Loading...
BCC Minutes 09/05/2008 S (Proposed Annexation - Senior Care Development) September 5, 2008 TRANSCRIPT OF THE MEETING REGARDING THE INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT NEGOTIATIONS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF THE SENIOR CARE DEVELOPMENT SITE September 5, 2008 The meeting was held at the County Attorney's Office on this date at 1:00 p.m., in Building "F" of the Government Complex, East Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Jim Mudd, County Manager Jeffrey A. Klatzkow, County Attorney ALSO PRESENT: Michael Sheffield, County Manager's Office Norman Feder, Transportation Administrator Nick Casalanguida, Transportation Director Marla Ramsey, Public Service Administrator Margaret Bishop, Transportation Torn Wides, Public Utilities Doug Dyer, East Naples Fire Department Angela S. Davis, East Naples Fire Department Laura Donaldson, Counsel for ENFD (via speakerphone) Suzy DOff, Naples Zoo Board Page 1 .-.--. September 5, 2008 1 :30 PM County Attomey Office Conference Room-Eighth Floor W. Harmon Turner Building (Building F) Collier County Government Center COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT HAS INVITED THE CITY OF NAPLES AND THE EAST NAPLES FIRE CONTROL & RESCUE DISTRICT TO DISCUSS THE INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT RELATIVE TO THE 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 A2enda 1. Call to Order/Opening Remarks 2. Continue Negotiations for an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement 3. Additional Comments/Questions 4. Public Comment 5. Adjourn September 5, 2008 MR. MUDD: We're here to have another meeting on the interlocal agreement, okay, that basically has to do with the 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 of the Florida Statutes. And what I'll do is I'll go around the room and introduce everybody that's here so, Laura, you have the benefit of the doubt. I'm Jim Mudd, the county manager. To my left if Jeff Klatzkow. Hello, Jeff. MR. KLATZKOW: Hello, Mudd. MR. SHEFFIELD: Mike Sheffield from the County Attorney's Office. MR. FEDER: Norman Feder, Collier transportation. MS. RAMSEY: Marla Ramsey, public services. MS. BISHOP: Margaret Bishop, Collier County transportation. MS. DORR: Suzy Dorr, Zoo Board. MR. DYER: Doug Dyer, East Naples Fire. MS. DA VIS: Angela Davis, East Naples Fire. MR. MUDD: Okay. You've got us all. One of the things that we kind of have to do is we all received the minutes from the 14th of July. I only have one correction to those minutes, and it has to do on page 3, four lines up from the bottom of the page, and it says on March 35th (sic), 2008. That's March 31st. So that's the date on that particular item, so just for a correction. Anybody have any other corrections to the minutes? (Nick Casalanguida entered the meeting room.) MR. MUDD: Okay. Then the minutes are set. Mr. Klatzkow, on the 15th of August, sent us an email that also included the draft agreement and asked everybody to take a look at the draft and get your comments in. But one of the things that he had talked about specifically in his email on the 15th was to address an Page 2 ---- September 5, 2008 email on the 13th of August that he sent to staff, and it basically talked about, please itemize and/or get agreements that talk about the prior commitments on that particular development as we were negotiating and finally bought the zoo property to the side, and they were all part of that because that was all part of a land purchase deal that the Trust for Public Lands had worked on, and hopefully that has been accomplished. With that, I'd like to -- that's as much of the introductory as I'd like to go to. Now, for the sake of brevity of this meeting, because everybody is either surging trying to get rid of Fay debris and/or getting ready for meeting at four o'clock today -- get on with the interlocal agreement, because that's basically what we're trying to get down, is get it so it's solid, locked in, and then from there, we can get whatever changes we have to do and then get this thing moving. MR. KLATZKOW: Yeah. The only question I had, Mr. Mudd, is, is the City of Naples here? MR. MUDD: I do not see a representative of the City of Naples. MR. KLATZKOW: And were they noticed for this meeting? MR. MUDD: Yes, they were. They were noticed for the meeting, and we -- I sent them a letter and asked them if they would -- if the city manager would please corne and/or ask the staff, and in the letter I even said, if the meeting date and time isn't conducive to your schedule, just tell me what day and time you'd like to have it and we'll reschedule it. I received no response. MR. KLATZKOW: That's all we can do. MR. MUDD: Okay. Jeff, you want to start going over the agreement? MR. KLATZKOW: Well, I've sent drafts to everyone and I got comments. Again, the only issue I have is I do need from you the commitments that we've received over the year so I can attach that Exhibit 4; otherwise, from my perspective, I believe we have a final agreement here. Page 3 ,.