Loading...
BCC Minutes 07/14/2008 S (Proposed Annexation - Senior Care Development) July 14, 2008 lnterlocal Service Boundary Agreement - County Attorney Office Conference Room, Eighth Floor, W. Harmon Turner Building, Building F, Collier County Government Center July 14, 2008 2:00 p.m. Proposed annexation by the City of Naples of a 22-acre parcel on the south side of Golden Gate Parkway, east of Goodlette-Frank Road and west of the Gordon River known as the Senior Care Development site, pursuant to chapter 171, Florida Statutes. PRESENT: Jim Mudd, County Manager Leo Ochs, Assistant County Manager Mike Sheffield, County Manager's Office Jeff Klatzkow, County Attorney Tom Wides, Public Utilities Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator Marla Ramsey, Parks and Recreation Jodi Walters, Solid Waste Laura Donaldson, ENFD (via speakerphone) Angela S. Davis, ENFD Douglas E. Dyer, ENFD Rob Potteiger, ENFD Suzanne V. DOff, Public Jenna Buzzacco, Naples Daily News Page 1 July 14, 2008 MR. MUDD: Okay. We're going to go down, and we're going to go around this room real quick to just let you know who else is here at the table, okay. And we'll start with you, Mike. MR. SHEFFIELD: Hey, Laura, Mike Sheffield. MR. KLATZKOW: Jeff Klatzkow. MS. DAVIS: Hi, Laurie. Angie Davis. MS. DONALDSON: Hey, Commissioner. MS. DAVIS: Hi. CHIEF POTTEIGER: Rob Potteiger. MS. WALTERS: Jodi Walters. CHIEF DYER: Doug Dyer. MR. WIDES: Tom Wides for the public utilities. MR. OCHS: Hi, Laura. It's Leo Ochs. MS. DONALDSON: Hi, Leo. MR. MUDD: Jim Mudd. MR. FEDER: Norman Feder, transportation. MR. MUDD: And we have one person from the public here with us, and state your name. MRS. DORR: Suzanne DOff. MR. MUDD: And that's Ms. DOff. MRS. DORR: Mrs. MS. BUZZACCO: Oh, I'm Jenna Buzzacco, Naples Daily News. MR. MUDD: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. And I apologize for not being there. I'm actually at a convention in St. Louis right now, although I will be down in Naples on Wednesday. MR. KLATZKOW: Who goes to St. Louis for a convention? MS. DONALDSON: There's about a thousand women in this hotel. MR. OCHS: How many shares of Anheuser Busch do you have? MS. DONALDSON: Not a one. Page 2 July 14, 2008 MR. MUDD: Well, you do me a favor, while you're there and you have nothing else to do in that hotel room, grab the phone book and turn to the Mudd section and you count how many Mudds are in that phone book, okay. You'll find out that I have lots and lots of relatives in St. Louis, and if I ever go back, I can never get away without spending at least two weeks and seeing them all. MS. DONALDSON: Well, you know, they've got us in meetings from 8:30 in the morning till 10:00 at night, so I don't have a lot of free time. MR. OCHS: Marla, you want to identify yourself. Laura's on the phone. MS. RAMSEY: Marla Ramsey, public services administrator. MR. OCHS: Thank you. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. MR. MUDD: Okay. Let's go through a timeline real quick and we'll start this meeting. We've got our court reporter here. On March 4, 2008, I received a letter from City Manager Bill Moss informing me that the city will be considering the annexation of a 22-acre parcel on the south side of Golden Gate Parkway east of Goodlette-Frank Road and west of the Gordon River known as the senior care development site. On March 19,2008, city council approves moving forward with the annexation. March 26, 2008, Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted a resolution, 2008-78. This is the county's initiating resolution to commence the process of negotiating an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement for the senior care site proposed to be annexed into the City of Naples. On March 35th (sic), 2008, copies of the initiating resolution are sent by U.S. Certified Mail to the City of Naples and the East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District. On May 15th and May 23rd, the City of Naples sends letters via Page 3 July 14, 2008 Certified Mail to Collier County indicating the City of Naples council has adopted responding resolution 08-12027 declining Collier County's request to negotiate an interlocal service boundary agreement. May 30, 2008, the East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District sends a letter via U.S. Certified Mail to Collier County indicating that the Board of County -- of Fire Commissioners has adopted responding resolution 2008-04 to participate in negotiations for an interlocal service boundary agreement. June 3, 2008, Collier County manager sends a letter to City Manager Bill Moss informing him of the date and time, location, of the first meeting in the process of good- faith negotiations for an interlocal service boundary agreement further expressing hope that the city will send a representative to the meeting. Representatives from the East Naples Fire Control and Rescue District were also notified of the meeting, date, time, location, via email sent from Mr. Mike Sheffield. July 7, 2008, a public meeting notice was processed announcing that an interlocal service boundary agreement negotiating meeting has been scheduled for July 14, 2008, at 2:00 p.m. in the County Attorney's Office, in which we are right now in the process of having. July 8, 2008, a copy of the public meeting notice was sent via U.S. mail to City Manager Bill Moss. July 10,2008, a PDF copy of the public notice was emailed to City Manager Bill Moss. My conversations with Bill Moss is, since that time, they will not be coming to this meeting but they're very interested in receiving a copy of the minutes from such. Okay. We've got the resolution of 2008- 78 and we do -- and I want to go to page 2, and it basically talks about the county's designated issues for negotiation of any and all issues concerning service delivery, fiscal responsibilities, or boundary adjustments; and our interlocal service boundary agreement issues may include, but