Agenda 10/14/2008 Item #12BPage 1 of 1
Agenda Item No. 12B
October 14, 2008
Page 1 of 32
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Item Number: 126
Item Summary: This item to be heard at 1:00 p.m. For the Board of County Commissioners to provide
direction to the County Attorney regarding settlement negotiations and strategy related to
litigation expenditures in the pending litigation case of Francis D. Hussey, Jr. and Mary P.
Hussey and Winchester Lakes Corporation v. Collier County, The Honorable Charlie Crist,
and the Florida Department of Community Affairs, Case No. 08- 6933 -CA, now pending in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit in and for Collier County, Florida.
Meeting Date: 10114!2008 9:00:00 AM
Approved By
Community Development &
Joseph K. Schmitt
Environmental Scrvices Adminstrator
Date
Community Development &
Community Development &
9129i2008 9:46 AM
Environmental Services
Environmental Services Admin.
Approved By
Jacqueline W. Hubbard
Assistant County Attorney
Date
County Attorney
County Attorney Office
9/2912008 2:59 PM
-'- Approved By
Jeff Klatzkow
- ssistant County Attorney
Date
County Attorney
County Attorney Office
9/2912008 3:16 PM
Approved By
OMB Coordinator
OMS Coordinator
Date
County Manager's Office
Office of k anagement & Budget
9129120 08 4:35 PM
Approved By
John A. Yonkosky
Director of the Office cf Management
Date
County Minnager's Office
Office of Management & Budget
9!2912008 7:01 Pull
Approved By
James V. Mudd
County Manager
Cate
Board of County
County Nslanager's Office
3;3012038 11:31 AM
Commissioners
file: / /C:AAgendaTest \Export\114- October %2014,% 202008 \12. %2000UNTY %20ATTORN... 10/8/2008
Agenda Item No. 123
October 14, 2008
Page 2 of 32
CIVIL ACTION SUMMONS
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 20TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN
AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
FRANCIS D. HUSSEY,
JR. and CASE NO.: (�� � �L1 I O
MARY P. HUSSEY, husband and wife;
and WINCHESTER LAKES )
CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, -9- Q
-n -i -rt
vs. Plaintiffs, C 0 Py rn
COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision
of the State of Florida; THE HONORABLE QRTINOINVESTIGATIONS
CHARLIE CRIST, Governor of the State of
Florida; and the FLORIDA DEPARTMENT moiled D*j:l 2--Uk Tin
OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, Served Date`i'- /s=orTime ,-riZID #<
THE STATE OF FLORIDA:
To All and Singular the Sheriffs of the State:
YOU ARE COMMANDED to serve this Summons and a copy of the Complaint in this action on Defendant:
COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida
By serving: Tom Henning, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
or James V. Mudd, County Manager
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34112
Each Defendant is required to serve written defenses to the Complaint on Plaintiffs' attorneys, whose names and addresses
are:
John G. Vega, Esq.
John G. Vega, P.A.
201 - 8th Street South, Suite 207
Naples, FL 34102 -6141
(239) 659 -3251
Margaret L. Cooper, Esquire
Jones, Foster, Johnston & Stubbs, P.A.
505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 -3475
(561) 659 -3000
Ronald L. Weaver, Esq. and Barbara L. Wilhite, Esq.
Stearns, Weaver, Miller, Weissler, Alhadeff & Sitterson, P.A.
Suntrust Financial Centre - Suite 2200
401 East Jackson Street
Tampa, FL 33602
(813) 223 -4800
within 20 days after service of this summons on that Defendant, exclusive of the day of service, and to file the original of
the defenses with the Clerk o this Court either before service on Plaintiffs' attorneys or immediately thereafter. If a
Defendant fails to do so, a def u t will e entered against that Defendant for the relief demanded in the Complaint.
DATED this day of 2008.
DWIGH E. BROCK
Cl e e Circuit Court - Collier County
(SEAL)
uty Clerk
PADOM5008\00001 \PLD\ 13 V4662. DOC
summons collier county
Agenda here too. `23
October 14, 2008
Fage 3 of 32
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.:
FRANCIS D. HUSSEY, JR. and MARY P.
HUSSEY, husband and wife; and
WINCHESTER LAKES CORPORATION, a
Florida corporation,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
COLLIER COUNTY, apolitical subdivision
of the State of Florida; THE HONORABLE
CHARLIE CRIST, Governor of the State of
Florida; and the FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
COME NOW Plaintiffs, FRANCIS D. HUSSEY, JR. and MARY P, HUSSEY, husband
and wife, and WINCHESTER LAKES, a Florida corporation (collectively "Plaintiffs "), and sue
Defendants, COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida (the "County "),
THE HONORABLE CHARLIE CRIST, Governor of the State of Florida, and the FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, and state:
COUNT
This is a claim for damages and compensation pursuant to Florida Statutes
§ 70.001 in excess of $15,000.
1
Agenda item No. 12B
October 14. 2008
Page 4 of 22
2. Plaintiffs, FRANCIS D. HUSSEY, JR., and MARY B. HUSSEY, husband and
wife, are the owners of certain real property within Collier County, more particularly described
on Exhibit "1."
3. The property described in Exhibit "1" shall be referred to as the "Subject
Property." The Subject Property all lies within an area of Collier County which is commonly
referred to as "North Belle Meade."
4. Plaintiff, WINCHESTER LAKES CORPORATION ("WINCHESTER LAKES "),
holds an option to certain mineral rights in the Subject Property.
S. Plaintiffs, FRANCIS D. HUSSEY, JR. and MARY P. HUSSEY, husband and
wife, are hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Hussey Family."
6. The Hussey Family began to acquire land in Section 32 in the year 1979. By the
year 1981, the Hussey Family had acquired all of Section 32 and the majority of the south half of
Section 29. Thereafter, the Hussey Family continued to acquire smaller parcels adjacent to and
near the initial acquisition.
7. The Subject Property has been treated as an assemblage of unified ownership
throughout the years during its acquisition.
