Loading...
BCC Minutes 02/08/2008 S (Proposed Annexation - Hole in the Wall Golf Club) February 8, 2008 COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT CITY OF NAPLES GOVERNMENT EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT Naples, Florida February 8, 2008 Public Meeting to discuss the Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement relative to the proposed annexation of the Hole In The Wall Golf Club by the City of Naples, pursuant to Chapter 171, Florida Statutes on February 8, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., County Attorney Office, Collier County Government Center, Naples, Florida. In Attendance: James Mudd, County Manager Leo Ochs, Assistant Collier County Manager Michael Sheffield, Assistant to the County Manager Jeffrey Klatzkow, Chief Assistant County Attorney Laura Donaldson, Attorney-E. Naples Fire District Michael Brown, Fire Chief in North Naples Dan Rodriguez, Solid Waste Director Page 1 February 8, 2008 MR. MUDD: This is February 8th. It's 10:00. This has been an announced meeting and advertised to discuss the interlocal service boundary agreement relative to the proposed annexation of the Hole in the Wall Golf Club by the City of Naples pursuant to Chapter 171 of the Florida statutes. We had met about a month ago as a group. And, by the way, we did invite the City of Naples to all of our meetings so far. And, as I can see, in looking, I do not believe I see a representative for the City of Naples at this table. I will say that Chief Brown is here and Laura Donaldson is here representing North Naples Fire and Rescue District in these proceedings. The last time we met we talked about issues that we had with the Hole in the Wall annexation as far as how that annexation would change particular circumstances in the county. And we basically went to -- went through things to talk about, well, what are the traffic -- increased traffic concerns on Goodlette-Frank from it? What's the stormwater management and drainage on Goodlette-Frank Road? Commercial recycling was an issue, garbage collection, fire and emergency services was a particular issue. And then the enclave, with Royal Poinciana, I believe. And that was brought to the forefront by Mr. Passidomo, who was the attorney for the Hole in the Wall community. So we talked about those particular issues. We dialogued those and then we basically said, okay, the county attorney's office, represented by JeffKlatzkow, and Laura Donaldson will get together and, on those particular issues, work to draft an interlocal service boundary agreement. I believe at this juncture everybody has that in front of them today. Am I correct? MR. BROWN: Correct. Page 2 February 8, 2008 MR. MUDD: So, without further ado, let's get into this interlocal service agreement and go page by page to make sure anybody has got any changes, which I hope they don't, because I believe it's been through staff, and staffing and folks at -- if they had concerns, they basically let folks know. Do you want to do that, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: One approach, Jim, is just -- again, we've clearly vetted this and talked to each one of your staff members and got back confirmation that they were satisfied with the product. I believe that you are satisfied with the product. Unless anybody has any questions, I think we have a final draft agreement for the city to review, ultimately. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. BROWN: Now is the appropriate time to ask -- the statute talks -- speaks to -- MR. OCHS: Identify yourself for the record. MR. BROWN: My name is Mike Brown, Fire Chief in North Naples. I would like to ask Laura Donaldson to discuss some of the issues with reference to the statute and how we move this process forward. MS. DONALDSON: I think the language -- the agreement, I think we have got a final version to get to the city. My question is, if we're going to ask the county and the fire district to adopt this agreement, are we going to remove the City of Naples? Because there is the provision that says, if two of the participating local governments adopt an agreement, then the non-participating agreement -- or non-participating government has to abide by it. And my question is, if we have the City of Naples as a party to the agreement, it doesn't become effective until they sign it, do we ever meet that requirement of having an agreement between the parties? And I don't know if we want to just send this to them and say, we are going to remove the City of Naples and then you're going Page 3 February 8, 2008 to be bound by it, or how procedurally we're going to deal with it. I think today we're going to say, we agree with the language in the agreement. What do we do next? MR. KLATZKOW: What would be your recommendation that we do? MS. DONALDSON: I mean, we can send it to the city and say, this is the agreement that our governments are going to adopt without you being included, and we're going to provide that you're going to abide by it, even if you are not a party to the agreement, pursuant to the section of the statute, and see how they respond. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want to give them a deadline? MS. DONALDSON: I mean, we could give them a deadline. But that pushes it back to when the county and the fire district would adopt it. I just don't know, procedurally, how we're going to head because I don't want us to -- we keep the city a party to this agreement, then our agreement never becomes valid. We could add a provision in it that says, if the county and the fire district both execute, the agreement is effective, something like that, to at least allow this agreement to become effective, even without the City of Naples signing on to it. MR. BROWN: You guys are the attorneys, but there is a part of the statute that says we can agree to it. MR. KLATZKOW: That's right. And it's binding on the city. MR. BROWN: Why aren't we taking that position? Short of that, I'm going to have to hold up my end of adopting it, when they have been invited to the dance and they haven't shown up. Twice, I think, you've sent them all of the appropriate documents. I just think we move it forward and then the question will be, how do we enforce the agreement, and probably -- MR. MUDD: The real question is, let's take it-- MR. BROWN: One piece at a time. MR. MUDD: -- one piece at a time. Page 4 February 8, 2008 Let's say the city is no longer on the signatory block or we execute this without the city signature. In other words, the city signature is unsigned and ours is signed. And after that is over and we give them a 30-day period to consider and sign the particular agreement, and if they don't choose to do so, then we come back and amend our agreement and change the signature pages at the end that basically says, or omits them based on their document. That's number one. And the reason I state that to you is, this thing is not going to come into conflict, okay, until your four years is up. MS. DONALDSON: I disagree with that. MR. MUDD: You think you are going to fight on the premium payments right off the bat? MS. DONALDSON: I think, pursuant to this agreement, we continue to collect ad valorem taxes, so we'll actually be levying the tax against the property. What the city believes that they will be doing is that they will be levying the tax and sending us a check. So we were discussing this. So for us our first issue would be this fall, potentially, dealing with the ad valorem tax collection. Not the premium tax issue, but actually who collects the ad valorem. Because, under the statute, which is what the city is doing, our boundaries change October 1 and we no longer levy ad valorem. But I think, from the county's standpoint, I think the issue would come up for the county much faster than it would for the fire district because of the garbage and the -- I mean, those issues come up immediately since they are no longer bound by the county's requirements on it. MR. MUDD: They aren't really not bound because they still have to deal with our four-year contract with Waste Management. So I guess what I'm saying to you is, that isn't the first thing that slaps up into somebody's face. What I'm trying to do is figure out where the Page 5 February 8, 2008 first domino is and who holds it. What you basically told me is, it's going to come out. And who is going to be able to allocate and send a TRIM notice and that kind of business to the folks. MS. DONALDSON: I mean, the recycling doesn't come up for the county quickly, and the stormwater -- let's not -- they are not developing that. It's all waste collection, so it is the fire district. MR. BROWN: Well, when it comes up, we're going to send them a notice shortly telling them -- basically discussing the boundaries with them, just stating, in accordance with the agreement, that the boundaries haven't changed. We'll send that to the property appraiser's office. So at some point within the next year we're going to have conflict over who collects taxes. MR. MUDD: Sometime in the next seven months. MR. BROWN: Well, Laura says if it was on the tax rolls in North Naples October 1st of'07, that basically, irregardless of when after that they annexed it, it would come to us anyway this year. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. BROWN: So it probably wouldn't present itself right away. MS. POGAN: Because it's included. MR. BROWN: Following October 1st. MS. POGAN: If it doesn't leave our boundaries until October 1st of2008, it's included in the TRIM notices that go out in June or July, and in our assessed value for this 2008 year. So it's another year before it becomes an issue. MR. BROWN: Right. MS. DONALDSON: So then the premium tax issue is the first issue that comes up, and that happens October 11 th of this year. MR. MUDD: That's kind of what I was kicking in my mind. MR. KLATZKOW: This is a relationship issue. I think we could probably take our names off the contract at this point in time, Page 6 February 8, 2008 sign it and be done with it. But you have a working relationship with the city over there. And if you deemed it best, you know, for your day-to-day working relationship, to give them another 30 days -- MR. MUDD: I would give them another 30 days before we basically scratch them off the list. This way, then it's clear. It's clear. If there is going to be a 164 process that transpires, I think it's clear at that juncture that everybody did what they said they were going to do and it was basically very deliberate. Okay. Nobody tried to short cheat anybody. The first time we had a meeting, the response I got back was, why didn't you tell me when it was so I could make it a better time for us, okay, i.e, the City of Naples. Well, we heard it. Good. We advertised it. We laid it on. This time around I don't believe we got any of that kick-back from them at all. They are just not here. And I'm not saying they couldn't send some attorney or whatever, or some other staff. So I think this gives them and protects us enough so that we've gone the extra step -- MR. BROWN: Okay. MR. MUDD: -- to at least open up and say, here is where we're at, here is what we've got. And then, based on that response, we change -- we change the signatories in the back. So, can we wait? MR. BROWN: Is that -- would that, and us moving forward, should we get the commission to adopt it? MR. MUDD: What I would suggest is, yes, that we take these signatories and make sure that the signature pages are all separate and distinct. Right now, all three are in one page. Okay? You've got Commissioner Henning, then the mayor and then you. And, in this particular case, as you move it forward, this is the agreement, okay, we've got our agreement. And then, if the City of Naples decides they don't want to play, they don't sign their piece of the agreement. And then you've got your signatory pages and whatnot, and then you go Page 7 February 8, 2008 back to your boards and say, okay, we've taken them out of the agreement and whatnot. MR. KLATZKOW: That's fine. MR. BROWN: Laura? MS. DONALDSON: I think that's fine. Or the other option was to have a provision that says, if it's not signed within 30 days by the city -- MR. KLA TZKOW: I'll tell you what, we can just keep our names on one page and put the city's on the next. MR. MUDD: That works. MS. DONALDSON: My concern is that the beginning of the contract would change because the agreement is not between the city. And we would need to have a provision that states that, pursuant to the section of the statute, if they don't sign within 30 days of our boards approving it, then they are bound by it, regardless of them being a signatory to the contract. MR. MUDD: Yes. MR. KLATZKOW: I can do that. MS. DONALDSON: I think that's a little bit-- MR. MUDD: Sure. MS. DONALDSON: Gives us more protection going forward, because then we're clearly saying, this is the section. MR. BROWN: I just want to make sure that we do it right, because when this ends up in some court, I want to make sure that we didn't screw up procedurally. MR. KLATZKOW: Oh, we've given the city ample opportunity. MR. BROWN: I know. I just want to make sure it's done in accordance with the statute. That's all. MS. DONALDSON: And I do have a question on whether or not at this point we should move forward with basically filing an action against the city for not negotiating in good faith under the statute. We also have that one requirement that says, if they adopt a responding Page 8 February 8, 2008 resolution, which they did, then they have to negotiate in good faith within 60 days, and I believe the 60 days has now lapsed, because you adopted the agreement in December. So it should be -- MR. KLATZKOW: Another approach would be for the two of us to enter into this agreement and then bring in an administrative procedure, Chapter 164 procedure, seeking to enforce this on them, or, in the alternative, that the city come and negotiate. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: That's a second approach. This way the Court has an out rather than having to make a decision, that we could just go to the city, come on, just sit down and work this out. MR. MUDD: I would prefer the latter versus the first part. The ultimate thing here is to get everybody to sit down at the table and get this thing resolved, okay, and make sure that all the citizens and all the concerns of governments and everybody else that provides services and future services to this particular community, that we've thought about everything. We've dotted every I, we've crossed every T, and, to the best that we can, come up with an agreement to make sure we've provided the best service we can for the community. And that's the bottom line. And, in this particular regard, it's as if, you know, the attorney for Hole in the Wall basically said, in the city forum, that he cannot guarantee that they won't develop that land that is developable in the particular golf course community, you know. And the city council just kind of let that one go by. What do you mean, you let it go by? There are issues there, and especially when that community comes out onto a county road. That's a big issue for me. Especially when that community is also in one of the -- in one of the watersheds that I have and that I'm having the most significant problems with as far as flooding is concerned. I know it's hard to think about it now during dry season, but, when it's raining, it's huge. I mean, I've got pictures where there is Page 9 February 8, 2008 water across Goodlette-Frank Road and Golden Gate Parkway, right there by the bank, okay? It's a huge area. And it drains from Pine Ridge down. And so -- and we don't have all the retention and things that we need in order to purify that stormwater before it goes into the headwaters of the Gordon River. So I would have thought that that, in and of itself, with the city sitting there saying, Naples Bay restoration is the number one priority that they have got in their community, that they would be all over this, trying to get involved and making sure it is done right. But the opposite has been true. So I think we try to force them to sit down at the table and negotiate. If anything, our position is quite clear. It's now on a piece of paper. I would tell you that nine-tenths of the things on those pieces of paper, ifMr. Pritt and the City Manager were here right now, they could agree to and move out. And the only controversial issue would be with fire. And I believe there is precedent in a previous interlocal agreement where they laid that out and it was worked out to everybody's satisfaction and for the Commerce Park -- excuse me. How does it go? MS. DONALDSON: Park of Commerce. MR. MUDD: Collier Park of Commerce. I knew I could get it out sooner or later. So I would suggest that we send it to them, that you add the stipulation in here that says you have 30 days. If you don't, then it reverts to a two-party agreement versus a three-party agreement. And then, once we have that action, we meet again. It could be attorney to attorney meet again or something smaller. It doesn't necessarily have to be announced. It could be, I don't care, where we sit down and say, okay, now we're going to initiate 164. MR. BROWN: Our concerns are very similar to yours, and that's Page 10 February 8, 2008 that the growth of that area, the building of that area, what provisions, service provisions it would require and our ability to pride those services. And those are concerns that we need to talk about at the table. So, short of them coming and having those discussions, we're kind of left out in the open on this one. And that concerns the fire services. It's not only it's where we build stations, it's buying fire equipment and it's staffing those stations. We have that. We have the emergency medical services, ALS and engine program. There are a number of issues that come into play here that haven't been discussed, other than the county and fire district. So that's a concern of ours as well. MR. OCHS: Question: Are you proposing we give them 30 days in which to sign this agreement or 30 days in which to indicate they are -- they are now interested in negotiating? MR. MUDD: No. We're sending them this agreement and saying, here is the agreement to sign. Okay? We're going to take your agreement to your board, I'm going to take this agreement to our board. The piece in there goes to the City of Naples and says, here it IS. Now, if, at any time during that period oftime the City of Naples comes up and says, we want to talk about this, then we'll initiate another meeting. Okay? That's fine. MR. OCHS: And why would we do that? MR. MUDD: Why would we do that? So that we don't have to go into a 164 action, because that's going to have some expense to it. You are going to pay your attorney. We're going to have attorney fees and other time and filing and everything else. Before we go into that, the real key is, what's the issue? We really want them to sit down at the table and talk about this based on 171, I call it Phase II, of the Florida statutes. MS. DONALDSON: I think it's basically we are giving them Page 11 February 8, 2008 one more chance in order to avoid potentially going into litigation. Although we're quite fine with the agreement, we know, you know, the city might have a question or