Page 4 July 14, 2008 need not be limited to the following: Identifying a municipal services area; two, identifying an unincorporated services area; identifying the local government responsible for delivering or funding the following services within the municipal services area or the unincorporated services area, including: Public safety; two, fire emergency rescue and medical; water and wastewater; four, road ownership, construction and maintenance; five, conservation parks and recreation; six, stormwater management and drainage; and seven, garbage trash collection and recycling. And so let's start, if you would, and let's start trying to identify those particular issues for that -- in that regard, and then we can start . bringing it together so we can start shortening the process, so to speak. Jeff, am I missing something? MR. KLATZKOW: Not so far, sir. MR. MUDD: Okay. So let's talk about public safety first, since it's the first one on here. CHIEF POTTEIGER: Do you know why he -- the county or city manager didn't want to partake in this, or is this just formalities and -- MR. MUDD: No. They -- the council basically did a resolution declining their participation in the interlocal, okay, and I believe he's just following what they've basically voted on. CHIEF POTTEIGER: Okay. MR. SHEFFIELD: Please state your name when you speak. CHIEF POTTEIGER: It was Rob Potteiger, East Naples Fire. MR. MUDD: Okay. So we're talking about public -- we're talking about public safety and the particular issue, and right now this particular area is in the East Naples service area. MS. DONALDSON: This is Laura Donaldson. I would just say I'd like to used the language that we used in the Hole in the Wall annexation interlocal agreement, which is the East Naples Fire Control District remains the service provider until such time that the City of Naples and we negotiate a separate agreement. Page 5 July 14, 2008 MR. MUDD: Well, that made it pretty easy. Well said. CHIEF DYER: I couldn't have said it better myself. MR. MUDD: Anything different? MS. DONALDSON: And that would also include not just original provisional fire services, but we'd be doing the inspections. I mean, it's the whole gamut. We continue providing services. MR. KLATZKOW: All right, Laura, Jeff. So you want it word for word the same? MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. I don't -- I mean, I think it's important because they're going to be building a huge nursing home, assisted living facility, and the fire district needs to be intimately involved in it because we'll be the ones serving the development. CHIEF POTTEIGER: Rob Potteiger. Laura, on the impact to that, when you're saying it's the same as the Hole in the Wall, everything would be -- the impact fees we'd get for a certain amount of years and the ad valorem. MS. DONALDSON: Basically keep -- our boundaries would not change at all until a separate agreement is entered into with the City of Naples. CHIEF POTTEIGER: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: So we receive ad valorem taxes, we receive impact fees, we receive inspection fees. CHIEF POTTEIGER: Good. MS. DONALDSON: It's basically -- the property will be located both within the fire district and the City of Naples and our rules and regulations and financing structure will continue to apply. CHIEF POTTEIGER: Great. MR. MUDD: Okay. We're going to get into access into this particular development a little later in this issue, and that has a direct bearing on how we provide fire and emergency service. Now, emergency medical service, emergency rescue, EMS, is countywide, so it stays the same, and there's no difference on how it Page 6 July 14,2008 provides city, municipal, incorporated or unincorporated. And from the medical side of the house, I'm assuming that this facility, when its -- based on what its name is, will have some kind of in-house nursing and/or medical clinic or whatever that's part of the particular issue, but I can't -- I can't say that for certain. But outside of those particular issues, that's all I pretty much have on the public -- well, and then you have the issue of this development having Naples police and you still have county sheriff that's out there, and the delineation of lines would be between the sheriff and the City of Naples Police Department. So that's probably to be determined to see how they want to patrol it, times of patrol, if they're going to patrol it at all. So you know how that gets handed off. MR. KLATZKOW: Sheriffs not here. MR. MUDD: I know. CHIEF POTTEIGER: Rob Potteiger, again. Horseshoe Drive has worked out real good with the police patrol and the fire department. We never changed anything. They still come in for inspections, of course, because they're going to be their buildings. But other than that, it's worked out flawlessly. MR. MUDD: Okay. Now, if we're done with public safety, fire, emergency rescue, and medical, I'd like to go to water and wastewater. MR. WIDES: Okay. This is Tom Wides from public utilities. First off on water, this is not -- this area's not located in the Collier County water/sewer district. Wastewater, likewise, is -- it's not within our district nor is it within our irrigation quality water system district. So all our expectation would be, this would be serviced by the City of Naples unless they wanted to create some kind of interlocal agreement and run lines. MR. MUDD: Okay. That brings us to the road ownership, construction and maintenance. Norman -- Page 7 July 14, 2008 MR. FEDER: For the record, Norman Feder, the Transportation Administrator. Just a few things very quickly. We did get a copy ofa transportation impact statement that was provided by James Banks for the bridges at Gordon River, which is also known and on the mapping as being the senior care development. In that they've utilized a modified residential land use configuration that allows them, once it's modified by a significant reduction, to