Loading...
BCC Minutes 08/10/2007 S (Proposed Annexation - Collier Park of Commerce) August 10, 2007 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CITY OF NAPLES GOVERNMENT EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT COLLIER COMMERCE PARK ANNEXATION MEETING August 10,2007, Naples, Florida 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 August 10,2007 at 9:00 a.m., Naples City Hall, 2nd Floor, Multi-Media Room, Naples, Florida. PRESENT: JAMES MUDD, County Manager LEO OCHS, JR., Deputy County Manager DAVID WEIGEL, County Attorney MICHAEL PETTIT, Chief Assistant County Attorney DR. BOB LEE, City Manager ROBERT PRITT, City Attorney ROBERT POTTEIGER, Assistant Fire Chief ANGELA DAVIS, E. Naples Fire Commissioner LAURA DONALDSON, Attorney-E. Naples Fire Dist. LEO SAL VA TORI, Attorney for CPOC Page 1 August 10,2007 DR. LEE: Good morning. Welcome to yet another meeting in a series of meetings we've had regarding working on an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement for the Collier Park of Commerce. Today is August 10th, 2007. It happens to be my wedding annIversary . MR. POTTEIGER: Hey, happy anniversary. Also an opportunity -- 28 years. DR. LEE: Also an opportunity to congratulate Laura on the birth of her child, not today, but anyways we understand that everything is well and we're glad you're with us today. MS. DONALDSON: Yes. The due date was this past Monday, so she would have only been three days old today. DR. LEE: Today I think we were really down to two items if I recall, Jim. We've had about 17 or so that we've deliberated over since January. And the two items that I have are Article 9, which is -- is in the draft, and perhaps we might be able to address that one first. That's the item that references involvement from others in terms of the impact and to having this approved by respective jurisdictions. And the other area has to do with fire district services. And my recollection was, impact fees was where we left off in terms of who would be receiving those of men. Since our last meeting I received a copy of some correspondence, Mr. Pritt provided me from Attorney Donaldson, wherein, I think she attempted to summarize or prepare yet another draft of what they're proposmg. And, Jim, unless you have any other thoughts at this time as far as proceeding, perhaps we could have Laura review that proposal right after we look at Article Number 9. MR. MUDD: I think you're right. There's only two things in front of us today. It's nine and the fire, how we're going to work out Page 2 August 10, 2007 fire services. We're going to put this thing to bed. DR. LEE: With -- with that, on Number 9 so we can move forward because we've all spent a lot of time on this, we would agree to the language that the county referenced that first sentence. I think we're all in agreement minimally on that, and specifically it's the county and the fire district agree that they will forego objection and challenge to the CPOC annexation, which is the subject of this agreement. Is that acceptable? MR. PETTIT: Okay. Let me -- would you state that again? DR. LEE: In the -- in the draft agreement that we have -- in past meetings and discussions we've had, the first sentence of Article 9 under County's and Fire District Agreement, it states the county and fire district agree they will forego objection and challenge to the CPOC annexation, which is the subject of this agreement. That's-- MR. PETTIT: Yeah. We've always agreed with that. DR. LEE: Right. MS. DONALDSON: The fire district is fine with that. DR. LEE: Okay. So, is this an item that we can TA? MR. PETTIT: If -- if we're good, if that's going to be the sum and substance in mind -- MR. MUDD: Ifwe cross out the rest of this stuff-- MR. PETTIT: Yeah, we're good. MR. MUDD: -- no problem. DR. LEE: See, isn't that a first evidence that we're really trying to get this thing settled today? MR. MUDD: I think you're tired of looking at me is what I think. DR. LEE: Unless the county has anything else, our -- our focus is going to be, I think, fire service right now. MR. MUDD: Fire. DR. LEE: And -- and, Laura, would it be acceptable to you if -- Page 3 August 10, 2007 if you summarize what you put forth? MS. DONALDSON: I attempted to revise the language based on our discussion and understanding following the last meeting. In Section B, basically, I changed the transition date dealing with permitting and inspections from -- before it was September or October 1,2010, which is the -- the period -- actually, it was a two-year period, and put it 90 days, which is something that the city has asked for in its . . prevIOUS verSIOns. Basically, at the transition date, the city would -- would start doing the inspections and the site plan reviews. We had discussed the issue of fees, and so I put in language that said from the transition date to September 30th, 2010, so that's basically three years. The fire district would continue to receive its inspection fees. But recognizing that we weren't doing inspections, there's a later provision that says basically we can't charge more than what those inspection fees are unless it's a district wide increase, but allows us to really call what it is, which is a plan review. We don't have the authority to deny or approve. It's more of a safety issue. We need to know what's going in, where it's spending time. And I believe the from the letters or e-mails sent from Leo, that was fine with the Collier Park. So, basically, it just goes through. The city's in charge of it, but on submission of a new application for permit or plan review, they send, basically, it to the district so they know the correct amount to charge. And then I also put, recognizing that the city would be collecting a fee on behalf of the district approved two percent administrative charge because I know generally that's agreed to. And I know everyone has different percentages that they charge. For the district boundary contraction, I changed it where the district boundary did change next year, which is something -- if we Page 4 August 10, 2007 went under the statute, the boundaries were not changed until 2008, and so I -- I put what the statute provides for for that, so the fire district would receive the premium tax revenues for the upcoming year within. The city would receive it from thereon out. I also left -- I'm sorry. Going back to the term, the fire district would be the service provider until 2013, except as it relates to the permitting and inspections. The user charges and impact fees. One of the things that we discussed was making sure that the fire district did not target the annexed property and basically charge a really high fee because, you know, how dare they annex. So, in order to make sure that legally we could