Loading...
BCC Minutes 07/06/2007 S (Proposed Annexation - Collier Park of Commerce) July 6, 2007 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CITY OF NAPLES GOVERNMENT EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT Naples, Florida, July 6, 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 July 6, 2007, at 1 :05 p.m., County Attorney's Office, 3301 Tamiami Trail East, Eighth Floor, Conference Room, Naples, Florida. PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Leo Ochs, Deputy County Manager Mike Pettit, Chief Assistant County Attorney Michael Sheffield, County Manager's Office Norm Feder, Transportation Dr. Bob Lee, City of Naples Dan Mercer, City Public Works Robert D. Pritt, Attorney, City of Naples Leo Salvatori, Attorney, CPOC Laura Donaldson, Attorney, East Naples Fire Dis. ALSO PRESENT: Jim McEvoy, Naples Fire Rob Potteigier, East Naples Fire Department Nick Biondo, East Naples Fire Department Laura Spurgeon, Johnson Engineering Page 1 PUBLIC MEETING COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CITY OF NAPLES GOVERNMENT EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT TO DISCUSS THE INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED ANNEXA nON OF THE COLLIER PARK OF COMMERCE BY THE CITY OF NAPLES, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 171, FLORIDA STATUTES July 6, 2007 1 :00 PM County Attorney Office Conference Room-Eighth Floor W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F) Collier County Government Center A2enda 1. Opening Remarks 2. Continue Negotiations/Review & Discuss the DRAFT lnterlocal Service Boundary Agreement 3. Public Comment 4. Comments/ Next Meeting 5. Adjourn July 6, 2007 MR. MUDD: Okay. Let's open -- let's open this meeting. This is the 6th of July. It's 1 :05 in the afternoon. We are discussing the Collier Park of Commerce annexation and agreement. And this is kind of a continuation of a series of meetings that we started, what, January, Bob? DR. LEE: Yes. MR. MUDD: I don't want to go over all of that stuff, but the thing that we're here to do today is everybody should have this Christmas tree colored looking draft. Okay? City's should be in red. Fire District's should be in blue. The County's thing should be in green. MR. SHEFFIELD: Does anyone need a copy? MR. MUDD: Okay. Everybody -- everybody should have a copy of that. And what we agreed to at the last meeting -- MR. PETTIT: I've got a couple of extra ones here. (Discussion held off the record.) MR. SHEFFIELD: I delivered two copies to the City and to the Fire District. MR. MUDD: What -- what we agreed to at the last meeting was to try to get everybody to at least be speaking off the same draft, okay, and to try to come to agreement on the context of the agreements so that we could -- so that we could start bringing these to our appropriate boards for approval. Okay. Because the entire context of what we've been trying to do over the last six months or so is to come up and come upon an agreement that everybody can live with. And -- and so here we are today. Now, Mr. Pettit, do you want to -- did I say anything wrong, Bob or-- , DR. LEE: No. I would like to add something -- MR. MUDD: Sure. DR. LEE: -- Jim, in may. First of all, I want to thank Mr. Pettit and the county for coordinating this document and getting it together. Page 2 July 6, 2007 It was very helpful to see where the different points of view exist at this time. Secondly, one thing I would suggest is that in going through this document -- and I think Mr. Pettit would be the best to review it -- but in going through it, if we could set a goal of trying to first determine what we can agree upon. Any sections that we can basically tentatively agree to and maybe put a little "T A" or something that'll allow us to subsequently focus then on those provisions or articles that we have some differences -- differences on. And then, finally, we talked a little bit at the last meeting -- I wanted to mention it at the beginning of this meeting -- to make sure we're in accord to be able to feel free to caucus. In other words, to get -- the fire district could get with their attorney and the City could get with Mr. Pritt and the County similarly so that we could try to get this thing hammered out the best we can today. So with those comments, Jim, I refer back to you and -- MR. MUDD: Well, and I think -- and I think you hit that dead on. And I believe there's room around here that we can go into and do that if you need to get some privacy in order to caucus in order to do it. So what I'm going -- what I'm going to ask to happen now is I'm going to ask Mr. Pettit ifhe would be so kind to go through the pages and paragraphs and make sure that everybody is in sync. And we can at least -- I mean, even the wherefores to go, Are we okay here? Are we okay there? Are we okay the next thing. And then get to a point in time where we've got an issue and then keep moving and move this thing along and let's try to come up with some resolution on this thing. Mike. MR. PETTIT: Okay. As far as -- before I start as far as caucuses, we do have one room across the hall, but there's a mediation going on here which I couldn't -- I couldn't have predicted. So we're a little short on rooms, but we might be able to use some empty offices. Page 3 July 6, 2007 So let's -- what about the recitals in paragraph 1 in the agreement? Are there any issue in any of that? MR. SALVATORI: One change on the first whereas. The filing date on the petition was actually June 7th from 6. MR. PETTIT: Okay. June 7th? MR. SALVATORI: Correct. MR. PETTIT: With that change, is everybody in agreement to the whereas in the first paragraph? DR. LEE: So basically we can tentatively agree to that? MR. PRITT: I'm sorry. Where was that? MR. SALVATORI: The very first whereas clause. MR. PETTIT: So we're -- we're good through paragraph 1. I think there are substantial differences in paragraph 2. I hope I captured them accurately. I don't know how you want to -- you want start talking as we go through or do you want to get all the agreed -- things we're agreed on first? MR. MUDD: I don't know. Let's --let's try -- let's not give up the ship. I mean, if it looks like -- DR. LEE: I would suggest we may want to -- just a suggestion. We try to determine what we can agree upon and then go back to what -- what we haven't tentatively agreed to. MR. PETTIT: Well, let's move to page 8, paragraph 3. And the only thing I would comment there is I don't know whether that intended -- the sentence was intentionally left out of the version we received from the City, but we'd like it in there just to identify what the approximate cost and the planned -- any planned expansion would be as to the CPOc. Other than that, is there any change or disagreement about any of it? DR. LEE: Just two -- two items from the City that I have. Under the green where it talks about, According to urban services report, financial impact of expansion of operations by the City caused by the annexation of the CPOC is -- and I would like to insert the word Page 4 July 6, 2007 "estimated." Estimated to be. MR. MUDD: Seventy-three thousand-- DR. LEE: Right. It was estimated. And then the last sentence where it says, The City agrees that should it become necessary -- necessary to specially assess property owners for the expanded operations, in the future of the CPOC, owners shall only be responsible for their pro rated share. And I'd like to insert "at that time." MS. DONALDSON: Can I ask a question on that? DR. LEE: Sure. MS. DONALDSON: So potentially our pro rata share to begin with could be 100 percent? We don't really know what that percentage could be. So we could get -- we could have to pay for the entire station? I'm just wondering what -- I mean, at this time what you're trying to capture. DR. LEE: No. Well, I think -- I'll let the County address why they want to insert that in there, but we're not planning to do a special assessment. But if we did, I think the idea here was to assess property owners equally or fairly based on a pro rated basis. You know, that's -- I mean, we -- I don't think we defined it any further than that, but -- MS. DONALDSON: Because I thought it was at 6 percent which is from the Urban Services Report. Am I wrong? I just want to make sure, but it's -- MR. PETTIT: That's what I understood too. MS. DONALDSON: I mean, if we want to do 6 percent, I'mjust -- I'm uncomfortable at this time. At the time it's expanded, we could be 100 percent because you're looking at it for other annexations in the future, but at that time those annexations haven't occurred so we could end up with 100 percent. DR. LEE: Do you want to put "at this time?" MR. PRITT: I think we -- we discussed this on one or two occasions I think we talked about special assessments. And the law of Page 5 July 6, 2007 special assessments is, one, you cannot overassess private property owners. The government cannot overassess. And, two, the proper -- there must be a fair share -- a fair apportioned share between all the property owners. So all this is saying is what I thought we'd agreed on which was that nobody's going to pay any more than anybody else. MS. DONALDSON: I guess I was fine with the language as it reads. I guess the "at this time" raised my concern because at that time we may be the only property owners that benefit. DR. LEE: I think the reason I inserted that was the concern about that we have a specific number of 73,755 and there was no -- I mean, that's what our estimate was at the time. But, obviously, we all know it -- it can't be pinned down to the exact dollar amount of what it could be. That's why I added in "at that time" under -- by pro rated share. That was -- MR. PETTIT: Well, I think that the reference of pro rata share is actually refers back more to the percentage of the contemplated expanded operations than the dollar figure. Is that how you understood it? MS. DONALDSON: Exactly. Which was the 6 percent. MR. PETTIT: Yeah. I mean, the dollar figure was just to kind of -- it's once you've got an urban services report. But, I mean, the pro rata share of this 112 acres would be that percentage of those contemplated expanded operations, not the dollar per se. MS. DONALDSON: I mean, I'm comfortable with putting, you know, the pro rata share of 6 percent. Because at least I know we're getting 6 percent of the contemplated. But my only concern is at this time, if we're the only property owners benefiting, that's 100 percent. MR. PRITT: I don't think we could agree to do that at this time agree to a flat percentage because that's the way it is today. Whenever you do a special assessment, should we do a special assessment which is kind of unlikely, but should we do a special assessment, then we're Page 6 July 6, 2007 going to be bound at the time of the special assessment to make all those -- to have all of those determinations made. And it's going to depend upon how many other properties there are, who else is being -- it could be 6 percent or it could be 12 percent. It could be 2 percent depending upon who else is being benefited. And -- and I don't think that having an agreement at this time as to a certain percentage would be lawful. MR. POTTEIGIER: Don't you feel if it's benefited to the City -- if you offer a benefit to a nonCity, don't you have to offer that to everyone in the City? THE COURT REPORTER: Could you state your name, please. MR. POTTEIGIER: Oh, Assistant Chief Rod Potteigier, East Naples Fire. MS. DONALDSON: I mean, I think the easiest is I'm more comfortable leaving the language as it is. I -- I agree with Mr. Pritt's statement of the law as it relates to special assessments. DR. LEE: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: I just am concerned that, you know, at this time -- DR. LEE: You said, "at that time." MS. DONALDSON: Or at that time. MR. PRITT: At that time, yeah. MS. DONALDSON: I mean, at that time. MR. PRITT: Which is when it would have to be determined. MS. DONALDSON: I'm just more comfortable -- if that's the law, I'm just more comfortable not putting it in. I mean, it doesn't seem necessary that we need to put "at that time" if -- MR. PRITT: Well -- and I would say that we -- this language has been in there for at least one or two iterations of this. It was here -- I mean, it was here last time. DR. LEE: Yeah. I think that the -- with the green language in there, I just wanted to clarify. That was my only point that I didn't Page 7 July 6, 2007 want anyone to leave the table or certainly have an understanding of this agreement that it's going to be 73,755 and that's the pro rated share. So that's why I was putting some cautionary language in there. MS. DONALDSON: I think the "estimated to be" covers that. DR. LEE: Okay. MR. PRITT: At least the attorneys in the room representing their own -- DR. LEE: Agreed. MR. MUDD: Yeah. So I don't -- MR. PRITT: We're all talking this out. MR. MUDD: I don't mind, is estimated to be. DR. LEE: Yeah. I don't mind that either. MR. MUDD: That's not -- that's not a problem. I think that's good clarifying stuff. And I think "at that time" coming down a couple lines from that, it gets to a point in time where we get into some disagreement. But if you got the law definition, you know, we're governed by Florida statutes. MR. PRITT: Could I ask, Ms. Donaldson, do you guys have special assessments? Do you have any non ad valorem special assessments? MS. DONALDSON: We have the authority, but we do not-- MR. PRITT: No. I mean, do you actually -- have you actually done any of them? You don't have any in place right now? MS. DONALDSON: This district does not, no. MR. PRITT: Okay. All right. MS. DONALDSON: But that may change based on the property tax proposals going on. MR. PRITT: I understand. DR. LEE: So "estimated to be" is in? MR. PRITT: Right. DR. LEE: What about "at that time?" MR. PETTIT: I prefer to leave it as it is. Page 8 July 6, 2007 MS. DONALDSON: I agree. DR. LEE: Bob, do you have any problem leaving it? MR. PRITT: I don't think it hurts anything. I think that -- that's why I was asking for the attorneys in the room to -- DR. LEE: Okay. MR. PRITT: -- to see if it's okay. Because I think that -- and the County. You guys know that. You do some special assessments, I'm sure. If you go under Chapter 170 or whatever you go under, there is a dance that you have to go through that has to have -- these things have to be done, calculated at the time of the special assessment to decide what the special benefit is to the properties and how to apportion it at that time. DR. LEE: So we can tentatively agree on three then? MR. PETTIT: With just the addition of "is estimated to be," yes. DR. LEE: Right. MR. PETTIT: 4, I didn't -- I went through the minutes from last meeting in my notes and I didn't think -- I thought we had that agreed. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. MR. PETTIT: On 4, paragraph 4, I went through the minutes from the last meeting in my notes and I thought we were in agreement on the language in 4 on recycling. DR. LEE: I'll just ask for one clarification. Do you have any problem with that, Mr. Mercer? MR. MERCER: No, none whatsoever. MR. PRITT: Where did you get the minutes from just out of curiosity? MR. PETTIT: Mike Sheffield. MR. SHEFFIELD: I sent a copy to Ann and asked her to distribute to the City. MR. PRITT: What -- what about the transcript? MR. SHEFFIELD: Oh, the transcript is what Mike -- MR. PRITT: That's what I'm referring to. Page 9 July 6, 2007 DR. LEE: The CD. MR. PETTIT: I'm not using minutes in the technical sense. I'm using the transcript. MR. PRITT: Okay. MR. PETTIT: Paragraph 5, I didn't indicate that there was any change there nor in -- if we can agree on 4, we can agree on 5. DR. LEE: I don't have any problem with 5, do you? MR. MUDD: Neither do 1. MR. PETTIT: On 6, paragraph 6, I think we've had this one under agreement for a while now, but -- MR. MUDD: Yeah. MR. PETTIT: -- any last minute concerns? MR. MUDD: Took it forever, but I think we got 6 done. MR. PETTIT: Huh? MR. MUDD: It took us forever, but-- MR. PETTIT: Yeah, we got 6 done. MR. MUDD: -- we got 6 finished. DR. LEE: I don't have any changes. Anyone else? MR. PETTIT: Okay. When we come to 7, there's several areas of issue. I'll just speak for the County. We agree with the Fire District's language and we still are seeking to discuss the rebate. I know I'm unaware of anything that would not make it possible for the City to offer that rebate to us. MR. PRITT: Do you want to talk about the rebate first? MR. MUDD: Let's talk about -- let's talk about what language we can -- we can agree to. MR. PRITT: It must not be the rebate. MR. MUDD: Let us -- not be the rebate. Can you agree to what's in blue? MR. PRITT: I don't see the language of the last sentence in the -- in No.7. MS. DONALDSON: It's the-- Page 10 July 6, 2007 MR. PRITT: (As read): The parties acknowledge that immunity from taxation is created, conditioned and/or abolished by operation of state law, not by local enactment. MR. PETTIT: What's the purpose of that (inaudible)? THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Can you repeat? MR. PETTIT: What's the purpose of that language? MR. PRITT: The purpose of the language is the same as it's always been during our negotiations. I want to make clear that we're not monkeying with the tax laws. We don't have the authority to do that. MR. PETTIT: I don't see anything in this agreement that would purport to do that. So I don't know why you would have this in there. MR. PRITT: I think it's important to have it in there. MS. DONALDSON: The Fire District doesn't -- I mean, I agree that the statute gives -- this is what's exempt. This is what can be exempt. And that's what we're providing for. MR. PRITT: Well, how about we not say anything then? Not to say anything, the immunities are provided by state statute. And if there's an immunity, it's there. If it's not there, it's not there. There's no need to say any of it. MS. DONALDSON: Well, I think on behalf ofthe Fire District, that's a little problematic. It's part of our counter proposal was the waiver of a certain tax which is a discretionary waiver. That -- that's part of the Fire District proposal. So that is a -- that's a discretionary. That's not just set up by statute. The communications tax, we are specifically exempted by statute. The utility tax, it's negotiated between the City and the Fire District. So I couldn't agree to take the whole section out partially because we were requesting to have language that specifically grants us immunity from a tax. MR. PRITT: Well, you're making a statement. (As read): The parties acknowledge that the County, as a property owner in the Page 11 July 6, 2007 CPOC, is immune from and shall not be subject to any utility tax or communications tax levied by the City. References to Florida statute. The Fire District, likewise. All we're doing is referring to Florida statutes. Florida statutes govern. So why are we trying to put things into the agreement that are not there? If you're going to do that, at one point we said, all right. Well, if you're going to put that in there let's put in the language, which is the last sentence that I read a minute ago (as read): That we acknowledge that immunity from taxation is created, conditioned and/or abolished by operation of state law, not by local enactment. We can -- does anybody disagree with that -- with that sentence? MS. DONALDSON: I don't have a problem with the sentence, but I don't want to delete -- because, like I stated, one of the waivers is one that specifically has to be given by the City. It's not done by the statute automatically. MR. MUDD: So let me -- let me try to get it. So what we're basically saying is 7 in blue with the last sentence in red just above it is the paragraph that we're getting close to agree to. Is that what I just heard? MS. DONALDSON: Yes. MR. MUDD: I got a nod. Okay. Now, let's get to the green part. Okay. And, Bob, I've heard your issue on this one. And I understand it and I know where the City's coming from on this one. I also understand the budget issues that we're in. We're willing to pull on the 5.9 percent and -- and let it drop. The -- I will tell you remember this when we're in discussions with the water and sewer service to discount, to be continued or is being continued. Okay. So are we all agreement now in 7? Going once? So we've got -- we've got blue and the last sentence in red. DR. LEE: Go ahead, Bob. I think you wanted to just read. MR. PRITT: No. That's okay. I think Mr. Mudd said it. Page 12 July 6, 2007 DR. LEE: Okay. Then the blue and then that last sentence in red. MR. MUDD: Okay. Michael, back to you. MR. PETTIT: Okay. Now, we go to concurrency. And I just -- I put the entirety of the City's version or rendition on concurrency and the entirety of the County's. And I don't know whether we may want to caucus for a moment with Mr. Feder before we talk about this further. MR. PRITT: Could I suggest, Mike, before we caucus, could we go over any points of -- of disagreement or -- I mean, I would be very interested in hearing from Mr. Feder what's wrong technically with the concurrency that we wrote up or how it's better with what the County wrote up. MR. PETTIT: Well-- MR. PRITT: Then when we -- when we caucus, at least we'll have the benefit of each other's thoughts on that. Because I think this was something that was mainly -- mainly went to the transportation people to talk about. MR. PETTIT: Okay. MR. PRITT: Is that okay? MR. FEDER: Okay. I'll give a shot at it. What I will tell you is that the language here in green for the County and red by the City, I've looked through it. The original was that overall improvements to the intersections would be the responsibility ofthe City. What I think you see in both efforts here is a fair share. The City's dealing with proportionate fair share. We've turned that into just fair share especially if -- and I would ask that you consider on the green eliminating the third to the last line on page 11 the word "proportionate" where it goes before the second fair share. The other thing and I'll go to Dan on that. MR. PRITT: Oh, way down. MR. FEDER: And then also about midway through where it Page 13 July 6, 2007 says (as read): Determined by the County and the City at Horseshoe Drive, comma, Progress -- I would recommend that be Horseshoe Drive, slash, Progress because that's really one facility, two sides of Airport. Basically what I would say is our normal process would be that anything west of Airport and the storage areas on Airport would be the issues that we'd be dealing with initially if this is a new development. Obviously, this is an interlocal with the City. So I'm comfortable with agreeing with those two changes. What I think the major change it makes -- and, Dan, you looked at it probably as long as I did or longer -- so the major changes in them are -- at least with the County -- we're not looking for proportionate, just for fair share. And the reason I'm saying that is we each have our own proportionate fair share by statutory definition. It's a little bit different. The language