be less volume accumulated or accounted for than your normal continuing care facility. So the TIS is based on a reduction in demand based on using a modified residential rather than using the community care facility as the trip generation factor. Also in their report, although they note it in the cover letter, they've totally relied upon the access at Golden Gate Parkway. In their cover letter on the traffic impact statement, they acknowledge that they will not have a left-out, although also Grady Minor Associates' site plans, at least that we have, show the prospects of a left-out onto Golden Gate Parkway, which is not going to occur. There is not going to be a full median opening where they're showing their entrance on Golden Gate Parkway, and so the traffic impact statement at least acknowledges that, calls for a left-in, although the volume is questionable whether it warrants it. Also they've noted in the traffic impact statement that they do have some interest in looking at an access from the rear of their property over to and at the Fleischmann signal through -- or paralleling Goodlette-Frank Road from the Fleischmann signal and then coming along an easement that exists, a 60- foot easement, running east and west to the back of their property in between them and the zoo and the property owned by the county. Our concern is a couple of things there, is first of all the design concept they have, they're assuming a hundred foot cross-section Page 8 July 14,2008 utilizing more than that 60 feet that's in the easement. They need to be using only the 60 feet in the easement, and they can't use some of it for their buffer requirements. They need to stay in the 60- foot for the road, for the swale, for the 10- foot pathway as well as for the clear zones, and that should fit into the 60 feet. They are concerned that any access over to Goodlette-Frank on that 60-foot easement, particularly the western portion, will be reserved solely for pedestrians given the road that we've been talking about, the concept of coming up parallel on Goodlette-Frank Road. Where that then turns to the east on the easement will be the termination of any vehicular traffic so that we don't have any vehicle traffic trying to come out in the two northbound right turn lanes onto Golden Gate Parkway off of Goodlette-Frank. Access that they show at least initially at what was the old Lucky Lane, they're showing a right-in, right-out with the access management standards for basically your separation of driveways. We wouldn't meet that space standard. Also you're on a curve. Particularly the out would be of concern. So we're of a mind right now that that would need to be closed off and not utilized as an access point. We're waiting on their resubmittal of the traffic impact statement, as I noted. We'd want to see what it would be on an extended care, continuing care facility as opposed to a reduced residential trip generation, and we need to see that they're utilizing and that they're committing to the development of this road that's been in the concept for quite some time and their provision to pay for the construction of that road, both the design and then the permitting and then the construction of it to connect up to Fleischmann. So that's our major concerns right now. We need to make sure that its annexation doesn't become a vehicle for not attending to the agreements that have been developed over time to service all of the users in this area with good access to a signalized intersection. Page 9 July 14, 2008 MR. MUDD: Okay. Now, let's make sure you got it all, and that we've got this thing down because this has a big safety issue as far as how do you get in and how do you get out of this particular potential development. What Norman has just described to you is a right-in and a right-out of this development on Golden Gate Parkway with them asking -- they would like to have a full median cut there but the -- it basically sits in the left lane turns, okay, as they're going to the light, so that doesn't make a whole lot of sense of where you put that in, and it causes major concerns that somebody's got to cross three lanes of traffic as they do that. And oh, by the way, when you come from Goodlette -- when you come from Goodlette-Frank and you go into that intersection, you've got two right-hand turn lanes, and in some cases they become free flowing. So that doesn't make a whole lot of sense for somebody to make a left-hand turn in Golden Gate Parkway and come in, it's unlit. Then you take a look at their parcel boundary at the bottom, okay, and you can draw a right-of-way access all the way to Goodlette-Frank Road, okay, but that right-in, right-out would be in the two lanes making a right-hand turn. So that doesn't make real good sense, especially if they call this a -- let's make sure I've got the name of this thing one more time -- a senior care development. I can't wait to see this for folks trying to get out there and then scoot over to the left-hand turn lane on Goodlette-Frank so go through the two right-hand turn lanes, zip through two or three ongoing in order to get over to the left side if and when that ever transpires. CHIEF POTTEIGER: Let me know and I'll bring you some pictures of what the Moorings used to look like when they tried to go over two lanes of traffic. Remember that? MR. MUDD: Okay. So I just let you know that we're basically talking about, if they want to make a left-hand turn out of that development, they're basically going across five lanes of traffic to go Page 10 July 14,2008 get into the left-hand turn. CHIEF POTTEIGER: At two-and-a-half miles an hour. MR. MUDD: At probably one of the worst intersections we have in Collier County. MR. FEDER: And only in about 50 feet to 100 feet. MR. MUDD: And when this process of buying this property or properties was executed with the Trust for Public Lands way back when and when the price tag was $68 million and the county could