Loading...
BCC Minutes 03/08/2007 S (Proposed Annexation - Collier Park of Commerce) March 8, 2007 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CITY OF NAPLES GOVERNMENT EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT Naples, Florida, March 8, 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 March 8, 2007, at 1: 15 p.m., Collier County Courthouse, Building F, Naples, Florida. PRESENT: Jim Coletta, Collier County Commissioner Chairman Jim Mudd, County Manager Robert Lee, City Manager Tom Wides, Collier County Public Utilities David Weigel, County Attorney Mike Pettit, Assistant County Attorney Leo Ochs, Collier County Manager's Office Robert D. Pritt, Attorney, City of Naples Leo Salvatori, Attorney, CPOC Laura Spurgeon, Johnson Engineering Angela Davis, East Naples Fire Commissioner Chief Robert Schank, East Naples Fire Chief Michael Sheffield, County Manager's Office Dan Mercer, City of Naples Bob Middleton, City of Naples Joe Bellone, Collier County Public Utilities Chief Jim McEvoy, City of Naples Fire Chief Page 1 March 8, 2007 MR. MUDD: Let's get started, if we could, and I think we've got everybody here. Anybody that's not here, please raise your hand. No. This is the third meeting where we are discussing 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 of Florida Statutes. It's the 8th of March, and it is now 1 :25. Now, everybody should have an agenda in front of them. You don't have an agenda, Bob? MR. LEE: Here it is. MR. MUDD: The first thing we need to take a look at is the minutes from the last meeting. There was some confusion as far as who was here and who wasn't here. But best I can tell, Leo Salvatori was here and Chief Schank wasn't here. And so we need to correct those minutes in that particular regard. Commissioner, what that will mean, since you've already accepted these minutes by the board, we will have to bring them back out again with the correction on the agenda. So do I have -- outside of those corrections, do I have a motion to accept the minutes? CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So moved. MS. DAVIS: Yes. MR. MUDD: Do I have a second? MS. DAVIS: I make a second. MR. MUDD: Anybody opposed? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Okay. And I know you're reading it for the -- you know, they get them out and get them done as fast as we can. We just -- Mike Sheffield was looking at the notes and looking at the sign-up sheet and said, whoa, we've got that a little wrong, so. Anybody opposed to accepting the minutes? (No response.) Page 2 March 8, 2007 MR. MUDD: The minutes are accepted. Then we go to number two, which is to commence the good faith negotiations for an InterlocaI Service Boundary Agreement, and I believe there were three issues that were still on the table last time, and you tell me if I'm wrong. Maybe there's four. One was to get our -- my public -- my public utilities folks to talk to your public works folks about the infrastructure for the sewer piece. The second piece was for Norm Feeder to talk to George Archibald about concurrency issues on Airport Road caused by any increase in density, and I can report back on that or you can report back on that-- MR. LEE: Go ahead. MR. MUDD: -- because you've had the conversation. The third piece is, I think we still had some outstanding issues on fire. And the fourth piece was -- which I haven't seen yet -- was Mr. Salvatori was going to send us a letter or get us a copy of a letter where they basically confirmed or committed to doing, Mr. Mercer, 207 -- -57,000 dollars worth of road work, right? MR. MERCER: About 250-. MR. MUDD: Okay, 250-. MR. LEE: And just for the record, that's give or take. There's some discussions that it was even less than that. The bottom line is, the cost of getting the road at a condition that's acceptable for the city, and I think it was up to that amount. MR. MUDD: Yeah. I don't care what the amount is. I just want to get a commitment letter, that's all. Because that, from what I understand from the last meeting, had to do with -- had to do with some commitments from volunteers from the Collier -- for Collier Park of Commerce. I'm just going to call it CPOC, okay, because it's a lot of words to spit out, and I'm always trying to figure out which one comes in front of the other. CPOC makes it just so much easier. So that commitment letter is important to know. And I'm going to kind of -- those are the Page 3 March 8, 2007 four that I know of. Were there any other outstanding that you had, Bob? MR. LEE: None. MR. MUDD: Okay. Leo, you want to talk about that commitment letter, or maybe it was just an oversight. MR. SAL VA TORI: No, like I said, I sent the commitment letter to our clients for approval, and probably more by accident than design, he didn't get back to me. Frankly I forgot by the time I got here that we had sent it out. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. SALVA TORI: I can tell you in our discussions, I know, with comments with Dr. Lee, but I know that our clients agreed to pledge up to $175,000 for public road right-of-way work. And I also have a letter going to Mr. Mudd making it clear to both you and to East Naples Fire Control District that thus far, the volunteers, so to speak, within CPOC are willing to pony up $175,000, thus making it unnecessary to assess all property owners in the park, inclusive of the county and East Naples, with what otherwise would have been a pro-rata share of contribution towards those costs. And those costs are only for the public road right-of-way. If there is anything, I call them east/west interconnects, which are still private road right-of-way, that's not anything Naples is looking at. That's something we'll have to deal with, and that's part of the assessment procedure. However, I think at this point, from what I understand, there are no pending improvements contemplated for those interconnects, so I don't think we're talking about that anyway. MR. MUDD: And I think you guys can tell us about that one way or the other, but we're talking about the east/west, the private roads, and what they need to be, or whatever. But that's fine, so -- MR. LEE: Nothing planned there. MR. MUDD: So we'll see something from your client hopefully Page 4 March 8, 2007 before next meeting. MR. SALVATORI: Yes. MR. MUDD: Okay. And I'm going to work backward. MR. LEE: That's fine. MR. MUDD: Okay. Third item that I brought up was the conversation between Norm Feder and George Archibald about a concurrency on Airport Road and any kind of increased density from CPOC for any kind of -- after the annexation or whatever. Norm Feder said the conversation went something like this: He said if there's a density increase above and beyond what's already been approved or zoned, and that's talking about additional trips from the traffic study, that there would have to be improvements to the intersection on Enterprise, which is Enterprise/Horseshoe right there where you make the turn if you're going north, and you -- so there would have to be some improvements to that intersection, everything from the left turn lane being longer, different -- different timing sequences to the light, and all of those particular issues. And so that's parts out there, and that would be part of something that -- if the City of Naples decided to do that increase. I believe the capacity on Airport is sufficient, but the intersections fail. Okay. So we'll have to deal with that particular issue. And I believe that's what we were trying to get at from the last meeting. And if what I've said doesn't satisfY that particular regard, then somebody needs to tell me otherwise. Then what I -- then what I asked our folks to do -- Mike, do you have copies of -- MR. SHEFFIELD: I do. MR. MUDD: -- of the public utility analysis real quick? MR. LEE: Jim, before we move on to that, if I may. Again, thank you for hosting this meeting again. But the first two items, as far as what Mr. Salvatori puts together, I mean, that's more of an FYI information because that, in terms of Page 5 March 8, 2007 this annexation, is something we would have to enter into an agreement, our city council with the Collier Park of Commerce petitioner. But I just wanted to make it clear, that's not something that -- I mean, you want to see that, but it's -- and I think if! understood correctly, it was mainly to see who was going to pay for this, that it wasn't something that was going to be the county's responsibility; is that -- MR. MUDD: That's right. MR. LEE: -- the reason? MR. MUDD: But it would be confirmed in this inner service agreement that that would not be something where the county and/or East Naples would have a special assessment in order to provide. MR. LEE: Okay. So looking at it as part of our interlocal -- okay. That's clarification enough for me on that one. The second one, I just wanted to refer to Public Works Director Dan Mercer, what Mr. Mudd said. Is there anything you want to add to that as far as concurrency or-- MR. MERCER: Nothing as far as the information. It was all correct. However, as far as what really specifically needs to happen there, without a further analysis study or whatever, I'm not sure what the financial impact would be pertaining to CPOC or not. But the information that was passed on was correct. MR. LEE: Okay. MR. MERCER: Our initial concern or their initial concern was the impact to additional -- the additional development would add to trips on Airport. And our analysis, what we showed and we got from Norm, that there was no immediate concern or even really any future concerns with that added capacity to Airport from CPOC. MR. LEE: Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Jim. MR. MUDD: Sure. The other piece -- Mike, did you give everybody a copy? Page 6 March 8, 2007 MR. SHEFFIELD: Yes. MR. MUDD: Okay -- is asset valuation where we've basically talked about sewer depreciation to the initial piece. Dan, Bob, I hope you've seen this. They said they were coming over to talk to you about it. MR. MERCER: Yes. MR. MIDDLETON: Yes, sir. MR. MUDD: Okay. Now, I didn't ask you if you agreed with it. I just said, did you see it, and they came over to talk to you, okay? So that's the good news. And I won't put anybody on the spot because I really didn't get to see the whole thing since yesterday, okay? And the pictures don't do a whole lot for me, you know, a box of this and a box of that, and yes, there's a manhole where he said there's a manhole, and there's some diagrams. What they did do that's important to see is, they tried to come up with a depreciated piece to try to -- and we'll go through it. I'm on page one right now -- where it basically says, asset descriptions gravity lines, how many there were, force mains, manholes, lift stations. They went out and itemized them all, what's in River Reach, Coconut, and they did all of that stuff. They put a price tag on it, then basically did a condition rating on it. You can see where the condition key is down there, what the rating was. I told our public utilities guys to not get -- that we're not going to sit there and negotiate it, and you guys can agree if it's either good or bad or fair and you can tell us if you disagree, or you go out and inspect it, we don't care. They did an assessment. That's what they did. But the good new is, it depreciates total assets from about $6 million to about $3.6 million. Then -- and I wish they had numbers on them. But the next piece underneath -- the next header, Bob, they started breaking down, you know, which was the Collier Commerce piece, and they broke it down in digestible doses and showed you where all the collection systems Page 7 March 8, 2007 are, where the manholes are and whatnot on the diagram, and went through pictures of what that stuff looks like. And I'm spinning through it, but I'm now going to the River Reach/Coconut River Estates piece, and they basically broke that piece out and showed it to you along with all the pictures that go along with it. And I'm going to skip through -- I'm trying to get through the pictures because I want to go to something close to the end of this thing. MR. WIDES: Jim, if you start backwards, it might be easier. MR. MUDD: Start backwards? MR. WIDES: About the last three pages. MR. MUDD: Okay. The last three pages. I get another header sheet that says value and revenue comparison. Bob, you're pretty close to it. You started backwards. I went the other way. Yeah, there you go. And I'm just going to flip to that first page of the comparison, and it basically talks about the CPOC residential, and that's with the Coconut River group. Then what their total volume build is, sewer volume estimated, sewer revenue estimated, and then the county complex, Shadow lawn School, estimated revenues in that particular thing. What they're basically saying is -- now, I'm going to ask you a question, Joe and Tom, when you did the sewer rates on the residential piece, like Coconut River, you had a surcharge on it, yes? MR. BELLONE: On the city rate, yes. Bob, let me confirm that. On the residential section at the city rates for Coconut and River Reach, those included a surcharge? MR. MIDDLETON: Based on what I calculated. MR. BELLONE: Versus -- it's not, okay. MR. MIDDLETON: There was not. MR. BELLONE: Okay. MR. MUDD: See, I want to make sure because, you know, if Page 8 March 8, 2007 you're talking about a county loss of 130, then you should have a corresponding 130 gain on your side of the house if everything was due. So there had to be -- you see it? MR. LEE: Yes, sir. MR. MUDD: Okay. So I wanted to make sure that everybody's following me along on the chart. So the estimate is, based on the volume and the water bill, looks like $145,000 gain from the city, and from the county's aspects, it's $130,000 loss. Now, I want to make sure that everybody in this room knows that if, outside of having a slow elevator in this building, you should have noticed that the courthouse looks like somebody took a cheese slicer out and ripped off the vestibule and put up a yellow sheet of plywood, okay? And we're building an annex, an administrative annex that goes next to the courthouse. And so what that means is that the public defender, the state attorney, and ad litem folks and all the clerk's folks are all going to descend upon that new seven-story admin. building that connects to the courthouse. We're going to build new courtrooms and deliberation chambers and judges chambers in the courthouse as it speaks. So I guess what I'm saying to you is, we're going to increase the population on this particular compound. So the lost/gain ratio, yeah, that's what it is today, okay, but 18 months from now I believe it will be significantly less. Chief, how you doing. Good to see you. CHIEF McEVOY: Good afternoon. MR. MUDD: And so that's what I know off of that particular chart. And then periods covered, you can see where they came up with the numbers and that kind of business on the next two pages. So we've looked at the depreciated side of the house and we've looked at the wastewater collections system to see if there was a way Page 9 March 8, 2007 to swap in order to get that stuff done. I would tell you from what I've seen on that thing, I believe the swap is possible, but you still have the depreciated value of the infrastructure and that's something you need to -- I don't really want an answer now. You need to go back and talk about that with that particular issue. Fair enough? MR. LEE: I understand what you're saying. MR. MUDD: Okay. So we've done that particular piece. Any other conversations about the water/sewer side of the house, Dan? Bob? Joe? Tom? MR. LEE: Yes. MR. MERCER: Dan Mercer, for the record. The only comment I'd make is on the asset value information, and that was just seed estimate. That's not a verified, going out and TV lined (sic) and things of that nature, which Joe and Bobby's talked about that. We're probably going to do that in the near future -- MR. MUDD: Okay. That gives us an idea where we are. MR. MERCER: As far as numbers, they look good. MR. MUDD: I never said it was perfect, and yeah, you've got to do that. And if it's decided that you want to purchase that, I would expect you to go over that stuff with a fine-tooth comb, okay? No questions asked. And I would -- before anything happens. I just wanted to give you an idea of depreciated value because the original one I talked about was $6 million, okay, and I knew it had to be something less than that, and it is, okay, to the tune of about $2 and a half million less than our estimate. And you might go find one when you do a fine-tooth comb and find out it isn't 60 percent. It isn't in good shape. It might be fair, and it'd be a lesser value, so we're open for that. Okay. On that particular regard, another item? Page 10 March 8, 2007 MR. LEE: Let me address that one, if I may. MR. MUDD: Go ahead. MR. LEE: We have been -- before this annexation was started, we were in discussions about sewer service and seeing what areas could be swapped that would be in the best interest of the city, the county, and certainly the end users. We are just receiving this -- I'm just receiving the back-up information. And by the way, these pictures are pretty good, I think. They're pretty good pictures. MR. MUDD: I'd rather see my kids and stuff instead of potholes. MR. LEE: Sure. There's no people in there. But there's just a couple observations and a little bit of concern. As Mr. Mercer mentioned about doing some field testing, obviously we've got to do that, and I know there's going to be legal work, and with the greatest deal of respect to the people who are going to be doing that. But I think common sense would tell me that it generally doesn't move quite as quickly as some would like to see. And I'm not sure ifthere's any other issues. If these are the only issues that may come up, then that may make this a little easier than some may expect as far as getting some agreement on this swap. But I do want to get on the record that, you know, I would hope that this would not hold up the annexation. We're committed to continuing to talk about this and get this done. But the Collier Park of Commerce is only one part of this, one piece of this. Similar, Commissioner, like when we were talking about fire service and consolidating fire service. I do understand the timing is such that this is good timing for us to look at it. But I just wanted to mention that we're prepared to look at that time with all deliberate speed, but I hope that that's not -- this one item does not hold us up. That's all I really have. MR. MUDD: Sure. The last -- okay. So we have one remaining item, and then we'll figure out if anybody has any remaining items, Page 11 March 8, 2007 and the last one was fire. MR. LEE: Fire. MR. MUDD: Fire service. MR. LEE: We did receive -- I think just very recently responded, I think, to Attorney Donaldson's letter. And I think it may be more productive and more accurate if I refer to our city attorney to address where we are on this at this time, because there was some questions that were raised at the last meeting and he's in a position, I think, best to address those. MR. PRITT: For the record, Bob Pritt. City Attorney for Naples. We did send a letter to Laura Donaldson on March 5th in response to her request for a response at the last meeting. Hopefully it was responsive to her request. Ifnot, I guess we can talk about that today. But it's a two-page letter, a page-and-a half letter, and I'll be glad to put a copy of it into the record here. I think I have an extra copy. But essentially, it was my understanding, our understanding that the question had to do specifically with inspection of services and plans examinations services and whether or not the district, from our point of view, would be -- would continue to do those services. And we took a look at it, and came to the conclusion that -- and let me just read to you -- I won't read the whole thing, but it seems that upon annexation, the laws of the municipality with the exception