8. At the time of acquisition, the Subject Property was designated Agricultural on
the zoning maps of Collier County. This zoning designation allowed agricultural use, rock
mining, and low density residential housing development.
9. The majority of land in the vicinity of the Subject Property contains a tremendous
quantity of DOT grade limestone rock which is easily accessible. Rock mines bordered the
Subject Property to the east at the time of the Hussey Family acquisition.
2
Agenda Item No. 123
October 14. 2003
Page 5 of 32
10. The Subject Property is situated on the same vein of accessible limestone rock as
was being mined by nearby property owners in the 1970's. At all times rock mining was an
economically and viable use. The underground mineral rights in the subsurface rock located on
the Subject Property are of substantial value.
11. The Subject Property was soil tested for rock deposit prior to its acquisition and it
was the intent of the Hussey Family to utilize the Subject Property for rock mining with a
residual use of residential development, which was allowed at the time of acquisition.
12. Rock mining, with residual residential development, was a reasonably
foreseeable, nonspeculative land use which is suitable for the Subject Property and compatible
with adjacent uses and created an existing fair market value in the property greater than the fair
market value of the actual present use as vacant agricultural property.
13. At all times before, during and after the acquisition and assemblage of the Subject
Property, the Hussey Family had a reasonably foreseeable, nonspeculative, investment - backed
1
expectation to use the property for rock mining, with a residual residential development use.
14. In 1989, Defendant, COLLIER COUNTY, adopted its First Growth Management
Plan ( "GMP ") pursuant Florida Statutes § 163.3161 and Rule 95 -5 F.A.C. In the Future Land
Use Element of the GMP, the Subject Property was designated Rural Agricultural. Under this
designation, the uses allowed included agricultural use, rock mining and residential development.
15. On October 30, 1991, the County adopted Ordinance No. 91 -102, the 1991 Land
Development Code ( "LDC "). Under the LDC, the Subject Property could be used for
agriculture, rock mining and residential development at one unit per five acres, including
Planned Use Development ( "PUD ") zoning, clustering of density, golf course and tennis club
amenities, and gated communities.
3
Agenda Ite}i No. 12B
October 14, 2008
Page G of 32
16. In furtherance of plans to rock mine the property, the Hussey Family entered into
a contract with Florida Rock in the year 2000 for potential rock mining. When this contract
expired, the Hussey Family replaced the contract with a Lease Option Agreement on November
13, 2002 with WINCHESTER LAKES for rock mining.
17. Under this Lease Option Agreement, WINCHESTER LAKES has rights to
operate the rock mine and the Husseys have rights to royalties.
18. As part of obligations imposed by the Florida Department of Community Affairs
and Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, on May 9, 2000, the County adopted certain Growth
Management Plan Amendments. Under the GMP Amendment, an environmental assessment
was to be made of the rural areas of Collier County by June 22, 2002. The State did not mandate
specific requirements of the assessment or the land use designations, but only that the County
conduct an assessment of environmentally sensitive lands for potential protection for the good of
the public.
19. Thereafter, the County engaged in an environmental assessment of certain areas
of Collier County, commonly known as "Urban Fringe," "Rural Fringe" and "Rural Lands." The
County then adopted Ordinance No. 2002 -32 on June 22, 2002. This Ordinance continued the
designation "Agricultural/Rural" on the Future Land Use Map for the North Belle Meade Area.
However, in accordance with its environmental assessment within the North Belle Meade Area,
the County also designated certain lands "Sending Lands," "Receiving Lands," and "Neutral
Lands." These designations were determined by Collier County based on what it considered to
be desirable environmental preservation and to avoid urban sprawl for the good of the public.
4
Agenda liern No. 12B
October 14, 2�t)a
Page 7 of 32
20. "Receiving Lands" are designated to continue rock mining uses. Residential uses
continue to be allowed at one unit per five acres. Density bonuses are given under certain
circumstances and rural villages are also allowed.
21. "Sending Lands," on the other hand, are designated so that that rock mining is no
longer allowed. Any residential development is reduced to one unit per forty acres rather than
one unit per five acres. In addition, the changes eliminate other development rights, such as
gated communities, planned unit developments with density clustering, and accessory uses such
as golf and tennis facilities. Lastly, these changes eliminate the extension of County utilities
such as water and sewer services. These changes render residential development unfeasible.
22. In exchange for the taking of their mining and development rights, property
owners were afforded Transfer of Development Rights ( "TDR.s "), which were in theory designed
to offset economic hardships. TDRs, however, are of relatively little worth.
23. "Neutral Lands" retain substantially the same rights as before the passage of
Ordinance No. 2002 -32.
24. The Subject Property was initially designated "Sending," subject to restrictions as
set forth above.
25. Ordinance No. 2002 -32 also had a provision to afford a hearing to property
owners who were affected by a "Sending Land" designation. County staff notified Plaintiffs of
this provision that allowed property owners — who were contiguous to Neutral Lands or
Receiving Lands — to bring forth evidence to support a final designation of their properties to
"Neutral" or "Receiving." Accordingly, the "Sending" designation was preliminary at the initial
passage of Ordinance No. 2002 -32.
Agenda Item No. 12B
October 14, 2008
Page 8 of 32
26. Subsequent to the passage of Ordinance No. 2002 -32, the Hussey Family
attempted to obtain relief through administrative and judicial activity. This included the
following:
• The Hussey Family challenged Ordinance No. 2002 -32
before with Defendant, the Florida Department of
Community Affairs, and litigated the same through the
First District Court of Appeals. The Ordinance was found
to be in compliance by the Department on July 22, 2003.
The First District Court of Appeals affirmed this decision
on September 15, 2004.
• The Hussey Family filed a Conditional Use application for
rock mining on April 30, 2003. CU- 2003 -AR -4093. This
application remained pending through and including
August, 2007. It was finally denied in August 2007.
• The Hussey Family also filed a Petition for a final
designation on April 22, 2005 as allowed under Ordinance
No. 2002 -32. This is more thoroughly detailed below.
