Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/05/2007 S (Proposed Annexation - Collier Park of Commerce) February 5, 2007 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CITY OF NAPLES GOVERNMENT EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT Naples, Florida February 5, 2007 Public Meeting to discuss the Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement relative to the proposed annexation of the Collier Park of Commerce by the City of Naples, pursuant to Chapter 171, Florida Statutes on February 5, 2007, at 3:30 p.m., City Hall, Naples, Florida. PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Robert Lee, City Manager Chief Robert Schank County Commissioner, Chairman Jim Coletta E. Naples Fire Commissioner Angela Davis Chief Michael Brown Leo Ochs, Collier County Manager's Office Dan Mercer, Public Works, City of Naples Chief Jim McEvoy, City of Naples Laura Spurgeon, Johnson Engineering Robert D. Pritt, Attorney, City of Naples David Weigel, County Attorney Mike Pettit, Assistant County Attorney Page 1 PUBLIC MEETING COLLffiR COUNTY GOVERNMENT CITY OF NAPLES GOVERNMENT EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT TO DISCUSS THE INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF THE COLLIER PARK OF COMMERCE BY THE CITY OF NAPLES, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 171, FLORIDA STATUTES February 5, 2007 3:30 PM Multimedia Room _ Naples City Hall 735 Eighth Street South, Naples, FL A2'enda 1. Opening Remarks 2. Continue "Good Faith" Negotiations for an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement 3. Comments/Questions 4. Adjourn February 5, 2007 MR. MUDD: Hi. This is -- well, it's your nickel on the start. CITY MANAGER LEE: Yeah, I'll go ahead and get started. First of all, good afternoon and thank you all for coming here today. And thanks for coming to City Hall. This -- particularly today was very convenient for us as we have a council meeting going on as we speak, and the council's preference was that we continue this -- that we continue this session. And for those who may be thinking they might be in a different meeting here, wondering what this meeting is from the public, this is to discuss the delivery of service as part of the Collier Park of Commerce proposed annexation. And this is the second session that we've held. The first session we identified some questions or some key issues that were raised at that meeting by the participants. I think it might be helpful, before I go into what those are, is if we'd go around the table, you know, introduce ourselves, identify what agency we represent so that we all know who's in the room here. You know, we'll be able to make certain we're sensitive to whatever their issues are. So I'll start. My name is Bob Lee, and I'm the City Manager of Naples. MR. PRITT: Bob Pritt, City Attorney for Naples. MR. DAVIS: Angie Davis, East Naples Fire Commissioner. MS. DONALDSON: Laura Donaldson, Special Counsel to East Naples Fire Control District. CHIEF BROWN: Mike Brown, Fire Chief, North Naples. MR. SHEFFIELD: Mike Sheffield, I'm an Assistant to the County Manager. MS. SINGER: Robin Singer, Community Development Director, City of Naples. MR. NORMAN: John Norman, State Representative David Rivera's office. MR. HANNON: Larry Hannon, Naples Daily News. Page 2 February 5, 2007 MR. POINTER: Jack Pointer, Pension Board for the North Naples Fire District. MS. SPURGEON: Laura Spurgeon, a planner with Johnson Engineering. MR. SALVATORE: Leo Salvatore, counsel for the petitioner. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Collier County Commissioner and Chair Jim Coletta. MR. MUDD: Jim Mudd. I'm the County Manager. MR.OCHS: Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager. MS. RICARDI: I'm Ann Marie Ricardi. I'm the Finance Director for the City of Naples. MR. MERCER: Dan Mercer, Director of Public Works, City of Naples. MR. McEVOY: Jim McEvoy, Fire Chief, City of Naples. MR. MIDDLETON: Bob Middleton, Public Works. CITY MANAGER LEE: Thank you all. If I may, Mr. Mudd and Commissioner, I'll identify what I understood to be the -- some outstanding issues that we all agreed to follow up on and have some further discussion today. And our intent -- both sides intent is to do this in good faith. And that means in some cases moving ahead with an issue if there's no resolution. The five issues that I have or ques -- issues, questions that were raised include the following: One: There was a request made for the city to consider waiving some taxes as it pertains to Collier County government on the complex. That is, taxes that the city's currently assessed to its residents. Secondly: To continue the recycling program; more specifically, the business recycling program that's in place in the Collier Park of Commerce. Third: To address the issue of fire service. The East Naples Fire Page 3 February 5, 2007 District did submit a proposal regarding that. And I believe we're prepared to respond to that, along with the first two items I mentioned. Fourth: Was utilities, specifically sewer service that the county is currently providing. There was some reference made to the possibility of the city taking over that service. And fifth: Improvements to the road. If you recall, towards the end of the meeting last time I disclosed that that is part of an annexation agreement that we would have with Collier Park of Commerce is that they would make certain that the roadwork was in -- roadwork was done and the road would be put in suitable condition. And we are looking at within 18 months after the annexation, so that would be part of the agreement. With that said in the introduction, are there any items that I missed that we discussed last time? MR. MUDD: Yeah, there was some inklings, I