here is talking about a fair share as determined by the City and the County. And I think that gives us better flexibility than necessarily structuring it to the word proportionate. The other thing that I think that is in ours that's not in the City's is just above that where it says (as read): Should any additional development or redevelopment occur within the CPOC following annexation. And then coordinating review to assess impacts, I think that's the only other language, but I think it's clarifying language as opposed to problematic, but I'd have to hear from the City on that. MR. PRITT: Can we count down the number of lines again? MR. FEDER: Yes. What I was reading was one, two, three, four, five, the sixth line down and the seventh line down and then the wording on the eighth and ninth lines down. MR. MUDD: I believe Mr. Salvatori has got issues with six and seven. MR. SALVA TORI: Right. MR. MUDD: Is that right? MR. SALVA TORI: Right. You're talking about the last line, the Page 14 July 6, 2007 change that Norm just gave to us? MR. MUDD: Well -- well, the slash and the -- and get rid of proportionate fair share down at the third -- third line from the bottom. But I believe on that concurrency issue from I've been -- been -- what I've had discussions with Mike is you had issues with lines six and seven. MR. SALVA TORI: Correct. I think -- MR. MUDD: Four, five, six, seven -- six and seven. MR. PETTIT: In other words, you -- you were making a distinction, I know at the last meeting, between an increase in tensity or density within the development versus just redevelopment or development in accordance with what zoning is there now. MR. SALVATORI: Right. The last change that Mr. Feder brought up, the one where you add the language (as read): Or should any additional development or redevelopment occur within the CPOC following annexation. I read to open the door for assessing the property owner for costs in excess of impact fees. My thought process was if the property is being developed consistent with the then current zoning, they would be paying their impact fees and they shouldn't be -- there shouldn't be a double dip for it. I don't mind if it's a review situation, but I don't think the property owners should be charged for any impact fees in addition to those that he would otherwise pay so long as what is being done is consistent with the then current zoning. MR. FEDER: And the reason we feel the language should be in there is impact fees typically, at least from our process, does not get used on anything but capacity improvement which is interpreted as adding lanes. And our major issue here is the intersections. Now, we're pretty close to the need predominantly on the site that you're annexing to have additional lanes. Right now on Horseshoe Drive, North Horseshoe, there's a growing need for there to be a left turn, a through left and a right. And right now we have -- there is a Page 15 July 6, 2007 left and a through right. You have storage issues already on Airport coming up for northbound onto Enterprise and onto that area. Those are normally things that if this was one development we were dealing with here, we would have required as well as partial improvements over by Livingston. They're intersection improvements. They're not impact fee oriented. In this case what we're saying is as the development comes, it's going to pay a fair share. None of that development is going to, as we calculated, jointly pay for that improvement. But as the development goes and if it stayed in the County, we would be doing the same thing to try and get that money towards intersection improvements. That's not our impact fee that's used for multi-Ianing. MR. SALVA TORI: I understand what you're saying. I understand the uses that you make of your impact fees. But to me it just strikes me as inherently unfair that the last property owner in, for example, has to pay for the costs of that turn bay when what has led up to it is the additional use of it made of that property in the past by the property owners and their ITs and disks. MR. FEDER: Well, that's what we're saying. It isn't the last one in. It's all the development as it occurs. And by keeping this sentence in, you're requiring development as it occurs and then you're also addressing if we should expand intensity or density of development. MR. SALVA TORI: I don't mind the increased density because I think you're right. I think if you're doing something beyond zoning, that's -- they open the door to that possibility. I don't have a problem with that at all. My only concern was if it's consistent with the current zoning, it just struck me is that's -- that's another whack at the apple over and above the impact fees that you'd otherwise be paying. MR. FEDER: And I appreciate that, but unfortunately capacity gets consumed and you don't make the improvement until later. So I understand the (inaudible) doctrine, but the fact of the matter is as development goes, the demand for additional improvements, the Page 16 July 6, 2007 operations are working today; but they're very close and that's all I'm saying there. MR. SALVA TORI: So when you say proportional share, let's say -- I don't know. MR. FEDER: We're saying fair share so I don't have to use proportionate -- (Multiple voices.) MR. SALVATORI: Right. So if I have a one acre parcel that's coming in and that piece of property is roughly 100 acres, what you're basically saying that that property owner would have to pay for 1 percent of the cost of adding, for example, that turn bay? MR. FEDER: I think what you'd look at is the trips generated out of what is likely to be generated for the rest of the development and what their proportionate share based on the trips they generate. MR. SALVA TORI: So trip sharing would be the proportionate share? MR. FEDER: Yes. MR. SALVATORI: I mean, if that's it-- MR. FEDER: And then, again, we'll work with the City, as it says here, be analyzed jointly. So I imagine that would be our approach. MR. SAL VA TORI: Well, maybe we can make it clear on that basis that the proportionate share is determined on the trips generated basis, I don't -- I don't have a problem with that then. That's fine. MR. MUDD: Okay. So towards fair share and then in brackets put trips generated? MR. SALVA TORI: On a trips generated basis. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. PRITT: I'm sorry. Third one from the bottom? MR. MUDD: Third one from the bottom. MR. PRITT: Based upon trips generated. MR. MUDD: Everybody okay there? Page 17 July 6, 2007 (No response.) MR. MUDD: All right. MR. PETTIT: Let's make sure I captured this correctly. In the sentence we're talking about, The City further agrees the needed contributions toward -- we struck -- stricken proportionate fair share. Are we saying -- MR. MUDD: No. You've strucken (sic) the word "proportionate. " MR. PRITT: Right. Right. MR. MUDD: Toward fair share based on trips generated -- MR. PRITT: Okay. And that'll be-- MR. MUDD: -- it shall be made within six months after any post annexation zoning or approval increasing density or intensity or -- MR. FEDER: And any other change would be the slash between MR. MUDD: Slash between Horseshoe Drive and Progress Avenue. MR. PRITT: So we're talking three intersections; is that correct? MR. FEDER: No. Really you're talking two intersections and then, actually, four because of -- as far as Livingston as well as Airport. THE COURT REPORTER: Whoa. Whoa. Please say that agam. MR. FEDER: You're talking about the intersection of North Horseshoe and Progress at Airport, Enterprise at Airport and then Progress at Livingston and Enterprise at Livingston. And as we calculate fair share, I think it's going to get less as you get away from the site. MR. MUDD: Leo and I could still be talking at the same -- we always laugh with her. Okay? Poor court reporter. She normally gets stuck between Norman and 1-- MR. FEDER: Yeah. Page 18 July 6, 2007 MR. MUDD: -- zinging as fast as we can. About that time you want to put her fingers in a bowl of water to make the steam go up. MR. PETTIT: Okay. What did you say, Bob? MR. PRITT: Just going to the middle of the page there when the -- where the locations are identified. MR. FEDER: Uh-huh. MR. PRITT: I think that what Norm just said was not consistent with what I -- MR. FEDER: Okay. What did you say it is? MR. PRITT: Horseshoe Drive, Progress is one. MR. FEDER: Yeah. MR. PRITT: And then Enterprise Avenue-- MR. FEDER: Is two. MR. PRITT: -- at Airport is two. And Enterprise Avenue and Livingston Road is three. MR. FEDER: No. No. Actually, the reading is the City at Horseshoe Drive, slash, Progress Avenue and Enterprise Avenue at both Airport and Livingston Roads. So you've got two intersections. Or you've got two east/west facilities intersecting two north/south facilities creating four intersections. North -- North Horseshoe and Progress are the same east/west. MR. PRITT: Okay. MR. FEDER: And Enterprise is -- MR. PRITT: And this correctly states that as far as you're concerned? MR. FEDER: I think it does. Let me see. The City at Horseshoe Drive, Progress and -- I'd say and at Enterprise Avenue. And at Enterprise Avenue and then take -- then take out the at -- move the at to both at Airport and at -- maybe that helps you. DR. LEE: Okay. Read it again. It still appears to be three. MR. PETTIT: Do it again. MR. FEDER: Okay. City -- County and the City at Horseshoe Page 19 July 6, 2007 Drive, slash, Progress Avenue -- DR. LEE: That's one. MR. FEDER: -- and at Enterprise Avenue both at Airport and Livingston Roads. That may clarify it, doesn't it? DR. LEE: Okay. MR. MERCER: Well, if I may. Dan Mercer. What may make it clearer is to say -- because there's no Horseshoe at Livingston. MR. FEDER: Yeah. MR. MERCER: Is to say at Horseshoe Drive, slash, Progress and Enterprise Avenue at Airport Road and Progress Avenue and Enterprise at Livingston. Would that make it a little more clear maybe? MR. FEDER: That's even clearer. That's even clearer. MR. MERCER: It adds a few more words, but I think it clears it up. MR. FEDER: Do you want to read that for the record? MR. MERCER: I'm sorry. DR. LEE: You say, and Airport at Livingston was the last one? MR. MERCER: Yes. MR. FEDER: Okay. So why don't you read it out loud. MR. MERCER: Okay. I would -- the way it would read would be (as read): And the City at Horseshoe Drive, slash, Progress Avenue and Enterprise Avenue at Airport Road. And then you can probably put a comma there. And Progress Avenue and Enterprise at Livingston Road. Or did I confuse you? MR. PRITT: I'm sorry. I'm still counting three. MR. MUDD: No. What he did -- what he did is he took the two intersections of Horseshoe and Progress -- Horseshoe, Progress and Enterprise, two intersections. And said, okay. We're going to apply those intersections at Airport Road and then we're going to apply those two intersections when they -- when they get to Livingston. Page 20 July 6, 2007 MR. FEDER: And the clarification is Horseshoe Drive is no longer in play. It's Progress solely when it gets to Livingston. That's clear to me. MR. MERCER: What I may ask there, I don't recall ever throwing Livingston Road in there as an issue, the concurrency, at Livingston. MR. FEDER: There always a new original and that's the -- that's the access out of the park is over towards Livingston. And those are the issues I think as we said probably when we collectively look at it. It's going to be less trip generation and demand over there because you'll have a conversion than necessary at the Airport intersection. So I think that'll probably be last, but nonetheless we put it in because that's the major roads. It's straight over to Livingston. MR. MERCER: But it'd be based on a study or something. MR. FEDER: Yeah. It has to be. That's what he said based on (Multiple voices.) MR. MUDD: Based on trips -- trips generated. Okay. MR. FEDER: Based on trips generated. So if you show that they're diverting differently, then you won't get over there. MR. PETTIT: Okay. You need to hand write out the change you just made because there's three people talking and I'm not getting notes. Just hand write it out. MR. FEDER: Just to make sure I have it in mine, And the City at Horseshoe Drive, slash, Progress Avenue and Enterprise Avenue at -- take out both -- at Airport, comma, and Progress Avenue and Enterprise at Livingston Road. And take out the S on road. DR. LEE: Does that work Dan? That was a little different than what you said. MR. FEDER: Isn't that what it is? MR. MERCER: I thought -- I thought that was about what I said. Yeah. I think that'll work. Page 21 July 6, 2007 MR. MUDD: Except for one comma, we've pretty much got it. MR. MERCER: Yeah. MR. PETTIT: Okay. MR. MERCER: The only other question I have is when we talked to Nick a few weeks ago, the County has already collected some -- I guess you call impact fee or money for that intersection. I guess 14,000. And I'm presuming that's going to be earmarked for Horseshoe Drive, that extra lane. MR. FEDER: That'll still be retained. Whatever we pulled into that, I have to if I took it for that purpose. MR. MERCER: Okay. That's good. MR. FEDER: It's not enough to do it. And incrementally, we'll see if we ever get there is what we're saying. MR. MERCER: You don't think that's enough; huh? MR. FEDER: Not unfortunately. I think we're covered, Dan. MR. MUDD: Okay. Now, let's with all of those changes made, can we agree to what's in green under concurrency? MR. MERCER: With the changes. MR. MUDD: Oh, yeah. With the changes. Bob? He's the only Bob I know. He's scratching his ear. When we does that, we're in trouble. MR. PRITT: Yeah. I guess I don't understand the -- Norm, it's not you. It's me. I still don't understand. Everybody's using proportionate fair share which has a meaning in state law. And you're taking out proportionate. And I guess I just don't understand it. I'm not even -- I'm not arguing with your negotiating. I just don't understand why you're not -- MR. FEDER: The only reason I took it out and -- and just trying to be clear here is taking out one on the left and the other. That's why I took it out of the other to be consistent. The reason that we're recommending it out is you have a proportionate fair share ordinance. We have one. They're not exactly the same. So Page 22 July 6, 2007 what we're saying is together we're determining a fair share. And by using the word "proportionate," I don't have to stumble over whether or not I'm using legally my proportionate fair share or you don't have to stumble legally over whether or not you're using your proportionate fair share. And I'm not an attorney here so feel free to -- MR. PRITT: I understand that now okay. MR. MUDD: That's kind of why we got into the based on trips generated -- MR. FEDER: Yes. MR. MUDD: -- is to make sure that we got some more definition to that. MR. FEDER: Of what fair share meant. MR. MUDD: Of what fair share meant so that everybody was-- that didn't -- that isn't lost on anyone. MR. PRITT: Leo, do you feel comfortable? MR. SALVATORI: Yeah. I'm fine with that. MR. PRITT: Okay. With that issue at with the explanation? MR. SAL VA TORI: I'm fine with that. DR. LEE: So we won't need to discuss that further. We can TA? MR. PRITT: I'm okay. MR. PETTIT: Okay. So we're going to use the green with the changes we agreed on? MR. MUDD: Yes. DR. LEE: Correct. MR. PETTIT: 9, first of all, the County agrees just to -- this is the situation about foregoing objections and challenging. The County agrees with sentence 1 of9. The County does not agree with sentence 2, period. MR. PRITT: Okay. Wait a minute. Let me just catch up with you. Okay. MR. PETTIT: The proper thing to do in the event of such a challenge would be determine whether or not the County or City was, Page 23 July 6, 2007 in fact -- not maybe -- was, in fact, acting in concert -- THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. MR. PETTIT: -- and, therefore, in violation of the agreement. THE COURT REPORTER: I can't hear you. MR. PETTIT: Okay. The proper thing to do would be to determine whether the County was, in fact, or the Fire District was, in fact, acting in concert with some agent or employee. And, if so, that would be a violation of the agreement probably subject to the dispute resolution provision. And I'm -- I'm just not going to recommend that we void the whole agreement because someone over whom the County management structure and the City and the Fire District management structure has no control raises some objection. And the way you've got it written here, it's almost presumptive that the -- that they're somehow acting in concert with the County or City. Because basically we spent six months working on this agreement. And that would make it disappear for acts not -- not within our control. I think it can be resolved through the dispute resolution process. MS. DONALDSON: And as I said at the last meeting, the Fire District was fine with sentence 1. We cannot under any circumstances agree to sentence 2 unless we have that notwithstanding language, that no matter what, you know, the District's going to be protected. So it's either under this agreement or if this agreement's terminated the four years is implemented under Part 1 of the statute. So I'm fine with not having the language I put in and just having sentence 1. As I stated the last time, you know, I don't want to be in a position where one of our union employees asked for public records and that's deemed that -- you know, I'm working with them which is something I'm required to do. I just prefer that situation not to be there. So we're fine District-wise agreeing that we're not going to challenge the annexation. That the District itself will not challenge Page 24 July 6, 2007 the annexation. MR. PETTIT: And -- and to follow. And we agree to follow that up that would be a subject for the dispute resolution process ifthere was an alleged breach of that clause. DR. LEE: Ifwe do need to caucus, I would suggest maybe if we go through the entire agreement. If there's this article and one or two others, maybe we can cover them all in caucus. But, I don't know, Bob, if you want to respond at this time or if you -- Bob Pritt -- or if you think we should -- MR. PRITT: Well, I guess one of my questions on this is I think Mike explained it, but I just want to concur. On the second sentence there, it starts with "If any," you had put in green, is acting in concert, which might be acceptable. But then at the bottom it said, County disagrees with the provision and the Fire District's alternative. And then you indicated that you disagree, I guess, with the whole sentence. And I just want to be real clear on that. MR. PETTIT: We disagree with the whole sentence. DR. LEE: Do you want to cover that in a caucus? MR. PRITT: Yeah. DR. LEE: Okay. We'll come back on that one. MR. MUDD: And just -- just to add my two cents to it. You know, I just -- I just had an ex-employee who we just settled a potential lawsuit with. Okay. Just got arrested for doing fire works. And he didn't have the common sense to quit shooting it off when the deputy came. And he got resisting arrest. He had -- he had problems with his heart supposedly. Put him in an EMS ambulance. Wouldn't let anybody work on them because they were County. Got to the -- got to the station and then -- and then proceeds to urinate all over the booking room. And it is public records, but here's where we are now. Do I want to subject -- and he's not -- and when he's in a -- in a more tranquil state, he's a pretty sharp guy. Do I want somebody like that that has some kind of vendetta or whatever, okay, just to sit here Page 25 July 6, 2007 and pick this agreement apart because he wants to come up and just do it for spiteful reasons? And have us have to go sit at another table for six months? I just find that absolutely ludicrous. I got to tell you, I don't want to be -- I don't want this agreement to be subjected to that kind of -- that kind of stuff when you -- when you don't have to. And -- and, you know, I might have -- we might have our bright stars in County government or ex-bright stars, but I know the City's got their ex-bright stars. And God only knows, the Fire District might have some too. And I don't believe we need to go down this road and open -- and open both governments plus the Fire District -- CHIEF MCEVOY: Why would we want to? I mean, it doesn't make sense to even want to. MR. MUDD: Well, we can caucus, but -- but I'm just giving you my two cents in why it causes us some kinds of issues. Okay. And it's -- and it's for that -- it's for that outlier that's out there that they just want to get into a squabble over no good reason, have no real reason to be involved, but all of a sudden it becomes their number one desire in life to do that. And just why -- why do we want to go down that road? MR. PRITT: Let me make a suggestion before we caucus just to think about this. I think that what you're concerned about is the portion of the sentence that says, If any of their agents, employees, unions or. If that were taken out it would read, If any person who -- and then we'll use Mike's language -- is acting in concert with, at the behest of either party shall challenge the annexation, this agreement shall be void. I think that addresses your concern. By the same token, it retains our concern that we're going to have an agreement and then somebody's going to come in and send or act in concert with or -- or at the behest of the agency come in and challenge the annexation anyhow. I think that would be a breach of the agreement. And I think Page 26 " July 6, 2007 that it's very necessary to have the language in there that the agreement would be void to keep that from happening rather than fighting about it later on. So that's -- DR. LEE: So you're saying that remove, Of their agents, employees, unions of any person -- of -- of any? MR. PRITT: Right. It would just say, If any person who is -- DR. LEE: Is. Who is. MR. PRITT: Right. DR. LEE: And remove the other. Would that be something you-all would-- MR. SALVATORI: Can I make a suggestion? It doesn't necessarily impact us directly, but I'm concerned about the void part of it. Maybe it might be better -- I -- frankly, I prefer to have the first sentence like Mike and Laura suggested. But if we need to have a second sentence, rather than making the agreement void which kind of throws us in chaos, why don't we punish the offending party. I'm being a little loose in the language here. But, for example, if the agreement as it now ends up provides that East Naples gets an additional six months of income. They lose it. The County could lose their ability to get the recycling. Something along those lines. Some benefit that's left on the table that can be taken away from them so it's an economic benefit without voiding the agreement. So it's a little less draconian in terms of its impact to the people. I'm not sure how you-all would feel about it, but that's something that's --I'm sorry. My strong preference though, frankly, would be to have just the first sentence. MS. DONALDSON: I can tell you from the District's standpoint, I mean, we've been coming. You know, we've spent money to try to get an agreement. The District is not going to try to challenge this. I mean, because the District is in a little bit different position because we have protections under two different parts of the statute. We have no agreement, we're still protected under Part 1. I just don't find it Page 27 July 6,2007 necessary. And I'm still concerned that acting in concert with is -- I don't know what that means. Does it mean if we meet with someone who's going to challenge it, does that mean we're acting in concert with? MR. PRITT: Well, acting in concert has a specific legal meaning that's pretty well known and very well litigated. MR. PETTIT: See, I don't understand what you're gaining here because I think that if you believe that such an event is occurring and subject to the dispute resolution procedure, which means you have to go all the way through that to get to your remedy of voiding this anyway. So why not just have the dispute resolution procedure which deals with alleged disputes and breaches. THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. You're fading. Which deals with -- MR. PETTIT: Which deals with alleged breaches. I mean, it's No. 12 which I've got some concerns about also. We'll talk about those when we get there. MR. PRITT: I understand your point. I just don't agree with you. We can talk about it. DR. LEE: Okay. Why don't we include that in our caucus then? MR. MUDD: I'll circle that on mine. DR. LEE: Go with 10. MR. MUDD: So nine's still -- still out for discussion. And we haven't done 2. So I got two paragraphs to do on the to-do list. DR. LEE: 10, 11, 12. MR. MUDD: We're on 10. Everybody agree to 10? (No response.) MR. MUDD: Hearing no objection, we go to 11. I guess I've been hanging around with lawyers too long. DR. LEE: I won't hold that against you. MS. DONALDSON: I was going to say, we're not that fast. MR. MUDD: Anything on II? Page 28 r'---" July 6, 2007 (No response.) MR. MUDD: Hearing no objection, we move to 12. And if only we could be so lucky. MR. PETTIT: Well, we can't. On 12, I did some -- I studied the statute. And, obviously, there's no case law on it. I didn't look to see ifthere was any AGOs, but I doubt ifthere are. MR. PRITT: Which statute are you talking about? MR. PETTIT: Part 2 of the annexation statute. At -- at section __ let's see the top here. At the end of Part 2, it looks like Section 171 and 171.203, I think. Now, you go to Subsection 13. See if that's the right section. Look and see. MS. DONALDSON: Is it the 212? MR. PETTIT: I'm looking for the dispute. Oh, yeah, 212. That's right. 