of the current comprehensive plan and land development regulations would apply within the annexed area. And I cited 171.062(1) for the attorneys in the room. And that -- then therefore, the plans examiner and the inspector would be doing so in conformance with the city's fire code as opposed to the county's fire code. The city already has plans examiners and fire code inspectors and, indeed, a fire marshal, who are experienced in the examination of plans and the conduct of inspections in accordance with the City of Naples Fire Code, and it would not make Page 12 March 8, 2007 sense and it would be a waste of time and money for a fire district plans examiner and/or inspector to be performing the services with respect to a mere 100 or so acres of property when the city staff is capable of doing so with regard to the entire city. As it happened, there was an article in the paper, the Naples Daily News, I think it was on March 2nd, that explained -- part of the article explained what, at least my understanding is, as to how it's done, that there's one plans examiner for several fire control districts and that there was a concern about having more than one code to be working with and dealing with and interpreting, and it seems like that's what this would do based upon our analysis of it. So our recommendation is that it would not -- should not be done that way, and -- but we do -- we do seek your input, and I think that was at the end of the letter. We value your input and seek your input on that. And if it's wrong or unfair or whatever, we'd certainly be glad to take a look at it. These, of course, would be recommendations, not -- we don't make the final decision. MS. DONALDSON: Laura Donaldson, for the record, on behalf of the East Naples Fire Control District. We did get the letter on Monday, and my review of it basically was -- and I agree that -- with your statement that the statute, upon annexation your laws do apply. But it seems like the majority of the letter is talking about why it just wouldn't make sense for the fire district to remain the reviewer and then asks for the attorney general opinion. So my first is -- I just have a couple questions, and then I'll actually talk about how I somewhat disagree with the law, or we have our own interpretation of it. You state what the law is and then you state that it just wouldn't make sense to have North Naples be the service -- you know, to review the permits because you already have the people. Why do we need an attorney general opinion on that? I mean, it seems like you've stated what the law is, and then it's Page 13 March 8, 2007 just, well, you know, we don't disagree, but it just doesn't make sense for East Naples to be the service provider on that issue. So that was my first question. In addition, you put that you have other legal questions that you wanted to include in the request letter. What are those issues? And do we need county concurrence? I actually talked to the Attorney General's Office to see if they would even consider taking this issue because generally they don't like to take disputes between local governments, and she said, well, you know, we'll look at it. We'll have to get opinions. Every party has to be a party to it and we'll have to get opinions from each party, and then we'll know pretty quickly if we're going to say no or we'll send you on. And so those were just as it relates to the actual request for the attorney general, is why is it needed, what's the question, what other issues do you want to include? MR. PRITT: Let me start with why is it needed, and I think that's a policy issue that everybody needs to wrestle with. But I think I made -- I'm sorry. If you're asking about the attorney general review, let me back up a second before I can answer on the attorney general question. The -- it was our analysis that since we have the people who are very familiar with the city codes, it would makes sense to have the people familiar with city codes do the inspection and do the plans examination. After all, they would be responsible for that. And to have somebody else who's a third party who would get some supervisory issues, who would be supervising, what happens if there's a dispute between the city and the district, the employee or the person that you hire to do this? It just didn't seem to make sense to have that done, and especially -- it done that way, and especially when we looked at the newspaper article on March 2nd, it seemed that that might be an issue elsewhere Page 14 March 8, 2007 with regard to -- that internally you have questions or concerns about having more than one code to be dealing with. And, you know, it's hard enough to deal with one set of laws on a daily basis, and to have to deal -- have the same person dealing with a different set of laws -- they're very similar, but it's still a different set of laws, that it's the city's code -- for only a 100-acre parcel -- it was 110, or something like that, acre parcel, 98 -- it just didn't seem to make sense. So that was the policy reason. The -- as far as the attorney general's issue is concerned, we had talked about some issues and we said that the attorney would look it up and see whether or not -- the particular issue as to who should be doing the inspections and the plans examination, those types of things. I did not know until today that you agreed with my analysis on that. MS. DONALDSON: Well, I qualified it. I don't mean to interrupt. MR. PRITT: So I put out the offer to -- if we have any disputes over any aspect of our agreement, or potential agreement, then it would make sense for us to ask the attorney general's opinion, and extend the offer out with regard to any questions, really legal questions, that we're all dealing with on any aspect of it, whether it's our agreement or the agreement between the city and the county. True, the attorney general does not want to get in the middle of disputes; however, all we are asking -- all we would be asking is for interpretation of a new statute that's very lengthy, it really changes the way annexations are done in Florida. It is extremely poorly written in some ways. There's nothing that's ever perfect, but there are some ambiguities in there, and it would not hurt for us to -- as we go through these discussions, ifthere are differences among the attorneys, let's go ask the attorney general and see what the Attorney General's Office says. So that was the motivation for that. MR. PETTIT: So you were actually proposing -- Mike Pettit, for the record. I think what I'm hearing you say is you were proposing Page 1 5 March 8, 2007 other questions potentially relating to the annexation statute separate and apart from this? MR. PRITT: Ifwe have other questions, I would extend that offer. MR. PETTIT: The only thing I would say at this point is, I'll take a contrary view. The attorney general is operating in a vacuum in Tallahassee and not in touch with local government issues. Attorney general opinions are deemed persuasive by Florida courts. They're not law. And so that's -- I always have reservations about rushing off to the attorney general for opinions. Just throwing that out. MR. PRITT: Well, the offer's out there. MR. LEE: I think the bottom line is, we did respond. We -- as everyone knows, the city has put out as part of this annexation an Urban Services Report, we've identified how we intend to provide this service ifthere's annexation. We're meeting because there have been some issues raised and questions raised -- well, it's required to meet, but in terms of looking at other alternatives, those have been brought forth by others in this particular case, including the fire district. So we're trying to respond to questions, alternatives, and suggestions in terms of service level, and so that's what the city attorney has done with -- as a result of the questions that were raised at the last meeting. MS. DONALDSON: And so going back. The one -- I didn't really feel that the letter responded. We provided two offers as it relates to those continuing services. And, you know, we basically gave two different proposals to let the city -- and I know at the last meeting you said no, we'll just go and read the statute, and now this -- we actually got something in writing this time, and now it says, let's do an attorney general opinion. And so we're not really getting any counteroffers, except for the -- we're only going to do what the statute IS. Page 16 March 8, 2007 As it relates to the code, just like right now, the fire districts get to have their own code. I mean, they can. I mean, we operate within the county. The statute says that we're allowed to do that basically as long as there's no conflict, and that's what the statute says. And so even upon annexation, although your code would apply, the fire district still has the ability to have its own code at least for the first year until our boundaries change, which would be -- the annexation went through this year, you guys elected to provide the services this year. Our boundaries do not change until October 1, 2008. So, in effect, we do have the ability to have our code and provide those services. And that's -- as you said before, for the lawyers, section 191.006, subsection 5, which gives the district board the authority to adopt ordinances, resolutions necessary to conduct district businesses, but they can't conflict with any ordinance of general purpose government that it's located within. So I think that's how we have the ability to have our own code if we so desire, and it could be the county code that we so desire to have apply on that property during that period. And it's the exact same situation. We're in the county now; we each have our codes. We'd number the city; we'd each have our codes. So that's what -- that's my -- our position on the fire code. In regards to Attorney General's Office, you know, we really have not had a chance to discuss whether or not we wanted to do it. I know time's going to be spent doing a legal opinion. Each parties