charge them a fee, I put in a provision that states that we're allowed to adopt the fee which is charged the park that's been annexed. It just can't be more than the total fees. I was trying to make sure that we provided some protections to the property owners and at the same time gave the district the authority -- you know, we -- we're not trying to restrict the authority because I think at one point the city had requested that we put in that the fee could only be charged district wide. This would be the same. The fee would be charged district wide, but it would only be charged to those lands that had been annexed by the city, but the district continue to provide services. And then I also left under current law the district can collect impact fees to the property. I left that in, but included a provision that the city collects it, and that that's the two percent collection fee. Once again, one of the arguments that the city has made dealing with the permitting and inspection was to streamline the process and to have you go to one place and you pay everything, you have one entity do everything. It would be confusing to have you go to the city, pay them a fee, Page 5 August 10, 2007 and then go to the district and pay them a fee. Just pay the city the fees and then the city deducts. It's kind of what I believe you do with the impact fees for the county, impact fees that you collect. DR. LEE: Yes. MS. DONALDSON: And the last provision, H, just said that if the annexation does not occur this year and it occurs next year, we're the fire service provider beginning October 1 of2009, so it pushes it back. My only concern with drafting H, there are other provisions in the agreement; for example, the transportation costs that the land -- the property owner has agreed to pay for. I don't want to get into a situation where, let's say, for some reason I know you're leaving, Dr. Lee, that annexation doesn't go through for two years, not because of a lawsuit but just you're leaving, there's city election in February, it gets pushed off. I don't know if we want to be bound by an agreement for five years and the annexation not occur until year three or four, not because of something we're doing, but just because of, you know, political winds, and then the land improve -- or the road improvements are three times as much three years from now and then we're on the hook for it because we've got an agreement for a lower amount. I don't think that's going to happen but I have to think worst case scenano. And I think that's it. I may -- I think the only -- I tried to encapsulate what we agreed to at the last meeting. You know, we left the last meeting saying we could not agree to giving up the issue of impact fees. This language has us still doing the impact fees. DR. LEE: A couple -- a couple comments. Let me preface it by suggesting again, if -- if anyone would like to caucus, we can do that at the appropriate time. Page 6 August 10, 2007 The first item has to do with the transition date, September 30th, 2010, in terms of charging fees, what you would be charging up till that point. I think one of the concerns that we had, and we expressed it at the last meeting, is if we're going to be doing the inspections, which in this particular case is proposed, would be 90 days after the annexation, effective date of the annexation, that we should be collecting the inspection fees and that in this case property owners on CPOC would only be paying those who are doing the inspections, the inspection fees. If I'm -- I think you touched on it but it wasn't real clear to me from reading this. But you're not suggesting that there would be double charges; in other words, the city would be charging when they started inspections after 90 days, and that you would also be able to charge up to a two-year period for inspections. Is that what you're suggesting? MS. DONALDSON: No. I -- I think it -- and -- and maybe I did not do it properly. The district would be able to charge basically a site planner review fee, but a maximum amount would be what it currently charges as inspection fees. I think the property owner did not, and I think the city stated it as well, it did not want us to just go out and charge someone whatever we wanted to charge them, but I can't say we're charging them an inspection fee when we're not doing an inspection. Really what the district would be doing is reviewing the plans, not approving them, but we'd be getting the plans and reviewing them to make sure, you know, that, one, we know it's there in case there's a fire and an emergency. DR. LEE: I guess what I'm getting at typically there's a fee that's charged that would -- would include site plan review inspections that Page 7 August 10, 2007 would be part of the fee. And we're going to be obviously charging to do site plan review as well and the -- and the subsequent inspections. Do I hear you saying then that also part of this process you would like to charge a fee for site plan review? MS. DONALDSON: Correct. DR. LEE: And have you carved out what that fee would be? MS. DONALDSON: It would be -- excuse me -- no more than the total of its existing inspection fees amount. DR. LEE: But -- but let me -- let me further clarify. Right now when you charge a fee, does that include site plan and inspections? MS. DONALDSON: I believe it's separate. It's separate fees. DR. LEE: Okay. That helps me at least understand what we're talking about. Okay. MS. DONALDSON: And -- and what I was trying to do was limit -- and I guess maybe the confusion is because I put a total of existing inspection fees and that's what causing the confusion. We're not doing an inspection -- DR. LEE: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: -- but trying to somehow cap the amount that we're going to be charging and it would not just be for Collier Park. It would be for any future annexed land. And what I envision is basically if we reached this agreement and the property is annexed, the fire district will have to adopt the resolution that sets a site permit review fee for those properties that have been annexed. Right now it's -- well, we do have some other properties that have been annexed, but as relates to this agreement, it would be Collier Park. DR. LEE: And we would be just addressing this particular annexation in this interlocal though. Page 8 August 10, 2007 MS. DONALDSON: Correct. I'm just -- DR. LEE: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: -- trying to explain what the process would be. Right now we don't have a fee. DR. LEE: For site plan review. MS. DONALDSON: For site plan review for properties that have been annexed that we're still providing the services to. Well, no. Let me take that back. Technically, under the law right now, properties