27. The effective date of Ordinance No. 2002 -32 was supposed to have been July 23,
2002. However, due to the administrative challenge to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs, it did not become effective until July 22, 2003.
28. The Hussey Family first served a Bert Harris Notice with regard to the adoption
of Ordinance No. 2002 -32 on the County on July 21, 2004. This was then served upon the
Florida Department of Community Affairs by the County shortly thereafter. This notice
contained a good faith appraisal showing a diminution in value of the surface rights and
preliminary valuation of subsurface mineral rights as of July 22, 2003.
29. On January 18, 2005, the County served notice that it was of the opinion that the
Florida Department of Community Affairs and the Office of the Governor of the State of Florida
were required to be active participants in a Florida Statutes § 70.001 process and should bear a
on
Agenda !tam No. 125
October i4, 20_,3
Page 9 cf 32
proportionate share of liability for the inordinate burden imposed, contending that its actions
were mandated by the State of Florida.
30. The Hussey Family continued to pursue relief as set forth above and petitioned
the County for a final designation of its property, as allowed in Ordinance No. 2002 -32.
31. In particular, the Hussey Family filed a Petition for a final designation on the
Subject Property of 'Receiving Lands" by way of a Petition for Amendment to the GMP as
provided in Ordinance No. 2002 -32. This was ultimately consolidated with and included with a
separate staff- sponsored Petition to Amend the GMP.
32. Both the Hussey Family and the staff - sponsored Petition for GMP Amendment
were denied on July 25, 2007.
33. This denial of the Petition constituted the final designation for the Subject
Property and the application of Ordinance No. 2002 -32 to the Subject Property within the
meaning of Florida Statute § 70.001.
34. Following the denial of the GMP Amendment application, updated appraisals of
the diminution in value of the loss in value of the Subject Property based on more accurate
assessments of mineable rock were obtained. These good faith appraisals were exclusive of the
loss of value of the residual residential development use. These appraisals were addressed as of
the date of passage of Ordinance No. 2002 -32 (June 2002) and the date of the final designation
of the Subject Property (July 25, 2007).
35. An amended Bert Harris Notice was served on the Defendants, Collier County,
the Florida Department of Community Affairs and the Honorable Charlie Crist, Governor of the
State of Florida on July 24, 2008. The updated appraisals were attached to the Notice.
7
Aaenda Item No. 12B
October 14, 2003
Page 10 of 32
36. Prior to the passage and application of Ordinance No. 2002 -32, Plaintiffs had a
"vested right" and/or "an existing use" in the Subject Property for rock mining and for a residual
residential development use as defined in Florida Statutes § 70.001.
37. The County's actions have "inordinately burdened" the Subject Property as
defined in Florida Statutes § 70.001.
38. In the alternative, the County's action in conjunction with the action of the Office
of the Governor and the Florida Department of Community Affairs have inordinately burdened
the Subject Property as defined in Florida Statutes § 70.001.
39. Plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the actual loss of the fair market value
of the Subject Property, including the loss of the value of the underlying rock and mineral rights
and of the residual residential development use.
40. As of June 2002, the before -value is $76,500,000 — exclusive of residual use of a
residential development use value. The after -value as Agricultural Land is $9,200,000. The
diminution in value as of June 2002 is $67,300,000, exclusive of the loss of residual residential
development use value.
41. As of July 2007, the before -value is $112,400,000 — exclusive of residual
residential development use value. The after -value as Agricultural Land is $21,000,000. The
diminution in value as of July 25, 2007, therefore, is $91,500,000, exclusive of the loss of
residual residential development use value.
42. In addition, Plaintiffs have suffered a substantial diminution in value of the
residual use as a residential development due to reduction of density to one unit per 40 acres,
elimination of PUD zoning and clustering opportunities, elimination of golf course and tennis
court accession, uses, and elimination of extension of county utilities.
8
Agenda Item No. ,-H3
October 14, 2c]03
age 11 of :2
43. Plaintiffs are obligated to pay the undersigned a reasonable fee.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court:
(a) Grant Plaintiffs a bench trial to determine liability pursuant to F.S. § 70.001 on an
expedited basis;
(b) Determine that an existing use of the Subject Property or a vested right to a
specific use existed and that Collier County, or in the alternative that Defendants either jointly
and /or severally have inordinately burdened the property and determine the date of the
imposition of such burden;
(c) Following such determination, convene a jury to determine the total amount of
compensation to Plaintiffs to be apportioned among Defendants, as applicable;
(d) Enter judgment against Defendants in their proportionate shares, as applicable, for
the compensation awarded, plus costs, attorney's fees and applicable interest; and
(e) Grant such other and further relief as this Honorable Court determines to be
equitable, just, proper and necessary under the circumstances.
COUNT II
44. This is a claim for inverse condemnation based on a regulatory taking of
Plaintiffs' property pursuant to Article X Sec. 6(a) of the Florida Constitution.
45. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 2 -27, 30 -34, and 39 -43 of Count 1.
46. Article X, Sec. 6(a) of the Florida Constitution provides:
No private property shall be taken except for a public
purpose and with full compensation therefore paid to
each owner or secured by deposit in the registry of the
court and available to the owner.
47. The decision of Collier County to designate the Subject Property "Sending Lands"
and to apply the standards set forth in Ordinance No. 2003 -32 is final and ripe for adjudication:
7
Agenda Item No. 12B
October 14, 2008
Page 12 of 32
(a) The validity of Ordinance No. 2003 -32 was upheld by the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on July 22,'2003 and the decision was affirmed by the First
District Court of Appeals on September 15, 2004;
(b) The Hussey Family Conditional Use application for rock mining was
denied by the Board of County Commissioners in August 2007; and
(c) The Staff Sponsored and Hussey Family Petition for GMP Amendment for
a final designation of the Subject Property as "Receiving Lands" or "Neutral Lands" was denied
by the Board of County Commissioners on July 25, 2007.
(d) There are no more administrative procedures that are available to Plaintiffs
to obtain relief and/or any such procedures are futile, as the County has made a final
determination of the use allowed for the Subject Property.