are going to have to do legal opinions. And we still may get something back that we don't agree with or you don't agree with. And as it was stated earlier, they're not -- you know, it's persuasive; it's not law. So we could get it and we could still say, oh, we still don't like it. We're not going to follow. So that's where we are with the attorney general's opinion. I can put it in writing if you want to have our official response. Page 17 March 8, 2007 And in addition, I just wanted to clarify -- actually I have -- I actually wrote notes this time. As it relates to the Urban Services Report, you actually have it starting at the four-year period, starts December 1st or October 1,2007, I think. When you're -- you have to push it back because the four-year period really doesn't start until October 1, 2008. And as a result, the district would collect ad valorem taxes for 2008 and we still get to collect premium tax revenues because our boundaries don't change until October 1, 2008. I know that's something that we put in our letter asking that we get to continue to receive those amounts. And it was interesting, I was talking to the bureau who deals with premium tax issues for the state, and she was actually shocked that upon annexation, the fire district doesn't continue to receive the service -- those premium taxes while we remain the service provider. Just because, you know, the way the law's been written, it's because of a glitch in the statute that the boundaries change and we don't receive those revenues. So obviously, no matter what, we still will be pushing forward and asking the city to provide for the four years starting October 1, 2008, to receive those premium tax revenues. It's an equity issue. Those taxes are only supposed to be going to the service provider for that property, and -- because of a glitch in the law -- and mind you, there's tons of glitches in the law -- we're not receiving those. And the city's position in the past has been, you're not going to receive them. We're going to take them. In addition -- I actually had a two-hour public documents request today. I've been here for a long time. I just wanted to go on record that if the -- if the district does not agree to an interlocal service boundary agreement, we still get to collect revenues under 171.093. The statute actually provides for that. I know I saw something that said, well -- you know, but under 171.206, subsection 3, as long as we participated in this process, we Page 18 March 8, 2007 get to seek the compensation under part one of the statute on annexation. And then what else? The -- I had some other questions, and that's -- I did the research on the utilities in the communication taxes, and the city's exempt -- or the district's exempt from the communication taxes. The statute gives the city the ability to be exempt from the utilities taxes, and we haven't seen anything. I know the county's automatically exempt. The city, or special districts, it's discretionary, and so we'd kind of -- we'd like to know what the city's position is on whether or not we're going to be taxed on utilities. And as it relates to community -- communication service taxes, I wanted to know -- because I couldn't find this. Are we exempt from the franchise fee as well? There's a 5.9 percent franchise fee in addition to the actual city fee. And I don't know if you looked into that. MR. PETTIT: I didn't. MS. DONALDSON: And so -- because there's like a 6 percent city charge, and then there's a 5.9 franchise fee that's charged on some of it. So we'd like some clarification on that. I don't see -- Anne Marie's not here today. Obviously she can -- MR. PRITT: That was something Mr. Pettit was going to be looking at, so I presume he has looked at that on behalf of you as well as the county, or will. MR. PETTIT: I actually looked at it. I brought it up the last time. And this is something I sent to you in February. The county's immune from any utility tax during the first -- or communication services, and I cited the statutes. You're talking about franchise fees. I don't recall any discussion about franchise fees. MS. DONALDSON: There's this franchise fee out there. In addition -- the special district -- although the city is automatically exempt from the utility fees, the special district -- Page 19 March 8, 2007 MR. PETTIT: The county. MS. DONALDSON: I mean the county, I'm sorry. The special district is not. That's something that the city has to -- MR. PRITT: Thanks for telling us that. MS. DONALDSON: Well, yeah. Just taxing the people, then it just goes up to Tallahassee. And then our -- I have a couple other issues dealing with the Urban Services Report and the fire expansion. The Urban Services Report has Commerce Park paying a certain portion of the expansion of Station 3 and it states that the additional cost will be paid by past and future annexation. And I know that the city's going through the visioning process. And my question is, what ifthere are no future annexations? What if the visioning comes back and they say, we don't want to expand and you've got this additional cost for the fire station? Will Commerce Park be assessed for the additional cost which the city has the ability to do? And is the district going to assess that? And so that's just one of our concerns. I don't think anyone's thought about that. MR. MUDD: Oh, yeah. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. MR. MUDD: When you were done I was going to ask the question. As part of this interlocal boundary agreement, there would be a clause in there that basically says that there would be no special assessment on the CPOC for that fire station. We would pay our fair share amount just like every other resident in the City of Naples is going to pay their fair share amount ifthere is no future growth and/or future annexations because the visioning -- all I can tell you is what I read in the paper -- that it doesn't look like the visioning group was very -- looked very favorably upon future annexations for the city, so -- and that is a -- that is a future item that the city council is going to have to take up and work through. But I wanted to make sure that there was no -- there wasn't an, oh Page 20 March 8, 2007 my God, if all of a sudden they decide that they're not going to do any more annexations in the future or put a hold on it and all of a sudden you have an outstanding $1.2 million cost for the expansion of the station and you're looking for a bill payer. The county, I believe, is not going to look favorably upon the fact that the CPOC is going to be the bill payer in and of itself. So we'd have to discuss that. Okay. MS. DONALDSON: And those are the last of my comments. But that is something important because the statute does give them the ability to do the assessment, and we just don't want to have to pay it if there's no future annexations. And I also did see something that, I guess it's estimated like a million-dollar operating cost for the new fire -- it was one of the emails I had seen. And we just want to make sure that the fire district as well as the county, you know, will not be assessed for that because I -- you know, we're not asking for the annexation. I know we own property within the area, but we don't feel that we should be assessed for it. And so those are all my -- MR. PRITT: Can I ask you a question on that? I'm not negotiating, I'm just asking a question, really. How does the city or the county or anybody agree to assess or not to assess somebody? You know, we don't allow special cases for anybody else. We have -- you would, too. You have people come in all the time wanting a special deal. Is it your belief that we have the authority to do that, to negotiate away special assessments and that this overrides everything else in state law that says you have to do your assessments fairly equitably and everybody gets assessed the same if they're in the same classifications? MS. DONALDSON: In response -- I mean, do you mean just the county and the special district saying, don~t assess that? You can assess whoever else you want? Page 21 March 8, 2007 MR. PRITT: I think that's what we're talking about here. And before I negotiate whether or not we would be willing to entertain that, I'm really curious as to whether or not we have any authority whatsoever to enter into that type of agreement. Now, I know that the 171 part 2 does a lot of -- one of those many things that, if you look at it and your eyebrows are raised a little bit, you say, my gosh, I can do that, I can do that. You know, I thought that the special assessments were pretty sacrosanct, and that is -- and the Supreme Court has said over and over that they've got to be fair among themselves and there have to be fair apportionments between the government and the property owners, and fair among the property owners, a two-part test. And so, again, I'm not -- I'm not doing this to -- you know, to try to get in the way of a negotiation, but I'm very curious from a legal standpoint if you all think we have the authority to do that. Because otherwise what I would say is, whatever assessments everybody else would have to pay, ifthere are any assessments, you know, whatever the law says, then we all follow the law on that, so that's my reason for asking. MS. DONALDSON: Well, I think -- and Manager Mudd mentioned this -- that, you know, I don't think the position is so much that initial assessment that's been provided. We know what that assessment is. It's what, 45- or $50,000 that's going to be spread out among the property owners at Commerce Park. The concern is, you don't have any future annexations. You've got a 1.2 million, or whatever it is, deficit, you come back and the city decides to levy another assessment, which they have the right under the statutes that they may. And it's not just we're paying for it; it's everyone's paying for it within Commerce Park. And I mean, you're right. I mean, if our neighbor's getting a benefit, it's going to be hard for -- you know, if I wasn't