have been annexed by the City of Naples over the last four years. We should still be paying the district an inspection fee and the district should still be doing inspections because under the current law we have that authority. Now, that has not occurred. But, technically, that is what should be occurring. Under this agreement, it says we're giving up the ability to do inspections. We're retaining the ability to do a site plan, not approval of a site plan. But we're going to be reviewing site plans. And, so, this allows us to recoup some fees. I tied it to our existing inspection fees amount so that the property owner would have some idea what they are going to be charged, and that we're not going to go after them for ten times the amount that we would be charging everyone else. DR. LEE: And we would -- and then that would be something you couldn't do anyways, but I think, again, what I'm hearing is if you want to be able to charge a separate site plan review fee period. MS. DONALDSON: Correct. DR. LEE: Okay. The second item under C, District Boundary construction -- MR. PETTIT: Contraction. DR. LEE: You're saying -- contraction. I'm sorry. Page 9 August 10, 2007 The boundary of the fire district shall contract to delete the annexed area on September 30,2008. Why would we not want it to contract on the date of annexation because the -- I'm looking at the previous item. We're actually going to be doing inspections within 90 days. Why would the -- we would propose that the contraction should occur when it's annexed? MS. DONALDSON: Well, I think the law allows -- well, not I think. The law allows for a fire district and cities that have overlapping boundaries. I mean, it happens all across -- all across the state. The reason why we had 2008 is, in all honesty, the fire district wants it to be through the end of this agreement, but during the last meeting I thought we had agreed to maintaining at least the existing laws that relates to the district's boundaries, which is what the 2008 is. Under current law, when land is annexed, our boundaries would change September 30th, 2008. So, that -- that's why we -- that's why there's that 2008 date. We -- we want the 2013, but in order to try to reach some agreement between us, we agree to, well, okay we won't go to the 2013. We'll just do what the existing law allows, which is the 2008. DR. LEE: Okay. And I think as -- as we would agree, the -- the existing law does also provide, as you've mentioned before, four years and out and some other changes. We were trying to negotiate something that -- that if we're allowed to do, that may vary from that. The third -- third question or comment is under impact fees. And if! understood you correctly, you want the city to collect that and retain two percent and refer those fees to you. I did not have a chance to look to see what the fire district fees were. I don't know if anyone provided that, but I did look at the city's impact fees, and -- and I think the -- the one question I would have is Page 10 August 10, 2007 -- maybe CPOC has an answer to this -- is to what the real difference IS. In other words, if -- if you're collecting impact fees versus -- I mean, we're collecting them on your behalf, or if we're collecting them on behalf of the city, and we're using the city's impact fee schedule, do we know what that difference is? MS. DONALDSON: I know that the -- that the association -- I think you said some impact fee e-mail, but it was -- I think what you expect long term of the development within the property based on the city's impact fees. MR. SALVA TORI: I remember there was a tax reference. I'm not sure if we looked at the impact. MS. DONALDSON: That was a tax reference. MR. PRITT: I thought the county was going to help us a little bit on what the county's side of it is. Did we -- Leo or anybody, could you -- were you able get any information for us? The county -- remember, we were talking about the county impact fee and if we could figure out the rate of the county, I guess it's just the fire impact fee, but figure out the -- the county's rate on that and some kind of an estimate as to what happened in the last X number of years, then maybe we can project forward as to what amount might be in controversy -- MS. DONALDSON: Well, I-- MR. PRITT: -- because we were wondering whether or not it was a -- a minor amount rather than a major amount. And we did that for the city, I guess, but I'm not sure that we have for the county. The county would continue to have a fire impact fee even though it's in the city. Is that correct? DR. LEE: No. MS. DONALDSON: No. Page 11 August 10, 2007 DR. LEE: Then we continue -- then, I mean, there's impact fees, but the fire would be something separate. And that's the one -- MR. OCHS: Correct. DR. LEE: -- that we just want to -- MR. OCHS: Correct. DR. LEE: -- identify. If you all have that information, maybe we could -- MS. DONALDSON: We -- we can make a call. You know, the -- the impact fee is something that the district adopts by resolution, and then we have an interlocal agreement with the county and the county collects it. But can you go ask Paul to -- MS. DAVIS: Yeah. Yeah. Impact fees? MS. DONALDSON: Thanks. DR. LEE: Yeah, that may help us. MS. DONALDSON: And, so, we can get that amount but, of course, unless we know what type of development is going on in the next five years, or, actually, I tied it to four years. No. Actually, it's five years. We don't really know what the costs will be. If they don't do any development out there for the next four or five years, then they're not going to be paying the fire district's fee. They're going to be paying the city's fee, because at that point, the interlocal agreement won't be in place. So, I -- I mean, we can tell you how much we charge per square foot and what type of facility, but we can't tell you this is how much they're going to pay because we don't know until we get what you're going to be developing out there. MR. PRITT: Well, maybe I had a misunderstanding. Connie, is that -- this -- this is not a county ordinance for the fire impact fee for fire districts? The imposition that the impact fee is something that's done by the Page 12 August 10, 2007 district themselves. Is that correct? It's different from Lee County. Lee County has an ordinance that covers everybody and the -- MR. MUDD: Well, I believe the fee -- MR. PRITT: -- and all the districts who in that are not, and I thought -- MR. MUDD: -- schedule -- I believe the fee schedule gets attached to our consolidated impact fee ordinance as -- as an addendum, so to speak, okay -- MR. PRITT: Right. MR. MUDD: -- but it's -- but it's based on their resolution coming back to the board, then the board -- MR. PRITT: Okay. MR. MUDD: -- brings it up. MS. DONALDSON: And I believe they all charge the same. MR. MUDD: They do. MR. PRITT: So, maybe we're looking to the wrong source for the information as to what the -- MR. OCHS: Right. MR. PRITT: -- impact fee. DR. LEE: If the -- I think we're going to -- and what we could do is once -- I have one other point here, is if you want to take a brief recess and get that information also, I can consult with Mr. Pritt on some of these points and we can come back and -- and see if there is some further progress we could make on this particular service area. The only other question that -- that I had at this time is on H, where it talks -- where it begins with failure to annex by December 31st. And I guess the -- you reference about -- and you -- you made some -- make a very good point about control of the decision making. This will be with the elected bodies. Page 13 August 10, 2007 But I think that in that same concern is reversed relative to if the city, if it's -- if it's no -- no fault of the city. If you follow what I'm saying, if it was no fault of the city and it goes beyond December, then that's a problem, I -- I think, for us. Perhaps what we may want to at least consider, if it does not occur by December 31 st, we have to look -- we have to rediscuss the fire service portion. It may be that the -- again, what we will agree to with the county, whether it's all in one agreement, or we end having two separate agreements. But I think the focus here is with the fire service in terms of not having it annexed by December 31 st. That may be a -- an alternative. If it isn't done, then we need to revisit what we talked about. MS. DONALDSON: You know, I -- I think, Dr. Lee, the reason why we had changed it to 2009 was based on our negotiations of the last meeting, and -- and that was something I thought that the city had -- was okay with. The more I thought about it though, because it's more than just the fire. As I mentioned, we do have the transportation improvement costs that the property owner has -- or some of the property owners have agreed to pay, and if it's -- let's just say it doesn't occur until three years from now -- DR. LEE: Uh-huh. MS. DONALDSON: -- regardless of why it doesn't occur, those transportation costs could be much more expensive. One way around that potentially might be is recognizing the city's concerns about the litigation or someone challenging it, is to have a provision that maybe says something to the effect that as long as the city takes the appropriate steps, adopts the two ordinances, if you go through the process -- DR. LEE: Right. Page 14 August 10, 2007 MS. DONALDSON: -- then the agreement applies. I just don't want to be in a position where -- I mean, obviously, if there's a lawsuit, there's a lawsuit. The annexation doesn't become effected. And I know that there's a whole trust issue as it relates to that. But it was made very clear that the city does not trust the district or its employees or agents. And, so, if we tie it to the city's actions and not so much a lawsuit, I don't know if that would give you much more comfort, because then the city would clearly have control of the process if the city adopts its -- its two ordinances, then it would be acceptable and that section would not apply. But if the city doesn't take the necessary steps, annex the property, then I think that we should have the agreement pushed back, because I can tell you that my client does not want to be on the hook for -- MR. PETTIT: Well, Laura, can I ask -- just ask you a question? In Paragraph 6, and maybe I'm not following the train of thought, it says neither the county nor the fire district shall be obligated to contribute to any maintenance or repairs to the public road right-of-ways required by the city part of the annexation of the CPOc. And that doesn't seem to have a time limit on it. MS. DONALDSON: Right. But I also think that the property owners have only agreed to pay us 175,000. MR. PETTIT: That's the city's problem -- MS. DONALDSON: Okay. MR. PETTIT: -- from my point of view. MS. DONALDSON: Well, then I guess it would just be a -- then I guess it would just be a fire district issue. We would not -- MR. PETTIT: Hey, I'm just pointing that out. I think I'm trying -- I was trying to follow your -- what you were saying and I was thinking about it as -- I was looking at that. I don't know whether that Page 15 August 10, 2007 helps. MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. At the same time under the -- I -- I just don't want to get in the position that we have to pay additional moneys because the agreement's pushed back. I also don't want to get in the position where it's -- if the city does not take action, at least as it relates to fire, for three years, that we lose the five years that we've negotiated under this agreement. DR. LEE: I understand. MS. DONALDSON: But I think it's something that we can easily revolve by -- as long as the city takes some necessary steps and exclude any delays as a result of challenges. DR. LEE: I understand. MS. DONALDSON: And I -- and I think we -- we do have our impact fees. It's 26 cents a square foot for commercial, and that's really the only thing that matters, not residential. DR. LEE: Okay. By the way, on the -- in terms of trust, that's a great job that -- that you've done and we've all done in working together here. We -- I think we came right out of the box with that first item and -- and agreed to that, so I just wanted to get that on the record in terms of the concern about trust. Secondly, with the -- with the information on square footage, I would like to take a brief recess and take a look and compare that what we have, I think we will be able to address this from an informed standpoint information which we hadn't had in the past. Is that all right with everyone? Okay. (A recess was had from 9:34 a.m. until 9:55 a.m.) DR. LEE: Okay. Welcome back. We appreciate the courtesy of giving us an opportunity to have some review for Attorney Donaldson's language. I would like to address the four points in response and in an effort to, again, try to get -- reach some compromise that's going to be in the Page 16 August 10, 2007 best interest of all parties. The first item had to do with a post transition period as far as a planned review fee, and we will agree to that, provided that it's capped at your inspection fee rates that are currently in place. And also that is for review only. It's not for purposes of approval, but this is for review so that you know what's there and can make your -- be prepared for the purpose of response. The second item, and we're -- this -- what I'm proposing is -- should be considered as a package. The second item, we would agree to the contraction date of 9-30-08, as you've referenced. The third