48. The County's actions, either alone or in conjunction with the other Defendants,
constitute a categorical or per se regulatory taking of Plaintiffs' property as defined in Lucas v.
South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992), because such regulations deny Plaintiffs
of all economically beneficial use of the Subject Property and have, for all intents and purposes,
taken all subsurface mineral rights.
49. Alternatively, the County's actions, either alone or in conjunction with the other
Defendants, constitute a taking under the standard enumerated in Penn Central Transportation
Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), because:
(a) Such regulations have had an extraordinary adverse economic impact by
way of a diminution in value;
10
Agenda !tern iJo. 123
October 14; 2003
r aae . 3 of 32
(b) Such regulations have totally and completely interfered with Plaintiffs'
investment backed expectation of rock mining on the Subject Property and a residual use for
residential development; and
(c) The character of the governmental action has been for a public purpose of
creating a wildlife and nature preserve on all of the Subject Property consisting of approximately
979.53 acres of acres of land.
50. Neither Collier County nor the State of Florida provided just compensation as is
required by the Florida Constitution, Article X, Section 6(a).
51. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover reasonable attorney's fees under F.S. § 73.092.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Honorable Court.
(a) Grant Plaintiffs a bench trial on the taking issue on an expedited basis;
(b) Declare that Collier County, or in the alternative Defendants, has taken the
Subject Property without just compensation;
(c) Declare the date of such taking;
(d) Enter an order of taking as to the Subject Property pursuant to Chapters 73 and 74
of the Florida Statutes;
(e) Require Collier County, or in the alternative Defendants, to deposit a good faith
estimate of value, plus interest from the date of taking into the Registry of the Court to secure
Plaintiffs during the pendency of this case for the property taken;
(f) Impanel a jury of twelve (12) persons to determine the amount of compensation
which Plaintiffs should be awarded for the taking of the Subject of Property by Collier County,
or in the alternative Defendants;
I
Agenda Item No. 123
October 14, 2008
Page 14 of 32
(g) Award Plaintiffs pre - judgment interest as appropriate, and reasonable attorney's
fees and costs in accordance with Chapters 73 and 74 of the Florida Statutes; and
(h) Grant such other and further relief as this Honorable Court determines to be
equitable, just, proper and necessary under the circumstances.
RESERVATION
Plaintiffs hereby give notice that they expressly reserve the right to assert any and all
Federal Constitutional claims after exhaustion of state avenues to obtain just compensation.
-r�F-
DATED: c�C�-C. \ L , 2008.
JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON
& STUBBS, P.A.
Margaret L. Cooper, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 217948
E -mail: mcooper6a),jones- foster.com
505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100
P.O. Box 3475
West Palm Beach FL 33402 -3475
561- 659 -3000 (phone)
561 -650 -0422 (fax)
Co- Counsel for Plaintiffs
?AD0CS%25008100001'TLD\ 13V 4644. DOC
complaint revised 4
STEARNS, WEAVER, MILLER, WEISSLER,
ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A.
Ronald L. Weaver, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 185157
E -mail: rweaver�l7swiriwas.com
Barbara L. Wilhite, Esq.
Florida Bar No. 0985058
E -mail: bwilhiteCswrnwas.com
Suntrust Financial Centre — Suite 2200
401 East Jackson Street
Tampa, FL 33602
813 - 223 -4800 (phone)
813- 222 -5089 (fax)
Co- Counsel for Plaintiffs
JOHN G. VEGA, P.A.
201 8th Street, South, Suite 207
Naples, FL 34102 -6141
239- 659 -3251 (phone)
239 - 659 -3417 (fax)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
By: Lj;: j -�,,
12
Jo ' Vega, Esq.
Fl ida Bar No. 93626
IV
Parcel
Description
Agenda I ern No. 12B
October 14, 2003
Page 15 of 32
Parcel 1 The West 1/2 of Section 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, CoiIier
00342040003 County, Florida, less and except the following: a) property previously
313.94 acres condemned or conveyed to Collier County or the Department of Transportation
for the State of Florida for road right-of-way purposes and b) all existing rights
to and from State Road 84 for 1 -75 previously condemned by Department of
Transportation for the State of Florida.
Parcel 2 The East 112 of Section 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier
00341960003 County, Florida, less and except the following: a) property previously
313.94 acres condemned or conveyed to Collier County or the Department of Transportation
for the State of Florida for road right -of -way purposes, b) all existing rights to
and from State Road 84 or 1 -75 previously condemned by Department of
Transportation for the State of Florida.
Parcel3 The South 1/2 of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier
00328560002 County, Florida, less and except the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the
260.00 acres Southwest 1/4 (Parcel 00329880008), the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the
Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 (parce100330840008), and the West 1/2 of
the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 114 of the Southeast 114 (Parcel
000329240004), Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier
County, Florida.
Parcel 4 The East 1/2 of the Southeast 114 of tine Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of
003.38240008 the Southeast 114 of Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier
4.24 acres County, Floiida.
Parcel 5 The West 1/2 of the Southwest 114 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4
00328640003 and the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Noithwest 1 /4,
10.00 acres Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
Parcel 6
00331320006
10.00 acres
Parcel 7
00330480002
5.00 acres
Parcel S
00.329760005
5.00 acres
The Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 29,
Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
The East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of
Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
The East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of
Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
EXHIBIT
� Kiln
FRANCIS D. HUSSEY, JR. and MARY P.
HUSSEY, his wife; and WINCHESTER LAKES
CORPORATION, a Florida corporation,
Claimants,
vs.
COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of
the State of Florida; THE HONORABLE
CHARLIE CRIST; and the FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
Respondents.
