Agenda 11/08/2006 W
Board of County Commissioners
Collier County Legislative Delegation
Pre-2007 Legislative Session Workshop
Wednesday, November 8, 2006
9 -11 a.m.
AJ!enda
I. Introduction of Newly Elected Collier County
Legislative Delegation Member
II. Discussion about Collier County's Proposed 2007 State
Legislative Priorities
. Growth Management Glitch Bill (SB 360)
. Water Bill
. Insurance
. Affordable Housing
. Attorney/Court Fees
. Portability of Homestead Property Assessments
(Collier County opposed)
. Partia/- Year Assessments
. Transportation Funding Tied to Seat Belt Use
. 311 funding
. Cameras at Intersections to Catch Red-Light
Runners
Page 1
November 8, 2006
. Oppose Any Attempt to Change Impact Fees
. Requesting Change in Florida Statutes to Elect
Rather Than Appoint Florida Water
Management District Governing Board Members
. Amend House Bill 7079 to Give All Counties the
Latitude to Exempt Only Portions of Their County With
Unpaved Roads From All-Terrain Vehicle (A TV) Use
. Address Issues of Concern in Consultant Competitive
Negotiation Act
III. Property Tax Issues Open Discussion
VII. Communications
VIII. Public Comment
IX. Adjournment
Page 2
November 8, 2006
Collier Countl Government
Communication &
Customer Relations Department
3301 East Tamiami Trail
Naples, FL 34112
Contact: Sandra Arnold-Lawson
Public Information Coordinator
(239) 774-8308
November 1, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
PRE 2007 LEGISLATIVE SESSION WORKSHOP
COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2006
9-11 A.M.
Notice is hereby given that the Collier County Board of County Commissioners and the Collier County
Legislative Delegation will hold a joint Pre 2007 Legislative Session Workshop on Wednesday, November 8
from 9 to 11 a.m. in the Board of County Commissioners chambers, located on the third floor of the W. Harmon
Turner Building, Collier County Government Center, 3301 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples.
The agenda includes, but is not limited to, a discussion about Collier County's proposed 2007 State Legislative
Priorities.
In regard to the public meeting:
All interested parties are invited to attend, to register to speak and to submit their objections, if any, in writing,
to the Board prior to the meeting. All registered public speakers will be limited to three minutes unless
permission for additional time is granted by the Chairman.
Any person who decides to appeal a decision of the Board of County Commissioners or quasi-judicial 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.
Collier County Ordinance No. 2004-05 requires that all lobbyists shall, before engaging in any lobbying
activities (including, but not limited to, addressing the Board of County Commissioners, an advisory board or
quasi-judicial board), register with the Clerk to the Board at the Board Minutes and Records Department.
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 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, FL 34112, (239) 774-8380;
assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available in the Board of County Commissioners Office.
For more information, call Assistant to the County Manager Debbie Wight at 774-8383.
-30-
Collier County's 2007 State
!:&gis/ative Priorities:
Growth Management Glitch Bill (5B 360\
In 2005, the Florida Legislature passed legislation changing Florida's and the
counties' approach to growth management and concurrency management for the
construction of schools, infrastructure and water resources. This year (2006
Session) saw attempts to correct what has been termed as glitches in last year's
Senate Bill 360.
House Bill 7253 and House Bill 7167 authored by the House Growth
Management Committee were two vehicles that were to be used to address
growth management issues this year. The House made repeated attempts to
pass this legislation; however, the Senate position was to not make any
significant changes to SB 360 until the state had an opportunity to see how the
law would work as previously passed. These bills died on the calendar.
HB 905 Transportation Concurrency, which was supported by the county, died by
procedural rule last session and was not heard on the floor.
The Collier County glitch bill received tremendous resistance from the State
Department of Community Affairs (DCA). The DCA expressed only minor
concerns early with HB 905 and SB 1862, but during the closing days of the 2006
Legislative Session, put up considerable resistance to the language in HB 905
and this contributed largely to the bills being held up in their final committees of
reference.
Collier County will continue to monitor closely developments regarding growth
management and concurrency issues.
1
Water Bill
Collier County will continue to monitor developments regarding water issues and
any other public utilities-related issues.
Insurance
The 2006 State Legislature partially addressed the property insurance crisis in
Florida. However, the issue remains a hot button topic for 2007 and the pending
November elections. The issue will be the subject of a very likely special session
later this fall. Citizens have voiced outrage over the ever increasing property
insurance premiums and cancellations in the Sunshine State.
Under the agreed to plan last session, rate setting for all Citizens policies based
on the same 1 OO-year storm cycle used by nearly the entire private insurance
industry, will be phased in over several years to help offset the anticipated 45
percent rate hike in premiums.
Owners of second or vacation homes, as well as owners of $1 million homes that
must rely on Citizens, the state-backed insurer, will face a surcharge on annual
Citizens premiums but also higher assessments when the company faces a
deficit.
The $715 million will reduce Citizens' deficit from the 2005 hurricanes to roughly
$1 billion, an amount that will be assessed on all Florida property insurance
policy holders. But homeowners won't face that full assessment on their 2007
insurance bill. Under the bill, the $1 billion assessment would be spread over the
next 10 years.
PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE REFORM COMMITTEE
PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS
(As of October 18, 2006)
Florida Hurricane Catastrophe Fund (FHCF)
The following recommendations were adopted:
1. The Committee should keep the current retention level but consider offering
coverage below the retention level/attachment point (first layer of coverage) on a
voluntary basis to all admitted companies participating in the CAT Fund.
2. Any change should only be temporary/short-term.
3. The rate for the temporary, below the current retention level, CAT Fund
coverage should be increased to a "near market rate."
4. Encourage the federal government to create a CAT Fund to deal with high-
level catastrophic events.
2
Mitigation/Premium Discounts
The following recommendations were adopted:
1. Maintain and expand the commitment to the Mitigation Program being
administered by the Department of Financial Services. Also, state funds need to
be leveraged to their maximum amount.
2. The modeling firms (RMS, AIR, ARA, EQE and FlU) need to recalibrate their
models to take into account the results of mitigation in Florida.
3. Uniform inspection forms need to be developed for all insurance companies.
4. Where feasible, standardized or uniform credits with smaller ranges should be
developed while allowing market competition in the credit process.
5. There is a need for more consumer information as to types of specific
mitigation and the resulting potential credits on policy issuance and renewals.