item has to do with the impact fees. And for the record, it appears that we may have the lowest impact fee rates. I think there was a reference made otherwise, but it's very close. In our particular case I think it's our -- it shows that it's $25.20 per square foot. And -- I'm sorry. Twenty-five cents point two per square foot. MR. POTTEIGER: And, sir, that's not the lowest. DR. LEE: We do have the worst writing in this particular case and then some. But it's twenty-five cents point two-tenths for a square foot. And I think theirs is around twenty-six something, you said. And what we would propose, they're very close, and I think that what we would propose to move forward with this so we're not rangling (sic) with the time, is that we actually split those impact fees. It's -- it's acknowledged that there's some anticipation of those from you in terms of work that you've done, but also we have to acknowledge that there's an anticipation on the city's part that we're going to need those impact fees for work that we would do as part of a long-term plan of the fire station at the airport. The fourth item has to do with a -- and, Laura, you mentioned it, concerns about -- and this is H, the failure to annex by December 31 st, Page 17 August 10,2007 of '07, and we acknowledge that, the concerns that you had and we proposed language that would provide that failure to annex by December 31 st, 2007, and we would add action -- we would add language that would provide for action or inaction attributed to the city, and then we can leave your language. We would propose to add one other section to this particular subsection here, and that is we would add that a failure to annex by December 31 st, 2008 for any reason, any party may effectively terminate this agreement. And I think that -- that addressed some of your concerns about three years out, you know, in terms of what costs were, although I think Attorney Pettit may have addressed that. But, anyways, we've listened to what you said and we're trying to get there, something that's going to be reasonable. MS. DONALDSON: Two questions; one, as it relates to Section 8 and the change that you just said, is it to any party can terminate that's a party to section -- this Section 2, or is it the entire agreement? MR. PRITT: The entire. MS. DONALDSON: I don't think the county would want the entire agreement if it's just a fire district related issue to be terminated. DR. LEE: I think that's the suggestion of our legal counsel was the entire agreement because we haven't annexed, that -- that we would have that option to do the quorum. MR. PETTIT: We need to caucus on that before we can respond to that. DR. LEE: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: And then my other question as it relates to impact fees before we caucus on it, apparently we have that the city would deduct a two percent collection fee. DR. LEE: Yes. MS. DONALDSON: Since we're splitting it, would we still-- would we split it and then you collect the two percent, or would we Page 18 August 10, 2007 eliminate the two percent collection fee since, really, it's the splitting of fees? DR. LEE: Well, I think that we're -- we'll still be collecting it and we'd be turning it over to your -- your -- your percentage, which I think is -- is the normal, I think. MR. MUDD: So, let me --let me make sure I understood that. So, it's basically going to a split, 50/50, and there's no administrative fees to split the collection as far as fire -- fire fees are concerned. Is that correct? MS. DONALDSON: No. I think -- DR. LEE: No. MS. DONALDSON: -- what he said is it's 50/50 and then off of our 50 percent, they're going to collect a collection fee on top of that. DR. LEE: That is what was proposed. MS. DONALDSON: So, we'll need to caucus. MR. PRITT: Just before you do that, there is one other thing that -- it might be a small thing. I don't know. Maybe it's a big thing. Am I mistaken or did you add alarm fees? I don't recall alarm fees being discussed before. And it showed up in your July 23rd rewrite. Was that there before? Had we talked about that? MS. DONALDSON: No. That -- that actually came about I'd asked the fire district to give me all of their resolutions and all the fees that they charge to development, and that was one of them. Since the district can charge a user charge, I just wanted to make it clear that, I guess, the first thing, it says that the fire district shall continue to collect user charges to make it clear that that includes false alarms, because I know that can be a problem for the fire district with those issues. That's why that popped up, is I just wanted to clarify that user Page 19 August 10, 2007 charges included the false alarm fees. MR. PRITT: Well, that's a user charge -- a false alarm fee may not be a user charge, which is probably why you added that specifically. Is that correct? MS. DONALDSON: I just didn't want there to be any doubt. I -- I didn't -- MR. PRITT: Is that a big deal? You guys make a lot of money on false alarm fees? DR. LEE: I hope not. MS. DONALDSON: I don't think it's -- it's the issue about the money. I think the issue with the false alarm fees is that it's a deterrent to make sure that the property owner -- MR. POTTEIGER: We just want it fixed. MR. PRITT: Well, we had one, too, and -- and we collect and do the same thing that -- that you're probably doing. But we -- we would want to make sure that if -- you know, if there is a problem with this being annexed property, we would want to make sure that it's not going to -- we're not going to continue to have a problem either. In other words, we do have some interest as far as the city is concerned in making sure that those false alarm problems are taken care of rather than just be out there and being a fee generating thing. MS. DONALDSON: Well, for the first five years, we're the one who's going to be responding to them. MR. PRITT: Yeah. MS. DONALDSON: And, so, that's why that's there. Ifwe weren't responding to the fires or the farm alarms, I don't think it would be an issue -- MR. PRITT: Right. MS. DONALDSON: -- but since we're the ones who are going to be responding for five years ifthere's a false alarm, we felt the Page 20 August 10, 2007 district should be able to collect that fee. But I -- I agree. I mean, once the city takes over -- MR. PRITT: Right. MS. DONALDSON: -- you can continue to collect your fire fee, because it's the same thing. You don't want to keep going out to a property if it's no fire. DR. LEE: Okay. I think we're good. MR. MUDD: We've got to caucus on one issue. DR. LEE: Yes. MS. DONALDSON: And where can we go? DR. LEE: We can get you a place if you'd like. (A recess was had from 10:04 a.m. until 10:18 a.m.) DR. LEE: Okay. Are we ready to resume? I think