--... --- September 5,2008 Laura, are you okay with the changes? MS. DONALDSON: Yeah, I'm fine with the changes, and they've incorporated my additional revisions. So, yep, I'm good. MR. MUDD: Okay. Can I help? And this is just -- some of this is just semantics. Okay. I'm under fire services, paragraph 2, sub item D, it's ad valorem instead of as valorem. D, heading. I'm on -- look it. I'm under -- MS. DONALDSON: That's impressive. MR. MUDD: I'm under -- no, that's ad valorem. That's under transportation and concurrency. We want to get rid of that. There's a period in there, right there. That period doesn't need to be there. MR. FEDER: Jim. MR. MUDD: Hang on. We're going to go -- we're going to go all the way through this. Let me just figure this one out. On the next item, on the next page, it starts at B, it goes to C. You see it, Jeff? And then it goes to E, and I'm wondering where D is. I'm on -- it's on the -- it's just above stormwater. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. Got it. MR. MUDD: Okay. So I was looking for D, and I couldn't-- and I couldn't find it. Okay. I got my trivial crap out of the way, okay. Okay. Norman, go. MR. FEDER: I'm on transportation, section four. You have no D? And I'd given seven bullets, six bullets, excuse me. Cis -- looks like a combination to some degree of three and four that I'd given numbers as comments. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. FEDER: In particular, what is not addressed is the fact that they'll-- it does identify within the 60-foot area for construction and that the balance out there is non-vehicular, but then on four, it's got the 60- foot connection to signalized access. It basically covers it. So if it, in fact, is intended that my four and -- three and four Page 4 ..-.- September 5, 2008 comments were incorporated into C, then E, F -- and E and F need to be D and E respectively. MR. MUDD: Okay. Are you -- does C need to be broken down, Norman, into distinctive parts? MR. FEDER: I think it covers basically what I had as issues in three and four. It's reworded, but I think it covers the essence of those two. MR. KLATZKOW: So you're okay with that? MR. FEDER: So then you need to restructure to D and E. MR. MUDD: Yeah. You take E to G, you already did it, Jeff. Anything else, Norman? MR. FEDER: No, not in that. Okay. Marla, you're loving the talk or you pen's jiggling? MS. RAMSEY: My pen's jiggling. MR. MUDD: Okay. Stormwater. You okay? MS. BISHOP: Yes. MR. MUDD: Torn? MR. WIDES: Okay. MR. MUDD: Fire. MR. DYER: Okay. MS. DAVIS: Okay. MR. MUDD: Now, as far as the commitments are concerned, can we get a little more specific for Jeff so that he can at least put those down in an attachment? Norm? MR. FEDER: Yes. MR. MUDD: The commitments that were made by-- MR. FEDER: We had discussion-- MR. MUDD: -- the owner of the property when we purchased it. MR. FEDER: When the property owner was purchasing, the issue was access. Might be off of the existing 60-foot alignment, which we noted was problematic because it carne out into the northbound dual right turn lanes and, therefore, would not be Page 5 -"- September 5,2008 acceptable. There were meetings held with the parties in particular, also the zoo was there, to look at the development of what we're now calling this access road to the Fleischmann signal. There was an agreement, to my knowledge, and then I'll defer to Nick and to Marla -- on the -- an alternate roadway that connected to that triangular piece of development over on what would be -- MR. MUDD: The Horn of Africa that's over there by -- MR. FEDER: Yes, the eastern boundary of the property. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. FEDER: I'm not aware -- and I'll defer now to Nick and Marla, but I'm not aware that there was any formal agreement with the developer other than our stated expectations verbally. Is there anything beyond that? MR. CASALANGUIDA: My understanding is that there is -- we presented an exhibit, I believe, where we had a general description or location of what this roadway connecting Goodlette-Frank Road, the zoo area, Marla's park site, and their development site up to Golden Gate Parkway. The paragraph C, to me, is vague. We should probably -- it should be an exhibit that goes with that that's clear as, approximately constructed as shown on exhibit so and so. MR. MUDD: That's kind of where Jeffs at. He was asking in the email on the 13th of August, and again repeated, that says, hey, attached, the working draft. Please note paragraph A to the agreement which provides prior commitments. Significant commitments to the county have been made by the owner and/or agents of the amended area and by their predecessors in interest. A copy of these commitments is attached as Exhibit 4. And what he's trying to do is lay down what Exhibit 4 looks like. MR. CASALANGUIDA: Okay. Did Michael Green email you? I believe Michael was in the process of reviewing and emailing you Page 6 ----- September 5,2008 copies of the exhibits that we have in our file. And we were discussing which ones should be used. MR. KLATZKOW: Okay. I need -- when we say commitments, we're not talking about discussions you had. MS. RAMSEY: There aren't any-- MR. CASALANGUIDA: They're all discussions. MR. KLATZKOW: Then those aren't commitments. MR. FEDER: That's what I'm trying to say. MR. KLATZKOW: What I'm talking about is whatever they told the Board of County Commissioners they would do whenever we have a written agreement or anything of that nature. If you guys just had ongoing discussions with them, you don't have a commitment. MR. CASALANGUIDA: That's the case. There was nothing written and brought to the board for approval. It was all tentative drafts, working copies that we were working towards a final agreement, but it was never blessed by the board. MS. RAMSEY: The only commitments we have is with the zoo lease. In the zoo lease we took out from the zoo property this access point right here to the north, and we then increased it here and we increased it here. And there is a commitment in the lease agreement, this is the -- that says that the county reserves the right to build the road up through in here, but it's not a commitment with Trust for Public Lands during the purchase. And I talked with Toni Mott, and she doesn't have anything in her files either that there is anything in writing about the commitments. MR. KLATZKOW: This is a lease between whom? MS. RAMSEY: The zoo and us. MR. KLATZKOW: So that's not a commitment on the developer. MS. RAMSEY: Not a commitment on the developer, but I have -- that's the thing that I have that's written. The only other Page 7 .- September 5, 2008 commitment -- thing that we have is that they carne back later and got an easement here for utilities along this particular area here. MR. KLATZKOW: No, that's not a commitment either. That's just an easement. MS. RAMSEY: Easement, yep. That's the only thing I have in writing at the moment. Now, I haven't pulled up the minutes from the meeting. I started to do that, but I ran out of time to pull the minutes up from when Trust for Public Lands was standing at the podium, if they made any verbal commitments on the record. But I don't have anything in the agreement that I have, either in the attachment that went to the board for the sale -- in the executive summary. The only commitments I have are through this lease agreement that's really taking the land and setting it aside so that it won't be used as zoo elements. MR. MUDD: Do me a favor, take a look, pull up the minutes. The Trust for Public Lands was pretty outspoken about the deals that they'd made with the landowners and whatnot. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. There might be something in the minutes, but I didn't have time to pull them. But I'll pull it back up and take a look at it. MR. FEDER: You need to look at the minutes -- we need to look at the minutes because I think there was some discussion about our concern about them corning out at that spot, but I know that we were talking about resolving those issues after, not necessary as part of, so I'm not sure it will be in there. MR. MUDD: There is no written agreement that exists today between the landowner that bought the parcel from the Trust for Public Lands. MR. KLA TZKOW: Well, the Trust was just a pass through. MS. RAMSEY: That's right. MR. MUDD: No. The Trust for Public Lands purchased the property, okay. They purchased the property. They received it, paid Page 8 -..'