6. A measurement methodology should be developed to judge the program's
effectiveness and its effect on the market. Example: Will additional mitigation of
homes increase capacity in the market? What is the performance of homes after
a hurricane for retrofitted homes?
7. The mindset of mitigation needs to have a "human cost savings component
and physical home cost savings." Also, the effect of the avoidance of deductible
losses on insureds should be considered for those who performed mitigation on
their residence.
8. There needs to be "actuarial soundness" in base rates and premium discounts
granted for insureds that complete mitigation techniques.
9. There needs to be state-funded research concerning mitigation of commercial
structures and whether strengthening the state's building code for commercial
structures should be considered.
10. Whether or not additional state funding for new mitigation grants occurs, the
creation of a not-for-profit corporation should be considered to raise funds from
the private sector for additional mitigation grants.
11. A statewide building code should be in place that requires American Society
of Civil Engineers wind lines to be adopted and then any future changes to the
statewide code could only be to strengthen the code.
Citizens Property Insurance Corporation
The following recommendations were adopted:
3
1. Require OIR to set rates for Citizens on a quarterly basis, based on the
highest rate approved for the voluntary market, thus eliminating the need, cost
and time delay of rate filings.
2. Earmark a portion of future mitigation funding to be used for Citizens
policyholders.
3. Allow Citizens to write the full policy. Therefore, do away with the wind
boundaries and the distinction of wind and ex-wind policies in the wind
boundaries.
4. Require Citizens policyholders to upgrade their homes to meet the statewide
building code over some period of time or risk higher hurricane deductibles
applicable to their policies. Or alternatively, permit Citizens to surcharge
properties until they are retrofitted to meet building code requirements.
* Please also note Commissioner Fred Coyle's comments as separate email
attachment.
Affordable Housing
We support retaining the full amount of dedicated documentary tax revenues
toward state and local affordable housing programs.
Last session under the leadership of Rep. Mike Davis, the Legislature approved
a $514 million affordable housing package that includes $243 million in recurring
revenue. It creates a $50 million program to provide housing to critical public
servants in high-cost areas of the state. Also included is a one-time award of $93
million in hurricane-related rental assistance and technical support and $15
million for farm worker housing.
The plan also earmarks $30 million to assist residents making less than 30
percent of local median income, and also added a $250 million program to
hurricane-proof mobile and older homes, bringing the total package to more than
$770 million.
For 2007, there will likely be an effort to remove the cap on the Sardowski Funds
for use on affordable housing purposes.
Attornev/Court Fees
This issue involves a county being charged exorbitant attorney's fees in eminent
domain cases that are not proportionate to the services provided. County
Manager Jim Mudd brought up the issue at a County Manager Round Table
4
meeting at the FAC Conference at the Marco Marriott in June 2006 and received
a great deal of support. Commissioners Frank Halas and Jim Coletta received
positive reception too from fellow Commissioners of other counties - inland and
coastal- when the issue was addressed at the FAC Policy Committee Meetings
in Clearwater Beach September 27-29,2006. FAC agreed to share Collier
County's proposed language.
* Please see Collier County's proposed language regarding Attorney/Court
Fees as separate attachment.
Portabilitv of Homestead Property Assessments (Collier
County opposed\
Proposed portability homestead exemption legislation means a domiciled Florida
resident can take the benefits of his homestead exemption and transfer to a new
domiciled residence in the State of Florida. This law can have adverse impacts
on counties as far as true market value where the new residents purchase
property. We oppose revisions to the homestead exemption that diminish the
fiscal capacity of Florida's counties or that substantially shift the burden of the
property tax. This relates to referring any proposals to revise the homestead
exemption to the Century Commission and the Taxation and Budget Reform
Commission to ensure the proposals receive sufficient study and deliberation in
order to ascertain the full impacts to the equity, fairness and revenue-raising
ability of the ad valorem tax.
The Florida Association of Counties (FAC) has proposed the following policy
guidelines regarding homestead portability.
FAC should consider the following criteria:
a. Within same county only
1. With local option reciprocity where counties could agree to
accept homestead differentials from another county
b. Not restricted to only those homesteaders downsizing
c. One-time-only portability
Partial-Year Assessments
Currently real estate in Collier County is assessed annually on January 1. This
means if you purchase your property after January 1 and make improvements
during that year, those improvements are not recognized by the Property
5
Appraiser until the following year. A more effective way to generate the revenues
necessary to pay for the services provided would be to appraise property as
additions or newly-constructed homes are completed. Revenues generated from
a partial-year assessment plan if implemented are estimated between $2 and $3
million.
Transportation fundina tied to seat belt use
Federal legislation was passed providing incentive dollars to states which have
primary enforcement law. Currently we have secondary enforcement law -
persons under the age of 18 can be pulled over if they do not have on a seat belt.
HB 97 Doris Slosberg Safety Belt Law was introduced last session, which makes
seatbelt usage a mandatory action in the State of Florida. The bill would have
drawn down additional federal highway funds to the state. However, the bill died
in committee.
311 fundina
HB 661 passed the 2006 Legislature, but was ultimately vetoed by Governor
Bush. The bill established a matching grant program within the Department of
Community Affairs to assist local governments in the implementation and
operation of "311 non-emergency and other government services telephone
systems." The bill specified certain application criteria, established an
administrative process, required a $1 for $1 local match, and authorized the
department to adopt rules to administer the program. Funding to support the
matching grant program was contingent upon an appropriation in law or upon
receipt of funds from private sources.
Cameras at intersections to catch red-liaht runners
The Mark Wandall Safety Act was introduced last session but died in the first
committee of reference. The bill provided for counties or municipalities to
enforce traffic control signal steady red light indication using traffic control
photographic system. The bill provided system capability, design, and
implementation requirements, and citation of the motor vehicle owner.
Oppose any attempt to chanae impact fees
The passage of SB 360 in 2005 mandated the creation of the Impact Fee Task
Force, the mission of which was to study the statewide use of impact fees and
6
make recommendations to the 2006 Legislature. The Task Force compiled a
series of recommendations that were presented to the Legislature. The most
benign of the Task Force's recommendations were amended onto SB 1194 last
year. The bill guarantees counties an independent ability to levy impact fees.
Attempts were made during the 2006 session to alter the legislation in a manner
that would negatively impact Collier and other counties that utilize impact fees. It
is possible that efforts to negatively affect impact fees will be introduced in the
2007 Legislative Session.
Collier County will continue to monitor impact fee developments closely.
