatever the loss is in the transfer of this property from Collier County to the city will be made up with a contribution by the city. And that's what I think everybody has said they're willing to do. MR. WHITE: The interesting thing here, Commissioner, is that the proposed legislation that I mentioned a few moments ago talks about capping contributions. The thing to remember here is that the millage rate that we're going -- that the county's going to no longer be required to make post-annexations, that for the unincorporated fund, the millage is four times that of the city, some rough number like that. So there's no way at a much smaller fraction the city can make up that dollar amount in terms of absolute tax dollars. Now, the real question here is whether we're going to try to resolve this as to this specific instance and find a balanced compromise that allows everyone to know their legal rights and responsibilities, or we're going to ask the city to sign an agreement that up until now, if we're not going to exempt them, they have shown no indication being willing to sign. And if that is the case, then on the 29th when the city considers this matter, they will likely -- and I'm not a soothsayer by any stretch of the imagination -- they're quite likely in my estimation going to approve that annexation without any discussion or any approval of an interlocal agreement. And we would then be thrust into a position where we would have to decide whether we wanted to litigate this issue to try to recoup that 1.1 mills either over some period of time or in perpetuity so long as the CRA existed. And then the question becomes, at least as far as a litigation 38 September 20,2004 position, do we want to spend more money than we're likely to acquire from that millage at 1.1 mills? I understand that the appraised value is going to probably four years down the road skyrocket, and I know that there have been some numbers put on the record today in regards to what those dollar amounts are. But what we can glean from the existing statute in terms of how to treat special districts like CRAs is that after four years the legislature has pretty much taken the position that there is no continuing obligation. So I'm not sure where the legislature's going to go in '05, I can't tell you what I believe a court would do or the Attorney General, but I can tell you that if ask the city to enter into an interlocal agreement, my understanding from what Mr. McCabe has said, that exempts them from the contribution, that they would be willing to sign it. And I don't know whether the answer is the same if they're going to be required. And I would just like to get a clearer answer to that question and then some direction from the board, and I will do whatever you direct. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coletta? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I tell you, Mr. White, this is less than clear. If Commissioner Coyle sounds confused I think I can also say I'm right there with him. Let's cut right to the chase. What would your recommendations be to be able to protect the county's interest, starting with today? MR. WHITE: It's important to understand that I'm sitting here as an assistant county attorney -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: You're representing him. MR. WHITE: -- and my primary allegiance is not to this board but to the Board of County Commissioners. And the question you asked me was with respect to the county's interests, not the CRA's. My belief is, though, with respect to both of those entities, and speaking, I guess, from both sides of my face, that an interlocal agreement, much the same way as what I'd suggest to Mr. McCabe, 39 ~"-''''----'-~'"",-~-,.~~"""""",~----_.,......,~.,,.,-,,.".,~.." September 20,2004 that effectively exempts the city either in perpetuity or for some period of time mutually agreeable that allows some dollar amount to come back into the trust account and then terminates that contribution in later years is the best course of action to take. The important thing to understand about CRAs is they exist effectively for two reasons: One of them has to do with the planning and zoning side of getting the right uses put in place. And the other is the infrastructure side, which requires, typically, capital contributions. And that is why there is a bonding authority afforded to CRAs. Our legal position as the CRA would be greatly enhanced, as Mr. Mears had indicated to you and as others have suggested, if there had been some requirement to have precise contributions continued to be made post-annexation by these lands that are the subject of the Ruffina annexation. However, without them the only issue that's out there is the planning and zoning aspect of the CRA. And the argument is mooted once the annexation occurs because that land then becomes the subj ect of the city's comprehensive plan and the city's zoning. And in fact that is what is anticipated to take place on the 29th, is that the city will effectively bring these lands into its compo plan and into its zoning scheme. And it's that reason why there's the potential that a court would hold post-annexation that those lands are no longer part of the CRA area. The benefit of the interlocal agreement we're proposing is that the city would recognize by resolution the continuing existence of that CRA area and arguably the value of that would be that then some measure of the future contribution could be pledged under a revenue bond. I don't know. No one's suggested that that's where we're going, but it has been a topic of discussion both on the side of public infrastructure commitments that may be needed, whether for stormwater, drainage, etc., and for the planning and zoning side in terms of getting a zoning consultant on board, which we've already 40 "---" - .~..~,~.~,."""_.__..,...._.....,..,,.~~~-,.