only afford the 40 and we went after the zoo property and that area on the other side of the Gordon River that had some conservation benefit to it and the present owner of this 22 acres bought that parcel plus that property that's a triangle piece that's just south of Bear's Paw that I basically call the Horn of Africa, because that's what it looks like, when the deal was made, they would have a 60- foot easement and they would -- and they would build a road that would go directly north from that triangle part on the boundary of Bear's Paw separation to get to Goodlette -- to get to, excuse me, Golden Gate Parkway. The other part, the southern part entrance, we talked to them about this being a bit of lunacy at this particular juncture, and let's come up with a way that we can get you out of the back of your development and through a parallel road to Goodlette-Frank to bring you out to the lighted intersection on Goodlette-Frank that the zoo uses, and that's where Norman was talking about the 60-foot. For some strange reason, you know, when -- most of that discussion in this particular development has been lost or it's become clouded by different desires in the process. I will tell you that that's the only way they're going to get to a signalized intersection from Goodlette-Frank Road and to be able to make a right-out, a left-out or a right-in that's got any signal to it, and it's the safest way that we can possibly get to. Now, we've even gone through this alignment of road paralleling Goodlette-Frank with our renters, the Tetzlaffs. We've gone through Page 11 July 14, 2008 this when we purchased the property to make sure that everybody was okay with it, they could live with it. We went through it with the Board of County Commissioners hearings on the -- if I pronounce it wrong, you kick me, okay -- the N ehrling, N ehrling preserve area, okay, historical gardens that they've got in order to make sure that we minimize any kind of takings or destruction, and there are some historical sheds and things that were there at the turn of the century that folks wanted to preserve and would actually move it to a better location. So we've gone through all of that particular detail with this board at the time of purchase during the historical discussions with the Nehrling Gardens on the zoo property with the zoo owners, and we are here where we are today. And now there is a different option that's being presented by the attorney for this particular development to the zoo renters. The problem is the zoo renters don't make agreements. And -- CHIEF POTTEIGER: They could care less. MR. MUDD: Well, I believe there's a move afoot to get the zoo board in favor of this process to put the Board of County Commissioners in a very precarious situation as far as the decision is concerned. I'm just telling you how it's -- what's playing in my mind, okay. But Norman is right, it's always been 60-foot right-of-way in order to minimize the impact upon those historical gardens and to give those folks a safe in and out in order to do that, because you're going right through the zoo property. Go ahead, Jeff. MR. KLATZKOW: As part of this agreement, do you want to bar egress onto Golden Gate? MR. FEDER: On Golden Gate Parkway, we've agreed at their main entrance to establish a right-in, right-out. We will continue based on the numbers to look at whether or not a left-in is necessary Page 12 July 14, 2008 and would be allowed off Golden Gate Parkway. But there is definitely no full median opening, no signalization, and no left-out at that main entrance. MR. KLATZKOW: And do you want to make that part of this agreement? MR. FEDER: Yes. I also want to make part of the agreement the fact that we are not looking at a right-in, right-out as a proposed under concept right now on what would be the most western part of their property abutting Golden Gate Parkway or approximately at what is now known as Lucky Lane, that we do not want an access point there because, one, it doesn't meet our access standards, and two, we're on a curb situation. MR. KLATZKOW: And do you want that to be part of the agreement? MR. FEDER: Yes, I do. Three, I want their commitment to building -- both designing, permitting, and building the access that would bring, from the Fleischmann signal today, as the concepts have been developed, paralleling Goodlette-Frank Road and accessing just to the east of the current Goodlette-Frank right-of-way, that 60-foot east/west easement to the south of their property and building that over to their entranceway and eventually over to Marla's area for the kayak area. MR. KLATZKOW: You want that part of the agreement? MR. FEDER: Yes. Additionally, I think they need to make sure that they are evaluating their impacts based on a proper trip generation, not necessarily a modified residential when, in fact, you do have a residential continuing care facility, excuse me, category, a land use category, for trip generation. Their site plan right now shows no use of this roadway that would connect to Fleischmann, although the cover letter did acknowledge that they're going to look at this issue now, and we need them to look at that in their trip generation in the traffic impact Page 13 July 14,2008 statement. MR. KLATZKOW: Do you want to require access onto Fleischmann? MR. FEDER: Yes, I want to require they develop that road to get access to a signalized intersection. The only one that would be available to them is the one on Goodlette-Frank Road at Fleischmann, across from Fleischmann today. MR. KLATZKOW: And once that's constructed, do they still get the right-in, right-out on Golden Gate Parkway? MR. FEDER: They still get the right-in, right-out, potential for a left-in at their Golden Gate Parkway entrance. CHIEF POTTEIGER: Do they have a site plan now? MR. FEDER: There is a site plan that we have, and that's what I'm relating to. It's the latest that we've seen for this facility, and it seems to