ReQuesting Chanae in Florida Statutes to Elect Rather
than Appoint Florida Water Manaaement District
Governing Board Members
HB 559 was introduced last session eliminating provisions for appointment of
members to water management district governing boards and requiring board
members to be elected. The bill also directed the governing board of each district
to create residence areas of equal population within district for purpose of
electing members. The legislation failed to pass.
Collier County has passed a resolution to support the amending of state statutes
for the election rather than the appointment of the five (5) water district's
governing boards.
* Please see letter from the Board of County Commissioners as well as
attached Resolution to the Florida Association of Counties requesting
support for this initiative as separate attachment.
Amend House Bill 7079 to aive all counties the latitude
to exempt onlv portions of their county with unpaved
roads from all-terrain vehicle (ATV) use
Amend 316.2321 to give counties the latitude to exempt only portions of their
county with unpaved roads from all-terrain vehicle (A TV) use. The current
legislation HB 7079 passed last session applies to the whole county or nothing in
exempting A TV usage on unpaved roads.
* Please see Collier County Position Paper on A TV issue as separate
attachment.
7
Address Issues of concern in Consultants Competitive
Negotiation Act
The Purchasing Department and the Office of the County Attorney have been
receiving an intermittent stream of complaints regarding our interpretation and
application of the consultant acquisition processes under Section 287.055, F.S.,
otherwise known as the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA).
Purchasing Director Steve Carnell has researched the issue and his position
summary and proposed alternatives are provided. In addition, he recently shared
his idea of amending the Florida Statute at the Florida Association of Public
Purchasing Officers Annual Fall Conference and received widespread support
and interest in his proposed changes to the CCNA. Since then, he has received
emails from five (5) counties confirming their support.
* Please see additional information regarding the Consultants Competitive
Negotiations Act as separate attachment.
Property Tax Interim Study and Work~roup
HB 7019 (ch. 2006-311, Laws of Florida) directs the Department of Revenue to
conduct a study of the state's property tax structure to analyze the impact of the
current homestead exemptions and homestead assessment limitations on
different types of property. It also directs the Office of Economic and
Demographic Research to prepare a report summarizing that study and providing
findings and policy options that may be available to the state.
Executive Order 06-141, issued June 21,2006, creates the Property Tax Reform
Committee, which is directed to discuss property tax issues and make
recommendations to the Governor, Senate President, and Speaker of the House
of Representatives on how to improve property taxation. It is particularly directed
to recommend proposed legislation or constitutional amendments. The criteria for
these recommendations are similar to those provided in HB 7019.
This project will monitor the preparation of this study and report to ensure that
they will satisfy the requirements of the legislation and meet the needs of the
Legislature in preparing and evaluating potential property tax legislation. It will
also monitor the Property Tax Reform Committee.
8
The Property Tax Reform committee has released preliminary research
demonstrating Florida's Overall Tax Burden Compares Favorably with other
states. Findings state:
· Florida's state and local tax burden is well below the U.S. average (per capita or
as a percent of personal income).
· Southeastern states as a group tend to have tax burdens below the U.S.
average.
· Florida compares favorably with other southeastern states, especially when tax
burden is measured as a percent of personal income.
· Florida's burden has risen slightly in recent years.
Although the data suggests Florida's Direct Taxation of Business is Relatively
High:
· Among all the states, Florida has the 15th highest "effective business tax rate."
· Among the 12 southeastern states, Florida has the fifth highest effective rate.
Lastly, at the October 17 meeting, staff presented these preliminary findings:
Florida's Business Tax Climate is the Fifth Best in the Nation.
· Florida also compares very favorably to other southeastern states.
· Factors contributing to Florida's high ranking include:
- No personal income tax,
- Relatively low unemployment insurance tax rates and simple tax base,
- Relatively low corporate income tax rates and simple structure, and
· Florida's Property Tax ranking is below average at 31st.
FAC Proposed Policies on Property Tax Reform
When recommending modifications to the property tax base, counties should
consider avoiding solutions that have substantial impacts to the existing tax base
in favor of proposals that would impact future growth.
. Solutions should be considered to address the following property owners:
a. Businesses and other non-homestead properties that are subject to
market based assessment increases.
b. First time homebuyers
c. Renters and Owners of Affordable Housing
d. Empty Nesters seeking to downsize
e. Owners of homestead properties seeking to move
. In crafting solutions, the following challenges should be considered:
9
a. Developing a modification of the tax structure that will rebalance the
property tax system for all property owners.
b. Recognizing that, for the most part, homestead owner equals voter and
any solution must be voted on statewide as a constitutional amendment.
c. Avoiding a solution that will only address the issues affecting the current
homesteader as so doing may preclude any ability to address the broader
issues.
* Please see FA C transmittal of Oct. 9, 2006 regarding the property
tax discussion and direction, and an accompanying spreadsheet
indicating the impact on each county's taxable value and revenue
capacity resulting from an increase of the homestead exemption by
$25,000, as separate attachments.
10
brock m
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
wight_d
Monday, November 06, 2006 12:20 PM
brock_m
muddj
FW: Insurance Rates in Collier County
Importance:
High
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
SUbject:
CoyIeFred
Ttusday, November 02, 2006 5:28 PM
mudd.J
HaIasFrank; CoIettallm; hennlrqJ; flaIa_d
Insurance Rates in Collier County
Jim Mudd.
Thanks for the information concerning insurance rates that we will be discussing at the Pre-Legislative workshop on
November 8. It appears that most of the efforts at the State level have been oriented to "mitigation". I presume this
means making structures more hurricane resistant. While this is an important issue for many Counties, I do not feel it
addresses the needs of Collier County home and business owners. Much of the construction in Collier County is relatively
new and was done in accordance with the new hurricane codes.
The problem in Collier County is that residents and business owners have been hit with huge premium increases coupled
with large increases in deductibles. I doubt that many citizens who sustained damage to their homes or businesses during
hurricane Wilma got much of an insurance settlement because of high deductibles. Thus, insurance companies reduced
their expenses by increasing deductibles and increased revenue by raising rates.