believe it came from both fire chiefs sitting at opposite ends, about fire pieces of equipment coming off an airport and the law behind it. And I don't know if you two guys found it or didn't find it or whatever. Because I believe the fire service expansion was predicated on the fact that we would -- that you would expand the fire station on the airport, correct? MR. McEVOY: That's correct. MR. MUDD: And Chief Brown had some qualms about can you pull that asset off of the airfields or respond someplace else. And I don't know if there was any resolution to that, but I didn't get in the middle of that particular conversation, because that's basically a fire chief thing. MR. McEVOY: We haven't had any discussion about that since then. CITY MANAGER LEE: I think the city's position at that time was that we could provide that service outside, because we were talking about adding an engine. MR. McEVOY: That's correct. Page 4 February 5, 2007 CITY MANAGER LEE: I think that's what the chief addressed. But I appreciate you mentioning that. If the city attorney here would feel we need to do something further, we certainly would do so. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: In that list, forgive me, but there was nothing about concurrency, as far as protecting the Airport Road. We have a concurrency rule regulations that's in place at this point in time holding density to a certain amount. They can't exceed it. City of Naples rules are a little bit different. If that happened that they came into place and they did allow expansion, then Airport Road would fail, it would be concurrent with it. I don't know if that's been addressed or not. CITY MANAGER LEE: We also have concurrency requirements. I think we generally do not address compo plan land use type issues, you know, up front with the annexation. In other words, we wouldn't say -- and I'll let the city attorney maybe address this. I think he'd be able to do it certainly better than 1. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: If I could add another point, too. We have what we call a checkbook concurrency that allows for so much density to take place. And once it gets to a point that it reaches that level of density, then that's the point in time that there's a shutdown, unless somebody else can figure out how to rebuild the roads. Since the roads are in the county's domain and we're responsible for them, we no longer would have that ability to be able control the concurrency issue on the other end. And that's something that we need to talk about. CITY MANAGER LEE: I think generally, Commissioner, we-- I think even currently with the shared borders concurrency is a concern, even without this annexation, so I do understand that issue. But Mr. Pritt, do you want to weigh in on that? MR. PRITT: Well, I had a note here that said Allen Folley is the transportation person. Is that your county guy? Allen Folley, Page 5 February 5, 2007 F-O-L-L-E-Y. MR. OCHS: No. MR. PRITT: From our meeting the other day? Did I get the wrong name? MR. MUDD: Norm Feder. MR. PRITT: Transportation regarding concurrency. And it was my understanding that the transportation people were going to get together on that. I don't know if they have or not. And-- MR. MERCER: We have not done that. MR. PRITT: George Archibald and Dan Mercer, I presume, for the city. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: So that will be an ongoing issue that we'll have to carry forward to another meeting? MR. PRITT: Apparently so. Apparently they haven't got together. CITY MANAGER LEE: Well, I think if we're able to -- if they haven't got together, we certainly should do that and seek a resolution to that as quickly as we can. Maybe just a clarification. I think -- again I think the question is well taken, and I think it may be just a case of seeking clarification as to our position. MR. PRITT: And I would be surprised if there's not a pretty good -- except for the fact it's an annexation, there has to be a pretty good path to follow, because there are a lot of county roads that are located within the city, as well as within the county, and I'm sure that's been taken into account in the past. I think there must be a procedure for that. I don't know whether there is. CITY MANAGER LEE: We'll make sure they get together before we meet again. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Thank you. MR. PRITT: Jim, who is your concurrency guru? MR. MUDD: That would be Norm Feder and Don Scott. Don Page 6 February 5, 2007 Scott's -- MR. PRITT: Most of the time I've seen Nick on -- Casalanguida. MR. MUDD: Casalanguida. MR. PRITT: And Don. Okay, we have the right department. MR. MUDD: Yeah. He works for Don. CITY MANAGER LEE: What I would be -- is there any other issue that you recall that we may have missed? MR. MUDD: No, I think we got them. CITY MANAGER LEE: Okay. May I suggest we take each one and just start talking about it? And these are issues for the most part that have been brought up by other agencies, the county and East Naples Fire District. If I could start with taxes. It's my understanding we had no problem with waiving those taxes that are applicable at the county's request on utilities that we have; is that correct? MS. RICARDI: Right, utilities services tax. CITY MANAGER LEE: Correct. Secondly, recycling. We have no problem with seeing that the business recycling program is continued in the district. MR. PRITT: Could we go back just on the communications tax? We received something from Mr. Pettit indicating that he thought there was an exemption. MR. PETTIT: I think -- I think we are immune. So it's not an issue of where we just can't impose it. MR. PRITT: I looked at the communications tax. And Ann Marie Ricardi also looked at the