171.212, it says, A local government shall initiate procedure __ the conflict resolution procedures established in Chapter 164. When you go back to 164, 164 does have a section that talks about the possibility of having an alternative dispute resolution procedure required by general law or agreed to by contract, interlocal agreement or other written instrument. I think when I read the two statutes together, the plain import of this annexation statute in Part 2 is that you follow 164 procedures. That it's not -- it's not dealing with a contract that preexists 164 if you will. It's saying that's the procedure you follow. So I'm not sure that you legally can have a different alternative dispute resolution procedure than Chapter 164. MR. PRITT: Maybe I'm missing something, Mike, but when you read 164 it said or provided by agreement -- interlocal agreement. MR. PRITT: I'm -- I'm open to the fact that it's not clear. But in this case general law -- a different general law is saying you follow the procedures of 164. It's not talking about a contract. It says you follow the 164 procedures. And the 164 procedures are pretty well defined. They're not another ADR method. So just I raise that issue. I'm Page 29 ~~_.-. July 6, 2007 not saying it's clear, but there's that issue. Secondly, I don't think we would be prepared in any event to -- to follow the ADR procedure you put in paragraph 2. MS. DONALDSON: And on behalf of the Fire District, my language, we've actually deleted that paragraph. MR. PETTIT: Okay. That -- that helps because __ MS. DONALDSON: The paragraph A in the Fire District. MR. PETTIT: The paragraph 2 would be City's paragraph 2 where you put in an ADR procedure involving going to the chief judge, et cetera, et cetera. MR. PRITT: I've done it. It has worked. It's a good procedure. I know this is repetitious because we've talked about this in our negotiation before, but the thought behind this is not as nefarious as you might think. It's just simply an attempt to try to get the parties to do something pre-164. And I'm not trying to cut out 164. It's to try to get us -- we agreed to get together sooner than we go to the implementation of a 164 procedures. It's a little bit like a -- in code enforcement you have notices of violation. A lot of times you have -- a lot of places have courtesy notices or warning notices and so on. Those have no legal effect as far as code enforcement's concerned because they're prenotice of violation. But the thought here was that we had 162 -- or 164. It's available. We're going to go to 164 if we have to; but ifthere's some kind of dispute, why can't we get the thing resolved quickly by sitting down and that would be the agreement. Sit down and see if we can __ and if we can't do it, let's see if we can get something -- get the judge to -- on No.2 see if we can get the judge to come in and get us somebody to help us mediate right away. The idea was to try to save money and time. MS. DONALDSON: Can I ask a question on that though? It seems like if we go to the judge and if that doesn't work, we have to do mandatory arbitration. Page 30 t'~-- July 6, 2007 MR. PRITT: That's my -- MS. DONALDSON: Under the Florida Arbitration Code, if we go through mandatory arbitration, then how do we go to Chapter 164? It's already been decided. MR. PRITT: I was referring to this last one. I'm sorry. MS. DONALDSON: I mean, ifI cut out Section 2-G because I don't think it's necessary based on my counter proposal, that's why that's deleted. But I think Mike's point is if the statute says we go to 164, we go to 164. And he's uncomfortable, correct me ifI'm wrong, agreeing to another process that exempts us completely out of going to 164. MR. PETTIT: I -- I mean, I'm willing to entertain if you're talking about having a mediation with a mediator that the parties jointly select where we're not going to be bound by a resolve or have somebody play Solomon and say, You win. You lose. I'd be willing to entertain having something like that in there as a prelude to initiation of 164 because it may help us head off 164. And I'm not -- still not crystal clear that Chapter 164 as read in concert with this one works that way; but since it's an open book, I'm willing to take a little freer approach, but I -- my issue is the mandatory arbitration. MS. DONALDSON: And I think the District would be fine with the mediation as a -- if it wasn't settled after mediation, then go to Chapter 164. MR. PRITT: How are you going to get your mediator? MS. DONALDSON: Well, I think -- I mean, it would have-- MR. MCEVOY: It would be like a grievance. MR. PRITT: Well, and then it goes on for months. MR. PETTIT: Well, it depends. I mean, I pick mediators all the time in civil litigation. And it usually takes about ten minutes to find one we can both agree on. MR. PRITT: Yeah. Like it's taken us ten minutes to come to an Page 31 f'---'--. July 6, 2007 agreement on this. I don't think so. MR. PETTIT: Freer negotiating, I guess, Bob. MR. PRITT: I think that's -- I think that's going to happen. That's why the thought was to have the chief judge just -- just go to chief judge and the chief judge will provide a mediator. They have mediation service that the chief judge is in charge of. MS. DONALDSON: Well, I think what Mike was saying, he might be okay with that first part of that 2-G, but then you have it -- if there's no resolution of that, we go to mandatory arbitration. MR. PETTIT: Which basically short circuits 164. I mean, once you've got a mandatory arbitration -- MR. MUDD: So what -- what -- let me just make sure I'm kind of getting the drift. You're basically saying you go to chief judge. The chief judge has got a mediation service. And the chief judge gets the mediator picked and we get after it? MR. PRITT: Right. MR. MUDD: I don't think anybody so far what I've heard disagrees with that at all. Okay? I believe what I've heard is it's the next step when you have to go to arbitration. And -- and arbitration basically supersedes 164. And 164 is called for based in the Florida statutes. And that's what Michael is -- is uncomfortable with. Because he doesn't believe that we can -- we can supersede that. MR. PETTIT: And my experience is that if you do mediate, you've got a competent mediator, most of the time you get it resolved with the mediation. MR. MUDD: Mike, let me ask a question just for the novice. Okay. Because I don't do 164s. Is 164 what we did with the Southwest Florida Water Management District? MR. PETTIT: Yup. MR. MUDD: Okay. I got to tell you, at mediation it's going to be a whole different story. Okay. Because if you have to put both boards together and have them duke it out in order to come up with an Page 32 r'---",-- July 6, 2007 agreement, you're going to get that done in mediation. It's got to be the most brutal thing you can possibly get. And you will meet in 164, but it will be -- it will be an agreement session. It will not be a disagreement session. And that's what you and I get paid for. Okay. And the chief gets paid for to make sure that they get it resolved. I think it gets it done, Bob. I don't think you get out of the 164. But then in that juncture, it's a good news item for our boards. MR. PETTIT: But I think -- I think Jim stated it pretty well. I mean, I'm not going to object to having a mediation procedure. If you think the chief judge is the person to do that, fine. I've never found that we need -- I need a tie breaker to pick a mediator, but I can't -- I don't think I can agree to recommend that we sign off on an arbitration procedure because I'm not sure the statutes allow it; but even if they do, that's not the way we want to go. MR. FEDER: From what you're saying nonbinding. MR. PETTIT: Just a mediation. DR. LEE: Bob, so we can move on, do you want to include that in with Item No.9 for our discussion during caucus? MR. PRITT: Yeah. We'll talk about it. DR. LEE: Why don't we do that. So there will be 9 and 10 we'll caucus on. MR. FEDER: 2, 9 and 12. MR. PETTIT: 2, 9 and 12. DR. LEE: Well, 2 we can get back -- and get some clarification for m3. Ifwe -- at least 9 and 12 for that now and come back and we'll caucus. MR. PETTIT: I'm assuming there's no concern about paragraphs 13 and 14? DR. LEE: Nope. MR. MUDD: Hearing none, go to 15. MR. PETTIT: And 15 is kind of tied back. I mean, that's really not -- and the County really -- I think we greed early on for five years. Page 33 r~--'-' July 6, 2007 And I think we even agree to the renegotiation language. I think the blue language is Laura's language and it ties back to paragraph __ whichever paragraph 2 we're going to use. MS. DONALDSON: Right. I mean, the concern is we can't have the agreement expiring if paragraph 2 is still ongoing. So that's why I think we kind of made a comment or the expiration provided for in Section 2. I know that one of the comments was, well, maybe we can have certain paragraphs expire in five years and then certain paragraphs expire. Looking at it, I just think it would be confusing. DR. LEE: I agree. MR. SAL VA TORI: I don't have a problem with the language. The only thing I was going to suggest and throw out is that the renegotiations probably would only need to be between the City and the County at that point because you will revolve out over the course of time. I think that's why you picked that later -- the later language in there. MS. DONALDSON: You know, I -- I would just have to say you just never know what's going to happen five years from now. I mean the-- , MR. SALVATORI: So let them invite you in if -- if that's what they want to do. But if you are revolving out, then I would suggest that the negotiations should really only be between the City and the County at that point in time. They can always invite you in, of course, if they wanted to. MS. DONALDSON: So what would --like, if they want to continue the concurrency section beyond five years? MR. SAL VA TORI: They could do that. But that would not be an East Naples issue. MS. DONALDSON: I agree. But if the -- I mean, if we're a party to the contract, we're a party to the contract. I guess if you're going to come up with a new contract -- MR. SAL VA TORI: Ifthere's an extension of the contract Page 34 r~~'-'-',----__ July 6, 2007 beyond -- beyond the later of these two dates by those -- by either one of those dates, you will have revolved out of the agreement literally. You will have fully performed under either one of our respective proposals. If it's an extension, an amendment -- excuse me. If it's a renewal of the agreement or an extension of the agreement beyond the term of East Naples involvement in this, I would think that the only parties that would be involved in that renegotiation process could be the City, County and property owner. MS. DONALDSON: I agree. I would just like the caveat of language that says, Unless fire services are an issue, then we are a party to the renegotiation. Because we don't know five years from now, the City may not want to take it over five years from now. MR. SAL VA TORI: And I don't have a problem with that. MS. DONALDSON: I mean, 1-- MR. PRITT: Well, why don't we just say, Renegotiation among the parties remaining at interest. MR. SALVATORI: Yeah, something like that would be fine. MS. DONALDSON: I think we would all be in interest with 18 months outstanding. I think it's the -- the parties that are relevant to the sections that are being discussed for an extension. I mean, I don't know -- but I understand. But I don't want to just be in a position where -- MR. SAL VA TORI: I understand what you're saying. You guys are saying the same thing. MS. DONALDSON: -- to deal with fire services and we need to be required to be at the table. MR. PRITT: Well, renegotiation between parties affected at that time. MS. DONALDSON: That's fine. MR. SALVATORI: That will be fine. MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. I mean, we don't want to be back at the table and you're talking about concurrency and sewer and water. Page 35 I'~-'----" "'--.."-._-"... July 6, 2007 MR. SAL VA TORI: Right. That's what I was thinking, yeah. DR. LEE: So -- so the language that's been added is, Renegotiation between parties affected at that time? MR. PRITT: Yes, shall commence. DR. LEE: How about the rest of the -- MR. PRITT: The -- I want to talk -- I want to caucus on the first sentence here. I think that, Laura, correct me if I'm wrong, I think that might relate -- the language of that might relate to what we do to the agreement. MS. DONALDSON: Correct. MR. PRITT: I think you said that -- I just want to make sure we both agree. So that may be contingent upon what we wind up doing with No.2. MS. DONALDSON: If it's less than five years then. MR. PETTIT: And let me add one other thing. Go back to page 1 where we talk about this interlocal boundary -- service boundary agreement is entered into and we've got a date. Let's strike that date line and I'll tell you why. I think the lawyers are going to have to figure out an appropriate way to word the effective date of the agreement and we can put that in paragraph 16. But I'm just thinking. This is a mechanical issue. And the County -- what happens is the board acts on an agreement and then you scratch in the -- in pen the date that the board acted. But since we're going to be multiple boards acting on this agreement, I think we need some language in the body of the agreement just telling us what the effective date is. If that makes sense to you and Bob. MS. DONALDSON: Like the last government approval. MR. PETTIT: Yeah, the last approving body or whatever. Because the likelihood is these -- this agreement's not going to get __ it's going to go serially among the parties with that respect. MR. PRITT: I agree. MR. PETTIT: So let's do that in the final iteration. Page 36 r-~--'- July 6, 2007 MR. MUDD: Okay. We all agree to that? (Indicating. ) MR. MUDD: Okay. Anybody -- anybody have problems with the signature blocks? If we get this done quick enough, they'll stay the same. Okay? DR. LEE: You going to add language in 16 before you move the signature. Are you going to add some kind of language about the effective date? MR. PETTIT: Right. We can talk about that today or probably -- it's probably something we can agree quickly. MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. I don't think that's going to be a controversial -- DR. LEE: The only question I have on the signature block is I see -- I see some names that are listed here that could change. MR. MUDD: That's what I was getting at. Ifwe -- if move this right along, we could get through this. All right. MS. DONALDSON: Didn't they tell you not to make pregnant women laugh? MR. MUDD: It's okay. DR. LEE: All right. We have EMS and all right here. MR. PRITT: Why don't we just say on 16, the last -- the last to be executed, the last signature or the last signature because it's not going to be effective until it's approved by all three boards and passed around to all three boards. We do that all the time with interlocals. MS. DONALDSON: I think that's fine. I just think we need to then put a date under each of the signatures so we actually know which one is the -- because the signature block is just signatures. MR. MUDD: Well, I'm okay -- I'm okay with -- see, you got it dated for Dwight Brock as the Deputy Clerk to attest. You got Tara Norman dated, but I don't have it dated for Tom Cannon. Ifhe's the last one out, we don't have a date for him. MR. PETTIT: Why don't I just put date in there underneath his Page 37 July 6, 2007 name. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. PETTIT: And a line. And this agreement shall become effective on the date of -- give me the language, Bob, on the date is __ MR. PRITT: Of the signature of the last -- of the last-- MR. PETTIT: Last executing party? Effective on the date of the signature of the last executing party. I'll say signed, executed and signed. Okay. MR. PETTIT: Did you want to talk about your paragraph 2s now or -- DR. LEE: I think it might be helpful to talk about paragraph 2 before we go into caucus and then we'll just address paragraph 2, 9, 12, a section of 15. That's what I have, I think. MS. DONALDSON: I have 2,9, 12 and 15 potentially. DR. LEE: Right. So if we can, I guess, move to 2. MR. PRITT: Why don't I yield to Ms. Donaldson. At the last meeting you had a copy of the proposal that we had made, indicated that you didn't have enough time to take a look at it, respond to it. Since that time, I presume you took a look at it because you did respond to it. And maybe you can explain how far off we are on things from your point of view because there might be some things that we're pretty close on. I don't know. MS. DONALDSON: The -- well, I mean, I think that the biggest issue out there between -- out of all of the issues, my perception, is the permitting inspections and the length of term and what service provider stands for. I think some of the issues, you know, the -- for example, there's no transfer of equipment and personnel to the City. You know, I think there's some -- some nonissues. But I will go through what we've done. The term basically -- the statute right now goes through October 1,2012. That's if the annexation occurs this year and the City elects to assume services. So that's just existing law where the service provider Page 38 r~-___.___,__.__._._ July 6, 2007 starting October 1. Well, it's now. And then October 1 of next year, our boundaries change. So what we did was basically I -- I tried to cut it in the middle. Although, I'm sure you guys it won't be seen that way. We extended it by another year to 2013. And we gave the permanent inspection to the City after 2010. So it's not an immediate which is what the proposal that was given to us. It was after -- we're the service provider till 2010. And then for permitting and inspection and then the City would take over permitting and inspection from 2010 to 2013. Another big issue is the reduction of ad valorem revenues. It's a fee base. It's not based on ad valorem. So I think for us to say we're going to reduce our ad valorem payments that are required by the statute for you once you take over the inspection and permitting, inspections and permitting pay for themselves. At least that's how the District does it. MR. PRITT: Which -- which one are you reading from? MS. DONALDSON: Oh, I can go through each section. I'm sorry . MR. PRITT: Oh, okay. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. The term (a) it goes October 1, 2013, and that's only if the City elects to do it this year. Obviously, I had to take into -- I believe that the City will annex it this year, but I had to take into account that, let's say, we -- the City decides not to annex it this year. There's got to be some consideration of pushing it back. The plan examinations, the District does the plan review, approval inspections from the annexation till September 30,2010. And then 2010 on the City reviews all the applications. I put in there that the District continues to review the applications. It currently has because it -- I mean, we could be right about to issue a permit and then we're going to have to turn it over to the City. It just didn't make sense to have that. Page 39 "."--.---.