going to be paying the assessment and you were going to be paying the Page 22 March 8, 2007 assessment, if I were you I would be raising cane that I wasn't paying the -- you know, the argument would be legally is the benefit that he's receiving is equitable to, you know, what's being assessed, because you -- MR. PRITT: Right. But the law already handles that. That's been the law in the State of Florida since who knows when. The law already says that. We have case law and statutory law and everything. It's 170 -- MS. DONALDSON: I don't dispute it. Our concern -- my concern -- MR. PRITT: 197, all those chapters -- MS. DONALDSON: -- in East Naples is a -- we know what assessment might be levied according to the Urban Services Report, and that would be levied on everyone in the Commerce Park. The concern is a future assessment, that we don't know what that amount is, that not being levied, not just on us, but on anyone in Commerce Park, because why should -- I mean, the argument would be, why should Commerce Park have to pay for a fire station expansion when the fire station expansion is not needed just because of Commerce Park. And I don't dispute the law of assessments. It's more of a, we need guarantees that the city's not going to come back, and I would think from the property owners' association, you'd want a guarantee, too, that the city's not going to come back. MR. PRITT: How can you say the law permits you to do that? That's like telling the county commission that you're not allowed to do the special assessment. Somebody comes to you, it could be a company, it could be somebody you really want to have in the county, there could be a lot of reasons for it. And they come in, they say, we want an agreement from the county commission that they're not -- that they will not assess us or they'll give us some kind of special treatment. Page 23 March 8, 2007 I think -- and Mike, maybe you disagree, but I think that you're going to tell the commission, no, you can't do it that way . You cannot agree to give up your sovereignty over the power to levy special assessments. I think what the Urban Services Report is saying -- the Urban Services Report, as I see it, is not law itself. That does not create the assessment. What it is is an estimation based upon certain factors as to what will be needed in the future, et cetera. But to the extent that I thought I heard -- it wasn't you. I think it was Mr. Mudd -- kind of indicate -- and if I got it wrong, I apologize. Where'd he go? MR.OCHS: He'll be right back. MR. PRITT: Okay. Even though he's out of the room I would apologize if I'm getting this wrong. But it seems to me that this was starting to morph into some type of a request or demand that we agree that we will not do some type of a special assessment, and I think that special assessments cannot be done that way. I don't know if chapter 171, part 2, changes that. And that's my concern. There's an example of something that just came up now. I would be willing to ask the attorney general if we had the power to do that. And yes, I know the attorney general is not law, but they're entitled to great deference, and the good thing about the attorney general is all of us here around the table, attorneys included, are advocates for our clients. That's what we're supposed to be doing, and there's nothing wrong with that. But some of these things under the statute, it would sure be nice just to get it clear from a disinterested third party that can be trusted. I mean, I don't know if you'd agree with them or not, but at least everybody could trust that disinterested third party other than ajudge, which is very expensive, to help give us some clarification on some of these issues. MS. DONALDSON: Well, can I ask a question? Do you agree Page 24 March 8, 2007 that the statute allows the city to levy assessments on the annexed area, just the annexed area? I mean, do you agree with it? Because I think maybe that's where we've got a disconnect. Because, I mean, the statute says that the city has the authority to levy assets on -- levy assessments on property located in the annexed area to offset all or a portion of the cost incurred by the city in assuming district responsibility, so obviously -- MR. PRITT: To the extent that the statute says that, then I would agree. MS. DONALDSON: So I guess my question-- MR. PRITT: Only because the power of -- until found to be unconstitutional, the -- MS. DONALDSON: Right. MR. PRITT: -- power seems to be there. So at least we can rely on what seems to be the written rule. MS. DONALDSON: So my question is, is it a discretionary thing that the city gets to levy? So if the city's already going to be levying or charging the Commerce Park the 45- or 50- -- I don't know what the amount is -- what is there for us to say -- why can't we say the city will not come back with another assessment? It's a discretionary thing, and they're allowed to assess just the area that's been annexed. MR. PRITT: Well, if the -- this might sound unfair, but as I see it, if the power is granted -- first you look to see if the power is granted, and let's assume what I just read grants the power. That power is something that's granted by state law. And to -- to agree that you will not exercise that power, I think that the city would be giving up its portion of its sovereignty and, therefore, that that type of agreement would not be valid. Now, I'm not saying that's the case. I'm just trying to give you my thought process on that. MR. PETTIT: Well, I think the legal issues aren't going to get Page 25 March 8, 2007 solved today. But I think, as I look at this, the problem is that the city is saying, we can finance this on funds that we don't really have, and that's a little troublesome, and I think that's what Mr. Mudd and Ms. Donaldson are pointing out. I mean, you're saying, we'll be done, the funds aren't identified, but we can fund it by growth and future annexations. That's rolling the dice. MR. LEE: I can answer that. I'm just giving the courtesy and opportunity for everyone to weigh in on it. But the Urban Services Report doesn't say that. The Urban Services Report very clearly talks about impact fees, city-wide impact fees. It talks about utility taxes to fund this infrastructure. Yes, what will happen in the future, I think, the city council's going to make the best decision that they can based on the best information at the time. Something else could occur. I think the point was raised about annexation, and that's -- they're going through the visioning process right now. Well, now, I don't know what the outcome of that's going to be, and I certainly don't know what the -- again, ultimately the city council will decide with this annexation. But we'll follow the law. This is not the first annexation that we've been involved in. It's not the first one with East Naples Fire District. We're here, all of us, I know, up to this point -- and I'm sure the rest ofthe time -- we're here with -- to do some good-faith negotiating. But, you know, we're going to follow the law. I think there's a couple questions -- a question that I'm a little -- or a comment that was made, I should say, that I'm a little confused about, where, Laura, you mentioned that you haven't had a chance to discuss whether you even want to provide that service in terms of the inspection services. I think the record will show that's what -- and maybe I misunderstood it. But, you know, we've had some time and that's Page 26 March 8, 2007 what we're asking for is for us to get a decision here. If there's some questions, I think what the city attorney's saying, let's get them answered. Ifthere's not a meeting of the minds, we'll go to third party. But let's move on with it. MS. DONALDSON: Can I say something? I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt. What I said -- MR. LEE: But you are interrupting, respectfully. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. Then I'll wait. MR. LEE: In terms of the taxing on utilities, that was a question. In terms of the Commerce Park, what we're going to do is, in terms of assessments there, I don't think there's -- there was any intention -- that we've indicated that if annexation does not continue, that Collier Park of Commerce was going to be footing the bill of whatever the costs are. We recognize that there have been some annexations in recent years, and I think that's one of the reasons why our chief was trying to use some foresight, is to say, listen, we feel we have the need here anyways. And again, the city council's going to have to weigh that. If there's no further annexations, do they want to put the dollars in and do that? And so, I just -- I can't give you the, you know, crystal ball as to what's going to happen, but we will follow the law. Whatever the law says, and that's what we've been trying to say relative to fire service. This is our interpretation. If you have something different you can contribute, you know, please show that to us. I'm finished. MS. DONALDSON: I just want to go on the record. My earlier comment about not, you know, being able to discuss with my client, that was in regards to requesting an attorney general opinion. We have gone on the record that East Naples expects to be the service provider, including inspection, for the four-year period. That was in our letter. That was stated at the last meeting. So I just wanted to go on record that what I have not had the opportunity to discuss Page 27 March 8, 2007 was the merits of doing the attorney general opinion request. And that's the only issue that I've not had a chance to talk to them. So I just wanted to go on the record, East Naples's position will remain that we are the service provider for that four-year period, and that includes inspection services. MR. LEE: Thank you. I stand corrected. MR.OCHS: If! may, Bob, just real quickly. Leo Ochs, for the record. You did correctly mention that your Urban Services Report points out the revenue stream for the capital improvements. MR. LEE: Correct. MR. OCHS: But I still didn't see in the Urban Services Report the funding stream for the $1.2 million deficit that's -- that your report projects for the operating side. And I think what I'm saying -- and I think it's consistent with what you're hearing from East Naples is -- is if the methodology in the report originally assessed the property owners based on the percentage of the park's acreage versus the proposed total acreage that would be serviced by the station, then it would seem to be unreasonable to come back at a later point and have an additional assessment just on the park, the property owners that essentially would have them pay then more than their fair share based on methodology. And that's only point I think that County Manager Mudd was making, was that if for some reason whatever is contemplated to fill the operating deficit in the future doesn't materialize in the revenue stream from the city, that we would ask, as part of the agreement, not to be the payer of last resort for 100 percent of the station improvements. Am I -- Jim, is that essentially what you're saying? MR. MUDD: Yeah, that's kind of where I was at. MR. LEE: Yeah. I think I understand what you're saying, and I was -- we'll get you a formal response on that. But the idea would be, as identified in here, that this station isn't only going to be servicing Collier Park of Commerce. Page 28 March 8, 2007 MR.OCHS: I agree, I agree. MR. LEE: If it were, then that would be a concern. But I could state that on the record now as we did in the report, but that's not the intention. It's to service an area, was a couple thousand acres, I think it was, wasn't it? CHIEF McEVOY: That would include Bear's Paw and the Estuary . MR.OCHS: Oh, and I agree. All I'm saying is the fact that the report doesn't specifically identify the source of funding for that, the cost of the operations when it's built out, leads us to be a little uncomfortable if -- MR. LEE: I could tell you right now -- and I feel very comfortable -- the operation costs would not be 100 percent borne by Collier Park of Commerce. MR.OCHS: Great. MR. LEE: Absolutely. I can state that for the record. Again, because it's servicing a much larger area. MR. OCHS: I understand. MR. LEE: So are we at a -- Mr. City Attorney? MR. PRITT: I'm not going to interrupt you. MR. LEE: I apologize for that. I was on a train of thought. But seriously -- MR. PRITT: No. I would be curious as to what response the fire control district has other than the legal discussion that we've had back and forth about why it is they want to do the inspection services and the plans review and all that. But I did kind of indicate our case for why we thought we should do it, but I'd like to know why you all want to do it, why that's an issue that's on the table. MS. DONALDSON: The district's position -- and you can interrupt me, please, Chief. The district's position has all along been if we are the service provider, we are the service provider, and that doesn't mean that we just respond to fires. There is more to being a Page 29 March 8, 2007 fire service provider than just responding to fires. And I know there are some safety issues as it relates to the plans. I know right now East Naples, they've got the plans for all the buildings in the district. If there's a fire and there's an issue, they can go and pull up the plan and they know, okay, do we enter here or how do we get in, and we would not have that if the city was doing it. We would have no idea what an inside ofa building looked like if we had to respond to a fire. None of our guys would have ever have been there. And that -- I know that's at least one policy reason on why, because that puts our firefighters' lives at risk and it puts whosever inside of the building, whether it's property or lives, at risk too, because we can't timely respond if we don't know what we're getting into. MR. LEE: I have to question. May I ask a question? You're the current service provider for the Collier Park of Commerce now? MS. DAVIS: Yes. MR. LEE: I don't know if you've been in any of those buildings or -- but I certainly think it would make sense as the service provider that you be able to get into those buildings. If you don't know what the layouts are, I think -- I agree 100 percent with you that that certainly should be something that's done if you're providing the serVIce. CHIEF SCHANK: Bob Schank, fire chief with East Naples Fire. You know, I'll answer that very probably commonly. I'm not an attorney. And the way I read the statute, the way I read it, I didn't know I even had those rights, and that's why I hired counsel. That's the simplest answer I can give you. MR. LEE: Okay. CHIEF SCHANK: There are safety issues. Sure, we could get in there and all that, but, you know, there have been previous annexations that, again -- uneducated on my part. But when you start learning your rights -- and that's why I have Laura Donaldson here. Page 30 March 8, 2007 Because when you lose a small building, as we've had on Goodlette -- Golden Gate Parkway, when you're talking one building here and there but you don't take the -- or you take some annexation on Goodlette Road but you don't take the post office, you know, you just start accepting it. But when you start -- after hearing you and saying, this isn't the end of annexation -- and I know it's not at least an attempt -- then, you know, I'm not an attorney. I need help. That's why Laura Donaldson's here today. MR. LEE: And just for the record, I haven't -- you know, we're not saying there's going to be other annexations. I'm saying I don't know what the future will be with annexations. And I don't want to speak for our chief, but I would hope that we would cooperate along our borders anyways as far as knowing what's inside buildings. Chief? I mean -- CHIEF McEVOY: In any way that we can. MR. PRITT: And truly not to sound facetious, we're not objecting to Laura Donaldson being here and advising you. As a matter of fact, we did invite the district in on these negotiations. So it's not like anybody's not supposed to be at the table or anybody's questioning who should be at the table or anything like that. It really is not. MR. LEE: What are we -- may I just ask? What legal issues then -- I mean, you've asked a couple questions. Laura and Bob, I think you guys have had some discussion what do you think are -- you know, we've had our discussions. I think we've both taken some positions. Are there some questions that need answered? And I've written down a couple here that I thought I responded to, but I'm not sure I responded to all of them in terms of the assessment, was one of them. Would you mind just -- could we just summarize what those remaining questions are for fire service? MS. DONALDSON: I mean, I think on behalf of the district, I Page 3 1 March 8, 2007 mean, our legal questions -- I mean, our question outstanding is -- because our position hasn't changed -- is dealing with that electric franchise fee, the utilities tax. You know, from what I've read in the letter from Attorney Pritt is that he doesn't disagree that we would be doing the inspections. It's more ofa policy issue of why would we want to. And I could be wrong, but that's kind of what I got from the gist of the letter. I don't have any questions to go to the Attorney General's Office. I mean, I think the law, you know, states what it states. You know, our -- the reason why we're at the table is, the whole point was to try to come up with an agreement. And we had made -- we have made two offers. We haven't gotten response except -- you know, I guess that the city's position is, under no circumstances are we doing anything else except for four years, and we're not going to consider anything else. Well, then I guess -- I mean, that's your response and that's where we are, you know, but we were hoping since, you know, we're supposed to be trying on negotiating good faith that -- you know, we gave one extreme offer, and then we kind of gave an in-between offer that we would get a counteroffer back for our offer. But as it relates to the legal questions, I don't know. I know we've got the assessment issue, and I think that the county staff did a great job explaining one of our fears, which is, where's the funding, and are you going to come back, and how can we be guaranteed that you're not going to come back? Because obviously the county -- the city can decide to come back. We can't bind the city. I mean, they have the right to levy an assessment. They can come back two years from now. But I don't have any legal issues per se that need to go to the Attorney General's Office. MR. LEE: Laura, may I just address the one question or comment that I think is -- probably has not been discussed, that -- or at Page 32 March 8, 2007 least maybe at the initial meeting but not recently, and that is, the state statute, you know, one size fitting all, is -- I think we know one size doesn't fit all with these state statutes. And the case in point that we have here that makes it very challenging with the annexation is the millage rate of 1.5 mills in the fire district for fire service and our millage rate of 1.245, which includes fire service, but it includes other city services as well. When we talk about sitting down to negotiate an arrangement for you to continue to provide the service, from a financial standpoint is where we run into some difficulties when we do this long term and having the East Naples fire district be the service provider. That's -- that's probably the -- as much as anything, what's constraining us from being able to do much more. If it were not a case of the economics, then -- and I mean, that's what's in a lot of annexations when we're looking at this. That's one. But secondly, again, as we've stated with the Urban Services Report, we're looking at fire service in that area anyways that we need to provide. Collier Park of Commerce by itself is -- if that weren't on the table, I would suggest to you the chief would still be talking about this