communications tax. I think we both came to the same conclusion as you did. I'm not so sure about the electricity tax, but certainly the communications tax. MS. RICARDI: They both had the governmental exemption. CITY MANAGER LEE: We're taking the position that it is, and we're not going to argue that. MS. RICARDI: I haven't quoted them in any of our calculations. Page 7 February 5, 2007 CITY MANAGER LEE: No. So we would continue that. So hopefully those two items are addressed. The fire service: We did receive correspondence from the East Naples Fire District. And again, our position is -- response is rather simplistic and straightforward. As I tried to indicate at the last meeting, that we feel given the constraints that we all are under, including the East Naples Fire District in terms of assessments that would be charged if the East Naples Fire District -- and the assessment we would have to pay under the state law to the East Naples Fire District, that we would like to -- we intend to continue as outlined in the urban services report, to take over that service after four years. And during that time we would pay the East Naples Fire District the equivalent millage rate and all other authorities that would be granted to the city. We would exercise that right to take on those responsibilities. And with that, I would like to ask the attorney for the East Naples Fire District if she wants to respond or maybe even further clarify, particularly on the latter part of what I just said in regards to responsibilities during that four-year term. MS. DONALDSON: The Chapter 171, the section that -- this is Laura Donaldson -- that deals with annexing within a special district that charges ad valorem taxes specifically states if there's not an agreement, then that four-year period the independent special district remains the service provider. It doesn't say we only provide fire, it says the service provider. If you look at the services that Chapter 191 grants independent special fire control districts, that's not only EMS and fire, it's also doing education, doing inspections and those type of things. So if you read the two statutes together, East Naples provides fire protection services that includes permitting, includes inspecting. Why would that change just because it's been annexed? I mean, basically we're being paid to do the inspections and the permitting. We're Page 8 February 5, 2007 continuing providing the services for four years. It's not just, okay, we're going to respond to a fire. I mean, that's only one part of what fire districts do. And so that's our position. I know in the past in regards to Ruffina and Eagle View -- I don't know what it's called down here, but the Eagle View properties -- the city asked the special district, East Naples, to basically do a little interlocal agreement or a letter of understanding on who was going to provide the inspection and permitting. And at the time East Naples agreed to let the permitting and inspections for those two pieces of property to be under the city. They have not done that for this case. And they're not proposing at this time to give up that right. I mean, part of it's a common sense thing. If we're sending our guys and women into a building potentially, they should know what it looks like and they should be able to know that it's up to code and it's being inspected. And there's no guarantee, so that's kind of a common sense approach beyond what the statute provides for. And so we have not given -- unlike the urban services reports, we have not agreed to let the city take over the inspection and permitting. CITY MANAGER LEE: Just before you weigh in, City Attorney, we still have the option for you to say, city, we would like you to take over earlier than four years if it was a concern about the inspections. I think what we're saying is assuming that we couldn't come to an agreement that the four years would kick in. So I just wanted to -- MS. DONALDSON: And I agree. When the four years kick in, that includes us providing fire, inspecting and permitting services, not just the fire services. I mean -- it is what East Naples provides is more, like I said, than just responding to fires. So that's our position. And you're right, we can enter into an interlocal agreement, but we were basically -- I sent a letter two weeks ago, almost two weeks ago giving two different options and we found out today well, thanks, but no thanks. So I don't know if the district would be inclined to Page 9 February 5, 2007 enter into an interlocal agreement giving up those services. But since this was the first we got a definite response, I have not been able to talk to them about it. CITY MANAGER LEE: Anything at this time, Mr. Pritt? MR. PRITT: Well, educate me, if you can. I'm not sure I'm educable. But it's my understanding, upon an annexation the property comes within the jurisdiction of the city and all the city's rules and regulations apply. And if you're doing the permitting under the city's rules and regulations, that seems to be inconsistent with the theory that the city's rules and regulations, ordinances and so on apply. Where am I off base on that? MS. DONALDSON: No, I think -- you know, you are right, there is a section that says when it's annexed it goes under the city. And it means that we're going to have to -- I mean, it would be unfair to have a new building come in and the East Naples still gets to charge impact fees. A new building comes in and we inspect it under one standard -- you're in the city, we inspect it under our standard, right under the city standard. And then after the four years the city people start inspecting it and sometimes the codes are different and there might be an issue. But what would happen is East Naples would