J
Agenda Item No. 12B
October 14. 2008
Page 16 of 32
�coPY
In Re: Notice of Claim Under
Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private
Property Rights ProtectixV Acb
Florida Statute § 70.001
QC)
r
C -rti
ra
NOTICE OF CLAIM AND REQUEST FOR SETTLEMENT PROCEEDINGS
�. AND /OR
REQUEST FOR WRITTEN RIPENESS DETERMINATION
TO: COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida
Attention: James V. Mudd, County Manager
Tom Henning, Chairman, Board of County Commissioners
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney
TO: FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Attention: Thomas G. Pelham, Secretary
TO: THE HONORABLE CHARLIE CRIST,
GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
COME NOW Claimants, FRANCIS D. HUSSEY, JR., and MARY P, HUSSEY, his
wife, and WINCHESTER LAKES CORPORATION, a Florida corporation, (collectively,
"Claimants "), and give notice of a claim pursuant to F.S_ § 70.001, and state:
FRANCIS D. HUSSEY, JR_, and MARY B. HUSSEY, his wife, are the
owners of certain real property within Collier County, more particularly described on Exhibit
'41 " hereto.
Aaen�a Item t!o. 1 %B
October 14. 2003
Hussey i,, Collier County rage 17 of 32
Notice of Claim Under F. S. d 70.001
2. WINCHESTER LAKES CORPORATION holds an option to certain mineral
rights in the property described on Exhibit "I" -
3. The property described in Exhibit "1" shall be referred to as the "Subject
Property." The Subject Property all lies within an area of Collier County which is commonly
referred to as "North Belle Meade."
4. FRANCIS D. HUSSEY, JR. and MARY P_ HUSSEY, his wife are hereinafter
referred to as "the Hussey Family "_
5. The Subject Property has been treated as an assemblage of unified ownership
throughout the years.
6_ The Hussey Family began to acquire land in Section 32 in the year 1979. By
the year 198I, the Hussey Family had acquired all of Section 32 and the majority of the south
half of Section 29.
T At the time of acquisition, the Subject Property was designated Agricultural on
the zoning maps of Collier County. This zoning designation allowed agricultural use, rock
mining, and low density residential_
8. The majority of land in Sections 29 and 32 contains a tremendous amount of
DOT grade Iimestone rock; as indicated in the appraisals attached hereto.
9_ Rock mines surrounded the Subject Property to the east at the time of the
Hussey Family acquisition_ The Subject Property is situated on the same vein of Iimestone
rock as was being mined by nearby property owners in the 1970's and has been economically
and practically viable for use as a rock mine_ The highest and best use of the Subject Property
is and has been for rock mining.
2
Agenda Item No. 125
October 14, 2008
Page 18 of 32
Hussey v. Collier County
Nonce of Claim Under F. S. § 70.001
10. It has been the intent of the Hussey Family to utilize the Subject Property for
rock mining to meet the need for road expansion in Collier County.
11. In 1989, Collier County adopted its First Growth Management Plan ( "GMP ")
pursuant Florida Statutes § 163.3161 and Rule 95 -5 F.A.C. In the Future Land Use Element
of the GMP, the Subject Property was designated Rural Agricultural. Under this designation,
the uses allowed included agricultural, rock mining and Iow density residential.
12. On October 30, 1991, Collier County adopted Ordinance 91 -102, the 1991
Land Development Code ( "LDC "). Under the LDC, the Subject Property could be used for
agricultural, rock mining, and residential development at one unit per five acres.
13. At all times before, during, and after the acquisition and assemblage of the
- Subject Property, the Hussey Family had a reasonable, non speculative, investment - backed
expectation to use the property for rock mining — which has an estimated depletion time of 20
years — to ultimately be followed by a residual use of residential development after the rock
was depleted and residential development expanded eastwardly in Collier County.
14. In furtherance of plans to rock mine the property, the Hussey Family entered
into a mining contract with Florida Rock in the year 2000_ When this contract expired, the
Hussey Family replaced the contract with a Lease Option Agreement on November 13, 2002
with WINCHESTER LAKES CORPORATION_ Under this Lease Option Agreement,
WINCHESTER LAKES CORPORATION has rights to operate the rock mine and the
Husseys have rights to royalties.
91
Agenda 'Teni No. 12
Oct" er 14 2003
Hussey v. Collier County Page 19 of 32
Notice of Claim Under F S. g 70. 001
15. On May 9, 2000, Collier County adopted certain Growth Management Plan
Amendments. Under the GMP Amendment, an environmental assessment was to be made of
the rural areas of Collier County by June 22, 2002.
16. Collier County engaged in an environmental assessment of the rural areas of
the County and thereafter adopted Ordinance 2002 -32 on June 22, 2002. This Ordinance
continued the designation "Agri cultural /Rural" on the Future Land Use Map for the North
Belle Meade Area. However, within the North Belle Meade Area, the County also designated
certain lands "Sending Lands," "Receiving Lands," and "Neutral Lands."
17. `Receiving Lands" could continue to have rock mining uses. Residential uses
continued to be allowed at one unit per five acres. Density bonuses were given under certain
circumstances and rural villages were also allowed.
18. "Sending Lands," other the other hand, could no longer have rock mining uses.
Any residential development was reduced to one unit per forty acres, which rendered residual
uses after rock mine depletion an economic impossibility. In exchange for reduction of their
rights. property owners were afforded Transfer of Development Rights ( "TDR's "). TDR's,
however, are of relatively Iittle worth.
19. "Neutral Lands" retained substantially the same rights as before the passage of
Ordinance 2002 -32.
20- The Subject Property was initially designated "Sending," subject to further
proceedings as set forth in the next paragraph.
21. The designations in Ordinances 2003 -32 were made without individual owner
input_ Ordinance 2002 -32 also had a provision to afford due process to property ovvners who
4
Agenda Item No. 12B
October 14, 2003
Page 20 of '2
Hussey v. Collier County
Notice of Claim Under F S. f '0.001
were affected by a "Sending Land" designation. This provision allowed property owners —
who were contiguous to Neutral Lands or Receiving Lands — to bring forth evidence to have
their lands redesignated. Accordingly, the "Sending" designation was preliminary at the
initial passage of Ordinance 2002 -32.
22. Subsequent to the passage of Ordinance 2002 -32, the Hussey Family attempted
to obtain relief through administrative and judicial activity. This included the following:
• The Hussey Family challenged Ordinance 2002 -32
before with the Department of Community Affairs and
litigated the same through the First District Court of
Appeals. The Ordinance was found to be in compliance
by the Department on July 22, 2003, The First District
Court of Appeals affirmed this decision on September
15, 2004.