-.. September 20, 2004 authorized. Those are things that are appropriate expenditures for the CRA. And as financial obligations, if there's some continuing responsibility for all the lands of the CRA area to make contributions to the TIF to support them, then I think our legal position is enhanced. I know that's a long way around. This is a very, very confusing area of law without any statutory authority, but I want to give you the benefit on the record of the counsel you've asked me to provide you. My recommendation is we enter into an interlocal agreement that has the first two elements that there seems to be no debate about, and that the third of them would effectively exempt the city in its millage either in perpetuity or for some number of years that this board may choose to elect. My personal recommendation would be that it be for no greater period of time then 10 years. Now, the idea there is very simple. The first four years post-annexation there's going to be a very flat increase in the approve -- excuse me, the appraised value of those lands. But after about four years, that value is going to start to skyrocket because it's going to be occupied and used for residential purposes. And it's at that point in the beginning of that time line that the return on investment that I think everyone is so concerned about could be made. But keeping the increased appraised value part of the contribution on the part of the city does not seem to be consistent with what the legislature has done in terms of creating that four-year transition period. We're going to go a little longer perhaps than four years, and the idea of 10, but it ultimately gets the city out of that contribution once it's effectively made the dollar input into the trust account. Then it's done. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Patrick, let me stop you there because -- MR. WHITE: Sure. I'm finished. CHAIRMAN FIALA: -- that's a pretty long explanation and I'm afraid -- MR. WHITE: I apologize, but there's no simple answer. 41 ~-"----""" . . September 20,2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Halas has a question and so does Commissioner Coyle. And Bill, did you have something to say also? MR. NEAL: Oh, I understand that the meeting was supposed to end at 10:30 and as a practical matter I'd like to put this into some kind of focus because we could ramble on for a long time because we're plowing new ground. And as far as attorneys are concerned, and no disrespect to the attorney here, we could be listening to this and arguing this forever. So as a practical matter, you know, I'd like to say -- put it this way: We, your committee, your advisory committee has made a resolution and we think we think we have an agreement with the city, according to Mr. McCabe. I have to rely on that. It is a risky time because it's only nine days now between the 20th and the 29th for the city to do this. If we could get this interlocal agreement done before that time, then we're okay. And I'll have to depend on Mr. McCabe from the city's standpoint and our attorneys from the other side here to make sure that that's done. That's mighty risky, because if nothing's done then I will tell you, we're in trouble as far as the CRA's concerned. Not only just this CRA but any other CRA. So is there any other things that we could do? I would encourage the city to postpone the discussion, if we could do that, about the annexation because of the ramifications that that has. Number one, that's what I would try to do. Number two, if they don't want to agree to that then, and I hate to say this, why not an injunction to bring against the city to postpone this until -- until it's done? So there are other roads that we can travel that are not the best ones. The simplest one is to get this interlocal agreement and getting beyond this word that we got hung up on for the last 27 minutes, please overlook that and we're going to argue this issue no matter what 42 _.,~_._._._,._".._~.,,-"-,..._.... September 20,2004 word we put in there down the line because somebody's going to challenge that decision. What we need to do is to make sure that we're protecting the integrity of our own CRA here in Collier County as best we can before somebody else's influence changes the whole scenario. I'm hoping I'm putting that in a practical matter. So I'm encouraging you to vote for the resolution that your CRA advisory board has submitted to you, and I think it's already been written satisfactory the way we want it. And in time constraints here, I'm trying to hasten this to get it in, too. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And we don't have it to refer to. They read it to us but we don't have any paperwork on it. MR. NEAL: It's risky if we delay. COMMISSIONER HALAS: The problem is that we should have had some back-up material and, as Commissioner Coyle said, it would have been nice if we would have had figures to find out exactly what we're dealing with here. And I have some very strong concerns in regards to the obligation that the county's going to have here over the period of this whole CRA. And I think that the -- that the obligation also should fall on the shoulders of the city at some point in time. So I'm not sure how we're going to get this rectified today. I think it's a very complicated issue. I'm going to basically leave it in your hands because you people have been working on this day in and day out. I don't have the material that I probably should have. There's really no back-up material at all in this discussion, and I think that leaves all of us up here in an area that we're going blind. And I don't like flying blind, okay? So I guess we're going to have to use our judgment. Because of the time restraints that are on us, we're going to have to come up with something that we hope that you and the county attorney and 43 September 20,2004 everybody else that's involved in this use the best -- the best guess or the best information that you have at that point in time to come up with some type of interlocal agreement. But I'm along with you, I go along with you totally that we have to figure out the best way to address this, not only for the interest of the county but also in the interest of the city. And there has to be some obligations down the road. MR. NEAL: Thank you. And your observations are extremely valid as far as supplying