be the one that was utilized in their initial evaluation for the traffic impact statement. MR. KLA TZKOW: And this went to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners fairly recently, didn't it? MR. FEDER: That's correct. MR. KLATZKOW: And there were certain commitments made to the county? MR. FEDER: We believe that there were. And in particular I want to site also, besides the items that we just went over, that they stay within that 60-foot right-of-way on the east/west roadway. We have a concept drawing from them that would utilize a hundred feet and would move the road down to the southern portion of that 60 feet or move it away from their property to establish a buffer area. We're noting that they need to stay within the existing 60 feet and that will take -- be taken up with no buffer areas but rather with the roadway, the swale, the 10-foot multi-use path on the south side of the roadway and -- MR. KLATZKOW: Mr. Mudd, do you want to make it a Page 14 July 14, 2008 condition of this agreement that the developer must abide by all commitments made to the county both before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners? MR. MUDD: Absolutely. Norman, you're going to have to do some of this with some sketch work, okay. So you're going to -- you know, this part of the agreement's going to have some attachments, okay -- MR. FEDER: Yes. MR. MUDD: -- that were previously agreed to and things like that. So we carried what was agreed to in previous meetings with the board on this particular parcel and we capture them within this interlocal agreement. MR. FEDER: And the only thing I'd add to that, I believe all of these have pretty well been discussed as part of those prior agreements, but they may also reflect a further refinement than what I'm presenting to you as we've gone further along the process, seen some of the concept plans. MR. KLATZKOW: This issue's been negotiated to death. MR. FEDER: Yes. MR. MUDD: Yes. And I will tell you, even to the point where I was shown some development plans last week where they're going to -- upon their eastern boundary of this development, are going to provide a boardwalk, okay, that runs all the way down that interconnects, okay, to Marla's kayak pond site because at that particular point in time, we plan, on the park side -- and we'll get to that -- plan to have a bridge that will go across the Gordon River, a walkway, and then get you into the bike lanes and bike paths and that 60-acre parcel that Marla's got right now along with the Conservation Collier, and it will ultimately hook up with the pathway around the airport and hook into the city proper from the Pulling property. CHIEF POTTEIGER: Oh, that's going to be beautiful. MR. MUDD: Go ahead, Norm. It's still on your side. Page 15 July 14,2008 MR. FEDER: Norman Feder, again, for the record. What I would add to what Jim just said is that pedestrian easement access along their eastern edge, we'd be very supportive of that. If they're unable to get permitting though, we want to make sure they provide for pedestrian access from what's being developed on the balance of the property to get them up to the sidewalk on Golden Gate Parkway, on the south side of Golden Gate Parkway, so that they can then go down that sidewalk to the Goodlette-Frank intersection and cross over to reach the water areas in the Freedom Park. MR. KLATZKOW: Who's they? MR. FEDER: The developer is planning on a boardwalk structure on the east side from their concept plans. We would say that that would be good if they can get it permitted. If not, we still want to make sure they provide pedestrian access to the north connecting up to the sidewalk in Golden Gate Parkway, on the south side of Golden Gate parkway. MR. KLATZKOW: And would this be public access? MR. FEDER: Yes. MR. KLA TZKOW: And you want to make that a condition of this agreement? MR. FEDER: Yes, I do. MR. MUDD: On the north side -- and the south side, if they can't get it, they could still go through their development at the rear entrance and work down that 60-foot right-of-way with the -- some kind of a sidewalk pathway and then get to the bridge from the south end in order to give their residents the ability to get out there and experience this walkway that we've got planned and has been ongoing in the City of Naples and the county for the last decade. It's just starting to come to fruition, so it's -- MR. FEDER: And that leads right into -- I had seven items I went through in the initial. The last of those is the fact, on that 60- foot east/west that they need to stay within, which includes a 10-foot Page 16 July 14,2008 pathway on the south side of it, that roadway stops as you start coming down paralleling Goodlette-Frank to connect up to Fleischmann. The remainder of that 60-foot is not vehicular. It would only be for pedestrian access over to the sidewalks on Goodlette-Frank and up to Golden Gate and across through the intersection. MS. RAMSEY: That's where the -- where you -- right now it looks like a northwest section right in here. MR. MUDD: Yeah, I got it. MS. RAMSEY: Right in here. Just so that they can come in and hook up there rather than having to come all the way down and go back up. MR. FEDER: And we'll get this graphically shown on the material that we have. MR. KLATZKOW: That will be a part of the agreement. MS. RAMSEY: It's just a few feet, yeah. This is an interconnect from the sidewalk. MR. MUDD: Okay. Now, you from the fire side of the house need to pay particular attention to these footprints, this alignment, so that your equipment can get where it needs to go from one place to the other, and you need to tell us -- CHIEF POTTEIGER: That's where we're making a lot of notes on it, because there's no way we can get an engine in half these places without some rather creative ways. But with Laura, I'm sure we'll have everyone tied down. MR. MUDD: Okay. So I want to make sure that you're on board on that one. Is that it, Norman, on your side? MR. FEDER: That's it on my side. MR. MUDD: Okay. And I'm going to go to conservation, parks and recreation. And, Marla, I believe you're going to hit that. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. Well, most of what I had that I needed from the developer is what Norman's already talked about, pedestrian access, interconnect. Page 17 July 14,2008 We had -- up until Senior Care came on, the development conversations that we had, was to take that road all the way down to our parking lot. The schematic that we have currently shows it already coming to their west property line. That's quite a distance yet from the end of where the parking lot is. So there's a little bit of a disconnect there now or discord there. So whatever it is, it is. If we have to pick it up as a driveway from then on, I guess that's what we have to do. But right now it does end at the west border. CHIEF POTTEIGER: How long will they keep that natural; do you know? MS. RAMSEY: How long will we keep that natural? CHIEF POTTEIGER: I mean, how long -- MS. RAMSEY: Two years. CHIEF POTTEIGER: Two years is -- MS. RAMSEY: We figure in two years we'll be ready because we're in design plans now and we're working on permitting, so it's about 18 months. MR. FEDER: Marla, my-- MR. MUDD: What I would have a conversation with -- because, Jeff, if you look at -- if you look at where this property is coming in, and then if you take a look at where it's now coming in and where their boardwalk is coming down to, this is the river, and the bridge that Marla's got with the parking lot and the kayak launch is right in here. So this million-dollar boardwalk, or whatever it's going to cost, okay, with the permitting over the wetlands -- and it's all going to be aboveground -- MS. RAMSEY: Yep. MR. MUDD: -- is going into something on this map, and it's basically the area that hooks into the bridge so that there's a parking area, but yet his commitment is stopping right here. In the conversations we had when we were purchasing the property with the Trust for Public Lands and the owner of the property Page 18 July 14,2008 at the time, we talked about that road going all the way down to where it butts into Gordon River and that parking garage. And so I would tell you, that's a negotiating issue that needs to transpire and it gets into previous board conversations and what was promised in trying to get that into the agreement, and if we can't find it on the log someplace in the minutes that we've had from those meetings, then we need to basically state an interest in that particular alignment. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. One of the things that we were looking at is at least the permitting and continuing that design since we're starting it rather than starting it at their west property line is keep the design and permitting going so that that's all continuous; otherwise, it's stop, then we pick it up, and then that permitting becomes, you know, a little bit strange in the long run. Other than the road, the one other thing that we have talked to a developer about is a desire to maybe share a lift station to help with sewer for both the zoo, the park, and this complex. So I'm not sure what that entails yet because that was just a conversation that I had last Friday with them. But there seemed to be interest on their part at least to share. Whether it goes in this agreement or not, I don't know, but there might be an opportunity there to cost share a lift station, but I don't know the size, the cost or anything, so -- MR. MUDD: Okay. You do have a parking section that's south of Golden Gate Parkway that goes down farther, okay, where I call the Horn of Africa piece that he owns. You have a parking space. His road goes in, and you have rest room facilities down there for bikers and the people that would use that particular path. MS. RAMSEY: And there will be a rest room facility at the terminus of this particular road where we're talking about kayak and canoe, one there, and then there's also one south of the zoo. I've got another rest room at that location which has a trailhead parking area in combination with the zoo itself. So we've got a lot of partners Page 19 July 14,2008 working this project. MR. MUDD: Okay. So she's working three bridges. So if you just figured it out real quick, there's one by the kayak site that's at the base of this guy's property, there's another one that's down using zoo property and shared and a walkway access area that goes in there, and there's a bridge over, and then there's another bridge that's further down that hooks into the Conservation Collier property, and that hooks into the airport bike -- CHIEF POTTEIGER: Rob Potteiger. They've also, between our fire -- the county fire code and our fire district in the city, we've had a similar project with the Hamilton Harbor. And believe me, they've got some really effective things going on there for protection and everything else. So I'm sure this will be similar with the three entities working at it. So I'd just appreciate, you know, giving us the time to get into it. MR. MUDD: Okay. That brings us to stormwater management and drainage. That's you, Norman? MR. FEDER: Yes. We're working a lot of issues of that through the overall development of the site. They need to address all of their stormwater on site, and that would be our concern, just that they not add to some of the issues. From their concepts looks like they have quite a few lakes and stormwater treatment. Bottom line would be, they need to treat, obviously, the 25-year, three-day event on site and show how they're going to release it and let us see that information. MR. MUDD: Okay. Now, irrigation water, anything like that, the City's putting an ASR well north of the property and Freedom Memorial. And, Tom, you're doing ASR wells down in that 60 acres, correct? MR. WIDES: That is correct. MR. MUDD: Okay. So there is