have to basically follow what the city requirements are. But like I said, you know, I at this point, since we just heard that there will be no interlocal agreement; that I have not had the chance to talk to my client about giving up the right to do permitting and inspecting. I know prior to this they said they wanted to be able to continue that, which is why they didn't agree to it back in September when they got the phone call asking them to do it. MR. PRITT: Well, like you, we only have the power to recommend to the City Council. MS. DONALDSON: Right. MR. PRITT: We're not -- we don't have the power to say yes or Page 10 February 5, 2007 no. CITY MANAGER LEE: Are you under the -- and I understand the request. But are you of the legal opinion that you -- that the city does not have a choice in the inspections? In other words, if East Naples Fire District took the position that just as you're proposing, that you do the fire inspections, collect the fees, your regulations would apply during that four years, are you of the opinion that if the East Naples Fire District felt they needed -- they wanted to do that, that there's legally no option for the city in terms of what the statutes provide? MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. I mean, I haven't done all the legal research. Part of the problem is there's not a lot of -- most of these statutes have not been dealt with in the case in courts. So we don't really have the case law to back it up, one way or the other. I would say, though, that one, in regards to the fees, the statutes specifically states that during that four-year period the special district gets to charge user and impact fees. So one, I can say legally the statute's very specific. I would also argue that since it says that the independent special district remains the service provider, and the services that East Naples provides includes inspections and permitting, if you -- just plain in reading of the statute, I would say yes, we would continue to provide the services during that four-year period. The only option of course is to enter into an interlocal agreement with the city that deals with that issue which the statute says we can both agree, we could agree to give up the inspection and permitting. But at this point we haven't. MR. PRITT: Well, I think we're all flying a little bit blind for the reasons you stated. The statute's not that old, there's not that much on it and there are a lot of changes. I for one would be willing to recommend to the City Council that if you wish that we seek an Attorney General's opinion on it. The Page 11 February 5, 2007 only problem with that is it might take longer to get that than the period of time in which we are trying to deal with it. And I respect what you're saying on that. I'm not even saying I disagree with it. But I think you have two statutes that are not exactly in synch with each other. MS. DONALDSON: You know, my one concern with the Attorney General's opinion is -- I mean, I've asked for one before, and basically each side will submit their position statement to the Attorney General's office and then they go from the two. And so basically we're almost like going to like a mediator and saying, hey, these are our two positions; you tell us what it is. MR. PRITT: And a lot of times if there is a disagreement, they'll just say well, we're not going to get in the middle of it. MS. DONALDSON: Right. I know both parties have to agree in order for them to even consider issuing an opinion. CITY MANAGER LEE: Since this forum that we're in today like the first one brings all the parties together. And like the first one I think there was an understanding by the parties that there was -- it was acceptable if -- for example, if the county staff and city staff were to get together to talk about utilities, that would be fine. In this particular case what I'm suggesting is that you want to get together and talk with the city about -- because I don't think it necessarily involves the county on this one, outside before the -- you know, outside the next -- between now and the next meeting outside this forum, that we can do that and see if we can come to a meeting of the minds. If not, I think we've at least, you know, not unnecessarily taken up some time at this meeting. We've done some good faith effort to try to get an answer to that and get a decision. If you're receptive to that, I certainly could pledge the city's willingness to do that. MS. DONALDSON: We are willing to do that. CITY MANAGER LEE: Okay. Page 12 February 5, 2007 The fifth item then -- again, we've talked about concurrency, recycling, taxes, fire service -- is utilities, specifically sewer service. I think the County Manager had suggested a proposal that they were going to work on that we could examine. And so I'll turn it over to you, Jim. MR. MUDD: Yeah, we did. And let me get some copies out of this, because they're all glued together. What we basically did is -- what we did is we had the guys go take a look and they basically looked at the flows. And the flows from the commercial property -- we looked at water and then we looked at the residential area that sits next to it. And they basically looked at the sewer flows and then looked at the sewer flows from the complex. And I believe you guys have been talking. I hope. If you haven't got one of these, take one. And the flows are -- the flows aren't too bad. Because the flows on the complex -- when I talk the complex, that's the county complex. Right now sewer flows are just a little less than 40,000. The school, which happens to be Shadowlawn School, is around 900. Those two added together gives you around 40,751. The Commerce Park plus the residential area gives you around 49,000 as far as flows