two about the fire district remaining the services provider indefinitely. MR. OCHS: So why would we take these agreements to our elected officials for signature if the window was still open for further negotiation of the contract. MS. DONALDSON: I think we need to a contract that becomes effective. MR. OCHS: When? MS. DONALDSON: I would say as soon as possible, because then we could potentially argue that the city is bound by the effective agreement. And we can't argue the subsection until we have an agreement that is signed by -- that's valid. If it's just kind of open, we can't say, you're bound by it because we don't have an executed contract. MR. KLATZKOW: Let me get some clarity, because I understand where Leo is coming from. There are two approaches. We give them 30 days' notice. We don't hear from them. I think we convert this into a two-party agreement and we go to our respective boards, or I put in a clause here saying, if you don't sign this agreement or otherwise contact us by a certain date, the agreement will become effective as a two-party. MR. OCHS: I'm just saying, procedurally, if we give them 30 days to open up further negotiations and in that 30 days we go to our boards and get them to chomp on this agreement, then it changes, Jim, then we are back in 30 days again with a new agreement. MR. KLATZKOW: I actually agree with your approach. So we give them 30 days. If we don't hear from them at that point in time, I'll convert this into a two-party agreement and we'll go to our respective boards. MR. OCHS: Are you okay? Page 12 February 8, 2008 MR. BROWN: I think it's a waste of time. I'll go along with it because it's the right thing to do. MR. MUDD: Chief, I don't disagree with your comment. I'm of the same mind. What we're basically doing is we're making sure that we have not -- that they cannot come back and say that we didn't give them -- MR. BROWN: Okay. MR. MUDD: -- an option, that they were totally not knowing-- they didn't know what this agreement said. All of a sudden it showed up, you know. We have been in negotiations with their attorneys before and if there is an excuse, they will find it. MR. BROWN: Time is not of the essence? MS. DONALDSON: No. MR. BROWN: It isn't, based on the statute. MS. DONALDSON: The one deadline was the 60 days. And then our only other time line is the six months, which could be extended. But clearly we're not close to the six months. An additional 30 days will not -- MR. KLATZKOW: Let me put the clause in, we'll send them this agreement giving them 30 days to respond, and, if they do not respond, this will then be converted into a two-party agreement. MS. DONALDSON: Since we have to negotiate in good faith, it's just one more step that we've taken in good faith. MR. OCHS: How will that communication be made to the city? Is it a correspondence jointly signed by the attorneys or -- MR. KLATZKOW: I think it should come from your office, Jim. Once you start getting attorneys involved, things escalate. MR. MUDD: Mike, let's draft a transmittal letter -- MR. KLATZKOW: Keep it friendly. MR. MUDD: Keep it friendly. This will make sure it covers all of the legalese that we need to cover and then we'll get it sent out. MS. DONALDSON: Send it by certified mail, please. Page 13 February 8, 2008 MR. MUDD: Absolutely. There is nothing that doesn't go by certified mail anymore. MR. BROWN: So we're going to back off of taking this to the board right at this moment? MR. MUDD: We're going to give them 30 days. MR. OCHS: And advise them in the transmittal letter that, at the conclusion of that 30 days, that if they have given no indication that they want to engage, that this document will be converted to a two-party agreement and we'll take it to our respective boards, and we're basically done. MR. KLATZKOW: No, we're not done, because, at that point in time, when they ignore us, you have got your Chapter 164. And at that point in time, I think what's going to happen, in all likelihood, is, eventually the city will agree to negotiate. Why not? It's just foolish not to. MR. BROWN: Chapter 164, when they ignore the fact that we have an agreement, what will trigger us going into that type of negotiation, proceedings? MR. KLATZKOW: The trigger is, under the statute, if the city is not going to adhere to the agreement we have, we have to start a 164. At that point in time, the city has a choice of either continuing not to participate, in which case we'll have to convert that into a circuit court action, or they will sit down and negotiate. MR. BROWN: Again, what would trigger us knowing that they are not going to adhere to this agreement? MR. KLATZKOW: I guess eventually, since your issue comes first, you'll be sending them a letter and then they will either respond or they won't respond. MR. BROWN: Can we do that? MS. DONALDSON: We can do that. We