For decades our political leaders in Tallahassee have been trying to "fix" the insurance problem in Florida. They have only
been successful in creating an exhorbitantly expensive alternative supported by public dollars. This is not the answer. We
must closely examine the way insurance companies operate in Florida. How many premium dollars have Florida residents
and businesses paid over the past 40 years? How much of that money has been paid out in claims in Florida? Are
insurance companies using organizational schemes to show losses in Florida while they reap huge profits elsewhere? Are
hazard risks really spread nationwide or are they regionalized? With sound. hurricane resistant structures in Collier
County, why do our residents and business owners have to pay such high premiums for wind damage? Few structures
have experienced total losses due to wind. Can our citizens insure their structures for only a fraction of the total insurable
value. thereby reducing rates?
These are some of the questions that need to be addressed as our State Legislators search for an acceptable solution to
this problem. As you know. I will be unable to attend the Workshop, but I hope you and the staff will explore these
questions with the participants.
Fred Coyle
1
Statute Chanee to Section 73.092
Collier County files a large number of eminent domain lawsuits to acquire real property for road
projects. Collier County is an area of rapidly rising real estate values. It is not unusual for real
property values to escalate 30% or more in a year. Section 73.015, Fla. Stat., addressingpresuit
negotiations requires the condemning authority to provide a written offer of compensation to the
fee owner and wait 30 days after receipt of notice before the condemning authority can file a suit
in condemnation. As a result, there is often a period of five to six months between the date the
offer is made and the deposit is received in the court registry. This lengthy process, combined
with the rapid escalation in real estate values, creates a benefit for which attorney's fees are paid
upon settlement or jury verdict before an attorney even begins work in this eminent domain suit.
The payment of attorney's fees is not proportionate to the services provided.
A more reasonable statutory scheme to provide for the statutorily recognized "bendit" for which
attorneys are compensated is suggested as follows: allow for the current 33% attorney
compensation for "benefit" on the first $250,000 to remain as provided by statute, but modify the
current statute to provide for a I 0% attorney compensation benefit rate for "benefits" achieved
for the real property owner for all amounts above $250,000. This statutory scheme will reduce
the windfall that many attorneys are receiving, and better achieve proportionality to the benefits
payment scheme.
By comparison, Article I, Section 26 of the Florida Constitution entitled Claimant's Right to
Fair Compensation pertaining to medical disability claims involving a contingency fee, allows
an attorney to receive a contingency fee of 30% of the first $250,000 and 10% of awarded
amounts over $250,000 in medical malpractice cases. This constitutional provision could work
a more reasonable attorney benefits payment methodology if also applied in the eminent domain
sector.
Statute Chan1!e to Section 73.092
Collier County files a large number of eminent domain lawsuits to acquire real property for road
projects. Collier County is an area of rapidly rising real estate values. It is not unusual for real
property values to escalate 30% or more in a year. Section 73.015, Fla. Stat., addressingpresuit
negotiations requires the condemning authority to provide a written offer of compensation to the
fee owner and wait 30 days after receipt of notice before the condemning authority can file a suit
in condemnation. As a result, there is often a period of five to six months between the date the
offer is made and the deposit is received in the court registry. This lengthy process, combined
with the rapid escalation in real estate values, creates a benefit for which attorney's fees are paid
upon settlement or jury verdict before an attorney even begins work in this eminent domain suit.
The payment of attorney's fees is not proportionate to the services provided.
A more reasonable statutory scheme to provide for the statutorily recognized "benefit" for which
attorneys are compensated is suggested as follows: allow for the current 33% attorney
compensation for "benefit" on the first $250,000 to remain as provided by statute, but modify the
current statute to provide for a 10% attorney compensation benefit rate for "benefits" achieved
for the real property owner for all amounts above $250,000. This statutory scheme will reduce
the windfall that many attorneys are receiving, and better achieve proportionality to the benefits
payment scheme.
By comparison, Article I, Section 26 of the Florida Constitution entitled Claimant's Right to
Fair Compensation pertaining to medical disability claims involving a contingency fee, allows
an attorney to receive a contingency fee of 30% of the first $250,000 and 10% of awarded
amounts over $250,000 in medical malpractice cases. This constitutional provision could work
a more reasonable attorney benefits payment methodology if also applied in the eminent domain
sector.
POSITION PAPER IN SUPPORT OF AMENDING FLORIDA
STATUTES TO GIVE COUNTIES ABILITY TO EXEMPT PORTIONS
OF UNPAVED ROAD AREAS FROM ATV USE
Existing Legislation:
House Bill 7079 includes
316.2123 Operation of an ATV on Certain Roadways
(1) The operation of an ATV, as defined in s. 317.0003, upon the public roads
or streets of this state is prohibited, except that an A TV may be operated during
the daytime on an unpaved roadway where the posted speed limit is less than 35
miles per hour by a licensed driver or by a minor under the supervision of a
licensed driver. The operator must provide proof of ownership pursuant to
chapter 317 upon request by a law enforcement officer.
(2) A county is exempt from this section if the governing body of the county, by
majority vote, following a noticed public hearing, votes to exempt the county
from this section.
History.--s. 14, ch. 2006-290.
Obiective: To seek an amendment of the Florida Statutes to enable all counties
in the State of Florida to have the latitude to exempt only portions of their
respective county with unpaved roads from all-terrain vehicle (A TV) usage. The
current legislation is interpreted by the Collier County Attorney's Office as
applying to the entire county only.
1. Background
The Board of County Commissioners (BCC) of Collier County directed the
Collier County Manager at the conclusion of the regular meeting on
September 13, 2006 to publicly notice a hearing for the September 26, 2006
Board meeting to consider whether the county should exercise its right to
exempt itself from Florida Statute 316.2123. The county may elect to
exempt itself from the provisions of Florida Statute 316.2123 by a majority
vote, following a noticed hearing. Both were executed and accomplished.
The BCe at the regular meeting held September 26, 2006, voted
unanimously (5/0) to exempt Collier County from Florida Statute 316.2123,
which took effect October 1, 2006, and generally permits the operation of
ATV's on unpaved public roads under specified conditions and restrictions.
The BCC also adopted with a unanimous vote of 5/0 Resolution 2006-
256A as prepared by the Collier County Attorney's Office.
II. Reason for Advocating Amendin~ Florida Statute 316.2123
Collier Commissioners in deliberating the A TV issue and the ramifications
of HB 7079 in Collier County decided the main focus is a public health
and safety issue. While it is important to designate areas of recreation for
A TV users, their most critical concern was limiting exposure of
neighborhoods, families and children to A TV traffic in residential areas
with unpaved roads. There were many other non-residential areas with
unpaved roads that would be ideal for A TV use in Collier County. The
Collier Commission supports limiting the impacts of the legislation -
rather than eliminating it in its entirety - to a smaller portion of our
geographic area.