you with little or limited information. And in all honesty I must tell you there's a reason for that. Because we've tried to get the lawyers to resolve this issue between the city and the county. We've found no action; your CRA advisory board found no action happening. We also found out that this annexation process was going to take immediately -- we only found this out a couple of weeks ago with the city, so we felt like we had to take some action. And what we decided to do is come to you and say we must do something. However, if we'd had time to work this out in respect to all of you, you would have had all this information. This has been pushed up on your committee and we're reacting in a sense violently against the city taking this immediate action. We would have hoped there had been more discourse, more discussion, more meetings between the city and the county. We could never get the county manager, the city manager, the lawyers together. This is the only reason we took this upon ourselves to do it. Weare bearing the brunt of this and we apologize for the lack of information, but this is the only thing that we know to do at this point. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle? COMMISSIONER COYLE: I'm not going to talk anymore, I've got to leave. I have some other appointments. But we've got to do something with this, so let's go with the original proposal, my original motion. Did we ever vote on that motion? 44 September 20, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, we didn't, so -- I don't think it was seconded either. Would you restate it? COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, I'll try to restate it. COMMISSIONER HALAS: You restate it and I'll second it. But I want to make sure that in that motion that you put something, some dialogue in that motion whereby that make sure that the city's not totally exempt. I think they have to come up with some -- got to step up to the plate sometime in -- point in time in this CRA. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Well, just a point of order, there already is a second on the motion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, did I second that one? COMMISSIONER HENNING: Yes, Commissioner Fiala seconded it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, I'm sorry. MR. WHITE: That's correct. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. Then you want me to restate it, is that what you'd like me to do? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yes. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay. I'm going to leave the details up to you guys, okay? So my motion is to draft an interlocal agreement between Collier County and the City of Naples which will ensure the integrity of the CRA and the TIF funding after annexation by the city. Now that gives you some room to work in there and you guys are the ones who are most concerned with the funding there, and you should know what integrity of the TIF funding is and what it should be. So that's my motion. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. And then I seconded it. Okay. We've had plenty of discussion. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. 45 September 20, 2004 COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Opposed? eN 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. That does pass. MR. NEAL: There's one more comment I must make to you, that if the lawyers get ahold of this document and start arguing it between now and September 29th, we could be facing a city council meeting that's okaying an annexation and the lawyers are arguing the issue. That bothers me. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Should we put a motion in here then that if there's not an agreement that's drawn up by the 29th, that it shouldn't be discussed? MR. NEAL: That either we ask the city to postpone it or file an injunction against the city before they make that decision. Sounds harsh, but I don't know any other way. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'll make that -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: Go ahead, Mr. -- Commissioner. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Before you do that, can I say something to you? There's a lot of damage that has been caused between -- to the relationship between the City of Naples and Collier County over the past year. And they all resulted from perhaps valid disagreements between the two bodies. But the one think I continue to tell the city council, and I would ask that this commission take heed of this, we have to work together because we have to depend upon each other. You can see the kind of potential damage that can be done to the county if the city takes unilateral action to annex certain areas. It can be devastating to the county. Conversely, this county can take action that will adversely impact the city. We can't let ourselves devolve into that kind of a fight. 46 September 20,2004 So if there's a way of dealing with these things in a professional manner without getting lawyers and courts involved, I think we ought to try to do it. So let's get this agreement hashed out, get it to the Board of County Commissioners, let the Board of County Commissioners make a decision on it. Forget about the legal fights. I don't care what the law says; I don't care what the legal arguments are. I care only about one thing: Is the agreement fair and does the City of Naples agree to it and will the Board of County Commissioners agree to it. Those are the only things I'm concerned about. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Commissioner Coyle -- COMMISSIONER COYLE: And if you could present some kind of a document to the Board of County Commissioners before that 29th meeting, then I think we can cut through all the legal arguments and debate. CHAIRMAN FIALA: But I believe that the advisory board has already approved a document which they feel the city would agree to and they would agree to and that they would like to recommend we adopt. And that could be -- that document seems to satisfy their needs as far as the CRA. I would suggest that that should be the basis for this interlocal agreement and we can move on. MR. WHITE: Madam Chair? COMMISSIONER COYLE: And they would have to present it to the Board of County Commissioners. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. MR. WHITE: I'm going to ask that Aaron provide me specifically with respect to that third term any words that are different than the following for inclusion in the interlocal agreement. We're not trying to get in the mix of this and determine the outcome. We're just trying to implement whatever direction we have. And the direction I have is this: The words I believe Commissioner Coyle said are to ensure the integrity of the CRA and the TIF funding 47 September 20, 2004 post-annexation. That's exactly what that third term's going to be. The other two will be as I previously stated, and I don't think there's any question about those. So I can do my job, I have the direction that I need. And there will be no lawyers either on behalf of the CRA or the Board of County Commissioners in any debate or issue. I have your clear direction and will implement it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Commissioner Halas? COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. I was just -- what I was going to chime in here was the fact that obviously this process has been going on for some point in time and there still seems to be an area of grayness in this agreement. So I'm hoping that we can clear it up because if we don't then we are going to get ourselves in a situation. So however you word this agreement, it has to be put in place before the 29th. MR. WHITE: It will be available for your consideration tomorrow, unless there's some other greater priority that my day brings. I can't envision what -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I don't think we're going to have a real problem with this agreement if -- what was discussed this morning. My concern is that all parties buy into this interlocal agreement. MR. NEAL: And if they don't, we'll still have that problem. If they don't buy into it, then we still have the problem. And Fred, in all due respect, your observation about the cooperation between the city and the county, I'm not sure I have the right adjective to describe that the last year or so. And that's the only reason we're here this morning, because we can't bring the political parties together. We can't bring the governments together for some reason to corne to our meetings to resolve these issues or be invited to their meetings to do these issues. 48 September 20, 2004 As a practical matter, businessmen, we could resolve this issue very easily. But again, and no disrespect for lawyers and so and so -- that's their job. These guys are going to argue this thing to death. We need to get on record as saying this is what we have to do for the protection of our county. And that's all we're asking for, and I think, Donna, you're right in saying that we've put it in the best format we know to get the city to okay it, and we're under the impression that the city will okay it as we recommended it, unless some of my committee has another comment about that. Is that fair enough? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: One more time. In favor of what? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Oh, the motion -- MR. NEAL: The resolution that you've already voted on. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Repeat that one more time, please. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: This is the resolution I thought we already voted on Coyle's resolution. CHAIRMAN FIALA: No, that's what we're doing right now. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay, go ahead. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you. I thought we voted on it. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. No. All those in favor, say aye. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye. COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Aye. COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye. 49 September 20, 2004 CHAIRMAN FIALA: Aye. Opposed? (No response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. That passes unanimously. Thank you, Commissioner Coyle. Any further business to discuss? MR. NEAL: That's all. Thank you. Well, one comment, Chairman. If we don't get that interlocal agreement signed by the 29th, what do we do? COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's what -- MR. NEAL: I guess that's, Frank, what you're saying. That worries me because now they've set the precedent and our issue is a moot point. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. County Attorney, what's our options? MR. WHITE: As I'd indicated, Commissioner, you have the options of waiting to see at the point in time that the city would be required to make its contribution to the TIF whether they do or not. And if they do not, at that point in time our only option would be for the CRA to sue the city. COMMISSIONER HALAS: Wait a minute. We're talking before the 29th. MR. WHITE: I understand. But their obligation to pay doesn't occur until after the next tax year. Now, they may choose to not mention it at all and let it take whatever course it may through the legislature. That may create a retroactive provision that would apply to this circumstance and it may not. COMMISSIONER HALAS: I want somebody to be assertive here. MR. WHITE: I certainly am not trying to -- MR. NEAL: May I ask that when the Commissioners meet for 50 September 20,2004 this issue that they -- and when they pass the resolution they are asking for the city to respond prior to the meeting of the 29th, that they would like a response to it. That's a soft way to do it. That's a soft threat. If they don't do it, then as I said earlier, the roads I don't like to travel, first of all, I said to you we could ask them to postpone it. Don't know whether they will or not, but we still do have the right of an injunction. And I'm not a legal guy but I think we do. However, I go back to what I said, Frank, if we can make that resolution by the commissioners that we want a response from the city prior to their meeting of the 29th and they don't give it to us, at least we're on record. That might cover us somehow, okay? I don't know another way. CHAIRMAN FIALA: So will you be working with Patrick then as they put this together? And he said he'll be -- he hopes to have it ready by tomorrow morning. MR. NEAL: Yes, yes. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And possibly it could be something that we could address at the meeting tomorrow. Yes, Commissioner? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Is there a possibility you could go to that City of Naples meeting and be on their agenda to be able to talk to them? Then there's no way they can totally ignore it. MR. NEAL: On the 29th? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: That's correct. MR. NEAL: Jim, it interferes with my golf game, but I'll go. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: I think it'll be great. There won't be any doubts about it being an option-- COMMISSIONER HALAS: I'm very, very concerned. I think we need to make sure -- how can -- what grounds do we have to have -- to make sure that there's a response prior to the 29th, Attorney? MR. WHITE: A response from the city? 51 September 20,2004 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yes, that's correct. Before the 29th, in regards to this interlocal agreement that we corne up with. MR. WHITE: Short of them having a regularly scheduled meeting before then to discuss it, my counsel would be to contact the city manager's office and see whether there is any position that the city is willing to represent with respect to the interlocal agreement that we would offer as a draft. It could be individually presented to the city council members, but arguably they operate under the same Sunshine restrictions or regulations that we -- CHAIRMAN FIALA: So we -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: So should we leave that to -- oh, I'm sorry. CHAIRMAN FIALA: That's all right. They're meeting this afternoon, is that correct? MR. WHITE: I don't know. They may very well be. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Phil McCabe just said that he was meeting with the county manager and the city manager -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah. Well, they're having a meeting, the three of them. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And so maybe then they could discuss just that. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We'll leave it up to the county manager to corne up with some type of -- some feedback to the Board of County Commissioners or to the CRA board in regards to where we are on that. Does that sound all right to you? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, sounds great to me. MR. WHITE: If their meeting is at 4:00, it's entirely possible that I may be able to have a draft agreement available for their mutual consideration by that time. CHAIRMAN FIALA: And you'll let Jim Mudd know that? MR. WHITE: That's what I'm saying, yes, ma'am. 52 September 20, 2004 COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. MR. WHITE: Aaron knows how fast I can turn things around. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Very good. MR. NEAL: Have we covered the issue if there's -- COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll leave it up to the county manager to figure out. If he's going to be in a meeting with all parties concerned, hopefully we'll have that interlocal agreement and hopefully the city manager will look at -- look it over along with our county manager and hopefully they can thrash it out and get this matter taken care of. So I guess we'll leave it in their hands temporarily and then decide which way we need to go in this. MR. NEAL: In your meeting tomorrow, if we don't get -- yes, that's fine with us, yes. COMMISSIONER HALAS: We're going to have a heavy agenda tomorrow so I'm not sure if we're going to be wide awake by the time we get talking -- MR. NEAL: We like to get you early in the morning, thank you for that. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay. Thank you. I believe that we've discussed this thoroughly and we know our direction. Anything else that you would like to discuss with us? Item #6 CITIZEN COMMENTS MR. BLAIR: Just the last thing is that we have a new website: colliercra.com. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Great. MR. BLAIR: So you'll be able to find yourself on the -- MR. WHITE: I think it's probably worth mentioning that a number of individuals will be going to a CRA based conference later 53 September 20, 2004 this week. And hopefully we can get some direction or some ideas from other areas, because certainly this isn't unique to our area. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Right. And there are others looming up in front of us. Would you do me a favor, please, Aaron? Would you find out when this subj ect is scheduled on that agenda and -- MR. BLAIR: On the 29th? CHAIRMAN FIALA: Yeah, on the 29th. I mean, where? Is it in the morning or afternoon or whatever. And maybe Commissioner Coyle or I, one of us could attend. And I'd certainly like to do that and possibly speak on behalf of the CRA in their support. So if you could let us know and -- MR. BLAIR: Okay. I'd be -- thank you. CHAIRMAN FIALA: Thank you. Anything further? (N 0 response.) CHAIRMAN FIALA: Okay, meeting is adjourned. 54 September 20, 2004 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by order of the Chair at 10:40 a.m. BOARD OF CRA BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS/EX OFFICIO GOVERNING BOARD(S) OF SPECIAL DISTRICTS UNDER ITS CONTROL. DONN~' ¿~n ATTEST: DWIGHT,<E~' .~ttt)~~,CLERK 'I. .' '''';';;;, ,_ \,'" .",ù 'j , . . Œ {J!r ¡tf/¡Jj" .!: L ' ." -If'. . .- ~ - ". ~, ,~ \ '\ " . --.. ¡........... ~. ._. '1 \ " ' . .: ....~II . tö c " ';.il .. : " .11'IIIn · S S i V"'ftur__ . ~'1 v"" ~<.. ec: :'~.... r These minutes approved by the Board on.! @cþt;er;f(q ;)/)f)f , as presented v-- or as correctéd ( TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INC. BY CHERIE' NOTTINGHAM. 55