• The Hussey Family filed a Conditional Use application
for rock mining on April 30, 2003. CU- 2003 -AR-
4093. This application remained pending through and
including August, 2007. It was finally denied in August
2007.
23. The effective date of Ordinance 2002 -32 was supposed to have been July 23,
2002. However, due to the above administrative challenge, it did not become effective until
July 22, 2003.
24. The Hussey family first filed a Bert Harris Notice with regard to the adoption
of Ordinance 2002.32 on July 21, 2004_
25. The County asserts that the Office of the Governor and the Florida Department
of Community Affairs are necessary parties, are proportionately responsible for damages, and
should be given notice_ Claimants are of the opinion that the inordinate burden on the Subject
Property has been caused by the actions of the County, but in the alternative hereby serve the
5
Hussey V. Collier County
A"otice of Claim Under FS § ?0.001
Aaend4a !fem No. 1 =E3
October 14, 21008
page 21 of 02
Governor and the Florida Department of Community Affairs notice of the County's assertion
of their proportionate responsibility.
2b. The Hussey Family continued to pursue relief and filed a petition for a final
designation as allowed in Ordinance 2002 -32.
27. In particular, the Hussey Family filed a Petition to redesignate the Subject
Property "Receiving Lands" by way of a Petition for Amendment to the GMP as provided in
Ordinance 2002 -32. This was ultimately included in a separate staff - sponsored Petition to
Amend the GMP. This Petition could also have allowed for a re- designation to "Neutral
Lands."
28. Both the Hussey Family and the staff - sponsored Petition for GMP Amendment
were denied on July 25, 2007.
29. This denial constituted the final designation for the Subject Property and the
application of Ordinance 2002 -32 to the Subject Property within the meaning of Florida
Statute § 70.001.
30_ Prior to the passage of Ordinance 2002 -32, Claimants had a "vested right"
and/or "an existing use" in the Subject Property as defined in Florida Statutes § 70.001.
31_ The actions of the County — or alternatively, the County's actions in
conjunction with the Office of the Governor and the Florida Department of Community
Affairs — have "inordinately burdened" the Subject Property as defined in Florida Statute
§ 70.001.
32_ Claimants are entitled to compensation for the actual loss of the fair market
value of the Subject Property.
R
Agenda Item No. 12B
October 14, 2003
Pane 22 of 32
Hussey v. Collier County
Notice of Claim Under F. S, § 70.001
33. The diminution in the value of the Subject Property as of June 2002 when
Ordinance 2002 -32 was adopted is demonstrated in the good faith appraisal attached as
Exhibit "2" hereto. The value for the highest and best use as a Rock Mine Going Concern is
$76,500,000 exclusive of any residual use after depletion of the rock. The after -value as
Agricultural Land is $9,200,000. The diminution in value, therefore, is $67,300,000 plus the
loss of residual use value.
34. The diminution in value as of July 25, 2007, when the County conclusively
and finally applied Ordinance 2002 -32 to Claimants' property by denying the Petition to
Redesignate and finalizing the designation as "Sending" Land, is demonstrated in the good
faith appraisal attached as Exhibit "3" hereto. The value for the highest and best use as a
-.. Rock Mine Going Concern is $112,400,000 exclusive of residual use after depletion of the
rock. The after -value as Agricultural Land is $21,000,000. The diminution in value,
therefore, is $91,500,000 plus the loss of residual use value_
W JF,REFORE, Claimants request the following relief:
(a) That the Respondents meet with Claimants within one hundred eighty
(1$0) days from the date hereof to discuss resolution and to make a settlement offer as
required under Florida Statute § 70.001(4)(c), or
(b) If a settlement is not reached, that the County issue a written ripeness
decision pursuant to Florida Statute § 70.001(5)(a) advising how the Subject Property may be
used, and
(c) That the Respondents pay Claimants for diminution in value, plus
interest in their proportionate amounts.
7
Nussey et al v Collier County
Notice of Claim Under FS. § 70 001
Respectfully submitted, this .,- r day of �� % , 2008.
JOHN G. VEGA, P.A.
Counsel for Claimants
201 8th Street, South, Suite 207
Naples, FL 34102 -6141
239- 659 -3251
239 -659 -3417 (fax)
r r ,
By:
Jo G. Vega, Esq.
FI ida Bar No. 9.3626
Agenda I *em No. ^2B
October 14. ?QOS
Page 23 Of 317
JONES, FOSTER, JOHNSTON & STUBBS, P.A.
Co- Counsel for Claimants
505 South Flagler Drive, Suite 1100
P.O. Box 3475
West Palm Beach FL 33402 -3475
561- 659 -3000
561 -650 -0422 (fax)
By
Margaret L. rooper, Esq_
Florida Bar No: 217948
nicooper@iones-foster.com
Hussey v. Collier County
Notice of Claim Under F. S. , 70.001
SERVICE LIST
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, Esq.
Collier County Attorney
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 33112
James V. Mudd
Collier County Manager
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34112
Tom Henning, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
3301 E. Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34112
The Honorable Charlie Crist, Governor of the State of Florida
The Capitol
400 South Monroe Street
Tallahassee, FL 32399 -0001
Florida Department of Community Affairs
Attn: Thomas G. Pelham, AICP, Secretary
2555 Shumard Oak Blvd_
Tallahassee, FL 32399 -2100
PADOCS12 5 00 810 00 0 1TLD113H0431 DOC
notice bert hams claim
01
Agenda Item No. 123
October 14, 2008
Page 24 of 32
Parcel
Description
Agenda Item No. 112B
October 14, 2008
Page 25 of 32
Parcel The West 1/2 of Section 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier
00342040003 County, Florida, less and except the following: a) property previously
313.94 acres condemned or conveyed to Collier County or the Department of Transportation
for the State of Florida for road right -of -way purposes and b) all existing rights
to and from State Road 84 for I -75 previously condemned by Department of
Transportation for the State of Florida.