are concerned. And the complex is going to grow. I mean, we're going to put a new annex for the courthouse there and we'll bring the public defender back into the compound there. And there are several other entities right now that are renting space, some of which in the commercial property that will move back onto our complex. So I see the complex amount and the commercial property plus the residential being approximately equal as we get -- as the compound expands is what I'm trying to get at, even though there's a disparity of around 9,000 gallons, annual gallons of sewer product. The part that disturbed me and the part that I didn't think about and I kind of kick myself because I didn't, but that's why you hire staff. It gets into what's the value of the assets underground. And Page 13 February 5, 2007 when you go to exchange that, there is no vested infrastructure in the complex that the city owns. But the county owns the infrastructure that's in the commercial property and in the residential piece. Staff estimates that that, between the commercial property, River Reach and Coconut River, to be a value of around $4.5 million. Now, that is not depreciated, okay? That was a rough shot. And I need to -- you two guys with us? Stay with me. I hate when you guys aren't listening, okay? They're having a great conversation, okay, the two of them. CITY MANAGER LEE: They're used to listening with one ear MR. MUDD: I don't think they're listening to anybody except themselves, and you're going to ask them sooner or later what's their opinion and they're going to be going, what's your question? MR. PRITT: Mr. Mudd, while we're digressing, you said this is the -- from River Reach to Coconut River, and that includes this property, or this area? MR. MUDD: Yeah. What we were trying to do is, you know, where's the connection, and try to find an equal area where we could perform this particular swap. And you basically swap on gallon-age. And then you've got to deal with the infrastructure. Normally if it's gallon-age, most times when you get to the swap, you get to the bottom of the infrastructure and they're pretty much equal. So, you know, it's okay, it's just a swap. And I didn't think about the infrastructure piece until my utility guys talked to me. But that's the un-depreciated amount. And everything gets depreciated by the amount of the time that it's in the ground. So I've got to come back and get the depreciated piece, okay, because I didn't ask the question. I just got this on Friday. So I owe you this piece of information. CITY MANAGER LEE: Would we be able to, from the staffs standpoint, see if we -- similar to what we're doing with the fire Page 14 February 5, 2007 district, see if we could get together and for the next time we come here we can see if we can have at least a meeting of the minds as to what we feel we can and can't do and what the issues are? MR. MUDD: Sure. So I looked at that and all the other places that the city performs service in the county is for water. And we've got some other sewer issues in the city, but it's nothing where you're supplying sewer to the county where it makes a good swap. So this is it. CITY MANAGER LEE: This is basically the proposal then. And then what we'll do is we'll get with our staff and see how this works -- MR. MUDD: Absolutely. See if we can fine tune it. CITY MANAGER LEE: Okay. MR. MUDD: Okay? CITY MANAGER LEE: The only other item then, and I don't know that it's -- we may have clarified it at the last meeting, but I wanted to bring it up anyways, and that's the road improvements. There's a question raised, a concern raised that the expense would be something that all property owners, including Collier County, would be required to pay for. It's my understanding that the property owners who have agreed to pay for it would be the ones paying for it. If -- and there is a representative here from Collier Park of Commerce. This agreement has not been worked out with the city yet. It's only in concept. And I don't know that that's something we would normally do at this stage. But for the purpose of clarifying that, I don't know, Leo, is that something you want to -- could you make a statement on for the record? Introduce yourself and who you represent and -- MR. SALVATORE: I'm Leo Salvatore. I represent the petitioner in the annexation. I apologize for talking to the county's backs here. CITY MANAGER LEE: If you want to come over here. There's Page 15 February 5, 2007 a seat here. MR. SALVATORE: Just for the moment, if you don't mind. Our client talked -- our client was concerned about the county's concerns about paying for the fair share of assessments that would be necessary to bring the roads up to the level of service that the city was looking for. As you know, the county is a property owner within the Collier Park of Commerce. The Collier Park of Commerce is a property owner's association that assesses all property owners, inclusive of the county, for those sums that are deeded by the association. The improvements that we're talking about are primarily for public road right-of-way. I don't know and I could be wrong, I'll stand corrected if I am, if any of the necessary improvements are for the private road right-of-ways. Collier Way East, Collier Way West are all private. To the extent any of the renovations needed to be made to the private road, which I don't believe there are any, but if there, they would be assessed to all property owners as other assessments, inclusive of the county and the county would need to pay their share. To the extent that there are any improvements that need to be made to the public road right-of-ways, there are certain members within the Collier Park of Commerce which have expressed their willingness to