III. Recommendation
To seek an amendment of Florida Statute 163.2123 to give all counties in the
State of Florida the latitude to exempt only portions of their county with
unpaved roads from all-terrain vehicle (A TV) usage. The current legislation as
written apples to the entire county.
2
CCNA ISSUES
CURRENT SITUA TlON: The Purchasing Department and the Office of the County
Attorney have been receiving an intermittent stream of complaints regarding our
interpretation and application of the consultant acquisition processes under Section
287.055, F.S., otherwise known as "The Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act".
These complaints have been received specifically with regard to the procurement of
fixed term consulting services agreements and construction engineering inspection
services agreements respectively. These complaints have been mostly in the form of
written letters and they have been raised under two formal protests as well. Almost all of
the letters have come from one local engineering firm and two professional associations.
It is our understanding that the local firm is a member of both groups.
SUMMARY OF THE CCNA PROCUREMENT PROCESS: The law governs how local
and state agencies procure the services of professional engineers, architects, landscape
architects, surveyors and mappers. It includes professional services associated with
construction projects and/or "study activities".
"Competitive Selection" and "Competitive Negotiation" are distinct steps under the
process. The Selection step directs that firms are to compete on the basis of
qualifications and that the agency is to rank the firms in order of qualifications based on
pre-established evaluation criteria. Agencies are prohibited from considering
compensation proposals prior to completing the selection process (Le.; after a shortlist of
not less than three firms has been established). The law does not specifically address
selection scenarios where more than one firm is being awarded a contract.
SUMMARY OF ALLlEGA TlONS RAISED AND OUR REPL Y:
1. Collier County's fixed term contracting process violates the law because fee
schedules are allegedly being created prematurely and competing firms are being
forced to "bid" against one another.
In most instances with fixed term agreements, the staff selection committee will
select multiple firms. After the committee selections are made, the Purchasing
Department initiates contract negotiations with the selected firms by sending each a
letter requesting their current fee schedule for the services covered under the
agreement. Staff compiles the responses received from each firm and creates a
"composite" or "common" fee schedule. The common schedule is not based on strict
mathematical averages, but rather on a good faith evaluation of the various rate
categories and values. Each firm then receives a draft agreement with the common
fee schedule and is given the opportunity to request a face to face meeting with the
staff to discuss the contract terms (including fees) and conditions. Rarely have firms
taken us up on our offer for these negotiations.
The Office of County Attorney believes that this procedure is lawful because the
expressed requirements of the CCNA have been satisfied for both the selection and
negotiation steps respectively and because there is no expressed prohibition in the
statute against this practice. Additionally, purchasing staff holds that the concept of a
common fee schedule better fits the spirit of the law because price becomes virtually
moot when assigning work orders among the awarded firms.
2. Collier County's Invitation to Qualify (ITQ)/Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) process
violates the law as the County is negotiating with firms prior to making a selection.
To date, Collier County has used the ITO/ITN method only for the acquisition of
construction engineering inspection services for road construction projects. Under
this process, the County pre-qualifies a group of firms under an ITO solicitation on a
project by project basis well in advance of the need for services. Shortly before
construction services are to commence on a project, purchasing staff will issue an
ITN to the pre-qualified firms.
While the law prohibits the consideration of fee proposals prior to entering the
Competitive Negotiations step, it allows agencies to consider the "willingness (of a
firm) to meet time and budget requirements" as a factor in selection. Under this
authority, the ITN asks the firms for (among other things) their anticipated resource
requirements for the project. A selection committee evaluates the ITN proposals
based on a myriad of factors that includes each firm's stated resource estimates. The
committee selects the most qualified firm and negotiations commence with the
selected firm.
The Office of the County Attorney believes that this process is permissible because
the "willingness to meet time and budget requirements" criterion is part of the
selection process. To further clarify this position, staff has modified the resource
estimation requirements to exclude hourly rates or any other dollar values associated
with each resource category. Instead, firms are asked to identify each category and
the estimated # of units (typically man-hours) required to complete each task.
OPTIONS MOVNING FORWARD:
A. Maintain status quo and continue to address issues on a case-by-case basis as they
are raised.
B. Seek to amend current law to add language that clearly sanctions the use of fixed
term, work-order based contracts using multi-firm selection and negotiation
processes. Under the latter, price is "equalized" among the selected firms so as to
encourage qualified-based selections for job designations on a task by task basis.
This option would address Issue # 1 as cited above.
C. Seek to amend current law to create an alternative two-step selection process that
expressly allows agencies to select one or more firms. Under the first step, firms
would be short-listed based strictly upon general and specific qualifications. Under
the second step, firms would be asked to submit proposals addressing the specific
project, including a proposed fee schedule and resource estimates. This option
would clearly address Issue #2 and could potentially be used to address Issue #1 as
well.
9/25/06
o
:I:
)>
Z
C)
m
en
-I
o
o
o
z
)>
"~~,.",,,"""'.~,,,,...''''''''~''''':'''''_______'___'.'"'''''''"'__"",_,,,"~~o,.>.~.__._.,.....,.,__.,,,,_~__ ~_______~~__
. -u
. CD
.
. )> ::+
. m Q)
~ r :J 0 -.
en Q) :J
Q) ::J CO =r en
c -. -.
'"'C a. ::J ......
:2 CD ......
'"'C en CD a 0
CD -. (") CD
'< :J Q) ::::!. C Q)
-. co '"'C CD (") 0
:J :J .c
co CD co c:
)> -. c:
en
..., -.
(") ......
-. ;;tJ
=r 0
-. ::J
......
CD a ;;tJ
~
c: ...... m
..., =r
CD CD Z
0'
- -I
-
0
=E
-. r-
::J
co ~
en
CD
:2
-.
(")
CD
en
. .
. -0
. ...,
. 0
en -0 0
Z r:: CD
CD c- en ."
CD - en
CD -
--
co 0
0 Sl c- :xl
r+ -- )> e
-- 0 Oen
Q) :] :] "
r+ :] CD
-.
0 0 :] Oc
:J c: -.
:J :J Ci:
0 r+
0
CD :xli:
3 r+
::r
CD CD ~)>
:J
r+ CD
a. ~~
-.
en
!:!:
::J
Sl -10
!e. .,,-n
CD
'"C :xl -I
en
. - O::J:
Om
m
en
en
.