some opportunity for reuse water to be used for irrigation. So that's all a good thing. Page 20 July 14,2008 All right. Is that it on stormwater, Norm? MR. FEDER: Yes. MR. MUDD: Okay. So you're looking to make sure that they've got on-site storage. MR. FEDER: Sufficient to handle their runoff. And like I said, maintain our level of service standard. MR. MUDD: Okay. Because again they're at the headwaters of the Gordon River. Not having the stormwater treatment on site causes an issue. And it's already a bad area. It's been a bad area for decades; therefore, the county's purchase of the 50 acres for the Freedom Park, which is -- we're going to do a freedom park and a walkway, but what it is is a great big huge Stormwater Project, okay, but don't tell anybody, all right? But that's what it is. MR. FEDER: It looks too nice to be that. MR. MUDD: But we're going to work all those things together to make it look nice, okay, and a nice part of an inner-city -- CHIEF POTTEIGER: Whatever it takes. MR. MUDD: You got it. But we're going to have to do the same thing with new developments that are basically coming into that particular area because we do have an issue when you look at the Goodlette-Frank corridor coming from Pine Ridge down and everything that's on either side of that road. We don't have a lot of cleansing going on with the stormwater before it gets into the Gordon River. The -- for instance, the Freedom Park only represented 10 percent of what we needed land mass-wise in order to treat the stormwater. We're still out there looking for the other 90 percent solution, part of which is that land on the other side of the zoo that we're going to use in order to clean up the headwaters just a tad in order to get stuff done. So not bad things, but stuff that needs to get done. Let's talk about -- and if we're done with stormwater, let's go into Page 21 July 14, 2008 garbage and trash collection and recycling. MR. WIDES: Okay. Tom Wides, public utilities. Once again, on solid waste services, that area is being serviced by -- under the District 1 contract with Waste Management through the county, and quoting the Florida Statutes, 171.062, a party that has an exclusive franchise, which in this case would be Waste Management, which was in effect for at least six months prior to the initiation of an annexation to provide solid waste services in an unincorporated area may continue to provide such services to an annexed area for five years or the remainder of the franchise term, whichever is shorter. And, basically, we would expect no cost impact to be incurred to the public utilities division under this arrangement for that five-year period. MR. MUDD: And we've got it standard in the other language. Okay. Recycling side of the house. MS. WALTERS: It's the same. MR. MUDD: It's the same. MR. WIDES: Same. MR. MUDD: Now, the city has adopted -- well, this would be a commercial property per se on the recycling side. MR. WIDES: That's correct. MS. W ALTERS: And it will come under their ordinance. MR. MUDD: Okay. And the city's ordinance is pretty much like ours? MS. WALTERS: Yes, it is. MR. MUDD: Okay. So they need to fall under our ordinance or the city ordinance, whichever is in effect at the time. Okay. What issues have we left on the table that we haven't brought forward? Leo? MR.OCHS: No, sir. MR. MUDD: Tom? MR. WIDES: The only thing I can think of, Jim, is, again, on the Page 22 July 14, 2008 solid waste. I'm sure when the Site Development Plan is submitted we'll align for any utilizations for access for the garbage trucks, et cetera. That will be pretty standard though. MR. MUDD: Chief? CHIEF DYER: Same thing, fire access. MR. MUDD: You've got to watch those alignments and make sure that there's no curves too sharp, you know, there's no median with so many trees you can't get a hook and ladder in. We've got to talk about a building that's going to be multi-floor, okay, and when you say hook and ladder, I'm not kidding. Yeah. And I have to say, I'm a little concerned -- this is Laura Donaldson -- that, you know, the city's position thus far has been that the interlocal service boundary CHICK (sic) section will not apply and we go under the 171.093, which is that four-year transition period, that even if under that scenario the city's going to be permitting the development, that our fire trucks cannot serve, and that is a huge concern because people are going to be moving into this community who are older and they're going to assume that they're going to have proper fire protection, and it's going to be pretty shocking when they find out that we can't get a fire truck down to protect them. CHIEF POTTEIGER: My concern's not only that -- Rob Potteiger -- Laura, but it looks to me like there's a whole bunch of parking in there, and how are we going to get them out to get in? But I guess that would be Norm's problem with getting them out of there. MR. MUDD: Okay. But there is an issue here, and it's one that's high on everybody's mind, and we'll -- and we'll try to get those ones done, but -- okay. MS. WALTERS: I'm good. MR. MUDD: Chief, you're good? CHIEF POTTEIGER: Good. MR. MUDD: Good? MS. DAVIS: Good. Page 23 July 14, 2008 MR. 