can do that. The district will have the issue with the city. And under 164 -- MR. MUDD: Once the agreement is signed and we're in Page 14 February 8, 2008 agreement, then you can move like crazy on it. It's just, how do we go about getting the signature, is what we're basically going through right now, to make sure that we've used the abundance of caution and make sure that everybody has had the opportunity and nobody -- and the reason that we don't have a participant or we don't have a signature is because they have made a deliberate decision on their part not to participate and not to sign. And that's okay. That's what you got to have. There is no more excuse card. That's what you are trying to prevent from happening, because that's just more delay later on. Once you hit 164 and the judge says, you guys, I'm forcing you into mediation -- arbitration, mediation -- MR. KLATZKOW: Mediation. MR. MUDD: Whatever you want to call it, once you are in the middle of mediation on 164, it's about as ugly as you can get. Okay? What will happen is, you'll sit there with your attorneys on one side. I'll sit with my attorneys on one side, with the county, and in this case we'll be together. And then they will be across the table with their attorneys. And we'll sit there and try to negotiate something without the board's meeting, okay, because the ultimate -- in 164 the boards have to meet and discuss the issue. Okay? And that gets very, very interesting. And I've only done one of these. Okay? And we pretty much had it all worked out prior to them meeting at the Hilton, when it was the South Florida Water Management District. The entire governing board and the entire Board of County Commissioners had to meet. MR. BROWN: Oh, yes. MR. MUDD: Oh, yes. And it was a dog and pony like you've never seen before. Your entire board, our entire board, their entire council all meet, staff. It is a zoo. And what they are looking for at that juncture is cover because they don't want to look stupid. Because if they look stupid, it comes out in the paper, and that's the whole thing. Page 15 February 8, 2008 They will acquiesce before we get that filed because they come across as very arrogant as far as this is concerned. They have taken one approach. They have listened to their attorneys. Since we don't have to do this, good-bye and I'm out of here. And they don't even return a phone call or talk about it. MR. BROWN: This is a very important issue, but, more importantly, if they can get away with doing what they are trying to do here with the Hole in the Wall, the next time we've got an issue with Pelican Bay, they can do the same thing in Pelican Bay, which is, obviously, larger and more significant. So finding a hole -- a loophole here, from their standpoint -- MR. KLATZKOW: Has statewide implication. MR. MUDD: This is first out and this is a bad place to have the precedent start. But we're here. This is a relatively minor issue, let's get it resolved, because there is legal precedent involved in this, big time. MS. DONALDSON: My only other issue is, how do we deal with the good faith issue? I know that was something that Mr. Pritt had told the city council a year ago, dealing with Collier Park of Commerce, that potentially the county and the fire district could, you know, seek action, because they adopted a resolution that they failed to negotiate in good faith, which is one of the requirements of the statute. Do we pursue that at this point or maybe at the 30 days? Because I think that's something that the statute is very clear as a requirement. You have to meet and you have to negotiate in good faith. MR. MUDD: That's why we're giving them an extra 30 days, because you're going to have to pass that test. And we're going to have to show we've done everything we could to lay it out and extend our hands and sit down and make sure that we could negotiate, and they chose not to play. Page 16 February 8, 2008 MS. DONALDSON: So I think, with the chapter -- if we end up going to the Chapter 164 that would be one of the issues as well. MR. KLA TZKOW: I agree. MS. DONALDSON: The failure not to negotiate in good faith. MR. KLATZKOW: I think we try to jam it down their throats. And our fall-back position is all we ever wanted to do was sit down with them and they are the ones that won't sit down. MR. MUDD: That's it. MR. KLA TZKOW: I think we look very good on this. MR. MUDD: I think, as far as that test is concerned, I don't think they -- I told you how it comes up. They come across very arrogant, as if they have no problem. They have better things to do here. I didn't initiate that conversation, they did. The bigger piece here -- and let me make sure we couch this right. The bigger piece here is, Chief, you've got to provide service to the district in the boundaries that you've got. Okay? You've got all of