Parcel The East 1/2 of Section 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier
00341960003 County, Florida, less and except the following: a) property previously
31 3.94 acres condemned or conveyed to Collier County or the Department of Transportation
for the State of Florida for road right -of -way purposes, b) all existing rights to
and from State Road 84 or 1 -75 previously condemned by Department of
Transportation for the State of Florida,
Parcel The South 1/2 of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier
00328560002 County, Florida, less and except the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the
260.00 acres Southwest 1/4 (Parcel 00329880008), the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the
Southeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 (parcel 00330840008), and the West 1/2 of
the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 (Parcel
000329240004), Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier
County, Florida.
Parcel 4 The East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of
00338240008 the Southeast 1/4 of Section 31, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier
4.24 acres County, Florida.
Parcel 5 The West 1/2 of the Southwest l!4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast I/4
00328640003 and the East 1/2 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4,
10.00 acres Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida,
Parcel 6 The Southeast 1/4 of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of Section 29.
00331320006 Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
10.00 acres
Parcel 7 The East 1/2 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of
00330480002 Section 29, To Amship 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida.
5.00 acres
Parcel 8 The East 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of the Southwest 1/4 of
00329760005 Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 27 East; Collier County, Florida.
5.00 acres
EXHIBIT #1
Agenda Item No. 128
October 14, 2608
Page 26 o'122
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWENTIETH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
CIVIL ACTION
FRANCIS D. HUSSEY, JR. and MARY P.
HUSSEY, husband and wife; and
WINCHESTER LAKES CORPORATION, a
Florida corporation,
Plaintiffs,
V.
COLLIER COUNTY, a political subdivision of
the State of Florida; THE HONORABLE
CHARLIE CRIST, Governor of the State of
Florida; and the FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS,
Defendants.
COPY
Case No.: 08- 6933 -CA
COLLIER COUNTY'S MOTION TO DISMISS BERT HARRIS ACT COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, COLLIER COUNTY, by and through its undersigned counsel, pursuant
to Rules 1.140 and 1.130 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and moves this Court to
dismiss the complaint in the above referenced case. As grounds therefore, COLLIER COUNTY
states the following:
I. The HUSSEYS Have Failed to Attach Necessary Exhibits as Required Under Rule
1.130 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure:
1. In paragraph 28 of the complaint, the HUSSEYS claim to have first served a Bert
Harris Act Notice on COLLIER COUNTY on July 21, 2004, however, no such notice
was attached to the complaint and this notice is an operative fact necessary to sustain the
Plaintiffs' cause of action.
2. In paragraph 16 of the complaint, the HUSSEYS claim they entered into a
contract with Florida Rock in the year 2000. No such contract was attached to the
1
o
o
r—
m
I
o
C7
C
cn
COLLIER COUNTY'S MOTION TO DISMISS BERT HARRIS ACT COMPLAINT
COMES NOW, COLLIER COUNTY, by and through its undersigned counsel, pursuant
to Rules 1.140 and 1.130 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and moves this Court to
dismiss the complaint in the above referenced case. As grounds therefore, COLLIER COUNTY
states the following:
I. The HUSSEYS Have Failed to Attach Necessary Exhibits as Required Under Rule
1.130 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure:
1. In paragraph 28 of the complaint, the HUSSEYS claim to have first served a Bert
Harris Act Notice on COLLIER COUNTY on July 21, 2004, however, no such notice
was attached to the complaint and this notice is an operative fact necessary to sustain the
Plaintiffs' cause of action.
2. In paragraph 16 of the complaint, the HUSSEYS claim they entered into a
contract with Florida Rock in the year 2000. No such contract was attached to the
1
Agenda Item No. 12E3
October 14, 2008
Page 27 of 32
complaint and the terms of this contract are operative facts necessary to sustain the
Plaintiffs' cause of action.
3. In paragraph 16 of the complaint, the HUSSEYS claim they entered into a lease
option agreement on November 13, 2002 with WINCHESTER LAKES. This agreement
and its terms are operative facts necessary to sustain the Plaintiffs' cause of action, yet no
such agreement was attached to the Complaint.
4. The Plaintiffs' Bert Harris claim is based upon Ordinance 2002- 32 that was
adopted in July 2002 and first affected their property in July 2003. In paragraph 26 of the
complaint, the HUSSEYS claim they filed a conditional use application for Rock Mining
on April 30, 2003. No such application was attached to the complaint and the existence of
this application and its terms are operative facts necessary to sustain the Plaintiffs' cause
of action.
5. In paragraphs 26, 30, and 36 of the complaint, the HUSSEYS claim they filed a
petition for a final designation on April 22, 2005. No such petition was attached to the
complaint and this petition is an operative fact necessary to sustain the Plaintiffs' cause of
action.
6. In paragraph 29 of the complaint, the HUSSEYS allege COLLIER COUNTY
served notice on January 18, 2005, that it was of the opinion that the Florida Department
of Community Affairs and the Office of the Governor of the State of Florida were
required to be active participants in a Florida Statutes § 70.001 process. No document
evidencing such notice was attached to the complaint and this notice is an operative fact
necessary to sustain the Plaintiffs' cause of action.
2
Agenda Item No. 12B
October 14, 2008
Page 28 of 32
7. In paragraph 31 of the complaint, the HUSSEYS claim they filed a petition for an
amendment to the GMP. No such petition was attached to the complaint and this petition
and its terms notice are operative facts necessary to sustain the Plaintiffs' cause of action.
8. In paragraph 32 of the complaint, the HUSSEYS claim they filed a petition for a
final designation on April 22, 2005. No such petition was attached to the complaint and
this petition and its terms notice are operative facts necessary to sustain the Plaintiffs'
cause of action.
II. The HUSSEYS Claim is Barred by the Statute of Limitations:
9. The HUSSEYS served a Bert Harris Act Notice on COLLIER COUNTY on
July 24, 2008,
10. The July 24, 2008 notice is untimely. The Bert Harris Act provides that "a cause
of action may not be commenced under [the Act] if the claim is presented more than 1
year after a law or regulation is first applied by the governmental entity to the property
at issue." Florida Statutes § 70.001(11). [Emphasis added].