advance all of the monies that have been committed to the city, which is in the amount of$175,000. That has not been formalized within this group of property owners. Frankly, I doubt we will get it finalized. As long as the property owners take receipt of the progress that's being made on the petition in a manner that our client deems appropriate, and it seems like they're making a good faith effort here today in that regard. So I can give you something definitive when I know that for sure. But I think at this moment I think it's fairly safe to assume that if this is to go forward that the county will not be asked to contribute any Page 16 February 5, 2007 monies towards the $175,000 that has been pledged to the city to bring the public road right-of-ways up to the standard of care that the city would like them to be for the 18 months following the annexation. CITY MANAGER LEE: Commissioner, did that answer one of the questions -- the question you had at the last meeting? MR. MUDD: Well, the question that we had was how is the improvements to the road that isn't private? I understand the private roads east and west are all part of the association, the association pays into that. And I believe the east and west are already in your budget for 2007. MR. SALVATORE: That's correct. MR. MUDD: So it's the piece that's out there, and I'm looking for it right now in the urban services report. What did you estimate, Bob, that that would be? I thought I remembered 250,000. I don't remember 270. CITY MANAGER LEE: I think I mentioned 175, and I think Mr. Mercer mentioned 250. MR. MERCER: Dan Mercer. 249,000 is the number. CITY MANAGER LEE: Is what we're estimating. But those details will have to be worked out in terms of what that actual cost is with the Collier Park of Commerce and the city. But I think the key point we wanted to mention is A, we will be recommending -- when this annexation comes before the City Council, we will be recommending an annexation agreement that will require that the road be put into suitable condition, acceptable to the city, and that the responsibility for paying that will be the property owners that were just referenced to you. So that's as far as we've gotten with it. MR. MUDD: And the only hesitation I have with that particular issue is, and Mr. Salvatore knows this, that when the homeowners met with the group in order to do the vote, which was a year or so ago, this particular amount of money was never brought up in front of that Page 1 7 February 5, 2007 homeowners group -- excuse me, business owners association, property owners group. Because I even went back and I queried my representative, which was Mr. Carrington. Mr. Carrington writes, he said, a road assessment never was discussed at the owners meeting I attended. Chad Lund says the North and South Horseshoe and East and West Collier Way require maintenance, but there will not be a special assessment imposed for this purpose. Several of the owners of the North and South Horseshoe Drive have volunteered to pay for this maintenance. The repairs for EastlW est Collier Way is included in the 2007 budget. And then he writes, next paragraph -- it's only a two-sentence paragraph -- a letter to this regard will be coming out early next week. This was written on the 25th of January. I will send Mr. Mudd a copy when I receive it. Thanks, Chuck. CITY MANAGER LEE: I don't know the time frame of that, but I can tell you that this was a city initiative for this to occur. It may have occurred subsequent to that. I personally had conversations with Mr. Lund regarding it. And so that may be why at the time, and I'm not speaking for them, but they may not have been aware that that was going to be an annexation requisite, or at least one that's going to be recommended. Perhaps that's the reason for not being discussed at that time. MR. MUDD: And the only query I've got then is if it's -- and I heard what you had to say about an assessment. It would be an assessment prior. And Leo, I assume -- I'll call you Leo, you call me Jim all the time. Sometimes you call me other things, but that's okay. Leo, I assume -- CITY MANAGER LEE: Did you get that? MR. MUDD: That's just for the record. I assume that you're going to have some kind of a letter of commitment that basically goes out. And if not, from a county Page 18 February 5, 2007 perspective, we're a little over five percent from the property's I own (phonetic) of that particular area. And I can't believe -- it's between either five or 10. And it depends on how you get it done. And I haven't got my guys to come back and tell me exactly what my percentage is to see who I can talk to about having a mandatory property owner meeting, okay? But I've looked at your bylaws, and right now the percentage that we carry, we can't do that. I believe it says if it's over 10 percent, you can -- MR. SALVATORE: I believe so. MR. MUDD: Okay. So I'll continue to investigate that. But I'd like to have a letter from these gracious donors in the property association that are basically going to come forth -- come with the money ahead of time so that it is an assessment against the entire property owner group. CITY MANAGER LEE: Is there -- just so I'm clear, is there -- this improvement, the assessment would be if council approves the annexation. So it would follow, the annexation would be a part of a contingency there. Is there some concern about the city requiring that road be improved if the county government is not going to have to pay for it? I guess I'm just trying to follow where the concern is. MR. MUDD: That's the concern I have. Well, the real concern is I don't know who else has been -- has been talked to about this fee, okay? And what I don't want to have happen, okay, is the annexation