-----..,. July 6, 2007 So basically any permit applications or inspections beforehand, we continue under the District. MR. MCEVOY: Ms. Donaldson -- this is Jim McEvoy, City of Naples Fire. And I just have to ask one question. Is it the District that's doing that inspection and the fee collection now or is it the Collier County Fire Code official? I'm a little bit confused on this. MR. BIONDO: What are you confused on, Jim? Nick -- Nick Biondo, Deputy Chief East Naples Fire Department in charge of fire prevention. MR. MCEVOY: Explain the relationship between the District and the Collier County Fire Code official's office. MR. BIONDO: What -- the definition of the whole beginning of the process? MR. MCEVOY: Well, I don't need the history of it. MR. BIONDO: I'm just -- just trying to clarify. MR. MCEVOY: My -- my understanding is that it's the Collier County Fire Code official's office who collects the fees and does all the approvals, not necessarily East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District. MR. BIONDO: They collect the fees for permitting fees. They collect our -- our inspection fees also. We do all the inspections. Plans get submitted to the building department at the County. Ed Riley's office is at that building department on Horseshoe Drive. Plans go in. They approve the plans. They will put a fee amount on there for their -- for their review fee. And then they would put an inspection fee on there too, that amount. As plans get kicked to us, we also look at them. Our guys get familiar with what's coming into the District. And then they go out and do the inspections. MR. MCEVOY: Who issues the C.O.? MR. BIONDO: We do. MR. MCEVOY: The District? MR. BIONDO: Correct. Page 40 July 6, 2007 MR. MCEVOY: Not the fire commissioner in anyway? MR. BIONDO: No, sir. They don't do any of the inspections. MR. POTTEIGIER: The only thing the fire code does is approve the -- MR. BIONDO: Site plan? MR. POTTEIGIER: Site plans and the plans. MR. BIONDO: And the building permits. MR. POTTEIGIER: It's part of the permitting. MR. MCEVOY: They review the fire protection systems and approve them or disapprove them? MR. POTTEIGIER: Correct. MR. MCEVOY: And then they don't go on-site to do those inspections? MR. BIONDO: Not unless they're requested or if there's a conflict or there's a clarification that needs to be made in the field. We may call them and find out. MR. MCEVOY: They collect the fees? MR. BIONDO: They collect the fees for us, that's correct. They collect the fees for five districts. MS. DONALDSON: Same thing with impact fees. The County collects -- we have an interlocal agreement with the County to collect the fees. And then it's distributed to the special district's. MR. MCEVOY: Thank you. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. And so then it goes to -- obviously, after the transition date, which is the October 1,2010, the City -- the City's code applies. Their fees apply. We put -- because we don't really know how much and it was so open ended in the City proposal that the District is willing to provide a plan reviewer to brief the City planner for 20 hours, no charge. Just we'll sit down and go through what we have. It may -- you know, it may not even be 20 hours. We don't really know in 2010 what the load would be. I also put in language that after the transition date, the City will Page 41 July 6, 2007 provide copies to the District of all approved permits. That goes back to the safety issue. We still have the safety issue after that; but in trying to reach a compromise, that's why we didn't have us doing the permitting inspections all the way through 2012. We shortened it to 2010. The District boundary contraction, that deals with premium tax issue. We felt, once again, I think this is going to be resolved legislatively. But, once again, if we're providing the service, the fire protection services, those premium tax revenues are supposed to be going to the entity that's on the main -- on the ground needing fire protection. And I also put language here that we're specifically prohibited from levying ad valorem and non ad valorem. We can't directly do it. That's something that the City has to do and then we get reimbursed. DR. LEE: The only question I had on it, if the boundaries are not contracted, how are we legally able to collect those taxes? Are we -- and that's a legal question. I don't know. MS. DONALDSON: We have overlapping boundaries. It happens all the time. There -- there is, for example, Bonita Springs. Their Fire District and the City are within the same boundaries. I don't think -- and what -- what we've done is basically to avoid a double taxation issue, we're saying we don't collect the ad valorem and non ad valorem, but we still have that compensation that -- under the statute that -- DR. LEE: Sure. I understand that part. MS. DONALDSON: -- the City pays us. So I -- we wouldn't be -- I mean, they're in the City. They're both in the City and the special district. And that is all across -- I mean, there's a lot of places where special district's boundaries and the City's boundaries overlap. MR. PRITT: Yes, but that is where the City has not elected to be the provider. DR. LEE: Right. Page 42 July 6, 2007 MR. PRITT: Bonita Springs, I live there so I know. MS. DONALDSON: Right. MR. PRITT: And we pay tremendous ad valorem taxes to the fire control district. And they run the district, not the City. The City's not involved in that at all. MS. DONALDSON: I agree. This is different than what Part 1 states, but I thought we were trying to come up with something a little bit different. I got stuck with Part 1. We're permitting inspections till 2012. So I -- you know, I agree. Part 1 has our boundaries changing October 1 the year following the City electing to provide services. I agree that's what the law says, but the interlocal agreement process as we've stated on several occasions allows us to make changes to that. MR. POTTEIGIER: Can you put a sunset -- MR. PRITT: It's actually two different concepts we're talking about in C. MS. DONALDSON: Correct. MR. PRITT: Right? Because I didn't understand that until you explained it. This is a premium tax issue. As a matter fact, I was wondering where the premium tax issue was and -- or whether or not it was in here. So, I mean, it would not hurt if -- if -- if we had C being the first sentence and then D or something being a different paragraph. MS. DONALDSON: Not at all. And Chapter 175 states the language that says, If you have a City in a special district providing fire services, having overlapping boundaries, whoever is the provider is the one who receives the premium tax revenues. Which is why I didn't even go into the reference to Chapter 175. Because the statute already provides for that as long as the boundaries don't change. The employees, I left your language in. We don't think there's going to be any employees displaced. I left it in since it wasn't an issue for us. I also left the equipment language in with the clarification that it Page 43 ,._____'o__.__.~"__~_.~______._..,....._..._..__. July 6, 2007 has to be deemed surplus by the Fire District. Your language, it was unclear who deemed it to be surplus. So if we deem we have equipment that's surplus, the City has the ability to buy it at the current market value or fair value. The payment by the City, it's -- it's basically what happens now. Although, I put out -- and this was language I actually had to negotiate with the League of Cities during session that the payments are required to be made by March 31 st, but that the City doesn't have to pay for taxes that they haven't received. Because that was one of the issues. And so we put a provision in that basically the City wouldn't have to pay if they haven't received it. Right now I can tell you what has happened because we've had -- I think we've received three checks from the City for three different annexations, both East Naples and North Naples. I sent a letter to Ann Marie. Actually, Ann Marie McCardy sent me a letter -- or an e-mail saying, Hey, we sent a letter saying this is how much we're owed. This is our millage rate. Here's a copy of our resolution. This is the assessed value by the Property Appraiser's Office and we got a check. So that's -- basically lays that out. It doesn't put the City in the position of paying us if they haven't received the money. I mean, you can pay us if you haven't received the money, but trying to be considerate, but that you're not paying. The user charges and impact fees, just clarification that we still get to charge user fees and impact fees. The statute has that currently. MR. PRITT: Well, I'm sorry. Before you get there. That last sentence -- MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. MR. PRITT: -- explain to me what you think we're supposed to do. MS. DONALDSON: Well, I was trying to come up with an issue of what happens if the property owner doesn't pay the City who has charged the taxes, levied the taxes. The District can't sue the property Page 44 July 6, 2007 owner because we don't have the authority to levy taxes on that property owner. And so there needs to be some mechanism where the City is going to pursue those funds even though they know they're not going to get it. Because if not, then we need to continue to be able to levy ad valorem because that's the only way we've got the protection to go after a property owner who hasn't paid. I mean, there might be a better way -- DR. LEE: Doesn't the County currently do that, tax collector, isn't that how that's done? MR. PRITT: Well, yes. That's what I was getting at. I don't think the City -- now you said revenues. As far as ad valorem taxes, the City does not get involved in the collection ofthose. There's a statutory process. And I wouldn't want to agree to anything more than the statutory process that applies, I guess, for all taxes including your taxes. MS. DONALDSON: That's fine. MR. PRITT: That's through the tax collector's office through delinquent tax notices in April and the tax sales and so on in May. We actually don't go off and collect ad valorem taxes ourselves. MS. DONALDSON: That's fine. I just wanted to make sure that we weren't lost. So if we don't have the ability to do anything because we're not the one who's levying the tax. But, I mean, we could just put all statutory prescribed actions shall occur. I mean, that's what I was just trying to get at. MR. PRITT: What about your transportation issues? I see Norm stopped here for a second. MS. DONALDSON: My transportation issues? MR. MUDD: He's just getting up. MS. DONALDSON: I was just thinking, you know __ MR. PRITT: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: -- but that's where that came from, the user charges and impact fees. It's just basically what the statement -- what Page 45 1'--'" July 6, 2007 the statute allows. Going back up to F, I did put in non ad valorem assessments. I think the mini local governments are going to be shifting to non ad valorem assessments. So I just wanted to make it clear it is in the statute that the City would pay for both -- the non -- the revenues that have been lost for non ad valorem and ad valorem. Because right now it's pretty easy. It's just ad valorem, but that could change in Year 2. MR. PRITT: I'm trying to hold my tongue, but it's not easy. The problem with this -- I just raise this for your consideration -- how do we know that next year you're not going to put in a gigantic ad valorem, non ad valorem assessment? Property taxes we kind of know, but -- and I understand this is a new -- a new day, a new age. But how would we ever be able to get a handle on this? And I'm trying to figure out whether that makes any difference, but that seems to be a blank check type of situation. MS. DONALDSON: I sympathize with you. But going back to what the statute says, it's lost ad valorem and non ad valorem and there is a chance we might do non ad valorem and the City's going to have to pay us for those fees. I can't tell you what -- it may not happen. Currently we have to get a referendum approval by our residents to do non ad valorem assessment. We don't know if we get that approval. But it's an option. And I know that we can't give it out, because it is going to be a trend. But I guess that's something you guys have to discuss. Because it is -- just like we don't know what the assessment might be for the fire station expansion. I mean, we don't know what a fire assessment fee might be that we end up levying in the future. And then H. H deals with the issues. If -- if you don't annex this year, all the dates get bumped back. Let's say you annex next year under the -- you know, it's a year following the annexation is when the four-year period starts. So everything gets bumped back. And that's just to provide some protection that we don't go through this and then Page 46 ~-_.~ July 6, 2007 a year or two and then we've lost a year or two. So that -- that was what that language was trying to get at. MR. PRITT: So that would be pretty easy for somebody acting in concert or not acting in concert to challenge the annexation, challenge it on appeal and keep it going for three of four years in the court of appeals and -- and keep bumping those dates back. MS. DONALDSON: You know what, you're much more mischievous than I, because I had not even thought about that, but I guess you're right. If someone does challenge it, it would continuously bump. My concern was, you know, we agree to something and we agree to something now and it has set dates and then you don't annex the property until next year. And then we've lost. You know, one of the things that we've negotiated which is an extra year of services in order for the City to take up permitting inspections two years earlier. And so that's what I was trying to think of. Not the negative of suing and trying to have this annexation go on forever. MR. PRITT: Well, one way that we could help have that not happen would be if that weren't in there. MS. DONALDSON: If that language wasn't in there? MR. PRITT: Uh-huh. MS. DONALDSON: My -- you know, I mean, I'd have to talk to my client. But my concern is I don't want -- we giving permanent inspections up earlier -- two years earlier and then in return gave us a year as an additional service provider. And I don't want to if the City decides to wait until January -- the City could wait until January and then not have an extra year of us being the service provider. I mean, I guess you could look at it both ways. We could extend it out forever, but the City could take away a year that we've just negotiated because -- but I know that in talking -- DR. LEE: Just for the sake of our deliberation. If -- if we limited it to a year; in other words, if we said that should it go beyond Page 47 July 6, 2007 December 31 st, that extension goes for one year. I'm not saying that we would agree to that. I'm just trying to put some finite number there. MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. I mean, I think that would be -- if we came up with something that basically said it doesn't go on three years; but if the annexation occurs next year, not this year, then all the dates get pushed back by a year. Rather than having to open end two, three, four, five, six years and then we're the service provider until 2025. Because that was not the intention. We just didn't want to lose a year that we're trying to negotiate to gain. DR. LEE: Bob, is there any other questions before we caucus or do you have any other questions of us? MR. PRITT: Yes, let me go back. Maybe this was explained by Deputy Chief Biondo, but -- and maybe this was explained before. I apologize. I can't get it set in my mind. It was my understanding that there is one person who has been hired by several of the districts to do the plans review or a private party that does it -- I can't remember his name -- but for several districts. MR. BIONDO: Can I clarify? MR. PRITT: Yeah. I'm trying -- I'd like to understand that and I wrote -- and I'll tell you why. I don't think you were here at the last meeting. MR. BIONDO: No, sir. MR. PRITT: At the last meeting when I had written the red part, it was -- the thought in mind was it was coordinating with this person who does this for all of the districts and it wouldn't take that long to get that done. I honestly thought that that's how it was done and that you-all weren't doing your own plan review by fire fighters or by people who work for the District. So clarify that. MR. BIONDO: Sure. Let me start out in Florida State Statute 633 gives the authority to the chief of the District to go ahead and see who he -- or who he sees fit to do his planning review and inspections. Page 48 I-~.' July 6, 2007 He delegates that authority. He's delegated that authority to his fire prevention deputy chief, which is myself, for the inspections. He-- my chief, the chief at North Naples, the chief at Golden Gate, the chief of Immokalee and the chief of Big Corkscrew have also given that authority to a person that the districts have hired to do our plan review for us, Ed Riley. He's fire code official. He has multiple people working in his office and doing plan review for the five special independent districts. And that's -- that's pretty much it. MR. PRITT: So he and the people that he works with do the plan review for the districts as opposed to having somebody __ MR. BIONDO: In our office do it. MR. POTTEIGIER: That's just for new construction. MR. PRITT: Right. DR. LEE: To further clarify. You're saying that the -- all the inspections are done by your district? MR. BIONDO: Yes, sir. MR. PRITT: But you-all do the inspections? MR. BIONDO: Yes, sir. All the districts. All the districts do their own inspections. DR. LEE: Permit fees not only pay for the plan review but also pay for the inspections obviously. MR. BIONDO: The -- the permit fees paid for his office, but he -- what -- for him to generate revenue to be able to keep that office afloat, be able to hire people and provide a service to the community, his revenue is generated from his inspection, by his plan review fees, our inspection fees. DR. LEE: So the County with this office collects both plan review and inspection fees? MR. BIONDO: Correct. Yes, sir. MR. PRITT: But you set -- but the District sets the fee, right, the amount of the fee? MS. DONALDSON: Yes. Page 49 rr-----...- July 6, 2007 MR. PRITT: By your own -- MR. POTTEIGIER: By accounting and it's got to go through all the -- MR. BIONDO: Right. And we stay standard -- pretty standard with the same as the building department, the fees with the building department are very similar. I think there's even -- isn't there an ordinance in place, a fee ordinance in place? MS. DONALDSON: I think what he was asking, though, is the District itself, we set our own inspection fees. MR. POTTElGIER: Yeah. MR. PRITT: But not your plan review fees? MR. POTTEIGIER: No. Plan -- plan review is set through the County through the interlocal agreement which is __ MR. MCEVOY: The planning service steering committee. MR. POTTEIGIER: The one with the contractors on it. MR. MUDD: DSAC? MR. POTTEIGIER: DSAC. Go through DSAC and then the County actually reads it into their interlocal. The Collier County commissioners do that. MR. PRITT: But the inspection fees are set by your district? MR. POTTEIGIER: Correct. MS. DONALDSON: Just like we have our own code which my understanding mirrors the County code. I think simplistic enough that MR. BIONDO: That's -- that's a whole another deal. Ifwe want to get into that we can, but -- MS. DONALDSON: No, that's okay. MR. MUDD: This is -- (Multiple voices.) MR. PRITT: You know, I'm -- the meaning by that, I'm just trying to understand how it works, not -- not negotiating or how it should work. I'm just trying to figure out how it works so that we can Page 50 i'--<--" July 6, 2007 intelligently try to figure out how any transition would work. MR. BIONDO: Can I give a little more information? The -- the whole reason that that office was created was to be able to get a consistent plan review. In other words, if you had one district doing plans one particular way, another district doing it another particular way, that could create a lot of confusion for the contractors. So that office was created to have basically one -- one consistent group that was going to review the plans all the same way. Let's take for example if you had a fire alarm permit that came in. If you have one person with maybe a backup person doing those fire alarms when he was on vacation, well, you had one person reviewing fire alarms for the whole county, not per se five for each district. That would get a little confusing. And there maybe some differences on how people review those fire alarms per district. So that's one of the reasons why that office was created. MR. PRITT: But you're -- am I correct and we talked about a lot of this before, but not with -- with you. The code that -- the fire code that you are reviewing under -- MR. BIONDO: Yes, sir. MR. PRITT: -- is the County's fire code -- MR. BIONDO: No, sir. MR. PRITT: -- or your own? MR. BIONDO: No. It's -- it's the Florida Fire Prevention Code. MR. PRITT: Straight out of the Florida Fire Prevention Code? MR. BIONDO: Yes, sir. Right. There is a local ordinance that we have with the County. There is a local ordinance that we have. MR. MUDD: There are -- there are some instances where our-- our -- our fire districts have decided that the code needed to be a little bit stronger than what the Florida Building Code basically provided. MR. PRITT: But, essentially, it's the same process that we have. We have state codes and building codes and fire codes and so on. MR. MUDD: Yeah. There's a -- there's a -_ Page 51 I--~ July 6, 2007 (Multiple voices.) MR. MUDD: -- an ordinance that sits in the County. MR. PRITT: Okay. MR. POTTEIGIER: Also, if you'd like, either myself of Chief Biondo would be more than happy to take you over there and show you how it works and where the fees come from and how it works and DR. LEE: Let me understand that -- MR. PRITT: I appreciate that, but that probably won't be necessary . DR. LEE: -- understand the compelling reason why this is so important to continue to -- to provide that during this period of time, those plan reviews and inspections. If -- because as I understand it, typically for fee services in government, they should basically -- they shouldn't be making any money for the district. They basically pay for the services that are being provided. And, matter of fact, I think you're constrained in that way. What -- what is the -- what is the benefit? What is the problem with the City taking over those plan reviews and inspection? MR. POTTEIGIER: You want to answer that? MS. DONALDSON: You know, I know we've discussed this several times. One, there's the safety issue. And, two, you know, I have been directed and I have -- and I've taken, you know, Leo's client's concerns and the City's request. The statute allows for a certain thing. And we'll go by what the statute provides or we can negotiate and give it up sooner based on other changes. DR. LEE: I'm just -- and I understand what you're saying there, Laura. MS. DONALDSON: But they may have a different take on it. DR. LEE: Yeah. I just need to understand the reasoning because we are talking about in this particular case those inspections. I think we're working towards some compromises here. Those inspections Page 52 ~~--"--,,---_._- July 6, 2007 being turned over to the City. I think it's 2010 and thereabouts. And I'm just trying to -- I see from the City's standpoint why we would want to do it knowing that the area has been annexed and we're going to be responsible for those buildings. We -- we did incorporate in here -- and I think you quite astutely included in here -- that we would share with you, even after that 2010, those plans as far as plan review. And I would suggest to you that we'd be amenable to doing the same thing from day -- day one upon taking over the plan review. So just in this particular case, given the arrangement that you have where you're contracting it out, I'm just -- other than the fact that it can be done and it can be discussed, I'm trying to ascertain why the Fire District if that's something you're willing to reconsider, and if not, why not? MR. BIONDO: Just for point of clarification. Reconsidering doing the inspections? DR. LEE: Yes, reconsidering. In this particular case, if we were to -- we're able to work out this time line for providing a service __ being the service provider, but the inspections what I'm suggesting, why not have the City be taking those over much sooner than 201 O? What would be -- and, again, sharing -_ MR. BIONDO: Other than -- other than revenue? DR. LEE: Well, the revenue would be revenue neutral. I mean, it's a case where you're not to be making money on the inspections. And that's what I'm trying to figure out. MR. BIONDO: No, sir. No. We don't make money on the inspections but, obviously, the money -- the inspections that we do helps -- helps continue to be able to pay the salaries. The more inspections we do, the more people we can hire to provide the better service to the community. So the revenue that we lose slows us down also and the rest of the community to be able to keep up with the demands of the development. DR. LEE: But those -- but, again, the revenues should be tied to Page 53 ,"--~-- July 6, 2007 whatever your costs are. And if -- so for this particular hundred-plus acres give or take that we're talking about, I'm just trying to understand. MS. DONALDSON: I don't -- I know where you're going. I can tell you from my direction that the District's position is that we'll go under the statute with four years or we can negotiate other things. But, you know, I was told that doing four years, if we just keep four years, not to agree to giving up inspections and permitting at this time. Whatever my governing board's reasoning behind that, I can't tell you and I cannot tell you what Chief Schenck's reasoning behind it. But I was directed and that is what we've been pushing. And that was why I was able to when I spoke to Chairman Cannon we extended the service providing to 2013. DR. LEE: I understand. MS. DONALDSON: And gave up two -- you know, that basically three years of -- DR. LEE: I'm just trying to understand since we're going to go into caucus what the reasoning is. I'm not questioning. You know, the board obviously gave you some direction. I'm just trying to understand other than because we can, we want to __ MR. POTTEIGIER: We told the County five years ago that we were having trouble keeping these inspections up. The County let us -- and don't quote me on the time -- the County let us raise our fees to where we could hire more inspectors. That's what we've done. I hope you're not insinuating that we're trying to make a profit, because we're not. We're trying to sustain what we have. The same thing with the fire code interpreter's office. He's in there by the support of the building permits. He's not in there to make a profit. He's not -- nobody's making a profit. DR. LEE: No. I'm not suggesting it. I'm reaffirming exactly what you said. MR. POTTEIGIER: Okay. Page 54 lr-__._._.