0>-1
~ :J
m CD
..., -
0.0)
:SO ~
COo.
n 0
o CD
::J (J)
.......
..., ::J
0> 0
s:l........
en CD
.......x
0'"0
...,
3 CD
c: en
_ en
....... -
-. '<
'"C
-(")
CD 0
:=h::J
..., .......
~ ~
'"C
-
0)
.......
CD
.....-...
o
...,
'"C
...,
o
:J
-.
C"
-.
.......
'-""
.
-0
a
:J
--
C"
;::;:
-.
o
::J
o
::J
-t\
-.
...,
3
en
C"
-.
0.
0.
--
::J
co
0)
co
Q)
--
::J
en
.......
o
::J
CD
0)
::J
o
.......
:J
CD
...,
.
-0
...,
--
n
CD
--
en
::J
o
.......
.......
o
C"
CD
n
o
::J
en
-.
0.
CD
...,
CD
0.
-.
::J
.......
:J
Q)
.......
'"0
:J
Q)
en
CD
.
-I
:J
CD
en
CD
-
CD
$l
-.
o
::J
'"0
:J
Q)
en
CD
o
-I
::J:
m
;:a
-n
m
>
-I
c:
;:a
m
en
o
-n
-I
::J:
m
r-
~
--
en
0)
-
-
.c
r::
0)
-
:J;
n
0)
.......
-.
o
::J
en
I
c-
O)
en
CD
0.
'"C
a
(")
CD
(J)
en
..
..
.
en=E"
~ CD Q
g CD m
a..g ro
en CD 0
ro!e.ro
"'COla.
::"'C
.., ..,
CD.O
en -.
o CD
Ca
o!fJ
CD =E
CD CD
!e.C
-. en
3 CD
~Ol
CD:: ~
=t'0
o I
3!e.
r+CD
::r"'O
CD.o
o c
o Ol
:] =-=
r+ :::!'I
CD 0
:J m
a. =
-. 0
c5:J
~3
3se.
enS
:i" a.
r+=E
::r::r
CD CD
..,
CD
.
C"'CDOl"
'<Ol~O
:?OCD'"
<::r~r+
;:+ \,11 CD
::r:::nen..,
CD 3 g.3
m ~ CD 0
0<a.0
::r;:+c:J
- _ r+
"'-""-CD'"
~. Ol' ~
.:. 0 CJ fit
"'00 CD_
::!. 3 C6 0
0"'0 -0
CD-O:J
en !a "'C or
o CD Ol 0
.., 0 :: r+
......CD 0 0 Ol
:JO=
CD~30
enOl ....
m03r+
..,r+o::r
CD.. 0' :J :: CD..
.. .., ..
CD CD ar en
.gXCD5
mCDen::!.
==001
NC::r==
CD=CD!e.
0:0 a. CD
.......;;:Jca.
. Q) ..
:Jro::h
a.Ol'"
0:J3
.., a. C/J
:J 0' Q)
CD ::J :J
cc<:a.
Om'"
=..,CD
m a..o
=: -- c:
o r+ CD
:J en
r+
.
0"
o 0
3 ..,
3 ~.
CD :J
:Jee.
o CD
CD"'C
:J ..,
CD ..Q .
CCCD
o 0
~ r+
m m
=cc
o ..,
:J CD
en CD
=E 3
-. CD
r+:J
::rr+
r+C/J
::r-
CD ::
C/J
r+::r
.0 0
1'::!.
.., I
m==
:J en
,,~
~3
-.
:::!'I:J
.., -.
3 3
. c
3
o
....
w
::n
..,
3
en
+
o
c:
::u
:::u
m
z
-I
-a
~
o
-I
-
o
m
.
o=r---4
om::T
3'<~
-c C'" (")
CD ~ 0
::J -. ::J
CJ)CD.......
D) < CD
~m::J
O...,e.
::JCDr+
len::T
..., 0
~c:CD
0)...,7'
r+(")<:
(1) CD 0
~(1)CJ)
!e.m
ao -3.-c
..., ~ ~
~ (1) 0
r+""'(")
-. \,,, CD
o 0 en
::J ::J en
-c CJ) -.
~en
..., r+
CDc:=:
3mCD
O)CJ)CC
cCJ)~
""00-
CD == CD
-(")
'< "'lII".!.(")
C':D)
::J c:
CC CJ)
CD
.
(")-1
D)::T
c: CD
~. '<
::J (")
CCo
.....,::J
- . .......
..., CD
3 ::J
ene.
r+
o=r
= 0)
0'" r+
-. r+
e.::T
0) CD
CC-c
D) ...,
-. 0
::J (")
~CD
CD en
D) en
g. S.
om
r+ r+
::TCD
CD CJ)
~r+
::T
CD
en
r+
D)
r+
c:
r+
CD
0'"
'<
.
-.
o CD
(") r+
~m
::n(jJ
...,
3 ~
o 0
0'"3
'-iiii. .
CD <
(") D)
....... ...,
-- --
::J 0
cc c:
r+CJ)
O-c
r+ ...,
::TO
CDar
= en
"'Cen
..., -.
-.0
(") :J
CD 0)
CD -
.c Q)
c: en
Q) en
==0
N (")
0) -.
r+D)
-. r+
o -.
::J 0
:: ::J
3 en
CD ~
=ra.
o 0
a.::J
CD
-
en
en
c:
m
en
..... -
m ;::,
C:::U
;::, 0
coc:
o ;::,
00.
3",
-c-
CD::::h
;::, ..,
CJ) 3
m CJ)
.....
-. :E
g 0
m~
;::,0.
0.0-
..0 CD
c: 0
m 0
=-=3
:::h
o"'C
m CD
..... ~
c5" CD
;::, 0
CJ) ;::,
5. m
~o-
o CD
m CJ)
o ~
o 0
o <
c: CD
;::, ..,
.....m
-
-
0-
m
CJ)
-.
CJ)
o ;::,
o
3::U
-cO
CD c:
;::, ;::,
CJ)0.
m--'o
~
-. -
g~
3
CJ)
~
c:
-
0.
0-
CD
-0
CD
I
..0
c:
m
-
-.
:::!'!
CD
0.
:E
;::::;:
:::T
o
c:
.....
o
o
;::,
CJ)
-.