station at the airport and needing, because of other annexations that the city's been involved in, needing to address it. So those are really -- again, that first one, I wanted to -- was not discussed much, that is driving somewhat our response of not being able to do much more than what the statute provides. CHIEF SCHANK: Our 1.5 mill operates five stations and over 100 some plus employees just in the fire service. MR. LEE: I understand. CHIEF SCHANK: Our 1.5 mill includes our maintenance, includes our administration. If all I had to do was pull out my operations report, I wouldn't be at 1.5. The city department has two and a half stations. I don't quite understand Airport, but I know for sure two. All I had to operate was two fire stations, we wouldn't be at Page 33 March 8, 2007 1.5. And as you grow, I would think your fire department's going to grow, too. MR. LEE: Sure. MS. DONALDSON: And I think -- and this goes back to previous annexation. A lot more than the millage goes into operating the fire and emergency services for the city, and so sometimes it's difficult to hear, you know, you charge 1.5 and we charge 1.2, and that includes other services, but at the same time, with exception fees and obviously inspection fees, those are all of our revenues. The city has much more revenues and they're spread throughout. And it's very difficult -- because I believe for like firefighters, they're -- and physicals and other, like, workers' compo and things that were not associated with fire emergency services. It's actually in another budget item. And so if you add up all of the actuality true costs of providing fire, it's much more than -- you know, I just want to point that out, because that is something that we've all --I've heard for the last two years about our millage rates. And there are -- actually, you know, one of the things -- and 1 can understand from your point, one of the things that the statute allows us to do, potentially, is to agree that we just have overlapping boundaries and the status quo remains the same. We would not be taking any of your 1.2, and we would be continuing to levy. I mean, the statute provides for that. It says, if the city doesn't want to provide the services, status quo, the district boundaries don't change. Everything just keeps going on. And, you know -- and I understand the city's position, which -- as it relates to, well, we can't give you 1.5 for 10 years because we only charge 1.2. MR. LEE: Correct. MS. DONALDSON: I completely understand that, but 1 think there are other options out there that we could pursue that's just not having the city pay the district the 1.5 millage. Page 34 March 8, 2007 MR. LEE: Okay. Again, just the options that we've received, our response has been genuine and it's been based on, in part, as I'm saying, on economics, and I just wanted to get that on the table. Jim, could we review the other items as to what may be outstanding as far as summarizing? MR. MUDD: Yep. MR. LEE: Did you have any other issues? MR. MUDD: Here we go. I had four issues. I thought of a fifth one. We still need to know the date -- and the commissioner just went to get more comfortable, I believe. So what I will -- what I would say in his regard, last time he was wondering when the next CPOC association meeting was going to be because he wanted to go to it, okay, so -- MR. SAL VA TORI: That's fine. I asked the -- Leo Salvatori, for the record. I asked the property manager, Glen Carol in RP management, to make sure that when he sends out the notices for the meeting, that you are copied and that Commissioner Coletta's copied, so you'll get that when he sends that out. MR. MUDD: Okay. Because I believe if you -- if you take a look at the bylaws, so to speak, of that association, it says the annual meeting happens in and around March of a given year. And so I know we'll jump forward at least an hour on this weekend, but I didn't want to jump past a whole month, okay, when we're supposed to have the annual meeting. So we're looking forward to that meeting. Commissioner, while you were gone I was just mentioning that you had a desire to know when that meeting was going to be so that you could go to it. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yes. A little bit surprised of the fact that communication haven't been taking place directly with the county manager. But be that as it may, I do know that the bylaws require a meeting take place by -- what was that date? MR. MUDD: March. It's in March, and we had mentioned that Page 35 March 8, 2007 earlier. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. So that meeting is planned, or we don't know? MR. MUDD: We're going to get -- we're going to be advised. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Thank you. MR. SALVA TORI: Just so you know, Commissioner Coletta, historically the notices of the meeting have gone to your real property division, and they've gone that way, I'm told, for years. But I've asked them to make sure that the two of you get that notice directly as well as through your traditional route through the real property division. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you for that. MR. LEE: Okay. MR. MUDD: The -- Mr. Salvatori, on my number one issue, is going to get us that letter after he gets it from his client. MR. LEE: Yep. MR. MUDD: Get that out to everybody. We've already -- I think we've killed one item about the intersection failing, if -- MR. LEE: Correct. MR. MUDD: -- there's additional density, and I believe your staff and our staff talked about that. You've got the sewer piece. MR. LEE: Yes. MR. MUDD: They're going to take a look at it some more. You have made it an express desire that says, as they're going through that, that you hope that piece doesn't slow down -- MR. LEE: That's right. MR. MUDD: -- the process that we're in, and I don't think it will, okay. As they go through that particular issue. And then we got to the fire side of the house. I believe Mr. Pettit is going to check on franchise fees, because that basically came up separate and distinct from the city fee on a particular issue, and you have discern if that's a city -- if that's a city fee -- I believe it is. Page 36 March 8, 2007 The city had to get into an agreement with FP&L in order to assess the franchise fee, and their franchise fee, they'll go to maximum of about 5.8 percent or 5.7 percent or something like that. And then I'm not familiar with any additional statutory type things that can you do to add more, but you can because you're -- MR. PETTIT: What I was confused by when that came up is I answered the city's question on that well over a month ago, that's what I brought up at the last meeting. I thought, this sounds -- when we're talking about a third fee, because there's a utility -- I'll call it a tax -- a utility tax, there's a telecommunications tax, and we're clearly immune from those. I think you've determined you're immune from the telecommunications tax, and that the utility tax, you could work out an agreement with the city or they could just say no. MR. MUDD: But what you basically said is -- no. What she basically said is that utility fee in electricity has two parts. MR. PETTIT: Okay. MR. MUDD: Okay. It has a part where the city has unilaterally, because they can, added a certain percentage to it. And I believe your utility tax is around 13 percent, okay, and I might be wrong. I think I'm close. If I'm off by 2 percent, shoot me -- but is around 13 percent. I believe that a little less than 6 of that comes from a franchise fee that they've had an agreement with FP&L in order to charge, and the other part comes with -- with some freedom that you have with the law. But I'm looking at this particular -- MR. PRITT: In fairness to Mr. Pettit, he's welcome to look at that if he wishes, but we can look at that. We have -- I have a franchise that's in my top right drawer at the office, and -- I don't think he was answering that particular part of the question. Until today, I thought it was just the telecommunications tax question, and Mr. Pettit answered that, and we've concurred with that. Ann Marie concurred with it. I concurred with it. The difference Page 37 March 8, 2007 may be an issue. So it looks like we have one more issue, or is it two? I'm not sure. You said three. MR. PETTIT: Well, that would be the utility -- to me that's a third issue because we talked first in terms of utility tax and telecommunications tax. But this is a franchise fee that's apparently part of the tax roll. MR. MUDD: That's it. MR. PRITT: And that's something you don't -- you don't have a franchise -- do you have a franchise with FP&L? MR. PETTIT: No, no. MR. PRITT: We'll be glad to take a look at that, and-- MR. MUDD: I've tried that twice and I've been -- I went down burning in flames. I'm afraid that I don't want to be -- I don't want to be Casey at the Bat, okay, so I'm not going down that road again until the Board of County Commissioners tells me and gives me a green light. But I brought that up before about burying power lines and using a franchise fee for that, and it didn't go very far. So, no, we don't have one, sir. CHAIRMAN COLETTA: It's okay. You're fine. MR. PRITT: Just for clarification, we're talking about the FP&L franchise, is that correct? MS. DONALDSON: Right. Upon reviewing documents, I didn't even know this franchise fee was out there, so obviously ifthere were other fees that we don't know about that's going to be charged, we'd want to know about it, whether or not we're going to be exempt. On behalf of the East Naples, you know, we want to find out if the city is going to exempt us on the regular utilities tax, and then as it relates to the franchise fee, because it does look like they're two separate fees. MR. LEE: Okay. MR. PETTIT: In connection with some of these other, I think Page 38 March 8, 2007 there is an issue or a question as to whether we could enter into an agreement that says that, should there be an additional assessment in the future of a