these interlocal agreements with different folks for mutual aid. Okay? You know, from -- if! was sitting in your shoes, okay, providing the service that you do, and all of a sudden they start gobbling up communities in your district, okay, and then they don't add any fire trucks to their district and they don't provide any additional equipment to their district, and then they have a fire and you are called, and you're always the first one on station, something is wrong. Something is wrong. Something is wrong for the community in which people are supposedly providing service. And your issue then is, how do you adjust your assets to provide service now to your other part of your district? And some parts of your district are still growing. And how do you move your particular equipment, your stations, your personnel around, in order to provide that optimal service to the district in which you have a responsibility, when you are always looking behind you, okay, because somebody didn't pick the ball up like they should have? That's my whole issue Page 17 February 8, 2008 with annexation. Not only in your particular case -- I use you as an example -- but in the county's particular case. It was my argument with Pelican Bay. If you are going to take on the particular responsibility, take it on completely. Do not tell me as a county that I'm still going to provide your water and sewer, that I'm going to provide your garbage, that I'm going to provide your reclaimed water. You are big boys. You are choosing how you want to govern and how you want services. Take it. It's yours. Bye. And I will move out and look someplace else in the county and put my attentions there. But I cannot keep looking behind me, okay, at the same time that I'm trying to project and plan for the future. Because they are playing games. They want everything but they want no responsibilities. And the problem is, when you don't have accountability, okay, people get hurt. Okay? Things happen. People could die. Okay? Because then there's this: Oh, it's their fault. No, it's their responsibility. No, they were supposed to do it. And something falls through the cracks, but then somebody gets hurt. And that's what we don't want to have happen in this community. We want to make sure that the people that are accountable are held accountable and that they have taken proper steps to provide the services that they said they were going to provide. Okay? And I can't tell you for one bit if the city is taking on any additional requirements, adding additional equipment, personnel, whatever, in order to take on that new responsibility. My guess is nothing is going to change. They are going to try to get it done on the edges. And I think that's bad precedent and it's a bad way to do things. And they are going to have to do their business. And it's very difficult. And I think CPOC was one of those places where we really got into it and we talked about their responsibilities. And oh, by the way, when we itemized those responsibilities and Page 18 February 8, 2008 told them what they were accountable for, they didn't like it very much. Okay? Let's be honest. They didn't like it worth a darn, because they thought this was going to be a free lunch. It's not a free lunch. They are taking on additional responsibilities. They are shouldering that responsibility and they should be accountable for same, and yet, I don't see it. MS. DONALDSON: And I think, with the fire district, and an additional issue, in addition to the -- their fault, their fault, is, when they depend on the fire district to provide service, we're expending our citizens' monies to provide service to residents who do not live in the district and basically the district citizens are subsidizing service to the City of Naples. And I think that's an issue. MR. BROWN: I couldn't have said it better. You know, from a fire/rescue perspective, you kind of take the global approach. But, at the same time, when you're trying to plan for the future, it's difficult to plan for the future when they are gobbling up behind you. If they are going to gobble up, they at least need to come to the table and discuss how they are going to proceed, for all of the reasons that you just mentioned, how you move personnel, stations, equipment. You have to plan for the future and not for what's behind you. And I think you've said it right. That's the reason why I'm concerned that they are not sitting and negotiating with us, or discussing the future, you know. And I think that's important, so -- MR. MUDD: Okay. Public comment. Is there anyone here that wants to talk about public comment? No public comments. This meeting is adjourned. (Meeting adjourned at 10:45 a.m.) TRANSCRIPT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF GREGORY COURT REPORTING SERVICE, INe. BY ELIZABETH M. BROOKS, RPR Page 19