____._ July 6, 2007 DR. LEE: It's -- it's not for that purpose. And since it is not for that -- it's not a revenue benefit for you and we're willing to share this information, I was just trying to understand the reasoning why that was felt to be so important to the District if -- if we're -- you know, if we're here negotiating it, there may be something else that we could do. MR. POTTEIGIER: There's a lot of build out left in there. MS. DONALDSON: And I just want to ask -_ DR. LEE: You -- I think you understand what my point is. MS. DONALDSON: I think one of the concerns is -- and as we -- and this is hard. We know this is the start of potentially several other annexations. And whatever is used as this agreement, will probably be the starting point for agreements in the future. And whether or not that's unfair to the property owner because they're the first ones involved in it, I mean, that's just the way it is. We have __ we look historically at what's been done. And -- and, like I said, I can't give you an exact reason. I can just tell you the District's position. And -- and I can tell you, like I said before, with Refina (phonetic) the reason why. Because the property was split between two jurisdictions and it made sense my understanding to do it. DR. LEE: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: And that's why in that situation they gave it up. Although I did find out they did not do it in writing. It's kind of an oral agreement between the two fire chiefs. That's kind of how that one's proceeding. So but I can't -- we can't answer your question is what I'm telling you. And Chief Schenck is not here. I did try to bring people who were intimately involved in permitting and inspections to be able to help caucus. But as I spoke to Chairman Cannon, I think, on Monday or last week, I was given the same direction that I've consistently stated in this meeting. DR. LEE: So just for further clarification, I think Leo wants to Page 55 July 6, 2007 say something it looks like. It's pretty much either this or we go to four years. Is that what I'm hearing you say? I think you hinted something like it's either the inspections, you know, you're trying to compromise with a couple of years and then the City take over. It's either that or clip the four years and just follow the statute basically? MS. DONALDSON: I would -- I would say that I don't want to be so closed minded to that. DR. LEE: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: I mean, because that would -- basically there's no reason to caucus. Because I think you're going to say, Well, we're not going to agree to this so I guess we'll do the four years. But we were trying to split the difference although I know it's not because the property owner wants -- or certain property owners want it immediately. Because I know, you know, my client is a property owner. And they're not agreeing to giving up doing their own inspections and permitting. I don't know, you know, what the County feels about giving it up. But the way that the property -- or the property group is set up, certainly the owners have more say and can direct what's going to happen. But, I mean, that's where -- but, not me. You know, I've said all along. Give us -- you kind of know and I think this shows even more what we're looking at. Come back with something that, you know, we might agree to. So the proposal we got at the last meeting, not only shortened the time period, but also gave us that ability. So, obviously, we -- we will not agree to the City's proposal from the last meeting. DR. LEE: I understand. MR. PRITT: Before Leo -- let me jump in one second. Just a question. What kind of money are we talking about every year with inspection fees and planning review fees? Are we talking -- I don't know if we're talking about a $20,000 item or $10,000 item. MR. POTTEIGIER: It depends on what's being built. MR. PRITT: I'm sorry? Page 56 ,---- July 6, 2007 MR. POTTElGIER: It depends on what's being built. MR. PRITT: Well, every year you have a budget. And on your budget you have a line item that says how much you receive in fees. I'm just asking what it is. MS. DONALDSON: Oh, you mean total budget for fees? I don't -- MR. POTTEIGIER: You want our total budget? MS. DONALDSON: He's saying for fees. How much do we collect total budget-wise? I mean, we can't tighten down to that property. MR. POTTEIGIER: I mean, we could, but it would take -- you know, we don't line item each address by the budget. MS. DONALDSON: I don't think this is about money. I mean-- DR. LEE: I don't either. MS. DONALDSON: -- I don't think this is about inspection fees. DR. LEE: No, exactly. And that's what I was trying to get at. What was the overriding reason if we're going to -- and, again, I think not only astutely but I think very appropriately you put in the language about sharing information and sharing plans and working together. With that in there, that -- that's what I'm trying to find out. And I think you've addressed it. I don't think you need to answer it further. But I was just trying to find out why it was so important to continue in the -- with the District. So do you have anything before him? MR. PRITT: Well, it just seems to me that the amount-- everything's about money. But it seems to me that the amount of fees likely generated total or more specifically the amount of fees are generated in this area something that can be easily determined with the minimum of hassle, I think. It's something that probably is hit a couple buttons. And I'm just -- I'm trying to quantify or figure out what it is that we're -- that we're talking about. If we're not talking about money, if it's really not about the money, what's it about? Page 57 July 6, 2007 MS. DONALDSON: Well, I think one we can't quantify because we don't know what the future development's going to be on this property. MR. PRITT: You can quantify what you have though. MS. DONALDSON: We can -- well, we can quantify what we've received for the existing development. But we can't quantify, you know, going forward what those fees are going to be. What I meant to say is I don't -- when I said it's not all about inspection fees, it's just I don't think that's just all the holdup. I mean, there are other issues. We've already brought up the safety issue. I mean, which, you know, I -- we would prefer to keep inspections and permitting through the whole thing. But trying to reach a compromise why we split it in half and then did the copies. But, I mean, we're not making money off the inspections. We're not at the driving force. That's not what's driving us to keep it as -- so we can make money __ DR. LEE: Right. MS. DONALDSON: -- because it sustains itself. DR. LEE: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: And, Leo. I'm sorry. I interrupted you. MR. SAL VA TORI: That's okay. I was thinking along the same lines that Bob was. I guess maybe, though, if it's not -- I was going to ask the question if you knew how much you collected in inspection fees in the last couple of years to kind of give us an idea. But if that's not something that's not easily capable of calculation, maybe it's something we could explore as the possibility of those persons who would otherwise require fire inspection in the next two years -- I'm thinking out loud at the same time here obviously -- paying those funds for the City for its inspection, but also those monies would be paid also to East Naples to cushion the blow oflosing that property. This way it would end up being cash neutral to you. You would have less work to do because you wouldn't actually be doing the inspections. So it would be cash neutral to you, but those inspection Page 58 July 6, 2007 fees would be paid to you in any event. MR. POTTEIGIER: We can -- we can work on it. MR. SAL VA TORI: Yeah. That just strikes me. That might be a fair way to cushion your -- your concern. I don't know how much money we're talking about. MR. POTTEIGIER: Well, I think if you can give me a couple weeks, I can get you the numbers, but just off the top of my head __ MR. SALVATORI: Yeah. You can have those. MR. PRITT: Don't you have a finance officer where you __ MR. POTTEIGIER: Well, what if! go to the City and I say how much taxes do you get from 313 North Avenue South? That's what you're asking us to do and I can't give you that number. MR. PRITT: How many do we have -- it's got to be an hour's work. Tops. MR. SAL VA TORI: Well, if it's hard to do, I was going to say rather than doing that and agree on the number today, just see whoever comes in for a permit, I'm thinking like rolling that 2010 back to September 30 or, excuse me, October 1, 2008. Taking another two years off. But for those two years, pay you in -- the City would get theirs. You would get yours to cushion that blow as -- as people apply for the permit. DR. LEE: So it doesn't hurt your -- from a standpoint of paying. I think you had some concern about, again, understood. Although, I may have a little different point of view. But it's understood you wanted to maintain that revenue base during that time. This I hadn't heard. What you're suggesting is that they __ MR. SAL VA TORI: I'm thinking out loud. I have no authority for this at all. I'll have to check with our client on our caucus time. But I'm just kind of thinking out loud, you would actually pay what you would have gotten if you had been the inspector as those people came in for permits over the next two or three __ MR. POTTEIGIER: And, again, I can't answer. You know, we Page 59 July 6, 2007 have a board too. MR. SAL VA TORI: That's fine. I appreciate that. That's -- you know, I understand. MR. POTTEIGIER: We'll definitely take back whatever the __ where the main thing's going to be is the new construction, the permit -- the revenue for main construction. MR. SAL VA TORI: Yeah. I know there's one guy who's planning on starting on a building sometime in the fairly new future here in the back. I forget his name now. Well, besides you guys, you know, but there's somebody else. I don't know of anybody else planning anything. MS. DONALDSON: I think the easiest would be for us to caucus and the City to come back with something. And we'll be able to discuss that. I don't -- you know, I was given a certain direction and I kind of need to go by that. And I think that, you know, your concept is interesting. I mean, we need to flesh it out and kind of see how that plays with everything else. Because it's not just it's own little issue. I mean, it plays into everything. The reason why it was cut down by two years was because of other issues that we proposed. MR. SALVATORI: I understand. Well, it sounds like -- I mean, I like the idea what you had worked up for the safety issues. I certainly appreciate that and I like that. So if we have the safety issue covered in a good template there, then it gets down to be more of a money issue. Money issues are easier to resolve as long as it's not my money. MS. DONALDSON: You'd be surprised. DR. LEE: Do we want to take a caucus for a time certain here? If we're ready before then, then we can start. Maybe some people want to take a break any ways. MR. POTTEIGIER: Where are we meeting? MR. PETTIT: There's a room directly across the hall which one group can go in. I can take Jim and Leo and, I guess -- Mike has left Page 60 July 6, 2007 the building -- with me to either to my office. And then I guess somebody could remain here if -- if the public would step outside. MR. SALVATORI: Laura and I will take the hallway. MR. PETTIT: Probably could step outside. MS. DONALDSON: We can go to the office across-- DR. LEE: By 3 :20, is that -- or 3: 15? MR. MUDD: Can we do this by 3:15 and be back here? Okay? DR. LEE: 3:15? MR. PRITT: Or as soon thereafter as can be. (Short recess was taken.) MR. MUDD: Okay. We're -- the last time we --let's --let's go to 2 and see if we can figure out where we are and where we're not at. Because I believe comes 2 goes to 15 and some other places. So our caucus was pretty quick as far as Mike Pettit and then we took a long break so... DR. LEE: Do you want -- do you want to do the -- maybe 9 and 12 and then leave 15 and 2? Go to 2. * and 12 may be rather easy. MR. MUDD: I'm not going to fight over it. Let's go. DR. LEE: Item No. 12, I think we would go along with the language that you-all talked about. If we could just go over that. MR. PETTIT: Let me -- let me summarize that. What about this. What if we say (as read): However, nothing in this agreement shall prohibit the parties from attempting to resolve or -- from attempting to resolve or to resolve any disputes under this agreement by an alternative dispute -- by mediation in the most expeditious and least expensive means possible, period. Thus, the parties agree that they may initially attempt to resolve disputes by mediation. And then I would like to put in, If the parties are unable to agree on the selection of a mediator within a reasonable time after a dispute arises, the matter will be referred to the chief judge following Bob's proposal and go from there. The only concern I have about the automatically going that route is I don't know who we're going to get. Page 61 July 6, 2007 Now, it would be nice to get somebody that either had knowledge of local government or contractual disputes as opposed to somebody that mediates a PI case. MR. PRITT: I'm willing to trust the chief judge on that. For the record, Bob Pritt. I'm willing to trust the chief judge of the judicial circuit. MR. PETTIT: I just don't know whether -- that's nice. But I think -- I think when you make that reference, I think there's a list of mediators and I think they go down the list is what I'm trying to get at. Now, we could -- you know, you could make the request to the chief judge and ask him to look at some qualifications, but I'm not sure that there's not just a list of -- of certified mediators and they go down a list. I don't know. I could be wrong. That's what somebody's advised me in the past. MS. DONALDSON: And can I ask you, after 30 days so we would have a time certain we go to the chief judge? MR. PETTIT: Yeah. I think 30 days. You know, if we can't agree on one in 30 days, we're not going to agree on one. MR. PRITT: Only to mediate. MR. PETTIT: And only to mediate, not arbitrate. You want me to write something up -- MR. PRITT: Sure. MR. PETTIT: -- along those lines? MR. MUDD: Okay. Can we all agree to that, that's paragraph 12, and we put her to bed? MR. PRITT: Yup. MS. DONALDSON: Yes. MR. PETTIT: Yes. MR. MUDD: Okay. DR. LEE: Paragraph 9. MR. PETTIT: I think -- I guess I'll start. I think our position is that the first sentence is sufficient and that the dispute resolution Page 62 July 6, 2007 clause deals with any issues that can arise. MS. DONALDSON: And I'll agree with the County's position. DR. LEE: Bob, you want to address that? MR. PRITT: Let me suggest some language that I actually think I heard one of you say. What if we were to say something like this in the second sentence. It shall be a breach of this agreement. And the grammar may not be perfect here, but it shall be a breach of this agreement if any person who is acting in concert with or at the behest of either agency shall challenge the annexation, period. Can you live with that? I think Mike, maybe it was you -_ MR. PETTIT: Well, how would you determine that they were acting in concert or at the behest of the agency? How's the predicate determined? Where is it determined? MR. PRITT: It's like anything else, you know, whether it's the law or anything else, it's got to be a matter of proof. You said that you didn't like the part -- you didn't like the part about it being void. So it would just be a breach. And as everybody knows that went to law school about breaches, they can be treated as a breach. They can be ignored. They can be litigated. They -- a bunch of things could happen because of that. MR. PETTIT: Well, if you're -- MS. DONALDSON: Well, my comment earlier wasn't just that it became void. It was the in concert with and at the behest. And I stated those concerns at the last meeting. And I don't know the changes still address that. And I understand case law's out there but, you know, I'm trying to avoid a situation where we're having to spend money to dispute whether or not -- you know, I don't want to be in a position where we're arguing, well, we weren't working in concert with or at the behest of. And I'm just trying to save the District money on that issue. DR. LEE: Well, I think in the reality I think we're maybe, if! may, we're in this particular case I'll take the other point of view that Page 63 July 6, 2007 Bob Pritt has. Very often in government I see where people are speaking for someone else it seems. They're not necessarily -- for whatever reason that happens. Someone is shooting the bullets so to speak. And I think that's -- that does happen. Ifthere's another way that -- you know, that's what we're trying to avoid is -- is even some conscious -- not something inadvertent, not something where, golly, we just met with somebody and now we're all of a sudden -- I think as you pointed out -- in concert with because they -- they asked for some records or something, but __ MR. PETTIT: Well, Bob, my bottom line is this is the only place in the agreement where we're calling out a special kind of alleged breach. If -- if you have the first sentence and you've got paragraph 12, you have a means to address the alleged breach that the City might think exists. Which is, first, we get a mediator. And, second, if that doesn't work, we go through 164. MR. PRITT: Well, I understand that. I also understand that this would be the place where there would be the greatest temptation for somebody to breach the agreement. There's only -- you know, you guys are getting a lot of things from the City in exchange for not fighting the -- the proposed annexation. A lot of what is being given is money, especially as it relates to the District and also the County. And we would be remiss if we didn't make darn sure that we were not doing this all for nothing and then have everybody on the other side sit there and say, well, gee, we didn't send it in or we didn't act in concert. I know we have to prove that. But I've seen it happen before, not necessarily in an annexation context, but I've seen it happen before where everybody's saying, well, we didn't have anything to do with that. It was those other people. And, sorry, but I just -- I think that we have an obligation to make sure that that type of behavior is not even coming close to happening. MS. DONALDSON: Well, I can say in response since apparently we're receiving monies, I am more than willing to accept Page 64 July 6, 2007 the language. And then we'll just strike Section 2 and say that Section 171.093 applies. You know, I mean, because then we're not trying to torpedo the annexation. We're not getting extra monies. We're getting what the statute currently provides. My concern was, you know, if the issue is board directed -- if the governing board says, I want you to go challenge -- hey, union guy, go challenge this. If we want to clarify and take out acting in concert, because I just have issues with that. If a governing board directs -- but I do think that the first sentence addresses that because it says we're not going to challenge it. But if we don't challenge or direct any of our employees to challenge and -- and have it a governing board thing, the governing board would have to have direction. It would be a public document. There would be no determination by the Court. Are you working in concert? Are you working at the behest? It would be -- I'm more comfortable with something like that, but __ MR. PRITT: Pardon me for being very suspicious ofthe level of disagreement with this type of language. I can't believe that this __ that acting in concert language -- I would soften it up here to say, acting in concert language or at the behest of the agency and __ MS. DONALDSON: My concern-- MR. PRITT: -- I don't understand what the problem is. MS. DONALDSON: The problem is I don't know what in concert means. And I don't want to have to have my client have to go to court and explain and defend whether or not if some employee or person asked me for public records and I meet with him to give it to him, if that's in concert with. I'm trying to avoid my client having to spend additional monies. And, like I said, if you're so suspicious of us, then let's just do what the current law provides. There's no issue. I won't be challenging any document because it's what the current law provides. If -- if the City is that suspicious of my concerns about what in concert and at behest means, let's do existing law. We know what it is. And Page 65 July 6, 2007 there's no reason for us apparently to challenge this because that's existing law. We could not agree to this document and we would still have that section of law that we're covered by. And -- and so I apologize that we've done something that makes the City suspicious of us. I think I've been pretty up front. At the last meeting I said if we somehow define acting in concert or at behest, I might be more comfortable. But I'm not comfortable just having to go into litigation because of -- you know, one of our union guys or a former employee or anyone talking to anyone at the District and that's being deemed in concert with. MR. SAL VA TORI: We could use language like materially assist as opposed to acting in concert. MR. PRITT: I'm sorry? MR. SALVA TORI: Could use language like materially assist as opposed to acting in concert? Like providing documents, that's going to be material assistance. MR. PRITT: Well, I don't know. I think I know what acting in concert means. MR. SAL VA TORI: I don't have a problem with your language to be honest with you. I'm trying to find a compromise. I like your language, but trying to find a compromise. Maybe that might be another way to -- to address it. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. I asked at the last meeting if you could define acting in concert and at the behest. MR. PRITT: Go to Google and look at acting in concert or go to WestLaw -- MS. DONALDSON: This is your language. I don't --I'mjust telling you. We will not agree to this provision. And -- and I'm sorry. We cannot agree. And if it's -- if it's because you guys think we're going to challenge this or we're going to direct one of our employees to challenge it, then I think the easiest way we can get this over with is let's just have the current statute in place and we'll be Page 66 July 6, 2007 done with it. Why would we be challenging what currently is law? DR. LEE: Ifwe -- when we caucused, we looked at some alternative language and that was what was presented. It doesn't appear to me that we're going to resolve this right now. Why don't we look at Section No.2 and see what outstanding issues we mayor may not have there and that may bring us to some conclusion here today. If it requires -- and I'm certainly willing to do this -- to caucus one more time on this, we can do that, but that will be up to everyone, of course. But that's what I would suggest, Jim, if we could __ MR. MUDD: You're the one that booked it. You took the easy paragraphs. I can't wait to get to 2. DR. LEE: Okay. Well, I think we got -- I think nine's the only one left other than 2 as I understand it right now. So why don't we __ don't we shoot for -- MR. MUDD: Well, 15 is out there too. DR. LEE: 15 is still out there? MR. MUDD: Yeah. DR. LEE: Well, I think-- MR. PETTIT: That's tied into 2. MR. MUDD: It's tied to 2. DR. LEE: It's tied into 2. So I think 15 will be easy if we can resolve -- if the Fire District agrees that we can -- everything we come up with on Item 2. MR. SAL VA TORI: During the break I talked to Chad Ludd (phonetic) who's the president of the property owner's association and told him what we were talking about was the possibility of just as people applied for building permits during that two-year time period that they would pay inspection fees to East Naples even though East Naples would not be doing the inspections. He said, I don't know what the inspection fees are, but he said that concept sounds fine to me if it works for you guys. So I'm not -- he's not binding himself to it. He said initially his first blush was that might be a fair way to break Page 67 July 6, 2007 that deadlock. I know you need to address that, obviously, with your board, but I know you've got other global issues. But I wanted to let you know that his first blush on it was that would be a way to make this work. MR. PRITT: So the idea would be to pay inspection fees for no inspections? MR. SAL VA TORI: Correct. The City of Naples would get its inspection fees for doing the inspection. And East Naples would pay their inspection fees. It's a way of buffering you against losing folks. Now, with that being said, I don't think they're planning on much. There's one building that we know of that's going to be going up besides yours and that's going to be about it. So we're probably not talking a whole lot of money anyway. But at least you can go back and say you covered yourselves for that -- that two-year time period there. MS. DONALDSON: Can I ask a question? MR. SALVATORI: Sure. MS. DONALDSON: So over the next three years, you don't think there's much that's going to be going on with the property? MR. SAL VA TORI: Not at least -- it's hard to project that far out but, no. Probably not. There's one building that's going to -- other than your firehouse there. There's one building that's going through the pipeline. Because all the plans have to go through our client for approval. He only knows of one. The bigger parcel's owned by the Collier family that owned it forever. Our client has a number of vacant lots. He's not planning on starting anything anytime soon. He may actually sell. He's had one on the market on and off for awhile. And just as the economy, nobody's going to be in a big hurry to start much of anything anyway. MS. DONALDSON: I was just wondering since it's such a big issue and you've been so adamant about permitting and inspection and having the City do it, whereas, if nothing's really going to be Page 68 July 6, 2007 happening over the next three years anyway, it kind of seems -- I know you don't know what's going to happen. MR. SALVATORI: No, we don't know. And, of course, they look for one-stop shopping. You get the same type consistency that the chief was talking about in the planning process. This way they go to one place and it's done. You guys are covered in the downside financially so that's a way it might work. MS. DONALDSON: No. I understand the proposal. Ijust thought it was interesting that there's really not going to be that much coming in potentially anyways. It just seems like we're spending a lot of time arguing over an issue. DR. LEE: I agree 100 percent. I think from our standpoint, if! hadn't communicated it, it is a case of control and one-stop shopping. I think that's proficiency in government that makes sense if you can do that. Because, obviously, we're still going to be involved in this. So we're doing it for the purpose of service. And if there's not much of a money issue or if the money issue's being covered, then I would agree with you. It's one that I would ask you to -- to consider. If not today, you take it back to consider. I mean, if that's something that can be done, I don't -- MR. PRITT: Well, I guess, yeah, I might be sounding like I'm negotiating against you, Leo, but where does a government get off charging for inspections that are not being done? I'm raising this. I'm not sure if that's how you were saying it, but it sounded like that's what the result would be. And if that's the case, then somebody's getting a windfall. Government's not in the business of getting a windfall. It's in the business of doing a service for a fee. And I'm a little troubled by that being the result for expediency -- expediency purposes. And maybe there's a different way of doing the concept without -- MR. SAL VA TORI: See, from our client's perspective, anything that's more efficient say is done right. Page 69 p-~",- July 6, 2007 MR. PRITT: That's true. MR. SAL VA TORI: You know, they're concerned about their downside maybe against the folks that have nothing to do and we'll have that covered. Maybe it should be a declining scale because East Naples, I presume, is the fastest growing district in the County I would guess. Would that be a fair statement? MR. BIONDO: East Naples? MR. SALVATORI: Yeah. MR. BIONDO: Probably one of them right now. North is __ MR. SALVATORI: North as well. MR. BIONDO: North is getting built out. It's busting the gate. It's getting a boom now. MR. SALVATORI: Yeah. And just maybe as we flesh it out, maybe it'd be fair to have some kind of declining basis because they're not going to lose folks. Those folks will be directed elsewhere. But at least the concept of -- of paying you to do nothing is probably a strong way, but it's really designed to cushion you against the blow of losing this. It might be a way deal things. And it's kind of consistent with the statute's ability to provide response services for four years. It's really designed for them to have time to focus their energies elsewhere over that time period and it's just a private way of doing the same concept. MS. DONALDSON: And it could potentially also be rather than be getting something for nothing, having the District at least review them and maybe -- I mean, the City's the one who reviews it, but that we also take a look at it and -- DR. LEE: Maybe in this particular case it makes -- there's going to be some time incurred by you-all if you're agreeing -- if you're providing the emergency services, you're going to want to know what those plans look like. MS. DONALDSON: We're going to have to review them no matter what. Page 70 July 6, 2007 DR. LEE: You're going to have to review them anyway, so maybe that will be the justification in case of annexation. I don't know. I'm looking at it. MR. SAL VA TORI: Y eah. You'd have some time to spend on it. So I kind of think it would be a fair way to address that. DR. LEE: In this particular case. MR. MCEVOY: And you know that there are no obstacles between the two -- the District and the City and the Fire Department concerning training, cross-training and getting those together. So I don't see any problems at all with any of that. MS. DONALDSON: But that may be one, because since we did put different language in there about the City providing us copies of those appurtenants and plans. Weare -- we are going to have to spend time looking at them, because our guys are going to have to respond to fires. If there's ever a fire in one of those buildings, we need to know what's there. MR. SAL VA TORI: And that's -- that's kind of what we were thinking. So I don't want to bind our clients to it as an offer because we really need to explore it. And for another reason, none of us know what the inspection fees are or how they're computed. I don't even know how much money we're talking. I'm just guessing it's probably a fairly modest fee both in terms of what it is and what we anticipate just given the scope of construction in the next year or so. That's something for you to further explore and get back to me on it. MR. BIONDO: Well, I'd like to say I am kind of concerned about counsel's comments. You know -- you know, we're not in it for the money but, obviously, we have a service that we have to provide. And when you make a statement, like, you're going to get paid for doing nothing. I mean, I don't know about that either. You know, so, I mean, I don't know what the innuendo was meant by that. But, you know, I'm not in favor of the way it sounded. So I'm not real comfortable with that, but I don't know what -- take that for what that's Page 71 July 6, 2007 worth. MR. PRITT: Well, you're not in full agreement. MR. BIONDO: I'm in agreement that I didn't appreciate the way it was said or the innuendo that was made. DR. LEE: Well, let clarify at least from what I heard. Is if you're not doing the inspections, we're concerned from a legal standpoint that if you -- if the City was doing the plan review and the inspections that could they -- should they also or could they also be paying you when you're not doing the plan reviewing and inspections? That's what was intended. That's what I heard. And what we're trying to figure out -- MR. BIONDO: With all due respect, sir, I heard that too, but I didn't hear that over here so I was -- MR. PRITT: No. Well, that's exactly what I said. MR. BIONDO: I was a little concerned where that was coming from. I think we -- we may be better to do what Laura said and, you know, take the four years and do it that way. It's legal. There's no innuendos. There's no -- you know, I think we're a little at a loss. I'll speak for myself. I don't want to speak for Chief Potteigier. But a little offended by, you know, we're not trying to hide anything here. We're sitting here. We're negotiating in good faith. DR. LEE: So are we. I don't think you ought to take anything personal here. I mean, just in part of negotiation you will have discussions and communications, probably the most difficult thing we do. There's certainly no innuendos that I'm hearing from either side. I think we're just trying to get to a contract that is going to be fair to all parties. And in this particular case we're providing a service. Our contention is that the most appropriate service provider for those inspections and plan review would be the City. How we get there in a way that's going to not take away from you-all is I think -- and, again, this is the first time I'm hearing this is being suggested is that there's a way that you-all could be compensated because that is a concern. And Page 72 July 6, 2007 I did hear that before the break that there was a concern about the __ MR. SAL VA TORI: And, Chief, I didn't mean anything. I don't want you to take it that way at all obviously. We're trying -- I was trying to think of a way that would make sure you have the buffer that you needed so you can direct your forces elsewhere. And if it's legally better to describe it as a permitting fee -- a review fee, you know, that's fine. You will be doing the planning. MR. BIONDO: And I appreciate that. And I -- I did understand the way you -- you presented it. Is that what you recommended or what you proposed? For legal counsel that's in the room, is that even legal? MS. DONALDSON: I think that we -- I think that Mr. Pritt made a good point that we're -- you can't charge a fee. I mean, a fee is a fee. You get something in return. But I think at the same time we are reviewing the plans. We might not be approving the plans, but there is a review process. And we also are providing a transition person for some time that we're not charging the City. So I don't think that there would be an argument that -- I mean, there is going to be some benefit. And it's not just a fee for nothing because __ MR. SALVATORI: I just (inaudible)-- THE COURT REPORTER: Whoa. Whoa. Please repeat. MR. SALVATORI: I'm sorry. This is the first time you've had to say it. Usually I get hit right away. I really thought of this the first time today. I was trying to find some kind of framework that would work. We could put tags on it later on, I guess, that works. I do want it to be legal obviously. MS. DONALDSON: Basically it would be a review fee. MR. SALVATORI: Yeah. MS. DONALDSON: And we have to review the plans. Because if we don't review the plans, we might not approve the plan because it would be within the City. But we'd have to review it so that we'd know what's there. And we already have, you know, part of the Page 73 July 6, 2007 language already in there with you guys giving us copies of all the plans. MR. SAL VA TORI: And I think that was our biggest -- the property owner's biggest concern with all this was to have, I thought, the one-stop shopping. So if that is something we can explore further in terms of a permitting inspection issue, I don't think the property owners otherwise have a concern about the balance of paragraph 2. So I'll leave that to Bob and Mike to discuss at the -- at the District on those. But I think that would solve our -- our biggest concern. MR. POTTEIGIER: You still want us to bring back numbers? MR. SAL VA TORI: I don't think so, Chief. Why don't -- we'll do a little bit of homework ourself because I don't even know what your plan review fees or inspection fees are to be honest with you. MS. DONALDSON: And it may be nothing. I mean, ifthere's nothing going on for three years, then it's going to be hard to determine what those fees will be in the next three -- you know, whatever time period because there might not be any buildings going in or what type of building or the size or-- MR. BIONDO: Well, but -- but do understand, not that it would be a great amount of money I don't feel, but any time a permit is generated, you have inspection fees off that permit. MR. SALVATORI: Oh, sure. No. We understand that. MR. BIONDO: Plan review fees and inspection fees. It could be something as simple as a tenant build out. You're still going to have fees incurred with that. MR. SAL VA TORI: Well, I'm just guessing. You probably know better than I. I'm just guessing that your inspection fees are probably a part tied to the size and structure that you're inspecting and in the scope of the work that was performed. MR. BIONDO: If you're talking on new buildings, new construction, that's correct. But you also have whatever other permits that are associated with that. If you've got a sprinkler system in a Page 74 '___"_"___m._.__ July 6, 2007 building, a fire alarm system, those fees could be generated per device or floor, per square footage. There's a lot ofthings that goes into it. MR. SAL VA TORI: And that's what our -- our client wants to explore. The principle of the association has, I think, certainly the most significant holdings of perhaps the County in there. So they want to explore that themselves. And, of course, they want to talk to the property owner who does have the building coming up out of the ground and make sure he's comfortable with it. So I don't think you need to do any homework, Chief, on it. I think we'll do some homework on it ourselves. And I'll get back to Laura. And in the meantime you can discuss with your board this concept if it's something you can work with, maybe it's something you and I could work with before four years -- four weeks from Monday and see if we can get some kind of compromise fleshed out. MS. DONALDSON: It would be a lovely present. DR. LEE: Look at the rest of the sections of2. I know we-- maybe jumping around here, but I think we talked about this. We covered the main issues and then maybe the issue to go through this by section. We covered the main issues. One of the issues, Bob, what do you think? Do you want to go over what generally we talked about? MR. PRITT: Sure. DR. LEE: As far as contracting of the boundaries, we would like that effective which would normally be the beginning of the -- a four-year period. We would like that to basically commence as soon as possible. The plan review and inspections, we'd like to propose that we do that with the understanding that I think that would be within 90 days of the effective date. The understanding you would be made whole somehow with the financing or the fees that you would normally collect. You are going to be doing some inspections. And that language would have to be developed. Page 75 July 6, 2007 In our particular case the Fire District fee, the ad valorem fee is greater than what our property -- what our ad valorem fee is in the City. So each year that we go beyond the four years is costing us money. It -- but in exchange for the premium tax dollars that we would like to begin receiving right away, we would extend that an extra year so that you would have five years of providing fire service after the -- what is that, after the October date, Bob? MR. PRITT: Yeah. I think it would -- instead of the four-year period that we had talked about, it would be the five-year period. We talked about -- we talked about four, four and a half and extend that to a five-year period. MS. DONALDSON: Is that from October 1 of next year? Because that's what we based ours on. Is that what it was -- it was October -- MR. PRITT: No. And it would be -- look at 190. I'm sorry. 