0.
CD
..,
-.
:::J
co
.
~~
o <
I CD
~-o
CD c:
-oC"
C/'J==
CD (")
-0)
CD(C
~CD
o ::s
::s Q.
'"C CD
.., C/'J
o r+
(") ::s-
CD CD
C/'J 0
C/'J-o
~~
::s-o
CD ::s
.., r+
CD 0
.
c:
........
--
-
--
N
CD
0)
::s
Q)
;:::;:
CD
..,
::s
0)
,....
<-
CD
.
::fS:
CD 0)
3@
r+ ........
O::s-
3 CD
c: c:
- C/'J
~CD
"'2..0
CD....,
::::!'! ::::!'!
.., X
3 CD
C/'Je.
CD r+
X ~
~ 3
CD (")
C/'J 0
!!!.::s
'<~
-0)
CD
teSl
Q) C/'J
0)
::s
e.
r+
::s-
CD
Q)
:E
Q)
..,
Q.
a
-a
;u
o
-a
o
en
m
C
)>
o
-I
-
o
z
brock_m
From: wight_d
Sent: Monday, November 06,2006 12:52 PM
To: brock_m
Cc: mudd-i
Subject: FW: Summary of Property Tax Discussion & Direction
Importance: High
Attachments: Double Homestead Impact 2006 Print version 1 0906.xls
2007 State Legislative Priorities
From: Anne Carpenter [mallto:ACarpenter@fl-counties.com]
Sent: Monday, October 09,2006 9:44 AM
SUbject: Summary of Property Tax Discussion & Direction
Importance: High
FM
FLORIDA
.\~s(.)( L\TIO,\; OJ'
COUNTIES
AD About Florida
StJBAJC I...\TVAI.A
I ~ 1!r.~-lDl:N'r
(.Jr..;n,l_.,"';
TEltl!MJACOBI
['J! r -;II-.E!~T. ':~_r;~T
I ~ i!,.~'."(''J~
R.AJOJY HATCH
t :;-: '~'J';F !'P[~,iL.n~"
';t"'.',:o..::S["E
Roo:nv l.oNa
'::!':r.o \ "P.r: ['P.r:-IL....,C.~T
~.\L'\.'.:rJlL..
WELTON G. CJ.DWU.L
h,H..'ro1....T r P.\.":,T I~r:.nj)OJT
L'\r.E
CH:aInaIHD. L HOUEY
j '~':E.~ .UT!VE ['Ir.rl._T()D
11/6/2006
MEMORANDUM via email
TO: County Commissioners
County Administrators
County Attorneys
County Lobbyists
FROM: Bob McKee, Fiscal Policy Director
DATE: October 9,2006
RE: Summary of Property Tax Discussion & Direction
At the FAC Policy Meetings Sept. 28-29 in Pinellas County,
there was significant discussion regarding property tax Issues.
Below is a summary of the key points of discussion, along with
the direction that FAC Staff received during the meetings
regarding suggested parameters and principles to use in
developing possible solutions in conjunction with the FAC
Property Tax -Homestead and Save Our Homes Portability
Workgroup. Please em ail any comments on this summary to
Bob McKee at bmc!<eE:!@ft-CQvoties.J;Qm.
.,j
1. Generally, FAC should consider opposing expenditure and
revenue caps. FAC staff should still examine revenue and
expenditure caps for possible impacts of various proposals.
In lieu of expenditure or revenue caps, FAC should
consider pursuing recommendations to improve the
Truth in Millage (TRIM) Process and public information
that is available on the local budget process. There was
a specific suggestion to allow counties to separately list
the expenditures associated with each constitutional
officer in the TRIM process
2. When recommending modifications to the property tax base,
F AC should consider avoiding solutions that have substantial
impacts to the existing tax base in favor of proposalS that
would impact future growth.
3. Solutions should be considered to address the following
property owners:
a. Businesses and other non-homestead properties that
are subject to market based assessment increases.
b. First time homebuyers
c. Renters and Owners of Affordable Housing
d. Empty Nesters seeking to downsize
e. Owners of homestead properties seeking to move
4. In crafting solutions, the following challenges should be
considered:
a. Developing a modification of the tax structure that will
rebalance the property tax system for all property
owners.
b. Recognizing that, for the most part, homestead owner
equals voter and any solution must be voted on
statewide as a constitutional amendment.
c. Avoiding a solution that will only address the issues
affecting the current homesteader ~s so doing may
preclude any ability to address the broader issues.
5. In looking at Save Our Homes Portability proposals, it was
suggested that FAC should consider the following criteria:
a. Within same county only
1. With local option reciprocity where counties
11/6/2006
"..~.._....",_,._."_.,~"__".._,~~~_",,",_,..-.--",,~__,,,,-"'_____'__'"""'''__,..........._,,,....,,''''_.~,.....''''''''~'''_.'"''"_.,_'_"~"'_____.,~w_''..~~,_.._.,
-
11 /612006
could agree to accept homestead differentials
from another county
b. Not restricted to only those homesteaders downsizing
c. One time only portability
Additionally, F AC has provided an attached spreadsheet that
estimates tax base and tax dollar impact of increasing the
homestead exemption to $50,000. Please note - tax dollar
impact was estimated using 2005 countywide operating
millages and does not reflect the impact on any other millage
levy.
BMclac
'~I!~ .... ~"':"i.; " I" ,.' I": I' ....1- I. ';'~'::'." J.~lj::.-:.: -,'.""'," ..:....','.1 .\\ ;..;...:I.J,....:~ ._::1
WWW.PL-COUNTlES.COM
~= 9
~~~
J~~
&!~
swj
t~"
..~
!iCl).E
~'E
::J~~
8E.!!!
1O~==
~~:E
-
~
gU ~
.! :!I'tS
10- -8!.
NO ~.5
-! I-
~C
C ~
O. ----,
i.~ ~~~
E"
. c g~
)C -
w. Ji:
".a
J~ !-
Ii ~j
!~w
r.~ ~~
i g u..
uts .
c! ~ i
-,5 .8'511
E ·
~ j
~:!~
N!~
I-
:g :s
c:i
~
8
c:i
$:g~ 10
"";:""::0 d
~~
.... .....
.........
ci~
~Ii;
c:ic:i
N
.....