- September 5,2008 money for it. Collier County bought a piece. Mr. Orschlager -- was is Orschlager (phonetic)? MS. RAMSEY: Something like that. MR. MUDD: Something like that. Don't quote me, okay. We'll just call him Mr. 0, okay. He picked up the 22 acres that was north. MR. KLATZKOW: That's fine. Then while they own that property, any commitments made by the Trust would be binding-- MS. RAMSEY: Right, on the new owner. MR. KLATZKOW: On the new owner. MS. RAMSEY: Right. MR. KLATZKOW: So that would be fine. MS. RAMSEY: Now -- and I have -- since we had this last meeting, I've had conversations with them. MR. MUDD: And I think we did make an agreement with the Trust for Public Lands. MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. It's not in the written agreement for purchase though. I've gone through it twice, and there's nothing in here that says that they're committing the new owner or themselves to put that road in. But I have had a conversation with them about their project and what we were expecting, and they have agreed verbally through me, their attorney -- MR. MUDD: Who's they? MS. RAMSEY: The new senior care people. So I've met with-- MR. MUDD: Mr. O.'s -- MS. RAMSEY: Yeah. I met with -- his name is -- I forget off the top of my head. Anyway, I'll corne up with his name in a minute. But we did talk about corning in and making a commitment to bring this over. And we've talked about different schematics here as well as to share a lift station and a connection here for the boardwalk that comes in. We've discussed all that with him, and they're receptive to that. Not only that, but remember they wanted a hundred-foot Page 9 ------'-'" -._- September 5, 2008 easement here so they could put in additional buffering, and I got him to agree that he's going to put in enhanced landscaping on the other side of the zoo's property as a benefit for the zoo so that they don't see the building, so that they don't see the buildings. MR. KLATZKOW: You don't have an agreement to anything. What you have, you have an understanding. MS. RAMSEY: Exactly. MR. KLATZKOW: Right, but you have no agreement. MS. RAMSEY: No, I agree, but my point is is that those are things that we put into this particular agreement. I've had some discussion with them. They have not corne and stood in front of me and said, absolutely not. We're not doing that. It's been a very positive exchange between them and us to do it. MR. FEDER: How did the submittal corne about where we had the concerns where they weren't staying totally within the 60 foot of roadway and they were utilizing some of it for -- MR. MUDD: Yeah. Because there was a schematic that carne on with the road design and it basically looked for a hundred foot of right-of-way and/or the cross-section-- MR. FEDER: I'm saying, what was the source of that? They presented that schematic to us. MS. RAMSEY: That is their landscape architect or their engineer that drew that up. There were some conversations with transportation on that, then they went to the zoo, and that's when I saw the plan. So their -- it's their consultants that are driving the look of that entrance, so -- MR. MUDD: Okay. Well, let's take it from -- it's discouraging, but it's not totally out. What we need to do now is, you need to craft what the limitations are on the property, i.e., the east/west road where it bumps up against Goodlette-Frank, you're not going to authorize a right-in and right-out on that particular thing because it is a right access to turn to go down Golden Gate Parkway to the east, okay. So Page 10 -- September 5,2008 you're not going to let them have an east/west road outlet. So in this interlocal, because of safety concerns, you need to say, that's not there, okay. That isn't going to happen. MR. FEDER: And we've done that. MR. MUDD: Okay. I.e., the other piece where they have their access to Goodlette-Frank Road, depending on how far it is from the signalized area and the access that's corning off of Goodlette- Frank, you'll authorize a right-in and a right-out, and you need to be very specific about that. MR. FEDER: You're talking about on Golden Gate Parkway. MR. MUDD: Golden Gate Parkway. MR. FEDER: And there we have been very specific. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. FEDER: First is -- MR. MUDD: And you'll also need to talk from your transportation side of the house that the likelihood of getting a median opening issuing, okay, at that right-in, right-out on a six-lane road, probably going to an eight-lane road, is not going to happen, okay. Those things you are perfectly -- you are perfectly on solid ground to put in this interlocal agreement knowing that there are no commitments that you are able to do that. Then you -- Marla, okay, if you have issues with your property and what they need from you, you can say something like, we, in our agreement with the zoo and the county, have got provisions in that agreement to provide a -- MS. RAMSEY: Signalized access. MR. MUDD: -- signalized access through the far western, northern reaches of the zoo property until, what is it, 14th Street light or whatever it is, until they get to that particular light so they can get -- MR. FEDER: Fleischmann. MR. MUDD: Fleischmann -- so they can get out, and then you can say, that's there, all right. No -- you have nothing in writing that Page 11 ----- September 5, 2008 says they're going to pay for it, you're going to do anything for it. Now -- MS. RAMSEY: Well, there's also nothing in writing that says they get to use it because it hasn't been -- MR. MUDD: No, no. You can say that it's there and the county is prepared to let that northern property use that based on what -- their inabilities to get to certain places, okay, because that's a property that then has a real problem with access. MS. RAMSEY: They honestly think that they don't -- they're going through this whole thing, but they have said on the back side that this is a secondary entrance to them because they expect everybody to corne out, and if they want to go to the right -- or left, you have to corne down, you have to make a U-turn, you know, around that one median. They really think that their 80-year-old people are going to be able to do three lanes over, U-turn, three lanes over to go north. And I think when they corne to the realization that's not necessarily a safe element that I think -- I think what they're doing is right. I don't have anything in writing that says that they're committed to doing it though. MR. MUDD: I understand that, and my answer is, what you need to do is put down what we have right now that's documented and what things they can't get at, Norman, so that the negotiations you have one way or the other, then those agreements will corne to bear when they had it. It would be nice if we had a memorandum of agreement or whatever, but we have nothing at this particular juncture. MR. KLATZKOW: No, that's fine. What you want we'll put into the agreement. MR. FEDER: We have that, essentially, with one variation right now. If you take a look at the transportation, it spells out pretty much what you said, Jim. A says there will be no left out of the main entrance to Golden Gate Parkway. Only a right-in, right-out, possible Page 12 ---."- September 5,2008 left in, but there will be no median opening for signalization. And then the second one is a western access to Golden Gate, which is about at Lucky Lane, will be restricted to right-out only. No right -- I mean, right-in only. No right-out, no median opening. The C, which is a combination of myoid -- MR. MUDD: Sure. MR. FEDER: -- three and four is getting at, but it does say developer's sole cost, and those issues may need to be revised, but it makes it clear that the expectation is that their access to a signal is rear, a parallel to Goodlette-Frank that then accesses not anywhere else but at Fleischmann. MR. MUDD: You can put down that it's in vision and there is a 60- foot easement that is dedicated or whatever else you want to call it, okay, for their use -- MR. FEDER: To access a signal at Fleischmann, or Goodlette- Frank. MR. MUDD: That's it, but that's where it stops because then you're kind of stuck because you've got nothing in between. MR. FEDER: Yeah. MR. KLATZKOW: So in other words -- MS. RAMSEY: But do I want to put in this agreement that it's available to them at this moment in time? I mean, if they're not going to develop it, then I don't need an interconnect with them. I mean, then the county will make it. I mean, is there a reason that I would have to even offer it on the table in this element at all? Because right now there's no agreement with me and them for this access. MR. MUDD: That's right, but you can say -- but you can say that an easement has been laid out for that potential. MR. FEDER: I think what we'd say, Jim, to your point is, that there is no access to Goodlette-Frank Road except access that could be acquired across from and at the Fleischmann signal. MR. MUDD: That's fine. Page 13 -- September 5,2008 MR. FEDER: And how you get there is the further discussion maybe. MR. MUDD: Sure. MR. FEDER: Maybe I take out my whole description of the concept road that's been discussed with everybody and just say, you have no access to Goodlette-Frank itself except for that across from the Fleischmann signal. MR. MUDD: That's fine. That pretty much limits it, and from there you can start. Is that okay with you, Jeff? MR. KLATZKOW: It's fine by me. Norm, you'll go through it and you'll revise it to something that suits you. MR. FEDER: What we're saying -- and the reason I can say that, all the statements I've made in the other are operational and safety, and in particular on Goodlette-Frank because of the volume and the dual right turn lane. I need to move it down, and the earliest I can safely do it is at Fleischmann. MR. MUDD: Okay. MR. KLATZKOW: Paragraph 8's going to have to be eliminated then, because there are no priorities. MR. MUDD: You're right. Okay. Any other issues on this particular item? Now -- so Norman, how soon can you get that writeup back to Jeff? MR. FEDER: I should be able to have that, if! sit here, before he leaves this meeting. MR. MUDD: Okay. I'd like you to think about it a little more than just that, okay. Give it a couple more. MR. FEDER: I will get it to him in the next-- MR. MUDD: Couple more minutes, okay. The -- before Nick leaves, I'll tell you after we're off the thing, Page 14 --"'- September 5, 2008 something happened today I thought was pretty funny. When you get that and you're ready to go on that particular issue, I'll take the particular agreement, I will put a letterhead on it like I did before with the prior annexation and send it over to the City of Naples for any comments. MR. KLATZKOW: Correct. MR. MUDD: Okay. And we'll give them the same period of time. I think we gave them 30 days or something like that before in order to give us comments. Not hearing anything back and/or comments to the agreement, we will -- we will call the fire district to let them know what we received or didn't receive. And if we receive nothing, then it will be a two-party agreement. Once we have that, then you'll go to your board and get your signature and we'll go to our board and get our signature. Jeff, did I miss anything? MR. KLATZKOW: I think that's the appropriate procedure. MR. MUDD: Okay. Any other -- I'm sorry? You've been so quiet on the phone. MS. DONALDSON: No, I'm here. No, I mean, everything -- I just wanted to give you an update as it relates to, not this annexation, but Hole in the Wall because basically the same thing that we're doing now is what we did with Hole in the Wall that the city did not agree to sign, so we have a two-party agreement. The Property Appraiser failed to recognize the agreement and did not include the district's millage rate in the TRIM notice for Hole in the Wall, and it's treating it in the city and not being in both jurisdictions. So I just wanted to kind of put the county on notice that we see -- North Naples is looking into the next option and we'll let you know -- MR. MUDD: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: -- how we proceed, because clearly, although -- and it's difficult because it's such a small piece of property Page 15 ,---- --------..."-'".-._~_._-,._--_..._--- .'--- September 5,2008 and the taxable value is not great to be arguing over something so small, but at the same time it's the first agreement we have where the city did not agree to participate. MR. MUDD: Okay. MS. DONALDSON: I just wanted to let you know, because whatever happens with that is going to impact this agreement potentially. MR. MUDD: Okay. Thank you. MS. DONALDSON: You're welcome, and that's it. And Jeff, thank you so much for getting the agreement together so quickly. MR. KLATZKOW: My pleasure. MR. MUDD: Okay. Any other comments on this particular agreement? Ma'am, your time to -- your time to talk if you'd like. MS. DORR: I can't think of anything, sir. MR. MUDD: Well, good. I'm so glad you carne today. MS. DORR: I'm corning to stay at your house for the hurricane. MR. MUDD: Okay, ma'am. If you've only got two inches, you're more than welcome. I promise you. That's a bit tough. I mean, one crazy car and one boat that goes down your thing has a little bit of a wake, and the next thing you know you've got water corning in your door. That's not good. Okay. Without any further concerns, no public comment, this meeting's adjourned. Thanks. MS. DONALDSON: Thank you. (The proceedings concluded at 2:00 p.m.) ***** Page 16 ",-,---"-' --,'. ...- September 5, 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, is a true record of my Stenograph notes taken at said proceedings. Dated this 18th day of September, 2008. TERRI L. LEWIS, Notary Public, State of Florida My Commission No. DD 447012 Page 17 ---.'_. - -~-,"-'---'--""-'--'---""'-'-"'-'-'-"-'-~------' "-~""- -,-.-- --