171.093, paren 6. MS. DONALDSON: Uh-huh. MR. PRITT: I'm sorry. I'm kind of going back to the document I was talking about a minute ago. That would be the pattern we would be looking at for this. I understand that it says, Unable to enter into any interlocal agreement. But I don't think it prohibits us from having an interlocal agreement that would mirror that. MS. DONALDSON: Right. There's another section in here about what it says. So can I just ask -- MR. PRITT: Are you talking about 4-A? MS. DONALDSON: The -- no. What you said. You said you didn't think that 4 -- that 6 -- that we couldn't do something different. Oh, you mean 4-A? So you want the five-year period to start now or upon annexation, whereas, my language started five years from October 1? MR. PRITT: Yeah. You're talking about ten months more; right? Page 76 July 6, 2007 MS. DONALDSON: I'm talking -- well, if you did -- well-- MR. PRITT: It depends on when the annexation is. MS. DONALDSON: It depends on when the annexation is. MR. PRITT: Yeah. I think that -- MS. DONALDSON: I mean, the October 1 is nice because it's a fiscal year thing. We're -- you know, we're going to be collecting taxes for this property for this upcoming fiscal year. Because, I mean, the trim notices are going to be going out. And that's why the statute has it the following year so that it was -- it was five years from that. If you do five years from now -- DR. LEE: It would be an additional year is what the intent was from what the minimum statute provides. MS. DONALDSON: So it would be October 1, 2013? DR. LEE: Right. And let me make sure. MR. PRITT: Let me make sure that we're all in agreement. If the annexation were to occur -- to occur before December 31st, 2007, and we gave the notice -- the required notice prior to that, then the four-year period would begin running on 1O/1/08? MS. DONALDSON: Correct. For four-years, yes. MR. PRITT: We would want the contraction to be upon annexation, contraction of the District, but the five -- Bob, make sure that I say this correctly -- the five-year period would be the period that's substituted for the four-year period under 4-A. MS. DONALDSON: So we would lose one year of premium tax revenues? I'm just asking. I want to make clear. DR. LEE: No. I think our proposal-- MS. DONALDSON: Because we would -- generally we get premium tax revenues for this upcoming year as well because our boundaries would still have the property and we're the service provider and that's what the statute says. I'm just trying to get it clear so I know what -- when we caucus what we're looking at. DR. LEE: You're talking about you would get that initial year Page 77 July 6, 2007 premium tax revenues is what you're saying? MS. DONALDSON: Right. If the boundaries contracted now, then under Chapter 175, we don't get those premium tax revenues. DR. LEE: Right. So you'd be getting an additional year initially is what you're saying? Is that what I heard you say? MS. DONALDSON: Current law right now we get one year of premium tax revenues before our boundaries change. And then that four-year period impacts. It has nothing to do with premium taxes. It's just with ad valorem revenues. DR. LEE: Right. MS. DONALDSON: I'm saying if our boundaries change now, we lose -- MR. PRITT: Let's do December 31st, 2007. Okay. Let's keep-- MS. DONALDSON: Right. Okay. If it's a December 31st, 2007, we lose premium tax revenues for next year which we currently get under the statute, under Chapter 175. MR. PRITT: How much is that; do you know? MS. DONALDSON: I mean, I don't -- DR. LEE: It's hard to calculate? MS. DONALDSON: That's -- it's -- there's two different pots. You've got one pot and then you get a supplemental pot. DR. LEE: Ifwe were able to do -- again, trying to get to the -- if we were able to do this just go to caucus on this, but if you're concerned about that additional year, if we -- if we're able to do something with that, would everything else be acceptable? MR. PRITT: And do you need to caucus before you answer that question? MS. DONALDSON: No, just I have a question before I need to -- is that going with our language dealing -- basically it would be the term for A would be the same. B would come up with some language that deals with we're going to be made whole on the inspections up until 2010. And then-- Page 78 July 6, 2007 MR. PRITT: No. No. Wait. DR. LEE: We're going to do the inspections, but there -- what she's talking about is they would receive some revenue because they're going to -- for fees because they're going to be providing some servIces. MR. PRITT: My understanding that's what the addition of the time for a five-year period would cover, that, anything in premium tax. DR. LEE: No. I think what -- well, that's what we were originally looking at I think in order to get to a -- see, our -- our difference in that extra year ad valorem we're losing money that we didn't expect. MR. PRITT: It's got to be a fair amount of money. DR. LEE: But if we're -- if they're willing to -- although it would be less, if they're willing to forego the -- in this particular case if they're willing to accept the one year of premium tax and we get the four years of premium tax, even though that may not quite equal, I think -- I think Leo was going to look at what we're really going to talk about in terms of service fees. I don't know if -- again, trying to get to some agreement here that's fair to everyone. I -- I wouldn't necessarily see that that would have to be tied into it. MR. PRITT: We would take over plans examination though. DR. LEE: We would take over plans examination. MR. PRITT: In the 90 -- after the 90-day period. DR. LEE: After the 90 days. I think that was -- MR. PRITT: That's not your language. It's more my language. MS. DONALDSON: It would -- it would not be October 1 of next year because I think that's what Leo had said earlier. MR. SAL VA TORI: Well, that's fine. But we would __ MS. DONALDSON: Well, obviously, I mean, you guys want to have it sooner rather than later. MR. SAL VA TORI: That's fine. Page 79 July 6, 2007 MS. DONALDSON: So the plans would be taken over immediately. DR. LEE: I think we could do 90 days or something, some transition period. MS. DONALDSON: And, obviously, I put a cap on -- if nothing's going on, I don't think it's got to be a 20-hour transition. And then the boundaries -- we give -- MR. PRITT: I'm sorry. Where -- what are you talking about 20 hours? MS. DONALDSON: Twenty hours, before you had an open ended we have to provide an employee to the City for the transitional plans and permitting. That -- completely open ended to go __ DR. LEE: Well, I think if you're getting fees, if you -- the part about us paying, I don't think we need to do that if you're going to be getting fees. MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. I had that the City wasn't paying us. DR. LEE: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: But I put a limit of20 hours. DR. LEE: I agree. We don't need to have that if you're being paid for whatever it is. MR. PRITT: Is that in here? I just don't see it. DR. LEE: Yeah, 20 hours. MR. PRITT: Oh, 20 hours. Okay. MS. DONALDSON: The -- so the plans would be immediately. We'd be the service provider to October 1,2013, except for the plans. MR. PRITT: Oh, plans would be 90 days. MS. DONALDSON: Or 90 days. MR. PRITT: Plans 90 days. Go ahead. What was your second point, Laura? MS. DONALDSON: We're the service provider to October 1, 2013. That's the five years. We get the premium tax revenues for the next year, but then you get them for the rest of it. Page 80 July 6, 2007 DR. LEE: Right. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. And then -- and then you guys are fine with the user charges and the impact fees which is something the statute allows us to continue to do, the charge. Not you. Charge the property owner. The statute has that. I just want to make sure because that hasn't been raised. And then __ MR. PRITT: Can I ask you about -- I'm not going to necessarily disagree, but what would happen -- not that this is going to happen. Okay. I'll say it that way. But what would happen if a board got upset -- a new board got upset within this five-year period and said, Well, let's see if we can figure out a way of charging user charges that would only apply within this area, significant user charges? Because they're angry about something. And maybe I'm -- maybe I'm over-thinking this, but what -- what would be -- what would stop -- I'm sorry? MS. DONALDSON: No. I think that the problem is -- and I understand the concern. You know, I guess I just don't think they would do that. But I think that the user fees and impact fees, that's something we currently are allowed to do during that four-year period even though they're not within our boundaries, the statute allows us to do this. DR. LEE: That would have to be applicable throughout your district, though, wouldn't it? MS. DONALDSON: Yeah, it would be. But, you know, like, for example, the City -- and I'm not saying that East Naples is considering this. For example, the City of Tampa was looking at doing a response fee as a user fee. If they went -- in addition to all the other things that they collect. If they responded, you paid this amount. I don't want to limit -- we don't have that right now. But I don't want to limit the ability for the District to collect a fee. If they start charging everyone else in their District a fee for something, it's going to be difficult for us to say, Well, we charge every other person this fee if they use this service and we're not going to charge it to them. Page 81 July 6, 2007 DR. LEE: Well, I think in addressing your concern, though, if it's -- and maybe by law it's already there, but we had some -- some phrase or language in there that said that -- just as you pointed out, it would have to be District wide. In other words, it couldn't be just isolated to the -- this particular annexed area. MR. PRITT: Well, perhaps I like the idea of saying that. MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. MR. PRITT: I don't know. But then I don't think it's going to happen. I think if it did happen, I think they would have a pretty good lawsuit against you for charging the fees; but I don't want to have somebody coming back and say, well, geez, didn't you guys talk about this. MS. DONALDSON: I have no problem putting language that says that it can't -- this user fee or impact fee can't only be charged or, I mean, something like that. I have no problem to the annexed property it has to be District wide even recognizing that they're not within the District. DR. LEE: Right. MR. PRITT: I like District wide being the language. That might be good enough. Thanks. MS. DONALDSON: And the annexation language, I was fine with your -- the failure to annex, the year to year provision. That if it's delayed by a year, everything gets pushed back by a year. I know Mr. Pritt's concern was four or five years. You said, well, what if we say if it's delayed a year, everything gets pushed back a year. Well, I mean, if that's the case, if we can have time to caucus. MR. PRITT: You're talking -- you back in 15 now you're talking about? MS. DONALDSON: H. MR. SALVATORI: H? I'm sorry. MS. DONALDSON: The failure of an annex. You know, because once again, we don't want to get in a position where if you Page 82 July 6, 2007 guys push the annexation off and we've just now lost that year that we've spent six months negotiating. DR. LEE: I understand. MS. DONALDSON: And, of course, tie in the fees and the ad valorem not having that reduction language. I just want to make sure. DR. LEE: Which section now, Laura? MS. DONALDSON: That would be F above H. MR. PRITT: Uh-huh. MS. DONALDSON: The City's previous proposal was basically we have to go to mediation -- or let the chief judge decide whether or not their fees were justified to be taken out of ours. And I just think that -- that puts on a yearly thing. And right now it's very simplistic. The Property Appraiser's Office sets the value. The millage rate is set by the board by resolution. We know what the amount is. It's calculable. DR. LEE: You've agreed to the last sentence ofF being removed too; right? MS. DONALDSON: Yes, that's fine. DR. LEE: Okay. Okay. Bob, anything else before we take a caucus? MR. PRITT: No. Let me check my notes. MS. DONALDSON: I guess we'll caucus on this and then 15. Not 15. Yeah, 9. You guys? DR. LEE: I think the only other one we have is 9; right? MS. DONALDSON: Right. DR. LEE: Okay. Let's caucus. And you want come back in 15 minutes at about 20 after? MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. That's fine. MR. PRITT: Before we leave. One second. MS. DONALDSON: Oh. MR. PRITT: One second. MS. DONALDSON: I'm listening. Page 83 July 6, 2007 MR. PRITT: If we can resolve 2 and then 15 should fall in place, don't you think? MS. DONALDSON: I agree. As long as we have the recognition that if we set like a -- if we say October 1,2013, recognizing that it could get bumped a year based on when your annexation occurs. MR. PETTIT: Just -- and you guys will be responsible for whatever you agree onto because I took my notes. You'll have to get together and send me whatever the agreed language is if you get an agreement. MR. PRITT: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. MR. PRITT: But you did such a good job the last time. (Short recess was taken.) MR. OCHS: Let's reconvene. Geez, I feel the power coursing through my veins right now, Bob. All right. DR. LEE: Well done. MR. OCHS: Dr. Lee. DR. LEE: I think we -- well, we're just coming out of caucus. And I think the East Naples Fire District have some -- if you could give us your feedback on what we proposed. We had one other, I think, question, but I think if we hear from you -- MS. DONALDSON: Can I have the question first because maybe that's going to change my response? DR. LEE: Yeah. Sure. The one question had to do with impact fees collection. MS. DONALDSON: Yes. DR. LEE: Use of charges and impact fees, we were concerned that -- MR. PRITT: G, page 7-G. DR. LEE: The idea of collecting impact fees as we know is __ particularly if it's fire services for a building of expanding stations in Page 84 " July 6, 2007 the future as a result of any new development. In this particular case, it would appear since we're the one talking about building a station that those impact fees for that particular properties should go to the City. The user charges, we understood what you were talking about there. We don't have a dispute on that, but we're having some concern about the idea of impact fees that would be collected on this one project staying with the District. That's the only other change we had at this time. MS. DONALDSON: I think in response. One, since we're the service provider for five years, I mean, we might also be using those impact fees to provide service. I mean, to provide for some impact since we don't know what's going to be happening in development. I think the concern completely changes what we were going to come in -- because we were actually going to come in and say you get 2013. We get the premium tax for a year. You get it for the rest of the time. We turn over the inspections and permitting after 90 days with the provision that we're made whole with some review fee as long as we maintained everything else. So I don't know. MR. POTTEIGIER: One of the reasons for those impact fees -- Rob Potteigier -- we -- we added a station at Airport and Golden Gate Boulevard. And one of the reasons for that station was in torte for that area and industrial park because we couldn't get to that area fast enough from our Davis Boulevard station. MR. PRITT: Is -- is there a way of -- here I go again. Is there a way of attempting to quantify what we would be projecting maybe based upon the past? I know there's a lot of activity the last few years so that would probably be an unnatural number, unnaturally high. But, once again, if we're fussing over a $20,000 item, that's one thing. If we're fussing over a $2 million item, that's something else. But maybe somehow we could get some kind of handle on that. And, I mean, if that -- if that met -- maybe that would mess up everything that we've been talking about here today or maybe it would really not Page 85 July 6, 2007 mess up much. I just don't know. I don't have a feel for it. MS. DONALDSON: I think one of the difficulties I think goes to the same thing with the inspection of permitting fees is since we don't know what's going to be happening, it's difficult to quantify how much money it is. I just I don't think we can. I mean, if -- if only one building is built, then it's going to be pretty low over the five years. If the entire site's built out in five years, then that's a different number. So I think that -- DR. LEE: Could we do this just for the sake of, again, I haven't given this much thought, but since we're looking at keeping you whole till 2010, could we also restrict the impact fees to 2010? In other words, recognizing that something could happen, but also we need to plan for the future as well with any impact. I'm just trying to look at a compromIse. MS. DONALDSON: The -- I'd have to -- I mean, because we kind of looked at what was discussed. And it was kind of a package. DR. LEE: Right, it was. MS. DONALDSON: I'm hearing disagreement between my two chiefs. So I would say since I've got disagreement right here and we're not even caucusing, that would be a no. MR. PRITT: Could we get that disagreement on the record? MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. Yeah. DR. LEE: And, again, I apologize for that being part of the package. We just after reviewing it we saw that. And actually had some knowing what -- we all know what the purpose of impact fees are. The -- just the appropriateness of that. But we were able to resolve the -- I think we're going to be able to resolve the fee issue. MR. BIONDO: Could we have a -- could we have a two-minute caucus real quick? DR. LEE: Sure. MR. BIONDO: I just need to ask counsel one question. DR. LEE: Sure. Page 86 July 6, 2007 (Short recess was taken.) MR. OCHS: We're back on the record now. MS. DONALDSON: Because current law allows us under the four-year period to charge impact fees for that four-year period, my client is not willing to give up the impact fees during the term of the agreement. DR. LEE: Item 15, is that the only other item that was outstanding to be -- MR. OCHS: Item 9. DR. LEE: Oh, Item 9, that was the one. MS. DONALDSON: I think 15 will work it -- I mean-- DR. LEE: That's right. We'll take a quick caucus too, but let's cover mne. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. DR. LEE: Let me offer the following that I think the City attorney's opinion -- he can speak for himself -- is pretty clear, but let me offer the following compromise. If we say something like -- that first sentence, leave the first sentence. And then we say, It shall be a breach of this agreement if either agency or any person who is acting at the behest of either agency so challenge the annexation, period. In other words, we take out "in concert with" that you had a concern about. And we added after if either agency or a person who's basically working at the -- acting at the behest of the agency. Is that something that you could -- again, I don't necessarily know that the City attorney -- I think we talked about it. This is something I feel I could throw out. MR. OCHS: Did you want to caucus? DR. LEE: Yeah. We'll caucus. MR. OCHS: Okay. DR. LEE: And do you want to address that issue and we'll caucus on the impact -- MS. DONALDSON: Okay. Page 87 July 6, 2007 DR. LEE: -- fee item. MR. OCHS: Ten minutes? MR. PRITT: Bang on the door this time. (Short recess was taken.) MR. OCHS: We'll go back on the record. Bob, do you want to kick it off? DR. LEE: I think relative to the caucus, I think you were going to look at -- the lawyers look at our revised language for Item No.9. And the Naples Fire District was going to caucus on -- on the -- well, maybe -- MR. OCHS: I thought you guys were going to caucus on the __ DR. LEE: On the fire impact fees? MR.OCHS: Yes. DR. LEE: Okay. We did. MR. PRITT: Could I ask a question of clarification? Maybe you were just about to do it, Dr. Lee, but on 7 on G, this says user charges and impact fees. I presume you are referring to fire impact fees only; right? That's all you get. I'm not sure what all you're collecting. Are you only collecting the fire impact fees? MS. DONALDSON: Correct, impact fees for fire protection services. We -- we can't collect them for any of us. Obviously no one can. MS. CHIRGWIN: What is that? MS. DONALDSON: Page 7-G. MR. PRITT: G. MS. CHIRGWIN: Thank you. MR. PRITT: So you guys actually do the collection of fire impact fees and then somebody else does the collection of other impact fees? MR. POTTEIGIER: The County does them all and they're charged as a percentage. MS. DONALDSON: We have an interlocal agreement with the Page 88 July 6, 2007 County and they collect all impact fees. And then they take, I think, it's two or three percent, two percent. Okay. MR. BIONDO: I think it's one. MR. PRITT: So G is technically not correct because is said, Shall continue -- the District shall continue to collect. The County's collecting and the District is getting. MS. DONALDSON: I would say that we collect the impact fees -- our impact fee that's just being -- they're collecting on behalf of our (Multiple voices.) MS. DONALDSON: It's not a County impact fee. It's a -- this is the impact fee for East Naples Fire Control District. DR. LEE: You're collecting. You're just seeing that they do the collection for you? MS. DONALDSON: Right. MR. PRITT: Well, yeah. I'm not asking a trick question or anything or negotiating. I'm just trying to understand how it works. The City of Naples has agreements with the County also. We collect some of the County's impact fees and turn them over to the County. MS. DONALDSON: Right. MR. PRITT: And I was -- when I read this, I thought that the way this was working was you were collecting some of the impact fees, but it's actually the County is collecting them and turning them over to the benefit of the Fire District. Do I have that right? MR. OCHS: That's correct. That's correct. MS. DONALDSON: Right. DR. LEE: From our standpoint, we don't know what we're talking about in terms of the amount of impact fees. The compromise was felt to be -- that was offered before the caucus was -- was intended to be a fair way of seeing that you receive some compensation. But that the City was also going to be receiving some compensation for purpose of impact fees knowing that we were Page 89 July 6, 2007 looking at the fire station. That's the best I can give you right now. I think we're very close on this proposal. I would like to be able to get an agreement. I would offer that to you. If that's not something you can accept, then I would suggest that we both see ifthere's some other alternative. To just give the five years of impact fees, I just don't know. We're having a little bit of trouble with that in terms of parity. But I do think we -- if that's the only issue, I would suggest that we try to get some -- revise this language based on the new language that you've prepared on everything else that we have and see if we can get some language that would be agreeable. MS. DONALDSON: I can tell you as it relates to this, we can't agree to anything under what was in the statute for the four years. I understand the City's position. I mean, if you want to change it to 2012 because that is an extra year where you get the impact fees. You know, the year that we would not be otherwise able to collect but for this agreement. DR. LEE: I think one of the challenges that we have -- and I understand that -- what you're saying there perfectly. I would probably sit there and do the same -- is that we have to show to our City council as well that year that we're giving up on ad valorem, the dollars, because that is a money issue. And the difficulty I'm having with the five years of the impact fees, I just don't -- that's why that additional year is to offset. But I would suggest why don't we -- if we can get language on everything else, Laura, then maybe that's something we'll be able to -- to work out. That seems to be the only issue that's -- that's left. And I'd hate to have that just scratch everything else, the good faith effort to put together a contract here or an agreement. MS. DONALDSON: My only concern -- and I am more than willing to work with Mr. Pritt to draft the revisions. I don't think there's really that many revisions, deletion of some things. Page 90 July 6, 2007 DR. LEE: I don't think so either. MS. DONALDSON: Is that that was part of the whole agreement to give up all -- I mean, you know, and I realize that you look at permitting inspections as making it efficient. We look at it a different way, but it's kind of an entire package. I just don't want to get in a position where it's kind of off on its own issue. I mean, it's a whole package. DR. LEE: No. No. I understand. MS. DONALDSON: And we've been willing from the beginning to just stick with the four years. And -- and so that's kind of where we're at. And I know that that's an important issue for my client. But I could just say throwing out, we could go decrease it by a year to 2012 as it relates to impact fees. DR. LEE: Would you -- would you be willing to -- since you prepared this language, maybe if you don't object, Mr. Pritt, is to ask if you, Ms. Donaldson, could prepare the changes for us to look at. And include what you just said and then we'll respond accordingly. Bob, do you -- are you comfortable with that? MR. PRITT: That's fine with me. Could I ask one other thing, though? And Leo or Mike is there some way that we could -- that you could fairly easily get the raw data that say the impact fees for fire in this area for the last five years that we could at least use as a base so that we know that it's a $20,000 item or a $200,000 item or a $2 million item? And then we can argue over, well, the projection