everyone is back. And I think perhaps we could -- Jim and you all may want to go first after your caucus and then we can go to the fire district. MR. MUDD: Sure. Go ahead, Mike. MR. PETTIT: Yeah. I think our position is that, yeah, we can add a provision to the agreement that says that if the annexation doesn't occur by the 31 st of this year, that -- MR. MUDD: 2008. MR. PETTIT: 2008, I guess, that the Interlocal Agreement would be terminated. MR. MUDD: But we would like that -- we would like that section added or -- DR. LEE: Not that either party -- not that -- MR. MUDD: Yeah. DR. LEE: -- either party, but it will terminate, you're saying. Is that -- MR. MUDD: Yeah. The -- you basically had talked about age, and you said adding something by 31 December, 2008, any party can terminate or whatever that is. Page 21 August 10, 2007 DR. LEE: That's okay. MR. MUDD: But we don't have a problem with that. DR. LEE: Okay. MR. MUDD: We would prefer that that section not be in the fire section, that it be used someplace in one of the -- DR. LEE: Let's mark as a stand alone provision. MR. MUDD: -- paragraphs outside the fire. MR. POTTEIGER: Okay. Stand alone document. MR. PRITT: The -- the only -- the only reason for saying any party can terminate as opposed to automatic termination is it may be that things are going well enough that we don't want to do that, and then we would all have to get together to keep it from terminating as opposed to somebody taking a -- the -- MR. WEIGEL: Termination action. MR. PRITT: -- of actually -- yeah, termination action, so that was the idea of saying any party can terminate. MR. PETTIT: That's fine with us. MR. MUDD: I want to -- just put it in -- MR. PRITT: Just make it -- we'll make it 16 -- DR. LEE: Okay. MR. PRITT: -- or something, or put it somewhere. DR. LEE: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: The fire district is fine with that. The fire district is fine with that. MR. PETTIT: And I misspoke. I said 12-07. It's 12-08. MR. PRITT: Okay. Now, the -- the 12-07 -- MR. POTTEIGER: It's 12-08. MR. PRITT: Okay. On the 12-07, if! understand correctly, that would -- the language you have is that if it's attributable to the city, then it will move forward everything by one year. DR. LEE: Yeah. And if it says it's for -- if it's for action or inaction attributable to the city. Page 22 August 10,2007 MR. PRITT: Right. MS. DONALDSON: Right. And we're fine with that as well. MR. PRITT: And that's okay with -- okay. MS. DONALDSON: Yes. MR. PRITT: So, the idea is that, look, if something happens, it's not going to get done by December 31 st, 2007, because it's not that far away, we think it will move back a year but if it's not done by December 31 st, 2008, then any party can terminate the agreement. That way we're not hanging out there with an agreement that maybe there's not an annexation to support it or anything like that. MR. PETTIT: So, the 12-07 would still be operative if it was an action by the city. MR. PRITT: Yes. MR. PETTIT: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: Well, I think it would be we'd leave -- that would just be for Section H and then you'd have the separate provision that has the agreement maybe terminated -- MR. PETTIT: That's-- MS. DONALDSON: -- if -- ifno action by-- MR. PETTIT: That's fine. MR. PRITT: Correct. MS. DONALDSON: As it relates to the impact fee -- can we move on to the impact fees? DR. LEE: Uh-huh. MS. DONALDSON: We discussed it and we proposed back that we agree splitting with splitting the fee, which would be the higher amount of the fee that's charged. But I don't think we discussed -- do we take the average of what you charge and what we charge and then -- I -- I think that might get confusing, but that there's no collection fee. If we're splitting the fee, we're splitting the fee. DR. LEE: Okay. Page 23 August 10, 2007 MR. MUDD: And you're saying the higher of the two fees? MS. DONALDSON: Yes. MR. MUDD: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: Well, I think part of that goes to -- ifnot, you would be collecting a fee. I think it could get confusing because you'd be collecting a fee that you actually hadn't adopted -- DR. LEE: Right. MS. DONALDSON: -- an ordinance setting if you do some average between -- DR. LEE: Right. MS. DONALDSON: -- the two, whereas up here you did say you're collecting the fire district impact fee or the city impact fee, whichever is higher. So, we actually would have a resolution or an ordinance someplace that sets that fee that's not just a fee that we can come up with that hasn't been adopted by either board. DR. LEE: Does that create any issue for us in terms of our other areas in the city? MR. PRITT: I think that we should say the applicable impact fee and kind of punt on any details of that, reason being is because of what Ms. Donaldson just said. I don't want to do anything that would be interpreted as the city agreeing that it will -- will or will not change its impact fee ordinance. And you can't do that either. You cannot agree that you will or will not impose an impact fee, I don't think, or -- or make a change. I've been trying to avoid that. We've all been trying to avoid agreeing that we're going to adopt something or not about something because that's a -- that -- that would kill the legality of the deal. MS. DONALDSON: My only question to you is if we just put the applicable impact fee, leaving it so we punt, want to potentially lead to some issue with what fee is charged. MR. PRITT: Well, there might be an issue as to what fees are Page 24 August 10, 2007 charged anyhow. DR. LEE: What if we had something -- and I think the concept we may have an agreement on is how to get there. What if we had something to the effect that we would collect 50 percent of what our rate is and you collect 50 percent of what your rate is? MS. DONALDSON: I don't think we can do that. I mean, I don't think -- because at that point you're charging a different impact fee, whereas if we just say the higher, it's just you're deciding which impact fee is being charged. DR. LEE: Why don't we go on to the next -- the other item if there's any others that we need to discuss and we can -- MR. PRITT: Well, the concept of splitting impact fees, if we can figure how to do it, is something that we're have -- saying it's okay? DR. LEE: I think we have -- I think we have an agreement on the -- MR. PRITT: Acceptable. DR. LEE: -- concept. And if it -- if it's the deal breaker as far as no collection fee, I'm again trying to get an agreement here. I would support that if we can come up with -- Leo, it looks like -- MR. SALVA TORI: I was going to say why don't you just define the applicable impact fee as the impact fee charged by the entity providing the emergency response