'MUDD: Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: Nothing? MR. MUDD: Mike? MR. SHEFFIELD: Nothing. MR. MUDD: How's your fingers? Norman's not talking so you can rest. Norman, anything? MR. FEDER: (Shakes head.) MR. MUDD: Okay. All right. You pretty -- I'm going to -- just a second. Do you have everything you need to draft up an agreement, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. Your staff will assist, we'll be fine. MR. MUDD: Okay. Absolutely. MR. KLATZKOW: We'll get the minutes back in about how long? THE COURT REPORTER: Two weeks is normal, but I can get them sooner. MR. KLATZKOW: Two weeks is fine. MR. MUDD: So let's -- what I need everybody here to do, once we get the minutes, get your issues down on a piece of paper, get with the county attorney and let's try to have a draft agreement, let's say, in 30 days from now, from today. So, Mike, if you would get with Jeff Klatzkow, the County Attorney's Office, and let's get a day that would be convenient for everyone in order to meet again, and we'll meet back up here, if that's all right with everybody. Is it okay for everybody to get here? CHIEF POTTEIGER: Does that look good for you, Laura? MS. DONALDSON: Yeah, that's great. What I was thinking, Chief, is since I'm going to be meeting with you on Friday, we can go over the road issue as it relates to us providing service, and I can draft something up on that next week. And Jeff, as I mentioned earlier, you used language from the Page 24 July 14, 2008 Hole in the Wall agreement. That at least is a good basis to start with. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah, I'll email you the first draft, and I'll use that language. MS. DONALDSON: Yeah. We're not going to have any problem from our side getting the language done well before the 30-day period. MR. FEDER: And, Jeff, what I'll do is I'll mark up graphically the items that I hit on. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. You just need to comport with the commitments that were made by the developer to both the Planning Commission and the board. MR. FEDER: I'd like to see the copy of that, but I will mark up the graphic issues we've raised. MR. MUDD: Leo, you pulling those? MR. OCHS: Yeah. MR. MUDD: Let's make sure we pull those minutes, get a copy so that nobody's out here guessing. You should have -- we should have comments that were done at the -- at a Planning Commission meeting, we should have ones in front of the board, we should have the TPC agreements and the comments that were made there, plus we should have the Nehrling agreements that were made on this historical CHIEF POTTEIGER: We're not set on a date yet, right? CHIEF DYER: The 30 days? MR. MUDD: No, we're not set on it yet. CHIEF DYER: We're gone from the 11 th to the 16th. MS. DONALDSON: Now, can I ask, are we going to send out the interlocal agreements to the city asking them, once again, to sit down and participate with us like we did last time so that we can show, if this does go to litigation, that we have tried everything we possibly could to negotiate a contract in good faith? MR. KLATZKOW: We're going to give the city every Page 25 July 14,2008 opportunity to fully participate in this. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. MR. MUDD: Okay. And I -- I agree with Jeff. I don't see where our actions should be a whole lot different than what they were the last time, and we basically gave them the benefit of the doubt at every turn. MS. DONALDSON: I just want to make sure, because I know as it relates to the other agreement, that issue is starting to bubble up, and obviously it's -- the scenario's exactly the same, and this issue's going to bubble up. It may be a year from now that it will bubble up. So I just wanted to make sure that we can show the Court if it goes to that point that we have tried to negotiate in good faith. MR. KLATZKOW: The city will have a legal claim that they're not required to do this but they will have no factual claim that they were somehow left out of the system. MS. DONALDSON: Right, okay. I just wanted to make sure. MR. MUDD: Okay. Now I'm going to turn to public comment real quick. Ma'am, do you have anything you'd like to say to the group? MRS. DORR: I promised I would be a fly on the wall. I have thoughts. I don't know if you know, I'm on the zoo board. MR. MUDD: Okay. MRS. DORR: Marla knows that very well. And I came just because I saw the announcement in the paper, and I called about 12 numbers to find out if the public could come, and I was told yes, so I promised to be quiet. I have thoughts and feelings. I don't -- I can't speak for others, and so I don't really think I should voice them. MR. MUDD: Okay. MRS. DORR: Unless you pull my hand or foot. MR. MUDD: You can do whatever you want to. You know, you're here. This is public comments, so -- Page 26 July 14, 2008 MRS. DORR: I personally question -- I shouldn't say this, but I question whether or not the facility should go in there at all. And I think that from what I have heard, they have very, very definitive designs on buffer between them and the zoo. And the -- it would take up more space and land than the 60 feet, and it could encroach upon zoo property. It's not zoo property. It's the county property. MR. MUDD: That's being used as a zoo, yes, ma'am. MRS. DORR: And paying rent. And I under -- I mean, this is all common knowledge. And so I just think that it's -- you're entering into a large can of worms. CHIEF POTTEIGER: That's what they pay us for. MRS. DORR: My opinion. MR. MUDD: Yes, ma'am. I'm not -- I can't argue with you, but thank you very much for your comments. MRS. DORR: You're very welcome. MR. MUDD: Comments from the Naples Daily News? I guess we'll read about them tomorrow, eh? Thank you very much. Hopefully it will be in the factual station (sic) instead of the editorial page. CHIEF POTTEIGER: Laura, I'll call you later. MS. DONALDSON: Okay. MR. MUDD: Without any further comment, I basically close this meeting. Thank you very much for coming. (Proceedings concluded at 2:51 p.m.) ***** Page 27 _.._"..._^....~ ..~_...".._-~------_.."... July 14, 2008 STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, Terri L. Lewis, Notary Public, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceedings were taken before me at the date and place as stated in the caption hereto on Page 1 hereof; that the foregoing computer-assisted transcription, consisting of pages numbered 2 through 45 (before TRN 18 formatting), inclusive, is a true record of my Stenograph notes taken at said proceedings. Dated this 21st day of July, 2008 TERRI L. LEWIS, Notary Public, State of Florida; My Commission No. DD 447012 Page 28 .'-_.~.,_._,~,.- ---.-