front of a station expansion, we would only bear a proportionate share. MR. MUDD: Of the services area? MR. PETTIT: For the service area. Isn't that the question? MR. MUDD: That was one of the things that was-- MR. PETTIT: I don't see -- I mean, off the top of my head, I don't see how that would be an illegal agreement, but I'm happy to look at it. MR. PRITT: Well, why do you need an agreement to agree that you're going to follow the law? MR. LEE: That's what I was going to say. MR. PETTIT: Based on the law, it's just going to be a redundancy in the contract. MR. LEE: Well, we can say we'll follow the law which currently is, whatever the current law is. I don't know if it's -- leave it up to the attorneys. MR. PRITT: Yeah. I have a different view, apparently, on that. But I don't recall seeing the county ever enter into an agreement that says if they will follow the law or if they will not follow the law or that the law's this. MR. WEIGEL: That's not-- MR. PETTIT: That really wasn't what the issue is. We'll look at the question and address it at the next meeting, I think. MR. LEE: Okay. I don't think we have anything else. MR. MUDD: Those are the ones that I had. Anybody got anything, forever hold your peace. MS. DONALDSON: I was just going to say, you know, we'll -- I'll get back with my clients and we can discuss the issue of the fire services. And you know, and I just want to go on record, I mean, this is a negotiation process and, you know, if it's something that the city Page 39 March 8, 2007 really wants, well, there are things that we've -- you know, even within the confines of the four-year or five-year, that are still out there that are important. So that's something that the city may want to take a look at, you know, because we could give, I think, five or six different issues within our second option and -- but before the -- I just -- can I get included on the setting -- the setting of these meeting dates? I just get the email of when it's been set, and I actually am in Tallahassee Monday through Thursdays for the next two months. MR. MUDD: Poor lady. MS. DONALDSON: So I just want to -- just so that I can make the arrangements to be down here, I think it's important. And as you can see, annexation is a very specialized area, and it's -- not anyone can be here to discuss what the annexation laws say. MR. LEE: We'll do that. MS. DONALDSON: Thank you. MR. MUDD: When do you say you go to Tallahassee? MS. DONALDSON: Monday through Thursday. I mean, I could come down like -- I mean, I can change it, obviously, based on the legislative calendar. MR. MUDD: Right. I mean, you know, if you prefer to have it like on a Friday afternoon, we could do it on a Friday afternoon. MS. DONALDSON: I mean, I'm very flexible. Ijust need the notice to be honest. But Fridays are great. I can come down on Friday. MR. MUDD: Let's put it this way. Is it better for you to have it at the ends of the week -- okay, the first part of the week, the end of the week, than it is to have it in the middle? MS. DONALDSON: It is better to have it on the ends of the week than the middle. MR. LEE: We can do that too. MS. DONALDSON: Thank you. And I appreciate the Page 40 March 8, 2007 consideration. It's just this is an issue that's important and we need to be here. MR. LEE: Can I ask you a question. Are there any special bills that could affect what we're talking about here that you're working on? MS. DONALDSON: That I'm working on? The -- I can tell you -- let me see what's out there. There's an annexation bill I am not working on that specifically excludes state properties from the 50 percent calculation, which would mean that county property and other local government property would be included within that calculation. I know that's an issue that we've had in the past. But, yeah, so under the law, apparently the state lands, county lands, are included within the calculation of the 70 percent and then the 50 percent consent. That's out there to exclude the state lands because there's been some wishes with that. The premium tax issue is an issue that may come up. I'm trying to think what else. I mean, obviously anything relating to annexation that clarifies the statute, they're going to be a couple pieces of legislation. MR. PRITT: Has anything been filed to your knowledge to clarify the last year's statute? MS. DONALDSON: The Interlocal Service Boundaries Act? MR. PRITT: Yeah. MS. DONALDSON: No, and the reason why is because there's only been -- there's three areas in the state that have had the privilege of starting this process, and one of them is just about to start the process, but there's a feeling that it may be too soon to amend it, because it took five years to pass the law. And this was something that was started a very long time ago. There was -- there is an issue relating to an issue that was put in just for Volusia County. That potentially has a statewide effect that might be looked at. MR. LEE: Okay. Thank you. Page 41 March 8, 2007 MS. DONALDSON: You're welcome. MR. LEE: I have nothing more. MR. MUDD: I don't either. The only one I've got -- there's one other piece while you were talking, Bob, about when things start and when things don't start. Comprehensive plan, from what I understand, the county comprehensive plan is in effect until you change your comprehensive change to -- MR. PRITT: Yes. MR. MUDD: -- make them part of it. MR. LEE: Right. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. PRITT: And the Land Development Code, but not the fire code. The fire code presumably would go into effect right away. MR. MUDD: Okay. That's the only question I had. MR.OCHS: Who's setting the next meeting? MR. MUDD: He is. It's at his digs. (Proceedings concluded at 2:45 p.m.) ***** Page 42 March 8, 2007 ST A TE OF FLORIDA ) COUNTY OF COLLIER ) I, Terri L. Lewis, Notary Public, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were taken before me at the date and place as stated in the caption hereto on Page 1 hereof; that the foregoing computer-assisted transcription, consisting of pages numbered 2 through 66, inclusive, is a true record of my Stenograph notes taken at said proceedings. Dated this 20th day of March, 2007. TERRI L. LEWIS, Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission No. DD 447012 Expires: August 23, 2009 Page 43 J3C(/C/i,/ ;V([i/til f,2l01 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT, CITY OF NAPLES, AND EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT 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 March 8, 2007 1:15pm Sign In Sheet Name Or aoizatioo /!-~u vL/ t,e.e:.. ,.h6 /h(' tft Lt2.o DdtL<? 'GJ: Dot f) Sa( UcQ~" Lo..W""i 'SpWi CO ~ ~~~ ~\o 'Sehav,., \-\---c.\'\\e:B ~ ". ~,,!..f-Je.A: J.,h.nf.Of) E:ns'In&er1 "'" CRoe DA. E. ~ CorNY' ~ 5s'"0f\.er G-Xb i:N \' \) CC C CAO /'-XL:j ({ tif ~ ~'7 ;;~ It'lt;! ('j i f? 2('(1 1 March 5, 2007 LEGAL DEPARTMENT Laura Donaldson, Esq. 33819 American Avenue Dade City, Florida 33525 VIA E-MAIL: Laura(aJ.donaldsonlawoa,com and Regular Mail Re: Collier Park of Commerce - City of Naples - East Naples Fire Control District Dear Ms. Donaldson: --"'-'-'-"~--""'-" ---"'--::::,-:.~, ..-:--~~____ ..._-"- -.-. --:';::._:.s This letter is in response to your letterllf:TaD:"1IllTY 23, 200kand more specifically to your request made a!i,th1fIieg\hiating session on Fe'6i'iiafy ,5.,"lm)o enter into an agreement that thel?i.Si'ffa-~<m1d:be'tq.e provider of the services, including fire, EMS, permitting and ~~0iiS'- \ , ,: ~" . You indicated at the meeting that\Cbapter 191, ila,.stats, (2006) was specific and ',- , " ';'-" .'> '\:.' .,~, contained the s~ce~:'provid~ 1~~~~i~\:~Sl~"9"l!~lt~~~t~guage refe~d to the language co~~.m"., Sect10n tWj9!It?c;:!iMJt~xti!t~r1iil)Ild special powers ;=~~~~~~~.,_~,i.~~;IT~t~~rude the HowiWer:-iCseems thatu n '''1,ihWtaJio- ",Th~1aws'40'f"t1:ie<miiriiei)I~ (with the exception of the County compre:nS1~(!;~<fui:' fri1,if,N'!~tlipffi~iliit"Jiil~~ns) would apply within the lII1IICXed area. Sec, 171.062(1). Therefore, the plans examiner and inspector would be doing so in conformance with the City's Fire Code as opposed to the County's Fire Code. The City already has plans examiners and fire code inspectors and, indeed, a fire marshal, who are experienced in the eJCAmination of plans and the conduct of inspections in accordance with the City of Naples Fire Code, It would not make sense and would be a waste of time and money for a Fire District plans examiner and/or inspector to be performing the services with respect to a mere 100 or so acres of property when the City staff is capable of doing so with regard to the entire City. I understand from an article in the newspaper dated March 2, 2007, that the East Naples Fire Control District shares a Fire Code official for all fire districts in Collier County, and further that fire officials have a concern about dealing with more than one 735 EIGHTH STREET SOUTH . NAPLES, FLORIDA 34102-6796 Phone 941-213-1060 Fex 941-213-1014 email: attomey@naplesnet.com Laura Donaldson, Esq. March 5, 2007 Page Two uniform code. If that is the case, it would be incongruous for the East Naples Fire Control District to wish to get involved in enforcing the City of Naples Fire Code. r would like to reiterate the offer that r made at the February Sib meeting that we each make a recommendation to our respective Boards to seek an Attorney General's Opinion concerning the legal aspects of this issue. r understand that you did not favor doing so. However, because the City, the County and the District are all working under a new statute that has not been interpreted, it might make sense to log all of the thomy legal questions, lump them together, and ask for the Attorney General render opinions interpreting the questions. This would be infinitely less expensive and time-conswning than risking getting into disputes that could result in litigation. We would value your input. Very truly yours, ~/) .?~ Robert D. Pritt RDP/plr CC Dr. Robert E. Lee, City Manager 1';tt ( tlt~ I'fu~ <0 I 2m ry