service? MS. DONALDSON: That's fine. MR. PRITT: The entity providing what? MR. SALVATORI: The emergency response service. MS. CHIRGWIN: Which would be the fire district's fee. MR. SALVATORI: Yeah. DR. LEE: That's -- that's acceptable. MS. DONALDSON: We're getting our 50 percent of what our fee is. MR. PRITT: Right. I knew there was a reason for having the Page 25 August 10, 2007 property owners representative attend. MR. SALVATORI: I will -- I'll be silent again. MS. DONALDSON: Just so that I know it, we'd be splitting the fee that's of the entity providing service and there would be no collection amount. DR. LEE: Are we agreed on every other issue now? MS. DONALDSON: I believe so, yes. DR. LEE: Okay. So-- MR. MUDD: Okay. I want to make sure if! could say. Bob, you mentioned two other things. You talked agreed and contraction on 9-30-08. Are we okay with that one? That was the number two bullet that you brought up. DR. LEE: Yes. That was your proposal -- MS. DONALDSON: Well, that's our agreement. DR. LEE: -- and we agree with that. I've agreed. MR. MUDD: Okay. And the last -- and the first one was agree to post fee for review, cap that inspection fee is what I took down in my notes and everybody agrees for that fee. DR. LEE: A plan review fee. MR. MUDD: Yeah. DR. LEE: Post transition plan review fee. And -- and also with that it's review, not -- not authority to approve. MS. DONALDSON: So, we'd have to specify. Just -- I mean, I don't have a problem making it very clear that we don't have an approval -- DR. LEE: Right. MS. DONALDSON: -- ability for that. DR. LEE: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: And that also the two percent collection fee. DR. LEE: Okay. Well, then, I think that we tentatively agreed on -- on everything. It's just the case of getting it now in the language Page 26 August 10, 2007 that the final document -- MR. PETTIT: Dr. Lee, what I'd ask is that not others. It's Bob or Laura should do it, but I would really like one of them to codify what you want in Paragraph 2 and what you've agreed on. DR. LEE: Agreed. Perhaps we could have correspondence between us, and if we can agree to that, then we can forward it to you. MR. PETTIT: Just shoot it over to me. DR. LEE: Okay. MR. PETTIT: And I'll take care of putting it in the other provision we talked about regarding the termination if the annexation doesn't happen. MR. PRITT: And so that we don't forget everything the minute we walk out of here, is there a chance that we can get the transcript of the last, oh, the last ten minutes? Is that something that we can -- DR. LEE: Yes. We have the Clerk's -- MR. PRITT: I'd, rather the whole thing, at least get the -- this -- this portion of it so that we can go back and look at it when we're sitting at our desks. THE CLERK: Today? DR. LEE: Oh, no. MR. PRITT: No. I'm -- I'm sorry. I was looking at the wrong person. Anyhow, probably. In -- in the next few days, just -- just the portions that we're talking about here. MR. PETTIT: Maybe the last 15 minutes? MR. PRITT: Right. Since our last caucus. MS. DONALDSON: And I would think just based on -- it won't be that much change. I think -- I mean, at least for the fire district section. It would be a change to date towards the end of section fee to make it clear that the fees, we're just reviewing it. We're not Page 27 August 10,2007 approving it. And then the change to G, and then for H, it's the last sentence in H. All other dates provided shall also concurrently be extended. DR. LEE: I like the suggestion from the county to -- you know, we'd shoot them over a draft that we -- that we agree upon. And if we can get something within the next few days for Mr. Pritt to look at. And I don't know. Mrs. Donaldson, do you want to try to modify the language based on our discussion and send that to Mr. Pritt or how do you -- MS. DONALDSON: That's fine. DR. LEE: Will that work for you? MR. PRITT: That's fine with me. I -- I -- presumably you have this saved on your computer and that we would have to scan it in. It would only take a few minutes, but let's just go ahead and go with yours. MS. DONALDSON: And -- and what I'll do just so that you know, I'll accept all the changes and then show the new changes and deletions so we'll know which one's new and which one we've already agreed to. DR. LEE: Do we want to shoot at a time certain to have maybe over to the county within ten days, two weeks, some final language put in? MS. DONALDSON: I can have it to the city or -- next week. MR. MUDD: That's good, because I -- I want to get this item in front of the Board of County Commissioners on 9-11, their -- their next meeting, okay. MR. POTTEIGER: And our board will be Tuesday, next Tuesday. MR. MUDD: And what's your meeting after next Tuesday? MR. POTTEIGER: The second Tuesday in October. Don't we have some -- Page 28 August 10, 2007 MR. MUDD: Don't you have any meetings in September? MS. DAVIS: October 9th. MR. MUDD: We can work these dates. MR. POTTEIGER: September-- MS. DAVIS: September 11th. MR. POTTEIGER: September 11th. DR. LEE: September 11th then. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. POTTEIGER: But we've got some -- MS. DAVIS: Workshops. MR. POTTEIGER: -- work -- not workshops, but we've got a couple of budget hearings that we -- if we had to do a special meeting. MR. MUDD: Yes. That would -- that would be helpful to know that you're on board and then -- to bring it to the board and then -- MR. POTTEIGER: But we can -- we can have an answer next Tuesday. MR. MUDD: Okay. Give it to me in some kind of a memo form, that would be great. DR. LEE: Well, you'll need to have -- we need to have the final language agreed upon, I think. MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. I can get my language to you on Monday. There won't be any emergency C-sections this time, so I won't have any delays of getting the language to the city, but I think it is such minor changes that it won't be difficult to put into writing. MR. PRITT: Once again, just for clarity of the record, the -- the one provision concerning the termination of the agreement, what actually would go in to the general section as opposed to -- as opposed to an H. That's correct? MR. MUDD: Correct. MS. DONALDSON: Correct. MR. PRITT: All right. Okay. We all that have that. Page 29 August 10, 2007 MR. PETTIT: I -- I've got that language, although it would be helpful for me to get that transcript from the last few minutes also because I think that discussion is in there. And I'll make that change and then whenever I get your agreed -- what I'd -- hopefully you get -- you guys will work out your language, and I'll get an e-mail from one of you saying Laura and I have agreed, Bob and I have agreed. That would be the document we would then put into our agenda