should be this. The projection should be that and so on. And maybe if it's not that much, we're finding -- we might find that we're arguing over something that's not that important. And I know you say you can't get it but, I mean, this -- the data has got to be out there. And I got to believe that it's fairly easy to get. And is that something that you guys would have readily available or -- MR. OCHS: Oh, sure. I mean, the schedule of impact fees is available on -- on the website. It's readily available. I think what Page 91 July 6, 2007 you're asking is is there a way -- if I understand you, Bob -- is there a way to take that fee and apply it against a typical building that may go up -- MR. PRITT: In Collier Park of Commerce. MR. OCHS: -- in that -- in that park of commerce. MR. PRITT: Thirty? Forty? MR. SALVATORI: Around 40. MS. DONALDSON: I mean, we can say -- I mean, we -- they can tell you right now what the fee is and based on square footage. And you could tell us how much construction's happened over the last two years, and we could sit here with a calculator and figure it out and tell you what's -- DR. LEE: I think that's all we really need. MS. DONALDSON: -- what impact fees have been over the last two years. I don't think that's difficult. MR. OCHS: Yeah. This is not necessarily my dog in this hunt, but you know how many vacant parcels you have left in the commerce park. MR. POTTEIGIER: We can come up with some hard figures, I mean, we can't -- because it depends on how many square foot that put m. DR. LEE: Well, it would be some assumptions. What we need to do is we'll get the numbers and -- MR. OCHS: Sure. DR. LEE: -- and if you'll just allow us that to get the numbers and make some assumption on a building and apply that so that when we do communicate with the City council, we've based it on something that's quantitative. I think that's what Mr. Pritt's looking at. MR. PRITT: Right. Thank you. MS. DONALDSON: But I just want to correct. We can calculate what's happened in the past. We just can't calculate what's going to happen in the future. I didn't mean to imply earlier that we Page 92 July 6, 2007 can't calculate -- DR. LEE: I understand. MS. DONALDSON: -- what we've already received from that-- the proposed property. DR. LEE: I think the future -- if you could project that, that would be even more important information for us. MS. DONALDSON: I'd go buy some property. MR. PRITT: If you can project the future, I've got some stock questions for you. DR. LEE: And, frankly, you mentioned something about some other attorney would take your place. If we can do this before you leave if possible, I think that would be in the best interest of everyone. MR. POTTEIGIER: Our board doesn't meet in July. So to finalize -- MR. PRITT: Neither does ours. DR. LEE: No. But I mean at least at this level, if we could come to a meeting of the minds and tentatively agree on -- MR. POTTEIGIER: Just so everybody knew, our board doesn't meet. MS. DONALDSON: I will have language drafted by next week. Well, next week. Not by next week. My next week. And then, obviously, just as we all -- it's a board decision. And we'll just have to discuss it. The other -- we have one other change. MR. PETTIT: I don't think we're in a position to change our position right now. We think that the first sentence captures it. And we think that if you have a concern, you go through the dispute resolution procedure. That's why it's in there. MR. PRITT: We need to withdraw our offer on that issue and go back and work on it. DR. LEE: Do you feel the same? MS. DONALDSON: I am comfortable the change as long as we Page 93 July 6, 2007 accept my blue change. Ifwe don't accept my blue change, then -- I know you disagree. MR. PETTIT: They think -- they were -- they already said they were taking voidness off the table. MS. DONALDSON: Then -- then I have to agree with the County. DR. LEE: Bob, do you feel that way with not having the -- the change from the -- the blue change on No.9 including that or is that a -- I don't recall what you stated on that. MR. PETTIT: What change is it you're agreeing to? MS. DONALDSON: That basically if this agreement gets voided, that we still have 171.093 apply to us. DR. LEE: I think we did change the -- we took out the voided part. MS. DONALDSON: Well, it's breached. Right, no, I mean, we MR. PRITT: Well, we took those out that you're disagreeing with. It's-- MS. DONALDSON: I agree with the first. Ifwe just took the first sentence of that section -- MR. PRITT: I understand. You and Mike have both said that. MS. DONALDSON: Right. I don't agree with the new change. DR. LEE: The most recent -- MS. DONALDSON: The City's change. Having said that, I will caveat and say I'm more comfortable with it if we also have the language that says 171.093 because my -- one of my concerns is the City saying, you know, we really just don't like this. We're going to blow it up. And then not only do we not have this agreement, we don't have the protection under 171.093. So I need to make sure that my clients are protected under either this agreement or the current statute. MR. PETTIT: Well, I'm confused though, Laura, because I think Page 94 July 6, 2007 that this -- I thought that the change -- the most recent changed language from the City did not include a reference to the agreement being void. MR. OCHS: Correct. DR. LEE: Correct. It does not. MS. DONALDSON: If it's -- right. That it's breached, but I think -- MR. PETTIT: The language you proposed was if any person acting in concert were acting -- acting at the behest of either agency shall challenge the annexation, this agreement shall be void. This shall a breach. My question is what's the agency? The agency's the board. So are you saying that somebody acting at board direction challenging the annexation that would be a breach, then I don't know why the first sentence doesn't cover -- doesn't handle the problem. I mean, what's your agency? It's a City council really. It's not you. DR. LEE: Right. MR. OCHS: Okay. So the Fire District's going to draft up some new language and submit it on Item 2? MS. DONALDSON: Correct. MR. PETTIT: Are you going to -- my question is: Are you going to submit it to the City first to see if they approve it or are you just going to send it to me to incorporate in with the other changes we've agreed on? MS. DONALDSON: I think what I was going to do was send to the City first and have them take a look at it recognizing that we don't have agreement on one paragraph and -- MR. PRITT: Why can't we just take the agreement that we have and on the things that we did agree, highlight them. And then do the red, white or red, blue, green again. MR. PETTIT: That's what I was thinking. MR. PRITT: I know you said you weren't going to do it. Whoever has control of the colors. Page 95 July 6, 2007 MR. PETTIT: But I guess my point is I didn't follow nor did I take notes on the discussion you just had. I'm going to have to get language that you've either agreed on or you can give me blue and you can give me red in response and we'll put those in there if that's what you want to do. DR. LEE: I think we should ultimately do that. I think the suggestion, though, that the Fire District give -- give us the language that we could look at. We may be able to submit just one color to you. MR. PETTIT: That's kind of what I'm hoping. But, I mean, either way the other point, though, is if we're going to do it that way, which is -- makes sense to me, you submit to the City. Let's understand we're not going to have an agreement in front of the County Commission on September 11 th best case. Because we have a meeting on the 24th which I know the agenda is already miserably large for. And I don't see any way to get this on the agenda for the 24th unless the county manager -- MR. PRITT: Are they off in August is that what you're saying? MR. OCHS: They're off in August, yes. MR. PETTIT: All August. MR. PRITT: All August. MR. PETTIT: So that raises the question, do we need to meet again also as a group? MS. DONALDSON: I mean, I just -- it seems as though we really have two issues outstanding. One is the impact fees. The other is the Section 9. DR. LEE: Correct. MS. DONALDSON: And so I don't know what the benefit would be to have another meeting when we're just down to that close. It may be just time away, you know, I don't know. I mean, I don't know if we're going to be able to come to some resolve as it relates to the impact fee issue or as it relates to Section 9. And if it's worth scheduling another meeting and trying to go through it one more time. Page 96 July 6, 2007 Because Section 9 seems to pretty much be complete difference of opinion. I don't know how that's going to move -- DR. LEE: The only thing I can think of since we have conceptually agreed -- I mean, we agreed in principle to this whole thing except for two points that you raised. It might be useful to get the final language to review it and get together one more time just to say that -- and that we agree on all these items and T A. That -- and hopefully that's not a lengthy meeting. That shouldn't be. But that's the only reason I would think that one more time perhaps. MR. OCHS: Well, we're willing to do that certainly. MS. DONALDSON: That would be, what, September for you guys? MR. OCHS: Well, we could meet prior to that. MS. DONALDSON: Well, I meant we could meet prior to that, but it's not -- MR. PETTIT: Our board wouldn't see it until September. MR. OCHS: Correct. MR. PRITT: I agree. I think we need to have one more meeting. And at that meeting we'll kind of have to decide whether or not we've got an agreement. If we don't have an agreement, we kind of have to say we don't have an agreement and agree that we're at an impasse and stop meeting like this. Because I think we pretty much got it down to most of the meetings. I think it's been very informative. And for no other reason to learn how you-all go about doing what you do. I don't know that there will ever be another negotiation between the City and East Naples Fire Control District or the need for it or another annexation or anything. But I think a learning curve has been pretty helpful. I don't think it's a total waste. MS. DONALDSON: So does that mean you're not going to annex within the Fire District anymore? MR. PRITT: As I said, I don't know. DR. LEE: We wouldn't have the pleasure of your company. Page 97 July 6, 2007 MS. DONALDSON: I'll miss my monthly trips to Naples. DR. LEE: Let's-- MR. PETTIT: Should we schedule a meeting? We'll schedule at the City. Should I have Mike Sheffield work with you-- DR. LEE: Yes, please. MR. PETTIT: -- to schedule? Should we do it -- I got to tell you I don't know if I'm going to be around at the end of July, but that doesn't necessarily mean I have to be there. We can schedule it in August. Is that the idea? A good idea? DR. LEE: That's fine. As long as the County cannot meet until September, I don't know that it's compelling that we -- MR. POTTEIGIER: It'd be better if you did it before the second week in August. That way we can at least get a draft to the board. MS. DONALDSON: But we wouldn't have -- they only meet once. Yeah. They only meet once. MR. PETTIT: Okay. Let me talk with him and see what he can work out with you and then we'll schedule it in. MR. PRITT: My August gets progressively worse and yours does too. And July is not too good either because of different things we have. But doesn't anybody by any chance have Tuesday, July 31st open? And the reason I ask that is that seems to be the fifth Tuesday. County, I don't know if you have meetings every Tuesday or it's just the first four. DR. LEE: Just a matter of vacations, et cetera. I don't know what everyone's doing. MR. SALVATORI: I'll be out of town from the 24th to August 9th. MR. PETTIT: I'm kind of in the same situation. DR. LEE: Why don't we -- why don't we suggest that we try to get -- have Mike and we'll get with Ann and we'll work out the schedules like we have in the past the best that we can. MS. DONALDSON: That -- and I think that would be great. Page 98 July 6, 2007 And I think for our sake we could get a tentative agreement to the board with maybe a couple of provisions still outstanding. And that might even help us to come back to negotiate if we get some additional direction from our board. MR. PRITT: When's your next board meeting? MR. BIONDO: The second. MR. POTTEIGIER: Second week. Second Tuesday of the month. MR. BIONDO: August. DR. LEE: Ideally -- and I understand it's certainly a prerogative, ideally if we could -- if we could come to an agreement between the three parties here and both -- and all three of us basically be selling this to our respective, we have an obligation to negotiate a contract. Now, our next obligation is to sell them if they want -- if City council wants to go through with the annexation, they know that they have a complete agreement that all parties have -- are in agreement with. I think that may help them and it may even help your board knowing the County and the City is in full agreement. We're this close. I would like to at least try to -- to see if we can come up with those final two provisions and agree on the complete language. Meet one more time. And if we can come up with a final agreement, then go to the board. If that's -- if you-all would consider that. MR. OCHS: We're just -- we're agreeable with that. MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. You know, I'm fine with that. I can always, of course, if it's sometime in July -- I mean, I can always get piped in if the City has the ability to teleconference me in. DR. LEE: Yes, we can. MR. PETTIT: What I'm going to do is I'm going to make all the changes we agreed today on this document. And they're going to -- the color will disappear from those. DR. LEE: Okay. MR. PETTIT: And I'll distribute it. I'll try to get that done next Page 99 July 6, 2007 week so you can double check it when the numbers are fresh. And then we're going to have 9 will be open and 2 will be open. And I guess 15 remains contingent on 2. But everything else I think we agreed on today. DR. LEE: And next week you'll get language to Bob, correct, and then we'll respond to that. MR. SALVATORI: If I could ask the drafter's to copy me. I tend to get left off the distribution list. DR. LEE: I understand there's a public comment Mike said. Someone wanted -- if we're concluded. Someone from the public, you're the only public, you'd asked to say something. MS. CHIRGWIN: First of all, I want to thank all you guys for working so hard together. I really -- I really enjoyed watching. THE COURT REPORTER: Your name, please, for the record. MS. CHIRGWIN: I don't have a name. DR. LEE: C-h-e-r-- MS. CHIRGWIN: Judith Chirgwin, C-h-i-r-g-w-i-n. I'm a resident. I'm a taxpayer. I'm a voter. And what happens in this particular situation interests me. But I have to admit that going through this made me feel a little bit like I was a parent and I was watching a group of people argue over custody of my child and where my child was going to go in a divorce situation. And it was -- it was interesting to -- to listen to all you guys try to figure things out. But I'm coming and I see how different people are coming from different positions in this situation. So that's why I asked to speak now at the end. Because I'm thinking of it from my position as a resident, taxpayer, voter in Naples. And I would like very much-- when Mr. Pritt was talking about in terms of some of the issues you had, I'd be very interested in knowing more about what is happening about money here. I'd be very interested in knowing from the County what kind of money over this period of time if an annexation took place, how much money would come out of your budget, how much Page 100 July 6, 2007 was in your budget in 2006 and 2007 and what's going to happen in it during the time that this agreement will be taking place? There are lots of services that you provide that you no longer are going to be providing. And I would -- all kinds of things. I would really like to have and I think that people who live in the City of Naples would like to know that. I'd like to know who owns the property we're talking about, by the way? MR. SAL VA TORI: There's about 40 different owners. MS. CHIRGWIN: Completely different? MR. SAL VA TORI: Different owners. MS. CHIRGWIN: Okay. MR. SAL VA TORI: I mean, there are some people that own more than one parcel. The County has actually some substantial holdings in there as well, but it's, like, I think 43 different owners as I recall. MS. CHIRGWIN: Uh-huh. And so there's no leasing ofland? There's -- they buy the land itself then? MR. SALVATORI: They buy the land themselves. So some of the buildings there are actually leased to tenants but they're owned by MS. CHIRGWIN: Yeah, I understand that. I understand that. How is the area zoned? MR. SALVATORI: Right now it's zoned industrial. MS. CHIRGWIN: Industrial. Okay. DR. LEE: Is it a Q&A? We've giving her an opportunity to give public -- public comments. If you want to ask the questions, as part of your comments, if we can address them afterwards, that may be the most productive way of -- MS. CHIRGWIN: I'd like to know about the building codes and permitting and things like that as to -- in which situation the County or the City is more restrictive in -- in this -- in this condition because that's one of the things that's going to have -- with development in that Page 10 1 July 6, 2007 area? And I guess I'm sort of curious why would the County agree to losing that property if it is -- if it is valuable or why the City wants to obtain it if it's valuable? And that just about covers it in terms of where I'm coming from. But I thank you-all. I really thank you-all. You can't imagine what an education this is. I wish more people would come and realize what you guys do. And, of course, Mr. Pritt and Dr. Lee know that I've been getting an education. I'm going to get a Ph.D. in this and I don't mean piled higher and deeper. DR. LEE: Let me suggest that some of the questions -- you had some really very good questions. And when we present this agreement to the city council, there will be those questions and others that we're going to need to address. They have to approve this by two meetings of an ordinance. MS. CHIRGWIN: I know that. DR. LEE: And they I'm sure will want to make sure they have all those answers. And, again, more. So in terms of the codes and restrictions, I don't know that we're -- what codes the County has versus the City's if we're going to answer that today. MR. BIONDO: I'd be more than glad to try if you guys want to entertain that. I'll be as brief as I can. The codes should be the same. The building code is the building code. It's the Florida Building Code. The Fire Prevention Code is the Florida Fire Prevention Code so they should all be the same. There are some County local amendments. I don't know if the City -- I think the City has some maybe ordinances in place and amendments also. So as a whole, they all should be the same. There maybe a couple of things that are different per that jurisdiction. Let's say, you know, we may have --like, we have a gate ordinance in the County. I think the City has adopted the same gate ordinance that we have. So we are trying to do some things together. That's the remote clickers, you know, where you get in the emergency evac clickers to get in the gated communities? Page 102 July 6, 2007 MS. CHIRGWIN: Do we have gated communities? MR. MCEVOY: Every high rise on Gulfshore Boulevard is a gated community. MS. CHIRGWIN: Oh, thank you. Thank you. MR. BIONDO: And without those codes in order for us to -- we'd have to have 1,000 codes, you know, because we have gated communities everywhere. We have a universal remote and it's -- you know, it's a county-wide remote. And the City I think also adopted that same ordinance that we have so we can all -- we can go into the City if we have a call in the City to help them out. We can get in their residence and vice versa in return. So as a whole they should all be the same. There may be some minor changes. But, you know, County Manager Mudd's not here. And I don't -- I didn't get a chance to debate or dispute his comments about us making the code stricter. I'm not -- I'm not aware that we've made the code any stricter. The ordinance is in place. The ordinance -- if you look at the ordinance is derived from the code. I'm not aware that it's any stricter, but I guess that's a matter of opinion. DR. LEE: Thank you for that -- that overview. And just a final question. I don't know if I'll be able to answer it completely, but at least in terms of why the County or the City would be interested in annexing. We received a request for annexation. And there is a process and we're following it to consider that annexation to discuss the services and who would be providing those services which is what we've been doing the last six months. So this is part of the process. And ultimately the city council will decide, make that decision on annexation based on the work that we've done here and when it's presented to them in an interlocal agreement. MS. CHIRGWIN: I think that my comment is that by the time it gets before the city council, there maybe things which I as a resident and other residents residence may like to know. Because that's really down to the wire as it were in a sense. And I would appreciate any Page 103 July 6, 2007 feedback that anybody can give me so that I can more clearly understand what's going on in this situation. And particularly what you said about what do things cost. When you talk about impact fees, you know, like how do you figure this? How do you -- how do you come to these conclusions? Are there other ways to come to these conclusions? I just think that it's valuable for people to have that kind of information. MS. DONALDSON: Well, I think -- I know it's the City's. Have you looked at the urban services report? It might be helpful because that has a lot of the financial information. That they have calculated that. So that might be helpful for you to receive because it also talks about zoning -- current zoning. DR. LEE: Yes. MS. DONALDSON: And how they're going to be dealing with some of the services. DR. LEE: Check. And maybe I don't know if it's on the website or not. If it isn't, we should -- we can certainly put it on the website. We can certainly do that. MS. DONALDSON: So that might -- that's something -- (Multiple voices.) DR. LEE: Jim, would you mind checking on that and see if we can get that on? MS. CHIRGWIN: I want the County -- (Multiple voices.) DR. LEE: Get as much as information as before, we'll certainly make available to the citizenry. MR. PRITT: Time out. Our court reporter -- THE COURT REPORTER: One at a time, please. DR. LEE: Okay. With that, is there any other business? MR. OCHS: None. DR. LEE: Thank you all for the cooperation. And I guess we'll be hosting it next time. Page 104 July 6, 2007 MR. OCHS: Thank you. (Meeting was concluded at 5:20 p.m.) ***** TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, 1Ne., BY CAROLYN J. FORD. Page 105