occurs, this particular piece of the annexation, your urban service report -- you basically say in your urban services report, we are not going to accept this particular parcel unless the road is improved. CITY MANAGER LEE: Well, we get a period of time. I think we said something like we anticipate that within 18 months of the annexation, it would be a regular annexation agreement. City Council Page 19 February 5, 2007 is not going to support an annex -- well, I would not recommend the City Council support an annexation without that as part of -- that annexation agreement as part of their approval. MR. MUDD: And what I would like from Mr. Salvatore is whoever his clients are and those benevolent folks that are going to come forward with the money, I'd like to have a letter of commitment or whatever from them to you so that this particular issue is resolved with the county and we don't have to worry about that. CITY MANAGER LEE: I don't think that would be a problem. I'll let him speak for himself. Actually I think they did give us some letter of some sort. So if you want to address that, Mr. Salvatore. MR. SALVATORE: And we have sent the city a letter a little bit ago, and we'd be happy to give you a letter as well. MS. DONALDSON: And on behalf of East Naples, we need a copy as well, because we own property. And we want to get that -- COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Mr. Salvatore, question on procedure. A lot of things have taken place since we had that original property meeting where you made the decision. We're talking about such things as -- the anticipation was that possibly such things as recycling might change within the city. Such things as the road cost, how it would be applied. None of this was ever discussed. Along with the possibilities, we're talking about concurrency which may inhibit you to stay within the county rules. At some point in time when we firm this all up, when we come to final decisions about how the whole thing is put together, will you have another property owners association meeting to be able to get the input of the owners? MR. SALVATORE: I'm certain we will. I mean, the last meeting we had on this issue in particular was probably late summer, early fall. And it's only been recently that some of the business terms are certain come to be. So I believe that Chad was planning on having another property owner association meeting beforehand to ascertain Page 20 February 5, 2007 the date on it. I've heard nothing here yet that would give me any heartburn. I presume it wouldn't give Chad any heartburn. But I would anticipate there would be one more. COMMISSIONER COLETTA: And I would hope that you would make that part of the requirements before you took it to the City Council, that you'd have the endorsement of the new agreement from the property owners association before you bring it in for a vote on that. CITY MANAGER LEE: I'm sure the Council would want to know that there was a commitment there. I'm sure they would want to know that. MR. PRITT: I don't think that agreement would come straight to us. I think it's a commitment that you'd be making between yourselves. MR. SALVATORE: It just proves no one's going to advise their client to sign an agreement that hasn't been broached with all the members at that time. CITY MANAGER LEE: So with that issue then, if I understand where we are, at this point a letter, Mr. Salvatore, you'll see is provided to the various parties here. And aside from that, is there any other issue other than the obvious of, you know, something we would have to do in terms of putting together an annexation agreement that the City Council would have to look at, and of course the property owners? MR. MUDD: That's it. I think we're -- I think we're there at that juncture. CITY MANAGER LEE: Are there any other issues other than the ones that we've stated? Mr. Ochs? MR. OCHS : Yeah. Dr. Lee, in the urban services report, on the subject of drainage, I noticed in the financial analysis there's a -- I just want to get some clarification on how that's assessed. I see it's -- I Page 21 February 5, 2007 think Ann Marie $4.00 for ERU per month. MS. RICARDI: And an ERU is calculated at 1,920 square feet. MR. OCHS: One more time? MS. RICARDI: 1,920 impervious square feet. MR. OCHS: Okay. That's what I needed. CITY MANAGER LEE: Let me just quickly summarize then, if there's no other-- MR. DAVIS: Could I ask one question before I -- CITY MANAGER LEE: Sure. CHIEF BROWN: The future annexation, under 171.203(13) it states that no earlier than six months after commencement of negotiations, either the initiating local governments or both county or the inviting municipality may declare an impasse in the negotiations and seek resolution of issues under State Statute 164.1053 or 164.1057. If local governments fail to agree at the conclusion of the process under Chapter 164, the local government shall hold a joint public hearing on the issues raised in the negotiations. Is that negotiation (sic) based on all the issues that we're talking about? And at what point do we believe that East Naples began negotiating? MR. PRITT: You need to talk to your own attorney to ask what those issues are. MR. DAVIS: I did. I think I did. I was just wondering whether or not that you felt that negotiations had begun. MR. MUDD: I think the negotiations started on the 12th of January when we had our first meeting. CITY MANAGER LEE: Yes. MR. MUDD: And that would be the time clock that it would start. At least that's what I took it as. MR. PRITT: Does your attorney have a different date? MS. DONALDSON: I'm here on behalf of East Naples Fire Page 22 February 5, 2007 Control District. I do do work on behalf of North Naples Fire Control District. MR. PRITT: I'm sorry, North Naples. CHIEF BROWN: I appreciate the answer. CITY MANAGER LEE: Well, let me quickly summarize then. It appears that there's a couple of items that we've been able to get some meeting of the minds, if I may use that term, or in agreement on today. One on recycling: That the city will continue that in -- after annexation. Two: The waiver of taxes. I think both legal counsels agree to that. Three: The road improvement other than the letter to be provided. I think there's clarification as a follow-up from the last meeting. And of course the request that the property owners weigh in again before this is presented to the City Council. I certainly have no problem with that. Concurrency issue: Next time we get together, the goal was to have clarification on that matter. Fire service: We will meet with the East Naples Fire District representatives to talk further about the one issue regarding -- or at least the one issue regarding fees and regulatory responsibilities during that four-year period. And utilities will do the same from the standpoint of getting together with the county to evaluate the proposal submitted today, with the hopes that we'd be able to come back at the next meeting with, you know, some recommendation, hopefully jointly. Ifnot, at least a response from the city. Is there anything else that we may have left out of our deliberations today? COMMISSIONER COLETTA: Does the county attorney have Page 23 February 5, 2007 anything to add? MR. PETTIT: I just have a question for I guess the attorney for East Naples Fire. Have you looked at the question of whether your special district is immune from these taxes? Under 166.231 and 201.125. And whether even if not automatically immune, would be subject in agreement with -- MS. DONALDSON: Thank you for pointing that out. MR. PRITT: Yeah, I would concur that that's a good idea. Because at least the section .125 is pretty expansive. And it either is or isn't. So we need to all make sure that we're on the same page. MS. DONALDSON: Well, and having brought that to our attention, clearly if we're not immune, East Naples Fire Control District will have an issue with having to pay more taxes going into the city than what we currently are paying. Because at the end of the day if we're having to pay more taxes, that means our taxpayers are having to pay more taxes. MS. RICARDI: Do you have land on this annexation? MS. DONALDSON: Yes. So we are directly impacted by this annexation. We do, we have a building there. And I think -- CITY MANAGER LEE: There's actually some correspondence that they submitted that -- MR. MUDD: You have a 10-acre lot, I believe? MS. DONALDSON: I think so. MR. PRITT: I'm sorry, a what? MS. DONALDSON: Ten-acre. MS. RICARDI: I remember you talking about this. CITY MANAGER LEE: I was going to say, tanker lot. We need to revisit this whole thing. Okay, if there's no other questions -- MR. PETTIT: One other question. I'll ask Mr. Pritt. It occurs to me, and Mr. Weigel may want to weigh in, if groups Page 24 February 5, 2007 are going to gather -- and I don't want to make this unduly cumbersome. If they're going together to make recommendations, I think the Sunshine Law may extend -- MR. PRITT: Let's do fact finding only. Let's agree that all we're trying to do is fact finding. And I think that's a good point. For us to go off into delegated small groups could be a Sunshine problem. Let's just try to get the facts together. I think that's a good point. CITY MANAGER LEE: But just for clarification, you have no concern about us talking to determine what those facts are, though, is that -- is that what I'm hearing or not hearing? MS. DONALDSON: I guess I'm a little confused because I think the facts -- I mean, we can sit and discuss what the law states. I guess those would be the facts that we would be discussing. But we can't really discuss how to address the issues, because that would be a negotiation. You know, I mean, it might be a better use of both of our times that I just get a response from what your position is and then we'll go from there. Because a letter would be a public document, so anyone could look at that. I mean, I just don't know what we would discuss in a fact-finding meeting between the city and East Naples. CITY MANAGER LEE: I'm fine with that. Again, this is not something the city's initiating. The city's position I think is clear. This is coming from the East Naples Fire District. So we you submitted something. And Mr. Pritt, unless you feel otherwise, I think you can just simply respond and be prepared to address that at the next meeting. In terms of the -- on the other hand, the discussions with the county on the sewer issue, I suppose we could probably do the same thing, but I would like to put on the record that we reserve the right to ask questions obviously of staff. We do that every day on issues. And I don't think this should stifle our ability to communicate in order to make sure we're getting facts. Page 25 February 5, 2007 Do you agree with that, County Manager? MR. PETTIT: I agree with that, Mr. Lee. And Mr. Pritt, I think that would be in the nature of fact-finding, so -- MR. PRITT: Well, let's just make sure we keep it that way. Contrary to what you might read, I'm not in favor of doing anything out of the Sunshine. And -- MR. MUDD: It took me a while. CITY MANAGER LEE: Okay. Well, thank you very much for your attendance. And do we want to have our staffs schedule another meeting? MR. MUDD: We'll try to get it done within the next 30 days. CITY MANAGER LEE: Okay, that's a plan. (The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m.) ***** TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY CHERIE NOTTINGHAM. Page 26 ",--"-"""",_.~""""~,"..-.-~-~,",,,-,-,, ""-'" .