package for the recommendation to our board. DR. LEE: Before we adjourn, we do have some members of the public here. I think at the last meeting we gave an opportunity for everyone to make some comments if they'd like to do so. I would like to offer that opportunity again today. MS. CHIRGWIN: First of all, I want to thank all of you guys because I've listened to -- MR. PRITT: Could you identify yourself for the record, Ms. Chirgwin. MS. CHIRGWIN: Oh, excuse me. Judith Chirgwin, City of Naples resident, property owner, taxpayer and voter. I want to thank all of you because I realize how earnestly you all have interacted with each other and seriously worked through this, and I realize you're at the very end now, and it sounds like it's going to probably be the end of my opportunity to say something. So, I would like to ask for -- which I cannot quite figure out from all of this. I do understand a lot of it, but I know that you've negotiated quite a few things and one of the things that I would like to ask for is an accounting of the costs to the city up to the point of this contract, this negotiation, the cost of it, because then it comes to the point of annexation and then after annexation it continues until 2013, if I'm correct from reading this, there are costs to the city. As -- as a taxpayer within the city, I would like to have some idea Page 30 August 10, 2007 of what the financial consequences are to us as a result of your negotiations, which I do appreciate very, very much but I would like to know that. DR. LEE: It's a very good -- a very good point, a very good question, and that will be something that we will -- will be a requisite in terms of any proposal to the city council because they're going to want to know what the costs of the annexation is, so I think -- I appreciate you letting -- MS. CHIRGWIN: I would like to have to have that for the next week here before it goes to council. DR. LEE: I -- I understand that, but this -- I think this -- this group here is -- the intention is to come forward with an agreement on __ on language and then present to the city council in our particular case several things including costs. This language, interpretation of what this language means, because there's provisions beyond even costs that -- costs is an important component, but there are other components as well. And -- and, so, that's what I would recommend. Once we get the language here, then we put a package together to the city council, which will be available to the public. And the public will certainly have an opportunity to weigh in at that time as well. Is there any other comments from the public? MS. SMITH: Yes. MR. PRITT: Just one other thing. I don't think we're going to have another meeting unless we can __ unless it turns out that there is a problem. I don't think this group is going to be meeting again unless we not come to an agreement. DR. LEE: Is that what your all understanding is -- MR. PETTIT: That would be my understanding. DR. LEE: -- as well? MR. MUDD: That's my understanding, this is the last meeting. Page 31 August 10, 2007 DR. LEE: Right. Mrs. Smith. MS. SMITH: Yes, please. I am Sue Smith. I reside in the City of Naples, which means that I'm a citizen of this city as well as a city -- citizen of the county. I would like to know -- I think we all are very much interested at any time when there's a proposal of an annexation. We, as taxpaying citizens, are very anxious to know why is there __ what is the intent or the reasoning behind that of annexation from the standpoint of why would the county be agreeable for this annexation? More importantly, as a citizen of my city, why would my city want this -- desire this annexation? And then also, what is the intent of the group who are the Collier industrial group who are requesting the annexation? What is your intent in -- in what you are designing for that property in development? We need to know those things. It's very important to us to have an insight to that before we go into a completion of an agreement. I.e., I am thinking, as you talk about coming into our city with a raw piece of land in part, because that is. It's an undeveloped piece of land, quite extensively so, but it also brings other -- other facility. It brings industrial, it brings our offices, it brings other, I believe, residential. Now, what we as citizens of the city are looking at in our hearts and minds, we have a city that has some problems of its own, challenges, at this time and we need addressment (sic) to those. So, that gives us a rather full plate, before we go out and extend the borders of our area. But most importantly, as I sit here today, and listen to you, two things come to mind: One, that is an addressment that I think I might have been trying to get on board and listen to this and review these Page 32 August 10, 2007 papers, I might have missed this point. If you have a city, if you have, as the city is bringing you in and then you're saying, well, the annexation could be disturbed by either party, then rather than as I did hear the represent -- the representor for the fire group say that she would prefer that perhaps that not be just for the fire, fire group. It would be -- she would prefer that it would be in this -- not in this particular instrument but it would be for all. Then it seems to me a pressure is being brought on the fire group to be not aggrieving to the completion of this annexation, which would be city-county. But the other thing that I, as a citizen of the city, find to be very disturbing, we have a set number of -- well, we have a limited city as far as our land area. Now, we have a limited number of recreational facility. We have a limited space of beach access. And, so, when you're talking about bringing in a property that is yet undeveloped, has potential for significant development, you're looking at an overloading of facilities that we have and we don't have an addressment area to enlargen (sic) those areas. I just think we have -- you have a good bit of presentation to the public before this is brought before my city council for vote, and perhaps before it's brought before your County Commission for vote which, as I say, is my County Commission, too. I thank you for listening to my thoughts. DR. LEE: Thank you, Mrs. Smith. MS. SMITH: Thank you. DR. LEE: Is there anyone else from the public? With that said, thank you all for coming today in cooperation in getting this proposed agreement together, and we will have that information to you, hopefully, within the next two weeks; that is, information for your county. Page 33 August 10, 2007 ***** There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned. TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICES, INC., BY ROSE WITT, RPR. Page 34