11. COLLIER COUNTY Ordinance 2002 -32 was first applied to the HUSSEY
property on July 22, 2003.
12. Because the HUSSEYS base their claim in paragraph 27 of their complaint on an
ordinance that became effective on July 22, 2003, notice was required to be served on or
before July 22, 2004.
13. The HUSSEYS' July 2008 Notice, served approximately 5 years after the
Ordinance became effective, is untimely.
3
Agenda Itern No. 123
October 14. 20Q8
Page 29 of 32
IIl. Pursuant to Rule 1.140(b)(1) and (6), the HUSSEYS' Bert Harris Claim is
Premature; They Lack Standing; They Have Failed to State a Cause of Action;
Therefore, The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction:
14. The HUSSEYS cannot commence a Bert Harris Act action against COLLIER
COUNTY until 90 days after the filing of the notice of the claim; thus, the HUSSEYS
have failed to comply with the prerequisites to suit under Florida Statutes § 70.001(4)(a).
15, The HUSSEYS filed their notice of claim on COLLIER COUNTY on July 24,
2008.
16. The HUSSEYS did not file and serve their final or "corrected" appraisal report
until September 22, 2008; therefore, the HUSSEYS have no standing to file their cause of
action against COLLIER COUNTY until ninety (90) days after receipt, or until
December 22, 2008.
17. Further, the HUSSEYS filed and served their action against COLLIER COUNTY
on September 11, 2008, less than 90 days after the notice and without the required final
and completed appraisal report.
IV. The HUSSEYS Have Alleged Insufficient Facts for a Claim of a Vested Right:
18. The allegations in paragraph 16 are insufficient to meet the prerequisites for a
finding under Fla. Stat. § 70.001(6) (a), which requires the circuit court to determine
whether there was an existing use of the real property or an existing vested right to a
specific use of the real property. The claim of the "potential" for rock mining is not a
claim of a "vested right ".
19. Since the Plaintiffs have not attached either agreement as exhibits to the
complaint; they have failed to set forth sufficient facts that demonstrate that the Florida
Rock agreement was entered into before COLLIER COUNTY began the very public
rd
Agenda Item No. 112B
October 14, 2008
Page 30 of 32
process of adopting Growth Management Plan Amendments affecting their property, that
were finalized on May 9, 2000, as alleged in paragraph 18 of the complaint.
20. Purchasers are deemed to purchase property with constructive knowledge of the
applicable land use regulations. A subjective expectation that the land could be developed
is no more than an expectancy and does not translate into a vested right to develop the
subject property.
21. For purpose of determining whether land use regulations constitute inverse
condemnation, the HUSSEYS' subjective expectation that their land can be developed is
no more than expectancy and does not translate into vested right to develop the property.
Namon v Florida Department of Environmental Regulation, 558 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3`d
DCA 1990).
- V. The HUSSEYS Have Failed to Allege Sufficient Facts to Show a Pre - Existing Use:
22. The allegation in paragraph 16 of the complaint that the HUSSEYS replaced the
Florida Rock agreement with a "Lease Option Agreement" in November 13, 2002, which
occurred after COLLIER COUNTY adopted the ordinance at issue, is not an allegation of
either a vested right or an existing use.
VI. The HUSSEYS. Appraisal Valuation Dates are Incorrect and Insufficient:
23. The use of the denial of a petition date of July 25, 2007 in paragraphs 31 - 34 of
the complaint is of no legal consequence, since the effective date of valuation is July
2003.
24. The test for assessing the economic impact of a regulatory action is perhaps the
most settled aspect of the Penn Central analysis. In conducting this analysis, the court
must compare "the value that has been taken from the property with the value that
5
Agenda Item ND. 12B
07to '-er 14, ; r�8
Page 31 of 32
remains in the property.'" Walcek v. United States 49 Fed Cl 248 258 (2001), affd
303 F.3d 1349 (Fed.Cir.2002) (quoting Keystone, 480 U.S. at 497, 107 S.Ct. 1232)
Respectfully submitted,
BY:
A QUELINE WILLIAMS HUBBARD
Florida Bar No. 468126
Litigation Section Chief
Office of the County Attorney
3301 East Tamiami Trail, 8h Floor
Naples, Florida 34112
(239) 252 -8400 — Telephone
(239) 774 -0225 — Facsimile
COI, SE �j O IfLLIER COUNTY
1 % an d
wilt . KLATZKOW
Tamiami Bar No. 644625
ounty Attorney
Offic ounty Attorney
3301 East Trail, 8h Floor
Naples, Florida 34112
(239) 252 -8400 — Telephone
(23 9) 774 -0225 — Facsimile
CO- COUNSEL FOR COLLIER COUNTY
and
THEODORE L. TRIPP, JR.
Florida Bar No. 221856
Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP
2532 East First Street
Fort Myers, FL 33901
(23 9) 337 -6700 — Telephone
(239) 337 -6701 — Facsimile
CO- COUNSEL FOR COLLIER COUNTY
N
Agenda Item No. 12B
October 14, 2008
Page 32 of 32
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of Collier County's Motion to Dismiss
has been furnished via regular U.S. Mail to John G. Vega, Esq., 201 8th Street South, Suite 207,
Naples, FL 34102 -6141; Ronald L. Weaver, Esq. and Barbara L. Wilhite, Esq., Stearns, Weaver
et al., Suntrust Financial Centre, Suite 2200, 401 East Jackson Street, Tampa, FL 33602;
Margaret L. Cooper, Esq., Jones, Foster, Johnson & Stubbs, P.A., 505 South Flagler Drive, Suite
1100, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 -3475; and Theodore L. Tripp, Esq., Hahn & Loeser, 2532
East First Street, Fort Myers, FL 33902 -2040 on this 2nd day of October, 2008.
BY; �� J 4�LL�z
y uelineVWilliams HubbAd squire
08- 6933CA123
7