N
~:g~8m~~~88~~~~~Ii;~~~$:g~NIO~~~~~~R~~~~~~~~~
~c:i~~~~~~~c:i~~~~c:ic:i~~~~~c:i~c:i~~~~~N~~~~~~~~c:i~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~
mS~~~~8~~~~~~~8~~~8888~8~~~8~8~~882~~888
GG~~~~c:i~~~~G~Gc:i~G~~c:ic:ic:i~c:iG~~~~c:i~Gc:ic:i~~~~c:ic:i
~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~
ii~s~~2~li~~i~i~II!81~8~i~i~~~~~~i~~i!~~
.... .... ...cot .... .... .... .... ...,
M~~MgMM~:g~~""""iS""'''''~N''''M''''~OM~~X~M~'''''O:g~'''''~~G-
8~IOSa~~~.....~~~~ ~~S~~~~~~~$o~~~~O~WN~~Gm~~
OW~~M~-~~~~~N w~~~w.....w_WWW~~~NW~~W_~~o~w_
; -__ --- a __ - ~ -- -;;-
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~""'IO""'NlObQ~ClOlObGm.........~IOIO~~M~~~GGmIOG~GO""'O""~NO
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.. . .. I' I ... , , I
GIO....~02IONMi~~O~~~~~....-R~~QXOQ8.........~....~~2gMGION
~~~~~~~~~_~~~~_~~~~N~~~~~~~cot~~~~~qo~~~~~
~~~!~!i~~O$!1~18~~~~I~~8i!~~~~~~~i~~~~i~
_... .... cot... _... .... .... ...- ....
G~GM""~~Q~~~i""G~_Q.....~mm~~-~~~""'G~~""''''''IOMNIOR''''~
~~~~m~.~~~CN~~ ~~g ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~N~~~~~
.. (1')0'" ... 0" ...,: .. lli 'lI"'"~"":
..... .....
N~""'~""Ii;~~~g~P.""'~N~~~.....~~~~~IO~S~~~~.....~~~~~~~N
~~$.....~~.....~~mo~~8~~~M~~~~~~~~~~~""~~~GNO~G~~
~~~~""'N~OG~~.~.~~.~~~O.N~N~GO.O~GO~~~~.~~.
~ ~ ~~ ~~~~~ O~N ~ ~N~ ~~ ~.~~
~~ ~ N ~
X~R~NIO~G~""IOM~-m~~O""MN~MNO~~NM""""QNM""~""IO~~
51O~~~~S~.....~a~~~""'~5~~~~M~~w~o$~~~i~g~~2S~lE;l
~~~~~l_g~~~l~~~~~~~~l~l~~~~l{~~~~~~g~tl~
GMGM....~~~..............N~18.....NN~M~~~~....N~~~....MM~~MQXMG~g
~z~i~O~~g~N~~~~~~~~N~S5~~~~Go.iN~~~.~~N~
~ ~ ~~ t~~~N~~ ~~~.r N ~N~~~ ~~ ~i:N
..... N
J:
g a:
o Q ~ ~ ~ zzl- Z 8~~ ~ ~~
~ ~~~~00 a:~ 0 ma:~~~CI) ~~~i50Cl)~~~~ ~~
~1~~i~3~~~~~~ie~S~~~~~~~il~~;!~~~~~~~~~~
~
8~
.Q.
~~
-.
~~
= ~
o .
:all:
Ii
)C .
w !
,,-
. .
,!l>
II
:r.{!.
. =
:= 0
e-
u u
= !.
-~
li!i as
600
'r'
8
ci
J ~
ci N
....
It)
ci
8~~~~~~~~$~~~8~~~~~mJ~~~~~~
J.XG~~NG~~~G~~GQO~~~~~GOGN~O~ci
a::c:I: ..... ~..-.....
S~l
JI~
~(/').E
~c ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~~~a~~~~
~! ~~.N~.~It)It).~It)~~..~~It)~~~OIt)~.~
8e ....
~J~
..it!
~!
~.5
....
........~It).~~....~O~~~g$....~NNXi.~~....'r'~~
~ ~~. 1:::.. ~ :ar:.~ C; ~ lit lIS... ~ ~ ~ lii~ iI C'i.~ ~ cq, Ii; ~in lit
~~~~~r:~~~'r'~R~~~~~""~~~""~RI:::~~~
....oo~~~....~~~~m'r'81t)~~2~~~~a~....o~~
~~~""N~~~gRm~ririlt)g~oN~~ ~....~wg
;w ww M~ ~;~~MM ;;MW ;MW ~
';I(';I(';I(~~~';I(';I(';I(';I(';I(~~';I(';I(';I(~';I(';I(';I(';I(';I(';I(';I(';I(';I(~~
X ....~~~~~..........~~OIt)....lt)h~....~~.~N.It)~N
~c~~mci~~~~~~~~ci~om~mci~mci~~~mci~mm
. 2""'''-'' t I II~(-(.....I .,'....,......1....................,.
C5 I I' I' I I
~~ ~~NIt)~N~~~0~~RN~....~~0~2NIt)Q~N.1t)
- ~~.~~~~~~S2~~~~~in~~~~iS~~~~~
~i ~~i!~~~~~~~!~a!~f~lig~~~~gg.
I~W~~~~~~g~~R~~~S~~~~~~~g~~~~S~
l! ~ ~iil!.~~.~....~.....N"":.~~.liS....~~"":...:f.... or:....N CQ.
m .... 1t)....~NIt)N NN ~ ....
.... 0
~ ....
.1:::~NJ2N~~~~0'r'~.sg~~~NJG~218.~~
jE~I~~~~;~~~~~a~~~*;~~i~:~~~~~~;
g~ N ~""'N"'" .... ..... ~
:! ~ ~
~
~~~!~!~~~I~i~~!a~~2~~I~~~li~
.... .... C'i.... .... .... . .
~~~~~!~1~2~i~;g~~SI~~~~~~~~;
~1~~~~.~~~~li~l_~~~~l~!~~~lill~
.... O~....~~GNN....O~~~~N.G~~......... m'r'~ ~
~~NN ~ ~N~N~N NN ~N ~ ~ ~
....
w Z
w ~ < w 0
<~ ~ W ~<~ W ~
W ~W~W m w Z~~~~~Z < ~
!i~I~~~~~~~i~I~~~I~~;~i~~i~
~
iii
8
t
8
i
E
~
CII
~
8
8
N
i
~
~
i
!
.!!
t
..
~
I!!
..
J'
--I
E-
~~
..1
If